This book started out as a correspondence course on Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the ancient faith that the popular Time-Life series on the great religions of the world calls "Christendom's oldest Church" [Christendom and Christianity, vol. 3 of The World's Great Religions, New York: Time, Inc., 1963, p. 266]. The author took the course many years ago after a long and vain search for the fullness of truth along the highways and byways of Western Christianity, all of which proved dead-end paths where one encounters truth in varying degrees, plus falsehood in one concentration or another.

In the passage of time, it became obvious that there are many Roman Catholic theologians who do not agree with the teachings of the first and second Vatican Councils, and who are grappling with the problems of papal primacy, papal infallibility, and Catholic ecclesiology. It also became apparent that there are many Catholic and Protestant liturgical scholars, clergy and laity today who are interested in learning about the Orthodox Church and its maintaining the form of early Christian worship and its Divine Liturgy. Among these people were friends and co-workers of the author.

Still later, it became increasingly clear that this work could be turned into a book in question and answer format for these individuals. In making this change, the author rewrote large sections of it for the benefit of Western Christians so that they could ask themselves what kind of historical connection does their particular Church have with the Apostles when it was founded in schism in 1054 by a fallible man called the pope, or founded a few centuries ago by someone named Joe Smith? For those with more than an idle curiosity, the doctrines of the Western Churches are frequently compared and contrasted with those of another much older Church, the Orthodox Christian Church. This Church is the original Church and the depository of Apostolic Christian Truth, and a Church that until recently remained something mysterious and inaccessible for Western people.

Although this study does not force anyone to accept the Orthodox faith, still every truth-seeking person who read it came to the ineluctable conclusion that alone among the Churches, the Orthodox Church has retained the continuity and purity of ancient Christian teaching and preserves the oldest, fullest and most accurate traditions of all. The same readers also came to understand that the ancient Church founded by Christ through the Apostles is still present in the world today, just as it has been without interruption for two thousand years. They now understand that that ancient Church is the Orthodox Church, the Church of the Apostles and martyrs, and the only Church that has an unbroken line back to the Apostles. With this insight, all went on with their lives with a new clarity of thought, like a pure mountain spring.

As the pages of this book show, the Orthodox Church has maintained a living connection with the Apostles through Apostolic Succession. The Apostles chose as their successors bishops for local congregations (Phil 1:1). To these bishops, they imparted the Apostolic grace they had received from Christ Himself, which is the process of Apostolic Succession, something prominently discussed in the New Testament (cf. Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy).

There is a twofold nature to Apostolic Succession. First, there is an unbroken historical consecration of the bishops from the hands of the Apostles. A bishop must be able to trace his lineage through a continuous, uninterrupted chain of ordinations through the Apostles. Secondly, there is an uncompromising fidelity to the correct doctrines and correct practices established by the Apostles. A bishop must be able to demonstrate that the faith and practices of the Church have not changed.

While the Roman Catholic Church can trace its bishops' lineage, it cannot demonstrate an unchanged faith or unchanged practices, for it does not adhere to the Apostolic teaching or Apostolic practices. After the Latin Church severed itself from the true Universal Church in 1054, the West entered into the Middle Ages, which marked the gradual transition between the ancient Christian worldview and the modern godless one. During that period, and continuing into the present time, the Latin Church made many deviations and changes from the ancient Christian faith and ancient Christian practices going back to the time of the Apostles.

One of Rome's many innovations without Apostolic foundation is its proclamation of papal infallibility, a doctrine that caused the Christian world to reel in shock. According to this teaching, when the pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the throne" [of Peter]), that is, officially, concerning matters of faith and morals, he is incapable of speaking falsehood. However, papal infallibility was vehemently denied by popes and faithful laymen alike for almost nineteen centuries. (It was not invented until 1870). Moreover, as chapter six of this book notes, papal infallibility continues to be denied by the very Church that invented it. It is an indisputable fact that many Roman popes were heretics and that they spoke falsehood when making ex cathedra pronouncements concerning faith and morals. The Roman Catholic Church itself admits this fact, and in this admission, it altogether negates this false teaching. (To this time, papal infallibility is denied in the Catholic Church. For example, according to an in-depth survey by the National Catholic Reporter dated September 11, 1987, only 26% of Roman Catholics in this country believe in the infallibility of the pope).

Of further note, while Roman apologists make much of the Apostle Peter's supposedly exalted position, Holy Scripture makes it plain that Peter himself made grave errors both before and after Christ's death and Resurrection. The second chapter of Galatians shows that Peter spoke falsehood at the Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem, that he had to justify his actions before the Church, that Paul rebuked Peter "to his face" sternly and publicly, and that as a result, Peter turned from his erring ways. Clearly, there is neither "papal supremacy" nor "papal infallibility" here. Given the fact that Peter, who the Latin Church proclaims was its first pope, spoke falsehood at the Apostolic Council, Rome's argument of papal infallibility collapses. As chapter six additionally goes on to point out, the Roman Catholic Church is presently involved in a frenzied effort to explain its fraudulent papal claims in the face of a growing awareness among its clergy and laity that these claims are impossible to defend.

Some years back, a Catholic seminarian struggled with Rome's papal claims. When he asked the seminary's rector if Rome's claims were valid, the rector replied that they were not. The seminarian then asked that, given the fact that the crux of Rome's claim to be the true Church hinged upon the matter of its papal claims, which of the two Churches actually is the ancient Church going back two thousand years — Rome or Orthodoxy? The rector replied that when the positions of Rome and Orthodoxy are examined, Rome's claim is altogether spurious and falsified, while Orthodoxy's claim is entirely valid. To the seminarian's query as to how the rector could remain in the Catholic Church if he did not believe it was the true Church, the rector replied that he was comfortable with his spirituality and that his family expected him to be Catholic. The seminarian could no longer feel comfortable, however, and he began a search that eventually brought him to the Orthodox Church and its priesthood. His conversion is but one of thousands of others like it, for when exposed to Orthodoxy's ancient teachings, people come to understand that the Eastern Orthodox Church alone has not distorted or falsified any single doctrine of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. They also understand that the same Orthodox Church is that very Church that has maintained the same exact faith delivered to the Apostles.

There were myriad deviations without Apostolic foundation that developed in the West over the course of its thousand-year separation from Orthodoxy. In addition to the doctrinal divergences, there were also departures from Apostolic practices as well. One of these changes involves the sign of the Cross, an important practice to examine.

An Orthodox Christian makes the sign of the Cross by putting the thumb and first and second fingers of the right hand together, which represent the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. At the same time, the fourth and fifth fingers are folded against the palm, and these represent the two natures of Christ. Then, in keeping with the most ancient tradition of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers, he or she touches the tips of the thumb and first two fingers to the forehead (for the blessing of the mind), and then the abdomen (for the blessing of one's internal feelings). From there, the crossbar is made by going from the right shoulder to the left shoulder (for the blessing of one's bodily strength). In this gesture, one affirms one's faith in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross at Golgotha, and affirms one's belief in the Holy Trinity and in the human and divine natures of Christ — that is, the basic dogmas of the Orthodox Christian faith. In the lives of the saints from Apostolic times down to the present, there are many references that bear witness to the tremendous spiritual strength and security that are given to a Christian through this ancient tradition of crossing oneself.

Making the crossbar from right to left is not without significance. Classically, the right is the symbol of light, good and truth, while the left is the symbol of darkness, evil and error. In keeping with the meaning of this symbolism, going from right to left asks God's blessing that sanctification from the right side would cross over to the fallen, sinful side of one's nature in order to transform and redeem it.

Over the course of its long separation from Orthodox Christianity, the Latin Church reversed the direction of the crossbar and started tracing it from left to right, the significance of which should be apparent. This practice remains in the Latin Church to this day.

Still another change from the Apostolic practice involves the Latins no longer touching the abdomen, but the chest instead (see Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy's diagram above). In making this change, Roman Catholics no longer make the life-giving Cross of Christ upon themselves, but distort it and seal themselves instead with a travesty of the Cross — that is, an upside down cross. As the same Fr. Seraphim explains in his book The Law of God, the Catholic sign of the "cross" brings joy to the demons, for it is a profane gesture.

Apostolic Succession does not exist outside Christ's Church. According to the first canon of St. Basil, outside the Church the bestowing of grace is reduced to nothing and every sort of succession is unlawful. These things are so because a layman (actually even less than a layman) executes the laying on of hands upon a layman without transferring any sort of grace to him, because there is none, nor can there be grace outside the one Church, outside of the unity of the Body of Christ. Once a bishop leaves the Church in schism as the pope did in the eleventh century, the continuing Church does not recognize any consecrations or ordinations he performs. Ordinations are invalid when those ordained do not have the right faith, and there is neither Apostolic Succession or priesthood. The episcopi vagantes are not within the succession and can no longer show an uninterrupted priesthood, for Apostolic Succession was severed in the West as of its apostasy and schism from Christ's Church in 1054.

