Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 25

Every year, the Cathedral of St John the Divine in New York City hosts what it calls their Halloween Extravaganza when performers dressed as ghouls and goblins parade right down the center aisle. That's right: a "church" hosts an annual Halloween parade in the church building!

And to which Christian tradition does St John the Divine Cathedral belong?

You guessed it: Episcopal.

This is a church that claims to live "in the spirit of Christ" but doesn't seem to have a problem ignoring St Paul's warning not to have "fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness" (Eph 5.11).

Here is the promotional webpage for this year's event.

And here is a video from two years ago.



Note: At around the seven-minute mark you'll hear a familiar tune that in this context is sinister and chilling.

Read more about the event here, and here.
See photos here, here, and here.

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 24

"St Matthews Cathedral Superbowl"

Courtesy of the Episcopal Diocese of Wyoming

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 21

From a Roman Catholic source:

"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" redux

If this series is anywhere near as good as the original (and I have no reason to think it's not), then I stongly suggest, as I did before, that everyone reading this drops what they're doing and links immediately to Ancient Faith Radio because it is a fascinating and worthwhile and enlightening series of lectures that is being re-recorded and broadcast in several weekly installments.

And, while you're at it, there's a ton of other good listening on AFR as well.

"Something to offend just about everybody."

Orthodox extend hand to Duncan's new Anglican Church
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

BEDFORD, Texas -- The spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church in America offered to begin talks aimed at full communion with the new Anglican Church in North America, then named a series of obstacles whose removal could tear apart the hard-won unity among the 100,000 theological conservatives who broke from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

The Anglican Church in North America hopes to be recognized as a new province of the 80 million-member global Anglican Communion, of which the 2.1 million-member Episcopal Church is the U.S. province. The new church believes the Episcopal Church failed to uphold biblical authority and classic doctrines about matters ranging from the divinity of Jesus to biblical morality, a criticism that the Orthodox share.

Metropolitan Jonah, who was elected last year in Pittsburgh, is a convert who was raised as an Episcopalian. He spoke with humor about both traditions, warning, "I'm afraid my talk will have something to offend just about everybody."

"Calvinism is a condemned heresy," he said, to a smattering of applause from some Anglo-Catholics in the new church.

"For ... intercommunion of the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church, the issue of ordination of women needs to be resolved," he said, again to applause from many of the same people.

"I believe women have a critical role to play in the church, but I do not believe it is in the [priesthood or as bishops]," he said. "Forgive me if this offends you." He called for an effort to "creatively come together to find the right context for women's ministry in the church."

"We will have much to talk about and we will talk," he said.

Read the rest here.

Buddhipiscopal?

Okay, it honestly never was (and is not now) my intention to tout Orthodoxy through use of the My-Religion-Is-Best-Because-The-Others-Are-So-Goofy approach. But this story is really too much to resist:

An Episcopal priest who has received a Buddhist lay ordination has been elected bishop in the Diocese of Northern Michigan. The Rev. Kevin Thew Forrester, who has served in the diocese since 2001, was elected on the first ballot and received 88 percent of the delegate votes.

Forrester, who has been identified by his former bishop Jim Kelsey as ‘walking the path of Christianity and Zen Buddhism together, is not the first Episcopal clergyman to practice dual faiths. In 2004, Pennsylvania priest Bill Melnyk was revealed to be a druid; while in 2007 Seattle priest Ann Holmes Redding declared that she was simultaneously an Episcopalian and a Muslim.

Read the rest here

Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

I cannot recommend this highly enough.
It is a series of lectures given recently by Father Andrew Damick of St George Cathedral in Charleston, WV on the many differences (and a few similarities) between Orthodox Christianity and the many other religions--Christian and otherwise--that are out there.

It is a fascinating and thorough and fair examination of the history and core beliefs of these religions and I strongly suggest that you take the time to listen.

Clicking on each title below will link directly to the audio file. They take a little while to download (each lecture is over an hour long), but, believe me, it's worth it.


