BBC's "History of Christianity"

Here is a fascinating and well-made* documentary on Orthodox Christianity produced by the BBC. Enjoy.

*but not perfect. At around the 18:08 mark, the narrator refers to something he calls "Iconoclast Orthodoxy," which, of course, is a contradiction in terms. Then the map shown at 30:40 identifies Carthage as one of the ancient patriarchates. They apparently confused it with Alexandria.

Scripture and the Church

Below is part of my response to a Christian who argued against the inclusion of the "apocryphal" books of the Old Testament (which you can read about here):

We believe that when Christ promised to send His "Spirit of Truth" (Jn 14.26, 15.26, 16.12-13) that He was promising the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the whole Church, not to a particular individual (as the Roman Catholics believe), or to every individual, to determine or interpret Truth as they see fit (as Protestants believe), but to the Church, collectively, as the Body of Christ. In the Orthodox Church the truth isn't determined by what a single man says, or by what I feel inside as an individual, but it is what the whole Church accepts, and every member of the Church is responsible for guarding the true faith. Not even ecumenical councils are regarded as infallible until their findings have been accepted by the whole Church.

Yes, the Scriptures are indeed infallible. But what good are infallible Scriptures without an infallible interpreter? Not very much, as evidenced by 30,000+ conflicting Christian "denominations" who have all dropped the notion of an infallible authoritative Church (but who, interestingly, all believe that the Scriptures are the final word on all matters of faith and worship).

There is one means by which we come to an understanding of the saving knowledge of Christ crucified, and one earthly conduit through which we know God communicates His good and perfect will: the Church.

"No, it's the Bible," you may say. To which I would respond, The Bible didn't just drop from the sky on the day of Pentecost, leather-bound, with a concordance and cross references. It was given to us by the Church (or by God through the Church, if you prefer). It was written, compiled, and approved by the Church. The Bible is not the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth." The Bible is not the "Body of Christ" or "the fullness of him who fills all in all." It was not the Bible to which Christ gave the power to bind and loose. The Bible is a product of the Church (not vice versa). If we can't trust the Church, then we can't trust the Bible, which was written, delivered, and preserved, not despite the Church, but by, through, and within the life of the Church.

The Church is the body through which Christ brings salvation to the world. When we choose to jettison the tools the Church uses to accomplish this task (including determining for ourselves which books of the Bible we wish to accept), we do so at our own peril. (Prov 12.15; 14.12)

The canon of Scripture isn't a dogma of the Faith. It wasn't delivered to the Church on Pentecost. It is the list of books that the Church determined (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) were the perfect written testimony of the "Faith once for all delivered to the saints." The Faith exists (and has existed) independent of the Scriptures. But not independent of the Church. The Faith was delivered to the Church, not to the Scriptures. The Church, not the Scriptures, is the Pillar and foundation of Truth. Christ did not say "I will build by Bible and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." He made that promise to the Church.

The Church didn't decide what the Faith was, but it did decide which books were true to the Faith and which were not. It's because of this decision that we have the 27 books of the New Testament. But if the Church had decided to canonize only three Gospels, guess what? We'd have only three Gospels. If the Church had decided to accept only 10 of Paul's epistles rather than 13. We'd have ten Pauline Epistles. Would that have diminished the Faith? Heck no! The Faith had already been delivered to the Church, and had been preached and lived out in its entirety for centuries beforehand.

In the Church's annual liturgical cycle, Pentecost is "the last and great day." It is the celebration by the Church of the coming of the Holy Spirit as the end - the achievement and fulfillment - of the entire history of salvation. For the same reason, however, it is also the celebration of the beginning: it is the "birthday" of the Church as the presence among us of the Holy Spirit, of the new life in Christ, of grace, knowledge, adoption to God and holiness.

This double meaning and double joy is revealed to us, first of all, in the very name of the feast. Pentecost in Greek means fifty, and in the sacred biblical symbolism of numbers, the number fifty symbolizes both the fulness of time and that which is beyond time: the Kingdom of God itself. It symbolizes the fulness of time by its first component: 49, which is the fulness of seven (7 x 7): the number of time. And, it symbolizes that which is beyond time by its second component: 49 + 1, this one being the new day, the "day without evening" of God's eternal Kingdom. With the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Christ's disciples, the time of salvation, the Divine work of redemption has been completed, the fulness revealed, all gifts bestowed: it belongs to us now to "appropriate" these gifts, to be that which we have become in Christ: participants and citizens of His Kingdom.

THE VIGIL OF PENTECOST

The all-night Vigil service begins with a solemn invitation:

"Let us celebrate Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit, The appointed day of promise, and the fulfillment of hope, The mystery which is as great as it is precious."

In the coming of the Spirit, the very essence of the Church is revealed:

"The Holy Spirit provides all, Overflows with prophecy, fulfills the priesthood, Has taught wisdom to illiterates, has revealed fishermen as theologians, He brings together the whole council of the Church."

In the three readings of the Old Testament (Numbers 11:16-17, 24-29; Joel 2:23-32; Ezekiel 36:24-28) we hear the prophecies concerning the Holy Spirit. We are taught that the entire history of mankind was directed towards the day on which God "would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh." This day has come! All hope, all promises, all expectations have been fulfilled. At the end of the Aposticha hymns, for the first time since Easter, we sing the hymn: "O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth…," the one with which we inaugurate all our services, all prayers, which is, as it were, the life-breath of the Church, and whose coming to us, whose "descent" upon us in this festal Vigil, is indeed the very experience of the Holy Spirit "coming and abiding in us."

Having reached its climax, the Vigil continues as an explosion of joy and light for "verily the light of the Comforter has come and illumined the world." In the Gospel reading (John 20:19-23) the feast is interpreted to us as the feast of the Church, of her divine nature, power and authority. The Lord sends His disciples into the world, as He Himself was sent by His Father. Later, in the antiphons of the Liturgy, we proclaim the universality of the apostles' preaching, the cosmical significance of the feast, the sanctification of the whole world, the true manifestation of God's Kingdom.

THE VESPERS OF PENTECOST

The liturgical peculiarity of Pentecost is a very special Vespers of the day itself. Usually this service follows immediately the Divine Liturgy, is "added" to it as its own fulfillment. The service begins as a solemn "summing up" of the entire celebration, as its liturgical synthesis. We hold flowers in our hands symbolizing the joy of the eternal spring, inaugurated by the coming of the Holy Spirit. After the festal Entrance, this joy reaches its climax in the singing of the Great Prokeimenon:

"Who is so great a God as our God?"

Then, having reached this climax, we are invited to kneel. This is our first kneeling since Easter. It signifies that after these fifty days of Paschal joy and fulness, of experiencing the Kingdom of God, the Church now is about to begin her pilgrimage through time and history. It is evening again, and the night approaches, during which temptations and failures await us, when, more than anything else, we need Divine help, that presence and power of the Holy Spirit, who has already revealed to us the joyful End, who now will help us in our effort towards fulfillment and salvation.

