Q&A

Q: Why do Orthodox crosses often portray a skull and crossbones? Isn't that a sign of evil or a symbol of the Illuminati or other secret organizations?

A: That two organizations share a common symbol should not be understood to mean that those two organizations are the same, or similar...or have anything whatsoever in common. The Church used the skull and crossbones for centuries before the Illuminati, or the Bonesmen, or Richard Worley even existed.
That goes for other symbols as well. The inverted cross has been adopted by anti-Christians, but was originally known as the Cross of St Peter, because he is believed to have been crucified upside down.

The skull below the cross is there because the hill on which Christ was crucified was known as Golgotha, which is Aramaic for "Place of the Skull." (in Latin, this is Calvariae Locus, which is where we get "Calvary"). On a Russian Orthodox Cross (pictured), the letters next to the skull stand for "Глава Адамла," which is Slavonic for "the Skull of Adam."

According to Fr. John Shandra, "The skull that viewers can see in iconography of the Orthodox crucifixion symbolically represents the skull of Adam. Some believe (although this is not a dogma of the Orthodox Church, but rather a pious tradition) that Jesus was crucified on the same place where Adam was buried. Theologically, it does make sense because in the writings of St. Paul the Apostle Jesus is called second Adam. Just as through the first Adam we all become inheritors of the fallen human nature and therefore are subject to death, through the second Adam, Who is Jesus Christ, we become inheritors of the renewed, healed human nature and granted life eternal."

In other words, whether or not Golgotha was in fact the actual location of Adam's burial, the theological truth remains: by His crucifixion, Christ, the "Second Adam," conquered the sin and death brought about by Adam's first sin. The skull beneath the Cross reminds us of this fact.

Q&A

Q: Why are vigil lamps lit before icons?

A: First-because our faith is light. Christ said: I am the light of the world (John 8:12). The light of the vigil lamp reminds us of that light by which Christ illumines our souls.

Second-in order to remind us of the radiant character of the saint before whose icon we light the vigil lamp, for saints are called sons of light (John 12:36, Luke 16:8).

Third-in order to serve as a reproach to us for our dark deeds, for our evil thoughts and desires, and in order to call us to the path of evangelical light; and so that we would more zealously try to fulfill the commandments of the Saviour: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works" (Matt. 5:16).

Fourth-so that the vigil lamp would be our small sacrifice to God, Who gave Himself completely as a sacrifice for us, and as a small sign of our great gratitude and radiant love for Him from Whom we ask in prayer for life, and health, and salvation and everything that only boundless heavenly love can bestow.

Fifth-so that terror would strike the evil powers who sometimes assail us even at the time of prayer and lead away our thoughts from the Creator. The evil powers love the darkness and tremble at every light, especially at that which belongs to God and to those who please Him.

Sixth-so that this light would rouse us to selflessness. Just as the oil and wick burn in the vigil lamp, submissive to our will, so let our souls also burn with the flame of love in all our sufferings, always being submissive to God's will.

Seventh-in order to teach us that just as the vigil lamp cannot be lit without our hand, so too, our heart, our inward vigil lamp, cannot be lit without the holy fire of God's grace, even if it were to be filled with all the virtues. All these virtues of ours are, after all, like combustible material, but the fire which ignites them proceeds from God.

Eighth-in order to remind us that before anything else the Creator of the world created light, and after that everything else in order: And God said, let there be light: and there was light (Genesis 1:3). And it must be so also at the beginning of our spiritual life, so that before anything else the light of Christ's truth would shine within us. From this light of Christ's truth subsequently every good is created, springs up and grows in us.

May the Light of Christ illumine you as well!

From ROCA.org

Q&A

Q: What Does, "Lead Us Not Into Temptation" in the Lord's Prayer Mean?

A: There is a commentary on the Lord's Prayer by St. Cyprian (c. 205 - 258) considered so good by the Fathers that a hundred years later, when St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote his commentary on Matthew, he omitted commentary on the Lord's Prayer because, he said, "Cyprian has said all there was to say about it."

