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 to be ecumenical?

An Ecumenical Council starts out as a general council — that is, a council in which all Orthodox bishops of all Orthodox communities gather to solve problems pressing to the entire Church. When the decisions reached in such a council are accepted by the entire Church in all places and times, and when the decisions are certified by a subsequent general council, the council is then termed ecumenical.

4. What is meant by the expression the conscience of the Church?

The conscience of the Church is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

5. What age, according to the textbook, ended with the con of Constantine?

The textbook states that Constantine's conversion brought an end to the age of martyrs. This emperor's recognition of Christianity stands as a watershed in the history of the Church, for under him, Christianity received legal status in the Roman Empire, and this development supported the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman world. Under Constantine, the Church of the catacombs became the Church of the Empire.

However, while Constantine's conversion did bring about a radical transformation in the relations between the Christian Church and the Roman state (and Orthodox Christianity — not Roman Catholicism — was the Church of the Roman Empire and of the known earth), the age of martyrs did not end in the fourth century. Since that time, millions of martyrs have been tormented and killed for the truth of Christ's Holy Church, and Orthodox Christianity has been persecuted unendingly. As noted in the previous chapter, one can cite any number of large-scale martyrdoms throughout Church history; the one preceding Constantine's reign was but one. In fact, after Byzantium, under the boot of the Turks, the Unia, and finally Communism, Orthodoxy suffered near-continual martyrdom and was largely taken up with matters of simple survival. Such is the Orthodox Church — crucified, yet having the glory of the Resurrected Christ; poor, yet having within a priceless treasure.

6. What transition in the external life of the Church occurred at this time?

In the early days of Christianity, in order to worship God, Christians had to leave the city at night and go into caves. Even there, however, they were not safe. When they were discovered, the authorities would block the cave's entrance and would collect brush and set it on fire, thereby killing those inside.

In addition to legalizing Christianity, Constantine moved the seat of the empire eastward from Italy to the shores of the Bosphorus, calling this city Nea Romi (New Rome), although people referred to it as Constantine’s City, or Constantinople. From the moment that the Christian Empire was established, the center of the world’s life was shifted from ancient Rome to Constantinople, the latter of which became the symbolic center of Christianity. Old Rome thus joined Constantinople, New Rome, the former city of Byzantium, and a primacy of honor, one that was recognized by the Second Ecumenical Council, came to be shared by these two great capitals.

Two Greek hierarchs explain the purpose of the Roman Empire, and they give a highly refined assessment of the first Christian emperor, a view that is sadly lacking in Western accounts, particularly in the historiographies of the Protestant world. They explain that:

It is important to pause on St. Constantine, for a common Protestant misconception of Church history is that the Church fell into apostasy from the time of Constantine to the Reformation. A former Protestant minister who converted to Orthodoxy, Fr. John Whiteford, comments that in reply, it can be stated that had the Church ceased for even one day, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it on that day, something contrary to Christ's promise (Mt 16:18). Moreover, the same author continues, if the Church did indeed cease for a period of time,

That the Church did not cease to exist at the time of Constantine is also shown to be false inasmuch as Christ is the Head of the Church (Eph. 4:15-16), the Church is His Body (Eph. 1:22-23), and because Christ promised to be with the Church "even unto the end of the world" (Mt 28:20). Fr. John points out that Christ did not promise that His Church would be prosperous or the most numerous of religions; in fact, He promised the opposite (Mt 7:13-14, 10:22; Jn 15:20). Neither did Christ promise that there would be no sinners in the Church (Mt 13:47-50), or that it would not have to contend with false shepherds or wolves in sheep's clothing (Jn 10:1,12,13). Christ did promise, however, an abiding and ultimately triumphant Church that would have His abiding presence and that would be guided into all Truth by the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13). If the Church had indeed fallen into apostasy from the time of Constantine to the Reformation, then these and many other scriptural passages would be rendered meaningless, Fr. John concludes.

Now that the Church was out of the catacombs, churches began to be built above ground. Some of the first churches constructed were over the holy sites in Palestine where Christ had lived. The Emperor Constantine and the Empress Helen, his mother, built a massive church in honor of the Resurrection of Christ, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. They also built churches on the Mount of Olives in Bethlehem, and in Hebron at the Oak of Mamre. Later, in the sixth century, St. Catherine's Monastery was built on Mount Sinai over the site of the burning bush, near the place where Moses received the Ten Commandments. Most of these buildings serve to this day as Orthodox churches and monasteries.

Also during this new time of freedom and rest for the Church, the Emperor Constantine called a Council of bishops to gather from the four corners of the world. Modeled after the Council in the time of the Apostles, it was the first of seven Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Church. This First Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea, as well as the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, articulated the Creed of Christianity, the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith, or Nicene Creed (also called the Creed), so that there would be one confession of the faith and not different interpretations. This Creed ("I believe in One God...") is a concise summary of all the truths of the Christian faith, and it is sung at every Divine Liturgy and recited in several other places in the daily services of the Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Councils themselves acknowledge the Creed as being primary and fundamental among all the doctrinal decrees of the Councils, and they forbade any changes whatsoever in it, not only in its ideas, but also in its words, either by addition or subtraction. Whoever does not accept the truths of the Creed is not an Orthodox Christian.

This new period likewise became a time to articulate the beliefs of the faith and to choose the books that would comprise the standard of Scripture. Before the First Ecumenical Council, there was no universally accepted New Testament canon of Scripture, and thus no Bible. There were accounts of Christ's life by the four Evangelists, and many epistles from several of the Apostles such as Paul and Peter. There were also the letters and writings of the disciples of the Apostles such as Saints Ignatius, Clement, Dionysius and others. One of the persons instrumental in the First Ecumenical Council was St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who is responsible for the canon of the New Testament Scriptures that we have today.

Christianity began to flourish once the Church came above ground. The new freedom allowed the perfection of liturgical music (chant) and the refinement of religious art (iconography), and Christian literature proliferated. In short, the Church became the center of every aspect of life.

7. What was the Edict of Milan in 313 AD?

The Edict of Milan, issued by Constantine and his fellow emperor Licinius in 313 AD, officially proclaimed the toleration of the Christian faith. Christians were no longer regarded as religious and political criminals in the Roman Empire.

8. To what limits did Constantine carry his toleration of the Christian Church?

Although Constantine initially showed no more than toleration of the Christian faith, he soon came to favor it above all the other tolerated religions of the empire.

9. Emperor Theodosius carried this toleration to its final conclusion with what act?

The emperor enacted legislation that made Christianity the only recognized religion of the empire. "Your faith is the victory which defeats the world" (1 Jn 5:4), the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John wrote in the first century, and now his words were fulfilled.

10. What two further consequences of Constantine’s con occurred during his lifetime, which were to affect the later developments of the Christian world?

Constantine created New Rome, Constantinople, out of motives that were in part economic and political, but which were also religious: Old Rome was too deeply stained with pagan associations to be the center of the Christianized Roman Empire. He also summoned the first General Council of the Christian Church.

11. Give at least one effect which the movement of the capital to the East had.

An important effect of moving the capital to the East was that the seat of the new Christian Empire was taken away from the heathen associations of Old Rome. No pagan rites were ever to be performed in the New Rome.

12. What was the primary purpose for which Constantine called together the first General Council?

The textbook for this course notes that Constantine wanted the Roman Empire to be a Christian empire based upon the Orthodox faith. To this end, he convened the Nicene Council to clarify and elaborate the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

More specifically, the First Ecumenical Council was convoked against the false teaching of Arius, which denied the truth that "in Him [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9). This Council anathematized both the Arian heresy that disturbed the whole Christian world, and Arius, the corrupter of faith. It also anathematized those who maintained that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist, and those who maintained that He was created or that He is of a different essence from God the Father. While Arius falsely taught that the Son of God was not the Creator but was a created being, the First Ecumenical Council affirmed that the Son of God is of the same nature as God the Father.

The First Ecumenical Council also composed the Church's Symbol of Faith, the Creed, which was confirmed and completed later at the Second Ecumenical Council. The unity and equality of the Son of God with God the Father was expressed in this Creed by the words: "of one essence with the Father."

Concerning God the Father's Only-Begotten Son, the Eternal God before the Ages, Jesus Christ, Hieromonk Damascene Christensen explains that by means of the term begotten in Christ's words and in the Creed, the existence of the Son is shown to be above any kind of creatureliness, above something created. An existence which comes from the essence of God can only be divine and eternal. That which is begotten is always of the same essence as that which begets. However, that which is created and made is of another, lower essence, and it is external with relation to the Creator.

The same writer goes on to explain that the Son was begotten before the creation of Heaven and earth. Created things are made at a certain time, but the Son, coming directly from the essence of the Father, was begotten outside time, in eternity. In other words, there was a time when created things did not exist, but there was never a time when the Only-Begotten Son did not exist.

Fr. Damascene also states that Christ Himself referred to His eternal begetting when He called Himself "the Only-Begotten Son of God" (Jn 3:18), and He spoke of His eternal existence when He said: "Before Abraham was, I am," and, "Father... You loved Me before the foundation of the world" (Jn 8:58; 14:24).

13. What aim inspired the discussion at the Councils?

The Councils were inspired by the purpose of man's salvation.

The Councils were concerned with safeguarding the message of redemption, the central message of the Orthodox faith. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky writes: "From the first days of her existence, the Holy Church of Christ has ceaselessly been concerned that her children, her members, should stand firm in the pure truth." [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 22.] With this purpose in mind, the Councils defended the ancient teaching of the Church against the false teachings of the heretics.

The prefatory notes to this theology course additionally explain that:

15. There are two types of Councils within the Church. What are they called?

From profound Christian antiquity, local councils of separate Orthodox Churches gathered twice a year, in accordance with the Thirty-Seventh Canon of the Holy Apostles. This canon states: "Let there be a meeting of the bishops twice a year, and let them examine among themselves the decrees concerning religion and settle the ecclesiastical controversies which may have occurred...." [Eerdmans Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 596]. Local councils were attended by all the bishops of a particular province of the Roman Empire. These councils would ordinarily convene in a provincial capital and would be presided over by the bishop of the capital, the metropolitan. These assemblies, as the canon states, had as their purpose the bishops' giving their opinions on problems that arose — that is, local problems. (Although not mentioned in the textbook, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky notes that often in the history of the Church there were also councils of regional bishops representing a wider area than individual Churches). The textbook goes on to list general councils in which bishops from the whole Orthodox Church, both East and West, gathered in order to reach a common mind with regard to problems pressing to the entire Church. Included in these general councils are the Ecumenical Councils. The same Fr. Michael explains that when the decisions reached in general councils are approved and accepted into the Tradition of the Church by the confirmation of the bishops at a subsequent general council, the councils then received the title Oikoumenkie Synodos (Ecumenical Synods), from oikoumenikos, meaning from all the inhabited earth — that is, the land which belonged to the Graeco-Roman civilization.

16. What does the author of the textbook mean by saying that these Councils fulfilled a double task?

The textbook introduces the discussion of the Ecumenical Councils with the popular — though erroneous — idea that these Councils "defined once and for all the Church's teaching upon the fundamental teachings of the Christian faith" (emphasis added). Actually, as Protopresbyter Georges Vasilievich Florovsky explains, the Ecumenical Councils defended what the Church has always known to be the truth [Bible, Church, Tradition: an Eastern Orthodox View, vol. 1 of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, pp. 96-97].

In addition, the Councils worked out the Church's visible organization. The local Churches were placed under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical provinces, and the position of the five Patriarchates was defined.

17. Did the bishops explain the mysteries of God (that is, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.) at the Council?

The bishops did not explain and never imagined they had explained the mysteries of God; they merely drew a fence around them. That is, they excluded certain false ideas about them so that people would not fall into error and heresy.

Such is apophatic or negative theology. While cataphatic or positive theology proceeds by affirmations, apophatic theology proceeds by negations. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains that the Holy Fathers used apophatic language to demonstrate the incapability of the mind to understand and express God, and that they transcended philosophy by means of apophatic theology and apophatic expressions. St. Gregory the Theologian (+390), for example, says: "It is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him."

As Hieromonk Damascene Christensen goes on to add, St. Maximus the Confessor (+662) states in his Mystagogy that we can use both affirmative and negative expression about God. By the first, His existence is affirmed, and by the second, His transcendence is shown in relation to His created works. However, as St. Maximus also states, the being of God is simple, unknowable and inaccessible to man and altogether impossible to interpret, because it is beyond all affirmation or negation.

Fr. Damascene continues, noting that the ancient Christian writers say that although we can apply to God such terms as Essence, Being, Mind or Thought, we have to understand that ultimately, God is beyond all these. The expression of St. John of Damascus (+750) is characteristic:

The same Holy Father also writes that:

Fr. Damascene explains that because the mystery of the Holy Trinity has to do with the essence of God, it is ultimately incomprehensible not only to human beings, but to angels as well. St. Gregory the Theologian says that it would be impossible to speak of God's essence,

18. How can man break down the wall of sin which separates him from God?

Of his own efforts, man cannot break down this separation.

19. What is the central message of the Orthodox Christian faith?

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos makes this matter clear and understandable by giving some needed preliminary information. He states that nowhere in Holy Scriptures does it appear that God is reconciled with men, but that Christ reconciles man to God. Moreover, the metropolitan notes, it appears in the whole of patristic Tradition that God is never opposed to man, but man opposed himself to God by having no communion or participation with Him. Thus, man makes God his enemy, but God does not make man His enemy. Through the sin which he commits, man sees God in an angry and hostile way.

Orthodox Christianity's central message is that God the Son has taken the initiative in breaking down the wall of separation that man's sinfulness created between God and man. The human race from the start had fallen away from the divine life by embracing sin, and it had fallen under the power of death. However, some two thousand years ago, in an act of self-emptying and abasement, God the Son directly intervened in human history by becoming incarnate. By His Incarnation, death on the Cross and Resurrection from death, Christ destroyed the power that death had over mankind. Through His teaching and His whole saving work, Christ reconciled to God a humanity that had grown distant from God and enslaved in sins, and He abolished the authority that the devil had acquired over men. By bridging the abyss that separates men from God, and through the union of man and God in His own Person, Christ opened the way to eternal life in Heaven for all who would accept it — that is, He enabled people to find eternal life and happiness with Him.

In connection with this message, Nicholas Cabasilas, the great Byzantine theologian of the fourteenth century, makes these additional comments:

Concerning the Theanthropos (God-Man) Christ and His ability to save people, He is the Pre-Eternal God (Jn 1:1-3). He is consubstantial (of one essence, one nature) with the Un-Originate Father, and He is equal with the Father in authority and honor (Jn 5:17-24). Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of the Father (Jn 3:16), He is the Almighty Logos of the Father, and He is the Lord of All (Phil 2:9-11).

20. Why are heresies considered dangerous?

The doctrinal teaching of Christ's Church was composed and ratified by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These Councils, representing the voice of the whole Church, represent the voice of Truth, for the Church is "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Tim 3:15), and the Church as a whole cannot err. If the whole Church were to fall into error, it would mean that the gates of hell had prevailed against it, something Christ promised could not happen (Mt 16:18).

In order to enter into communion with God and be saved (and the goal of our life is the attainment of eternal blessedness), we must come to know God in some measure. "This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent" (Jn 17:3). God is Truth (Jn 14:6), and one must worship Him "in spirit and in truth" (Jn 4:23-24). Every falsehood is contrary to truth, and a person who has a wrong understanding about God does not know Him. The acceptance of a false teaching about God also deprives people of oneness of mind with other Christians and causes a spiritual separation from them. Obedience to the Church requires that we hold the true dogmas, like other Christians. If a person is disobedient by holding false beliefs, he is separated from the Church and from Christ Himself, Who is its Head. As Christ said, "If a man neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican" (Mt 18:17). Moreover, with the acceptance of falsehood, a person is unnoticeably led into subjection by the devil, who is falsehood and the father of lies (Jn 8:44). A stubborn persistence in falsehood ultimately makes people its slave, and if they remain stubborn and unrepentant, they are deprived of eternal salvation. Therefore, in questions of doctrine, the importance of holding the Church's correct teachings, and the danger of accepting the false teachings of heretics, were so great that there are countless examples of true Christians who preferred exile, cruel torture and death, rather than renouncing the Church's Truth through the acceptance of some kind of false teaching.

The word heresy comes from the Greek hairoumai, to choose. A heretic is one who chooses his own beliefs over the Church's divinely revealed Truth. Heresies are dangerous and require condemnation because they deny God's revelation, and through the use of philosophy and conjecture, they use the words of the Holy Spirit against the Holy Spirit.

This human reason misled by the devil is deadly. As Fr. Kyril Zaits explains in this connection, the primordial enemy, the devil, does not lead people astray by presenting them with grossly blatant falsehoods or with an initial rejection of Christianity. Instead, he begins with a shred of truth, labels it "Christian," and then, attracting their attention, presents them with just enough truth to entice them to follow him. Afterwards, by ever graduating degrees, the devil introduces open falsehoods while nurturing the pride which leads deceived people to create their own false teaching. As Fr. Paul Volmensky goes on to add, if right belief saves a man, then disbelief is the lethal weapon of the devil. He spreads his deadly poison through heresies and moral depravity, fabricating lies with utter cunning, almost indomitable, psychology. The devil has continuously waged war against Christ's Church through this means, through heresies. He especially used them, though, after he was unable to defeat Christianity from without, from persecution on the part of the pagan Roman authorities.

All heresies twist the truth of the revelation of the Church and impair the teaching of the New Testament, and all of them distort ecclesiology. Since the Church is the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), every alteration in the teaching about Christ, about the Holy Spirit, about the way of man's salvation, also has ecclesiastical consequences. The blasphemous wisdom of heresies causes great damage for the Christian world because falling into heresy separates people from God, it severs them from the Holy Church, and it has been the reason for spiritual and moral falls. Moreover, as Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains, heresies reverse the way of man's cure for reaching deification, and they setup a barrier between man and God, leaving people permanently without a cure, without hope of cure or salvation. And ultimately, heresies cause the eternal death of the souls of those who follow heretics.

In his book The River of Fire, Dr. Alexander Kalomiros poses the questions, What was the instrument of the devil's slandering God? What means did the devil use in order to convince humanity, in order to pervert human thought? The author answers:

Dr. Kalomiros correctly discerns that Western theology's "principal characteristic is that it considers God as the real cause of evil." He notes that "Catholics and most Protestants consider death as a punishment from God." He goes on to state that:

Western theology concludes that "salvation... is to be saved from the hands of God!" Dr. Kalomiros writes.

Fr. George Macris explains that in Orthodox theology, the Cross was not a necessity imposed upon God, nor was the blood of the Only-Begotten Son a source of satisfaction to God the Father, as the Latin scholastics teach. The matter of "satisfying the justice of God" is a phrase nowhere to be found in Scriptures nor in the writings of the Holy Fathers; instead, it was a fabrication of Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1100) that appeared after the Latin Church severed itself from Christ's Church in 1054. This false doctrine was later developed by Thomas Aquinas to become the official soteriological doctrine of the Latin West.

Explaining how most Westerners anthropomorphize God, or project sinful qualities in fallen men onto God, Dr. Kalomiros adds:

The Western theological concept of God's justice is not Christian; rather it is a pagan concept that makes God the source of all our misfortunes. Such a justice is not justice at all, for it punishes people who are completely innocent of the sin of their forefathers. Dr. Kalomiros therefore concludes:

In his book The Mind of the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos likewise gives a careful and elaborate explanation of the Western concept of God. He writes that:

The metropolitan continues:

The metropolitan sums up his explanation with the notion that:

The Western tendency to ascribe fallen, sinful qualities to God is anthropomorphic. It is a human projection, a human invention. In no way is such a "God" the God of revelation, the God Who revealed Himself to the prophets, Apostles and Fathers. (Thus, many in the West have not actually thrown God out of their lives, for they have never known Him. Instead, they have discarded only the Western "God," a non-existent "God.")

Given the utterly disastrous falsehood that Satan engendered in the Latino-Protestant world through heresies, the danger of false teachings is all the more obvious.

21. How does St. Athanasius sum up the purpose of the Incarnation?

St. Athanasius states that "God became man that we might become god."

22. What is meant by the doctrine of theosis?

The Greek Fathers, taking a number of scriptural passages in their literal sense (including those cited in 23 below), spoke of man's deification (theosis in Greek). Arguing that if man is to share in God's glory and be "perfectly one" with Him, man must become deified. That is, he is to become by grace what God is by nature.

Although Orthodox Christians know that they do not become God or a part of Him (something that is not only blasphemous heresy, but impossible), still, God calls people into intimate communion with Him through participation in the life of His grace, that they may become children of God not by nature and begetting (as with Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God), but by grace and adoption. People are not called to the false glory which Satan once sought and was therefore cast down to hell, but to the true "power to become sons of God" (Jn 1:12), which raises them to Heaven.

Regarding the literal interpretation noted above, Elder Cleopa of Romania explains that the mystery of Holy Scripture is understood and explained in three ways. He lists these ways as: 1) literal, according to the nominal, grammatical, verbal and historical meaning; 2) allegorical or metaphorical, which is superior to the former; and 3) spiritual. The elder adds that "according to the Fathers, the simplest of senses to alight upon is the first meaning, according to the letter of Scripture, to penetrate with discretion to the nature of Scripture requires modest learning, while to explain the depth of the meaning of Scripture is of the highest spiritual advancement and in need of the most divine grace" [The Truth of Our Faith, p. 48].

23. Give two texts from the New Testament which reveal this doctrine.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, though He was rich, yet for your sake became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (2 Cor 8:9).

The glory which Thou, Father, gavest Me I have given to them, that they may be perfectly one (Jn 17:22-23).

Thus the Lord states that He has given a share of the divine glory to His Apostles, and He prays that they may be united to God.

Although not noted in the textbook, the italicized words in the following passage also convey the meaning of deification:

24. Though it is not mentioned in the textbook, can you explain how this doctrine is presented in the true Orthodox icon?

Leonid Ouspensky deals with the phenomenon of theosis in iconography throughout his book Theology of the Icon. This author states that "the icon is intimately connected with the renewal, the deification of human nature realized in Christ." Further on he explains that "men who have known sanctification by experience have created images that correspond to it." He continues:

Regarding true icons (also called Byzantine icons), these are the traditional icons of intense spiritual beauty that lead the viewer from the world of matter to the holy prototypes and to God. These icons bear the impress of holiness as a high decree of sanctification is demanded of the painter-monastics, who prepare for their task with fasting and ascetic endeavors. In the final analysis, iconography is the outcome of a holy life, and it is the fruit of a way of life. Other true icons having the imprint of holiness are those not-wrought-by-men's-hands that have appeared miraculously.

True icons are not those of the worldly, innovative and ostentatious style patterned after Western paintings. The modernistic, Western-style icons are not holy, and it is an infringement of Apostolic Tradition to use them. This matter will be examined in further depth in chapter four.

Man would have to be deified. That is, he must become by grace what God is by nature.

Christ must be — and is — both fully God and fully man. The textbook goes on to note that:

In response to these four heresies that attacked God's revelation, the Ecumenical Councils defended the truth that Christ is fully God and fully man.

27. Why must Christ be truly, fully God?

For theosis to be possible, Christ must be fully God since no one less than God can save man.

Christ must also be fully man so that human beings can participate in what He has done for our race.

29. What bridge was formed between God and man?

The Incarnate Christ, Who is both God and man, is the bridge between God and man.

30. In what Scripture is this bridge or ladder described?

The bridge or ladder is described in St. John's Gospel. "Hereafter you shall see Heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man" (Jn 1:51).

31. Who else besides angels use this ladder?

The human race uses it.

32. Upon what aspect of the doctrine of Christ's nature did the first two Ecumenical Councils concentrate?

The first two Ecumenical Councils (fourth century) concentrated on Christ's Divinity and that He must be fully God, and they formulated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

33. How was this teaching of divine bridge building undermined by a) Arianism, and b) Monophysitism and Monothelitism?

Once the Christian Church proved victorious over the persecution coming from without, from the pagans, an even greater danger arose from within. That danger was in the form of attacks from false brothers in the Church — that is, from one heresy and schism after another. Among those heresies were Arianism, Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

Arianism undermined the idea of divine bridge building in that it falsely taught that the Son was inferior to the Father. It also falsely placed the Son among created things: a superior creature, it said, yet still a creature. The effect of this heresy was to render man's deification impossible. Condemning Arianism, the First Ecumenical Council (325) answered that only if Christ is truly God can He unite us to God, for the way to union with God can be opened by none but God Himself. The Council went on to affirm the truth that Christ is "of one essence" (homoousios) with the Father. He is not a demigod or a superior creature, but He is God in the same sense that the Father is God.