All this is revealed in the three prayers which the celebrant reads now as we all kneel and listen to him. In the first prayer, we bring to God our repentance, our increased appeal for forgiveness of sins, the first condition for entering into the Kingdom of God.

In the second prayer, we ask the Holy Spirit to help us, to teach us to pray and to follow the true path in the dark and difficult night of our earthly existence. Finally, in the third prayer, we remember all those who have achieved their earthly journey, but who are united with us in the eternal God of Love.

The joy of Easter has been completed and we again have to wait for the dawn of the Eternal Day. Yet, knowing our weakness, humbling ourselves by kneeling, we also know the joy and the power of the Holy Spirit who has come. We know that God is with us, that in Him is our victory.

Thus is completed the feast of Pentecost and we enter "the ordinary time" of the year. Yet, every Sunday now will be called "after Pentecost" - and this means that it is from the power and light of these fifty days that we shall receive our own power, the Divine help in our daily struggle. At Pentecost we decorate our churches with flowers and green branches - for the Church "never grows old, but is always young." It is an evergreen, ever-living Tree of grace and life, of joy and comfort. For the Holy Spirit - "the Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life - comes and abides in us, and cleanses us from all impurity," and fills our life with meaning, love, faith and hope. Father

Alexander Schmemann (1974)

(from oca.org)

Conversion

Normally, changing church affiliations is known simply as "attending another church."

When someone decides to stop attending the local non-denominational church and start attending the Lutheran church up the road, for example, he doesn't necessarily consider himself to be "converting." The word "proselyte" doesn't even occur to him.

However, making the move from Protestantism to Orthodoxy involves much more than simply altering the geography of one's Sunday worship; it is more than singing a different set of hymns, or exchanging pews for theater seating, or vice-versa. It is learning a whole new language; it's becoming the country mouse in the big city; it's Alice slipping through the looking glass; it's Dorothy, discovering that simply moving from one grayscale room to another isn't getting her anywhere, and stepping out the front door and into the lush Technicolor land of Oz; it's Butch and Sundance plunging off the cliff; it's "Alea iacta est" and "One giant leap" rolled into one.

I would say that, yes, the word "conversion" would apply here.

Since before Kathryn and I married, we attended a church at which we were both very comfortable, where the people were warm and welcoming, where we knew and loved the pastors, where were were able to assist with our time and tithes. It was the church in which we were married, so there was—and is—an emotional connection. We could easily continue for many years to attend and worship at Christ the King and be perfectly comfortable and content there.

But knowing what we know now, we can see that for us to remain at that church, or at any Protestant church, is to be part of a church whose doctrine and practice are demonstrably different from the Church of the first century; it would be to hold the Scripture over the Church, and to believe that my interpretation of the Scriptures is superior to the consistent witness of the Church through the ages; it would be to reject the written testimony of the Early Fathers in favor of Enlightenment scholars, and to believe that, until the Reformation, God reneged on His promise not to allow the gates of hell prevail against His Church.

We recognize now that, despite whatever argument we can devise to justify doing so, for us to continue for another day within any Christian body other than the Holy Orthodox Church would be to remain in willful and obstinate separation from the very same Church of the Apostles, the Church founded on Pentecost.

At approximately 4 o'clock on the afternoon of February 21st, Kathryn and I will be baptized into the Orthodox Church. Any of my readers who feel inclined to attend are invited to do so. It will take place at St. Sabbas Monastery in Harper Woods.*

If, however, between now and then someone can give me reason to believe that there is another Christian body out there that...

...can better or more clearly demonstrate continuity between its present self and the Church established at Pentecost,

…can be shown to have adhered to and taught more steadfastly the "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints,"

…more consistently and accurately reflects the teaching of the Scriptures,

…gives more appropriate respect and honor to “the mother of my Lord,”

…has a fuller and more active and robust prayer life,

...can prescribe more effective means of denying myself and taking up my cross,

...worships in a manner more consistent with Biblical worship,

…can make a better case to being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,

then we will immediately put the baptism on hold.

However, I don't expect that will happen. I don't believe it can happen. I believe beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the "one fold," this is the fullness of the Faith. This is Christianity as God intended, undiminished, uncorrupted, undistorted.

I invite all my readers who haven't already done so to get out of the black-and-white, and step through the front door into the color. Don't take my word for it: come and see.


*Attendees are reminded to dress appropriately, including skirts and head coverings for women.

"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

Peter Gillquist

One of the most important books I've read during my investigation of Orthodox Christianity has been Becoming Orthodox, by Father Peter Gillquist. It is the story of how he and a couple thousand of his friends found the Ancient Church.

Father Peter accepted Christ in college, and in the 1960's was a major player in Campus Crusade for Christ, which is an evangelical college ministry. He and his Campus Crusade colleagues eventually became dissatisfied with what they saw in Christianity at large, and decided that they would set out to recreate/rediscover the ancient Christian Church. They soon realized, however, that their knowledge of the Church was incomplete: As Evangelicals, they were familiar with the Church of the first century, and as Protestants, they knew all about what had taken place since 1517. But, whatever happened between the end of the New Testament era and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, they had no idea.

So they decided to break off into teams to research what exactly happened to the early Church; what did it look like? What did it teach and believe? How did it worship? How was it administered?

They were shocked at what they found.

They discovered that Christian worship was liturgical and sacramental from the very beginning; that the early Church was made up of bishops, priests, deacons, and laity; that it did not have a book called "The Bible" for the first 350 years of its existence, and yet still managed to preserve the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints." They learned that the early Christians venerated Mary and the Saints, and made the Sign of the Cross over themselves and their meals and their beds.

Furthermore, they discovered that the church they sought to restore, the Church of the first century, the Church described in the book of Acts, the Church established by Christ Himself, still exists, and still teaches the Faith of the Apostles, unaltered, unadulterated, untainted. They learned that the very church of Antioch, whose parishioners were the first to be called Christians, is alive and well today, and that its Patriarch lives in Damascus on the street called Straight.

Their search for the Church of the Apostles led Peter Gillquist and his colleagues straight to the Orthodox Christian Church, into which they and two-thousand of their friends and family members were received in February of 1987. Father Peter was eventually ordained a priest and works today in the Mission and Evangelism department of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I'll give my copy of Father Peter's book to whoever wants it, on the condition that you pass it along to someone else when you're done with it.

For more information:
Reverend speaks on his conversion (newspaper article)
An Hour with Father Peter Gillquist (Our Life in Christ--audio)
Fr Peter's articles on Beliefnet.com

Q&A

Q: How is the Orthodox Church organized and how is it held together as one worldwide Church?