Lecture 1: Heterodoxy & Heresy (series introduction)

Lecture 2: Roman Catholicism

Lecture 3: Churches of the Classical Reformation (Lutherans, Calvinists, Reformed, Zwinglians, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Wesleyans)

Lecture 4: Churches of the Radical Reformation (Anabaptists, Baptists, Brethren, Amish, Mennonites, Restorationists, Adventists)

Lecture 5: Modern Revivalism (Pentecostalism, Charismatics, Evangelicalism)

Lecture 6: Non-Christian Religions (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Sikhism, Wicca, Neo-paganism, Zoroastrianism, Modern Gnosticism, Animism)

Lecture 7: Non-Mainstream Christians (Swedenborgians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian Universalists, Christadelphians, Christian Science, Unification Church ("Moonies"); also includes series conclusions)


From Christ in the Mountains by Fr. Andrew Damick

Mary, Part 4 - Veneration

"There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper." St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion: Against the Collyridians

Pope Pius IX, in his 1854 bull Ineffabilis Deus, formally defined as dogma of the Roman Catholic Church the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. According to this belief, Mary's soul, "in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

It would take someone with far more knowledge than I have to provide a proper explanation of the Orthodox Church's objection to this doctrine. Such an explanation would involve a look at the Church's understanding of original sin, and a discussion of Mary's human nature, which she would necessarily have had to pass along to her Son. It will suffice for now to say that the Orthodox Church has never accepted the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. (However, those of my readers who are interested in learning more about the Orthodox understanding of this subject can find excellent and fascinating essays by two prominent Orthodox bishops here and here)

The Orthodox feel, not only that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is incorrect, but also that it clears the way for more objectionable teachings. For example, there is a movement underway among Roman Catholic clergy and laity to petition the Pope for an official bestowing on Mary of the titles "Co-Redemptrix," and "Mediatrix of all Graces."

At the extreme opposite end of the Marian spectrum is the Protestant attitude toward Mary, which can be summed up in two words:

"Mary who?"

Never have I been to a Protestant church service in which Mary--if she is mentioned at all--is referred to as anything other than as an historical figure. In my twenty years as a Baptist, I don't know that I ever heard a pastor utter the name "Mary" when he wasn't flanked either by Christmas trees or Easter lilies. In the Lutheran church that Kathryn and I attended, more than thirty stained glass windows adorn the walls of the nave depicting all twelve Apostles, Sts Paul, Polycarp, and Athanasius, Ruth and Naomi, and even Dorcas, the dressmaker from Acts chapter 9. Can you guess who is not shown?

Why is there such an aversion to Mary among Protestants? The best sense I have been able to make of it is that it is a reaction to the excesses of Roman Catholic Marian devotion. An article quoted on the This is Life! blog sums up why this is not a good thing (emphases are my own):

The Church catholic has always kept Jesus and Mary close together, as evidenced by the ecumenical confession of Mary as Theotokos, "Mother of God." This title was formally authorized by the General Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), a council convened not to address Mariology but Christology. At a deep intuitive level, the Church has understood that her confession of the Incarnation of the eternal Word is intrinsically connected to the veneration of the blessed Virgin. Yet for some reason Protestants, including the overwhelming majority of Anglicans, do not intuit this connection. . . .

Something is very wrong with Protestantism. Our ecclesial communities do not generate a devotion to Mary. This absence of Marian devotion suggests to me a theological flaw. . . .

The Protestant, of course, immediately protests: "I believe in the Incarnation as strongly as any Catholic or Orthodox Christian!" But the fact remains that all of Protestantism has lost Mary, and many forms of Protestantism are now on the verge of losing Christ.

This raises a critical question for me: Is a Protestant competent to offer judgment on Marian devotion or Marian titles? I am beginning to suspect that no matter how "orthodox" we Protestants think we are in our doctrine of the Incarnation, we in fact are not. We have not faithfully appropriated the orthodox doctrine, because we have deleted Mary from the Church's life of worship and prayer.

This deletion of Mary is both evidence of our deficiency in our understanding of the Incarnation and a cause of this deficiency. Something is very wrong when our teaching and love of Christ does not generate the kind of hymnody, veneration, and devotion that is common in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. . . .

Within the tradition and history of the Church, a lively faith in Jesus as the incarnate Word has gone hand-in-hand with a lively veneration of his blessed Mother. Yet for Protestants, Mary remains a person of the past, much like Abraham, David, and John the Baptist. One must wonder if we really have understood the mystery of the Incarnation.

Mary herself said, "From henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." This is not something I have seen in Protestantism. But she also said "My soul doth magnify the Lord." not vice versa, as often seems to be the case in Roman Catholicism. Not until I found Orthodox Christianity did I finally see what it means to give Mary her due honor; only then did I discover a middle ground between the Roman Catholic deification of Mary and her near omission by Protestants.

Mary is given a special place in the Orthodox Church, where she is hailed as being "more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious, beyond compare, than the Seraphim." But she is not seen as a goddess, nor as the fourth person of the Trinity; She is not given honor that is due to God alone: "Just as with the Holy Icons, the veneration due Mary is expressed in quite different words in the Greek writings of the Fathers than that due God." In the Orthodox Church, Mary is very seldom depicted without Christ (the image above is from a Roman Catholic website), and is attributed only with the power to intercede for us to her Son. She is lauded for her obedience to God and for her example of humility and piety.