Cyprian reads this section as saying (or at least meaning), "do not allow us to be led into temptation." His commentary runs: "Of necessity also the Lord has us ask, 'And do not allow us to be led into temptation.' In this part of the prayer he shows that the enemy is powerless against us without God's prior permission. Consequently, during temptation all our fear and devotion and attention should be focused on God, since evil has only such force as He permits (cf. 1 Cor. 10:13). Scripture demonstrates this when it says, 'Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it; and the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hands (Dan. 1:1; 2 Kings 24:11-16). Moreover, evil is given power over us according to our sins. As Isaiah writes, 'Who gave Jacob up to the looters, and Israel to the spoilers? It was the Lord, against whom we sinned, in whose ways we would not walk, and whose law we refused to obey. So he unleashed the fury of his anger against us' (Isa. 42:24-25). And again, when Solomon sinned and strayed from the precepts and paths of the Lord, it was recorded, 'The Lord stirred up Satan against Solomon himself' (1 Kings 11:14 [as Cyprian's text reads])."


Courtesy of St Anthony's Orthodox Church

Q&A

Q: Orthodox churches are getting a significant number of converts from Western Christian traditions. Is that a reflection on Orthodoxy, on Western churches, or both?

A: To a great extent, many of the other churches are falling apart. The mainline Protestants, the Methodists, the Presbyterians. The Episcopalians have lost half their membership. The Baptists, even. The evangelical movement is already coming to an end. It's only about 100 years old in American culture, and it's kind of come to the fulfillment of its potential. The Orthodox Church is the fullness of the apostolic faith and the apostolic tradition. People find in it what they always thought Christianity should be.


From a USAToday interview with Met. Jonah, 12/10/2008

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

Q&A

Q: What is Theophany and why is it important?

A: One of the greatest feasts of the Orthodox year [is] the Feast of Theophany, Christ’s Baptism in the Jordan river. Across the world Orthodox Christians will gather after the Liturgy to bless the waters: the ocean, a river, a spring, etc.

Every feast day in Orthodoxy is connected to the Feast of Pascha [i.e. Easter], because Pascha is God’s great act of salvation. However, some feasts show this connection more clearly than others. Three feasts in the year share the same pattern of services: Pascha, Nativity, and Theophany. Each has a Vesperal Liturgy on its Eve and a Vigil the night before (with occasional variances).

The icons of the three feasts are strikingly similar, with Christ descending into a background that is usually rendered with darkness. At Pascha the darkness is the darkness of death and Hell where Christ has gone to raise the dead.

(click images to enlarge)

At Nativity the darkness is the cave in which he is born. This darkness is the darkness of the world that is caught in sin and death – but it is the same darkness as Hell.

At Theophany the icon depicts Christ standing on the waters of the Jordan – but the waters themselves are depicted as dark, or at least highlighted with a dark background. The darkness at this feast is precisely the same darkness as that pictured in the icon of Pascha. For Theophany is the feast of Christ’s baptism – and baptism, St. Paul tells us is a baptism into the death of Christ. His Baptism is a prefigurement of His death.

Thus the waters of the Jordan become symbolic of Hades. Christ’s descent into the waters becomes his descent into Hades where he “leads captivity captive” (Ephesians 4:8) and sets free those who have been held in bondage to death. The vigil of Theophany, like the vigil of Pascha, includes the reading of the book of the prophet Jonah – the reluctant messenger of God who was thrown overboard by his companions and swallowed by a great fish. This book is read because it contains the same image as the icons – the descent into the depths of Hades.

Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish’s belly, and said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me. Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple. The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

At the Vespers of Theophany we hear this phrase:

Thou hast bowed Thine head before the Forerunner and hast crushed the heads of the dragons. Thou hast descended into the waters and hast given light to all things, that they may glorify Thee, O Savior, the Enlightenment of our souls.

The phrase, “crushed the heads of the dragons,” comes from Psalm 74:

Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. Thou didst divide the sea by thy might; thou didst break the heads of the dragons on the waters. Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan, thou didst give him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

In this Psalm, God is recalled both as Creator, but also as the one who has brought order into the chaos of the world. He not only creates the waters, but crushes the heads of the dragons that dwell there. The “dragons” in the Psalm are an old English translation of the Hebrew word for whales. But the word “dragon” is an apt description of the demonic forces that are defeated in Christ’s death and its prefigurement in Baptism.