A: The Orthodox Church as a whole is the unity of what are called local autocephalous or autonomous churches. These words mean simply that these churches govern themselves, electing their own bishops and organizing their own lives.

Each of these churches has exactly the same doctrine, discipline and spiritual practices. They use the same Bible, follow the same canon laws, confess the authority of the same Church Councils and worship by what is essentially the same liturgy.

It is nothing other than this communion in faith and practice which unites all Orthodox Churches together into one world-wide body. In this sense, there is no one dominating authority in the Orthodox Church, no particular bishop or see or document which [rules] over the churches.

In practice, the Church of Constantinople has functioned for centuries as the church responsible for guiding and preserving the worldwide unity of the family of self-governing Orthodox Churches. But it must be noticed that this responsibility is merely a practical and pastoral one. It carries no sacramental or juridical power with it and it is possible that in the future this function may pass to some other church.


From OCA.org

Sacraments

A Sacrament is defined as "a way in which God imparts grace to His people," and is described as "a combination of an outward visible sign with an inward spiritual grace."

"Sacrament" is a word that originated in the west, and Orthodox Christians normally refer to Sacraments as the Holy Mysteries. The word mysterion (μυστήριον), which appears at least 22 times in the New Testament (KJV), means not what we commonly understand in modern English language as a "mystery"--like a riddle to be solved--but rather a spiritual Truth, known only by divine revelation.

St John Chrysostom wrote that, "a mystery is so called; because we do not behold the things which we see, but some things we see and others we believe. For such is the nature of our Mysteries. I, for instance, feel differently upon these subjects from an unbeliever" (Homily on 1 Corinthians).

The Orthodox Church regards the life of Faith, indeed the very purpose of human existence, to be nothing less than participation in the life of God. The sacraments are a means to accomplish this. According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "the Church takes material things--water, bread, wine, oil--and makes them a vehicle of the Spirit. In this way the sacraments look back to the Incarnation, when Christ took material flesh and made it a vehicle of the Spirit" (The Orthodox Church, p.274)

Christ Himself used matter to communicate His healing power: He used mud to heal the blind man (Jn 9.1-14), and the hem of His garment to heal the woman with the flow of blood (Lk 8.43-44). Later, handkerchiefs and aprons that had simply touched His Apostles were used to heal the sick (Acts 19.12). Of course, He didn't need these items to heal: He had also healed people merely with His words (Mt 8.16), and by laying hands on them (Lk 4.40). But He showed us through His example that matter can be used to impart the power of the Holy Spirit, as is done through the Holy Mysteries.

Roman Catholics recognize seven--and only seven--Sacraments. Lutherans recognize two or three, depending on whom you ask. Many Christians reject altogether the notion of Sacraments based on their understanding of the "universal priesthood."

Orthodox Christians recognize the same seven sacraments that are known to Roman Catholics. They are:

Baptism: Mt 28.18-20; Rom 6.4; Gal 3.27

Chrismation (Confirmation): Acts 8.15-17; 1Jn 2.27

Holy Eucharist (Communion): Mt 26.26-28; Jn 6.30-58; 1Co 10.16; 11.23-31

Confession: Jn 20.22-23; 1Jn 1.8-9; Jam 5.16

Ordination (Holy Orders): Mk 3.14; Acts 1.15-26; 6.1-6; 1Ti 3.1-13; 4.14

Marriage: Gn 2.18-25; Eph 5.22-33

Healing (Unction): Lk 9.1-2; Jam 5.14-15

These seven actions are the only ones that I have heard specifically referred to as "Sacraments" (or "Mysteries") in the Orthodox Church. However, Orthodox Christians do not believe that these are the only sacramental acts. They believe that many other actions can be sacramental as well:

Neither the liturgical book called Euchologion (prayer book), which contains the texts of the sacraments, nor the patristic tradition, however, formally limits the number of sacraments; they do not distinguish clearly between the "sacraments" and such acts as the blessing of water on Epiphany day or the burial service or the service for the tonsuring of a monk that in the West are called sacramentalia. In fact, no council recognized by the Orthodox Church ever defined the number of sacraments; it is only through the "Orthodox confessions" of the 17th century directed against the Reformation that the number seven has been generally accepted (From the Orthodox Information Center)

According to Fr Thomas Hopko, "the more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical."

For more information:
Orthodox Worship: The Sacraments (Ware)
The Sacraments

The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome

Orthodox churches on the new calendar, today celebrate the life and martyrdom of St Clement, who was one of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ in Luke 10, and who served as bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope) until his exile and execution around A.D. 100. So, today is a good day to say something about Orthodox popes.

Contrary to what I thought before I became acquainted with Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Church does not reject the papacy, only what the papacy has become. For the first thousand years after Pentecost, the Pope of Rome was in communion with the other Orthodox bishops of the world. In fact, he was one of the five Patriarchs, which were bishops of the five most important cities in the empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Because Rome was the biggest and most important city, the bishop of Rome was regarded as the honorary leader of the episcopate, much like St Peter was the honorary leader of the Apostles.

In 1054, the Church of Rome officially broke with the other Patriarchates and became known as the Roman Catholic Church, taking all of western Christianity with her.

The following (including the comments at the bottom) is provided by the Orthodox England website. It is a list of the Popes of Rome who are venerated as saints by the Orthodox Church. According to the website, "popes who already appear in all Eastern Orthodox calendars are marked with an asterisk."

St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, Martyr. A disciple of the Apostle Paul, he was consecrated by him. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21. He was pope for about twelve years and may have been martyred. Feast: 23 September (In the East 4 January and 5 November). *

St. Anacletus (Cletus) (+ c. 91), by origin a Greek from Athens and possibly a martyr. His name, correctly Anencletus, means 'blameless' (see Titus 1,7) and he may originally have been a slave. Feast: 26 April.

St. Clement of Rome (+ c. 101), martyr. One of the Seventy Apostles and a Church Father, he was consecrated by the Apostle Peter. He is mentioned in Philippians 4,3 and his letter to the Church of Corinth still exists. He was much venerated in the West in the early centuries and still today in the East. The church of San Clemente in Rome probably stands on the site of his house. According to tradition, he was banished to the Crimea and there martyred. Feast: 23 November (in the East 4 January, 22 April, 10 September and 25 November). *

St. Evaristus (+ c. 109), perhaps a martyr and almost certainly of Hellenic/Jewish origin. Feast: 26 October.

St. Alexander I (+ c. 116), the fifth pope and possible a martyr and by tradition a Roman. Feast: 3 March (in the East 16 March).*

St. Sixtus (Xystus) I (+ c. 125), possibly a martyr. A Roman of Greek origin. Feast: 3 April. *

St Telesphorus (+ c. 136), a martyr, Greek by origin. Feast: 5 January (in the East 22 February). *

St. Hyginus (+ c. 142), by origin a Greek philosopher from Athens. Also perhaps a martyr. Feast: 11 January.