According to the Orthodox Christian Information Center, Orthodox Christians "do not 'worship' the Virgin Mary. We 'venerate' her and show her great honor. Nor have we ever, like the Latins, developed the idea that the Theotokos was born without sin (the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception) or that she is a co-redemptor with Christ (the cult of the Redemtrix in the Latin Church). The consensus of the Church Fathers rejects such ideas, and the Orthodox Church adheres to that consensus."

Orthodox Christians recognize that, "where the God-Man is, so also, in Him, His Mother, His saints, His angels and His righteous ones are present. In Him—and only in Him—we have fellowship with them and ask their help. His Mother is truly Mother of us all in the Church, where she holds the most exalted position, closest to Christ, but she does not act independently from Him. She is not the Mother of the Church, nor the Mediatrix of all graces, nor the Co-Redemptrix" (Orthodox Info)

For more information:
The Veneration of the Virgin Mary in the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God
Veneration of the Virgin Mary

Salt v. Sugar III

Can it be any wonder that the Anglican Communion is coming apart at the seams? They have completely lost touch with historic Christianity. Is there any going back once the church leaders have decided that the Bible is "banal"?

Beatles songs as likely to explain Christianity as the Bible, says bishop

Pews

One of the many things about Orthodox Christianity that initially struck me as odd was that, in many Orthodox houses of worship, there are no pews.

I know. It sounds strange, doesn't it?

Although the lack of pews is certainly not as common in the U.S. as in other parts of the world, in very conservative churches, such as the one that Kathryn and I have been attending, there is simply an open area in the nave where worshippers stand for the entire service, except during the sermon, when they may make use of benches along the walls. Of course, anyone who is elderly, sick, or in pain is permitted to take a load off should they feel the need. But, even in churches where pews are present, the worshippers typically stand for nearly the entire duration of the Liturgy.

To be honest, before I became interested in Orthodoxy, I never even thought about pews. It didn't even occur to me that they were optional. I have since noticed, however, that the Orthodox worship on their feet, their knees, or their faces, but never on their back sides.

"We stand during worship services out of reverence and humility before God," writes an Orthodox lay person. "The absence of rigid pews gives us freedom to move about the Church and feel at home. We are free to venerate icons and light candles, as well as to bow and do the prostrations necessary at times during worship."

In an article called The Liturgical Effectiveness of Pews: A Call for Liturgical Renewal, the writer, who strongly opposes the use of pews in Orthodox worship, argues that pews...
...make us spectators rather than participants.
...teach us that discomfort has no place in the Christian life.
...restrict our freedom of movement.
...make worship "formal and frosty."
...make it easier for kids not to pay attention to what's going on up front.
...encourage the dangerous notion that it's important for church to be "relevant."
...make it very difficult to prostrate.

I have recently learned that no church, neither in the east nor in the west, had pews until the late Reformation. And, interestingly, there has historically been some serious objection by Protestants to the the use of pews.

In an article from 1841 entitled The History of Pues, Anglican scholar John Mason Neale condemned pews as "the intrusion of human pride, and selfishness, and indolence, into the worship of GOD," and as "eye-sores and heart-sores."

A Presbyterian minister named Isaac Todd wrote in an 1851 article, The Posture in Prayer, that sitting in church is "grievously improper whenever the infirmities of the worshipper do not render it necessary." Reverend Todd argued that only certain postures during prayer have any scriptural support: prostration, kneeling, kneeling while sitting on the heels, bowing the head while standing, and standing erect.
"Many and weighty are the objections to a congregation’s sitting in prayer," writes Todd. "It is a practice directly at variance with the principal ends had in view by the great Head of the Church in instituting public worship."
He goes on to list his specific objections to sitting during worship:
1) "Sitting in prayer is never expressive of either solicitude or reverence."
2) "Sitting in prayer is an indolent posture; consequently, its tendency is to produce a spirit of lounging indifference."
3) "When we keep our seats in prayer, we do violence to the instinctive sense of propriety which God has made a part of our very being."
4) "As often as we sit in prayer we disregard in many ways the laws of association, which God in his goodness has made a part of our very nature."
5) "Sitting in prayer is not only contrary to the usage of our Presbyterian ancestors, but also to that of the church in general for more than 1800 years after the coming of Christ."
6) "By sitting in prayer, we give others to understand that we make very little, or make nothing of our bodies. (the point being that by standing in prayer we are worshipping God with our whole bodies)
7) "By sitting in prayer we give the rising generation to understand also that we may with propriety, when moved by mere caprice, set aside any long established usage."