In the prayer over the waters, the priest says:

Thou didst sanctify the streams of Jordan, sending down from heaven Thy Holy Spirit, and didst crush the heads of the dragons that lurked therein.

This same prayer is prayed over the waters blessed on the day of Theophany. The service for the blessing of the waters usually takes place by a local body of water.. At the very heart of the blessing a hand cross is thrown out into the water three times and retrieved with the singing of the festal troparion:

When Thou O Christ wast baptized in the Jordan,
the worship ofthe Trinity was made manifest.
For the voice of the Father bear witness to Thee,
and called Thee His beloved Son.
And the Spirit in the form of a dove,
confirmed the truthfulness of His word.
O Christ, our God who hast revealed Thyself,
and hast enlightened the world glory to Thee!

The same troparion is sung throughout the homes of the faithful during the season after Theophany as the priest carries the same blessing into our homes. Theophany is a proclamation to nature itself of Christ’s salvation. Our lives have plenty of “dragons,” in all shapes and sizes. But Christ is victorious over everything that would destroy his creation – particularly the people who are His own.


Courtesy of Orrologion

Q&A

Q: What the heck are Magi anyway?

A: The Magi (singular Magus, from Latin, via Greek μάγος) were an Iranian tribe from ancient Media, who — prior to the establishment the Achaemenid Empire in 550 BC — were responsible for religious and funerary practices of the ancient Iranian peoples.

Later they accepted the Zoroastrian religion and developed it into Zurvanism, which would become the predominant form of Zoroastrianism during the Sassanid era (AD 226–650). No traces of Zurvanism exist beyond the 10th century. In English, the term magus may refer to a shaman, sorcerer or wizard; it is the origin of the words magic and magician.1

According to the Gospel of Matthew (2:1-16), the wise men or Magi followed a star to the birth place of Christ. It was written that they were from the east and that they brought three gifts to Christ; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Since there were three gifts, it has been inferred that there were three Magi.

In Latin tradition dating from the seventh century,(from a greek manuscript) their names are given as Gaspar (or Caspar/Jasper), Melchior and Balthasar. According to one tradition, the Magi were baptized by the Apostle Thomas, and became bishops. The Church commemorates the Magi as saints; the Eastern feast day of the Magi is December 25 [new calendar].2

For more info:
The Importance of the Magi (video)
The Magi and the Infant Jesus


1. Wikipedia
2. Orthodoxwiki

Q&A

Q: What's all this "new calendar"/"old calendar" business?

A: In 46 B.C., Julius Caesar introduced a new calendar to the Roman world. It was called the Julian calendar, and was used by the entire Christian world until the late sixteenth century. However, it proved to be impossible to synchronize this calendar precisely with astronomical phases, so gradually the date of Easter drifted away from the March equinox. This was a slow drift, about 11 minutes per year, that nonetheless accumulated significantly over the centuries, so by 1582, during the reign of Pope Gregory XIII, the calendar was about ten days off from where it had been during the Council of Nicaea in 325.

It was this Pope Gregory who authorized the calendar that bears his name in an attempt to bring the civil calendar into sync with the astronomical movements and keep it there. The first countries to adopt the new Gregorian calendar were the predominantly Roman Catholic ones: Italy, Spain, Portugal. Eventually, the Protestant countries--England, Germany, Denmark, the American colonies--went along, followed by east Asian countries.

Countries that were predominantly Orthodox didn't get on board until much later. The Orthodox Church itself, ever reluctant to adopt any change at all--especially one initiated by a Roman pope--didn't even consider the Gregorian calendar until the early 20th century, when a few Orthodox bodies decided that they wanted to be able to celebrate certain holidays with their Protestant and Roman Catholic brethren. So they adopted the new calendar despite the protests of other Orthodox bodies.

Today, calendar usage within Orthodoxy falls generally into three groups:

1) Those who have fully adopted the Gregorian calendar (in the U.S. this is by far the largest group).

2) Those who continue to follow the old Julian calendar, but remain in communion with churches on the new calendar (This is a smaller group in the U.S. but elsewhere outnumbers the first group).

3) Those who not only reject the Gregorian calendar, but also have broken communion with the churches that have adopted it (this is a very, very small group).