Only the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim continuity in both episcopate and faith, for Orthodoxy has the complete and preserved Apostolic faith, without any additions or subtractions, and it alone is unchanged from the Apostolic period. Thus, when an Orthodox bishop is consecrated today, or when an Orthodox priest is ordained (from Apostolic times the priesthood has been the second degree of the hierarchy), that consecration or ordination can be traced historically all the way back to the Apostles and back to Christ. The hierarchy was established by Christ, and the Apostles were always citing its divine institution. The Apostles themselves chose their successors through ordination, and those successors were the bishops of the Church. Through Apostolic Succession, the Orthodox Church traces its existence to Christ and is the one Church founded by Him. As Holy Scripture states, "one Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph 4:5), one Holy Tradition (2 Thes 2:15), and one Christian Church (Mt 16:18). All other Churches — that is, the 23,000 Churches of the West, originate from Orthodox Christianity by way of reduction and separation.

This subject is most serious, for in the Nicene Creed, Christians confess belief in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Precisely these four words show the characteristics of the one Church established by Christ and the Apostles. Thus, in addition to being One, Holy and Catholic (meaning universal), the true Church has an unbroken tie with the Apostles and is in historic continuity with the Church of the Apostles. The Apostles are the foundation of the Church, for it is "built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). Calling the Church Apostolic indicates that it was established not on a single bishop, as the Roman Church would later come to assert (beginning in the ninth century), but upon all the Apostles. (Contrary to Rome's teaching of papal supremacy, Christ Himself forbade Peter and the other Apostles to reign or exercise lordship over the flock like the kings of the Gentiles — cf. Lk 22:25). The Orthodox Church is also Apostolic because it alone has its beginning in Christ, Who is the Apostle and High Priest of the confession (Heb. 3:11).

In the matter of the teachings of the Christian Churches, whenever it was necessary to contrast the theology of the Orthodox Church with Western Christianity's deviations from its former confession of Orthodox Christianity, these distinctions are presented in an objective, non-polemical way. The author feels no irritation at all against non-Orthodox Christians (for he was once one himself), nor does he dispute the piety and good will of these people. In fact, there is no doubt that most of these individuals are motivated by a love of God. However, the concern of this study is the correct confession of faith — not personal integrity. The reader is therefore asked not to be offended when, for the sake of truth, contrasts are made between Orthodoxy's ancient and unchanging teaching, vis-à-vis the deviations of Western Christianity from the faith it held prior to 1054.

It is also important for the reader to understand that Orthodoxy's claim of being Christ's one and only Church should not be a stumbling block to Western Christians. A Greek archbishop points out that it should be just the opposite: a point of attraction. He explains that Orthodoxy does not maintain its claim of primacy out of arrogance, but out of love for its traditions. Likewise, as a monk notes in this regard, Orthodoxy's primacy does not stem from any human merit on the part of the Orthodox, but because God is pleased to preserve His treasure in earthen vessels. The archbishop further explains that Orthodox Christians do not imagine that they hold something in their hands which is theirs, but which is universal and the domain of all who confess Christ. He states that Orthodoxy has maintained the integrity of faith, and that in this ancient Church is found the fullness of God's grace and truth. Orthodoxy offers that faith in the pure form in which it was handed down from the Apostles, and its boundaries are open to all human beings who embrace it.

The reader should also be told that some parts of this book may seem difficult. In order to obviate difficulties as much as possible, the writer consistently turned to Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. As the preface to the English edition of this invaluable book notes, this work has become a standard source of Orthodox theology and has a practical approach that is missing in many works of contemporary academic theology. As the preface also states, Fr. Michael presents the certain and unchanging teaching of the Church in a clear and objective manner, with sober understatement, and thereby eliminates any confusion as to what that actual teaching is. Other sources were also used when they showed an unadorned directness of presentation, something often lacking in the textbook that was used for the correspondence theology course that was the basis of this book. Any further simplification of the answers, though, would have resulted in distorting and degrading them. If difficulties are encountered in a few places, let the reader not be discouraged, but continue until the reading becomes easier. He or she will then gain an understanding of what Western Christianity used to profess (prior to 1054), and what Eastern Orthodoxy still professes to this day, since Apostolic times.

The perceptive reader will observe that footnotes are not always given for cited texts. This shortcoming could not be emended as the writer no longer has access to many of the books and periodicals whose contents went into this work. When notes were initially gleaned from reading in monasteries and parish libraries around the country, it was never imagined that they would eventually be used in a book, and as a result, oftentimes there was no documentation of sources as would be done in formal research and composing. Moreover, as this work unfolded, it was not intended for publication, and thus there was no editor in its early stages to alter, adapt, refine and otherwise make valuable suggestions in matters of format and style to make the text better suited for presentation. However, author and title are generally given so that anyone interested in acquiring the books may do so. For those with a thirst for more knowledge, most of the books can still be obtained through the catalogues of the following publishing concerns:

As noted, the updated version of this book was written for individuals of the writer's acquaintance. It is especially meant for those among them who have no knowledge of Orthodoxy's boundless wealth of divinely revealed teaching and the patristic worldview. Living in a post-Christian pseudo-culture, modern people are saturated with Hollywood's decadent false values, and saturated with images and information filtered by a radically secular media bent on programming its audience with an anti-Christian worldview. All people are constantly exposed to many dangers from Christianity's enemies, who have been promoting a systematic destruction of Christian practices, and who have now subverted the entire civilized world that was once fully Christian. It is hoped that this material can serve to antidote that pagan indoctrination, and that it can lift the reader's heart above this fallen world so as to live in expectation of the eternal kingdom.

In presenting this revised redaction to the reader, a dilemma arose as to whether or not to use "gender neutral" or "inclusive" language. This concern is common to all modern writers, given the awareness that our fallen world has dealt some very real injustices to women, and also because non-sexist language is becoming the preferred standard in the academic and intellectual world. On the other hand, inclusive language hinders clear writing and communication. It makes for clumsy, cluttered writing that draws attention to construction and hinders meaning, something that would very much work against the entire purpose of this work. Moreover, inclusive language eliminates the possibility of transparency.

To the women readers of this book, you are probably not the belching, swaggering women who demand to be on top and lord it over men, or who demand that the Christian Churches revise their doctrines according to the feminist prescription. In their act of rebellion against God, these women seek to have God and religion serve their own purposes, and they operate with the idea that human beings are free to construct their own faith. (This way of thinking shows the extent to which subjectivism and relativism have been carried in an age of doctrinal relativity). While these kinds of women are known to the author and are welcome to read these pages, most who actually read this material will be those who seek instead to be found worthy to serve God. It is for these humble women that a note is in order to explain that whenever this book speaks about God and man, the word man in this context is used in the traditional and general sense of mankind, meaning humankind, men and women.

Lest the reader dismiss the writer as an obscurantist for not using the politically correct word human, it has to be pointed out that the distinction of "exclusive" language is political, not linguistic. Fr. Patrick Reardon, a convert to Orthodoxy and a scholarly philologist, notes that in its ordinary and generally understood use among the populace at large, when the word man is not grammatically or socially contextualized, it refers to human beings generally and is not used in a sense that excludes women. Both man and human are derived from the Latin humanus, which is generic. (Fr. Patrick notes that when this fact is discovered by the faddish academic world at large, and when the offensive word man is discovered in human and humanus, academia's thought police might next insist on expunging the word human from the English language as well).

The same linguistic scholar points out that the use of man and mankind to designate human beings is completely and unequivocally proper, and he demonstrates that linguistic tradition is abundantly clear on this point. For example, all the following words normally mean human beings as such (although in some contexts they can refer to men alone): ho anthropos (Greek), ha'adam (Hebrew), nôshô (Syriac), al-insan (Arabic), chelovyek (Russian), der Mensch (German), de man (Dutch), zmogús (Lithuanian), and homo (Latin), along with its derivations in Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. Moreover, literally thousands of other examples from other languages could be given to show that this usage is a universal phenomenon, Fr. Patrick adds. As a former feminist, Sarah Cowie, who is now an Orthodox Christian, also explains, for centuries women had no trouble in seeming themselves included in the words mankind, men, man, and the masculine referent pronoun. She notes that inclusive language, which is about power and control and has the real goal of forcing social change, carries the false assumption that the present language is not inclusive.

To no one's surprise, semantic confusion in this area has been created by feminism. As this political interest group came into being against a background of mass apostasy and the complete secularization of society, it is one whose sociopolitical program should be examined.

At its inception, feminism (then called women's liberation) claimed to have as its purpose increased opportunities for women. Once its organized activities attracted people's attention through this alleged objective, this concern was quietly placed on a back burner in favor of another one — that of reducing humanity to a collection of victims of patriarchal tyranny and reducing the study of history and literature to political warfare carried on by other means.

Such a politicizing of history and literature is part of a broader deculturation that elite groups in the West are forcing onto people, a deculturation that attempts to regulate Christianity to a "regressive" mentality and that proclaims that it should not be given a public hearing. Feminism’s agenda has not only converged with this broader ideological program, but it has also pushed harder along these lines than any other single political interest group. For this reason, a growing number of women in the academic world have come to see feminism as an attack upon humanity itself, an attack on the West, and most of all, an attack upon Christianity. They also understand that in all the politically correct routine bashing of Western civilization (through which people are led to draw the unmistakable corollary conclusion that somehow Christianity is the root of all evil), the overriding concern of the cultural elite and feminists alike is to make people forget who they are and where they came from — the first necessary step in indoctrinating them for the anti-Christian "utopia," the new world order.