The question of pews is certainly not one over which I would fall on my sword, and I'm confident that most Orthodox clergy and laity would say the same. But, if the absence of pews enhances my ability to worship, then I am happy to do without them.

Mary, Part 2 - Ever Virgin

As I have already mentioned, I grew up hearing very little about Mary. In fact, the only two specific teachings about Mary that I can even recall from my years as a Baptist were that she was a virgin at the time of Christ’s birth, and that she did not remain a virgin all her life. And I had no problem with either of these doctrines; it seemed to me that the Bible was pretty clear on both of them.

Upon closer examination, however, I can see now that the Bible isn’t quite as clear on this second teaching as I had originally thought. Although the teaching of the Church on the matter is clear indeed: Mary remained a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ. This teaching has been with the Church since the beginning, was confirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and received no serious opposition until long after the Reformation. In fact, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, and John Wesley all recognized Mary’s perpetual virginity. Denial of this doctrine, it seems, is a fairly recent innovation.

So, who cares, really? Is it that important to insist that Mary remained a virgin her entire life? The Greek Archdiocese says that “the Orthodox Church proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our message, our reason for being, the very life of our life. Teaching about Mary is really meant for the initiates, those who have already accepted the Gospel and have committed themselves to Christ and to service in His Church. What Mary teaches us about the Incarnation of the Word of God requires that we first accept the Incarnation.”

Deacon Fr. John Whiteford writes that, “this doctrine is not taught for the sake of upholding the sanctity of the Virgin Mary, but because of the uniqueness and holiness of her Son. Consider the following verse: ‘Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.’ (Ezekiel 44:2). This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin.”

I have heard Mary referred to also as the Ark of the New Covenant. This is another bit of Marian typology about which I really can’t say a whole lot, other than, if Joseph recognized her as such, he surely would rather have not suffered the same fate as Uzzah (2Sam 6.6-7).

(The guys at “Our Life in Christ” have put together a fascinating series of podcasts on this very topic. You can find them at Ancient Faith Radio, or click here to listen to the first one)

So, what are some of the objections to Mary’s perpetual virginity?

“Until”
. . . and [Joseph] did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son” (Mt 1.25).

The thinking goes: If Joseph did not "know" Mary until she gave birth to Jesus, then clearly he "knew" her afterwards.

It is important, first of all, to keep in mind that the Bible was not written in English, and that not all Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) idioms convey the same meaning in English as they were originally intended. This is one that doesn't. In English, the word "until" (or "till" or "unto") indicates a particular status up to a point in time, while implying a different status after that point. In the original language, "until" (Greek: ἕως or ἕως οὗ) does not necessarily imply a change of status. Consider the following passages:

And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto (ἕως) this day (Dt 34.6).

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until (ἕως) the day of her death (2Sam 6.23).

In his days may the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace till (ἕως οὗ) the moon is no more (Ps 72.7).

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until (ἕως) I make thine enemies thy footstool (Ps 110.1).

His heart is established, he shall not be afraid, until (ἕως οὗ) he see his desire upon his enemies (Ps 112.8).

So our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until (ἕως οὗ) that he have mercy upon us (Ps 123.2).

"...if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (ἕως) this day" (Mt 11.23).

"...and, lo, I am with you always, even unto (ἕως) the end of the world" (Mt 28.20).

Till (ἕως οὗ) I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine (1Tim 4.13).

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until (ἕως οὗ) the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts (2pet 1.19)

It is not necessary that “until” in any of these verses is intended to indicate a reversal. Nor, according to the Church, is this the intent of Matthew 1.25.

“Firstborn”
Again, a problem with language. In English, the word "firstborn" implies a secondborn. However, in Greek, the word for "firstborn," prototokos (πρωτοτόκος), does not imply subsequent children. Exodus 13.2 identifies the “firstborn” (πρωτότοκον) as the child that “openeth the womb.” Likewise Numbers 3.12 (πρωτοτοκου). The Mosaic Law required parents to sanctify their firstborn son to the Lord (see Ex 34.20). Are we to believe that parents were expected to do so only after the second son was born?
Consider also whether the "firstbegotten" mentioned in Hebrews 1.6 could possibly imply a "secondbegotten." In the following passages, "firstborn" or "firstbegotten" indicate Christ's status as Heir to the Kingdom rather than order of birth:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (πρωτότοκον) among many brethren (Rom 8.29).

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (πρωτοτόκος) of every creature (Col 1.15).

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn (πρωτοτόκος) from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (Col 1.18).

To the general assembly and church of the firstborn (πρωτότοκον), which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect (Heb 12.23).

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten (πρωτοτόκος) of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth (Rev 1.5).