St. Pius I (+ c. 155), from Aquilea, probably born a slave and perhaps the brother of Hermas who wrote 'The Shepherd'. He defended the Church against Gnosticism. Possibly a martyr. Feast: 11 July.

St. Anicetus (+ 166) the tenth pope and of Syrian origin, he fixed the date of Easter, opposed the Gnostics, perhaps martyred. Feast: 17 April.

St. Soter (+ 174), of Greek descent, he may have been martyred. Feast: 22 April.

St. Eleutherius (+ 189), Greek, possibly martyred. Feast: 26 May.

St. Victor (+ 198), an African and the first Latin pope. A forceful character, he fought for Orthodoxy and against Gnosticism. He may have been martyred. Feast: 28 July. *

St. Zephyrinus (+ 217), of Greek descent. Although not a strong character, he still fought for Orthodoxy against Adoptionism and Modalism and may have been martyred for it. Feast: 26 August.

St. Callistus I (+ 222), the fifteenth pope and originally a slave. Pope Callistus, with his Greek name, was known for his mercifulness and defended married clergy against fanatics. He condemned modalism. Probably martyred. Feast: 14 October.

St. Urban I (+ 230), Roman, possibly martyred. Feast: 25 May.

St. Pontian (+ 235), Roman, he was persecuted for the faith and deported to Sardinia, where he died as a confessor. Feast: 19 November.

St. Antherus (+ 236), Greek and perhaps martyred. Feast: 3 January (5 August in East). *

St. Fabian (+ 250), Roman martyr. Described as an incomparable man, 'his death matched the purity and goodness of his life', he did much to help the poor. Feast: 20 January (5 August in the East). *

St. Cornelius (+ 253), the twentieth pope and a Roman, he was greatly helped by St Cyprian of Carthage in the struggle against novatian fanaticism. He was renowned for his mercifulness and died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 September.

St. Lucius (+ 254), a Roman he was exiled as soon as he was elected in a persecution. Supported by St Cyprian, he was certainly a confessor and perhaps was martyred. Feast: 4 March.

St. Stephen I (+ 257), a Roman and a strong character, perhaps a martyr, he is well known for his argument with St Cyprian of Carthage about the baptism of heretics. St Stephen defended the view of economy, that invalid baptism outside the Church was made valid by entry into the Church, and there was no need to repeat the actual rite. Feast: 2 August. *

St. Sixtus II (+ 258), an Athenian. He was 'a good and peace-loving man' who was much helped by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. He was martyred by beheading, together with his seven deacons, one of whom was St Lawrence. He was and is greatly venerated in the Orthodox Church, West and also East. Feast: 7 August (10 August in the East). *

St. Dionysius (Denis) (+ 268), one of the most important Roman popes of the third century. He was a learned Greek, who opposed several heresies, helped the persecuted and also reorganized the Church in Rome. Feast: 26 December.

St. Felix I (+ 274), the twenty-fifth pope. A Roman, he opposed the adoptianist heresy. Feast: 30 May.

St. Eutychian (+ 283), a native of Tuscany. Feast: 7 December.

St. Gaius (+ 296), possibly from Dalmatia. It seems that he was martyred together with his brother, a priest, and his children. Feast: 22 April (11 August in the East). *

St. Marcellinus (+ 304), possibly a martyr, and certainly a penitent for previous errors and apostasy. Feast: 2 June (7 June in the East). *

St. Marcellus I (+ 309), a confessor who died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 January (7 June in the East). *

St. Eusebius (+ 310), the thirtieth pope and a Greek by origin. He was deported to Sicily by the Emperor and died there as a confessor. Feast: 17 August.

St. Miltiades (+ 314), probably from Rome, although he had a Greek name. The Emperor Constantine gave him a palace on the Lateran as his residence. He condemned Donatism. Feast: 10 December.

St. Sylvester I (+ 335), Roman. Feast: 31 December (2 January in the East). *

St. Mark (+ 336), Roman. Feast: 7 October.

St. Julius I (+ 352), Roman. A defender of St. Athanasius, this most Orthodox Pope condemned arianism. Feast: 12 April.

St. Liberius (+ 366). The thirty-fifth pope, he was not of strong character and even compromised the Faith at one point in his life, confessing arianism. However, like St Marcellinus, he then repented, atoned and is recognised as a saint of God. Feast: 27 August. *

St. Damasus (+ 384). Of Spanish origin, he was born in Rome in c. 305, the son of a priest. He fought for Orthodoxy and opposed several heresies. He did much to establish the Latin text of the Bible, developed the liturgy and the veneration of the Roman martyrs. Although as a new pope, he made several arrogant errors, he repented for these and was recognized as a saint at the end. Feast: 11 December.

St. Siricius (+ 399), Roman. An imperious man like St Damasus, he nevertheless forbade the harsh treatment of heretics and supported ascetics. He received the support of St Ambrose of Milan and opposed those who slandered the Mother of God. Feast: 26 November.

St. Anastasius I (+ 401). A man of poverty and apostolic mind, he did much to stop the spread of origenism. Feast: 19 December.

St Innocent I (+ 417). The son of St Anastasius I, he had an imperious character and thirty-six letters of his survive. He supported St John Chrysostom and condemned pelagianism. Feast: 28 July.

St Zosimus (+ 418), the fortieth Pope, by origin a Greek. Although initially he made many errors of tact and judgement, he was anti-pelagian. Feast: 26 December.

St Boniface I (+ 422), a Roman and son of a priest. He was kind, humble and fought for Orthodoxy. Feast: 4 September.

St Celestine I (+ 432). A strong character, he was active against pelagianism, he sent St. Germanus of Auxerre to Britain and St. Palladius to Ireland. He also strongly opposed nestorianism and supported St Cyril of Alexandria. Feast: 6 April (8 April in the East). *

St Sixtus III (+ 440), Roman. He vigorously opposed the heresies of both Pelagius and Nestorius. Feast: 28 March.

St. Leo I, 'the Great' (+ 461). He was born in Rome at the end of the fourth century. He was very energetic, opposed many heresies and protected Rome from the barbarian Huns and Vandals. His teaching on Christ was acclaimed by all the Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Feast: 11 April (In the East 18 February) *.

St. Hilary (+ 468), the forty-fifth pope and by origin Sardinian, he actively opposed many heresies. Feast: 28 February.

St. Simplicius (+ 483), he supported the Orthodox in the East against monophysitism. Feast: 10 March.

St. Felix II (+ 492), the son of a priest, he was also the grandfather of St. Gregory the Great. He sternly opposed monophysitism. Feast: 1 March.

St. Gelasius I (+ 496), African, but born in Rome. He helped the poor and was sternly opposed monophysitism. Of imperious character, he put the authority of the Pope on the same level as that of the Emperor. We have from him over a hundred letters or fragments and six theological works. He was the greatest Pope of the fifth century after St Leo. Feast: 21 November.