Fr. Patrick goes on to note that today there are entire battalions of self-appointed theorists, "experts," political agitators and other wardens of the mind who issue orders to university administrators and see to it that academic writers bring themselves into conformity with the new rules. When their demands are not complied with, writers' manuscripts are either rejected or edited, and some professors have even been denied tenure for not using the new politically correct way of thinking or writing.

Fr. Patrick examines this extensive and all-pervasive ideological control and notes that it is unparalleled in American history. Moreover, he adds, for some time now, those who promote it have even forced themselves into Church circles. There, thought police are coming to accredit a growing number of Christian seminaries, and the same orders are given to seminary administrators and bishops as are given to universities. In that environment, radical feminist thought police attempt to "re-image" God and "revise" divine revelation by modifying masculine titles through which He has traditionally been invoked or referred to: Father, Son, Lord, King, and so forth, even though Christians have always worshiped God as Father and pray to Him as "our Father." An example of this linguistic engineering is a new Methodist service book in which God is invoked by such names as "Father-Mother," in direct contradiction to what God has revealed about Himself. Another example is the Inclusive Language Lectionary of the Bible that was produced in 1983. In it, 209 passages were rewritten so that there were no masculine gender references to God. John 3:16, for instance, is rewritten in this absurd wording: "For God so loved the world that God gave God's only Child...." Feminism is also promoting a feminization of the Holy Spirit so that women can be consoled with their own divine Person.

When feminism is not always successful in turning God into "Mother," then it at least attempts to turn Him into a genderless abstraction: "the Creator," or "the Source." In its advanced stages, that is, in its anti-rational, goddess-worship modes, feminism is offering a new anti-Christian way for a new age in the new world order. Its agenda in this regard is one and the same as that of the forerunner agents of the antichrist.

Perhaps some readers of these lines have felt intimidated by the cultural tyranny, mind control and pseudo-intellectual babble coming from educators, media personalities, judges and business leaders who together shape the intellectual, political and social atmosphere of our country. Few can escape being affected in one way or another by the ideological war raging within our borders as it comes from a very well-educated, well-heeled, powerful cultural elite. For those who have felt coerced into being politically correct by their ideologically charged environment, understand that the enemies of Church and state have bullied and browbeat you into this submission in an attempt to de-Christianize you for the new world order. In order to achieve their global imperium, the globalists rely on their ability to poison people with hatred, which is the old principle of divide et impera (divide and rule). By promoting discord and dividing people against one another along as many lines as possible (gender, racial, and other lines), the masses can be turned into obedient instruments of the one-world forces in their sinister agenda. At present, their work is that of dismantling all underlying foundations of society — most of all the Christian Churches. Then, at the time the united world government is ushered in, their ultimate aim will be the total extermination of Christianity. At that time, Christians will be politically incorrect for professing Christ and for not bowing down to the modern idol of politically correct secular ideology. For these "crimes against humanity," all of them will summarily be dealt with by a world court of the new world order, or a Hague tribunal.

The world is now seething with unprecedented passions, and everyone can sense the approaching darkness. In view of these developments, the choice is now completely clear: capitulation to the politically correct mentality of the new world order that is undeniably insane and bent on the complete eradication of Christianity, or adherence to the traditional Christian worldview that is now out of fashion, "regressive." For a Christian, there can be no doubt that the time has come for there to be no further thought of being programmed like a computer into being politically correct.

Concerning men and women, an Orthodox nun observes that the separation into gender was made by God in foreknowledge of the fall of the primogenitors of the human race. This condition is temporary, something meant only for this world. The nun goes on to note that the Holy Fathers teach that the souls of men and women are the same and that they have the same spiritual capacities and capabilities and needs. Orthodoxy therefore does not denigrate or disparage — but exalts — Christian women. As a deacon goes on to note in this regard:

Likewise, as the above mentioned Sarah Cowie writes in her book More Spirited than Lions:

Regarding the women saints of the Church, the same writer notes that:

Sarah Cowie comments further on women who were Equals-of-the-Apostles, Fools-for-Christ's-Sake, holy eldresses, preachers, ascetics, abbesses, anchorites, prophetesses, queens, mothers, confessors, teachers and martyrs, noting that these saints did not find favor with God through ambition or demanding their "rights." Instead, they were given the gifts of the Holy Spirit according to their humility, and because they submitted to Christ through His Church. They were also granted unceasing noetic prayer and became miracle-workers and healers, and after their repose, their bodies remained incorrupt and gushed myrrh that healed the sick. So powerful an impact does the example of their lives have that it was able to draw Sarah Cowie and many like her out of the anarchy and hell of feminism and the New Age movement, to Orthodox Christianity, which transforms men and women and gives them the strength to live in the most difficult and tormenting conditions, and which prepares them to depart with peace into the next life.

Although women have been greatly mistreated in this sinful world, this book does not do the same through its use of traditional language. It bears emphasizing that in no way does this work overlook that half of the human race — women — to whom God Himself granted a more sensitive, keen and impressionable nature, gifted with more warmhearted tenderness than men, who are coarse by nature. Therefore, let no women be troubled by the politically incorrect word man in the text. There is no antifeminine bias in this wording, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in Orthodox Christianity.

To all readers — men and women alike — if you have studied Church history in your spiritual search but have not looked to the East, which is the very cradle of Christianity, your search is not complete. Commenting on the vision of Church history that exists in the West, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy writes that:

Many Western Christians, parched wayfarers in these dry and thirsty times, have become totally disillusioned as their Churches have joined the latest whims and infatuations of the surrounding culture in an attempt to be "relevant" and experience worldly glory. Moreover, they have come to understand that their secularized Western Churches have succumbed to Christ's three temptations in the desert instead of overcoming them, and that they belong to a Church that crucifies instead of being crucified. As one individual who became Orthodox expressed it, Western Christianity was "too outward" for him, "not inward." It was "too comfortable, having accommodated itself to the world and taken its lead from the world" [Fr. Damascene Christiansen]. As he and countless other converts to Orthodoxy have observed, the Western Churches offer only easy, trivial and shallow solutions to the deeper questions that confront all people on their journey through life. As a result, those Churches can only spread disappointment and despair to all who try to find something deeper and more essential.

Through the mercy of God, many conservative Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians are finding their way through the doors of the Ark of Salvation, the Orthodox Church, before God closes its doors forever in the final times. As the Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook reports, the Orthodox Church is the fastest growing mainline Church in North America [1995 ed., p. 275; 1996 ed., p. 298]. Likewise, an article in the April 4, 1998 edition of the Chicago Tribune noted that "within the last decade, Orthodox Christians in America have begun to welcome tens of thousands of converts, especially dissatisfied Protestant Christians." For these people, Orthodoxy's unworldliness, the beauty of its services, the longevity of its Tradition, its being the original and the one Church founded by Christ, and its holding and preserving the faith of the Apostles as a precious jewel — all these things make Orthodoxy highly attractive to these Western newcomers. Many of these inquirers are ministers or better-informed laymen, and all are sincere seekers of the truth.

Readers of this book, you of different backgrounds and concerns, you have all been disappointed by humanistic systems and strange ideas that you have picked up along the way in seeking something true to fill your soul. All of you have had negative experiences and great spiritual suffering in this neo-pagan society of our times. You look to Christianity for a knowledge of the true God, the uncreated Consubstantial Trinity and Source of all good, so that you can rightly believe in Him and worthily honor Him. You have had some positive experiences in the Western Churches (for in them the Gospel is proclaimed), yet you have also had to feel the spiritual bankruptcy that exists in the subjective, make-it-up-as-you-go-along denominations that are forever changing, that are constantly seeking to develop new theological ideas, new truths, and new understandings, and where religion is anything its adherents want it to be.

This study is for such people as yourselves, for it offers an initial glimpse of true historical Christianity that never changes (something you did not know exists), and it contrasts that purest form of Christianity with the great distortions of it that have come down in the West. "As far as the East is from the West" (Psalm 103:12), so far is the Truth of Eastern Orthodox Christianity from the contradictory teachings of the 23,000 Western denominations. Once you come to see what those differences are about, you will never view things the same again.

These pages invite you to look to the East, to Eastern Orthodoxy, for the Orthodox Church is the sole grace-giving Church. As one writer reflects, its altar is undefiled, its doctrine is pure, its Mysteries (Sacraments) are full of grace and holy, and its Sacred Apostolic Tradition has been preserved. It is in this ancient Church that by God's grace, one's salvation from this life of perdition is accomplished.