Brothers and Sisters
Several passages in the New Testament (Mt 12.46–47, 13.55–56; Mk 3.31–32, 6.3; Lk 8.19–20; Jn 2.12, 7.3–5; Acts 1.14; 1Co 9.5) mention Christ’s brothers and sisters. The word used in every case, adelphos (αδελφος), is usually translated “brother,” but is often used less specifically. As Fr. John Hainsworth writes, the word adelphos, “which can mean ‘brother,’ ‘cousin,’ ‘kinsman,’ ‘fellow believer,’ or ‘fellow countryman,’ is used consistently throughout the LXX [i.e., the Old Testament], even when cousin or kinsman is clearly the relation described. (as in Genesis 14:14, v.16; 29:12; Leviticus 25:49; Jeremiah 32:8, 9, 12; Tobit 7:2; etc.).

“Lot, for instance, who was the nephew of Abraham (cf. Genesis 11:27–31), is called his brother in Genesis 13:8 (αδελφοι) and 14:14–16 (αδελφος, αδελφον). The point is that the commonly used Greek word for a male relative, adelphos, can be translated ‘cousin’ or ‘brother’ if no specific family relation is indicated.”

These "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are understood to be His cousins, or, as is the case with James* and Jude, His step-brothers. These two were Joseph’s sons by his first wife, Solomonia, who had died, leaving Joseph a widower. They weren’t sons of Mary, but they were, in a sense, brothers of Christ, and are referred to as such by the Orthodox Church.

*That's James of the Seventy (Mt 13.55, Mk 6.3, Acts 12.17, 15.13, Epistle of James), not James the son of Zebedee (Mt 4.21, Mk 3.17, Lk 5.10), or James the son of Alphaeus (Mt 10.3, Mk 3.18, Lk 6.15, Acts 1.13), both of the Twelve.

In fact, there is no place in the Scriptures where the “brothers and sisters” of Christ are referred to as the “sons and daughters” of Mary. Nowhere is Mary said to have had other children. Which is why Christ saw fit, as He hung on the cross, to entrust the care of His mother to His disciple John. Such an act would have been a grave insult to Mary’s other children, had there been any.

Marriage
Another objection to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is her marriage to Joseph. If Mary and Joseph were married, the argument goes, shouldn’t they have been having sex? Perhaps, but, get this: the Bible never actually says that Mary and Joseph ever married. Yeah, that’s right. It says they were betrothed, or “espoused” (Mt 1.18), but it does not say that they went on to be married. The rite of betrothal, which in first-century Jewish culture came right before marriage, was a formal, legal state of “engagement” that conferred all the responsibilities of marriage with none of the, ahem, benefits. The Orthodox Church, in fact, still observes the rite of betrothal to this day. Betrothal was regarded as somewhere between our modern “engagement” and marriage. It wasn’t quite marriage, so “knowing” each other would have been improper. However, betrothed couples could be referred to as “husband” (Mt 1.19) and “wife” (v.20; Lk 2.5), and breaking off a betrothal required a divorce.

So, if they weren’t to be married, what was the point of putting Mary and Joseph together? It was his duty to support her while she reared the Messiah, and to protect her from suspicions about the legitimacy of her pregnancy.

Something we didn't learn about in the Protestant world is that Mary was, from a very young age, devoted to a life of celibacy and service to God. I suppose you might call her a first-century nun. The story goes that Mary’s parents Joachim and Anna, “praying for an end to their childlessness, vowed that if a child were born to them, they would dedicate it to the service of God” (oca.org). They fulfilled their promise once Mary reached the age of three, and brought her to the Temple, where she stayed until she reached puberty, when she was placed in the care of a widower named Joseph.

Knowing this makes it easy to understand why she responded the way she did when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to her and proclaimed:

“Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son.”

To which she answered, “Well, duh! I am about to get married, after all.”

No. She responded by asking, “How can this be?”

Why did she ask this? Was she confused as to the biological process of childbirth?

No. She knew that, given her vow of celibacy, childbirth would have been impossible. Her response might as well have been: “I’m sorry, but you must have me confused with someone else. You see, I am a consecrated virgin…”

What else?
Okay, I think, at the very least, it's reasonable to admit that the Scriptures allow for the possibility that Mary had no other children besides Jesus, and that she and Joseph never "knew" each other, or should have. In other words, the Bible does not explicitly deny that Mary remained ever-virgin.

But what do others have to say? Those who know more about the nuances of the original text, and about the theology and history of the Church than I or any of my readers do, or ever will?

"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17; c. 248).

"If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother,’ as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4; c. 354).

"Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary" (St Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 2:70; c. 360).

"We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it" (St Jerome, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 21; c. 383).

"Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son" (St Ambrose of Milan, Letters 63:111; c. 388).

"In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave" (St Augustine, Holy Virginity 4:4; c. 401).

"Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband" (St Augustine, Heresies 56; c. 428).

"[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly [sic] he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4; c. 430).

And what about those Reformers we mentioned?

"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb... This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that" (Martin Luther, Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan, vols. 1-30)

"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers" (Martin Luther, Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15).

"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned" (John Calvin, Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39).

"Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity" (John Calvin, ibid.).

"‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary" (re: Huldreich Zwingli, G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395)

"Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary’s perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise" (Re: Heinrich Bullinger, In Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5).

"A true Protestant may express his belief in these or the like words...that [Christ] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin" (John Wesley, Letter to a Roman Catholic, 1749)

So Where Does That Leave Us?
If a new look—actually the original look—at the Scriptures, which made Mary's perpetual virginity at least plausible, wasn't enough to win me over, then that plus the testimony of the Church Fathers and the decision of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and the consistent witness of the Church through the centuries and the testimony of the Reformers, were more than enough to make me reconsider what I thought I knew about Mary.

And, really, why should I resist accepting this teaching? Is it that difficult to accept that a person could remain a virgin their whole life? For anyone who believes something so incredible as the Virgin Birth or the Death and Resurrection of Christ, believing that someone could live a life of celibacy—something practiced by pious and devout Christian men and women even to this day—should be no problem. Especially when that "someone" is the most pious and devout Christian who ever lived.

In closing, I will quote an article from the Orthodox Christian Information Center, which says that "while non-Orthodox Christian denominations may differ with regard to their assessment of the significance of the Mother of God, this does not explain the views of those who would like to believe—an incredible, if not demonic thing—that a woman chosen by the God of the universe to bear His Incarnate Son would simply return, after this miraculous event, to the world of the flesh. If St. Paul praises the chaste life, if Christians are called to become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, and if, at least in the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, monks and nuns are called to uphold the standard of virginity and purity, how could any rational person suggest that the woman called to bear the Son of God would be exempt from such a pious commitment?

"The Fathers of the Church have written at length on these matters. Suffice it to say that ancient Christian tradition supported the idea that the Mother of God was ever-virgin, just as Church Fathers and Councils condemned heretics in the early Church who, like their counterparts today, questioned the spiritual eminence of the Theotokos."

For further reading:
The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God
The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary
Why is Mary Considered Ever-Virgin?

Communion of Saints, Part 2 – Who Cares?

Last week we learned something about the different understandings of “sainthood” within the Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox faiths. So, what does this mean to us? What should it mean to us?
What does the Bible say about how we should regard departed saints?

To begin with, the Apostle Paul instructs us to look to him—and other imitators of Christ—as examples of how to live a godly life:

Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. (Php 3.17)

Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (1 Co 11.1)

Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. (1 Co 4.16)

The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Php 4.9)

That we should, at the very least, look to saints in Heaven and on Earth as examples on which to pattern our lives is something on which I believe all Christians can agree. Beyond this however is generally where Protestants part ways with their Orthodox and Roman Catholic brethren, who not only emulate the lives of departed saints, but also ask for their prayers as often as they ask for the prayers of saints still in the flesh.

This brings us to an activity with which most Protestants strongly disagree: Prayer to the Saints.

Before we go any further, let me make sure we’re on the same page regarding what we mean by “prayer.” One of the definitions that Merriam-Webster provides for “Prayer” is “an earnest request or wish.” This is the definition we will be using. When I refer to “prayer” to the saints, I do not mean worship, adoration, deification, or exaltation. I simply mean asking or requesting their prayer to God, in the same way that I would ask my family or my pastor for their prayers. There is nothing idolatrous or diabolical about it. Let me explain why (see here for a great explanation of this concept):

First of all, the Bible tells us to pray for one another…

Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. (Eph 6.18)

Pray for each other (Jam 5.16)

…and gives us numerous examples of Christians praying for and with other Christians.

They all joined together constantly in prayer. (Acts 1.14)

They raised their voices together in prayer to God. (Acts 4.23-31)

Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. (Acts
9.40)

I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. (Eph 1.15-23)

Should these directives and examples apply only to Christians on Earth?
Well, let’s see; according to the Scriptures, everyone in the Church is connected as part of the Body of Christ.

Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. (Rom 12.4-5)

For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. (Rom 14.7)

If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. (1 Co 12.26-27)

For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. (2 Co 1.5)

If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent. (2 Co 2.5)

This connection takes place through baptism…

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (1 Co 12.12-13)

…having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col 2.12)

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6.4)

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3.27)

…and is not broken in the event of physical death:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8.38-39)

Therefore, there is only one Body of Christ, which includes those in Heaven and on Earth.