St. Anastasius II (+ 498), Roman and the son of a priest, he had a conciliatory character. Feast: 8 September/19 November.

St. Symmachus (+ 514), the fiftieth pope and by origin Sardinian, he was very active and a builder of churches. Feast: 19 July.

St. Hormisdas (+ 523), from Italy and father of St. Silverius (see below), he helped end the monophysite schism. Feast: 6 August.

St. John I (+ 526), Tuscan. A confessor, he suffered much from the Arian Goth Theodoric, King of Italy. He was immediately revered as a saint on his repose. Feast: 18 May.

St. Felix III (+ 530), the fifty-third pope and saint in succession, he was greatly loved for his simplicity and almsgiving. He was succeeded by Boniface II, who was the first pope of Germanic origin, and John II, neither of whom is considered a saint. John II was the first pope to change names on assuming that office. Feast: 22 September.

St. Agapitus I (+ 536), the son of a priest, he opposed monophysitism and reposed in Constantinople. Feast: 22 April and 20 September (In the East 17 April). *

St. Silverius (+ 537), he was exiled to Asia Minor as a result of political intrigues. He later died in exile from starvation and various hardships and injustices. He was venerated as a martyr for Orthodoxy. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 20 June.

St. Gregory I, 'the Great' [left] (in the East 'the Dialogist') (+ 604). One of only two popes to be called 'the Great' (with St. Leo), this able and energetic saint was possibly the greatest of all Roman popes. Known as 'the Apostle of the English', he also did much to convert the Lombards and the Goths. A true monk and ascetic, he wrote much about the monastic life, and was greatly concerned for liturgical life and the poor. Some 850 of his letters survive as well as other extremely important patristic and pastoral works, especially his Dialogues. Notably, he condemned as 'antichrist' any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction and supremacy. Feast: 12 March. *

Boniface IV (+ 615). A follower of St Gregory the Great, he was also a true monk. Preceded by two popes who are not saints. Feast: 25 May.

Deusdedit I (+ 618), Roman. 'Simple, devout, wise and shrewd', he loved ordinary priests and did much for those then suffering from the plague. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 8 November.

St. Martin I (+ 655), from Umbria. Condemning the monothelite heresy, he was arrested in Constantinople and starved to death. He was the last Pope of Rome to be martyred. He is widely venerated in the East. Feast: 12 November (In the East 14 April). *

St. Eugene I (+ 657), Roman. Famed for his mildness and kindness to the poor, this saintly man resisted threats to his life from the Emperor in Constantinople. Feast: 2 June.

St. Vitalian (+ 672), opposed monothelitism and appointed the first Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore. Feast: 27 January (In the East 23 July). *

St. Agatho (+ 681), Sicilian of Greek origin. Preceded by two popes who are not saints, he was a kindly and generous man, who also helped call the Sixth Oecumenical Council and helped end monotheletism. Feast: 10 January (20 February in the East). *

St. Leo II (+ 683), Sicilian, possibly of Greek descent. He confirmed the condemnation of a predecessor, the heretical Pope Honorius I (+ 638), who had fallen into the monothelite heresy. He loved the poor and was also much concerned with church music. Feast: 3 July.

St. Benedict II (+ 685), Roman. He loved the poor and was humble-minded and gentle. Feast: 7 May.

St. Sergius I (+ 701), born in Palermo, he was a Syrian. Able and energetic, he did much for missionary work in England and northern Europe. He loved the liturgy and church singing and introduced the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross into the West. He was preceded by two popes who are not saints and succeeded by four other non-saints, two Greeks and two Syrians. Feast: 8 September.

St. Gregory II (+ 731), the most outstanding Roman pope of the eighth century An able leader, he condemned iconoclasm as a heresy and did much to encourage missionary work, like that of

St Boniface among the German tribes. He restored churches and fostered the monastic life. Feast: 11 February.

St. Gregory III (+ 741), Syrian. He was acclaimed Pope by the crowds at his predecessor's funeral. He vigorously opposed iconoclasm, built churches and had them adorned with frescos, and also encouraged the monastic life and fostered missionary work in northern Europe. Feast: 28 November.

St Zacharias (+ 752), a Greek and the last Orthodox saint in this see, he opposed iconoclasm, adorned churches with frescos, and did much for missionary work and peace all over western Europe. Feast: 15 March.

Readers will notice that information on many of the early popes is lacking. Many of these are also traditionally held to be martyrs, but there is some uncertainty about this. It should be added that many of the popes were opposed by antipopes, often heretics. This became more and more the case in the Middle Ages when the Orthodox period of the papacy is over and the institution becomes more political and worldly than religious and spiritual.

The reader will no doubt be struck by the fact so many of the early popes are revered as saints, indeed, the first fifty-three in continuous succession. If we take the period up till St Zacharias inclusive, of 90 popes, 68 are revered as saints. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that since St Zacharias, the last Orthodox Roman pope to be a saint, there have been no fewer than 173 popes. Of these only seven are today considered to be saints by the Vatican: one of these was Nicholas I, the notorious filioquist who condemned St Photius of Constantinople, another was Leo IX, the pope ultimately responsible for excommunicating Patriarch Michael of Constantinople in 1054.

Thus with our thoughts on the holy Orthodox popes of Rome, let us pray with one mind and one soul for the salvation of the once Orthodox lands of the West and their salvation in this new millennium.

Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome, pray to God for us!

The Four "Orders" in Church Government

From the Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1635 [Items in brackets are my addition. M.]

The New Testament teaches that all four "orders" which form the government of the Church -laity, deacons, presbyters, and bishops- are necessary to the proper functioning of the body of Christ. All four are clearly visible in Paul's first letter to Timothy.

1. The laity are also called "saints" [ἁγίοις/ἁγίων] (Rom 1.7; 2Co 1.1; 1Ti 5.10), the "faithful" [πιστοῖς] (Eph 1.1), and "brethren" [ἀδελφοῖς] (Col 1.2). The laity (Gr. laos) are all the people of God, the "priesthood" [ἱεράτευμα] (1Pet 2.4-10). Technically, the term "laity" includes clergy, though in our day the word usually refers to those in the Church who are not ordained. It is from among the laity that the other three orders emerge.

2. The deacons, [pictured] literally "servants," [διακόνους] are ordained to serve the Church and must meet high qualifications (1Ti 3.8-13). The apostles were the first to take on the service tasks of deacons, and when the workload became too great they called for "seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6.3). Besides serving the material needs of the people, deacons occupy a crucial role in the liturgical life of the Church.