Pascha of 2003

The question refers to the historic Church that Christ and His Apostles established on earth, the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church, which comes down in a straight succession without change from the age of the Apostles. The Orthodox Church has retained the continuity and purity of ancient Christian teaching, and it is the carrier of the fullest, most accurate, authentic, ancient and historic Christian tradition, one that dates to the earliest Christian times. Even the most polemic Westerners acknowledge that Orthodoxy's tradition is the oldest in Christendom. Orthodox Christianity has the "fullness of faith delivered once and for all to the saints" (Jude 1:3), and it is the repository of "all that the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved," as St. Athanasius the Great (+373) expressed it. From the beginning of the world, there was one faith only, and one Saviour and Redeemer. The Orthodox Christian faith is but the original and Old Testament faith made complete and clear.

Many Western Christians have come to realize that the Orthodox Church is the very continuation of the ancient Church in modern times. Two Americans who converted to Orthodoxy, for example, observe that:

Concerning the 23,000 Western Churches (which are not the direct concern of this work, but which will still be examined), these are part of a larger body of groups that broke away from Orthodoxy since the time of the primitive Church, in accordance with the Apostle Paul's words that "there must also be heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest" (1 Cor 11:19). As St. Justin (Popovich) of Chelije (+1979) writes in this regard, from time to time, many individuals

As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky goes on to add:

Here it is important to note that Orthodoxy does not belittle those who have separated from it. A Greek hierarch explains that St. Maximus the Confessor (+662), while expressing absolute disdain for false teachings and those things which defile the faith, nevertheless dismissed as abhorrent any harm directed against those who hold false beliefs themselves. He clearly separated false beliefs from the people who held them. In the same way, Orthodoxy abhors intolerance, condemnation, and the dismissal of the worth of any human being. While Orthodoxy condemns false beliefs that threaten it, it does not condemn those who are misled by falsehood. The devil is the source of evil doctrine, and Orthodoxy condemns him and his minions and the poison they spread. However, the bishop concludes, those who are poisoned by the devil by holding false beliefs are not his, but are creatures of God, suffering from the deadly, soul-destroying jealousy of the devil.

The full circle concept in the question refers to the complete cycle that the Orthodox Church has gone through over the course of two thousand years. True to Christ's words that His followers would be hated by the world (cf. Jn 15:18-20, Mk 13:13, Mt 5:11, Lk 6:22-23, Mt 24:9-13), virtually all major persecutions for the Christian faith have fallen upon ancient Orthodox Christianity.

Many in Israel chose not to follow Christ, and as a result, the torch of faithfulness to Christ largely passed to the Gentiles, former pagans, as the Prophet Isaiah had foretold some seven hundred years earlier (Is 2:2,60:3,5). Christianity then began to spread with miraculous speed from Jerusalem, through the Levant and the Roman Empire and beyond, and it continued to make inroads among the pagans.

As the prince of this world, Satan, reigned in paganism, which was a kingdom of sin, he inevitably sensed a destructive force for him in Christianity. Having at his disposal the full political force of the pagan world, his immediate reaction was to promote a bloody and total annihilation of the Church. For three centuries, Christian blood was spilt throughout the lands of the entire Roman Empire, although the remarkable steadfastness and self-sacrifice of the Christian martyrs proved to be the best witness of their faith. The pagans were awestruck by this witness, and they themselves converted and began to fill the ranks of the martyrs of the persecuted faith. Thus, the blood of the Christian martyrs became the seeds or Christianity, and persecution could not halt its spread.

Although the author of the textbook for this course states that the Roman Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity brought an end to the age of martyrs, this assertion is not in fact so, and one can only conclude that he is simply not completely well grounded in Church history to make so elementary an error of fact. Constantine’s conversion did end the initial age of the catacombs and produced the Christian Roman Empire (or Byzantine Empire, as Western historians named it), during which time the Orthodox Church produced the Liturgy, the Creed, the Bible, monasticism, and the whole Christian lifestyle with its elevated ideals and holiness that are totally alien to the corrupt world.

Even so, the age of martyrs continued. As Archpriest Alexey Young notes in this regard, Orthodox Christianity has lived for two thousand years on the edge of eternity. It has been faced time and again with virtual extermination by different conquerors, persecutors and heretical movements, nourished even in our times by the blood of countless martyrs. Orthodoxy has always passed through the ages persecuted, wounded and bloody, like its Divine Founder. The same writer continues, noting that true to Christ's promise, however, the gates of hell never prevailed against His Church (Mt 16:18). Despite all possible persecution by the mighty of this world, Orthodoxy has not been vanquished, but it has always survived victorious. To this day it still survives intact and gloriously pure, its gaze steadily focused on the end of the ages and the Second Coming of Christ.

Beginning in the seventh century, the rise of Islam came about with astonishing speed, taking Syria, Palestine, Egypt and northern Africa, and Spain. Later, starting in the fourteenth century, the Ottoman Turkish Sultanate began to conquer the Balkans, anterior Asia and northern Africa, beginning a domination that would continue until the early part of the twentieth century.

A Greek hierarch explains that in essence, Islam is a Christian heresy, having its historical roots in the very areas inhabited and sanctified by the ancient Desert Fathers. He mentions that it took from Christianity not only the dress of its clergy, but the model for the minaret (the towers on top of which the stylites lived and practiced their ascesis), the practice of making full prostrations during prayer, and other things as well. (Even the practice of removing their shoes in prayer when entering a mosque is of Christian origin. In early times, this practice was observed in Christianity, just as priests removed their shoes when entering the altar). It is also a well-known fact that Mohammed was educated by a Jewish relative Varakh, who taught him the Old Testament and instilled in him a hatred of Christianity — a hatred that was transmitted straight into the Koran.

It is the duty of Islam and of each individual Moslem to convert every person to the Islamic religion, and by whatever means necessary, including swordpoint. This policy is fundamental for Islam's teaching (and it was likewise adopted by Roman Catholicism after its apostasy and schism in 1054, in complete contradiction to the teaching of the Gospel). Moreover, in the event attempts at conversion fail, the ultimate aim of Islam is the extermination of every "infidel" from the face of the earth.

Under the Moslems, Christians were once again forced to enter the catacombs, as it were, to live in constant expectation of violence, horrendous torture and death (things the West is only beginning to understand in light of the recent growth of Islamic fundamentalism and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States). For 400 years in Greece and 500 years in Serbia and other parts of the Balkans, entire villages of Christians — men, women and children — were impaled on thousands of stakes planted along the sides of roads. This situation of living in a sea of violence continues unabated even to this day among those Christians witnessing a recrudescence of warlike fanaticism on the part of the Moslems.

Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church, ever since its departure from the ancient Apostolic Church in 1054, has acted with all possible malice in its attempts to destroy Christ's Church. Writing of the Latin Church's numerous inquisitions and mass murders of the Orthodox (something that continues to these times), St. John of Kronstadt (+1908), a contemporary of the last Russian Tsar, stated:

Prior to the year 1054, the Roman Church was united to the Eastern Orthodox Church; both were a part of the ancient Apostolic Church of Christ. Orthodox Christianity is indigenous to all the West, as well as the East, having come to Italy, Gaul, Scandinavia, Ireland and the entire West long before the East-West schism of 1054. There was only one Christendom (something which has survived down to our own days in the form of the Orthodox Church, which is the only true continuation of the early undivided Church). For one thousand years, the Christian Church — both East and West — lived together in harmony and essential oneness, and its bishops governed the Church as equals. In addition, the bishop of Rome held a position as patriarch of the West, whose authority consisted of jurisdiction over all the bishops in his metropolitan see, just as the patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and elsewhere, oversaw the bishops of their respective sees. (A see is the territory of a bishop's jurisdiction). All bishops in Christendom were regarded as equal, and none was seen as an episcopus episcoporum, a "bishop of bishops." This same understanding has been maintained to this day in Orthodoxy. Certain of its bishops — patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops — enjoy special status among other bishops, but they are not above them.

Beginning in the ninth century, East and West began to drift apart when the bishop of Rome, or pope, began to introduce new and foreign ideas into the faith. (The words pope and patriarch were commonly used in the early Church to refer to the bishops of important historical sees. Pope was not a designation reserved only for Rome's bishop, contrary to what many today erroneously think). One of the false ideas was that of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome over the bishops of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, and over all other bishops, of whom there were hundreds by that time. Protopriest Victor Potapov notes that under the influence of national traditions that were bound up with the might of ancient Rome, the Romans came to think that mighty Rome should have the same significance in Church affairs as it had in affairs of state. Especially powerful in the Roman mindset was the idea of the monarchical absolutism of the Roman emperors, which went so far as proclaiming them gods. The idea of unlimited supremacy in one person over the whole world became an ecclesiastical idea in the West, and it came to be transferred from the emperor to the Roman pope. Even the title Pontifex Maximus that the Roman emperors bore was taken over by the popes. Thus, Fr. Victor notes, a striving for self-exaltation and domination over the Church overtook the Roman popes, and in this striving, Rome entered the path of error. As Fr. Theodore Pulcini, a convert from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy, goes on to point out, "The division between the Eastern and Western Churches was not the result of Orthodoxy's stubborn refusal to recognize papal authority, but of Roman Catholicism's unjustifiable claims." [Orthodoxy and Catholicism: What are the Differences? pp. 8-9].