Monophysitism and Monothelitism undermined the idea of divine bridge building from the opposite approach: both struck at the fullness of Christ's humanity and held that He was not truly man. Monophysitism maintained that in Christ was a unity of personality, but only one nature. That is, it considered that Christ's human nature had been absorbed by His divine nature. The Fourth Ecumenical Council (451) replied with a proclamation of belief in "one and the same Son, perfect in Godhood and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man... acknowledged in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference between the natures is in no way removed because of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature is preserved, and both combine in one Person and in one Hypostasis."

(Concerning the word hypostasis, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains that it is derived from the Greek verb meaning to stand underneath, and it implies stability, the foundation, basis, and so forth. In theological language, hypostasis means being or reality, in contrast to appearance. The metropolitan goes on to state that according to St. John of Damascus, hypostasis means two things: first, existence, and secondly, the particular existence of each person. That is to say, a man is a hypostasis, he has a real existence, but also each person has his particular existence, the peculiarly characteristic features which distinguish him from other people, other hypostases).

Monothelitism, a later form of Monophysitism, held that although Christ has two natures, He is still a single Person and thus has only one will — namely, the divine will. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) condemned this false teaching and replied that if Christ has two natures, then He must have two wills.

After the condemnation of Monothelitism by the Sixth Council, this heresy continued and centered at the Monastery of St. Maron in Lebanon and grew into the Maronite Church. It has about 500,000 adherents (1985) worldwide.

Arius is called a fighter against God and a ringleader of the heresies. He was a second Judas, although he had a worse end than Judas, who at least died in a secluded place. As Arius was on his way to be reconciled to the Church, the bishop who had to receive him suspected that his repentance was not genuine, and he therefore placed the matter in God's hands. Then, while Arius was on his way to church, he stepped into a public latrine, and there he died when his bowels burst from his body.

Arianism was brought back to life in the modern God-fighting sect of the Jehovah's Witnesses, which also denies Christ's Divinity and openly and consciously attacks the Holy Trinity. It should come as no surprise that the Jehovah's Witnesses are given extensive financial support from the enemies of Christianity.

34. What article of the Creed was set forth by the First Ecumenical Council?

The First Ecumenical Council proclaimed in its Creed: "I believe in... one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father." Behind these truths stands the one and only God, the Most Holy Trinity.

35. Outline the understanding which your derived from this section about the Ecumenical Councils.

The textbook notes that the Church's Councils had as their purpose the salvation of man and that the Council is the chief means by which God has chosen to guide His flock. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky adds that:

As noted, an Ecumenical Council starts out as a general council of bishops from all districts who assemble in order to discuss and decide questions pressing to the entire Church. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (+1809) gives four distinguishing marks of an Ecumenical Council. The first is that it is convened "by order, not of the pope nor of such and such a patriarch, but by royal orders." The Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Roman (Byzantine) emperors when they wanted to make the definition of an Ecumenical Council a law of the empire for the peace of its citizens. The second is that there should be a discussion of topics of faith "and afterwards a decision and a dogmatic definition should be published in each one of the Patriarchates." The third is that "the dogmas must be correct in their Orthodoxy and in agreement with the Divine Scriptures, or the previous Ecumenical Councils." To be the voice of the Church, a council's decisions must be in harmony with the Scriptures and the preceding Ecumenical Councils, and conversely, a council cannot be ecumenical if its decisions are in disharmony with the Scriptures or the previous Ecumenical Councils. If the decisions meet these standards, they are valid. As St. Maximus the Confessor states: "The right faith validates the meetings that have taken place, and again, the correctness of dogmas justifies the meetings." The fourth is that it must have universal recognition. All the Orthodox patriarchs and archbishops must "agree and accept the decisions and canonizings by the Ecumenical Councils, either through their personal presence or through their delegates, and in their absence, through their letters." [Quoted in Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, The Mind of the Orthodox Church, pp. 215-16].

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky additionally notes that:

Concerning what the Ecumenical Councils accomplished, Fr. Michael explains that they formulated precisely and confirmed a number of fundamental truths of the Orthodox Christian faith. Secondly, they defended the ancient teaching of the Church against the distortions of heretics. Thirdly, they formulated numerous laws and rules, or canons, for governing public and private Christian life, and they required universal and uniform observance of these canons. Lastly, the Ecumenical Councils confirmed the dogmatic decrees of a number of local councils, and also the dogmatic statements composed by certain Fathers of the Church.

Fr. Michael gives more details, stating that when it happened that councils of bishops permitted heretical views to be expressed in their decrees, the catholic consciousness of the Church was disturbed and was not pacified until authentic Christian truth was restored and confirmed by means of another council. It is explained that:

The textbook for this course notes that the decisions of a general council are overturned if the Church rejects them as heretical. Three instances of such a rejection are given: Ephesus (449), the Iconoclast Council of Hieria (754), and Florence (1438-39).

Fr. Michael explains that the Ecumenical Councils of the Church made their dogmatic decrees a) after a careful, thorough and complete examination of all those places in Sacred Scripture which touch a given question, and b) thus testifying that the Ecumenical Church has understood the cited passages of Sacred Scripture in precisely this way. In this way, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils concerning the faith express

Concerning the Church's Creed, Fr. Michael makes the following notation:

The first part of the Creed was written at the First Ecumenical Council, and it emphasized the monotheistic centrality of faith. The second half of the Creed, written at the Second Ecumenical Council, emphasized the respective roles of each of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The doctrinal truth proclaiming the dyophysite nature of the Son, His two (dyo, duo) simultaneous natures, was the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444). Whoever does not accept the truths of the Creed is not an Orthodox Christian.

It should also be noted that the Orthodox Church to this day retains the original text of the Creed. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, uses an altered text, thus coming under the condemnation of five Ecumenical Councils that the Latin Church itself recognizes as divinely inspired.

The doctrinal definitions handed down by the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, and along with the Bible, they have a permanent and irrevocable authority. The Ecumenical Councils cannot be revised or corrected, but must be accepted in their entirety. Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy writes in this regard that:

36. What do you feel was the most important point in this section of the textbook?

The most significant point is that dealing with God's plan for the salvation of mankind. God the Son took the initiative in breaking down the wall of separation that man's sinfulness had created between God and man. To this end, He became man, was crucified, and rose again from the dead, thereby delivering humanity from the bondage to sin and death. Christ, Who is both fully God and fully man, became a bridge between God and man, and He invites people to partake of His divine life and be redeemed.

Another extremely significant aspect of this section is that dealing with the Ecumenical Councils. These Councils are but one more sign of God's concern for mankind and Christ's continued fidelity to His Church. Christ did not leave His followers orphans but sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in truth and to protect it against error and heresy so that man can attain full salvation.

Lastly, some very important observations that tie in with this period of Church history are given by Dr. Ivan Andreyev. The professor writes that:

1. What aspect of the Nicene Creed was developed at the Second Ecumenical Council?

The Second Ecumenical Council developed the teaching of the Holy Spirit and affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God, even as the Father and Son are God. This Council also adopted the Nicene Creed, which states that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." As Archpriest Vladimir Glindsky explains, the personal attribute of the Holy Spirit is such that He proceeds eternally from the Father, just as the attribute of the Son is to be born eternally of the Father.

That the Holy Spirit is one in essence with the other Persons of the Holy Trinity is shown in Scriptures: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19).

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all (2 Cor 13:13).

And who shall know Thy thought, except Thou give wisdom, and send Thy Holy Spirit from above (Wisdom of Solomon 9:17).

The same Fr. Vladimir also explains that:

2. The author of the textbook, as with most Western writers, confuses St. Gregory the Theologian with his father, St. Gregory Nazianzus. Noting that this error has been made, name the four Holy Fathers who were the most responsible for the definitive work of the Second Ecumenical Council.

These Fathers were Saints Athanasius of Alexandria (+373), Gregory the Theologian (+390), Basil the Great (+379) and Gregory of Nyssa (+395).

3. What is the key word in the Nicene Creed and what does it mean?

The key word is homoousios, which means one in essence or substance, consubstantial. St. Athanasius of Alexandria worked out the full implications of this concept which explains the Son's relation to the Father. Christ is not some kind of superior creature, but He is God in the very sense that the Father is, and He is equal in power to, and in undivided glory with, the Father. Christ is "true God of true God, begotten not made, one in essence with the Father," the Church's Creed proclaims.

4. The Cappadocian Fathers gave full meaning to what?

The textbook states that the Cappadocian Fathers preserved a delicate balance between the threeness and oneness of God and that they gave a full meaning to the classic summary of Trinitarian doctrine, three Persons in one essence. Concerning this analysis, Hieromonk Patapios of Etna states that the textbook presents a typically Western assessment of St. Athanasius the Great and the Cappadocians, according to which the former emphasized the "unity of God" and the latter "God's threeness." Fr. Patapios explains that:

5. What position did the pope of Rome formerly hold in the Church?

First, it is to be noted that the textbook for this course is somewhat of a mixed bag. While it may be the best introduction to Orthodoxy currently available in English, it is written by an author whose background is Anglican rather than Orthodox, and as a result, many serious theological errors find their way into the book. Among these errors is the author's completely un-Orthodox view of the papacy and his appalling and clearly misleading statement that the "Orthodox believe that among the five patriarchs, a special place belongs to the pope." Commenting on this completely false assertion, Fr. Patapios asks:

Orthodoxy has always believed in the equality of all bishops as regards grace and divine right, no matter how humble or exalted the city over which he presides. Orthodoxy distinguishes between bishops only as regards honor. Although all bishops (including patriarchs) are equal in the Orthodox Church, they do have different administrative duties and honors that accrue to their rank.

Prior to 1054, when Latin Christianity was still in communion with Eastern Christianity, the bishop of Rome, or pope (meaning father), was regarded as primus inter pares (the first among equals) among the other bishops. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 accorded the bishop of Rome this distinction not because Rome had been the seat of the Apostle Peter, but "on account of her being the imperial city" [Canon 28]. If the position of honor accorded to the pope was determined not by the political but by the religious significance of the city, the primacy of honor would be reserved for Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom. There would be no dispute in this matter, for Christ lived in Jerusalem, was crucified there and arose from the dead there. Thus, the first among equals position was not a supremacy, but was instead a preeminence of honor. This primacy of honor was largely of symbolic value. It meant that in ecumenical gatherings, the bishop of Rome could, if he wished, preside over the meetings and hold center place, inasmuch as the highest ranking bishop would preside in Councils but would not impose authority. However, some books hod that no pope was ever present at an Ecumenical Council, and no pope ever presided over one of them. Moreover, the Ecumenical Councils themselves never imagined that the legitimacy of their decisions was to be determined by papal review and approval. There is simply no historical data to support such a view.

Of further note, the prerogative of being first among equals was also given to the bishop of Constantinople when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire. This honor was bestowed by Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon. Moreover, as the writer Michael Whelton explains, in no place is any hint ever given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the bishop of Rome has ever been the prince of the Universal Church, or an infallible judge of other bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth. The same former Roman Catholic notes that the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils called for an equilibrium found in Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons. These canons date from the first half of the fourth century and mirror the practices of the Pre-Nicaean Church. These canons were translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus in the late fifth century and were widely accepted in the West. In them, the 34th Canon states that "... neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all." Thus, it was entirely clear that no bishop could claim universal jurisdiction since he could do nothing without the consent of all.

Also of note, every self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was completely independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Just as in the East, the bishops of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and elsewhere managed the affairs of their own Churches through their local councils. The bishop of Rome had no right to interfere with these Churches, and he also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of the councils. Also, on important questions that required the sanction of the Universal Church, an appeal was made not to the bishop of Rome, but to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was (and is) the supreme tribunal in the Universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church. The bishops were independent of one another, they obeyed only the decrees of the councils, and they sat as equal to one another in the councils. Also, none of the bishops laid claim to monarchical rights over the Universal Church. On those occasions when certain ambitions bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism not recognized in the Church, they were duly reproved and rebuked.

In short, the bishop of Rome was never accorded any rights or powers over the entire Church. As patriarch of the West, he had no more authority than that granted to any of the patriarchs in the East.

The Roman Catholic history of the Church is utterly artificial, ignoring as it does more than half of the Christian world, the Christian East, from which Western Christianity ultimately derives. Contrary to the Latin Church's assertion, the spiritual center of Christianity was not Rome. In the earliest extant copies of the Liturgy, it is written that: "We make offering for Zion [Jerusalem], the mother of all Churches." Likewise, the Second Ecumenical Council proclaims that "Jerusalem is the mother of all Churches." As for Rome's argument that the Christian Church in Rome held an actual primacy in the Church, rather than a primacy of honor, such a notion would have struck the primitive Church as absurd.

Furthermore, to trace that primacy to the Apostle Peter would not have seemed sensible to the early Church. Had any kind of personal primacy — aside from that of Christ — existed in the Church, it would have belonged to St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem.

Roman Catholics and Orthodox both believe that St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, but only Rome teaches that St. Peter presided over the Council of Jerusalem as a pope. However, the facts of Scripture (Acts 15) clearly refute this idea. Although Peter spoke at the Council, James disagreed with Peter, and it was James who summed up the decisions and decided the issue of the catholicity of the Christian message. James was the center of the Apostolic Council and was its voice, and it was to James' voice that Peter submitted. There is no indication in Acts 15 that Peter in any way presided over the Council. If Roman Catholics would read the book of Acts, they would see for themselves that the Council of Jerusalem was not presided over by St. Peter.

In addition, the Apostle Peter himself never asserted any sort of supremacy over the other Apostles. While Peter was the first to receive the power to bind and to loose, this power was subsequently given to all the Apostles (vide Mt 16:16-19 and Mt 18:18).

Had any bishops dared to arrogate to themselves a supremacy of power over the other bishops, the bishops of Antioch would have had all the more reasonable claim than Rome of being the see of Peter inasmuch as the Apostle Peter founded the Church of Antioch and was its first bishop before he ever went to Rome. Moreover, in addition to Antioch, a sizeable number of Churches trace their foundation to the Apostle Peter: Alexandria, Caesarea in Palestine, Tripoli and Corinth. If one were to suppose that the Roman Catholics had correctly interpreted Mt 16:18-19, and that primacy had actually been given to Peter and his supposed successors, the bishops of Rome, then Rome's primacy does not follow from it since the bishops from all the above Churches founded by Peter would have to lay claim for primacy for themselves, as successors of the "chief" Apostle. In such a case, the dogma of primacy would be reduced to absurdity. As it was, however, these other Churches founded by Peter did not fall into Rome's deception, for the teaching of primacy was unknown to the Church.

In the sixth century, Pope Gregory I the Great (+604), misunderstanding the authority assumed by the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople), wrote some terse words to the latter, warning that he should not misinterpret or overstate the primacy of honor due to him as bishop of New Rome. Pope Gregory clearly points out that actual authority in the Church is shared by all the bishops equally [Papal Letters, Book 5, Letter 20]. This same pope pronounced any "universal bishop" to be "the forerunner of the antichrist."

Pope Gregory's letter stands as the clearest possible witness against a primacy in the Roman pontiff, and it clearly shows that the idea of papal supremacy represents a deviation on Rome's part from the correct understanding of the authority of bishops — an understanding that Rome itself had earlier adhered to. St. Gregory's opposition to papal authority is well documented, and his letters are available to anyone who wishes to read them. In these letters, there is striking evidence that even in Rome, the right to claim a primacy over the Church was not recognized.

St. Gregory's correct understanding is from a bishop of Rome, no less, and one regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as a very eminent pope and a great saint. Needless to say, the Latin Church makes certain to conceal Pope Gregory's letter from its flock.

Another guarded secret of the Latin Church is that early popes condemned the title Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church as blasphemous, as a "snare of Satan," and as an "imitation of the devil." However, this very title is now the chief title of the Roman Catholic popes.

The falsehood of supremacy of external power and jurisdiction was unheard-of in the undivided Christian Church until Rome began to assert it beginning in the ninth century. It was the Carolingians that initiated papal claims to tremendous worldly power at that time, although the papacy itself never dogmatized these claims in the form of papal infallibility until the year 1870. (As noted in the introduction, for almost nineteen centuries, papal infallibility was denied by popes and faithful laymen). Concerning these false claims, St. John of Kronstadt stated that:

The Protestant Reformer John Wycliffe noted the same:

Writing of the Latin Church's departure from the ancient Apostolic Church of Christ, one writer explains that:

Commenting further on Rome's fall and its pope (whom he calls the man-god and idol of Western humanism), St. Justin (Popovich) of Chelije states that:

As of Rome's infinitely tragic departure from Christ's Church in 1054, the unity of the Church did not cease at that time, nor did Orthodoxy and Rome become separate branches of the Church. The Church, being one, continued in ancient Orthodoxy. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains:

Abbot Augustine explains that once the Latin Church severed itself from the Eastern Church, the post-schism popes invented new and unscriptural ecclesiologies that sought to justify their separation. These ecclesiologies claimed that Rome's bishops somehow "kept their orders" and "could perform valid Sacraments." Deviating from what the Church has always held, the Latin Church came to maintain that sacramental authority resides in the person of the clergyman because of his ordination. Thus, if that individual secedes from the Church, he can continue to liturgise and ordain others (although he will sin in doing so), and his Sacraments will be valid but irregular.

Rome's newly invented false teaching in this regard became the rationale for thousands of independent bodies that claim to have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but which have lost what is essential to them both — the characteristic of Church unity as understood by the Holy Fathers. The Fathers teach that the grace of the Mysteries (Sacraments), given by God, resides in the Church. This grace is poured out upon Christians through the clergy ordained for this purpose. This mysterious power does not reside in the individual men who celebrate the Mysteries, but it belongs in the body of the Church, from whom the bishops and clergy receive their authority. If any clergyman separates himself from the Church, either because of teaching falsely (heresy), or by seceding from the unity of the Church (schism), any "Mysteries" he performs are totally invalid and void, as "he has become a layman" (St. Basil). Thus, after the Latin Church left Christ's Church in the Great Schism, it had neither bishops, nor orders, nor Sacraments, nor the grace of the Holy Spirit.

As a result of being cut off from the Holy Spirit, Rome was no longer in a position to withstand false teachings that arose, and these in turn became dogmatized (a matter that will be explored in chapter six). One such false dogma, that of papal infallibility, is explained by Protopriest Victor Potapov. He writes that:

It may come as a surprise to some Catholics that before Rome's definition of papal infallibility as dogma in 1870, the most illustrious and best-educated bishops of the Latin Church, and many of its most respected historians, roundly denounced the teaching as untenable. When Pius IX sought the mantle of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, one of the Catholic bishops, Bishop Strossmayer, rose and addressed the council with these words:

Amidst jeers, Bishop Strossmayer continued:

Bishop Strossmayer's words here are identical to the pre-schism teaching of the Church of Christ, both East and West. While the Roman Catholic Church eventually departed from that ancient understanding, Eastern Orthodoxy did not.

Regarding the loss of grace of the Holy Spirit from the Latin Church after its apostasy and schism, the following papal pronouncements — all diabolical in nature — clearly demonstrate what kind of spirit possessed the post-schism popes who uttered them:

Adding to these deranged blasphemies, two Roman Catholic theologians have declared that:

Until the ritual was terminated by Pope John Paul I, when the triple crown was placed on the head of a new pope at his coronation, the officiating cardinal proclaimed:

The popes' love of power exceeded every limit, something shown in the proclamations of power claimed for themselves by these one-man "infallible" dictators over the Church and would-be tyrants of the world. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), for example, proudly insisted, "I am Caesar, I am emperor." Prior to Vatican I devotion, the Roman Breviary ascribed various titles to the popes, and these included: King of Kings and Supreme Ruler of the World. Other appellations include Vice-God of Humanity, Exalted King of the Universe, and Imperator Totius Mundi (Emperor of the Entire World). (Although this last title is no longer used, the pope remains a king, with a prime minister, ministers and ambassadors [nuncios]. Likewise, the papacy remains a worldwide center of power, which it employs only in the service of its own interests, like any other political or temporal power).

If more examples of this mindlessness are needed, the Vatican newspaper La Civiltá Cattolica (a Jesuit intellectual journal, every issue of which has to be cleared by the Vatican Secretary of State before publication) recorded that the pope is the "mind of God" and stated that "when the pope meditates, it is God Who thinks in him." Likewise, the celebrated New York Catechism clearly states that:

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not afford the Roman Catholic popes any primacy, for Orthodoxy has never numbered heretical bishops with Orthodox bishops. Orthodoxy does not even regard the pope as the bishop of Rome inasmuch as Rome no longer had true bishops as of 1054, when Apostolic Succession was severed in the West.

6. Where and in what year was the Third Ecumenical Council held?

The Third Ecumenical Council was held at Ephesus in 431.

7. What doctrinal issues necessitated the Third Council?

Christological issues — that is, disputes concerning the nature of Christ, brought about the Third Council. The Council was convened against one of the principal heresies in the Church, Nestorianism. This false teaching denied that there are two distinct natures, divine and human, united in the Person of Christ (hypostatic union). This teaching was condemned at the Council.

8. Who was the formulator of the heresy which necessitated the Third Council?

Nestorius (d. c. 451), who had been archbishop of Constantinople, formulated the heresy of Nestorianism. However, he had two predecessors in this false teaching — Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose follower he was.

9. The Christological emphasis of the various theological centers differed, but the difference was only a particular emphasis. Nestorius was educated at one center, but his theological directions were corrupted by his acceptance of certain concepts put forth by false teachers. He then fell into heresy by failing to follow the principle basic in the Holy Church, viz., he did not verify his teaching with the entire Orthodox Church, but rather proceeded on self-will. In what theological center did Nestorius receive his education?

Nestorius was educated in the Antiochene theological center.

10. While none of the theological centers of the time taught wrongly, which one of them was in the best position to present the correct, Orthodox teaching concerning the nature of Christ?

During the great doctrinal disputes of the first eight centuries of the Church's history, the see of Rome, that once-great bastion of Orthodoxy in the West, was generally noted for the soundness of its teaching and its firmness of faith. Although there were occasions when the Roman popes fell into heresy, the Patriarchate of Rome usually stood as a bulwark of the Christian faith in its struggle against heresy. For this reason, Rome was an honored center of Christian Tradition at that time.

Protopriest Victor Potapov notes that regarding the peculiarities of the spirit of the Roman people, which defined the character of the direction of the ecclesiastical life in the West after the acceptance of Christianity, one may speak of these as tendencies, as moods, as a psychological cast. Fr. Victor continues, stating that in the first eight centuries of the existence of the Universal Church, the psychological cast between the Churches of the East and West were as a whole beneficial rather than harmful to the Church, for they promoted the fullness of the elucidation and incarnation in life of the principles of Christianity, leaving the Church as one. It was required only that they abide in mutual ecclesiastical communion between themselves and that they not depart from the one Universal Church. However, the Western Church broke this communion, and in this rift is contained the cause of its entry onto the path of heresy and its severance from Christ's Church in 1054.

11. In what way did Nestorius precipitate the controversy which led to the Third Ecumenical Council?

Nestorius declined to call the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek for Birthgiver of God or God-Bearer). To him, this popular title seemed to imply a confusion of the manhood and Godhood of Christ. He argued that Mary can only be called the Mother of Man (Anthropotokos), or at most the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), since she is the mother of Christ's humanity but not His Divinity. History shows that for this blasphemy, worms devoured the tongue of this God-fighting heresiarch while he was still alive.

Modern fellow-travelers with Nestorius include some Protestants, who deny that God could have a mother, and who can only bring themselves to acknowledge that Mary was the mother of Christ's human nature. Michael Whelton points out that Protestant reaction to the title of Theotokos runs from a self-conscious uneasy acceptance to outright denial. He adds that the respective responses clearly demonstrate a graded scale within the Protestant community, from superficial to outright Nestorianism. However, the denial of the title Theotokos centers not on Mary, he explains, but on Christ Himself and the Incarnation. He further explains that when most of these people think it through, they readily understand that Christ's human and divine nature cannot be separated.

12. The name of Theotokos is given to the Virgin Mary in order to safeguard the understanding of what?

This ancient title by which the Church addresses Mary protects and safeguards the doctrine of the Incarnation — that is, the understanding that Mary bore not a man loosely united to God, but a single and undivided Person Who is at the same time fully God and fully man.