3. The presbyters, or elders, are visible throughout the New Testament. Their ministry from the start was to "rule," "labor in the word" and teach true "doctrine" (1Ti 5.17) in the local congregation. Paul "appointed elders [πρεσβυτέρους] in every church" (Acts 14.23) and later instructed his apostolic apprentice, Titus, to do the same in Crete (Titus 1:5). From the word "presbyter" came the shorter form "prest," which was used in the early Church and finally became “priest.” In no way is the ordained Christian priesthood seen as a throwback to or a reenacting of the Old Testament priesthood. Rather, joined to Christ who is our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 5:6, 10), the Orthodox priest is likewise a minister of a New Covenant which supersedes the old.

3. The bishop is the "overseer" of the congregation and clergy in a given area. Often the terms "bishop" and "elder" [ἐπισκόπους] are interchangeable in the New Testament (Acts 20:17, 28), with the bishop being the leader of the elders. The qualifications for a bishop listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9 underscore this role. Nonetheless, "bishop" is a specific office both in the New Testament and in the early Church. The Twelve [i.e. the twelve Apostles: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, James, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thaddeus, Matthias, Thomas and Simon] were the first to hold this office (in Acts 1:20 "office" is literally translated "bishopric" [ἐπισκοπὴν]) and they in turn consecrated other bishops to follow them. For example, Timothy and Titus are clearly of a separate order from that of elder (see 1 Tim. 5:17-22; Titus 1:5). Early records show James was bishop of Jerusalem by A.D. 49 and functioned accordingly at the first council there (Acts 15:13-22). Peter is on record as the first bishop of Antioch prior to A.D. 53, and later first bishop of Rome, where he was martyred about A.D. 65.

Perhaps the strongest early reference outside the New Testament to the presence of the four orders in Church government occurs in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from A.D. 67-107, the very heart of the New Testament era. To the church at Philadelphia (see Rev 3.7-13) he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons..." (italics added).

In the Orthodox Church, authority is resident in all four orders, with the, bishop providing the center of unity. His authority is not over the Church but within the Church. He is an icon of Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Overseer [ἐπίσκοπον] of your souls" (1Pt 2.25). Church leadership does not consist of one or more of the orders functioning without the others. Rather the Church, with Christ as Head, is conducted like a symphony orchestra, a family, the body of Christ, where all the members in their given offices work together as the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.

Sola Scriptura, Part 2

A weekly continuation of Fr. John Whiteford's article, Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds (click here for Part 1)

PROBLEMS WITH THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA
A. It is a Doctrine Based upon a Number of Faulty Assumptions.
Protestants who are willing to honestly assess the current state of the Protestant world, must ask themselves why, if Protestantism and its foundational teaching of Sola Scriptura are of God, has it resulted in over twenty-thousand differing groups that can't agree on basic aspects of what the Bible says, or what it even means to be a Christian? Why (if the Bible is sufficient apart from Holy Tradition) can a Baptist, a Jehovahs Witness, a Charismatic, and a Methodist all claim to believe what the Bible says and yet no two of them agree what it is that the Bible says? Obviously, here is a situation in which Protestants have found themselves that is wrong by any stretch or measure. Unfortunately, most Protestants are willing to blame this sad state of affairs on almost anything — anything except the root problem. The idea of Sola Scriptura is so foundational to Protestantism that to them it is tantamount to denying God to question it, but as our Lord said, "every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a bad tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17). If we judge Sola Scriptura by its fruit then we are left with no other conclusion than that this tree needs to be "hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matthew 7:19).

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 1: The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship.
a). Does the Scripture teach that it is "all sufficient?"
The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine of "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that is needed for everything that concerns the Christians life — all that would be needed for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The Scripture that is most usually cited to support this notion is:

...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy 3:15-17).

Those who would use this passage to advocate Sola Scriptura argue that this passage teaches the "all sufficiency" of Scripture — because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make the pious man perfect... then, indeed to attain completeness and perfection, there is no need of tradition." 1 But what can really be said based on this passage?

For starters, we should ask what Paul is talking about when he speaks of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since he was a child. We can be sure that Paul is not referring to the New Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been written when Timothy was a child — in fact it was not nearly finished when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, much less collected together into the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. Obviously here, and in most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, not only will Tradition be excluded but this passage itself and the entire New Testament.

In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres." 2 And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15 cf. Enoch 1:9).

When the Church officially canonized the books of Scripture, the primary purpose in establishing an authoritative list of books which were to be received as Sacred Scripture was to protect the Church from spurious books which claimed apostolic authorship but were in fact the work of heretics (e.g. the gospel of Thomas). Heretical groups could not base their teachings on Holy Tradition because their teachings originated from outside the Church, so the only way that they could claim any authoritative basis for their heresies was to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and to forge new books in the names of apostles or Old Testament saints. The Church defended itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the apostolic origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, i.e. the fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can historically demonstrate their direct descendence [sic] from the Apostles), and by appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. that the Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians have always accepted throughout its history and throughout the world). The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical books by establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.

By establishing the canonical list of Sacred Scripture the Church did not intend to imply that all of the Christian Faith and all information necessary for worship and good order in the Church was contained in them. 3 One thing that is beyond serious dispute is that by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was in its faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods — this is an historical certainty. As far as the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops together in various councils who settled the question of the Canon — and so it is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of doctrine or discipline has to be settled.

Continued next week in Part 3 - What was the purpose of the New Testament Writings?

1. George Mastrantonis, trans., Augsburg and Constantinople: the Correspondence between the Tubingen Theologians and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople on the Augsburg Confession (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982), 114.

2. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980), "Jannes and Jambres," by A. F. Walls, 733 -734.

3. Indeed this list did not even intend to comprise all the books which the Church has preserved from antiquity and considers part of the larger Tradition. For example, the book of Enoch, though quoted in the canonical books, was not itself included in the canon. I will not pretend to know why this is so, but for whatever reasons the Church has chosen to preserve this book, and yet has not appointed it to be read in Church or to be set along side the canonical books.

Sola Scriptura, Part 1

Sola Scriptura, which is Latin for "Scripture alone," is the belief that the Bible is "the only source of revealed truth concerning Jesus, faith and salvation."

This is a doctrine that, along with Sola Fide (by faith alone), Sola Gratia (by grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone), make up the "Five Solas," which were the driving principles of the Protestant Reformation.

While four of the five Solas have never been troublesome to me, Sola Scriptura is something that I have had difficulty with for as long as I can remember; even before I knew it had a name. How could it be, I wondered, that the God of the universe would choose to restrict the entirety of His revelation to the pages of the Bible? Even while I was a professed Baptist, I began to develop an uncomfortable sense of the confining nature of this doctrine, and started asking questions to which I have never heard any satisfying answers: Where is the divinely inspired Table of Contents? (in other words, someone had to determine the canon of Scripture, because Christ didn't hand over the Bible in its present form); The Pauline Epistles seem to have been written to churches that already knew the Faith. Without the Bible, how did they know?; If the Bible were truly the sole source of revealed Truth, wouldn't it have to say so? It does not.