Concerning the role that the Apostle Peter played in Rome, Scripture is silent. However, Fr. Raymond Brown, a Roman Catholic priest and Church historian, makes the following noteworthy observations:

As D.W. O’Conner also writes concerning this matter:

Harvard-educated and twice Fulbright scholar Dr. Constantine Cavarnos sums up this uncertainty of Catholic scholars in his notation that the Roman Catholic Church defined its founder to be the Apostle Peter. This claim was made not because Peter had in fact founded the Church of Rome, but because the Latin Church wanted to exploit certain passages in the Gospels where the Apostle Peter is mentioned, and wanted to base the dogma of papal primacy on those passages.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, it was the Apostle Paul who first taught Christianity in Rome. However, neither St. Paul, the actual founder of the Church of Rome, nor St. Peter (perhaps the co-founder) ever held any actual primacy in the Church, nor did any city. (In the matter of Peter's being the co-founder of the Church of Rome, the authorities differ, although had Peter truly been the first bishop of Rome, it is inconceivable that Paul would have ignored his presence — cf. Rom 15:20). The notion of papal primacy is ludicrous to Eastern Christians, for Christian primacy rests squarely on the Divinity of Christ. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains:

As another writer also noted, the "Vicars of Christ on Earth," with their pretensions not only to spiritual, but also to temporal authority, were representatives of spiritual pride. No greater spiritual pride can be imagined than the conviction of one's own infallibility.

St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), himself a bishop and one of the most authoritative of the early Church Fathers — and also regarded as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church — spoke about the authority of bishops in the following way:

Knowing that Rome's novel teaching of a supreme ruler with primacy of jurisdiction would divide and corrupt the Church, the Eastern patriarchs pleaded with the Roman patriarch not to introduce this false teaching. Another innovation that Rome began to introduce was its changing the Nicene Creed that had been established by the early Church. Based on Holy Scriptures and the truths that the Church has always held since the time of the Apostles, this Creed is a summary of the beliefs of the Christian Church. The Eastern Church warned the Church in the West of the dangers of changing any part of the Christian faith, and especially the very Creed itself. However, Rome insisted on its innovations, even though the believers resisted.

During these difficult times, many attempts were made to work out the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches, and all of Christendom tried to call Rome back to the orthodox understanding of Christianity. In the end, though, the Orthodox Church could not compromise and allow the faith to be changed and corrupted, and for its part, Rome had already made its decision to part ways and would not come back. In 1054, the Roman Church officially severed itself from the ancient sees of the Christian Church, including the Mother Church, the first Church of Christendom — Jerusalem, and from the Church where Christians were first known by that name — Antioch (Acts 11:26), and from the rest of the Christian Church. As Thomas Hulbert, a Dutch convert to Orthodoxy notes, the Great Schism of 1054 proved to be a heavy curtain dividing Christianity: it cut the West off from the right doctrines and the right faith preserved in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Like the non-Chalcedonians before him, the pope precipitated another schism, and like them, he estranged himself and his followers from the Church. In the Great Schism of 1054, one of the Churches — and only one — Rome, separated itself from the ancient Churches which had been preserved in the East since the time of the Apostles. Concerning Rome's schism, the Roman Catholic writer, former Jesuit priest and insider at the Vatican, Malachi Martin, writes that the Latin Church was

In the aftermath of this devastating schism, the West experienced tremendous turmoil and corruption. The Crusades were undertaken, which evolved into an attack upon the Eastern Church. Later came the Inquisition, then the Renaissance, which mixed pagan ideas with Christianity, and finally the Protestant Reformation, which splintered Western Christianity into thousands of denominations.

Having succumbed to one of the temptations put to Christ by Satan in the wilderness, that of worldly domination, and severed at that juncture from the true doctrine of the East and the grace of the Holy Spirit, Rome stopped looking to the Church as something otherworldly which pointed believers to Heaven. Instead, it became this-worldly and pointed them to the earthly organization, thus beginning "organized religion." Now regarding the authority of the Roman Caesars as their own prerogative, the popes seized power in the temporal sphere and asserted an absolute authority and universal domination over all mankind.

Carrying one step further the ambition of supreme worldly power that the power-hungry popes arrogated to themselves, the infamous Jesuit order, the shock troops for Rome, promulgated the slogan that the end justifies the means. Translated into action, this principle meant that whenever Rome's bloodthirsty Uniate movement could not persuade Orthodox Christians to become Uniate Catholics under Rome through words, the Latin Church was then justified in using force and murder, for "error has no rights," Rome believes, and is therefore subject to "control" by decree and deed. One such decree, the Syllabus of Errors propagated by Pope Pius IX in 1864, demands that the "Roman Church be regarded as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other religions" (#77). This same decree, which is listed in the Catholic Dictionary as being the official teaching of the faith, has never been retracted or disowned by the Latin Church, although its contents have been closeted. In another place, the decree proclaims that the Roman Catholic Church has "the power to employ force, or any temporal power, direct or indirect," when dealing with persons dangerous to it (#24), and it claims that it is pernicious to deny that the Church has "immunity from civil law or its penalties" (#37). The textbook for this course notes that the tale of the Uniate movement in Poland makes sorrowful reading: the Jesuits began by using deceit and ended by resorting to violence.

After its separation from Orthodoxy, the Latin Church promoted countless murderous inquisitions in Eastern Europe. As a Greek monk notes, Rome conducted these genocides through the same Unia, the papacy's most effective siege engine, which operates as the janissaries of the papacy, with all the fanaticism of the janissaries, against Orthodoxy. Among the many inquisitions in the twentieth century, one took place in World War II Poland, where the Latins murdered 800,000 Orthodox. At the same time and at the direction of the same black hand, in Croatia, Catholic killer clergy (most notably the Franciscans) and killer police massacred 750,000 Orthodox for their refusal to renounce Orthodoxy and embrace Roman Catholicism, although not before submitting them to infinitely gruesome tortures, no doubt the worst recorded in the annals of history. One of the members of the evil coven of sadistic clergy assassins openly boasted that he alone had killed 40,000 of the Orthodox. As Alexei Khomiakov perceptibly noted, the ancestors of Roman Catholics who long ago committed moral fratricide by unilaterally changing the Church's Creed invariably would resort to physical fratricide. Such they did, and well did St. Nikolai Velimirovich (+1956) call the Latin Church a semi-military organization that has used all means to gain world domination.

By far the most virulent and deadly form of anti-Christianity the world has so far witnessed is the end-times phenomenon of Communism, an outburst of primordial satanism that was created and financed in the West, and that was unleashed upon Russia by Western capitalism as an experiment for the one-world government of the antichrist. Because of that great cataclysm, far more Christians have lost their lives for their Orthodox faith in the tragic, pre-apocalyptic twentieth century than in the three hundred years following Christ's Crucifixion.

Communism is part of the "mystery of iniquity" (2 Thes 2:7, Apoc 17:5), that is, Satan's plan of battle with Christ's Church. Archpriest Boris Molchanoff explains that this process has been in motion for ages and that it will reach its culmination at the appearance of the antichrist (2 Thes 2:8).

Writing of a "force that withholdeth" the mystery of iniquity (2 Thes 2:6), the Apostle Paul states that this force will be "taken out of the way" (2 Thes 2:7). As the meaning of the withholding power in this passage is not obvious, Fr. Paul Volmensky provides the following explanation:

Concerning these two parts of the withholding force — the role of the Holy Spirit and that of Roman authority, comment is needed on both. The same Fr. Paul explains the Holy Spirit's role by noting:

Archimandrite Panteleimon (+1984), a co-founder of the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York, provides a well developed and detailed analysis of the other factor that withholds — that is, the Roman authority. He writes:

Analyzing further the term what withholdeth, Fr. Paul adds that:

In these pre-apocalyptic times, the significance of the removal of the withholding power cannot be overemphasized. It is therefore important to examine this matter even further, and Fr. Michael Azkoul does so with careful and elaborate detail. In his booklet Sacred Monarchy and the Modern Secular State, Fr. Michael explains that Communism put an end to the four great empires that were to rule upon earth, as foretold by the Prophet Daniel. According to this prophecy, these four empires were the Egyptian, the Persian, the Greek and the Roman, after which would come the end times.

The same writer goes on to note that the Roman Empire was both pagan (inaugurated by Augustus Caesar) and Christian (inaugurated by Constantine the Great). The Christian Roman Empire had two phases as well: the Byzantine Greek and the Russian. As Schema-Archimandrite Damian of the Ascension Monastery in Resaca, Georgia adds, from Constantine to the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the mantle of "Protector of the Church" fell upon the shoulders of the Roman authority, then resident in Constantinople, the Second Rome. With the fall of Constantinople, this mantle fell to the lineage of the Russian Tsars to protect and preserve the well-being of the Church. Thus, Tsar Nicholas II and his predecessors, having received autocratic authority from Byzantium, were successors to Constantine and those Greek (or Byzantine) emperors who followed him. Such was God's providential means of establishing the Orthodox Christian Church in the world.