There is one body and one Spirit (Eph 4.4)

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1.22-23)

And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything He might have the supremacy. Now I rejoice…for the sake of His body, which is the Church. (Col 1.18,24)

So then, given that everyone in the Church*—in Heaven and on Earth—are united through baptism to the one Body of Christ, and that Christians are instructed to pray for one another, what could possibly be objectionable about asking departed saints for their intercessory prayers in the same way that we ask Christians on Earth for their prayers?

Objections:

The Scriptures refer to everyone who believes in Jesus as “saints.” (Rom 1.7; Eph 3.8; Jude 1.14; Eph 4.11-12; Acts 9.13, 32, 41, 26:10; Rom 8.27, 12.13, 15.25-26, 31, 16.2, 15; 1 Cor 6.1; 2 Cor 1.1, Eph 1.1)

The Orthodox don’t believe that saints exist only in Heaven. But they also don’t believe that only the saints on Earth are able to pray for us, or that only the saints on Earth deserve our prayer requests.

Prayer to the saints violates God warning against “consulting the dead” (Dt 18.10-12)

This commandment is a warning against the occcult; against witches and sorcerors and necromancers trying to conjure up spirits. Seeking the intercessory prayer of departed saints has nothing to do with conjuring spirits. And nowhere does this passage, or any biblical passage, say that we cannot ask the saints in heaven—who, as we have seen, are members of the Body of Christ—to intercede for us.

John Calvin objected on the grounds that “no less insult is offered to the intercession of Christ by confounding it with the prayers and merits of the dead, than by omitting it altogether, and making mention only of the dead.”

Calvin is right. Except that we’re not talking about dead people here, because God “is not the God of the dead but of the living” (Mt 22.31-32). When Elijah and Moses appeared to Jesus and three of His disciples during the Transfiguration (Mt 17.1-4), did God break his own commandment by calling up the dead? No, because Moses and Elijah are alive!
And the Orthodox certainly do not believe that we should pray to the departed saints instead of to God. Rather, they believe that we pray to God alongside the saints, both those who are in Heaven and those who are still in the flesh.

Saints in Heaven can't hear us or see us; therefore, we cannot pray to them.

This assertion assumes that, if we can’t see/hear the departed saints, then they can’t see/hear us; that our earthly limitations apply also to those in Heaven. However, the Scriptures tell us that saints in Heaven do not have the same limitations that we have here on Earth:

However, as it is written: ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him’” (1 Co 2.9)

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1 Co 13.12)

And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (1 Co 15.49)

Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pt 1.4)

The things of Heaven are beyond anything our finite minds can possibly imagine. To assert that the saints in Heaven are limited in the same ways that we are here on Earth is to assert something that is clearly contrary to Scripture.

Saints in Heaven are not aware of what is happening here on Earth.

The martyrs in Revelation Chapter 6 obviously knew that their deaths had not yet been avenged: "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (v. 10)

In the first Book of Samuel, the Prophet actually prophesied from beyond the grave: “The Lord will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. The Lord will also hand over the army of Israel to the Philistines.” (28.8-19)

The rich man in Luke Chapter 16 knew his relatives hadn’t yet repented: “‘If someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’” (vv.19-31) If someone in hell knows the condition of people on earth, why should we believe that those in Heaven are kept in ignorance?

Luke’s Gospel tells us that “there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (15.7-10) If angels are aware of what’s going on down on earth, is it unreasonable to believe that the departed saints, who “will be like the angels in heaven” (Mt 22.30), are also aware?

And the Apostle Paul reminds us that “we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12.1), who are all around us and can see us whether we can see them or not.

Why bother praying to the Saints when you can go straight to Jesus?

Why bother asking each other for prayer when we can go straight to Jesus?
Any argument against asking for the intercessory prayer of the saints in Heaven is an argument against asking for the prayer of saints on Earth. Orthodox Christians recognize the Church as a community; not as a multitude of individuals who are all on their own, but as a body of believers who can, indeed must, lift each other up in prayer.

GotQuestions.org, a “Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational” online ministry asserts that those who seek the intercessory prayer of departed saints believe that “if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can ‘...approach the throne of grace with confidence...’”

The Orthodox agree wholeheartedly that Christians can and should approach God confidently in prayer. However, the Scriptures do, in fact, give us reason to believe that the prayers of the saints in heaven are actually more effective than our prayers here on Earth:

The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (Jam 5:16)

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers. (1 Pt 3:12)

Is there anyone on Earth more righteous than those in Heaven? (Heb 12:22-23: “the spirits of just men made perfect.”)