The church that Kathryn and I attend falls into the second of these three categories. What this means is that they celebrate feast days thirteen days after new calendar churches do. For example, Christmas is celebrated on January 7th by the civil calendar, and St Patrick's Day is on March 30th.

However, all Orthodox churches, whether on the old system or the new, celebrate Easter together every year. (Orthodox Easter is not thirteen days after Protestant Easter, but is calculated according to an entirely different system about which I know nothing. In 2009, Orthodox Easter will be celebrated 7 days after Protestant/Roman Catholic Easter)

Go here for further information:
The Julian and Gregorian Calendars
The Calendar of the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Ecclesiastical Calendar

Q&A

Q: Excuse me, did I just hear the priest say "most holy Theotokos save us"? Please explain how that is not blatantly contrary to Scripture, since "no one comes to the Father, except through" Jesus, (Jn 14.6), who came to "save that which was lost" (Matt 18.11), and since "there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4.12). Calling upon Mary to "save us" is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible!

A: Yeah, that freaked me out the first time I heard it, too. It was at the very first Vespers service that I attended at a local Greek parish, and I thought, "This could be the deal-breaker." It bothered me so much that I confronted the priest afterwards.

He admitted that it is a difficult thing for a Protestant to hear, and that it troubled him the first time he heard it, too (he was a convert from Pentecostalism). He explained to my satisfaction why this phrase is not improper or contrary to biblical teaching, but it is still a little uncomfortable for me to heard it, even now, especially having come from a faith tradition in which Mary is little more than an afterthought. I suppose it just takes some getting used to.

So, is the statement "Theotokos, save us" really attributing to Mary something that should only be attributed to God? Is this usurping the work of Christ? It seems to, but rest assured that Orthodox Christians do not believe for one second that Mary died on the cross for our sins, or that she rose from the dead, or that she is seated at the right hand of the Father, etc. Any Orthodox Christian will tell you that it was Christ and Him alone "who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens." The prayers and hymns and writings of the Orthodox Church testify again and again to this foundational, non-negotiable truth.

Well, then if the Bible says, and the Orthodox believe, that there is no other name whereby we must be saved, isn't the statement in question plainly contrary to both? It would appear so, but if this sort of language were truly contrary to biblical teaching then we would, of course, expect no similar use of the word "save" in Scripture, except in reference to the direct work of God. Right?

However, we read in the Bible that St Paul hopes to save the Jews through his example (Rom 11.14), and that he believes that by being "all things to all men" he may save some (1Co 9.22). He also tells husbands and wives that they are able to save each other (1Co 7.16), and says that he himself was saved through the prayer of the Philippians (Php 1.19).

Paul later tells his protégé Timothy that he can save himself and others by his adherence to doctrine (1Ti 4.16), and that a woman can be saved by bearing and raising a faithful Christian (2.15).

St Peter is said to be able to save entire households merely by his words (Acts 11.14), and St Jude instructs us to save people with fear (Jude 1.23). St James tells us that prayer can save the sick (Jam 5.15), and that when we convert a sinner, we save a soul and "cover a multitude of sins" (v.20).

Clearly it's not contrary to biblical teaching to believe that we have a role in the salvation of others. We don't save them by dying on the cross, of course, but by preaching the Gospel, by prayer, by being a good example. It's worth mentioning at this point that the Orthodox do not believe, as their Protestant brethren do, that salvation is the result of a one-time, momentary conversion of faith. Rather, it requires daily, hourly, minute-by-minute conversion. That is, constant repentance and self-denial. That's why serious Orthodox Christians go to church every day, and surround themselves with religious imagery, and give alms, and fast regularly, and pray constantly, and make the sign of the cross about eleven-thousand times a day: not because they believe these good works will earn them a place in heaven, but because they want to stay constantly focused on Christ, and away from self, and tuned-in to what is true and honest and just and pure and lovely. It is also why Orthodox Christians rely on the prayers and good council of other Orthodox Christians: to keep them on the straight and narrow. It is in this manner that Orthodox Christians save each other, just like Sts Paul, Peter and Timothy did.

Is it really unreasonable, then, to think that Mary can likewise save us?