13. In what way does the denial of the title Theotokos to the Virgin destroy the Gospel of salvation?

Denying the Mother of God the title Theotokos is tantamount to denying that she bore the Word of God made flesh, a single and undivided Christ Who is at once both fully God and fully man. It is to suggest that Mary bore nothing more than a demigod at best. The textbook goes on to note that this denial divides the Incarnate Christ into two, breaking down the bridge between God and man and erecting within Christ's Person a middle wall of partition. Consequently, not only titles of devotion were involved at Ephesus, but the very message of salvation.

Of further note, relating to questions 6-13, the Third Ecumenical Council condemned Nestorianism and the notion that there were two persons existing side by side in Christ — God and a man. It affirmed that Christ's humanity and Divinity were united in One Person (hy-postatic union), and that the Mother of Jesus would therefore have to be the Mother of God, the Theotokos.

14. At the false council of 449, two persons from the theological center of Alexandria fell into the same condition of self-will as Nestorius had. These two, Dioscorus and Eutyches, created what heresy?

They created the heresy of Monophysitism.

15. This heresy taught falsely concerning what aspect of Christ's nature?

The word Monophysitism is etymologically derived from the Greek words mono (one) and physis (nature). Although Orthodoxy has more in common with the Monophysites than with any other group of separated Christians, still there are great dogmatic differences and an ecclesiastical chasm inasmuch as the Monophysites reject fully half of the Ecumenical Councils. Monophysitism maintained that if Christ were one Person, He could not have two natures, but only one. The Monophysites did not deny Christ's divine nature, but they did deny His unity of personality. This way of thinking endangered the fullness of Christ's manhood, which became completely swallowed up in His Divinity. In overemphasizing Christ's Divinity at the expense of His human nature, this heresy did away with the possibility of salvation. As one of the Greek Fathers on Mount Athos writes concerning this false teaching: "If... the eternal Hypostasis of God the Word is not also the Hypostasis of the assumed flesh, the deification of the compound makeup of man is not possible, in which case the salvation of man through partaking of the Deified and Life-giving Flesh of the Lord is also impossible." [Hieromonk Luke of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory, Mount Athos, 1994].

The Fourth Ecumenical Council, that of Chalcedon, was called in 451 over Monophysitism, and this heresy was rejected at that Council. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains, the Fourth Council "precisely formulated the manner of the union of the two natures in the one Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledging the very essence of this union to be mystical and inexplicable." [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 182].

16. The textbook places what seems an odd emphasis on what it views as a quarrel between two theological schools — the Alexandrian and the Antiochene. In fact, what occurred was that a balance between the two centers of Orthodox theology was achieved by placing certain questions before the whole Church catholic. The actual conflict existed between extremists of these two centers, and it appears incorrect to label them as two different schools. Give your own impression of the difference of emphasis of the Alexandrian center and the Antiochene center.

As is well known, the conflict between Rome and Constantinople over the matter of Roman primacy resulted in two opposing ecclesiologies. However, as Bishop Auxentios of Photiki observes, the distinction between a quasi-Nestorian Antiochene school and an Orthodox Alexandrian school supposedly tainted by Apollinarianism is an artificial and overstated one [Cf. Christological Methods and Their Influence on Alexandrian and Antiochene Eucharistic Theology, p. 1].

In the same scholarly study, Bishop Auxentios goes on to explain that concerning the Christological thought and Eucharistic thought of the Alexandrian and Antiochene patristic schools (and he does identify them as schools, as does Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky), this matter is neither artificial or overstated, but is of great importance. Two representative figures are given of these schools — St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, and the ecclesiastical writer Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had Nestorian leanings. As Henry Chadwick observes, the argument between St. Cyril and the Nestorians was not a political one, as some scholars have contended, but was an argument rooted in the profound question on the nature of Christ ["Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 2, 1951, pp. 145-64.] Bishop Auxentios concurs, stating that the antithetical strands of these two figures and their radically divergent statements of Eucharist theology are two antipodes on a spectrum of belief about the nature of Christ.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned by the Universal Church for his Nestorian leanings. However, as Bishop Auxentios notes, one cannot overstate the importance of St. Cyril's Christological teachings. The Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils drew extensively from his writings in formulating their Christological confessions.

17. Originally the pope of Rome was the first among equals of the bishops of the Church. When Rome withdrew from the Church, it was impossible, of course, that the pope could fulfill this position. According to the canons of the Church, in the event of the presiding bishop's falling into heresy or being unable to govern, the remaining Orthodox bishops must assign the presidency to the senior bishop who is Orthodox. What would have to occur for the pope of Rome to once again be the first among equals?

Rome would have to abandon all its heretical dogmas and other illicit innovations and convert to Orthodoxy. Such would entail its rejecting its lust for power and its aspiration to subordinate other bishops under its authority — that is, the idea of papal supremacy. It would likewise entail its rejecting the doctrine of papal infallibility, something invented in 1870 and still taught by the Roman Catholic Church today, despite the fact that — to the Latin Church's own admission — many Roman popes were heretics, and despite the fact that the second chapter of the book of Galatians shows that the Apostle Peter himself was not infallible.

[Professor's addendum: Both papal supremacy and papal infallibility are the result of earlier heresies and are a root of further heresies. There are Roman heresies worse than these].

While the loss of the Church of Rome and so many of its faithful has always weighed heavily upon Orthodoxy and has left an unhealed wound, and while Orthodoxy would always welcome Rome's return, such a return is not likely. Rome has been estranged from Christ's Church for one thousand years. Given the Latin Church's ideology and aggressive politics, its "lies, intrigue, deception, fanaticism and villainy" (as Dostoyevsky put it), and most of all its boundless malice and bloody atrocities against Orthodox Christians throughout the centuries, one cannot even begin to imagine that Rome will ever return. While many individual Catholics convert to Orthodoxy and find a home in it, Rome shows an interest only in destroying Orthodoxy and preparing the way for the throne of the antichrist.

In his book The Keys of This Blood: the Struggle for World Dominion Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West (1990), the Roman Catholic writer Malachi Martin shows the papacy's role in this struggle. While Pope John Paul II was convalescing after the near-fatal attempt on his life in St. Peter's Square, he had what he falsely believes was a vision of the Mother of God. In the vision, the pope states, he was told not to lift a finger to clean out the Latin Church, that it is already too late. Instead, he is to await a cataclysmic event ...

It is not known if the cataclysm will be another world war or natural events, or a combination of both, or if it will entail something supernatural. The pope indicates that the disaster cannot be averted, that the die is cast — but, he believes, it will be a good thing, for it will bring down all the governments and economic systems of the world, including capitalism, which he has always equated with materialism. Out of such chaos, the pope says, the papacy will rise triumphantly to lead the world into a "new world order" of peace above and beyond ideologies, political and economic. Martin writes that the pope believes that "this geopolitical mission he has chosen to fulfill as pope will be crowned with a success that has never registered in the life of any preceding pope." Thus, as John the Baptist was the herald of Christ at the Jordan, so the pope will be the satanic herald of the antichrist in the new world order.

To those readers who wonder how the anti-Christian media can at once belittle Christianity yet exalt the pope, the answer is obvious. The media accords the pope the worldly glory and advertisement he seeks because he is an obedient instrument of the globalists. That is, they know that in the time of the united world government, they can count on the pope to make urgent appeals for all humanity to bow down and accept the one-world ruler, the antichrist.

In 1990, Pope Wojtyla issued a statement that the "messiah" is presently walking on the face of the earth and that all humanity should be prepared to accept him when he is finally revealed. (It is not clear if this statement was issued in an encyclical as it was mentioned only briefly in a newspaper article).

To these evil words spewing forth from the mouth of the pope, Christ replies: "And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is the Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not; for false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect" (Mk 13:21-22).

Moreover, the Russian monks of the Solovki Monastery handed down the answer that St. Zosimas gave when his disciples asked him how to recognize the antichrist in the end times. St. Zosimas replied: "When you hear that Christ has come to earth or has appeared on earth, know then that this is antichrist."

If anyone claiming false visions appears in the desert, Christians are not to go out, nor are they to look down to the earth for Christ any more, even though the pope is telling them to do so. The true Messiah, Christ, Whom the pope rejects, came in the flesh two thousand years ago. The Saviour will not again come from this world, but He is to descend from Heaven. Also, He will not come alone as before, but escorted by myriads of angels; and not secretly, but openly, shining like lightning (Mt 24:27). Therefore, let all readers beware of the herald of the antichrist, the pope of Rome.

18. What was the Monothelite heresy?

The Monothelite heresy was a new form of Monophysitism. While it correctly maintained that Christ has two natures, it erroneously reasoned that since He is a single Person, He has but one will. This heresy, like Monophysitism, impaired the fullness of Christ's manhood since manhood without a human will would be incomplete. Monothelitism was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which replied that since Christ has two natures, He must also have two wills — one human and one divine.

19. What new and alarming development occurred in the fifty years preceding the Sixth Ecumenical Council?

The rise of Islam came about at that time. After conquering Mecca, Mohammed's followers subjugated Egypt, Syria, Palestine and even Jerusalem by force of arms. The new Islamic rulers shed absolute rivers of Christian blood, and before long, Orthodoxy became almost completely extinct in Anatolia.

20. What effect did this development have on the Byzantine Empire?

The Eastern possessions were lost to the Byzantine Empire, and the three ancient Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria came under infidel control. Byzantium was under constant attack from Mohammedan forces, and although it withstood this onslaught for eight centuries more, it finally succumbed in 1453. Christianity survived, but with difficulty.

21. What do you feel was the most important point brought forth in this section of the textbook?

This section covered the Second to the Sixth Ecumenical Councils. The most significant point concerns the immense importance of these Councils. As the textbook notes, the Ecumenical Councils resolved the Christological and Trinitarian disputes, they identified and uprooted the basic heresies, they formed the dogmatic and canonical norms of the Orthodox faith, and lastly, they worked out the Church's governmental structure. Concerning the Seventh Ecumenical Council that defended icons, while it seems at first to stand apart from the preceding six, ultimately it too was concerned with Christ's Incarnation and man's salvation.

1. The struggle against Iconoclasm was not merely a conflict between two conceptions of Christian art. What three deeper issues does the textbook point out?

The struggle against Iconoclasm involved the deeper issues of Christ's human nature, the Christian attitude toward matter, and the true meaning of Christ's redemption.

2. Those who taught against holy icons may have been influenced by what outside ideas?

The Iconoclasts were influenced especially by Nestorianism and by the ideas of the Judaizers.

3. What the textbook refers to as a puritan outlook was probably a blend of what two influences?

The puritan outlook that condemned icons was an Asiatic protest against Greek tradition. The text mentions that this attitude was particularly strong in Asia Minor and that two of the leading Iconoclast emperors, Leo III and Leo V, were of Asiatic origin. Over and above this fact, though, the puritan view saw in the words of the Second Commandment a prohibition against all images and could not see that the commandment applies to the making, bowing down before and worshipping idols, something repugnant to God. This outlook therefore saw all images as a form of latent idolatry.

4. How long did the Iconoclast controversy last?

Iconoclasm was one of the most powerful and prolonged heretical movements, lasting for some 120 years. The seriousness of this heresy was increased by the fact that a whole series of Byzantine emperors energetically championed it for reasons of internal and external politics. Although the instruments of political power were held by the Iconoclasts, who destroyed icons and exiled, imprisoned and sometimes even killed the Iconodules, ultimately their viewpoint was not victorious over Orthodoxy.

5. Which Byzantine ruler in 180 suspended the persecution against the Church?

The Empress Irene suspended the persecution.

6. In what year and in what city did the Seventh Ecumenical Council meet?

The Seventh Ecumenical Council met in Nicaea in 787. This Council dealt largely with Iconoclasm, a heresy which closed out the series of great heresies of the first period of Church history. Iconoclasm was condemned at this Council.

The Byzantine Emperor Leo V started a new attack on icons in 815.

8. The final victory of holy icons in 842 is known as what?

The victory over the Iconoclast heresy in 842 is known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. At that time, the Empress Theodora and her son Michael ordained that the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy should be established. This feast is observed each year up to the present time on the first Sunday of Great Lent.

9. Who were the chief defenders of holy icons?

St. John of Damascus (+749) defended icons during the first phase of the Iconoclast controversy. St. Theodore of Studium (+826) defended them when the second phase of persecution broke out under Leo V.

10. Rewrite in your own words the paragraph titled Icons as Part of the Church's Teaching.

The Church asserts its teaching both by word and image. What Scripture is for the literate, the icon is for those who lack learning or lack the time to study written theology. St. John of Damascus advised Christians to take any outsider inquiring about the faith into a church and place him in front of the icons, for they are a "revelation and demonstration of that which is hidden." That is, icons bear witness to the deification of man and are visible expressions of the dogma of the transfiguration, and they impart to the world the mysteries of Christianity and the age to come. Because of the mysterious quality icons have of teaching by image what Scripture teaches by word, they lead a person towards God. Icons are theology communicated in images.

11. What was the real heart of the Iconoclast dispute?

The real heart of Iconoclasm was the theology of the Incarnation. Unlike the former heresies that attacked some particular aspect of the divine economy and the salvation coming from Christ's Incarnation, Iconoclasm attacked the entire economy of salvation. It was both a consequence of former Christological controversies and an identical repetition of errors of the past. "Iconoclasm is the sum of many heresies and errors," stated the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

12. Why is it essential to have icons?

Icons are a visual form of theology that accomplish a silent preaching, and through the centuries they have taught Christians how to know and love the Lord and His holy ones, the saints. St. Basil the Great says in his Liturgy that Christ is the icon of God the Father. When Christ appeared on earth, those who then loved God the Father loved God the Son. Since that time, those who love icons thereby reaffirm their love for God in visible form, the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Having and honoring icons is deeply rooted in the Sacred Apostolic Tradition of Christianity. Dr. Constantine Cavarnos notes this fact in his book Orthodox Iconography, and he goes on to list seven important reasons why it is necessary to adhere to this ancient practice. The professor states that:

Also commenting on the icon's capacity to teach, Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky explain that:

The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council fully concurred. They stated that "by means of these two ways which complete one another, that is, by reading [Scripture] and by the visible image, we gain a knowledge of the same thing." Thus, the icon is one of the ways God is revealed to man. Through icons, Christians receive a vision of the spiritual world, for icons are windows into that world, windows into Heaven, and they are lights which guide us there.

(3) Being preoccupied with everyday worldly matters and pursuits, Christians can forget things that are of vital importance — that is, they can fall asleep spiritually. Icons serve as a reminder of the spiritual realm and as a means of awakening people. St. John of Damascus writes in this regard that "many times, doubtless, when we do not have in mind the Passion of the Lord, upon seeing the icon of Christ's Crucifixion, we recall His saving suffering."

(4) Icons additionally serve to lift Christians up to the prototypes, to a higher level of consciousness, of thought and feeling. As Dr. Cavarnos explains:

Metropolitan Laurus of Jordanville further notes that:

Dr. Cavarnos goes on to state that the icon's essentially symbolic nature is manifest in its ability to lift Christians up to a higher level. An icon is not an end in itself, it is not merely an aesthetic object to be enjoyed for whatever artistic merits it possesses, but it is essentially a symbol, carrying us beyond itself. It is designed to lead us from the physical and psychophysical to the spiritual realm. Thus, the icon is a pattern (typos) of something heavenly (St. John of Damascus).

(5) Icons serve to inspire people to imitate the virtues of the holy ones depicted on them. Icons help in this way because of their capacity to instruct in the Christian faith, to remind people of its truth, aims and values, and also because of their ability to lift viewers to the prototypes. Thus, one of the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council states that "the more continually holy personages are seen in icons, the more are the beholders lifted up to the memory of the prototypes and to an aspiration after them."

(6) Icons have the ability to transform one's character, one's whole being. Icons help sanctify people. As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos points out, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy proclaims that by bowing before holy icons and looking at them, the eyes are sanctified and the nous (a term the Holy Fathers used to designate the eye of the soul) is lifted up towards the knowledge of God. Dr. Cavarnos adds that icons help solve the problem of human transformation and regeneration "by instructing us, reminding us, and stirring us up morally and spiritually." This function of the icon is based on the principle that we become like that which we habitually contemplate. True icons focus the distracted, dispersed soul of man on spiritual perfection, on the divine, and they arouse in him the desire to emulate those who have achieved spiritual beauty. Icons incite the beholder "to see more clearly and steadily Him Who to see is to love, and loving Whom one becomes what He originally intended us to be." By dwelling steadily and lovingly on such perfection, the professor concludes, we come to partake of it more and more.

(7) Icons have a liturgical function, serving as a means of worship and veneration. Like sacred music, the icon is used as a means of worshiping God and venerating His saints. As such, Dr. Cavarnos explains, it is "essentially symbolic, leading the soul from the visible to the invisible, from the material to the spiritual, from the symbol to the prototype or original which it represents." The professor sums up the liturgical function of icons in his notation that:

Iconoclasm, the condemnation of icons, results when the important function of icons is not understood, and when the crucial distinction between honorable reverence and worship is overlooked. The failure to differentiate between these two categories was the cause of the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Isaurian's issuing an edict in 726 that condemned the making and veneration of icons as contrary to the Second Commandment, and as idolatry.

Following the upheaval against iconography on the part of the Iconoclasts, the Seventh Ecumenical Council expressed the dogma of the veneration of holy icons in the following words:

The Greek Fathers distinguish very sharply between "honorable reverence" which is accorded to icons, and "worship." The veneration of icons is reverential respect or admiration, whereas worship is accorded only to God. Moreover, the Fathers emphasized that the veneration given to icons goes to the prototype that it represents — that is, to Christ, the Theotokos, to some martyr or other saint. In the words of St. Basil, which were repeated by St. John of Damascus and other defenders of icons, "The honor which is given to the icons passes over to the prototype." That is, in venerating icons, the honor one renders to the images passes to the person represented on the image. Therefore, the charge of idolatry shows gross ignorance with regard to the nature and function of icons.

As the same charge of idolatry is sometimes repeated today, it is necessary to emphasize that Orthodox do not approach icons as idols, but as the spiritual image of the one to whom the soul addresses itself in prayer. It is also necessary to point out that the strict prohibition in Scripture against the making of idols and the worship of them does not apply to Christian icons. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that the images of false gods, and people's worship of them, entailed the worship of demons (or else imaginary beings that have no existence), and thus it entailed the worship of lifeless objects themselves (wood, stone or gold). Scripture strictly instructs that one is to put a difference between holy and unholy, between unclean and clean (cf. Lev 10:10). The person who cannot see the difference between sacred images and idols blasphemes and defiles icons. Such a person commits sacrilege and is subject to the condemnation in Sacred Scripture, which warns: "Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?" (Rom 2:22).

St. Nikolai Velimirovich also addresses the charges of idolatry made against Orthodoxy over its veneration of icons. The bishop asks:

A hieromonk notes that Calvinists disdain icons, based on their rejection of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. However, as he goes on to point out, as the fundamental concern of all the Ecumenical Councils was Christological and soteriological, the obdurate refusal to recognize even one of them signifies in and of itself a major departure from basic Christian doctrine. Also, as another hieromonk explains (a former Episcopalian), after Protestants threw icons out of their churches through the doors, they brought them back in through the windows. That is, icons were reintroduced into Protestant churches through stained glass windows. And, the hieromonk adds, Protestants do not regard these icons as graven images.

No doubt the most rabid attack against icons comes from the Jehovah's Witnesses, even though these people have pictures — icons — of their loved ones in their wallets and homes. Once when a Greek bishop was reviled by one of the witnesses over the matter of icons, the bishop asked the witness to show him some pictures of his family members. When the witness produced pictures from his wallet, the bishop reminded him that the Jehovah's Witnesses are against icons, meaning that he should tear up all these pictures, as well as all his pictures at home. When the witness replied that he does not worship these pictures, the bishop stated that likewise, neither do the Orthodox worship images. The Orthodox, he explained, honor and kiss icons, which is passed along to the archetype, as the Fathers and teachers of the Church have stated. The bishop continued, saying that when the witness' mind and heart go out to his loved ones in the pictures, he does not call this idolatry. Neither therefore can the Orthodox be accused of idolatry because they venerate icons. The icon itself is not an object of worship.

There are many idols in the modern age, among which are luxury, wealth, recognition, and many other things to which people attach more importance than God. Some who spend their entire lives in the pursuit of these and other idols of the world, and in serving mammon rather than God, would accuse Orthodoxy of idolatry because of its veneration of icons. However, the obvious fact remains that icons are not idols.

The attack on icons now seems to be abating. For some time, there has been a return in the West to the icon, which was forgotten for the space of so many centuries.

** ** **

The use of images has its beginnings in Old Testament times. During the forty years of wandering in the desert, the Hebrews made camp on Mount Sinai for a whole year, and there, at God's command, they constructed a tabernacle, a transportable sanctuary, in the form of a tent. Inside the tabernacle's holy of holies was the Ark of the Covenant, which was a wooden chest covered inside and out with gold, and upon which were two golden images of the Cherubim (Exodus 25:18-22). St. John of Damascus traces the origin of iconography back to this time, to the Mosaic people, who "venerated on all hands the tabernacle, which was an image [eikon in Greek] and pattern of heavenly things, or rather of the whole of creation" [Migne, PG, 1864, vol. 94, cols. 1168-76]. (The word icon is a transliteration of the Greek eikon. In Greek it means image, likeness, representation).

It is important to note here that the same Moses, through whom God gave the commandment against graven images, received at the same time an order from God to place representations of the Cherubim in the inner part of the temple to which people turned for the worship of God. Therefore, the fact that God Himself gave instructions to include images — icons — in the place of worship completely nullifies the mistaken notion that all images are prohibited by the Second Commandment.

While there are numerous depictions on the walls and curtains of the Old Testament Temple, there were no depictions of the departed righteous ones like those seen in the Christian Church. The reason for their absence is because the righteous ones of Old Testament times were awaiting their deliverance, were waiting to be brought up out of hades. This deliverance was accomplished by the descent into hades and Resurrection of Christ. As the Apostle Paul writes: "They without us should not be made perfect" (Heb 11:40). The righteous ones of the Old Testament were glorified as saints only in the New Testament.

Christ, the Incarnate God, sanctified the use of icons through a miraculous image He sent to Abgar, the ruler of the neighboring kingdom of Edessa. Abgar, who had leprosy, had heard of Christ's preaching and miracles during His public ministry and had heard that He was not welcome by many in Judea. He therefore sent his court artist, Ananias, to invite Jesus to come to his kingdom. If He did not come, then Ananias was to paint His portrait so that at least the king could see an image of His face, for he felt that if he could just see what this remarkable Individual looked like, somehow he would be healed.

Ananias, upon seeing the Lord-Healer, tried several times to capture His image. However, he was unable to set His face down on the linen, for Jesus' face gave out rays of some unearthly light, it is said. At that time, Jesus, knowing all things, and knowing the sincere desire of the king, pressed a cloth to His face and imprinted the character of His divine image upon it. He then gave the image to Ananias with the message that one of His disciples would visit King Abgar to heal that which the image did not heal.

When the king beheld this sacred image, the first Christian icon, he was cured of his leprosy, save for one small spot on his face. Later, after Christ's death and Resurrection, the holy disciple Thaddeus of the seventy went to Edessa and preached the Gospel of Life to the king and those with him. Having received enlightenment and knowledge of the True God, all of them received Baptism, at which time the last spot of leprosy left the king.

This sacred image of Christ was carefully preserved in Edessa for many centuries, even during the persecution of the Church. It was subsequently transferred to Constantinople in 944, where it was brought out in procession and veneration once each year. Later, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, the image disappeared and was never revealed again.

(In the Fourth Crusade, for three days Orthodox Christian blood ran in the streets of Constantinople as a massive amount of art, treasures and monuments were stolen from churches and carried off to the West as plunder. In this officially sponsored robbery, the Latin marauders placed prostitutes upon the altars of Orthodox churches as they went about a wanton spree of murder, pillage and sacrilege. To assuage their notorious greed for booty, they tore to pieces the altar and iconostasis of the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and brought mules into the sanctuary to carry the gold and silver away. This systematic looting was undertaken by the Latin clergy, to whom it proved an irresistible chance of a lifetime to enrich Western Europe's abbeys and monasteries with Byzantium's holiest relics — reputedly Christendom's finest collection).

All icons of Christ were made from the same prototype and pattern of this holy napkin until its disappearance in the Fourth Crusade. Moreover, as it is shown with this first Christian icon, icons are Apostolic, they are healing, and they even pre-date the Gospels being written down.