As my questions about Sola Scriptura grew in number and went years without proper answers, they evolved into misgivings, suspicions, and finally objections to the doctrine. It is partly because of my extreme discomfort with Sola Scriptura, and with what I eventually learned was a deep Lutheran commitment to it, that I ultimately decided to abandon my ambitions of pursuing ordination.

If there is anything on which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches agree (and there really does not seem to be much), it is that the Bible is not the sole source of revealed Truth. The former places Scripture alongside Sacred Tradition, the latter includes Scripture as a part of Sacred Tradition. The Orthodox Church defines "Tradition" as "That which is handed down, transmitted," which, of course, includes the Bible. The Orthodox Church has immeasurable respect and regard for the Bible, and uses Scripture more than any other church I've ever known; they understand the Bible to be inspired by God, but they recognize that the Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. I am not aware of a Protestant tradition that would agree with this last point. That is part of what has gotten me where I am in the Faith.

Through the remainder of the year, I will be posting weekly excerpts from an great article entitled Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds. It was written by Father John Whiteford, who is a former Church of the Nazarene pastor, and it expresses as well as anything I've read what is at the heart of my intense mistrust of Sola Scriptura. It is a long article, so I will be posting it in several parts, but it has a lot of very good information, so I recommend that my readers take the time each week to read it through thoroughly. Here is the first section (all emphases in this and subsequent installments are my own):


AN ORTHODOX EXAMINATION OF THE PROTESTANT TEACHING
Introduction: Are Protestants Beyond Hope?
Despite all that stands in their way, there definitely is hope for Protestants. Protestants in search of theological sanity, of true worship, and of the ancient Christian Faith are practically beating on our Church doors. They are no longer satisfied with the contradictions and the faddishness of contemporary Protestant America.

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism — the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is its numerous differences and contradictions. Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Scriptures, then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with understanding. Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear once you have understood this essential point — indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying common assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this Hydra of heresies — pierce its heart and its many heads at once fall lifelessly to the ground.

Why Scripture Alone?
If we are to understand what Protestants think, we will have to first know why they believe what they believe. In fact if we try to put ourselves in the place of those early reformers, such as Martin Luther, we must certainly have some appreciation for their reasons for championing the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (or "Scripture alone"). When one considers the corruption in the Roman Church at that time, the degenerate teachings that it promoted, and the distorted understanding of tradition that it used to defend itself -along with the fact that the West was several centuries removed from any significant contact with their former Orthodox heritage — it is difficult to imagine within those limitations how one such as Luther might have responded with significantly better results. How could Luther have appealed to tradition to fight these abuses, when tradition (as all in the Roman West were lead to believe) was personified by the very papacy that was responsible for those abuses. To Luther, it was tradition that had erred, and if he were to reform the Church he would have to do so with the sure undergirding of the Scriptures. However, Luther never really sought to eliminate tradition altogether, and he never used the Scriptures truly "alone," what he really attempted to do was to use Scripture to get rid of those parts of the Roman tradition that were corrupt. Unfortunately his rhetoric far outstripped his own practice, and more radical reformers took the idea of Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusions.

Continued next week in Part 2 - Problems with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

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.

"The misconception is this..."

The following is a excerpt from the book by Matthew Gallatin, entitled Thirsting for God in a Land of Shallow Wells. Mr. Gallatin was a Seventh-Day Adventist and a charismatic before converting to Orthodoxy in his forties. Besides being a writer, he is also speaker, a college professor, and the proprietor of a superb podcast on Ancient Faith Radio called Pilgrims from Paradise.


The misconception is this: Christianity is essentially a faith that one can individually interpret and apply as one pleases. To many, the myriads of Christian denominations, rather than being a sign that something is dreadfully wrong in Christendom, instead testify to the fact that there are many paths to Christ. In their minds, it's perfectly obvious that a person is free to choose whatever path suits his personal needs, desires, and tastes. If one doesn't like any of the existing paths, he can legitimately create his own.

Again, many of us Orthodox, as well as Protestants, buy that line to one degree or another. But I can tell you this: If I proposed that definition of the Christian life to Christians of the apostolic age, or to Christians of subsequent ages who remained true to the apostolic faith, they would call me nonsensical—maybe even brand me a heretic. To them, the words of the Apostle would be eminently clear: To be a Christian, one must "stand fast and hold the traditions" of the Faith, as they have been taught from the beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Only those who embrace "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" can genuinely bear the name of Christ.

Thus, true Christianity has no room for personal interpretations, preferences, qualifications, exemptions, or adjustments. Anyone, Protestant or Orthodox, who wants to enter into a real relationship with Jesus Christ must accept the fact that the Faith of the Apostles preserved in Holy Orthodoxy is an historical reality, not just a theological school of thought. We must not forget that until the eleventh century, "to be a Christian" meant "to be Orthodox." Of course, that's the point I've been arguing in this book. But I'll reiterate here that once a person accepts the fact that it is history, and not our personal interpretation of the Scriptures, that tells us what the Christian Faith is, the fact that Orthodoxy is the one true expression of the Faith is fairly easy to discover.

We must also understand that the Faith has not been bequeathed to us in order that it may serve us. Rather, we are all called to serve it. We are all priests of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, required to offer up "spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God" (1 Peter 2:9). As priests, we are not called to create the Faith. Instead, we are enjoined to keep all its tenets, and observe all its sacraments. These we must observe faithfully—not as empty rituals and mindless doctrines, but as the essential steps in the mysterious and miraculous dance of love that Jesus Himself has choreographed for us.

If anyone reading this is interested in reading Mr. Gallatin's book, let me know and I'll send you my copy. My only stipulation is that you pass it on to someone else when you're done. M.M.

Icons

According to Fr. Thomas Hopko of St Vladimir's Seminary, "icons bear witness to the reality of God's presence with us in the mystery of faith. The icons are not just human pictures or visual aids to contemplation and prayer. They are the witnesses of the presence of the Kingdom of God to us, and so of our own presence to the Kingdom of God in the Church."

Icons, in case you're wondering, do not violate the Second Commandment. If it were God’s intention to forbid all images (the word “icon” comes from the Greek word εἰκών, which means "image"), He, in all likelihood, would not have commanded their use in the Tabernacle and in the Temple (cherubim, almond flowers, pomegranates, gourds, palm trees, lilies, lions, bulls, etc.), or even the display of the bronze serpent in the Book of Numbers (21.4-9). God’s commandment was clearly not intended to forbid the creation of images, but rather their worship.

The Church has always practiced the display and veneration of icons, although there have been periods during her history when icons were strongly opposed by certain factions. Finally, near the end of the eighth century, the Church convened a council that affirmed once and for all the display and veneration of sacred images.