Should we not look to her for her prayer and for her example of obedience, so that we will not deliberately keep on sinning, but will continue grounded and settled in the faith; so we will continue to do the will of God, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling; so that we will not be cut off, or disqualified, or denied; so we won't come out worse in the end than we were at the beginning and be assigned a place with the unbelievers?

Like so many other things in the Orthodox Church, the phrase "Most holy Theotokos, save us," is indeed arresting and horrifying to a lifelong Protestant like me. But, like so many other initially arresting, horrifying aspects of Orthodoxy, this phrase does prove, on close examination, to be perfectly consistent with biblical teaching. And as I become more and more familiar with the context surrounding certain Orthodox statements and actions and disciplines, the more clearly I can see how much sense they make within the broader scope of Orthodox worship and devotion.

Read these for more information:
Orrologion (blog): On Prayer to the Saints; or, "Everything which is God's became man's"
Pillar and Ground of Truth (blog): "Most holy Theotokos, save us!" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Q&A

Q: Do Icons work miracles?

A: To put this question in proper perspective, let's consider a few other questions: Did the Ark of the Covenant work miracles (e.g. Joshua 3:15ff; 1st Samuel 4-6; 2nd Samuel 11-12)? Did the Bronze Serpent heal those bitten by snakes (Numbers 21:9)? Did the Prophet Elisha's bones raise a man from the dead (2nd Kings 13:21)? Did St. Peter's shadow heal the sick (Acts 5:15)? Did aprons and handkerchiefs that had touched St. Paul heal the sick and caste out evil spirits (Acts 19:12)?

The answer to these questions are, Yes, in a manner of speaking. Nevertheless, to be precise, it was God who chose to work miracles through these things. In the case of the Ark and the Bronze serpent, we have images used to work miracles. God worked a miracle through the relics of the Prophet Elisha, through the shadow of a Saint, and through things that had merely touched a Saint. Why? Because God honors those who honor Him (1st Samuel 2:30), and thus takes delight in working miracles through his Saints, even by these indirect means. The fact that God can sanctify material things should come as no surprise to those familiar with Scripture. For example, not only was the Altar of the Temple holy, but anything that touched it was holy as well (Exodus 29:37). To reject the truth that God works through material things is to fall into Gnosticism.

So yes, loosely speaking, Icons can work miracles—but to be precise, it is God who works miracles through Icons, because He honors those who have honored Him.

From the Orthodox Christian Information Center

Q&A

Q: Do Orthodox Christians place tradition above or equal to Scripture?

A: The Church sees the Scriptures as inspired and authoritative Holy Tradition: the Word of God. The key here is to see how the word "tradition" is used in the New Testament, which condemns the tradition of men but calls us to follow apostolic or holy tradition.

TRADITION OF MEN
First of all, Jesus warned against holding to the "tradition of men" and "your tradition" in the strongest possible terms (see mark 7:6-16). All Christians agree: The Bible says no to the tradition of men.

Secondly, Saint Paul warns in Colossians 2:8: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Here again, the phase "tradition of men" stands out, which the Church condemns.

HOLY TRADITION
In distinction to the tradition of men, the Bible calls us to obey tradition which has God as its source. In II Thessalonians 2:15, Saint Paul writes, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." In contrast to man's tradition, apostolic tradition is our foundation in the Church.

Further, in II Thessalonians 3:6 we read, "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." Here again, we are dealing with Apostolic tradition, the tradition which God planted in the Church. Thus the Church is "the pillar and ground (or support) of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15).

All true tradition comes from the same source: the Holy Spirit in the Church. The same One who inspired holy Scripture prompted the on-location teaching of the Apostles, whether written or oral (II Thes. 2:15). Further, it was on the basis of Church tradition that the Biblical canon was determined.

Tradition is giving our ancestors a vote. It is walking in the "path of righteousness for His name's sake" (Psalm 23:3). Or, as Jeremiah writes, living by holy tradition is a call from God Himself. "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls" (Jer. 6:16).

Thus, there are two kinds of tradition: that of God and that of men. It is to the former that the Church is singularly committed.

Courtesy of St. Athanasius Orthodox Church

Q&A

Q: I thought there are just two kinds of Christians, Protestant and Catholic. How can you claim you are neither?