The Evangelist Luke painted icons, the first of which was the Vladimir icon of the Mother of God holding the Pre-Eternal Child. There still exist today many icons painted by St. Luke.

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky states that it is natural to suppose that in the early history of Christianity, the first need was that the people be drawn away from pagan idol-worship, and only later could there be brought into being the idea of the fullness of forms for glorifying God and His saints. Among these forms there is a place for glorification in colors, in sacred images.

The use of icons by Christians, as was noted, goes back to the first century of Christianity. Ecclesiastical archaeology has found that in the ancient Christian Church, there were sacred images in the catacombs and other places of assembly for prayer. A rudimentary art existed among Christians of the first two centuries. It employed such forms as the dove (a symbol of the peace of Christ), the fish and the Shepherd (symbols of Christ), and the peacock (a symbol of the Resurrection). Also, as early as the first century, Christians used representations of events in Holy Scripture on their tombs, and pictorial representations of events from the life of Christ, dating most likely from the early part of the second century, have been found in catacombs of Rome and Alexandria. Until the outbreak of Iconoclasm in 726, iconographic representations increased with each succeeding century, and iconography became more refined.

Before a board has the countenance of Christ portrayed on it, it is only a piece of wood. Once the image of Christ is painted on it, however, the wood becomes sanctified and is a source of sanctification for people, even if the wood is of inferior quality. This ability to sanctify is seen in the beginning of the repentance and conversion of the Bulgarian people to Orthodox Christianity, something that happened because of an icon of the Last Judgment. When St. Methodius showed it to King Boris and explained it, the icon made such an impression on him that Boris, and along with him all the Bulgarian people, came to believe in Christ. Something this extraordinary could happen because, as St. Seraphim of Sarov explains, the grace of God works through icons. The saint goes on to state that icons heal sinners,

St. John of Kronstadt further instructs that:

Archimandrite Panteleimon of Jordanville explains that the most powerful witness to the holiness of icons is the innumerable signs and miracles that the Lord condescends to accomplish through them, especially through those termed miraculous. Orthodox Russia abounded with these icons, and several have been brought to North America. Fr. Panteleimon notes that these icons are fountains of healing and have cured people of many afflictions — some from despondency, some from passions, some from life's sorrows, and some from bodily illnesses, and he notes that these icons have healed each and everyone alike from wounds of the soul, from sins.

To have icons and venerate them by honoring them is an Apostolic Tradition, one that Christians are bound to revere and observe. However, this tradition refers only to holy (or Byzantine) icons — that is, icons of the solemn, spiritual and hieratic style that depict deified humanity. Through their spiritual expression, these traditional icons inspire compunction and raise people up from the world of matter to the world of spirit, to the holy prototypes, and to God. Traditional icons are faithful to the highest degree to the spirit of Apostolic Tradition.

There is a great difference between Orthodox iconography and Western religious painting. Since the Italian Renaissance of the fourteenth century, the Latin Church began to abandon the sacred art of the ancient Christian period, and it began to employ naturalistic, carnal religious paintings that hold mankind captive to the world of matter and flesh. In this new Western religious art, sacred subjects served as a pretext to express the subjective feelings and ideas of a painter, and oftentimes crudely sensual and sentimental elements would creep into the features of the subjects, giving an insipid quality to the art. Commenting on the West's great deviation from Orthodox iconography, Protopriest Victor Potapov writes that:

The great chasm between Byzantine iconography and Western religious art can be seen in a Western madonna, where the Mother of God is depicted as a woman no different from all other women. (At times, it is even blasphemous. An example is a painting by Fouquet in which the king's mistress is used in place of the Mother of God). On the other hand, an icon of the Theotokos imparts the fragrance of sanctity and communicates the divine motherhood. In the Mother of God of Vladimir, for example, one can feel the spirit of faith, the imprint of Orthodoxy. Likewise, where Western paintings portray the Infant Saviour as a helpless, naked baby indistinguishable from all other babies, an Orthodox icon shows Him as the fully clothed Eternal Word, and shows the teaching of the Church on the Incarnation of God and Divine Wisdom.

In eighteenth-century Russia, and then among the Greeks after the Revolution of 1821, innovative icons modeled after Roman Catholic paintings of the Renaissance were introduced. Like their Western prototypes, these icons were ostentations, worldly and devoid of spirituality. The outstanding Russian philosopher and gifted writer, Prince Evgenii Nikolaevich Trubetskoi, examines these realistic paintings of the Western models and notes that they depict Christ and the saints with "puffy faces," "red mouths," "thick arms," "fat thighs," and the like. He remarks that "icons must not be painted from living people," because "an icon is not a portrait, but a prototype of the future man-within-the-Church" [Icons: Theology in Color, pp. 20-22.]. As Dr. Cavarnos further remarks, the aspect of the figures depicted must be unworldly, ascetic, their features refined, spiritualized.

In his book Victories of Orthodoxy, Dr. Cavarnos gives some additional noteworthy observations on the difference between true icons and those influenced by Western paintings. He explains that:

Western icons patterned after Western religious paintings are not only unrelated to the Orthodox Christian faith, but are contrary to it, since their expression is carnal, not spiritual. The tradition to honor icons does not apply to innovative icons modeled after Roman Catholic paintings of the Italian Renaissance. In fact, it is an infringement of Apostolic Tradition to use worldly icons.

Fortunately, the deviation from iconographic tradition has largely ceased, and with the restoration of Byzantine icons, Orthodoxy has wan a great victory over a new form of Iconoclasm. Moreover, traditional iconography, with its unsurpassed beauty, has commanded such high respect that Byzantine icons are sought-after throughout the world, even by the non-Orthodox. As Michael Whelton, a convert to Orthodoxy, writes, even when he and his wife were still Roman Catholics, "iconographic art always struck us as a more mature religious art form." [Two Paths... p. 15.] Mr. Whelton's observations are echoed in Herbert Reed, a famous English aesthetician and art critic, who wrote: "Byzantine painting is the highest form of religious painting that Christianity has known" [The Meaning of Art, p. 117].

A Greek monk remarked in a lecture that Satan, realizing that the Church has saved countless souls through the centuries through icons, presents a parody of icons — that is, fallen, evil images, on TV and in the movies. As another monk noted, whereas icons, being windows into Heaven, remind one of the importance of the spiritual life, thus sanctifying and saving a person, the evil images presented on TV, being windows into hell, accustom people to terrible sins without showing the disastrous results. As he went on to state, fallen visual entertainment has come to dominate the world to an incredible degree, and brainwashing people and changing their outlook on life as it does, it gradually destroys a person.

Because the Orthodox Christian home is like a family Church (Rom. 16:5), an Orthodox chooses an eastern wall or corner of a room in which to set up an icon corner. In this area are icons of Christ, the Theotokos, and those saints to whom one regularly prays. According to a tradition dating to the time when Christians held their services in the catacombs, oil-burning lampadas are kept lit in front of the icons (never votive candles).

At the Russian monastery in Jordanville, New York, the flames burning in front of the icons throughout the churches were brought over from those burning before Christ's tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The Russian monks at Jordanville, following the practice of the monks on Mount Athos, instruct that the flames of the lampadas should be low, or what they call passionless. That is, the flames should burn steadily and not flicker. With a low flame, one is not distracted when one prays before icons.

It is an ancient custom to take icons on journeys. Recently the remains of a Russian ship, the Slava Rossii, which went down off the southern coast of France in 1870, were discovered. Recovered from the wreckage were over eighty small metal icons used by the sailors in their daily devotions. One authority writes of this find:

Like the Russian sailors, one ought to maintain this ancient custom when traveling by taking along a small diptych or triptych icon. When one stops for the night or takes a rest during one's travels, one should determine the direction of east and pray facing in that direction before the icons. Praying facing east is an ancient Christian custom mentioned by St. Basil the Great in his treatise On the Holy Spirit. This Holy Father writes that "we all look to the east in our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in the east."

In venerating icons, one should approach them with the same reverence and love that one reserves for the Holy Cross and Holy Scriptures. One venerates icons in order to communicate the reverence, respect and love that one holds for the subject of an icon. As it is not unusual for people to kiss the pictures of their beloved ones, so likewise Christians, as pilgrims in this fallen world, should reverently kiss the images of the holy persons in Heaven — the Saviour, His All-Pure Mother, and the martyrs and other saints.

13. What did the Iconoclasts fail to take into account by repudiating icons depicting God the Son?

By rejecting any representation of Christ, the Iconoclasts failed to take into account the full meaning of the Incarnation. As the textbook points out, the dispute about holy icons was inseparably bound up with the teaching about the Person of Christ, and it points out that Iconoclasm is essentially a blend of influences from Nestorianism and the ideas of the Judaizers. The prefatory notes to the course therefore conclude that it is safe to say that that all people who revile or slander holy icons, or who seek to humanize or Westernize them, have a non-Christian view of some aspects of Christ's Person and of the nature of redemption.

Iconoclasm betrayed the Incarnation in that it allowed no place for Christ's humanity or His Body. The heresy also overlooked the fact that man is to be saved and transfigured in both soul and body. St. John of Damascus addressed the issue of matter, which was so much of a problem for the Iconoclasts, in his explanation that:

Orthodox believe that salvation is definitely connected to matter, for salvation is realized in the hypostatic union of God and human flesh.

15. Summarize the last paragraph on page 41 of the textbook in your own words.

The Iconoclasts, in their rejection of any representation of the human image of God, failed to understand the full meaning of the Incarnation and presented a danger to this fundamental doctrine of Christianity. They were essentially dualists: they wanted a religion freed from all contact with anything material, which they regarded as defiled, and they felt that anything spiritual must necessarily be non-material. As noted, such a view left no place for Christ's humanity or His Body. In their denial of the sanctification of matter in general, the Iconoclasts denied the deification of man in particular. That is, in their refusal to accept the consequences of the Incarnation, which is the sanctification of the material world, they overlooked the fact that man is to be saved and transfigured not only in soul, but in body. Iconoclasm was therefore much more than a controversy about religions art: the attack on icons was an attack on Christ's Incarnation and on the whole economy of salvation.

16. The Orthodox doctrine of icons is bound up with what Orthodox belief?

The Orthodox doctrine of icons is bound up with the belief that all of God's creation — material as well as spiritual — is to be redeemed and transfigured. God's taking a material body demonstrates that matter can be redeemed. As St. John of Damascus explained: "The Word made flesh has deified the flesh." Thus God has deified matter and made it Spirit-bearing. If flesh so became a vehicle of the Spirit, so too can wood and paint, though in a different way.

In her book The Artistic Unity of the Russian Orthodox Church: Religion, Liturgy, Icons and Architecture, Dr. Jane de Vyver gives additional insight along these lines. She explains that the material world, though fallen, is good, because God created it and became incarnate in it. Sanctified by creation and incarnation the material world is called to participate in sanctification and be restored to its original beauty.

The same author, a professor of humanities, philosophy and cultural history, also notes that whenever the physical realm is regarded as evil, base and corrupt, the arts diminish. For example, the sixteenth-century Protestant reformer John Calvin rejected most arts, especially the visual, precisely because of his negative view of the body and all things physical. This tradition continues to be strong in the United States, Dr. de Vyver observes.

17. What source does the textbook omit in this discussion which ought to have been included, since it is the only source of the correct interpretation of Scripture?

First, any discussion of the Byzantine period of Church history would have to include — in addition to the heresies and the Ecumenical Councils that repudiated them — a discussion of Holy Scripture itself. It was during this period that the books of the Bible as we know them today were produced in the Orthodox Church. That is, of the numerous copies of various Scriptures then in existence, including many false "scriptures," Scripture was canonized from among the writings of the Apostles and early disciples. As Fr. John Whiteford explains:

Secondly, it was during this period that the Holy Fathers explained Scripture. Although the textbook does not mention this development, it is an immensely important one in the history of the Church, for the Fathers are the only source of the correct interpretation of Scripture.

As the textbook gives short shrift to the Fathers, this subject requires further comment. St. Justin Martyr (+165), the leading Christian apologist of the second century, explicitly equates the Holy Fathers with the Holy Apostles. He writes that: "Among them, in essence, there is no difference: the same God-Man Christ lives, acts, enlivens and makes them all eternal in equal measure."

Also concerning the Holy Fathers, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that:

The True Church established by Christ rests upon the foundation of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, who are the Apostles' successors in nature and essence. As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains, the Holy Fathers are the successors of the Holy Apostles not simply through the transmission of the grace of the priesthood, but because they themselves also reached the same experience as the Apostles.

(Since chapter 8 answer 14 deals with the Apostle Peter's admonition that "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" [2 Peter 1:20], the matter of the Holy Fathers' exegesis of Scripture will be explored in greater depth at that juncture).

18. What do you feel was the most significant point presented in this lesson?

The most significant point is that icons are sanctified and are a source of sanctification through which the grace of God works, and that through them, one is put on the path of salvation. Also of immense importance is that the icon is equal to the Scriptures in its capacity to teach. St. Basil the Great expresses this truth when he states that "that which the word [of Scripture] communicates by sound, the painting shows silently by representation." The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council agreed, for they also stated that the two mediums accompany one another and that through them one gains a knowledge of the same thing.

19. What questions did this section of the textbook raise in your mind and then leave unanswered?

Some Protestants consider the chief proponent of Iconoclasm, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Copronymus, to the spiritual ancestor of Luther and Calvin. Because of that connection and the Protestant world's traditional disdain of icons, questions arose about how ancient heresies in general — and Iconoclasm in particular — manifested themselves in Protestant theology. Needless to say, this question is outside the purview of the textbook and can be researched elsewhere.

[Professor's addendum: Actually, early Western theology (from the incorrect opinions of Augustine onward) was based on Platonism. Later Western theology was based on Aristotle, but on a peculiar version. It was based on the Moslem sage Avicenna's commentaries on Aristotle. Protestantism is something of a combination of Moslem/Aristotelian ideas and Gnosticism. Luther and Calvin must count as their forerunners Augustine (thus Plato), Avicenna (and his interpretations of Aristotle), and the European Gnostics. However, as you say, this is something for later. It is covered in our fourth course].

1. The textbook gives one of the reasons why Byzantium was called the icon of the heavenly Jerusalem. What was the reason?

The description of Byzantium as the icon of the heavenly Jerusalem refers to the all-pervasive influence of Christianity upon all aspects of Byzantine life and upon all strata of society, from the clergy to the laity, and from the court and scholars to the poor and uneducated. The textbook cites examples of this influence: how the circus events began with the singing of hymns, how trade contracts invoked the Trinity and were sealed with the sign of the Cross, and how ordinary citizens would discuss and philosophize about the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the day in the marketplaces and in their business interactions.

The example of the circus is an unfortunate one, given the repeated denunciations of this spectacle in the homilies of St. John Chrysostom. The textbook could have given any number of different examples to show how great Christianity's impact was on Byzantium. Not mentioned, but a good example of that influence, is that Constantinople was said to have become like a monastic kingdom. It was also called a second Jerusalem as it was a city of numerous churches and shrines. The grace of God rested upon it.

2. We understand that the Ecumenical Councils were conducted by imperfect men. However, who guided them and filled their shortcomings, leading them to the truth?

The bishops who attended the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the Holy Spirit, Who filled their human deficiencies and led them to the truth.

Monasticism played this part. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the bishops are chosen from among the monks, and the greatest Fathers and theologians have also come from the ranks of the monastics.

4. What is the significance of monasticism?

Today in the "television generation," very little is known about the institution of monasticism and its contribution to civilization. When monks or nuns are portrayed on TV, this portrayal is generally done with utter lack of seriousness, if not downright mockery. For this reason, monasticism is not understood in the secular West.

There are other reasons as well for that lack of understanding. Many people no longer read, and also, the technological change during the last century has been so striking and fast that it is easy to attribute almost everything to the present and nothing to the past. We no longer look to the past as people used to do, but live in an exaggerated appreciation for the present. This answer will therefore examine the monastic past, something that has washed up even to the shores of our modern world.

St. Athanasius the Great writes that:

Monasticism is not something alien to the Church, but is life according to the Gospel. Thus, it is not without reason that the spiritual writers have set forth an extremely exalted point of view of this way of life. As one of them noted, among the Orthodox Church's monks and nuns throughout the ages, the gifts of casting out demons, healing sicknesses, resurrecting the dead, and gifts of prophecy, are not exceptional. Moreover, the greatest Fathers and theologians of Orthodoxy have come from the ranks of monastics. For these reasons, the best way to penetrate Orthodox spirituality is to enter it through monasticism.

Monasticism had its origins in the Old Testament period of the Church, when God revealed to Moses the vow of the Nazarite — a vow of celibacy and the consecration of one's life to God (Numbers 6:2). Subsequently the prophets, from Elijah to John the Baptist, set examples of this vow.

The monastic way was later perfected in the life of Christ. According to the teachings of all the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, the first monastic community was that which Christ formed with His Apostles. St. Basil the Great gives this teaching when he states that "the image of the common monastic life is truly an imitation of the way of life of the Lord Jesus Christ with His disciples."

Likewise, the Church historian Filon notes that "already in the beginning of the Apostles' preaching, there were among Christians those who were distinguished by a special love of wisdom, that is, a yearning toward higher ascetic struggles and contemplation, which are the very constituents of the purely monastic life, and which a merely Christian life lived amidst the tumults and vanities of the world — although not in itself forbidden — is not adequate to satisfy." In the same regard, St. John Chrysostom writes:

Having seen Christ's example, the holy disciple and Evangelist Mark, who established the Church in Egypt, founded the first ascetic communities that continued this way of life. These communities had the Old Testament prophets as models, and they adhered to the principles set forth in Acts 4:32. These communities came to be known as monasteries, and their inhabitants came to be called monks, from the Greek word monos (single or alone), in reference to their choice to be alone with God. From these monastic communities arose the great monastic saints, the Desert Fathers, of the fourth-century Egyptian Thebaid.

During the three hundred years of persecution of Christians, endless numbers of men, women and children underwent the cruelest forms of torture imaginable, being lacerated, burned, crucified, beheaded, drowned, thrown to lions in arenas, and having molten lead poured down their throats, for their Christian faith and love of God. Martyrdom had a central place in the spiritual outlook of early Christians, being considered the ultimate act of renunciation of the world and the highest confession of one's faith. All Christians believed and lived in truth, and lived in readiness to be killed.

Once freedom was granted to the Church by Constantine, however, the suffering of persecution and martyrdom as a means of Christian perfection was gone. Under the new conditions where many started coming to Christianity out of expediency, many Christians in their freedom and wealth became worldly, forgetting that the Christian life is undertaken to save one's soul, and forgetting that this path entails suffering in this life in order to obtain peace in the next. This development resulted in secularism, something that proved an even greater danger for Christianity than the persecution of the Church, for with it, the ascetic way of living disappeared from the cities.

In reaction to this secularization, the idea of martyrdom took other forms, such as a life of monasticism. At that time, there began to appear anchorites or hermits, people who fled society to enter into a voluntary or bloodless martyrdom in the desert — that is, to preserve the essence of the spiritual life and live a genuine life according to the Gospel. At first they left the world singly, and then in loosely-knit groups. In this way, monasticism emerged as a definite institution in the fourth century. As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos goes on to explain, the Holy Fathers emphasize that the monastic life is the continuity of the Apostolic age and the life of the early Church. The Fathers, he states, taught that monastics are those who live the life of the Gospel, who experience repentance to its ultimate degree, and who try to observe the commandments of Christ unyieldingly.

One of the earliest records of a monk is that of St. Anthony the Great (+356). When he was a young man, his parents died and left their substantial wealth to him. Sorrowing over their death, he went into church, and there he heard the priest read from Scripture: "If thou will be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give it to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven: and come and follow Me" (Mt 19:21). Upon hearing these words, Anthony's heart began to burn for Christ. He then went to distribute his inheritance among the poor, after which he departed to the Egyptian desert to be alone with God. There he lived a life of prayer, fasting and reading Holy Scripture, living to over a hundred years of age.

The ultimate aim and significance of St. Anthony's life was not to withdraw complacently unto himself, but to cleanse his heart of the passions and vices that thrive in the world. After this cleansing, he was able to help his fellow men by his counsel or through his miraculous prayer. St. Anthony is the typical hermit — one who saved his own soul, and also saved the souls of many of his fellow men at the same time.

After St. Anthony's repose, St. Athanasius the Great, the bishop of Alexandria (the same Athanasius who was responsible for the New Testament canon of Scriptures), recorded Anthony's life for the inspiration of others, eloquently presenting him as a model of ascetic perfection. As St. Athanasius writes:

In bringing this story throughout the world, St. Athanasius changed the face of history with the life of St. Anthony, the illiterate cave-dwelling monk and the founder of anchoritic monasticism. St. Anthony's fame spread not because he desired it (for he had purposely withdrawn into the wilderness), but because God wanted him to serve as a lamp to illumine all.

Following St. Anthony's example, thousands of people — men and women alike — fearing that the lure of comfort and security would divert them from their search for unity with God, withdrew from the world which entangles the soul, in order to devote attention to the "one thing needful" (Lk 10:42). Abandoning all things that tied them to the world — riches, homes, relatives, friends and all earthly consolations, they took up the eremitical way of life in the wilderness areas. Like the walls of the catacombs before, the wilderness isolated them from the world and gave them the opportunity for a more God-centered life. There, far from the temptations of the world and far from the eyes of men, these ascetic recluses concealed themselves in solitude in the wide expanse of desolate areas, in mountains and forests, in caves, cells and tombs, where they led a life of self-renunciation and deprivation, one spent in prayer, fasting, chastity and vigilance. In such a state, they became lifelong martyrs in spiritual warfare against the passions and against the demons. "Lo, I have fled afar off and have dwelt in the wilderness. I waited for God that saveth me" (Ps 54:8-9). Some of the hermits lived in such complete isolation that, in the case of St. Mark of Thrace, he lived for more than ninety years without ever seeing another human face.

Eremetical monasticism was established by St. Anthony the Great. According to this discipline, each monastic lived separately from the others in a hut or cave, where he prayed, fasted and labored under the guidance of a leader or elder called an abba, or father. During Anthony's lifetime, another form of monastic life began to develop — cenobitic monasticism, where the ascetics gathered into one community and were subject to one rule, under the leadership of an abbot or archimandrite. The founder of communal monasticism is St. Pachomius the Great.

Receiving and preserving the same outpouring of spiritual gifts which distinguished the first era of Christianity, monasticism spread quickly through Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Greece, Ethiopia and India, and to Italy, Gaul, Ireland, Bulgaria and Russia, and to the ends of the world. First a monk would settle in some uninhabited area, after which people would settle nearby. In time a village would grow, and cities and entire societies has their beginnings in the simple poverty of monks.

In Russia, just as in Byzantium before it, every aspect of life was centered around Christianity. However, there was still a need for the much deeper, God-centered life that only the desert can offer. As a result, the thick Russian forests became the desert where God-seekers could find the solitude they needed for the austere monastic life. Monasticism quickly spread and greatly thrived in Russia, but it met its Passion Friday on February 18, 1932, when all of Russian monasticism disappeared into the concentration camps. This act took place in the dead of one single night, and it was ignored by all and was almost unknown to the whole world. Soon after this so-called "holy night," the United States recognized the Soviet tyranny as the lawful government of crucified holy Russia.

Comparing the life of hermits to those living in the world, St. John of Kronstadt writes that the former are worthy of a thousand crowns. He continues:

Orthodox monasticism is called the angelic life. As an old adage from St. John of the Ladder has it: "Christ, the light of angels; angels, the light of monastics; monastics, the light of the laity." Likewise, Scripture teaches that "they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain... the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage... for they are equal unto the angels" (Lk 20:35-36, cf. Mt 22:30, Mk 12:25). When the disciples said to the Master, "If the case of a man be so with his wife, it is good not to marry," Christ in reply instructed:

A monk explains that Christ refers to monastics as eunuchs for the Kingdom not only because of their celibacy, but more importantly to emphasize that like the eunuchs of His day, who were influential royal officials, monastics have a special closeness to God. They are "before the throne of God and serve Him day and night in His temple" (Rev. 7:15).

A Russian priest additionally explains that the arduous process of monastic self-denial and renunciation in and of itself is not the goal, but that it is the most effective means of attaining the highest spiritual life. The aim of monasticism is human transformation (the attainment of moral and spiritual strength) for the salvation of one's soul. This human transformation is the process of theosis (divinization), or a participation of man in the divine energies of God. This union with God is possible through the conquest of the passions, for Christ states that those who see Him are the pure of heart. As St. Gregory Palamas instructs, "Indeed, only this is impossible to God, to enter into union with a man before he has been cleansed."