Right up through the Reformation, most Christian bodies retained the use of images (including statues). Even to this day all but the most iconoclastic of Protestant churches display images of some kind or another: the Cross, Noah’s ark, prints of Warner Sallman’s famous Head of Christ (left), pictures of missionaries, or the pastor’s image on the Jumbotron. The difference between these uses of images, and the use of holy icons in the Orthodox Church is that the latter understands the theology and doctrine surrounding the display of sacred images.

Icons in the Orthodox Church are more than just decoration (although they certainly are beautiful to look at), they are a theological statement about the Incarnation of Christ, Who is the “image of God” (εἰκών του Θεου) (2 Cor 4.4). According to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, the Orthodox Church recognizes that “God took a material body, thereby providing that matter can be redeemed: ‘The Word made flesh has deified the flesh,’ said John of Damascus. God had ‘deified’ matter, making it ‘spirit-bearing’; and if flesh has become a vehicle of the Spirit, then so—though in a different way—can wood and paint” (The Orthodox Church, p.33). In other words, it's okay to use material items in our worship of God.

Instruction
I have heard icons referred to as “theology in color.” What the Bible is to paper and ink, the icon is to wood (or plaster) and paint. What the Scriptures teach us through the printed page, the icons teach us with colors and shapes. Icons often depict events from the Bible or from Church history and therefore serve as tools of instruction in much the same way that stained-glass windows have historically in the Western Church. However, icons tend to be much heavier on symbolism. Every color, every posture, even the position of the hands, has a specific theological significance.

Icons are not portraits and are not intended to be realistic in the way that other paintings usually are, but are intended to communicate a spiritual reality. One of the techniques often used to achieve this is called “inverse perspective,” which you can read about here or here or here. Iconographers are pious, disciplined people who pray and fast prior to and during the creation of an icon; with each stroke of the brush a prayer is offered to God. Iconographers aren't free to alter the style of icons as they see fit, but use a style and a technique and a fomat that has been preserved unchanged in the Church for nearly a hundred generations. They are very careful to write (iconographers are said to "write," rather than "paint" icons) these images in precisely the same way they have been written since the Church began. I envision ancient monastic scholars praying over every penstroke as they transcribe the Scriptures, taking great pains not to alter a comma, lest they distort the meaning of the text. The same is true for inconographers and the way they pass on spiritual Truth through color.

Sacred Space
When you walk into an Orthodox temple, you know you're in a sacred place; a place that has been set aside solely for the purpose of worship. An Orthodox house of worship will never be mistaken for a theater or a high school auditorium, or any other secular venue. When you’re standing among images of saints and angels, you know where you are and for what purpose!

Worship in Heaven
Christian worship is intended to imitate heavenly worship (Heb 8.5). The interior of an Orthodox temple reflects that worship. One reason for the icons is to show us the “great could of witnesses” that worship with us. When the Jews worshipped in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, they were surrounded by images of Heaven. Those images didn’t include Saints until Christ released the saints from Sheol and escorted them to Paradise. Now, in continuity with that ancient worship, the Orthodox Church shows us Heaven with the saints and martyrs, ascetics, virgins, unmercenaries, wonderworkers, and Apostles all around, worshipping the Trinity alongside us.

On an icon depicting Christ are the letters IC XC. This is the Greek abbreviation (the first and last letter of each word) of Ιησους Χριστος, which in English is Jesus Christ. On many icons, the fingers on the right hand of the person depicted will be positioned to mimic these four letters: index finger=I; middle=C; ring and thumb=X; pinky=C

In Christ’s halo is a cross, on the arms of which are the words “Ο ΩΝ,” which means “He Who Is,” or “I Am” (Exodus 3:14, Revelation 4:8).

On icons depicting the Virgin Mary are the letters ΜΡ ΘΥ, which is the abbreviation of Μητηρ Θεου (Mother of God). In contrast to Roman Catholic depictions of Mary, Orthodox icons seldom depict her without Jesus (in fact, to my knowledge, the only icon of Mary in which Christ is not visible—but certainly present—is the icon of the Annunciation), but show her holding Christ and pointing to Him as if to say “Do whatever He tells you.” (Jn 2.5)

Veneration
One thing that is very troubling to Protestant sensibilities is the Orthodox practice of venerating icons.

When one enters an Orthodox house of worship, one is likely to see parishioners bowing their heads, lighting candles, and making the sign of the Cross before the icons, and even kissing them. These actions are horrifying to a Protestant, and especially to one, such as myself, raised in the Baptist faith.

But, why is this practice so distressing? Are the Orthodox worshipping these icons? The Orthodox will say certainly not; that there is a big difference between worship or adoration—which are for the Holy Trinity alone—and the veneration, reverence, honor, and respect, which are paid to sacred items and holy people: worship is a total giving over of the self to be united with God, while veneration is showing delight for what God has done.

For millennia the Jews have understood the difference between veneration and worship: they kiss the mezuzah on their door post, they kiss the tallit before putting it on, they kiss the Torah before reading it in the Synagogue. Certainly Christ Himself did likewise when reading the Scriptures in the Synagogue. I doubt anyone confused these actions with idol worship.

And I think it’s a safe bet that I can get away with kissing a picture of my wife, or my grandfather’s headstone, or even a letter that he wrote without anyone accusing me of worshipping those items or the family members they call to mind. (I don’t know of a single Christian who will deny that humans are created in the image of God. In Genesis 1.26 God is quoted as saying “Let Us make man in Our image” (LXX: εικονα). So, when we kiss our loved ones, we are literally venerating icons of God!)

As a member of the Selfridge Honor Guard, I attended hundreds of funerals where a grieving next-of-kin would kiss the folded Flag and never once did it occur to me that that person might be worshipping the flag or the person in whose memory the flag was presented.*

The truth is, if I’m not scandalized by this…

…what reason could I possibly have to be distressed by a Christian kissing an image of Christ?

Anyone who has been to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. is sure to have seen people kneeling, laying flowers, lighting candles, kissing the wall, or bowing their heads in prayer. There is nothing improper or sacrilegious about this. It’s a very human and heartfelt expression of honor and respect, and no one will deny that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Country are deserving of our respect, our gratitude, our honor.

How much more, then, is our honor and respect due to those who lived and died, who surrendered everything, who denied themselves and daily bore their crosses in service to the Lord?

For more information:
The Function of Icons
No Graven Image: Icons and Their Proper Use
What Do Icons Mean?
Is Venerating Icons Idolatry?
The Icon FAQ
Talk given by Fr. Jacob Myers at St John’s Church in Atlanta

*If we truly believe that the Second Commandment strictly forbids the display of “anything in heaven above,” then the U.S. flag itself is a violation of this commandment fifty times over! In which case we violate God’s commandment fifty times whenever we salute, rise to our feet in the presence of, or pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.