1 Timothy 2:5 clearly states that Jesus is the “sole mediator between God and man,” and according to John Calvin, those who “take pleasure in the intercession of saints…dishonour Christ, and rob him of his title of sole Mediator” (Of Prayer, Book III, Ch. XX, Section 21)

Orthodox Christians agree one hundred percent that there is one mediator—Jesus Christ—but do not believe that this means we are not to ask fellow Christians for their prayers. The saints do not, and are not expected to, mediate the covenant of salvation as Christ does (see Heb 9.15, 12.24). Seeking the intercessory prayer of other Christians is not a denial of Christ’s role as the “sole mediator” of this covenant.

Article XXII of the Anglican/Episcopal statement of faith says that “Invocation of Saints, is…vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

I think we’ve shown this not to be the case.

Where does that leave us?
Considering all this, it's pretty clear that...

Saints serve as an example to us.

Members of the Church are instructed to pray for one another.

Physical death does not estrange members of the Church in Heaven from members of the Church on Earth.

Saints in Heaven are alive, not dead.

Saints and angels in Heaven have some knowledge of events, present and future, on Earth; and some knowledge of the condition of those on Earth.

The prayers of the saints in Heaven are effective.

Now, my readers, of course, are free to draw their own conclusions. But, the only honest conclusion I can draw is, not only is the Orthodox practice of asking departed Saints for their prayers not a violation of Scripture, but it is clearly a practice that is good and proper and in keeping with sound Christian doctrine.


For further reading:
On the Intercession and Invocation of the Saints

*The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the connection between the Christians on Earth—the Church Militant—and the Christians in Heaven—the Church Triumphant; The Orthodox make no such distinction, regarding all Christians—both in Heaven and on Earth—as The Church. I have heard it said that in the Roman Catholic faith, the veil between the living and departed is much thinner than in Protestant faiths. If this is true, then I believe it’s fair to say that the Orthodox don’t acknowledge any veil at all. And this is a good thing; When you get it through your thick skull that your grandmother is watching you, you’ll start behaving like you should!

Western Orthodoxy

I have been fascinated to learn during my investigation of the Orthodox Church that Orthodoxy is not limited to Greek, Middle Eastern and Slavic ethnic groups. For the first millennium after Pentecost, all the churches of Europe were in communion with those in the East and until the Norman conquest of 1066, England itself was Orthodox.

The Church puts a lot of emphasis on the lives and writings of eastern heavyweights like St John Chrysostom and St Basil the Great. But the Western Church has also historically included big names like St Peter, St Joseph of Arimathea, St Irenaeus, St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Alban, St Dunstan, St Patrick, Pope St Gregory the Great, King Arthur, King Alfred the Great of England, and many others. Gregorian chant—named for St Gregory—Ambrosian chant—after St Ambrose—and the Latin Tridentine Mass all have historical roots in Western Orthodoxy. As do all the western Christian liturgies from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer to the Lutheran Divine Service.

In fact, Orthodoxy thrived in western Europe until the middle of the 11th century, when, following its split with the East, Rome sought the allegiance of western European churches. Most followed without resistance. Those in England did not.

With the blessing of Pope Alexander II, Duke William (the Conqueror) of Normandy launched an invasion with the intention of bringing England into communion with Rome. On October 14, 1066, Harold II (Godwinson), England’s last Orthodox king died in battle at Hastings, as did the ancient Anglo-Saxon Orthodox Church. The demise of the Celtic Orthodox churches of Ireland, Scotland, and Wales followed shortly.

Thus the liturgies, traditions and heritage of the Western Church were lost to Orthodoxy.

It wasn’t until the nineteenth century that a group of western converts to Orthodoxy, wishing to retain the forms of worship familiar to them, reintroduced western liturgies into the Orthodox Church.

There are currently two liturgies in use by Western Rite Orthodox churches in the United States:

The Liturgy of St. Tikhon was developed from the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Missal, both of which were, in fact, adapted from ancient Orthodox liturgies.

The Liturgy of St Gregory is a revised version of the Roman Tridentine Mass, which was modified to remove the filioque and insert a Byzantine epiclesis.

Twenty-six Antiochian and five ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) parishes and monasteries in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand currently celebrate the Western Rite Mass.

The church I have been attending, Holy Incarnation, is an Antiochian mission that celebrates the Western Mass. It is a very young (just over a year old), very small mission, and to my knowledge is the only Western Orthodox parish in the Midwest. It is fully orthodox, and in full communion with the greater body of Orthodox churches.

For more information:
Western Orthodoxy
Antiochian Western Rite
Western Orthodox (blog)