As an American nun notes of this transformation, many monastic saints regained the likeness of Adam in Paradise, who was rightful lord over the animals and earthly elements. Wild animals, including fierce lions and bears, and timid birds, were gentle and unafraid in the presence of these men and women, and the cruel cold of the Siberian winters could not harm them. Dwelling in the antechambers of Heaven as they did, these saints barely touched the prosaic aspects of pragmatic human affairs.

Regarding monasticism’s ultimate goal, the salvation of one's soul, the voices of all the Holy Fathers are summed up by Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), former First Hierarch of the Russian Church in Exile, himself a monastic of high spiritual caliber and one whose remains did not decompose after his repose. The metropolitan wrote that "according to the definition of the Fathers, the monastic life is per se the direct road to the Kingdom of Heaven."

Orthodox monasticism continues today, particularly in the countries of Eastern Europe, where monasteries dot the countryside with noticeable frequency. Orthodox monasticism will continue to exist until the consummation of the ages.

5. What has been the chief center of Orthodox monasticism since the tenth century?

Mount Athos, also known as the Holy Mountain, became the major ascetic center of the Byzantine Empire. Preserving the highest ideals of Christian ascetic life as expounded by the Holy Fathers, this monastic community played a decisive role in the ecclesiastical affairs of the late Byzantine period, and especially during the hesychast controversy of the fourteenth century. A rocky, mountainous peninsula in northern Greece, it juts into the Aegean Sea and culminates at its tip in a peak 6,670 feet in elevation. The peninsula consists entirely of monastic settlements, some twenty of them, and a large number of smaller houses and hermits' cells. To this day on Mount Athos, there are ascetics who keep vigil in prayer all night, who live in caves in extreme poverty and totally unseen by men, and those who dwell in the open air with just one garment and no shoes.

The textbook states that Mount Athos has experienced a new "springtime," or a new lease on life, because of the large number of young and well-educated monks it has gained in recent decades. However, not all is in order there. Up until 1992, there was a group of monks of the Russian Church in Exile who would not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch because of his faith-compromising ecumenism. In May of that year, those monks were forcibly and illegally expelled from Mount Athos.

Not long before their expulsion, a fire raged out of control for several days. Despite their best efforts, monks and firefighters were unable to control it, and litanies and supplications were of no avail either as they had been in the past under similar circumstances. Although there was rain everywhere on the peninsula at the time, there was none over the fire itself.

Among the older monks were those who saw the fire as a forewarning of worse calamities in the future. Some viewed the fire as chastisement for the capitulation of certain Athonite Fathers to the ecumenical policies of Patriarch Bartholomew I, a large number of whom attended his enthronement as Ecumenical Patriarch in 1991.

In recent times, the abbots of the major monasteries on Mount Athos have largely capitulated to the threats of Constantinople against any protests directed at that Patriarchate's betrayal of Orthodoxy through the heresy of ecumenism. Mount Athos is therefore experiencing anything but a "springtime."

6. Are there orders in Orthodox monasticism?

Orders do not exist in Orthodox monasticism. Orders are a particular development within the Roman Catholic Church, which has preserved the institution of monastic life but has strayed far from the original spirit of primitive monasticism. As orders in the West came to assume a vast sociological range of functions, Catholic monastics became functionaries who today, often in street clothes, typically act as advocates of social justice and political reform. As Catholic monasticism was transferred from the quiet of the wilderness to the tumult of the city, it became worldly, and Catholic monks and nuns thereby became directed to social activity and worldly things, rather than to prayer and the internal life, to ascesis and inner purification.

Nothing of the sort took place in the East, where monastics, in the manner of primitive monasticism, dedicate themselves entirely to the work of human transformation. Orthodox monastics labor to cleanse the mind and body through the conquest of the passions, even as an angel instructed St. Anthony the Great to remain in the desert to struggle against himself, and against languor and the passions. This struggle is undertaken in order to be united to God, for as was noted above, St. Gregory Palamas explained that only one thing is impossible to God: to enter into union with a man before he has been cleansed.

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos gives further development of the difference between monasticism in the West and East. Western monasticism, he notes, exhausts itself in societal work and external worship, which is intellectual worship. He states that there are isolated cases of Western monastics who live an interior life, although even they cannot be freed from a barren ethicology. He goes on to note that in Orthodox monasticism, on the other hand, a perfect therapeutic treatment exists, consisting of purification, illumination and divinization. The metropolitan also notes that Western monasticism was created in an effort to regenerate the Church. In Orthodoxy, however, monastics are not struggling to revive the Church or to save it, for it is not the Church they need to save. Instead, they struggle to be healed living within the Church, and they seek their own salvation within the Church, from Christ, in His Holy Mysteries. Thus, Orthodox monasteries function as hospitals which cure people and lead them to life before the fall.

Some people condemn Orthodox monasticism because of its unworldliness and its emphasis on the interior life, and they put the outer life and its activities first. However, it is sufficient to recall that Christ did not bless the activist Martha, who was "burdened about much serving." Instead, He blessed the quiet Mary, who sat at His feet to hear the words of eternal life (Lk 10:38-42). Also, Christ specifically blesses those who engage in ascetic labor, saying that those who see Him are the pure of heart (Mt 5:8).

7. What is an elder and what does he do?

The Apostle Paul enumerates three ministries in the Church that are independent of the Church hierarchy: Apostles, prophets and teachers. (These ministries may be connected to the rank of bishop or priest, but not necessarily so). An elder was one who had received the second of these gifts of the Holy Spirit — that of the prophetic ministry (cf. Eph 4:11, 1 Cor 12:28). This gift was bestowed as a special gift of grace, and it was given to those carriers of God's grace and otherworldly wisdom whose rare and God-given spiritual discernment and insight enabled them to serve as guides to others.

So high a calling as the prophetic ministry required a great personal sanctity, purity of heart, and uninterrupted abiding in God. Sanctity of life was definitely a requirement of the prophets in the time of the first Christians. As is written in one of the oldest works of Christian literature:

Many saints were given the grace of prophecy, including Fools-for-Christ's-Sake (Yurodivi) and holy eldresses, and even the mentally unstable. However, as Professor Smirnov notes in his doctrinal dissertation The Spiritual Fathers in the Ancient Eastern Church, "The charismatic phenomena of the first centuries of Christianity repeated themselves in ancient monasticism: that the elders were bearers of these charisms — the special gifts of the Holy Spirit, given to man directly by God, according to one's personal worthiness."

Eldership, being a direct continuation of the prophetic ministry, appeared under this name and in this form only in the fourth century, when monasticism arose as a guiding principle. From that time on, the gift most commonly manifested itself as monastic eldership.

The father of monasticism himself, St. Anthony the Great, was the earliest and most famous of the elders. In a pattern common to later elders, he withdrew from the world and spent the first part of his life (from eighteen to thirty-five) living as a desert anchorite in strict solitude and ascetic endeavors. In time, a group of disciples gathered about him, and later still, he had a circle of people who came from far and wide to seek his advice. So great did his fame for helping others become that he was described by his biographer St. Athanasius as a physician to all Egypt. St. Anthony had many successors through the centuries, most of whom followed his pattern of withdrawing from the world to return to it with gifts of discernment for the benefit of their fellow men.

Angels are a light for monks, it was noted, and the monastic life is a light for all humanity. However, the heights of Christianity, the best expression of monasticism, is eldership. This ministry consisted in edification, exhortation and comfort (1 Cor. 14:3). As St. Barsanuphius, an elder from the famous Optina Hermitage, explained, the Lord spontaneously reveals to elders the past, present and future of people. Thus, in addition to physical eyes, elders have spiritual eyes before which the human soul is revealed, and nothing is hidden from them. This gift, the ability to see the human soul, gives an elder the opportunity to raise the fallen, direct people from a false path to a true one, heal diseases of soul and body, drive out demons, and act as direct transmitters of God's will for all who came to them. In the lofty spiritual gaze of elders, the boundaries of space and time were set aside, and they saw the spiritual meaning of present and future events, the latter of which they were able to foretell.

Archpriest Sergei Lebedev speaks of the ability of elders and eldresses to foretell the future in the following way:

Hieromonk Seraphim Rose explains that elders had their exceptional abilities as they are an image of Adam in his unfallen state. When Adam named the animals that came before him in Paradise, he instantly gave whatever name God placed in his mind. In the same way, when an elder sees someone for the first time, he tells the person's name, tells the person's sin, and tells him what he must do to save his soul. The elder's mind gives this startling information because he is in direct contact with God, Who gives him this ability. As Iulia De Beausobre goes on to note, because elders had this ability, they were sought out in the solitudes of many lands by people eager to find a teacher capable of bringing order to their confusion, and capable of kindling the light of hope in the darkness of their despair.

Hieroconfessor Barnabas (Belyaev), Bishop of Pechersky, himself an elder, left the following description of the institution of eldership and how it manifested itself in Russia:

The influence of eldership spread far beyond monasteries. In Russia, elders were spiritual guides for thousands of people who flocked to be guided by these holy men — Tsars, princes, philosophers, writers such as Gogol and Dostoyevsky, and ordinary people from all walks of life. Those who rendered themselves to the guidance of an elder experienced a special feeling of joy and freedom in God, for contact with God is always combined with a feeling of indescribable peace in the soul.

Well-known holy men from among the Russian elders were Saints Seraphim of Sarov and John of Kronstadt. Eldership flowered especially at the Optina Hermitage, which produced no less than twelve elders, all of whom have been glorified by saints by the Russian Church in Exile. With the Optina elders, as with others, the Lord bestowed on them the gift of understanding the state of soul of people who came to them, plus miracle-working, the ability to drive out demons, and the ability to heal sicknesses.

The prophetic ministry flourished when the spiritual life in the Church was high, and it declined in decadent periods. In these pre-apocalyptic times, when the love of many has grown cold and spiritual impoverishment prevails, the grace of eldership has grown exceedingly scarce. It is not known to the writer if any elders are still alive today. However, if any still do exist, they choose to conceal themselves from the gaze of others rather than seek the vainglory that comes from the human praise they would receive from putting on display the treasure they have obtained. Regarding the present scarcity of elders, Archpriest Alexey Young writes:

Also regarding the disappearance of elders in these times, a new martyr of the Communist yoke, Hieromartyr Damascene, Bishop of Glokov, stated:

8. What is the significance of the Byzantine Empire?

Byzantium was a Christian society dedicated to Christ and His Holy Church, and it produced a great number of saints from every level of society. Moreover, its Christianization of the Balkans and the Slavo-Varangian state of Rus' stand as supreme missionary achievements in the spreading of the true faith.

Sir Dimitry Obolensky, professor emeritus of Russian and Balkan history at Oxford University, explains in his many books that among the events that shaped the history of Europe, a notable one is the influence exerted by Byzantium on the society and culture of Eastern Europe. Through the relations established between the Eastern Roman Empire and the people of the extensive territories to the north of the Black Sea and in the Balkan Peninsula, entire nations accepted Orthodox Christianity and adopted many features of Byzantine civilization — its law, literature and art. As a result, these nations were able to share in, and eventually contribute to, a common cultural tradition — the Byzantine heritage, whose principal beneficiaries were the Greeks and Slavs.

Although Byzantium was inspired by the great vision of establishing here on earth a living icon of God's government in Heaven, it was still a human society, one full of human weaknesses. The textbook describes those well known weaknesses — the duplicity, violence and cruelty. It additionally mentions the empire's falling into the error of identifying the earthly kingdom with the Kingdom of God, and the Greek people with God's people. There can be no doubt that Byzantium fell far short of the high ideal that it itself set. Although not mentioned in the textbook but explained in the prefatory notes, those failures were the result of human nature, for Byzantium was populated with poor, fallen and sinful people like ourselves.

The prefatory notes to the course also explain that the purpose of the Byzantine Empire was to provide a calm, stable and relatively peaceful framework on earth in which each person might strive, in the Holy Church, for the salvation of his soul. As long as there was a genuine striving for the Christian ideal, the empire continued to exist, no matter how short it fell of the mark. On the other hand, the notes mention, when that striving ceased, the empire was overrun by its enemies.

The same fundamental law is seen all throughout Old and New Testament history — sc., that the cyclical rise and fall of people and nations is connected with their fluctuating relationship with God. This principle began with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The commandment not to eat from the one tree was given so that through its fulfillment man could express his freely-willed striving toward God and love for Him. Speaking of this matter, the holy martyr Eustratius, who was killed during the reign of the emperors Diocletian and Maximian, spoke the following words to his tormentors:

After the first human sin, God came to Adam not to condemn him or banish him from Paradise, but to bring him to his senses, confess his sin, and repent. In His love for mankind, and in His complete lack of ill will, God could have immediately subjected Adam and Eve to punishment, but as St. John Chrysostom writes, "He is long-suffering, delays, asks and listens for the answer, and again asks, as if evoking the guilty one to justify himself in order that when the matter has been revealed, He might show him His love for mankind even after such a transgression [Homilies on Genesis, p. 140].

Thus it cannot be stated that Adam and Eve sinned and then were condemned. Instead, they were given a chance to repent, although Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. When it was finally revealed that they had neither repentance nor any true justification, only then were they condemned. St. Ephraim the Syrian states that had Adam and Eve repented, then, "even though they would not have restored to themselves what they had before the transgression of the commandment, at least they would have been delivered from the curses that were uttered to the earth and themselves" [Commentary on Genesis, p. 329]. Rassaphore Nun Maria goes on to add that "God therefore saw that if [Adam and Eve] remained in the paradise of delight where they received all good things without pain or toil, they would never come to a proper realization of their deed, but would on the contrary grow completely and irreversibly hardened like the fallen angels." That is, the human race would turn into another race of demons.

Even the act of condemnation itself was an act of mercy, for once being given over to illness and sufferings, man had these misfortunes acting on him like a bridle. As St. Cyril of Alexandria explains, these things gave man the opportunity to heal in himself the disease which came upon him in the midst of blessedness. Moreover, the same Father states that:

The Holy Fathers state that death was not only a punishment, but that it was something good. From Hieromonk Seraphim Rose we learn that:

Fr. Damascene Christensen comments further on the meaning of suffering. He states that:

In the writings of St. Nikolai Velimirovich, one frequently encounters the theme of "corrective" or redemptive suffering. Moreover, he frequently writes about it in the context of chastisement that God sends at the hands of unbelievers. Referring to the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews, the bishop asks how it is that God calls Nebuchadnezzar, a pagan and idolatrous king, My servant (Jer 25:9)? Because, the bishop explains:

It is only in this light that the sufferings of the Orthodox under the Turks can be seen, contrary to the papacy's maintaining that this chastisement was sent to the Orthodox for their sin of refusing to submit to the "supremacy" of the pope.

Still, the question remains — how is it that hardship and defeat so often fall upon Orthodox Christians, while unbelievers are left to prosper? Where is God's justice? The same St. Nikolai penned this answer from his place of imprisonment in the infamous Dachau concentration camp during World War II:

In sacred history, God came to the transgressor Cain to give him a chance to repent after he slew his brother Abel (Gen 4:6-7). St. Ephraim the Syrian explains that God appears to Cain without anger so that the prayer pronounced by Cain's lips might wash away the sin of murder performed by his hands. However, if he does not repent, a heavy punishment will be assigned to him such as his crime deserves. Finally, although Cain did come to admit his guilt, it was too late, and his confession was more an admission of fact than it was an indication of repentance. Cain regretted his sin, but he did not repent of it (a common state among people to this day). Consequently, Cain was subjected to the curse: "Thou art cursed from the earth." Here again, God shows first His concern that the guilty should repent, and then He shows His mercy even when there is not repentance.

The same thing happened with the Hebrews. For a long time God endured their sins and awaited their repentance. Finally, when they did not reform themselves, they went into bondage to the Assyrians and Babylonians as a direct consequence of their long-standing idolatry and pursing heathen practices, and because of their disobeying the Law and ignoring the prophets. The historical books of the Old Testament, as well as the five nomothetic books of Moses, propound the close relationship between the piety of the people and their prosperity. In other words, they show that national disasters are always brought on by apostasy from the faith and moral decline. As Abba Dorotheos of Gaza (sixth century) states:

On the other hand, if people repent, "if My people which are called by My name shall humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked way; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land" (2 Chron 7:14).

Further on in sacred history, it is shown that when the Prophet Jonah, and later the Prophet Nahum, prophesied the destruction of Nineveh in Assyria by fire and water, the Ninevites repented for a short period of time. Then, seeing that Jonah's prediction did not come to pass, the people returned to their evil ways, thereby stirring up the wrath of the long-suffering God. As a result, there was a great earthquake, and part of Nineveh was flooded by waters from a nearby lake. The remainder of the city, the part that stood upon a hill, was consumed by a fire that spread from the surrounding wilderness. Thus did God in His righteous judgment punish the sinful people and fulfill Nahum's prophecy.

The same principle is seen throughout the history of mankind: God chastises only after giving people abundant opportunity to repent and change their ways. This lesson is seen in Serbia in 1389, in Constantinople in 1453, and subsequently throughout the Balkan Peninsula as many nations fell to the Moslem Turks. More recently, it was repeated in 1917, when the scourge of atheistic Communism came upon Russia as a result of its capitulation to Western liberalism in the nineteenth century — that is, when it was overcome by the spirit of materialism and apostasy, and it took place again as Communism came to dominate the various nations of Eastern Europe in the bloody century that just ended. The lesson in each instance is that there are terrible consequences when a nation turns away from God to the idolatrous worship of its own ideas and passions.

Byzantium was overcome by the same spirit of materialism and apostasy from the true faith, something that clearly manifested itself at the Council of Florence in 1439. After its betrayal of Orthodoxy at that council, it was handed over to its downfall at the hands of the Turks in 1453. After its downfall, Orthodoxy continued to endure martyrdom and persecution from the world, this time from the Moslems. As in the case under the first great persecution against the Church, suffering under the Moslems kept the Church pure by not allowing for lukewarmness of faith. In such a state, many saints continued to appear there, thus testifying that the Church is not bound to Byzantium, or to any other nation or system of this earth. The rise and fall of nations or systems is not the concern of the Church; the Church's concern is the rise and fall of the human soul. As Blessed Augustine expressed this idea in The City of God, the Church does not exist for empires or governments, but for salvation and the Kingdom of God.

Political unity was in a state of decline. Although still one in theory, the empire was usually divided into an Eastern and Western sphere, each having its own emperor. This separation was further hastened by Constantine’s founding a second imperial city in the East.

2. What events began to occur at the start of the fifth century which would finally sever the unity of the empire?

The barbarian invasions took place. Following them and the carving up of most of the West among barbarian chieftains, the Greek East and Latin West were driven further apart, and political unity was never again restored on a permanent basis. For all the Christians of the period, and for Europe's heathen barbarians as well, the Christian Emperor of the East stood out as the world's supreme ruler, and Constantinople as the world's most preeminent and fabulous city. The East during this time never forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and it still saw the empire as in theory universal. The Emperor Justinian attempted to bridge the gulf between this theory and actual fact by his campaigns to gain back the Western part of the empire from the barbarian invaders, yet in spite of his bold and tenacious efforts to do so, he ended in failure. After Justinian, no succeeding emperor made any serious attempts to bridge the gulf between the theory and fact that the empire was universal.

3. This severance was carried a state further by what?

During the rise of Islam, the Mediterranean Sea, from the Pyrenees and Spain, through north Africa, Arabia, Syria and the East, passed largely into the control of the Arabs. This development made contacts between the East and West increasingly difficult.

4. What action did the Roman pope take in 800 that would result in political conflict in the Roman world?

In an action that was to become the greatest source of political and cultural alienation between the East and West, the pope crowned the king of the Franks, Charlemagne, as emperor in 800. The Eastern Empire, in its adhering to the principle of imperial unity, could only regard Charlemagne as an intruder and the pope's coronation of him as an act of schism within the empire. Even many of Charlemagne's contemporaries in the West saw him as a usurper, for the legitimate Roman Empire in Constantinople had not ceased to exist, nor had it ever given up its claim to rule the entire Christian world. The Eastern emperor therefore refused the political recognition that Charlemagne sought from him. Charlemagne, in his turn, sought to establish his own legitimacy by trying to ruin the legitimacy of Constantinople's claim to universal jurisdiction by accusing the East of heresy: he charged the East with falling into idolatry because of its veneration of icons. He further accused the East of dropping the word filioque (Latin for and from the Son) from the Nicene Creed, even though the word was a Western innovation and never was a part of the Creed as it was formed by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils.

From the outset, there was a marked antipathy towards things Greek in the court of the new, so-called Holy Roman Empire. The hostility and defiance of the new empire towards Constantinople soon extended beyond the political field and into the cultural realm: literati in Charlemagne's court sought to create a new Christian civilization not patterned after Byzantium. (Even the term Byzantine was given first by the Franks in a derisive sense and with the idea of regarding themselves as the successors of the Romans). The Byzantines, for their part, dismissed all Franks as barbarians and refused to take Western learning seriously. The schism between the two civilizations had thus become firmly fixed.

5. What problems of language made unity between Rome and Constantinople more difficult?

By the year 450, very few people in Western Europe could read Greek, the language of the Byzantines. Similarly, after 600, very few Byzantines could read Latin, the language of the Romans (even though Byzantium still referred to itself as the Roman Empire). If Latins and Greeks wanted to read each other's works, they could do so only in translation, although usually they did not do even that. Consequently, with their no longer drawing upon the same sources or reading the same books, East and West drifted further apart.

6. It is interesting to note that Russia became the Third Rome at the time Byzantium was obliterated by the Turks. Russia was cut off from close interaction with the Greeks, there was a considerable language barrier, and both nations embarked upon completely separate political and cultural destinies. These events were similar to what happened between Rome and Constantinople, yet in the case of Russia and Greece, there was no schism, no severance from the Church. Can you suggest the reason?

Political, historical, cultural, linguistic and geographic diversity does not affect the oneness of the Apostolic Church. The Church is always one and the same, regardless of the human environment in which it is situated, be it Russia, Greece, China, Japan, or sub-Saharan Africa.

Russia did not commit Rome's mistake of holding itself above the ancient Councils and fashioning unto itself a new theology without any reference to the Councils or Sacred Apostolic Tradition. The Russian Church was obedient to the Councils and the conscience of the Church expressed in them, and as a result, the Russian Church never cut itself off from the True Universal Church, or from Christ, its Head, as the Latin Church did. Ever since it received Christianity, the Russian nation has always been a God-bearing nation, and the faith of Christ was always preserved in it.

With regard to Russia's being the Third Rome, the first Rome had fallen to the barbarians, and it subsequently lapsed into heresy and departed from the Apostolic Church. The Second Rome (or New Rome, or Constantinople) had fallen into heresy at the Council of Florence and had been destroyed by the Turks as punishment from God, and the greater part of the Balkans was also under the domination of the Turks. To the Russians it seemed no coincidence that at the very time the Byzantine Empire came to an end, they themselves were at last throwing off the last remaining vestiges of Tartar suzerainty. God, it seemed, was granting Russia freedom because He had chosen it to be the successor of Byzantium. Russia was thus called upon to preserve the Orthodox faith and to be its champion and protector after the other two Romes had fallen.

As one writer goes on to expound on this matter, Moscow was indeed the Third Rome, the lawful successor of the New Rome, Constantinople. Moreover, the better Russian Tsars took this role and its attendant responsibilities very seriously. They waged successive wars to liberate the Orthodox Balkans from the Turks and protect them from the Western powers; they spent large sums of money to support the Orthodox monasteries of Mount Athos and the Patriarchates of the Middle East; and Tsarism itself fell in a self-sacrificial war to protect Orthodox Serbia from Catholic Austria-Hungary.

7. The textbook gives a cause of the developing disunity between Rome and the Church. What was this cause?

One cause was due to the different political situations in the East and West, which in turn caused the Church to assume different outward forms. From the start, there had been a certain difference of emphasis between the East and West so that in time, people came to view Church order in conflicting ways.

The East had many Churches of Apostolic foundation, and it had a strong awareness of the equality of all bishops and of the collegial nature of the Church. It saw the bishop of Rome as the first bishop, but first among equals.

In the West, only one great see dated back to the Apostles — Rome, which caused the West to see Rome as the Apostolic see. Also, while Rome adhered to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, it did not play an active role in them, nor did it see the Church so much as a college as it saw it as a monarchy — the monarchy of the pope.