Continuing, Fr. Michael explains that the Russian Empire, the last phase of the Roman Imperium, successor to Byzantium or Christian Rome, was the last Christian society, and Tsar Nicholas II was the last Christian emperor, as true kingship depends upon the true faith. Thus, none of the heretical societies of the post-Orthodox West can be spoken of as a societas Christiana. Fr. Michael also states that there has never been a monarch in the post-schism West "by the grace of God." (One can observe a striking example of this principle in the so-called Holy Roman Empire. Historians note that this empire was not holy but was very secular. As an Orthodox historian notes in this regard, the Holy Roman Empire was conceived in heresy, born in schism, and maintained in existence in order to bolster the power of the heretical popes against the Orthodox Church). Unlike the monarchies and kingdoms of apostate Western Europe, the Russian monarchy maintained the true faith as given by the Holy Apostles and kept in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The Russian Tsar played a decisive role in restraining the approach of the satanic powers. Western Europe was well aware of the might of its Orthodox Christian neighbor in maintaining peace, and the title the Peacemaker was ascribed to Tsar Alexander III not by the Russians, but by the West. Likewise, after the destruction of Russia by Communism, one authoritative Western historian, Professor G. Ferrero of the Roman National University, wrote that:

As the devil recognized that the Russian monarchy interfered with his attempts to possess the whole world, it was necessary to destroy that authority. Archbishop Averky (+1976) of Jordanville explains that the murder of the Royal House of Russia was not a political act, but rather purely spiritual, one closely bound up with the battle against God and faith. He states:

It is for the foregoing reasons that the Russian Fathers of the Church view the Russian monarchy as the withholding power. Moreover, as Fr. Michael explains, the murder of the last Tsar brought about the extinction of the Age of Constantine and the end to God's plans concerning world empires. With the disappearance of Christian Rome, that which restrained world revolution, world atheism, anarchy and apostasy is no more, and Satan works unbridled and performs his dark schemes on a world scale. No longer is there any earthly authority to hinder him. 1918, the year Russia's royal family was killed, is a watershed year in human history, for it ushered in the pre-apocalyptic epoch through which we are currently living.

The seer of mysteries, St. John the Theologian, describes these end-times events in terms of Satan's being set free from his temporary bondage, or thousand-year bondage, as he allegorically calls it in Revelation 20:1-2. This thousand-year bondage is another important matter to examine, given its significant connection to contemporary history. Some modern sectarians have misinterpreted the Evangelist John's words. These new teachers, rehashing the ancient heresy of Chiliasm, maintain that before the end of the world, Christ will come to earth again to overthrow the antichrist, to resurrect the righteous, and to establish a new kingdom on earth in which the righteous will reign together with Him for a thousand years.

This incorrect interpretation is an exact repetition of the heretic Apollinarius' false teaching, which was condemned by the Universal Church at the Second Ecumenical Council (381). Importantly, it was in response to this ancient heresy that this Council introduced into the very Symbol of Faith (the Creed) these words concerning Christ: "and His kingdom will have no end." Thus, it was no longer permissible for an Orthodox Christian to hold chiliastic ideas as private opinions after an Ecumenical Council expressed its judgment on the matter.

Given these things, it can be asked just what does the thousand-year bondage mean? Archbishop Averky of Jordanville and Hieromonk Seraphim Rose comment on this term in their book The Apocalypse and the Teachings of Ancient Christianity (pp. 253-54). St. Andrew of Caesarea, they explain, interprets the thousand-year bondage as the time "from the Incarnation of Christ to the coming of the antichrist." During that time, Satan was bound, paganism was cast down, and there came upon earth the thousand-year reign of Christ. The authors go on to explain that the definite number one thousand is used in place of an indefinite number, signifying the long period until the Second Coming of Christ.

Moreover, as the editor notes in Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (pp. 344-45), Blessed Augustine of Hippo connects the "binding" of the devil for a thousand years (Apoc. 20:2) with the "binding" of the "strong man" in Mark 3:27 (see also Christ's words in John 12:31, that "now shall the prince of this world be cast out"). Blessed Augustine also states that "the binding of the devil is his being prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men." Thus, the thousand years (the whole period) of Christ's reign with His saints and the limited power of the devil is the victory of Christ over paganism and the establishment on earth of the Church of Christ, and that time is now.

It is also of importance to note that a related error to the resuscitated heresy of Chiliasm is the "rapture." This false teaching, a misinterpretation of 1 Thes 4:17, claims that Christians will be enraptured from the earth and caught up in the clouds seven years before the Second Coming of Christ. This teaching is Protestantism's false hope to avoid suffering since its theology does not give a way to deal with it. However, in contrast to its idea of a non-suffering Church stands the witness of the martyric deaths of millions of Orthodox Christians, not only in the early Church, but also during the Arian controversy, the Iconoclastic struggle, the Moslem yoke and the Uniate persecutions, and most especially when Communism ravaged nearly the whole of the Orthodox world during the last century.

The rapture teaching is false because it is refuted by Scripture, which makes it entirely clear that the elect will suffer on earth during the reign of the antichrist and that for their sake that period will be shortened (cf. Mt 24:21-22). (This point is very important and must be emphasized particularly, inasmuch as the acceptance of the false teachings of Chiliasm and the rapture can lead people to the erroneous expectation that they will be taken from the face of the earth when the antichrist makes his appearance. In such a state of complacency, many people will not recognize him and will end up accepting him, thereby losing their souls).

Even as the political structure of a united world government is being planned (it will claim to be the revitalized Roman Empire), so too is a single-world religion to emerge. This religion is being formed by the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, which created ecumenism, a new heresy in the Church. Like the religion of the pagan Roman Empire, which was syncretic in its borrowing from various pagan religions in the ancient world, the religion of the one-world government will also be syncretic in its supposedly being based on the best principles of many religions. Under the guise of a "reconciliation" of faiths, ecumenism equates truth with falsehood and promotes a future ecumenical "church" that will unify all existing creeds, even though such a unification entails a relativization of God's Truth. As a Greek bishop notes, by bringing together all the world religions, ecumenism, rather than combining all the partial truths that various religions supposedly contain, may combine all the falsehoods that they embrace, thus creating a one-world religion that embraces all evil.

In the past, when Satan was unsuccessful in bringing about the complete physical destruction of Christ's Church through persecution, he turned to a different tactic: heresies. As can be observed in history, Satan used heresies to attack Christian truths in almost the same identical order in which they are listed in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, the Church's Creed. Now, through the heresy of ecumenism, the devil's final onslaught against these truths is taking place, and this time the attack is against the words: "I believe in... One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." By means of such an attack upon the Creed, upon the Holy Apostles, and upon the Ecumenical Councils, Satan denies the truth that the Saviour founded only one true Church on earth. Through ecumenism, Satan denies Holy Scriptures, which teach that there is "one Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (Eph 4:5), one Holy Tradition (cf. 2 Thes 2:15), and one Christian Church founded by Christ (cf. Mt 16:18).

Hieromonk Sava Yanjíc expends further on this end-times heresy, stating that the worldwide ecumenical apostasy is spreading on all levels. Everything possible is being done, he states, in order to establish an anti-church, a "reborn Christianity." Dogmas are being revised, Church history is being rewritten, and there is an intense secularization and modernization of spiritual life. Fr. Sava goes on to liken today's ecumenism to a Pandora's box from which hundreds of ancient heresies are breaking loose. Archbishop Averky adds:

(Here the archbishop is referring to the fact that very few heresies since the time of the early Church have been original, and that most have been rehashes of ancient follies. Monophysitism of the fifth century, for example, contributed to the Monothelitism of the seventh century, and to the syncretism and outgrowth of some of the contemporary heresies of the present time. Another example is the ancient Arian heresy, which surfaced in our times as the Jehovah’s Witnesses).

As the panheresy of ecumenism gains more and more momentum and increased support from world governments, and as it comes to regard itself as an ecumenical "super-church," its infinite hatred of Christ and Orthodox Christianity is becoming increasingly apparent. Once the ecumenical movement's man-made religion (or, more precisely, its devil-made religion) is installed as the official state religion under the antichrist, most established Church institutions will be drawn into this worldwide "church." Orthodox Christianity will then become a religio illicita, even as it was in the days of the pagan Roman Empire. As the same Fr. Sava notes concerning the times that are approaching, Orthodox Christians will once again be persecuted, just as in Roman and Soviet times. He further notes that:

As Archpriest Boris Molchanoff also notes concerning the final times:

To reiterate and summarize, the full circle concept refers to the historical development that began with Christ's Church being poor and persecuted, after which it became the religion of the Christian Roman Empire, only to end up once again in its final state in a catacomb existence. It bears repeating that the idea is not entirely accurate inasmuch as there have been constant and dreadful persecutions against the Church throughout the centuries. However, given the apocalyptic nature of Communism and its satanic hatred of Orthodox Christianity, the full circle idea is still significant. Whereas Communism impinged only upon the periphery of the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds, eighty-five percent of Orthodox Christians came to be enslaved in Communist totalitarian police states that sought the complete destruction of Christ's Church and all Orthodox Christians. Indeed, it was for that very reason Communism was invented and forced upon the Eastern Orthodox Christian world by the totally secularized and apostate West. The West's support of the Soviet revolution is now a well-known fact.

In the present calm before the storm of the one-world government, even though the atheistic Soviet regime of the past no longer exists, recycled Communist leaders continue to meddle in Church affairs by appointing sycophantic hierarchs (often secret police in cassocks) who traffic in the evil ecumenical movement and who see to the persecution of those Christians who do not go along with their apostasy. It is the intent of these bishops to bring the various local Orthodox Churches over which they preside into the embrace of the one-world "church" of the antichrist. Thus, ecumenism is upheld and is emanating from many of "those who appear to be the protectors and leaders of the Church." With this development, that portion of the Church that has not capitulated to the ecumenist heresy has largely returned to the catacombs, thus presaging the end-times events that are foretold in the Apocalypse, that is, the Revelation of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, whose book concludes the New Testament. As the textbook for this course states, "Christians today stand far closer to the early Church than their grandparents did." It also notes that "Christianity began as a religion of a small minority existing in a predominantly non-Christian society, and such it is becoming once more." In this sense, the Church has indeed come a full circle.

In spite of all the persecution of Christianity (including that which is to come), true to Christ's promise, the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18), for "the foundation of God standeth sure" (2 Tim 2:19). As the New-Martyr Tikhon (+1925), Patriarch of All Russia, wrote in this regard, Christ's Church is "a kingdom not of this world, a kingdom that has no worldly means at its disposal, no earthly enticements; a kingdom that is despised, persecuted, powerless." He added that the Church "has not only not perished in this world, but has grown and conquered the world." And he concluded, "In spite of all manner of coercion, attacks and opposition, the Orthodox Church has preserved the faith of Christ as a priceless treasure, in its original purity and entirety, unharmed, so that our faith is the faith of the Apostles, the faith of the Fathers, the Orthodox faith."

2. What Scripture describes the beginning of the history of the New Testament Church?

The history of the New Testament Church begins at Pentecost (circa 33 AD), with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos makes the important notation that Pentecost is the birthday of the Church from the point of view that it was then that the Church became the Body of Christ, that Pentecost was when the Church acquired substance. He goes further into the matter, though, and points out that the beginning and existence of the Church is actually found in the time before Pentecost.

The metropolitan notes that it is the teaching of the Holy Fathers that with the creation of the angels, there is the emergence of the first Church, for the angels too are members of the Church. God is the Creator of "all things visible and invisible," and among the invisible are listed the angels, who sing in praise of God. This witness is preserved in the book of Job, which states: "When the stars were born, all the angels in a loud voice sang in praise of Me" (Job 38:7). The fact that angels are members of the Church is also witnessed by the saints, many of whom saw angels worshiping with them at the Divine Liturgy.

Archimandrite Panteleimon of Jordanville goes on to explain that the name of the Church of Christ is used in two ways. In the narrower sense, he states, it is composed strictly of people professing the faith of Christ, whether they live on earth or have already parted into the future life. Those living on earth compose the kingdom of grace, the earthly or militant Church, while those departed compose the heavenly or triumphant Church. Fr. Panteleimon continues, saying that in a more general or inclusive sense, however, the Church is a society of all free, intelligent beings, both angels and people, who believe in Christ the Saviour and are united to Him as the Church's one Head. The Apostle Paul understands the Church in this way when he instructs that God has ordained the union of all things in Heaven and on earth under Christ the Head and placed Him as the Head of the Church (Eph 1:10,23; Col 1:18). The angels believe in Christ as the true God-Man. They also serve as His ministers in establishing the Church on earth, and they are sent by Him to assist every man in inheriting salvation (Heb 1:14).

Thus it can be said that the history of the Church dates to the creation of angels and the creation of men, that it continues in the Old Testament, and that with the Incarnation of God the Word, the Church becomes the Body of Christ. One can speak of the Church in this sense.

Dr. Ivan Andreyev adds the following substantive explanation concerning the relation between the Old and New Testament periods of the Church:

3. Which book contains the first survey of history in the New Testament Church?

This survey is found in the Acts of the Apostles.

4. Who was the author of this book?

The Holy Evangelist Luke, a physician who was chosen to be one of the seventy disciples, wrote the Acts. This same disciple wrote his Gospel fifteen years after Christ's Ascension.

5. At what level does the Church exist in all its fullness?

The Church exists in all its fullness in each local community gathered around its bishop as it celebrates the Holy Eucharist Sunday by Sunday.

6. What early Christian writer clearly expresses this concept in seven short letters?

This concept was expressed by an Apostolic Father, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Bishop-Martyr of Antioch (+107), who was the child whom the Lord took into His arms (Mt 18, Mk 9). He proclaimed the Gospel in Antioch and became the bishop of that city after the Apostle Peter. While on his way to his martyrdom in Rome (he was fed to the lions), he wrote seven epistles to Christian communities and to another Apostolic Father, St. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian and bishop of Smyrna (+156). These epistles contain a wealth of information on early Church dogma, organization, the Divine Liturgy, and the readiness for martyrdom.

7. By what term does St. Ignatius of Antioch refer to the Holy Mysteries?

The hieromartyr refers to the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) as "the medicine of immortality."

8. What is meant by referring to the Church as a Eucharistic Society?

St. Ignatius saw the Church in both its hierarchical and sacramental aspects, and he laid special stress on the place of the bishop in the Church, and upon the bishop's primary and distinctive task of celebrating the Holy Eucharist. For Ignatius, the Church was primarily a Eucharistic Society — that is, one which realizes its proper function when celebrating and receiving the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments). He emphasized that the Eucharist is something that can happen only locally in each individual community gathered around its bishop, and that the whole Christ is present at each individual Eucharist celebration. Thus the Church exists in all its fullness in each local community in the celebration of the Eucharist.

St. Ignatius’ teaching occupies a permanent place in the tradition of the Church. Orthodoxy views the Church foremost as a Eucharist Society, for the Body and Blood of Christ are the inner life and soul of the Orthodox Church, and they are the heart and center of all Church life. The Church's lifeblood flows from the Eucharist that is celebrated at every Liturgy. To partake of this Mystery is the most important act of worship in the Orthodox Church, and to be united with it is to be united with the Head and Founder of the Church, Jesus Christ. Without Christ's divine presence in this Mystery, the Church could not achieve its earthly mission. It is in the Eucharist that the Orthodox Church has the living presence of God.

Moreover, Orthodoxy emphasizes the importance of the local community in the Church, something obvious to anyone who observes a Pontifical Liturgy in which the bishop is in the center of the Church, surrounded by his flock. To this day, Orthodoxy still retains the catholicity of the early Church, where the focus of unity is the bishop.

Concerning the word Mysteries (Greek Mysteria) that often comes up in this book, it is generally used in the Orthodox East for Sacraments. The word Sacraments (Latin Sacramenta) is the term used in the Latin West. Since the latter term originated when Rome was still fully united with Orthodoxy — that is, before the Great Schism of 1054, there is nothing wrong with its usage, especially since few Westerners are familiar with the word Mysteries. However, among themselves, Orthodox tend to use the latter word.

The hierarchical rank is the highest rank in the Church. Thus, Orthodox bishops, like their predecessors, the Apostles, occupy the visible center of Church life. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that Christ called the Apostles to the highest ministry in the Church, and that the Apostles in turn named bishops as their immediate successors and continuers. As another writer adds in this connection, after Judas turned traitor, Peter, applying Psalm 109:8, declared, "his bishopric let another take" (Acts 1:20; emphasis added).

Although Apostolic Succession was severed in the West as of Rome's apostasy in 1054, it continued in the East. The Orthodox Church is the only Church in Christendom that has to this day an uninterrupted succession of bishops going back to the Apostles.

10. If each bishop and his diocese (eparchy) can be said to contain the fullness of Church life, why is it that only the entire body of the Orthodox faithful is referred to as the Church?

The student does not imagine that he "knows better" than the professor of this course, nor does he presume to consider himself an expert on Orthodoxy. All he can do is rely on the various books that teach of it. These in turn show that, on the basis of Scripture, the above assertion that "only the entire body of Orthodox faithful is referred to the Church" is not tenable.

One eminent authority, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, points out that the members of one's family comprise a house Church. This term was used by the Apostle Paul when referring to the gathering of the members of a family and friends which took place during the early years of Christianity, when Christians did not have their own church buildings in which to pray (cf. Rom. 16:5-6, et al.).

The word Church is ekklesia in Greek, which means to gather, to gather together, to call, to call out, or to call together. Thus, Church means a gathering of people, a congregation. The same Fr. Michael adds that:

In no place does Fr. Michael indicate that it is incorrect to use the word in a narrow sense (that is, with regard to a family or individual community). In fact, both he and the Apostle Paul himself variously use the word in both the narrow and the broad sense.

The word Church is always used in reference to the four ancient Patriarchates, to the eleven other autocephalous Churches (including Sinai), and also when referring to the several autonomous Churches (including China, Japan and Finland). In addition to these independent local Churches, however, the Church has a wider unity. The Church Father Cyprian, Bishop-Martyr of Carthage (+258), describes how all bishops share in the one episcopate, yet share it in such a manner that each possesses the whole rather than just a part. St. Cyprian writes:

There are many episcopi but only one episcopate. There are also many local Churches, yet Orthodoxy is something more than a group of local bodies that share a unity of faith and full agreement with the rest on all matters of doctrine: it is nothing less than the Church of Christ on earth. It is this wider unity of all Orthodox faithful into the Body of Christ that is also called the Church.

11. What is meant by calling the Church conciliar?

The word conciliar means "of, relating to, or generated by a council" (American Heritage Dictionary). Calling the Church conciliar underscores the great importance of the Church's Councils. Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires and South America of the Russian Church in Exile goes on to explain conciliarism as that special state in which bishops decide Church matters, first having prayed and implored the grace of the Holy Spirit. The same bishop adds that through the enlightenment and grace that overshadow bishops gathered in Councils, the most complicated questions are resolved and decisions are made which benefit the Church.

In the time of the Apostles, misunderstandings arose in Antioch regarding the applicability of the ritual law of Moses. Since there was a need to appeal to a higher authoritative voice or judgment, the Apostles gathered in a Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the decrees of this Council were acknowledged as obligatory for the whole Church (Acts 16:4). By means of the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles gave an example of the conciliar resolution of the most important questions in the Church for all times.

It is important to note here that the Apostolic Council speaks especially clearly against the supremacy of the Apostle Peter. If one were to believe the Catholic dogma of the supremacy of the Roman pope, then the Christians of Antioch should have appealed to the Apostle Peter for the resolution of their perplexity. However, they appealed not to Peter, but to all the Apostles and presbyters. At this first Council, the question is subject to a general discussion, and the completion of the matter belongs to the Apostle James. From James’ words (not Peter's), the decision of the Council is written. Also important to note is that Sacred Scripture reveals a number of weighty things that take place: Peter is sent by the Apostles (Acts 8:19), he gives an account of his actions to the Apostles and faithful (Acts 11:4-18), and he also listens to their objections and even denunciations (Gal 2:11-19). These facts demonstrate that Peter was not the prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church, as the Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches.

Orthodox theology strictly differentiates between the ministry of the Apostles and that of the bishops. As Bishop Alexander Semonov-Tian-Shansky writes in this regard:

From Apostolic times and throughout the subsequent history of the Church, even prior to Rome's departure from the Church in 1054, no bishop had absolute authority over any other. The Church is not and never was monarchical in structure, centered around a single bishop. Instead, all bishops work together in equality, and all consult with one another to achieve a common mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes that this collegial structure (that is, where all bishops share authority) is based on divine law. If the bishop of Rome was everywhere regarded as the supreme head of the Church, as the Latin Church teaches, why were there no cries of heresy to such statements as that of St. Cyprian?

From the witness of Church history, many Roman Catholics readily understand these facts and convert to Orthodoxy. One who did, Michael Whelton, wrote an entire book that deals with the Orthodox Church's conciliar tradition (an understanding that Rome itself adhered to prior to the ninth century), vis-à-vis Rome's divisive doctrine of papal monarchy. This author's well researched findings merit special attention. He correctly observes that the early Church was conciliar in its government, that the Ecumenical Councils represented the highest judicial body of the Church, that these Ecumenical Councils were not called to advise the bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome did not enjoy veto power. Mr. Whelton goes on to explain that:

The same writer notes that:

Mr. Whelton adds that:

(In the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, the Roman Curia was created by Pope Sixtus V [the "iron pope"] in the sixteenth century in order to crush the influence of cardinals and bishops. It is of interest to observe that in April of 2002, when the American cardinals were summoned to the Vatican in response to a scandal in the Latin Church, the cardinals complained that they were treated not like bishops, but like altar boys, by the pope. At that time, the cardinals were clamoring for less dictatorship, and a more conciliar approach to resolving matters).

The Orthodox Church believes that the council is the chief means by which God has chosen to guide His flock. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that the highest organ of authority in the Church, and the highest authority in general, is a council of bishops. For a local Church, it is a council of its local bishops, and for the Ecumenical Church, a council of bishops made up of representatives of independent local Churches, in conformity with the Thirty-Fourth Canon of the Holy Apostles.

It is known as the Council of Jerusalem, or the Apostolic Council.

13. Where are the details of this Council recorded?

The details of the Council of Jerusalem are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. Acts 15:1-5 describes the open opposition to St. Paul's teaching by the salvation-by-faith-and-circumcision party. So vital an issue as Christianity's entering into the Gentile world under the veil of Judaism had to have an authoritative decision by the Apostles and elders in order to avoid a split. Acts 15:6-21 goes on to describe the debate of the issue and its final resolution.

14. Where did the Council take place?

The Council took place in Jerusalem, whence its name.

15. What was the major question debated at the first Council of the Holy Church?

The Council of Jerusalem convened about 50 AD to decide the extent to which newly converted Gentiles would have to subject themselves to the requirements of Mosaic law. It was decided that non-Jews who turned to God should not be troubled with the rigorous precepts of the law of Moses, save in certain social matters so the Church could meet as one. This Council then made its decision known through letters to all the Christian Churches.

This first Council is significant for two reasons: 1) through it, the Christian Church became a Universal Church whose mission was no longer restricted to the Jewish people; and 2) the Council set the precedent for Church leaders to meet in Councils in future internal and external conflicts.

It is important to note here that when a decision has to be made, the Apostle Peter was not asked for his single-minded decision, as if he were an "infallible" pope. Instead, a Council of Apostles was convened.

16. What event in 312 AD resulted in some major developments in the administrative structure of the visible facet of the Church?

312 AD was the year that St. Constantine had his famous vision of the Cross in front of the sun, along with the inscription in this sign conquer emblazoned in the sky. With this vision, Constantine placed the Christian symbol of the chi rho (XP) on the weapons and tunics of his troops and went on to win a battle. This vision and his victory in battle led to Constantine's becoming the first Roman emperor to embrace the Christian religion, and to his putting an end to the persecution of the Church. These events marked the end of the first main period of Christianity and marked the Church's coming of age.

Because the pious monarchs Constantine and his mother Helen spread the Christian faith like the Apostles, the Church gives both saints the title Holy Rulers, Equal-to-the-Apostles. The title Equal-to-the-Apostles was given as well to saints who spread the Christian faith in various places: Mary Magdalene, the first woman martyr Thecla, the pious Russian prince Vladimir, St. Nina, who was the Enlightener of Georgia, and others.

17. Give the understanding you derived from this chapter concerning the position of the bishop in the Church.

• Christ called the Apostles to exercise the highest ministry in the Church, and the Apostles in turn named bishops as their immediate successors and continuers.

• The administrative structure of the early Church consisted of a bishop of a particular city and the flock he governed.

• Presbyters (priests) and deacons assisted the bishop in a threefold ministry, a pattern that became widely established by the end of the first century.

• Bishops have the highest rank in the Church, and they therefore receive the highest degree of grace.

• St. Ignatius of Antioch saw the bishop of the Church as presiding as the visible representative of Christ, Who is the Head of the Church. He also saw the bishop's primary task as that of celebrating the Eucharist. This teaching occupies a permanent place in the tradition of the Church.

• St. Ignatius saw the bishop as the center of unity in the local community. For Ignatius, the local community — that is, the bishop surrounded by his flock, is the Church. This concept of the central importance of the local community (bishop and flock) is emphasized in Orthodoxy.

• The Orthodox Church is a conciliar Church in which bishops consult with one another in Councils in order to achieve a common mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

• And, as noted in the introduction and this chapter, the Orthodox Church is the only Church in Christendom that has an uninterrupted succession of bishops going all the way back to the Apostles.

(A more complete development on the position of the bishop in the Church will be given in chapter ten).

18. What questions did this chapter raise in your mind and then leave unanswered?

The Council of Jerusalem assembled the leaders of the Church and its decisions were subsequently approved by the entire Church in all places and times. Why is the Council of Jerusalem not considered the first of the Ecumenical Councils?

[Professor's addendum: The Apostolic Council was not ecumenical, but was local in nature. The Church had not yet reached the ecumene but was essentially Palestinian (in a broad sense). It seems that no one but Jewish (Palestinian) Christians actually participated in the Council, and only James, the bishop of Jerusalem, had an actual see. Because it consisted of the Apostles, it is given a higher calling than a local council and is called the Apostolic Council].

1. What is meant by the term the Church of the Seven Councils?

The Church of the Seven Councils is another name for the Orthodox Church. This title emphasizes the immense importance that Orthodoxy attaches to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, those giant foundations of the Christian faith. As John II, Metropolitan of Russia (1080-89) stated, "All profess that there are seven holy and Ecumenical Councils, and these are the seven pillars of faith of the Divine Word on which He erected His holy mansion, the Catholic [i.e., Universal] and Ecumenical Church."

2. What is necessary in order for a council to be canonical?

To be canonical, a council must be accepted and certified by the local Churches and by a subsequent general council.

3. What is necessary in order for a council