A: From the Orthodox point of view, Roman Catholicism is a medieval modification of the original Orthodoxy of the Church in Western Europe, and Protestantism is a later attempt to return to the original Faith. To our way of thinking, the Reformation did not go far enough.

We respectfully differ with Roman Catholicism on the questions of papal authority, the nature of the church, and a number of other consequent issues. Historically, the Orthodox Church is both "pre-Protestant" and "pre-Roman Catholic" in the sense that many modern Roman Catholic teachings were developed much later in Christian history.

The word catholic is a Greek word [καθολικός] meaning "having to do with wholeness." We do consider ourselves "Catholic" in that sense of the word, that is, as proclaiming and practicing "the Whole Faith." In fact, the full title of our Church is "The Orthodox Catholic Church."

We find that Protestants readily relate to Orthodoxy's emphasis on personal faith and the Scriptures. Roman Catholics easily identify with Orthodoxy's rich liturgical worship and sacramental life. Roman Catholic visitors often comment, "in lots of ways your Liturgy reminds me of our old High Mass."

Many of the "polarities" between Protestants and the Roman Communion (i.e., "Word versus Sacrament" or "Faith versus Works") have never arisen in the Orthodox Church. We believe Orthodox theology offers the "western" denominations a way in which apparently opposite differences can be reconciled.

Courtesy of St Paul's Greek Orthodox Church

Q&A

Q: What is the position of the Orthodox church on the full gifts of the gospels, specifically, speaking in new tongues? Also, do you believe that the age of miracles is passed?

A: Concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit and specifically speaking in new tongues, I offer the following observations:

While the Orthodox Church does not deny this gift in any way, it does acknowledge that this gift is rarely given, spontaneous, and only evident in cases of need. On the day of Pentecost, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, the apostles proclaimed the Good News to all who would listen. Acts notes that there were many people from many lands in Jerusalem at the time, celebrating the Jewish feast of Pentecost. Many languages were spoken. Acts continues by stating that every one in the crowd heard and understood the apostles as if they were speaking in their own tongues. This gives rise to speculation: does speaking in tongues mean that someone is speaking in a language he or she does not know, or does it imply that he or she is speaking in his or her own language but that the Holy Spirit miraculously enables his or her listeners to understand, even if his or her listeners do not know the speaker's language?

It follows that on the day of Pentecost there was a clear need for this manifestation: everyone was from a different land and spoke a different language. However, everyone understood. This clearly implies that speaking in tongues is not meaningless babbling, but readily understood speech and language.

While on the day of Pentecost there was a need, due to varying languages, in the case of a group of people who all speak and understand the same language, what would be the purpose of tongues? In Scripture we do not find other indications or references to the apostles speaking in tongues, other than on the day of Pentecost. Perhaps it was because no such need had made itself evident.

It is only my personal opinion, but I think the Orthodox Church would say that "regularly scheduled" speaking in tongue sessions conducted by individuals who speak the same language somehow miss the point. For example, it seems inconceivable to say, "Welcome to our mid-week prayer service. From 7:00 until 7:30 we will pray and sing hymns, and then we will speak in tongues."If everyone speaks the same language, what is being revealed? If what is uttered is not intelligible to the hearers, what is being communicated?

If it is a way of showing who in a congregation is filled with the Holy Spirit and who isn't, it constitutes heresy, for the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fills all things, including those individuals who have been created in God's image and likeness yet who reject the very notion. Scripture is very clear that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are never to become sources of personal pride.

With regard to miracles, surely there can be no end to the age of miracles, for God is present everywhere and at all times in the midst of His people. This in itself is a miracle.

If, however, by miracles we are referring only to physical healings, flashing lights, unexplained phenomena, and the like, then we may very well be disappointed. Christ Himself condemned those who continually wished to see signs, or miracles. And Scripture is clear that even those who witnessed miracles with their own eyes often rejected that which they had experienced.

Read the account of the resurrection of Lazarus; everyone witnessed Lazarus walking out of his tomb, yet Scripture says that immediately this created a division among the people, with some greeting Christ the very next day with palm branches as He entered Jerusalem while other witnesses sought a means by which they might put Him to death. "If we don't stop Him, the whole world will chase after Him."

Indeed, we believe in miracles -- the real miracle, however, is discoverning God's presence in our lives; discerning His voice, small and still as it may be, as the Prophet Elijah did -- and keeping still and silent so we can hear His voice and discern His will for our lives; accepting His call and invitation to live in this world while not being of this world; etc. Healings do occur, but as Christ Himself states in every case, healings are not only signs of God's power and love but also signs of tremendous faith on the part of the one healed -- "Your faith has made you whole."

Finally, one of the greatest miracles that can occur today, in this age of personal issues, lack of self esteem, and the ongoing search to discover "who am I," is the recognition of ourselves and our very lives as miracles. As Saint John of Kronstadt, the late-19th century Orthodox saint, once wrote, "Lord, I am a miracle of Thy love. ..."

With regard to what we might call phenomenal miracles -- weeping icons, faces of Jesus appearing on walls, and the like -- Saint John Chrysostom offers good advice: they may be a revelation from God, or they may be a deception from Satan. If we are living according to the teachings and example of Christ, however, we should not make much of them.

Courtesy of oca.org

For further reading:
Speaking In Tongues: An Orthodox Perspective
Speaking in Tongues
Orthodixie: Speaking in Tongues?

Q&A

Q: Why are there so many candles?

A: Since the Savior Himself taught that He is the Light of the World (John 8:12), our candles and lamps ultimately refer to His radiance. The Light of Christ illumines all humanity - in fact it enlightens the whole world. Some of our light is provided by oil lamps. These recall the parable of the wise and foolish bridesmaids who kept their vigil for the Bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13), and help us to remember that we also must keep our watch for His coming again.

Some of our light is provided by wax candles. In Psalm 68 we read that the wicked (i.e., those who hate God) will disperse when they encounter Him in just the same way that wax melts near a fire. Our prayer is that any wickedness in us will vanish as the wax of a candle vanishes and is consumed by the flame. But more practically, wax candles are simply a convenient and age-old means of providing light by which to see. The faithful light candles as a sign of their fervent prayer to God. We light candles and lamps before icons; we carry them in processions; we place them at various locations throughout the church building - simply to give off illumination. The more candles that are lighted, the more light is generated, and greater is the image of the Empty Tomb of the Lord which shone forth with a brilliance far greater than the light of day.

Courtesy of St Anne's Orthodox Church

For more information:
A Candle

Q&A

I will begin posting a weekly question and answer extracted from credible online sources (yes, it turn out there is such a thing!).
Anyone wishing to submit a question may do so, and I will see what I can do about getting you a competent answer.

Q: I would like to know what is the orthodox canon regarding the "original sin." The following confuse me:

Father Michael Azkoul states that God punished man only once for the original sin by introducing death, and the original sin wasn't transferred to the next generations. He says (on the OCF website): "The Church does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is ..."

On the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto's page there is a totally different statement:"Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam andEve's."

A: Concerning the original -- or "first" -- sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. In the article by Fr. Azkoul, he deals with this quite clearly in the sections above the quote which you sent in your email. There is nothing wrong with his statement.

Concerning the second passage -- from the Toronto Metropolis' web site -- it would probably have been clearer to the reader had the sentence read as follows: "Worst of all, the consequences of the original sin are hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's." I am not sure that there is any conflict whatsoever; rather, the second passage needs to be clarified.

Finally, the "Orthodox canons" are not statements of doctrine; rather, they are the "canon laws" drafted by the early Church councils. Canons deal with Church discipline and order, not with doctrine. They are found in the proceedings of the seven ecumenical councils and the local councils of the early Church. If by asking "if the Orthodox canons are published and available for purchase" you refer to Canon Law, please let me know, and I will direct you to places where you can purchase them. If you are interested in doctrinal material, however, collections of canons would not contain the fundamental teachings of the faith.

Courtesy of oca.org

For more information:
What is the difference between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic understandings of original sin?
St. Augustine & Original Sin
What are the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism?
Original Sin According to St Paul
Banishment and Repentance of Adam and Every Christian
Original Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Confessions and Catechisms
Ancestral vs. Original Sin: A False Dichotomy