The textbook goes on to describe how a further political development reinforced this initial divergence: in the political vacuum created by the barbarian invasion of the West, the pope came to get involved in both the political and spiritual life of Western Europe. Not only did he act as an arbiter of contentions between disputing sovereigns, but he came to assume the role of an autocrat and absolute monarch over the Church.

As a political leader himself, the pope, after a prolonged dialectical process in the European Middle Ages, arrogated imperial authority to himself and assumed the right to appoint and depose kings and emperors. In spite of St. Jerome's dictum let the lust for Roman power cease, many popes became involved in a relentless campaign to increase the scope of their authority, thereby establishing the foundation of papal absolutism and dictatorship. As Archimandrite Sergius, former Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Sofia, Bulgaria, notes of that dictatorship, "Papism's earthly centralization and leadership are alien to the heavenly centralization of Christ's Church, as a Theanthropic body, headed by the glorified God-Man, Jesus Christ" (Mt 28:18). The papacy's earthly leadership is inconsistent with the authority of Christ both in Heaven and on earth." Even so, Rome's shrill demand for submission was to become an invariable feature governing its relations with Byzantium.

8. An active interest and participation of the laity in theology and Church life has always been a significant factor in Orthodoxy. In the West, theological education became limited to what group?

Theological education in the West came to be the exclusive domain of the clergy. As Archbishop Averky of Jordanville writes in this regard:

Further development of this idea is given by Professor A.P. Lopukin of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He notes that:

Another way in which the Latin Church browbeat the laity was in its depriving them of the ability to commune of the chalice, an innovation that was first allowed in the West in the twelfth century. This change runs contrary to Christ's direct words: "Drink ye all of it," and also: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink of His blood, ye have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Other scriptural passages as well clearly testify against the Roman Catholic practice (1 Cor 10:16-17; 11:26-30), as do patristic works. Moreover, Rome's change went against the universal practice of the ancient Church, as well as the express prohibition of many ancient popes. (It is important to note, however, that at that time, the Latin Church no longer had the Holy Eucharist, nor was there grace in any of its Sacraments, for it was severed from Christ's Church as of its schism in 1054). Protopriest Victor Potapov explains that although the Latin Church attempted to justify its deviation in this matter with various pretexts, the ultimate aim of this change was to show in the very communicating the superiority of the clergy over the laity.

(It is of interest to note that when the Bohemian religious reformer Jan Hus attacked the corruption of the Latin clergy, he insisted that the laity should be able to commune from the chalice, as was the Orthodox and early Western custom. For stating these things, he was excommunicated in 1409, after which he was captured and burned at the stake by the Latin Church).

In yet another attempt to separate the clergy from the rest of society, a married clergy was done away with in the West. In the early Church, especially in the East, a married priesthood was the norm. This ancient practice was abandoned in the West with the papal changes of 1046-73. As Professor Aristeides Papadakis writes concerning this change: "Behind the campaign for celibacy, in sum, aside from the moral and canonical issues involved, was the desire to set all churchmen apart from and above the laity; the need to create a spiritual elite by the separation of the priest from the ordinary laymen was an urgent priority" [The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, p. 37]. Adding to these ideas, Protopriest Victor Potapov explains that:

The same Fr. Victor notes that too sharp a line between the clergy and laity was drawn by the Catholic clergy with the pope at its head. An artificial division into the Church of those who teach and those who are taught appeared, while in the sacramental life, the significance of the prayerful participation of the people of the Church has been diminished. In the Roman Catholic Church, the clergy elevated itself too much over the people, and abusing its position, it oppressed them.

9. One particular aspect of Church life that the textbook often brings out is the contribution which each individual Church center made to theology in ancient times. Each center put forth understandings and approaches to understandings which were often synthesized at the General Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit. What were the two theological focal points which separated Rome from this harmonious system?

(1) Papal claims of universal jurisdiction and unlimited sovereignty over the Universal Church. Rome's spirit of lust for power and its papal pretenses were contrary to the traditions and customs of the Church, for, as noted earlier, the Church is not and never was monarchical in structure, centered around a single bishop. In spite of that fact, however, the pope became an absolute dictator set up over the Western Church, one who issued orders not only to his ecclesiastical subordinates, but to secular rulers as well. As one writer notes, the medieval Frankish-Teutonic conception of the pope entails the greatest adulteration of Christianity and was the source of further distortion of Christianity in the West.

The Vatican still maintains that papal primacy is beyond question. On June 9, 2000, the pope approved a so-called "Note" of one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. This "Note" states that "no Roman pontiff ever recognized... [an]... equalization of sees or accepted that only a primacy of honor be accorded to the see of Rome." A similar document titled Dominus Iesus was published on September 5, 2000, by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (formerly the Office of the Inquisition). Both statements are an attempt to seduce people into Rome's web of deceit concerning papal primacy and the primacy of the Latin Church.

(2) The matter of Rome's addition of the word filioque to the Creed. This change of wording in the Creed was introduced in the early medieval Western Church some centuries before the separation of Rome from the Universal Church. Rome took it upon itself to change the Creed without consulting the rest of the Church, and the addition had ruinous effects upon Western theology.

10. In what year and in what council did Charlemagne manage to have the filioque approved?

Charlemagne had the filioque formula adopted at the semi-Iconoclast council at Frankfurt in 794. As Aristeides Papadakis explains in his book The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, this addition was achieved without official papal approval or authorization. Charlemagne used the filioque as propaganda against the Byzantine state, his political adversary at that time, yet the addition was disapproved of by the papacy. Whenever Carolingian requests for an endorsement of the filioque were made, these requests were always firmly denied by the papacy. While singing the filioque at the royal chapel of Aachen was apparently permissible, tampering with the authoritative text of the Creed in a formal way was not.

Significantly, not only did Rome condemn the filioque phrase on more than one occasion, but Rome had even been its primary opponent in the West since Charlemagne's advisors saw fit to endorse it. Until 1014, the Western Patriarchate had in fact faithfully adhered to the previous decisions of the Universal Church expressly prohibiting any addition to the Creed.

At his coronation in 1014, the German emperor Henry II demanded that the pope include the filioque in the Creed sung at Mass (previously the Creed was not a part of the Mass in Rome). The pope balked at first, but then submitted. As a result of its adoption at that time, the altered Creed became standard throughout the West. Before long, Rome began to justify the alteration by claiming that it had doctrinal authority on its own. As papal apologists were to argue, it was sufficient that a Roman pontiff had declared it dogma. By his own petrine powers, the apologists asserted, the pope was not subject to conciliar judgment, but unlike everyone else, he had the right not only to convoke general councils, but to amplify and even revise their doctrines.

Of course, the arguments of the papal apologists were not without glaring contradictions. The apologists failed to note the fact that the popes had earlier affirmed the original text of the Creed. Also, the papal apologists failed to mention that the popes had earlier refused to fall in line with the Carolingians in the matter of the filioque.

11. To what heresy was the council in Frankfurt related?

The council was related to the earlier heresy of Iconoclasm.

12. How did Pope Leo III demonstrate his rejection of the filioque?

Pope Leo III wrote Charlemagne a letter stating that while he considered the filioque to be doctrinally sound, he did not consider it right to tamper with the wording of the Creed. The same pope had the Creed without the filioque inscribed on two silver plaques — one in Latin and one in Greek — and installed in St. Peter's.

13. What understanding of the filioque do you derive from this chapter?

First, the filioque interpolation should have never been inserted into the Creed as it revises the words of Christ in John 15:26, yet the words of Christ and Scripture cannot be revised. Moreover, as noted above, the Ecumenical Councils specifically forbade that any changes should ever be made in the Creed, and if it ever seemed that an addition should be necessary, then the only competent institution empowered with such authority was another Ecumenical Council. The Creed is the common treasure of the entire Church, and no individual part of the Church has the right to modify an ecumenical document by its own judgment in such a way as Rome did. The Roman Church, in its arbitrary alteration of the Creed without the consent of the East, committed what one writer described as moral fratricide — that is, Rome is guilty of a sin against the unity of the Church. (For this reason and others, some do not think that it is insignificant that the word amor [love] spelled backwards is Roma). As the scholarly Blessed Theophylact of Ochrid noted in the twelfth century, no doctrine could ever be viewed as correct just because it had been declared true by the pope, not even if the Latins "shake the keys of the kingdom in our faces." The textual corruption of the Creed approved by the papal throne was unlawful. Theological objections aside, the addition lacked both biblical and ecumenical authority.

Secondly, from the theological standpoint, the filioque addition is untrue. Christ's words clearly indicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26). On this basis, it is incorrect to state that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Rome's addition of a word is not an abstruse theological issue, but one with far-reaching consequences in other areas since the filioque addition destroys the balance between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. It also leads to an erroneous understanding of the Holy Spirit's function in the world, thus promoting a false doctrine of the Church.

(The matter of the filioque addition to the Creed and how it profoundly affected Western theology for the worse will be fully developed in chapter 8, answers 6-7 and 9-14).

14. Give your understanding of the nature of a schism.

All the Holy Fathers speak as one against schism and consider it to be among the most damnable of sins. St. John Chrysostom, for example, states that not even the blood of martyrdom can wash away the sin of schism. Also, as St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, warned: "Make no mistake, brethren, no one who follows another into schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the Passion." [Ignatius to the Philadelphians 5:3.] The same Father further instructs:

Likewise, St. Basil the Great instructs:

St. Basil's words are clear and revealing.

Frank Schaeffer, a former Protestant who converted to Orthodox Christianity, makes a number of observations regarding schisms. He states that God's plan for His Church does not include the unrepentant anarchy of 23,000 denominations that have rendered claims of absolute truth ludicrous in the eyes of the world. The same writer goes on to state that according to Christ, schisms — that is, divisions among believers, is part of the antichrist's program, not that of God. Moreover, he notes, there are repeated warnings in the New Testament against schism, division, strive and lording it over others. These warnings are so frequent that the call for Church unity, order and humble collegiality might be described as the main theme of the epistles. Holy Tradition also teaches against schism, calling it a re-crucifixion of Christ.

The Great Schism of 1054, that is, the breakaway of the Roman Church from the Church Universal, is the greatest tragedy to befall Christendom. For the benefit of those Christians outside Eastern Orthodoxy, Protopriest Victor Potapov's concise explanation of that event is provided here. Fr. Victor writes that:

The year 1054 is assigned to the cataclysmic schism that plunged Western Europe into the darkness of heresy, the schism which produced the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwards, the continuing putrefaction of the Roman Church produced the thousands of Protestant Churches and their offspring.

Regarding the 1054 date, it is largely symbolic and does not pinpoint the exact date of separation of the West from the East. Moreover, it cannot be maintained that the Roman Church ceased overnight to be a repository of ecclesial grace. Instead, it became spiritually ill, the disease of heresy spread, and the West gradually came to be detached from the rest of the body. The saints and various synods since that time attest to this fact. Speaking of the decline of Christianity in the West, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose remarks:

For a Western Christian, the explanation of the Great Schism in the textbook could lead to the mistaken notion that Rome's separation from the Church was nothing more than a fortuitous outcome of non-theological factors (historical and political) in the East and West that only secondarily spilled over into the theological realm. Such was not the case. Even though theological and non-theological matters alike were mixed together in the schism that cut the West off from Christ's Church, it was ultimately the theological issues that were the root of the schism — a point underemphasized in the textbook, but made in the prefatory notes to the theology course. The same notes go on to explain that however deeply Christians in any age may be affected by historical events, the Church is not. The Church remains ever the same — immovable, unshakable and eternal — just as its Head, Jesus Christ, is.

The prefatory notes also refer to the fact that all bishops are equal and that none is infallible. Bishops and their dioceses are protected from error and heresy by their obedience to the Church's Councils. Since these Councils are assemblies of all bishops and are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they are expressive of the conscience of the Church, which alone is infallible. When a bishop places himself above the Councils, he severs himself from the only real protection from error and heresy he has — these same ancient Councils, and he has no source of guidance of the Holy Spirit. Heresy and error are inevitable for such a bishop.

Further explaining the Great Schism, the prefatory notes mention that all Orthodox Fathers presented their writings asking: Is this what the Scripture teaches? Is this how Sacred Tradition understands it? Is this how the previous Councils have defined it? They would then submit their writings to the conscience of the Church for its approval. Anyone disobedient to this way will separate himself from the Church, the notes state. And should this separation involve a bishop who takes a diocese or Patriarchate with him, this separation constitutes a schism. And the notes conclude, to be in schism is to be cut off — by one's choice and deed — from the Holy Church, and thus cut off from Christ.

Metropolitan Anthony, former First Hierarch of the Russian Church in Exile, explains that it is not possible for there to be a split within or among the Churches. He states that from time to time, people have fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and in doing so, they ceased to be members of it. Thus, there was no "division" of Churches in 1054, but rather a "falling off." If a "division" had occurred, it would have meant that after one unified Church had existed for one thousand years, there came into being not one but two Churches, something contrary to Christ's promise that the Church is one (Mt 16:18). According to this promise, the Church can never lose its unity, but will always remain one.

The Church has experienced a succession of heresies and schisms from the very earliest times. A particularly long-lived separation began in the fifth and sixth centuries over Christological issues, when entire nations — Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, and large parts of the Syrian population abandoned the communion of the Orthodox Church. Rome's schism is therefore nothing new to the history of the Church. It is not the earliest schism, nor is it the longest one in duration; it differs only in its being the largest one in terms of the number of people who were severed from the Church.

After the Great Schism of 1054, there were two different groups of believers — the Orthodox, who maintained the Apostolic Christian faith of their ancestors, and the Western papal Catholics, who after separating from the Apostolic Church developed with surprising rapidity into a religion different both from the pre-schism Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy. As one historian noted, an early Christian would have felt at home in the Western Church of the eleventh century, but out of place in that of the twelfth century.

The Latin Church has not come to terms with the terrible event of 1054 and falsely maintains that the Orthodox Church went into schism at that time. Rome adds that while Orthodoxy is schismatic, it is not heretical. That is, Rome teaches that Eastern Orthodoxy does not have false doctrines.

Moreover, in an attempt to keep its flock from ever investigating Christ's true Church and becoming Orthodox, Rome claims that nothing essential separates Orthodoxy from the Latin Church, other than Orthodoxy's refusal to accept the "universal authority" of the pope. Beyond this matter, Rome teaches, any doctrinal differences are only "misunderstandings" because of incomplete formulations.

In spite of Rome's claim that Orthodoxy went into schism, history is clear in showing that once Rome no longer looked to Sacred Tradition, to the ancient Councils, or to the Church Fathers — much to the opposition of the entire East, it set itself above these and attempted to define theological issues on its own. Thus Rome cut itself off from its only protection against error and heresy, and it ineluctably fell into heresy itself. Rome was no longer a part of the continuing unity of Christ's Church after the Great Schism of 1054. To this day, even though the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the true Church, it stands outside the boundaries of the one true Church that Christ established on earth. After 1054, the Orthodox Church is the only true continuation of the early undivided Church.

16. How did papal claims and the idea of papal infallibility ensure that false teachings such as purgatory, merits, atonement, indulgences, the Assumption, etc., would become embedded in the doctrine of the Latin Church?

Over the course of its ten centuries of separation from the Orthodox Church, the Latin Church introduced a host of innovations, chief among which are the dogmas of papal supremacy and infallibility, the filioque, created grace, the Immaculate Conception and purgatory. To understand how these false doctrines became solidly established in Roman Catholicism, it is necessary to recall the formula of a schism. Once Rome placed itself above the Ecumenical Councils, which are expressive of the conscience of the Church, it severed itself from its only protection against error and heresy, thus ensuring that it would fall into heresy itself — and so it did. When Rome turned its back on its former correct understanding that all bishops are equal and consult with one another in councils, and when it likewise ignored the conscience of the Church, which alone is infallible, it began to make pretensions and heretical claims about its own bishop, starting in the ninth century. In time (1870), Rome went on to invent the false dogma that the bishop of Rome is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was actually only an extension of the false teaching of universal authority. As the introduction to this book notes, papal infallibility is denied by the very Church that invented it, for the Roman Catholic Church admits that many Roman popes were heretics and that many spoke falsehood when making ex cathedra pronouncements concerning faith and morals. Papal infallibility is again shown to be false since the Apostle Peter, who the Latin Church proclaims was its first pope, was not infallible. At the Apostolic Council held at Jerusalem (cf. second chapter of Galatians), Peter was chided by Paul for not keeping the faith, whereupon Peter felt a need to renounce publicly his incorrect views. Given the fact that Peter spoke falsehood, Rome's argument of papal infallibility collapses.

One absurd and even blasphemous teaching of the Latin Church is that of supererogatory works, which can be explained exclusively by the avarice of the popes and the Catholic clergy. This false teaching was confirmed in 1343, and as Protopriest Victor Potapov explains, it maintains that many of the saints, in endeavoring to realize in their own lives not only God's law or the commandments (praecepta), offered superabundant, supererogatory satisfaction to the divine justice and performed supererogatory good works (opera supererogatonis). From them, a certain quantity still remains, as it were, of excess, supererogatory good works. This excess makes up the so-called treasury of supererogatory merits (thesarus meritorium), which is at the complete and unconditional disposal of the pope. Whoever does not have as many of his own deeds as are needed to satisfy God's justice for his sins, can — by the mercy of the pope — make use of the supererogatory merits of the saints in the Church's treasury — so Rome teaches in complete contradiction of the clear teaching of Sacred Scripture on man's salvation. The ideal of Christian perfection is so high, Fr. Victor explains, is so unattainable, that not only can man never perform anything supererogatory, but he cannot even attain this ideal. Fr. Victor goes on to cite two scriptural passages to explain. For example, the Lord said to His disciples: "When you shall have done all these things which are commanded of you, say, 'We are unworthy servants: we have done that which was our duty to do'" (Lk 17:10). Again, the Apostle Paul writes:

Regarding Rome's teaching on so-called purgatory (purgatorium), Orthodoxy considers it improper to elevate any speculative theological opinions to the level of dogma as Rome did with this matter. This opinion on the afterlife was elaborated and developed in detail after Rome cut itself off from the Apostolic Church in 1054, and it was accepted as dogma in 1439. Scriptures speak of Heaven and hell, but they mention no other place for the departed. The Latin Church went on to add an intermediate place or state for those souls who repented but died before undergoing temporal punishment here on earth for their sins to satisfy divine justice: this same purgatory. There, souls of the dead suffer various tortures to pay for their sins, and each soul stays there as much time as it is necessary to expiate those sins — or else, the Latin Church also teaches — the period of torments can be shortened by way of papal indulgences, which were granted not without the influence of financial motives (The matter of indulgences will be discussed below). When the period of torment ends, when the debt paid to God's justice is paid in full, the purified soul then passes from purgatory to Paradise.

Nikolaos Vassiliadis gives an in-depth examination of the history of the false teaching of purgatory in his book The Mystery of Death. Noting that there is no basis whatsoever for the teaching in Scripture, he explains that the teaching was borrowed instead from three other sources: 1) from the atheistic Chaldeans, 2) from Origen, whose teaching on the subject was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and 3) from the Monophysite and Platonist Philoponos, whose heretical teachings date to the first half of the sixth century.

The cleansing fire of purgatorial flames and torments described in medieval literature are a complete myth. The souls of the dead are not cleansed or purged of their iniquities by virtue of many years of purgatorial torments themselves, by which they personally offer satisfaction to God's justice. Once the soul departs from the body, the ability of the soul to change its own status disappears. At that time, only the prayers and good works of the members of Christ's Church can assist that soul. If a soul experiences torments in hades as a result of sins it committed in earthly life, no other torment is permitted or is even necessary. As St. Mark of Ephesus wrote: "For if the remission of sins is accomplished for the sake of prayers, or merely by the divine love of mankind itself, there is no need for punishment and cleansing [by fire]."

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos lists many sources of the false teaching of purgatory, among which is the politico-economic connection of popery. He explains that:

As the Latins demonstrated at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39), they had no interest whatsoever in seeking the truth concerning purgatory. Their interest instead was simply to impose their heretical views on the Orthodox. The fact remains, however, that purgatory is "a fruit and result of the scholastic theology of the Franco-Latins and has no relationship to Orthodox theology as Christ taught it, the Apostles lived it, and the Holy Fathers handed it down to us" (Metropolitan Hierotheos).

Rome's medieval teaching on indulgences (referred to above) is yet another false teaching that was completely unknown in the ancient, undivided Church as it contradicts the whole spirit of Orthodoxy. An indulgence is the forgiveness or reduction of the temporal punishment that a sinner must undergo for the satisfaction of God's justice. After the guilt and external punishment are remitted in the sacrament of repentance, indulgences are granted to a sinner by the agency of the pope, of the Saviour’s surplus merits and the supererogatory good works of the Mother of God and the saints. Fr. Victor Potapov notes that the profitableness of indulgences led to their greater and greater growth and the search for new occasions for granting them. They are not usually given out ex gratis, but are generally sold for money — under the pretext, of course, of performing good works with the money. As the advocates and sellers of indulgences — including the popes, who trafficked in them, were guided by monetary interests, attacks on indulgences were some of the first features of the Reformation movement.

With regard to the boundlessly insulting and blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Conception, while it seems to exalt the Mother of God, it actually belittles her by denying all of her virtues. This false teaching maintains that Mary was placed in a state where it was impossible for her to sin, and thus she could not sin even if she wanted to. However, where there is no impulse to sin and no effort in overcoming temptations, neither is there any victory. Through the Immaculate Conception, the Latin Church takes away all victory and merit from the holiest of all the saints, the Mother of God. (Both this Latin dogma and that of the Assumption will be examined in detail in chapter ten).

False teachings would have never become a part of the Latin Church had it remained united to Christ's Church, and had Rome submitted these teachings before a universal assembly of bishops from the entire Church, both East and West. As a body gathered in Council, such an assembly would have had the Holy Spirit as its guiding force, as opposed to a single fallible bishop. (As previously noted, however, as of Rome's severance from the Church in 1054, the popes were no longer so much as laymen in the Church, much less bishops, for Apostolic Succession was ended in the West).

Although the Roman Church emerged from the Orthodox Church and was once bound to it as the Church of martyrs, saints, hierarchs and right-believing Orthodox Christians, Rome was severed from it as of the Great Schism. After the dictatorial popes were cut off from Christ's Church, they were also cut off from the Holy Spirit, and cut off from the fullness of Truth and from the only source of infallibility. As a result, they were no longer able to combat heresy when it arose, and false doctrines became firmly fixed in the Latin Church through the popes' ex cathedra promulgations of falsehood. Subsequently, amidst the waves of apostasy that blinded future generations in the West, the faith of Western Christians slowly began to change and deviate from the pure faith of the Apostolic Church. This process has continued unabated to the present time, and now there is hardly any similarity remaining between the West and Eastern Orthodoxy. As Philip Sherrard notes in this regard, the Christian West departed so far from the fullness of Truth, that it now possesses "a mentality increasingly non-religious in nature," even when it thinks that it is being "religious." [Philip Sherrard, The Greek East and the Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition, 1992].

Archpriest Alexey Young goes on to explain that in the past, Church Councils were historically called in order to address errors and heresy by triumphantly proclaiming the faith. The Second Vatican Council (1963), however, had no such purpose. Instead, the doors of the Latin Church were thrown open to:

St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco (+1966) explained that Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church. However, upon those who have fallen away from it (such as the Roman Catholic Church) are fulfilled the words: "As a branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me" (Jn 15:4).

By far, the most significant points are those given in the prefatory notes' summation of the Great Schism. The textbook's account, while not without some merit in giving general background information, is rationalistic in its approach and is very much lacking in real substance in causal analysis. This defect no doubt traces to the author's non-Orthodox background.

The textbook's explanation of the Great Schism would appear flawed to Orthodox theologians as they have never thought in the Cartesian method of the West. Two Greek hierarchs, Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna and Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, comment on this fact, saying that unlike the Western thinker, Orthodox do not begin at zero, at nothing, and then develop their observations about things. Instead, they begin at one, as it were, and work from certain basic assumptions.

In the Western system that begins at zero, the hierarchs explain, Western thinkers might begin by assuming that God does not exist (or that nothing exists), and then proceed to establish the existence of God and the created world. When the Westerner projects this way of thinking onto history, he is confused how an obscure religion in a remote section of the world could have accomplished its triumph.

Even if a Westerner does acknowledge the divine nature of the Christian religion, the hierarchs continue, he is inclined to assume that the Church was something less than a divine manifestation. He usually imagines that it took root in the Roman Empire because of certain social, political and economic factors that favored its growth. A Westerner begins with a secular history that is infused with a divine witness, but with a zero assumption about the divine content of history.

This way of thinking impinges upon the textbook's analysis of the Great Schism and taints it, for its author projects social, political, linguistic and cultural factors onto that history. Ultimately he gets bogged down in the details of the historical minutiae of the event until his task of generalization suffers. That is, he fails to convey the larger picture of the historical event, which is the goal of historical inquiry.

As noted, an Orthodox works from certain assumptions. He always assumes the existence of God and His created world, for example, and bases his intellectual observations on this a priori assumption. In viewing history, an Orthodox makes the assumption that the Christian Church is divine and that history is the story of its divine manifestation. He begins with a history that is divine, a history whose content is the story of the manifestation of the divine.

The textbook's analysis of the Great Schism ultimately fails because its author, like other rationalistic scholars, tends to ascribe too much importance to secondary causes to historical events, thinking that they are the real causes. This is not so, for political, cultural, economic and other factors are completely secondary. The primary cause of history is always spiritual. As Hieromonk Seraphim Rose once explained at a remote monastery in a mountain wilderness:

The primary cause of the Great Schism, that is, the spiritual cause, was the temptation placed into the hearts of the popes by the devil — the temptation to sell out Christ for earthly rule, for universal sovereignty and domination. The popes yielded to that satanic suggestion, even as many angels once yielded to Lucifer's suggestion to rebel against God, and even as Adam and Eve yielded to temptation in the Garden of Eden. Therein lies the spiritual level where the history of the infinitely tragic fall of the Roman Church was made. Indeed, it is on that level that all history is made.

To view history in this way is to acknowledge that there is a first cause, which is what God does in history and how the soul reacts to it, and that the secondary cause is ordinary events. This understanding is the correct understanding of history, for it looks above, not below.

Hieromonk Patapios of Etna observes that the author of the textbook apparently does not believe that divine providence is the central guiding principle in the historical unfolding of the Orthodox Church. From an Orthodox point of view, the Cambridge University-educated scholar explains, "The Great Schism was not only a tragedy, but also an act of divine providence that protected the Eastern Church from infection by the bacterium of Latin heresy." It is parenthetically added that "the tragic dimensions [of the schism] are to be found in the loss of human souls, many of whom were innocent victims of the heresies promoted by the popes and their toadies." [The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way Reviewed, p. 8].

18. Although it is not mentioned in the textbook, give your understanding of the Petrine theory.

On the basis of Matthew 16:18, the Roman Catholic Church proudly proclaims the Petrine theory — that is, that the Apostle Peter is the rock upon which Christ wished to build His Church. An analysis of this theory shows that Rome's claim is altogether spurious from the standpoint of the biblico-patristic tradition, and also from a grammatical analysis of the scriptural passage.

In the Greek language, the equivalent for Peter is Petros, which means little stone, while rock is petra. Since petra is of the feminine gender, it cannot refer back to a masculine Peter. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Roman apologists.

What Christ was actually saying to Peter was: "You are Peter [Petros, a little stone], and upon this rock [petra, that is, your proclamation of Me as Christ], I will build My Church, since you alone could not support the weight of its foundation." In other words, Christ will build His Church upon a person's profession of faith in Him as the Christ, but not upon a mere mortal man such as Peter. Christ never stated that He would build His Church on a man (Peter), a little stone, as this would be too faulty a foundation. Instead, Christ will build His Church upon Himself, the only foundation possible, and upon Peter's profession of faith (homologica). The word homologica, coincidentally, is feminine in Greek, thus corresponding exactly to petra, a large unmovable monolith.

The Apostle Peter himself obviously recognizes these facts as he speaks of believers as stones, and of Jesus as the rock "upon which God builds" (1 Peter 2:5-8). Again, the Apostle Paul answers who the rock is. He states without qualification that the rock is Christ. "For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid" (1 Cor 3:11).

One of the laymen who opposed the false teaching of papal infallibility (something that grew out of the equally false doctrine of papal supremacy) was Johan Josef Ignaz von Dollinger, Germany's greatest Roman Catholic historian. Dr. von Dollinger was a professor of canon law and Church history at Munich University and was president of the Bavarian Royal Academy of Sciences. Under his leadership, Munich University gained first place in Europe as a center for ecclesiastical studies. Dr. von Dollinger himself was recognized throughout the world as one of the greatest historical scholars in Europe, and he was recognized as the greatest Church historian of his day, bar none. Dr. von Dollinger was also universally acclaimed as a patron of Roman Catholic Church history in the nineteenth century.

Shortly after the proclamation of the heresy of papal infallibility, Dr. von Dollinger published the book The Pope and the Council — a frontal attack on papal infallibility. In this book, the perspicacious author made a number of irrefutable observations from history, among which is the fact that papal infallibility was completely unknown in the early Church and has always been relentlessly resisted by the Orthodox Church. Therefore, he added, "To the adherents of the theory of infallibility, the history of the Church must appear as an incomprehensible problem." [Quoted in Michael Whelton, Two Paths... p. 184.] Moreover, Dr. von Dollinger went on to add, no one was ever accused of heresy in denying the authority of the popes in their pronouncements of faith. He also pointed out that it was only much later, by means of a good number of forgeries (see below), that papal infallibility gained ground. In view of these facts, he correctly concluded that Rome would forever be forced to pile one lie on top of another to support this new and false teaching of papal infallibility.

For Dr. von Dollinger’s great intellectual honesty, his book was quickly placed on the Index of Forbidden books. Also, to make sure that the book would never see the light of day in Catholic circles, the decree stressed quocumque idiomate — "in whatever language" it may be published. As for Dr. von Dollinger himself, the Latin Church excommunicated him — one additional act of the intimidating coercive tactics that Pope Pius IX used all along in order to see that the false doctrine of papal infallibility would become a reality.

As for the testimony of the Church Fathers, not a single one of them interprets Matthew 16:18 (et al.) as applying to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. St. John Chrysostom taught that "the rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." Dr. von Dollinger observed that the other Fathers understood rock in this sense, or understood rock to be Christ Himself; or else they understood it as both of these together — as Christ and as Peter's confession of faith in Christ. Since the Fathers left so complete a witness, Rome is shorn of all defense in its papal claims. For this reason, the subject of patristics (or patrology, the study of the teaching of the Fathers) is given a minor place in Roman Catholic seminary curricula. For this same reason did the Latin Church resort to editing manuscripts and doctoring the testimony of the Church Fathers.

Among the Roman Catholic Church's numerous forgeries mentioned above, one was the Donation of Constantine. Concerning this document, Professor Walter H. Turner of the University of Detroit writes that it is universally accepted as one of the greatest forgeries of history. According to the Donation of Constantine, which was defended as authoritative until the sixteenth century, the Emperor Constantine confers upon Pope Silvester I and his successors spiritual primacy over all other patriarchs and bishops of the world, granting him imperial honors and granting to the chief Roman clergy senatorial distinctions and honors. To supremacy in spiritual matters was added temporal dominion over Rome, over Italy, and over the provinces, districts and cities of the Western regions. Importantly, this document is not without egregious blunders. For example, Constantine supposedly gives the pope dominion over the four Patriarchates of the East, although Constantinople and Jerusalem had not yet been elevated to patriarchal sees. (Jerusalem, in fact, was not declared a see until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, some 130 years later). Elsewhere, Constantine was calling himself the conqueror of the Huns fifty years prior to their entering Europe.

The Cambridge Medieval History describes the Donation of Constantine as the "cornerstone of papal power" (vol. 11, p. 586). For over 600 years this fraudulent document was an unqualified success in advancing the falsehood of papal claims. Finally, however, in the face of scholarship that proved it was a brazen forgery, the Roman Catholic Church itself admitted that it was a hoax. (Even so, in spite of that admission, Rome continued deceiving the Western world with the notion of the primacy of the pope).

This counterfeit document and others like it are never mentioned by the Latin Church today, of course, because of their origin and content. However, the evidence of the Donation of Constantine and other extensive forgeries in the Latin Church beg the questions: if there were absolute evidence of Rome's supreme universal jurisdiction, then why did Rome resort to counterfeit documents? Why the necessity to forge?

As for the Apostle Peter himself, he knew only one "Supreme Shepherd" — Jesus Christ. Peter never spoke of any primacy or sovereignty over the Church, nor did he ever raise himself over the other pastors of the Church. Very much to the contrary, Peter addressed the other pastors as equals and brothers (Acts 1:16, 2:29, 3:17, 15:7). Likewise, the Apostle Paul knew nothing of Peter's "primacy" or "infallibility" when he "withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed" (Gal 2:11).

The Roman Catholic Church is presently involved in a frenzied effort to explain its utterly fraudulent papal claims in the face of a growing awareness — both among its laity and clergy — that such claims are altogether false and impossible to defend by historical data. Had the author of the textbook mentioned these facts about the Petrine theory, it would have been all the more obvious to his readers — and to Roman Catholics most importantly — that Rome's papal claims, like all lies, have their source in "the father of lies," in Satan (cf. Jn 8:44).

1. How does Vladimir Lossky define Tradition?

Lossky writes that "Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church."

2. The textbook observes that Orthodox history is marked by a series of sudden political and national breaks. A) What, according to the author, was transformed by these sudden breaks, and B) what was never broken by them?

The sudden breaks include such things as the capture of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem by the Arabs; the burning of Kiev by the Mongols; the two sacks of Constantinople; the subjugation of southeastern Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa by the Turks; and the Communist domination of Eastern Europe. A) These events changed the external appearance of the Orthodox world, yet B) they never broke the inward continuity of the Orthodox Church.

3. What distinctive characteristics did two Orthodox scholars attribute to the Orthodox Church?

Protopresbyter Georges Vasilievich Florovsky and Panagiotis Bratsiotis gave as the Church's distinctive characteristics its changelessness, its determination to remain loyal to the past, and its sense of living continuity with the Church of ancient times. These characteristics do not pass unnoticed by outsiders. In fact, they are generally the first things about Orthodoxy that strike Western Christians. As an English Roman Catholic wrote to a newspaper:

4. In what one word is the idea of the living continuity of Orthodoxy summed up?

It is summed up in the word Tradition, also called Sacred Apostolic Tradition as the most important and fundamental part of it comes from the Apostles. (When Tradition is capitalized in this work, it refers to Christian Tradition rather than human traditions).

5. The textbook gives a quote from the reply of the Eastern patriarchs to the non-jurors. Write out that quote.

The patriarchs wrote: "We preserve the doctrine of the Lord uncorrupted, and firmly adhere to the faith He delivered to us, and keep it free from blemish and diminution, as a royal treasure, and a monument of great price, neither adding anything, nor taking anything from it." [Letter of 1718].

6. Having given the Oxford Dictionary definition of tradition, the textbook continues with an explanation of what Christian Tradition is. How is it defined?

The textbook explains that:

7. Why is it wrong to consider or speak of Tradition and Scripture as two different things?

In his book Orthodox Tradition and Modernism, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos gives a much more thorough examination of this matter than the textbook for this course. The professor makes the important point that the term Tradition has been used both in a narrow sense and in a broad sense.

In the narrow sense, Tradition designates only the unwritten divine word of Apostolic preaching that was not written in Holy Scripture, but was preserved in the Church and was written in the Proceedings of the Synods and in the books of the Holy Fathers. On the other hand, in the broad sense, Tradition includes only the unwritten divine word of Apostolic preaching and the written divine word (sc., the Old and New Testaments). It is in the broad sense that the Apostle Paul uses the word when he instructs: "Brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

Dr. Cavarnos explains that before the canon of the New Testament was formed, the Fathers and teachers of the Church used the term Tradition in the broad sense. However, he says, "Since the time that the canon of the New Testament was formed, the term Tradition is usually employed in the narrower sense, to designate the unwritten divine work of Apostolic preaching" [p. 10].

Thus, while the narrow sense became the norm, it is not shown that this narrow sense is used exclusively. Question seven indicates that the broad usage (according to the distinction Cavarnos makes) is preferable, and the quotation in the previous answer shows that the textbook adheres to the broad understanding. When one thinks in this broader sense, Scripture and Tradition are not thought of as two different sources of the Christian faith, for there is only one source: Tradition. Scripture exists within Tradition and forms a part of Tradition.

8. What elements of Tradition does Orthodoxy consider to be absolute, unchanging and not subject to revision or being cancelled?

As noted in chapter two, the Bible, the Creed, and the doctrinal definitions handed down by the Ecumenical Councils are infallible. All of them have a permanent and irrevocable authority, one that is not subject to being revised or canceled.

Many people who recognize the authority of Sacred Scripture regard Sacred Tradition with skepticism, even disdain. Part of the reason for this rejection stems from the fact that the word tradition carries the meaning of custom or habit, something which is not binding.

Fr. John Whiteford explains that the word translated as tradition in the New Testament is the Greek word paradosis, which means that which is transmitted or delivered. Scripture uses the word in two ways, and to emphasize the important distinction between these two ways, the textbook variously uppercases and lowercases the first letter of the word.

Fr. John shows that paradosis is first used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees, because they disregarded the divine Tradition, the divine teaching, while the observed human traditions that contradicted God's law. Christ told them: "Ye leave the commandments of God, and hold fast to the traditions of men" (Mk 7:8, also 7:3,5). Also, in saying "making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered," Christ was referring to pernicious and unlawful customs such as corban. When a man did not want to support his elderly parents, he made a false promise before the Pharisees that he would place his estate and possessions into corban, that is, that he would give it away as a sacrifice to God. Through this act, he was considered to have made a sacrifice to God, although in actual fact, he would give part of his estate to the Pharisees and retain the rest for himself, thereby leaving his elderly parents to the winds of fate. There were many such deplorable and unlawful traditions among the Pharisees, for Christ told them: "And many such like things do ye." It was these man-made traditions that Christ condemned by His words, not Sacred Tradition, which never contradicts divine commandments. (On the contrary, Tradition confirms and strengthens them). St. Paul likewise distinguishes between these two kinds of tradition, human and sacred. Concerning human traditions, he writes to the Colossians: "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8).

The same word paradosis, Fr. John continues, is used in a second sense to refer to authoritative Christian teaching, the essential Christian message (cf. 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thes 2:15). Scripture commands the faithful to preserve Apostolic Tradition. As the Apostle Paul warns: "Guard the deposit" (1 Tim 6:20). Again to Timothy he writes: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:22). Also referring to Christian Tradition, the same Apostle states: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka] them to you" (1 Cor 11:2). He further instructs: "Now we command you, brethren ... that ye keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that ye have received from us" (1 Tim 3:6). Thus, Sacred Scripture legitimatizes Sacred Tradition and gives authority to it.

What makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true is the source. Christ made it clear what the source was of the traditions of the Pharisees was when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mk 7:8).

As for St. Paul, just where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Cor 11:23).

From these and other scriptural passages that make a clear distinction between Sacred Tradition and human tradition, Sacred Tradition is placed on an incomparably higher level than human tradition. Sacred Tradition originates from God and is divine revelation, whereas human traditions originate from mankind and are the products of the human mind. Sacred Tradition was given to men by God, either directly (by Christ), or indirectly (through the prophets and Apostles). Sacred Tradition's incomparable superiority is due to its revelatory character.

While Sacred Scripture puts forth Sacred Tradition as divine and consequently a sure guide to our life, it demotes human tradition. It shows that we should always observe Sacred Tradition, whereas one should break with human tradition (human teaching and customs) whenever the latter is opposed to Sacred Tradition. An example is the evil practice of telling fortunes on the eve of Theophany and the New Year. The Church has persistently condemned and battled against this kind of tradition, and it always will.

The above mentioned Fr. John Whiteford, a former Protestant minister who is not an Orthodox priest, understands the trouble that Protestants have with Tradition, and he goes on to explain it further. He notes that:

With regard to the second part of the question, both the Old Believers and the so-called Living Church fell into extremism in their views on Sacred Tradition and human tradition. The Old Believers (Old Ritualists is more accurate) were a group in Russia who went into schism from the Russian Church over liturgical reforms introduced in the mid-seventeenth century. This group fell into extreme conservatism which would allow no changes in tradition, that is, in non-essential customs inherited from the past. The Living Church, on the other hand, was a schismatic organization approved and supported by the Communist regime, fell into a modernism or theological liberalism which struck at the very roots of Sacred Tradition. The believers of crucified Russia rejected the Living Church decisively.

The divine promise is Christ's promise that "when the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you in all truth" (Jn 16:13).

11. Summarize the source and meaning of Holy Tradition.

Holy Tradition originates from God. Dr. Constantine Cavarnos explains that it is a divine revelation, that is, a supernatural disclosure by God to people of otherwise unknowable truths. The same writer adds that this revelation is shown in Old Testament phrases such as "Thus saith the Lord," "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying." In the New Testament, this character of divine revelation appears not only in the Gospels, where Christ speaks, but also in the Revelation of St. John, which begins with the words: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him," and in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles, especially those of St. Paul. Paul often stresses that his teaching is not his own, nor of the wise of the world, but is teaching from God. To the Corinthians he writes: "Yet we speak wisdom... not that of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish; but we speak the wisdom of God that is a mystery and hidden... which God has revealed to us through His Spirit" (1 Cor 2:6-10).

Dr. Cavarnos notes that it is precisely this revelatory character that distinguishes Christianity from the various and countless systems that the human intellect has devised — religious, philosophical, ethical and social systems. Elder Cleopa of Romania states the same and stresses that the teachings of the Church of Christ are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and cannot err, and that the Founder of the Church, Christ, governs it in an unseen way until the end of the ages. Elsewhere the elder notes that Holy Tradition is God-given and that it is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. He adds that:

Elder Cleopa likewise explains that:

• Do not sanction conceptions that contain inconsistencies amongst themselves or contradictions with the Apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. (A teaching is to be considered worthy of "Tradition" when it stems from the Saviour or the Holy Apostles and is directly under the influence of the Holy Spirit).
• Tradition is that which has been safeguarded from the Apostolic Church and has an uninterrupted continuity until today.
• Tradition is that which is confessed and practiced by the entire universal Orthodox Church.
• Tradition is that which is in harmony with the greatest portion of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

The same elder concludes that:

As previously noted, according to the broader sense of the term Tradition, Holy Scripture is a part of Tradition. These two parts of Tradition — the written and unwritten word — are considered by the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers to be of equal authority. As St. Basil the Great instructs:

St. John Chrysostom likewise writes:

Also bearing special witness to the existence of a rich Apostolic Tradition are the words of St. John the Theologian:

Patristic writings indicate what the content is of the unwritten Apostolic Tradition. St. Basil the Great mentions: (1) that we make the sign of the Cross; (2) that we look to the east when we pray; (3) that we do not kneel in our prayers on Sunday throughout Pentecost; (4) that each person is baptized with three immersions and emersions; (5) the renunciation of Satan and his angels in Baptism; (6) the confession of faith in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, word for word in this way; and (7) the words which the priest utters at the change of the bread and wine of the Divine Eucharist [On the Holy Spirit, chap. 27, PG 32:188-89, 192-93].

St. Dionysius the Aeropagite (+96), a disciple of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:34) and the first bishop of Athens, similarly indicates that secret prayers, which sanctify and accomplish the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments), are a part of the unwritten Tradition. He writes:

In his defense of holy icons, St. John of Damascus writes that it is Apostolic Tradition that we make icons of Christ and the saints, and that we venerate them by honoring them. He gives other examples of the unwritten Tradition of the Holy Apostles as well: the veneration of the Cross and the practice of turning to the east when praying, and he states that "the Apostles have handed down many things to us unwritten." [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV.16, PG 94:1172C-1173B; cf. 1304-05.] The Holy Fathers likewise give other examples of the unwritten Tradition: the fast on Wednesday and Friday, the composition of the services (especially the Divine Liturgy), the manner of celebrating the Holy Mysteries, and the practice of having memorial services to commemorate the faithful reposed.

Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky writes that the ancient Church carefully guarded the inward life of the Church from those outside it. The Holy Mysteries were secret, being kept from non-Christians. When these Mysteries were performed — Baptism and the Eucharist — those outside the Church were not present; the order of the services was not written down, but was only transmitted orally; and in what was preserved in secret was contained the essential side of the faith.

During the era of freedom and triumph of the Church in the fourth century, however, almost all of the Tradition received a written form and is now preserved in the literature of the Church, which comprises a supplement to the Holy Scriptures. The same Fr. Michael notes that the following are included in this sacred ancient Tradition: (1) the most ancient record of the Church, the Canons of the Holy Apostles; (2) the Symbols of Faith of the ancient local Churches; (3) the ancient Liturgies, the rite of Baptism and other ancient prayers; (4) the ancient Acts of the Christian Martyrs. The Acts of the Martyrs did not enter into use by the faithful until they had been examined and approved by the local bishops, and they were read at public gatherings of Christians under the supervision of the leaders of the Churches. In them is seen the confession of the All-Holy Consubstantial Trinity, the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, examples of the invocation of the saints, of belief in the conscious life of those who had reposed in Christ, and much else; (5) the ancient records of the history of the Church, especially the book of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, where there are gathered many ancient traditions of rite and dogma — in particular, there is given the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments; (6) the works of the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church; and finally, (7) the very spirit of the Church's life, the preservation of faithfulness to all her foundations which come from the Holy Apostles.

Fr. Michael writes that the witness of Sacred Tradition is indispensable for our certainty that all of the books of Sacred Scripture have been handed down to us from Apostolic times and are of Apostolic origin. Sacred Tradition is also necessary for the correct understanding of separate passages of Sacred Scripture, and for refuting heretical reinterpretations of it, and, in general, so as to avoid superficial, one-sided, and sometimes even prejudiced and false interpretations of it. Again, Fr. Michael notes, Sacred Tradition is necessary because some truths of faith are expressed in a completely definite form in Scripture, while others are not entirely clear and precise and therefore demand confirmation by Sacred Tradition. Lastly, Sacred Scripture (part of Sacred Tradition) is valuable because from it, we see how the whole order of Church organization, the canons, the divine services and rites, are rooted in and founded upon the way of life of the ancient Church. Therefore, Fr. Michael concludes, the preservation of Tradition expresses the succession of the very essence of the Church.

Protestants deny the unwritten Sacred Tradition and accept only written Tradition, Holy Scripture. Commenting on this matter, Dr. Constantine Cavarnos gives this insight:

Protopriest Victor Potapov also addresses Protestantism's rejection of Apostolic Tradition. He explains that:

Even though Protestants do not acknowledge it to be so, when they accept the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, they are unwittingly accepting the teaching of the Orthodox Church's Sacred Scriptures, and they are accepting the teaching of Orthodoxy's Holy Fathers, its oral Tradition, its Creed, and the dogmatic definitions propounded at its Seven Ecumenical Councils. These things are so because the New Testament came out of Orthodox Christianity's Holy Tradition and is inseparable from it. Thus, when Protestants refer to the books of the New Testament as "the Word of God," once again they are accepting the common practices of the Orthodox Church and the decisions of Orthodoxy's Ecumenical Councils as to which books were included in the New Testament and which were rejected. Many Protestants are painfully unaware of how it is that Christians have come to believe in certain things. They do not realize that the history of doctrine is the history of the Orthodox Church, and they do not realize that without Orthodoxy's Ecumenical Councils, various other doctrines assumed to be "biblical" would not have been effectively defended against heresy as they are not clearly stated in the Bible.

In the Roman Catholic view of Tradition, new dogmas without Apostolic foundation are developed, such as the heresy of papal infallibility. Rome's scholastic theology teaches that through the ages there is a greater deepening of the dogmas of the faith and that they are still developing further. This teaching is not the Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox understanding of Tradition — and noteworthy, it is the understanding that prevailed earlier in the Latin Church prior to its separation from the ancient Apostolic Church in 1054 — is that Tradition is unchanging and does not "develop" (inasmuch as God does not change), and that Tradition is known by its catholicity (or universality), that is, that it is something accepted everywhere in the Church. On the day of Pentecost, the Apostles reached deification, experienced revelation, and so reached the whole Truth. Revelation is not altered with the passage of time. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains:

The Apostle to the nations commands: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thes 2:15). Only the Orthodox Church has remained a faithful keeper of Tradition and has preserved the sacred deposit (1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 1:14) as the Apostles have handed it down. Tradition in Orthodoxy has a living continuity with the Church of ancient times and has been handed down to us as a treasure from generation to generation, from the time of the Apostles. Each generation receives and guards this inheritance for future generations, neither adding anything to it, nor taking anything away. The Holy Fathers have emphasized this loyalty to Tradition, as have Orthodox theologians. As Basil Ioannidis, former professor at the Universities of Athens and Thessalonica, states:

Importantly, distinguished theologians of Western Christianity admit to the traditional character of the Orthodox Church. E. Seeberg, a Protestant professor at the University of Berlin, writes:

The Roman Catholic theologian Julius Tyciak adds:

Dr. Constantine Cavarnos explains that it is to the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers that we owe the preservation and guarding of Sacred Tradition, which the Lord gave, and the Apostles proclaimed, and upon which the Orthodox Church is founded. The Ecumenical Councils made wide use of Apostolic Tradition, stressing its values and taking measures to preserve and proclaim it in their definitions. Dr. Cavarnos further explains that the Holy Fathers also energetically contended for the preservation and predominance of the Apostolic Tradition without additions or subtractions. A sizeable number of the Fathers contended through the Ecumenical Councils. Characteristic of the line that the Fathers maintained in this regard are the words of St. Athanasius the Great: "I have taught according to the Apostolic faith handed down to us by the Fathers, devising nothing outside it" [Ibid].

Dr. Cavarnos points out that an astonishing concord exists in the teaching of the Greek Fathers. This harmony stems from the fact that they completely assimilated Sacred Tradition and followed the vital principle of transmitting it without modernization, without external inventions. The eminent eighteenth-century theologian Eugenios Voulgaris emphasized this accord among the Fathers in his observation that:

Dr. Cavarnos goes on to note that while Orthodoxy has always seen its unchanging persistence in Sacred Tradition as its boast, Western Christians (with some exceptions) have looked upon this persistence as a sign of decline, a sign of deficiency in its inner life. Protestants, for example, have likened Orthodoxy to a "petrified mummy." However, such an accusation shows to what degree Western Christians confuse the revealed faith with different worldly systems, with the different human contrivances and creations. Since in the sciences and crafts there is a continual development and perfection, the heterodox feel the same thing should happen in the Christian religion, that here too there should be a continuous change, revision and replacement of the old with the new — in a word, modernization. Seeing Christianity from a rationalistic standpoint, they do not understand its revelatory character, but demote it to the level of those systems that the human mind has formed on the basis of human reason and the observation of the five senses. Speaking against this error in 1756, Eugenics Voulgaris wrote:

In 1820, Adamantios Koraes observed:

Placing similar emphasis on the divine provenance of the Orthodox faith and excluding innovations, Neophytos Doukas wrote in 1845 that:

Dr. Cavarnos explains that the immobility of death did not accompany Orthodoxy's strict adherence to Tradition as Western Christians maintained it would. On the contrary, it brought the vibrancy of life in Christ. In an 1884 letter to the French Jansenist Pierre Leclerc, Voulgaris spoke about the martyrs and other saints, equal to the ancients, and how Orthodoxy possesses the bounty of miracles unceasingly. He continued: "Our Church is continuously glorified and made wondrous by God, no less after the Schism than before it, and up to our times" [Ibid., p. 17].

Also proclaiming Orthodoxy's great vibrancy of life was a serious student of Orthodoxy, John Brownlie, who was a distinguished Anglican hymnologist. He made the following observations:

Thus, Professor Cavarnos continues, the strict perseverance in Tradition does not at all result in the deadening of the Church. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary for the preservation and fruitfulness of the life of the Church. The professor further observes that it is the disregard and abandonment of Tradition that causes a slackening of life and the gradual decomposition of a Church. The history of the Western Church gives the most persuasive witness to this fact, for there, one novelty and modernization after another was introduced, chiefly from the time of the Great Schism of 1054 and after. The breaking away of the Western Church from the Apostolic Church was the result of the Western Church's innovations. The subsequent revolution of the Protestants, which split the Western Church into warring parties, took place because of the downfall of the Western Church, a downfall that occurred as a direct consequence of its distortion of Sacred Tradition.

Notwithstanding that downfall, the introduction of innovations and novelties continued in the West. At the end of the nineteenth century, for instance, from amidst the decaying ruins of Western Christianity, a movement appeared in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. This was the movement of Modernism, or Modernization, which had as its goal the "renovation" of Christian teaching by adapting it to contemporary worldly thought. The representatives of this movement inflicted incredible damage on Christian doctrine, thinking that through this means they would revivify their Church. However, the result of this discarding truths of the faith and making "adaptations" was that large numbers of people became unbelievers and stopped going to church.

Protestantism, for its part in having denied Tradition, divided into myriad splinter groups. All the differing confessional groups within Protestantism are the result of differing innovations and adaptations to each "contemporary spirit."

Fr. John Whiteford explains that in the writings of the Holy Fathers, innovation and novelty are synonymous with heresy, for the faith which was "once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3) does not change. Thus, if something is at variance with what the Church has believed always (since Apostolic times), it cannot be the authentic teaching of the Church. As the Apostle Paul admonished:

Fr. John continues, noting that if any belief has not been received by the Church in its history, then this is heresy, which is like some foreign contagion introduced into the body of the Church. The Church in turn reacts, as any body with a healthy immune system would react, to ward off these novel diseases.

To summarize, Sacred Tradition is the Tradition which comes from the ancient Church of Apostolic times. It is the faith that Christ imparted to the Apostles, the central Christian message, which from the Apostles' time has been handed down unchanged from generation to generation of Orthodox Christians. Sacred Tradition is the witness of the Holy Spirit, and it is the life of the Church as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, for as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit is to guide the Church in Truth. Apostolic Tradition is found in what the Church has believed everywhere, always (since Apostolic times and throughout history), and by all. Therein is the Truth.

12. List the seven written or external expressions of Tradition given in the textbook.

• The Bible.

• The doctrinal definitions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, including the Church's Creed.

The textbook explains that these two expressions of Tradition are preeminent and hold first place. Also included in Tradition are:

• The Liturgy.

• The writings of the Holy Fathers.

• Holy icons.

• Canon law.

• Later councils (that is, local councils and letters or statements of faith put out by individual bishops).

The Bible was written within a time period of close to 1,500 years — that is, from Moses (1,400 years before Christ), until the writer of the Apocalypse, St. John the Theologian (nearly 100 years after Christ). A Romanian priest explains that the Orthodox Church recognizes that together with the entire content of Apostolic preaching, Sacred Scripture was produced under divine inspiration. He further expounds that Scripture is the result of a collaboration of a divine-human synergism whose internal working ever remains a mystery. The Bible's principal author is God Himself, but it was written down by divinely inspired sacred writers. As other writers explain, Scripture was produced by the energy of the Holy Spirit, for "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God" (2 Tim 3:16). Thus, the words of Scripture are the words of the Holy Spirit.

The Bible ultimately derives its authority from the Orthodox Church, which is the Body of Christ (Eph 1:23, 5:23) and the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Orthodox Church is the means by which God wrote the Scriptures. In other words, the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and Apostles to author the various books of the Bible. Moreover, the Orthodox Church is the means by which God preserved the Scriptures. That is, the Holy Spirit inspired Orthodoxy's Holy Fathers to canonize Scripture, or to determine which books form a part of Scripture. And again, the Holy Spirit continually inspired the Church to interpret Scripture "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

Christ is the center of the whole of Holy Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. He is the axis around which all Scripture turns, the alpha and the omega. About Him God the Father speaks, as do angels, Apostles, patriarchs, prophets, kings and righteous ones. The prophetic messages of the Old Testament all proclaim that the Messiah is coming, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. The books of the New Testament contain the saving message, and its teachings are summarized in the Gospel message that the Savior has come and that He is Christ. Lastly, in the last book of the New Testament Scriptures is the stirring message that Christ will come again to judge humanity. All that the writers of Scripture said and arranged together gives a wondrous picture of our Lord Jesus Christ. They did so because God illuminated them and guided them to write down their prophecies.

As noted in chapter one, the Orthodox Church is subdivided into the Old Testament and the New Testament, although they both constitute one organic whole representing the divine plan for the salvation of mankind. Thus, it is incorrect to maintain that the modern Jewish religion is responsible for the Old Testament Scriptures, for modern Judaism is not the same religion as the Old Testament religion. Modern Judaism has changed. The Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the New Testament, and the true Jews of the Old Testament are a foreshadowing of Christians, for the Old Testament Jews lived spiritually in expectation of Christ the Saviour, the Messiah. (On the other hand, the enemies of the Jews in the Old Testament are the foreshadowing of contemporary Judaism, the very foundation of that religion being a rejection of Christ).

Concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky makes the following important notations:

The textbook explains that Orthodoxy regards the Bible as the verbal icon of Christ, the Seventh Ecumenical Council laying down that the Book of the Gospels and the holy icons should be venerated in the same way. The Gospel Book, its cover usually gold plated, is kept in a place of honor in the altar of every church. It is also carried in procession at the Liturgy and Matins on Sundays and feasts, and the faithful kiss it and prostrate themselves before it. Such is the respect shown in the Orthodox Church for the Word of God.

14. Who alone can interpret Holy Scripture with authority?

The Apostle Peter warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). Likewise, St. Cyprian of Carthage instructs that private interpretation of Scripture proves that a person or local congregation is not a part of the true Church of Christ. Thus, it is the Orthodox Church, which is the divine-human Body of Christ, that not only writes Holy Scripture, but interprets it as well. Moreover, only the Orthodox Church is able to interpret Holy Scripture with authority. An individual reader, however sincere he might be, falls into the danger of error if he trusts his own personal interpretations with regard to some of the Bible's many sayings that by themselves are far from clear. The reason for this danger is because, as St. Basil the Great explains, "Purity of heart is necessary in order to recognize that which is hidden in Holy Scripture." The Russian Schema-abbot John of Valaam Monastery helps explain:

Likewise commenting on the interpretation of Scripture, the nineteenth-century Russian bishop, St. Ignatii Brianchaninov (+1867), admonishes:

The same bishop adds:

The depths of the words of the Holy Spirit, that is, Holy Scripture, contain within them unanswerable passages, or as St. Gregory of Nyssa puts it, "strong bones." Those depths may be understood only by those who have received the grace of the Holy Spirit. These individuals are the holy ascetics, whose understanding has been opened by God "that they might understand the Scriptures" (Lk 24:45). On the other hand, "The carnal man cannot comprehend it" (1 Cor 2:14). Since most people fall into this second category, the Church comes to our aid by giving us the spiritual explanation of Scriptures.

The Apostles received the gift of understanding the Scriptures, especially after the Holy Spirit descended upon them in the form of tongues of fire. And every faithful servant of God, every person who makes himself worthy of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, receives this same gift, according to his spiritual stature. To the degree that a person cleanses himself from the passions, to the degree that he turns aside from his self-will and submits himself to God's will by forcing himself to fulfill God's commandments, to the same degree does he make himself worthy to receive God's gifts. Among these gifts is the understanding of the spiritual meaning of Scriptures.

The Holy Fathers took the narrow path of salvation. They purified their hearts and souls of earthly attachments and human passions, they cleansed themselves by great ascetic deeds and unceasing prayer, they fulfilled the commandments, and they obeyed the divine injunction: "Be ye holy, as I am holy." Through such a life, they received God's mercy, and they received the gift of the spiritual explanation of the Scriptures. Although the Holy Spirit did not descend visibly on them in the form of tongues of fire, they still received these gifts. Many Holy Fathers and ascetics of the Church have written commentaries on various books of the Scriptures, and these commentaries entered the Church's treasury of spiritual wisdom. To this day, all the Church's faithful members nourish themselves on these writings.

Also commenting on the Church's interpretation of Scriptures, a Russian monk explains that:

Fr. Gregory Williams can therefore conclude:

The writers of Scripture received their knowledge from divine vision — theoria in Greek. The Holy Fathers who commented on Scriptures were also partakers of the same divine theoria. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains that through the centuries, there have appeared many heretical teachings that have distorted God's revealed Truth, that is, various false teachers elevated their minds above the mind of God. The Fathers confronted these heresies, he states, by the power of the Holy Spirit, for they are the bearers of the pure Tradition of the Church. The metropolitan also notes that calling the Church Apostolic refers (among other things) to the fact that the Church rests on the foundation of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, who are the Apostles' successors in nature and essence.

It is only our ignorance that allows us to consider ourselves more "enlightened" than the Holy Fathers. Even a cursory reading of their lives and the lives of the other saints will demonstrate that we are spiritually weak people, by comparison. Given the God-inspired teaching of the Holy Fathers, one can readily discern that the patristic mind represents no ordinary mind, but something enlightened from on high, an ineffably noble treasure. Recognizing that the Fathers have a spiritual wisdom that we lack, and also knowing the poverty and fallibility of our minds, we must realize that we are not free to interpret the divinely inspired text of Holy Scriptures as we please (something the heretics did). Instead, we must turn to the Fathers and Church Tradition to allow them to open our minds to accept God's revelation rather than our own ideas. We must interpret the Scriptures as the Holy Fathers teach, for the Fathers are the only sure interpreters of Scripture. By adhering to this practice, we are prevented from the mistake of interpreting the Bible according to our own mistaken understanding and opinion, and we are helped in partaking of the catholic consciousness of the Church. Through this practice, one is prevented from going out on a limb of one's own creation.

The idea that Holy Scripture is not to be interpreted privately, but as a Church, was given its classical definition by St. Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century, when all the West was still fully united to the Orthodox Church. This zealous Church Father of Western Orthodox Christianity gave the renowned Vincentian canon of universality, antiquity and consent — that is, that that doctrine is binding which is held "everywhere, always, and by all" (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum). St. Vincent wrote:

(Here it should be noted that from antiquity, the Christian Church chose the word catholic to signify one of the principle attributes of the Church: its universality. In the ancient Symbols of Faith, whenever the word Church appears, it is unfailingly used with the adjective catholic. Likewise, the term is constantly to be found in the Acts of all the Ecumenical Councils, as well as in the writings of the Fathers. In all of these places, the word is never used in the sense of Roman Catholic, but in its original sense, which, as Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains, "signifies the highest degree of all-embracingness, all-inclusiveness, wholeness, fullness." As a footnote in this professor's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology notes, the name of catholic was kept from early times in the Roman Catholic Church, but the teaching of the early Church has been preserved in the Orthodox Church, which even to this day can be and still is called catholic. Moreover, as another writer adds, since catholic means universal, "Roman Catholic Church" is a contradiction in terms. Rome’s breaking away was in fact the departure into heresy and schism of only a fraction of the Church, and thus the "Catholic (Universal) Church" is wrongfully appropriated by Rome. Protopriest Victor Potapov further explains that from the ninth century, the Eastern and Western Churches have gone along very different paths. The appellations which they took speak of the aims pursued by them: the Eastern Church began calling itself Orthodox, underscoring thereby that its main aim is to preserve the Christian faith unharmed. At the same time, the Western Church began to call itself Catholic emphasizing thereby that its main aim is the unification of the entire Christian world under the omnipotence of the pope).

The Latino-Protestant tradition and its deviations from its former Orthodox heritage are not the main focus of this course. However, the Protestant deviation from the Orthodox understanding of the ecclesiastical interpretation of Scripture will be examined here since, carried to its final conclusion, it forms the basis of the tyrannical relativism of the modern ecumenical movement.

After the Latin Church severed itself from Apostolic Christianity and from the authority of Sacred Apostolic Tradition in 1054, the West was free to pursue its search for a new religion. At that time, a new element began to enter into Western thought: a growing emphasis on man rather than God. This development was seen almost immediately after the Great Schism, and it continued unchecked throughout subsequent centuries. As a result, the Western Church continuously moved away from the teachings of early Christianity, away from the light of the Gospel, and into the darkness of humanism.

Here it is necessary to pause on humanism, a doctrine that was born in the fourteenth-century Italian Renaissance with the rediscovery of the ancient classics. Humanism exalted the human intellect, fostered a critical spirit of inquiry, and beginning with man, and using man as the only integration point, it undertook to create a new philosophy of man. Humanism entails nothing less than Western man's dethroning God and placing man at the center of the universe in His stead. For this reason, humanism has been called the self-worship of man rather than God.

The prevailing intellectual current of the Renaissance was humanism. During this period, a "synthesis" was made of Latin Christianity and pagan thought. As Archpriest Alexey Young writes concerning this period:

During the ensuing period of the falsely-called Enlightenment, humanist thinkers perpetuated the Renaissance fascination with pagan ideas. Among those pagan ideas was that of rationalism — the assumption that by the use of intellect alone, man can ascertain truth and can derive universals from it. Thus, the Enlightenment concluded, man can reject the idea of revealed absolutes. (Rationalism, with its dependence on fallen human reason, is not to be confused with reason itself, which is a gift from God). The Enlightenment period was rooted in a total rejection of the Christian basis for life, and with its revival of destructive pagan influence, shock waves reverberated throughout Europe and affected everything, from art and science to educational theory. As the same Fr. Alexey observes, Europe, Western man, our world has never recovered; from this time forth we become a truly post-Christian "civilization." In view of what has previously been explained about heresies, these historical developments show that the West has been led by the devil onto a dead-end street.

In order to gain a more thorough understanding of how so tragic a development could come about in the West, once fully Orthodox Christian, it is necessary to look back to the thirteenth century, to the writings of a Dominican monk, Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas' works were condemned by popes and proclaimed heretical in 1277. It was not until years later that his teachings gained respect and that he came to be one of the most influential thinkers of the Middle Ages. Aquinas is considered a major theologian in the Roman Catholic Church, one whose works were selected by the Roman see as normative and worthy of merit. (In this reversal of position, one can see how teachings can be false and heretical in the Latin Church at one time, only to become "true" at another time). Aquinas' teachings will be examined here as they set the direction for the future development of Western theology and were the stimulus to the rise of humanism in the West.

Aquinas is famous for his Summa Theologica, a massive set of volumes of questions and answers that, as Hieromonk Seraphim Rose explains, resemble the dossier of some legal case, and one that is filled with syllogistic reasoning ("if... therefore... and it follows... consequently..."). In describing the fall of man in this work, Aquinas proposed that while the will of man was corrupted, his intellect was not corrupted. This idea was completely revolutionary, and it was totally foreign to Apostolic Christianity. What is meant was that man no longer needed God's revelation to find the truth, but that he could rely on his own human reason instead. Intellectual reasoning was elevated to such a lofty height in Aquinas' teaching that all Westerners were seduced into thinking that they can supplant God's revelation with human reasoning. Aquinas inadvertently opened the door to the error of the Greek philosopher Protagoras (sixth century BC), who said that "man is the measure of all things."

Aquinas' teaching was a departure from the Orthodox patristic approach, which bases the truths of the Christian faith upon the foundation of divine revelation — and not on rational, abstract deductions. Even as far back as the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nyssa stated that "men, having left off delighting themselves in the Lord (Psalm 36:4) and rejoicing in the peace of the Church, undertake refined researches regarding some kind of essences and measure magnitudes." Such a pursuit is foreign to the aim of true theology, which has the very practical task of Christian perfection.

Divine revelation and the patristic witness of revelation cannot be neglected, for the Holy Fathers are golden links in the chain of Truth forged by the Holy Spirit throughout the centuries in Christ's Church. Not everyone has the intellectual ability or grace necessary to expound Scripture correctly. This fact is noted by the Apostle Peter, who states that "there are some things in [Paul's epistles] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). Moreover, when Church history is examined, it is apparent that all the heretics began with human conjecture and anthropocentric views and always tried to investigate and analyze the Truth of the Church through human reasoning. On the other hand, as Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos explains, the Holy Fathers were based on the method of Orthodox devotion, which is purity of heart and illumination of the nous (the eye of the soul). After these two stages of their spiritual life, the metropolitan continues, they were able to attain knowledge of God and to theologize with divine inspiration (cf. The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, p. 40). As Elder Cleopa of Romania goes on to add: "The... prophets and Apostles, as well as the Holy Fathers of the Church, while by the purity of their lives attaining to the simplicity and innocence of infants, at the same time also, on account of their wisdom, became as ‘perfect spiritual men’." (The Truth of Our Faith, p. 160). Hieromonk Seraphim Rose comments further on the Holy Fathers and explains that

As Dr. Ivan Andreyev also notes:

However, intellectual worldliness came to prevail in the West through Scholasticism, a system of academic reasoning that integrated rational philosophy with theology and lent itself to speculation. The Scholastics' unnatural synthesis of theology and philosophy was based on the abstract syllogistic method of inquiry used by Aristotle. It is

Scholasticism thus became a sterile framework more suited to exercising the intellect than to attaining a knowledge of the Creator and His creation, and it concerned itself with how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. However, through this new methodology, the Scholastics created a system by which they falsely imagined they could explore and investigate the mysteries of the Christian faith. Western theology therefore began to lose its living relation to the truth of Christianity. In the West, theology was reduced to a system — a system intended to "improve" upon the theology of revelation. Moreover, this attempt of the human intellect to revise Christianity was at the root of the later errors of the West.

Under the influence of Aquinas' teaching, Western philosophers increasingly began to think in an independent, autonomous manner and came to feel free to mix the divinely revealed truths of Christianity with the teachings of non-Christian philosophers. (It is for this reason that so many Catholics and Protestants today believe that Christian truth need no longer be tied to revelation, but can be mixed with the teachings of non-Christian religions and philosophies). Aquinas himself relied on Aristotle, a development that was to prove deadly for Western theology, and hence for modern Western man. As Archpriest Alexey Young writes:

The West's progressive departure from the Orthodox worldview accelerated during the period of humanism. As Scholastic rationalism began to take possession of Western minds, all of its syllogisms — whether based on Scripture or based on Aristotle — came to be of equal value. As Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos writes in this regard:

Humanism did not go unchallenged. Prior to its spreading like tares in the Enlightenment period, a movement appeared in the late Middle Ages to counter its ruinous consequences. This movement grew out of the teachings of the fourteenth-century Oxford professor, John Wycliffe. In an attempt to restore belief in a universal absolute truth, Wycliffe went in the opposite direction and maintained that the Bible alone was the supreme authority. This idea was likewise radical and innovative, although it was not a surprising development, considering the confusion of those times in which people were struggling with the question of truth. Unfortunately, however, in his placing the Bible before the Church, Wycliffe did not have an understanding of the nature of Christ's Church, for Orthodox Christianity had long since disappeared from Western Europe. Its disappearance from England took place in the following way.

During the eleventh century, the Germanic popes allied themselves with the all-powerful feudal, military aristocracies of Europe. Of these, the most powerful one was that of the Normans, and that alliance proved effective in helping Rome achieve its worldly aims. When England did not fall in line with Rome's schism in 1054, the pope financed Duke William of Normandy to invade and subdue England. As a consequence of the Norman conquest and its mass genocide of the English people in the Battle of Hastings (1066), England was brought under the control of the Germanic papacy. This was a papacy that had already cut itself off from the other four theologically more sophisticated Patriarchates of the Christian Commonwealth that had formed the Christian Church for one thousand years. This new papacy was isolated and estranged from the rest of the Christian world as the papacy had fallen into the temptation of becoming a worldly, temporal power, one with territorial aims. William the Conqueror's bringing England under the control of the Latin Church entailed nothing less than a change of religion for England — a change from the Orthodox Christianity of pre-conquest England, to the Roman Catholicism of its immediate post-conquest period. Thus, with the disappearance of the Holy Church from England in the eleventh century, it bears repeating, Wycliffe had no knowledge of it, and as a result, he ironically laid the groundwork for another humanist movement — the Protestant Reformation.

Fr. Alexey Young notes that the Protestant Reformation had some good points: it believed that what the Bible says is true and that we can therefore know something about God. However, the humanist cult of the individual and its trust in human reason that the Protestant Reformers espoused, provided the grounds for a total subjectivism in religion — a development that spelled both the birth and death of Protestantism. In Protestantism, a new Christianity was created — one that rejects the safeguards of Apostolic Tradition, and one that bases itself upon private interpretation of Scripture. By introducing the subjective principle that each individual can interpret Scripture for himself, the stage was set for today's relativism in which anyone's opinion can become a standard of belief. Hierodeacon Gregory of Etna, a convert from Dutch Reformed Protestantism, explains that so it is that an Evangelical, for instance, blushing like a blue dog, can promote himself as a peer of "Paul." Such an assertion ignores the fact that St. Paul was "a man in Christ... caught up to the third Heaven" (1 Cor 12:2) — and, Fr. Gregory adds, such is the disrespect that one frequently encounters among Protestants. He goes on to call it a spiritual egalitarianism that is the offspring of deep-rooted pride, the very antithesis of Christian virtue.

Archimandrite Panteleimon of Jordanville also examines the Western approach, and he goes on to comment on where it is ultimately leading. He writes that: