CONTENTS
Prologue...................................................................7
1. How did the Scriptures come about.....................9
2. Studying Scripture..............................................16
3. Who has been deceived?...................................27
4. The Monopbysites..............................................34
5. The Roman Catholics.........................................38
6. Orthodoxy...........................................................54
7. The Protestants...................................................56
8. The Schism.........................................................66
9. Christ was Orthodox...........................................71
10. Concerning Heresies........................................75
11. The Holy Fathers: Real Theologians............….83
IS.The Divine Inspiration of the Holy
Fathers....................................................................89
13. Concerning Ecumenical Synods.......................93
14. The Way to Orthodoxy.....................................101
PROLOGUE
30% of the world's population is Christian. However, they do not all have the same beliefs; some are Orthodox, some are Catholic, some are Protestant, and so forth. Nevertheless, all the different beliefs have the same source and are sustained by the same holy book - the Scriptures. How has this come about? And where is the right Belief to be found?
We will be dealing with these matters in particular in this book.
1. HOW DID THE SCRIPTURES COME ABOUT
A. The books of the New Testament a.Its 'canon'
In the early Christian era, heretics, Gnostics and others corrupted the teachings of the Church in order to support their own doctrines. In other words, they presented texts which they wrongly attributed to the holy Apostles. Because of this, a number of regional Synods were called from time to time in order to determine the authenticity of the texts. Through these Synods, the Church separated out the authentic texts from the false ones. Its criterion was the extent to which they were in use throughout the Church. In other words, whichever texts were in use were considered authentic.
This canon included the four Gospels and the Acts of the holy Apostles, which were commonly accepted at that time. The other books of the New Testament were not included in this 'canon', because they were not in general use. Gradually, however, their use spread, with the result that complete standardization was achieved within the Church. After this, Constantine the Great commissioned Eusebius of Caesarea to draw up the canon of the New Testament. This new and final canon was commonly accepted and used (See: Eusebius, 'The Life of Constantine the Great').
It ought to be noted that the sacred book of the Apocalypse, or Revelation, was not included in this canon. It was included later, in 410 AD, at the Synod of Carthage (Canon 32).
b.Why?
1. Included in the canon of the New Testament were the four recognized gospels. The Apostles also wrote other books, however. The Apostle Thomas wrote an 'Apocryphal' Gospel, as did James, the Brother of our Lord.
Why then were these not included? Who decided on this? And using what criterion?
2. Luke and Mark were not disciples of the Lord. (The former was the Apostle Paul' s disciple, and the latter the Apostle Peter's). The Apostle Thomas and James, the Brother of our Lord, were disciples of the Lord. And yet the Gospels of the Lord's disciples were excluded from the New Testament! While the gospels of Luke and Mark - who were not disciples of the Lord but of the pre-eminent Apostles Peter and Paul - were included!!!
3. But then again, Clement was also a disciple of the Apostle Paul. And St. Polycarp was a disciple of
4. And why was Clement's epistle initially included in the Canon of the New Testament, while the Epistles to Philemon and to Timothy were excluded? (Canon 85 of the holy Apostles).
And why, finally, was the holy book of the Revelation included in the 'Canon' of the New Testament so belatedly?
All the above questions have the same answer: the Church decided on them. It was the Church that decided which books were to go in and which were to be rejected. In other words, the Church subjected the books of the New Testament to judgment, to investigation and to scrutiny.
The Scriptures didn 't come down from Heaven! The Scriptures came from the Church and not the Church from the Scriptures. The Church is over and above the Scriptures.
And yet, there are Christians (=Protestants), who accept the Scriptures, but who reject Tradition-which gave birth to the Scriptures. It's astonishing how they can accept the child without accepting the mother.
c. The New Testament as a God-inspired book 1.
All scripture is inspired by God' (2 Tim. 3:16). The Apostle Paul is not talking here about the texts of the New Testament, because at that stage there were none. He means the Old Testament texts, which were used in the liturgical assemblies. And these texts were not, of course, established as 'God-inspired' simply from the moment when the apostle said that they were. They were already commonly recognized as being God-inspired by the Church and within the Church.
2. And the New Testament is God-inspired, too. But who confirms this? Who guarantees it?
The very same Church that established the Canon of i:he New Testament also decides and says that these particular holy books are God-inspired. These and only these.
All Christians share an unshakable belief in the Divinely-inspired nature of the New Testament. Nobody, but nobody doubts this. It is as if it were decreed by the Holy Spirit. Which it is. How appalling if it were a human decision. We would doubt its authenticity, we would criticize it and reject it...
d. Holy Scriptures - Holy Tradition
1. Tradition gave birth to the Scriptures
Those who reject Holy Tradition and yet accept the Scriptures as divinely-inspired, should ask themselves whether it is possible for the Holy Scriptures to exist without Holy Tradition. Of course, they do have what they see as sound arguments.
Tradition, they say, is simply the postman that carries the letter to the recipient. Good or bad, he still makes sure the letter gets to the recipient. And Holy Tradition, like any other postman, transmitted the Holy Scriptures.
There is, however, one important difference: the postman merely carries the letter, without knowing either the sender or the contents of the letter. While Holy Tradition investigated, in detail, both the sender and the contents of the Scriptures. There is simply no comparison between the two.
Since they reject Holy Tradition, which 'made' the Scriptures, they ought really to question the validity of the Scriptures themselves. And they should produce their own 'divinely-inspired'Scriptures. This they haven't had the gall to do (although the Jehovah's Witnesses have altered them to suit themselves). What they have dared to do, however, is something else. They've kicked over the traces of Holy Tradition.
2. The Church existed even without the Holy Scriptures
When the Apostles spread out to the four corners of the known world there was no Christian Scripture And yet the Church existed. And, of course, it was not underpinned by the Scriptures because they didn't yet exist. It was underpinned by the experiences and testimony of the holy Apostles. Whatever they had heard from Christ, and whatever they had seen, this they preached. And it was this that became the belief of the Church. Even if we lost the Scriptures, the faith of the Church would not be lost. Precisely because it is alive within the Church. Holy Writ exists in unwritten form within the Church, which is the 'pillar and bulwark of the truth' (l Tim. 3, 15).
The Apostles, then, from what they had seen and heard, wrote their holy Gospels and epistles. There are other things which they said (2 John 12) but didn't write down. And Holy Tradition preserves these in an unfathomable way (Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great). The Apostle Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to what he told them by word of mouth in exactly the same way as to that which he told them in writing (2 Thess. 2, 15 and Phil. 4, 9). And he praises the Corinthians for keeping the traditions (l Cor. 11, 2).
3. Rejection of Tradition damages the Gospels
The Protestants say that there is no need for Tradition. Scripture is sufficient for our faith.
Tradition, as we have seen, contains teachings of the holy Apostles (cf. 2 Thess. 2, 15). Now if these teachings are from the Holy Spirit and you oppose them, might you not be blaspheming against the Holy Spirit? And even if they're not from the Holy Spirit, but are at least not contrary to Scripture, you won't go to Hell if you observe them.
Holy Tradition preserves facts which have to do with the life of Christ. The Gospels tell us, for example, that Christ was crucified on
Holy Tradition is the treasure-house of the right Belief. At the same time it supports scripture, clarifies it and enriches it. If we reject it, says Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, chap. 27) we will make serious mistakes in important matters and will thus dam-mage the Gospel.
2. STUDYING SCRIPTURE
A. The three correct ways
a. With an open mind
Let's suppose that until yesterday you knew nothing about a particular subject. And that today you heard something about it. You formed an opinion - your own. From now on, your efforts will be directed not at trying to change it, but at doing your best to strengthen this view which you happen to have formulated. Unless this view isn't to your advantage, in which case you'll try to form an opinion in accordance with your own interests. And when you do, you will again try to reinforce this new opinion. In other words, whenever people make up their minds about something, they don't keep an open mind about it, but instead do whatever they can to support their views.
And the very same thing happens with studying Scripture. Everyone tries to bolster in his or her own mind the faith which they happen to belong to. Catholics study in order to support their faith. The Monophysites do the same, as do the Protestants, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest. And when the Holy Scriptures don't happen to suit them, they behave like Procustes (the robber in Greek mythology, who stretched people or cut off their legs to make them fit his bed). They 'tailor' the Scriptures to meet their own requirements.
They start off with a set of fixed beliefs. In which case there's not much point studying the Scriptures. If we really want to be taught, if we really want to learn where Truth is hidden and where there is deceit, we first have to empty our minds of any preconceived ideas and should bow before this most holy book with an empty mind. As though we knew nothing. As if we were only now starting to learn. In this way, and only in this way, shall we find the Truth. 'Therefore take exact note of Scripture and from it you will find the solution to the matter' (Canon 16 of Basil the Great).
b.Tn the round
The holy Scriptures have to be studied in the round, as a whole. We want, for example, to see what they have to say about Christ. We have to study ALL the relevant passages, and not just some (the ones which suit our purpose...). If we study all the passages, we'll have an overall, true picture of Christ. If we study only some, our picture will be incomplete — and therefore mistaken. Let's see this in practice, through some relevant quotations: • 'The son of man came eating and drinking' (Matthew 11, 19).
• '...Jesus of
• 'For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2, 5).
These quotations clearly show that Christ was merely a man. If we stop here, our conclusion will be that Christ was merely human. And we'll have the Scriptures for support! Add other passages, however, and see what we get.
• 'Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ' (2 Peter 1,1).
• 'Christ who is God over all' (Rom. 9, 4 -5).
• 'Of Christ and God' (Eph. 5, 5).
These additional quotations now tell us that Christ is also God. Yet a minute ago we believed that he was merely human! How grievously deceived we will be if we limit ourselves to just a few passages. That is why the Holy Scriptures must be studied as a whole.
And this is where heretics go astray.
c. Don't link unrelated things
The Gospel says about Judas: 'And he went and hanged himself (Matt.. 27, 5). To the young man, to whom he tells the parable of the good Samaritan, Christ says: 'Go and do the same' (Luke 10,37). Both quotations are from the Scriptures. In
one case a particular situation is described, and in the other case another situation is touched upon. There is no relation whatsoever between them. To link them would clearly be absurd. And yet, this methodology - though not, so far, this example! -is popular among heretics.
B. The three interpreters
a. The devil
The devil knows the Scriptures. He tried to deceive Christ with Biblical passages (Matt. 4, 4 -7). And what's more, the devil is exceedingly crafty. He is so cunning that he can deceive you through Biblical passages without your even realizing!!! You think that you're explaining the Bible properly, and the explanation's all your own!
The consoling factor is that
How careful we must be...
b. Our passions
1. If we examined ourselves under a spiritual microscope, we'd discover important 'findings'. We'd be amazed to see that we carry around inside us a whole chain of unclean passions: hatred, jealousy, vanity, anger and so on. And it's not as though there's only a few of them. Saint Peter the Dfimascan, who counted them one by one, tells us that all together, hidden within us, we have 298 (!) passions (Philokalia).
2. We also have a certain amount of knowledge which we happen to have picked up (and which might be wrong anyway...). This knowledge gets mixed up with our passions, forms an 'amalgam' and then we externalize it. To put it differently, our words, our judgments and our thoughts are merely the externalization of what's inside us. But do we understand what we're externalizing? Scripture says: 'People have all lost understanding' (Jeremiah. .18: 17).
3. Our passions don't sit inactive within us. They move, act and produce 'works', i.e. sins. Sins are the children of our passions. And since there's no logic in our passions (because they're passions), so in their children, sins, there's no logic either, just foolishness. 'I have been exceedingly foolish' (2 Kings 24, 10) said David when he sinned. And again: 'My bruises stink and are corrupt because
of my foolishness'' (Psalm 37, 6). Christ Himself said about those who crucified Him 'for they know not what they do' (Luke 23, 34). They didn't know what they were doing because they had been blinded by sin. 'For their own wickedness blinded them' (Wisdom of Solomon 2, 2l).
It's only natural that such people won't understand the words of the Lord, but will get things all mixed up. Here's an example: When the Lord told the Jews 7 go away and you shall seek me' (Jn 8, 21), they thought He was going to commit suicide. 'Perhaps he will kill himself, they said (Jn 8, 22).
Who among us, honestly, would dare say that he or she is completely free of sin and passions? So let's not be so sure that we've got the right interpretation of the holy book of the Scriptures.
c. The holy Fathers
The holy Fathers, with the sword of asceticism (very strict fasting - total abstinence from food -exhausting, all-night prayers, sleeping on the floor and so on) cut out from within themselves the passions and the actions of the passions. They freed their souls from the prison of the passions, as in the Biblical 'bring my soul out of prison that I may confess your name' (Psalm 141, 7). They cast off the covering which hid their eyes and so, with clear vision, they understood the real, wonderful meaning of Scripture, as in the Biblical text : 'uncover my eyes and I shall understand the wonders of your Law' (Psalm 118, 18). And so their opinion, their discourse, is a guarantee 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the Law is (the sign) of a sound mind' (Proverbs 9, 10).
Let's look at this in greater detail: You're talking to two people. One is your friend, 'your right-hand man', someone who's worked with you for years. The other one is simply someone you've met two or three times. Occasionally, as you're talking to them, you don't express yourself very clearly, so that your friend understands one thing, your acquaintance another. Which of the two will have understood the unclear points better? Obviously your friend, who's been with you for years. He knows your mind, your way of thinking. And on that basis he clarifies your lack of clarity.
In Scripture, it is God Who is speaking. And in some passages, His meaning is not clear. So who will understand these passages better? Obviously those who are close to Him all the time. Those who communicate with Him not only during the day, but at night, too, through prayer. Those whose flesh withers on them from fasting and keeping vigil for Christ's sake. Those who apply Scripture as fully as possible. Those who harmonize their will and desires with the will of God. 'We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ' (2 Cor. 10, 5).
And this elect portion of mankind are the holy Fathers (of whom more will be said later). This is why the
C. The proper approach to Scripture
a. The attitude of our bodies
On the Sabbath, Christ went to the synagogue. He took a text from the Prophet Isaiah. He stood up and read the holy text standing. When he'd finished, he then sat down (Luke 3, 6). Through this example, our Lord teaches us that we should do the same when we study Scripture. It is precisely for this reason that in the Orthodox Church, before the Gospel is read, the congregation hears the exhortation: 'Wisdom. Stand and let us hear the Holy Gospel'.
b. The attitude of our souls
The Fathers ruled that the Holy Gospel should not be read at the beginning of any service. And this was no accident. It was so that our souls should warm up and be prepared, by hearing various psalms and hymns. And just before the reading we have a special prayer: 'And that we may be deemed worthy of hearing....', or, during the Holy Liturgy, the prayer: 'Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel' is said secretly. And even that is not enough. The priest blesses: 'Peace be with you all'. Peace is also required. And then ag;in, the final warning: 'Let us attend'. What is required, then, is prayer and God's peace if we are to study and understand the Holy Gospel.
c. Study
Scripture is holy and we are sinners. If we have grasped this, then we can proceed, in study or discussion of Biblical passages, with a deep feeling of our unworthiness, 'in fear and trembling'. That in itself will rnak<; us dissatisfied with our own thoughts and interpretations and make us turn to the wisdom of the Fathers.
If we haven't realized, however, that the Scriptures arc holy a,:d that we're sinners, then we'll approach them \vith pharisaical hearts. We'll believe that we'll be able to plumb the unfathomable depths of Scripture by ourselves, in which case the wisdom and experience of our holy Fathers will be superfluous.
We analyze the Scriptures and so do the Saints.
We present our own thoughts, which might come from the Scriptures (?) and do come from our uncleansed souls. The Saints present their thoughts, too, taken from the Scriptures and from their cleansed souls. Yet we suffer from the delusion that our thoughts are better. Not, of course, because of any virtue we think we may have, but because we're deluded when we think we know better. (Mark you, people who are insane also think they're right). But is this humility? Is it ever possible to interpret the divinely-inspired Scriptures with such an outlook and to derive any benefit? Quite the contrary. It's our egotism we're feeding. And so, instead of being enlightened we're plunged into deeper darkness. We'd be better off not studying the Scriptures at all. Remember, the devil studies them, as well...
d. Whom do you have as a guide?
So there are three interpreters of Scripture. Our passions, the devil and the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Fathers.
You're involved with Bible study. Are you sure you've got the Holy Spirit as a Guide? Suppose it's your passions talking. Or are you above passion? And what if the devil appears to you 'as an angel of light' (II Cor. 11, 4) and makes a fool of you? Or will he make an exception in your case? 'But I base my interpretation on the Scriptures!', you say. So do the heretics. 'Me, a heretic?!' I hear you protest. But no heretic ever calls himself one.
You have to be very careful here. You're a Christian, so the cunning enemy will deceive you with passages from the Scriptures, not from the Koran (although that's been known as well!). He tried to deceive Christ with Biblical passages, but Christ overcame him. Precisely because He was Christ.
How careful we have to be.
'Do not many of you become teachers, my brethren, seeing that we shall be judged morestrictly' (James
3. WHO HAS BEEN DECEIVED?
a. The outset
At the beginning of Christianity there were no Orthodox, nor Monophysites, no Catholics nor Protestants. All were
Those who went astray were also deceived. They were cut off from the
b. How can we discover the Truth?
Those who have the Truth declare: 'We possess the Truth and the others are under deception'. Those who under deception also say: 'It's the others who are deluded'. It is a characteristic common to all to think they possess the Truth. You understand delusion when you're freed of it. As long as you persist in it, you think you possess the Truth. So one sign of delusion is the conviction (illusion), that you're right. So if you do believe that you possess the Truth, you'd better ask yourself whether you really do or whether you're being deluded.
How will you find out? How will you realize if you 've left the course steered by the
Ask yourself: When am I going astray?
The answer is:
a. when I proclaim new concepts, which until now were unheard of,
and b. when I contravene agreements.
On this basis, let's see who went astray.
1. The Monophysites
The Church believed, as it still does, that Christ had two natures, the divine and the human. During the 5th century AD, some people appeared (=the Monophysites) who proclaimed that the divine nature of Christ absorbed His human nature, and that He, therefore, in essence, had only one nature- the divine. They insisted on this new doctrine and, together with their new faith were cut off from the
2. The
The Creed was adopted by the First Ecumenical Synod in Nicea. It was supplemented by the Second Ecumenical Synod in
a. The Third Ecumenical Synod in
b. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized all those who taught or teach any creed other than the one set out by the 318 holy Fathers and elucidated by the 150 holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod.
c. The Synod in Aghia Sophia (the
• the holy Creed shall remain unshakable and without innovations for ever.
• anyone who dares to add or subtract anything shall be anathematized in the most terrible manner.
And yet! The
3. The Protestants
The Protestants reacted against the arbitrariness of Catholicism and broke away from it. Once they had broken away, or, more correctly, once they had been cut off, there were two possibilities: either a return to the
And if Catholicism had become so different from the
4. 'Like the gentile and the tax-collector'
(Matth. 18:17)
The Lord said: 'And if he refuses to listen even to the assembly, let him be to you like a gentile and a tax-collector'. In our case the tax-collectors and Gentiles are those who have refused to listen to the decisions of the Synods of the Church, local or Ecumenical. These are:
a. The Monophysites, who, as we shall see, didn't accept the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in
b. The Catholics, who rebelled against the decision of the Second Ecumenical Synod regarding the Creed.
c. The Protestants, who 'kicked over the traces' of the Church.
d. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and so on who did the same as the Protestants.
e. The Old Calendarists in Greece, who have rebelled against the decision of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (i.e. the local Synod) which met in 1924 and dealt with the change in the calendar.
5. 'the sons of disobedience' (Eph. 2,2)
The sons of disobedience are the children of God who have not submitted to their Heavenly Father and who trample His comm andments underfoot. Among them, the spirit of deceit is at work, according to
The heretics were disobedient towards the Church and were simultaneously cut off from it (while a sinner at least remains within the Church). These are the sons of disobedience par excellence. And they are in thrall to a great spirit of delusion (cf. II Thess. 2, 11 and II Timothy 2, 26).
To put it differently: since they've cut themselves off from the
For example:
a. The Old Calendarists in
b. The Roman Church, also under the guidance of the spirit of delusion, carried out actions, in the past, which were clearly against the Church. To mention but two, there were the Crusades, which resulted in the most foul desecration of Christian churches, and the Inquisition.
Of course there are justifications for all these things. But the problem is not whether we ourselves can justify our actions, since we know our conscience full well and can run rings round it. The problem is whether God accepts our justifications. And God 'cannot be fooled' (Gal. 6, 7).
c. The Protestants, quite apart from the fact that they've broken up into countless sects and heresies), have gone so far as to ordain women and bless marriages between homosexuals. God alone knows what other 'brainwaves' they'll come up with, inspired by the spirit of delusion.
Now, it's true that they have their justifications for all this. But then, Lucifer himself, when he rebelled so insolently, had his justifications. And he was so terribly wrong. Even though he was Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, the Prince of Angels!
6. 'They have all gone astray' (Psalm 13,4)
'They have all gone astray and are good for nothing and there is not one who does good' (Psalm 13, 4). Is this true in our case, too? Have all Churches gone astray? Isn't there even one which has retained
'the whole truth'?
Christ Himself said, in prophesy concerning His Church: 'And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it'(Matih. 16, 18). And the Lord can't be wrong. Therefore there is
4. THE MONOPHTSITES
A. It was possible
Many Biblical passages prove that the faith of the Monophysites is incorrect. They make it perfectly obvious that Christ also had a human nature. Here are some of them:
• Christ had feelings and could be moved: 'And when He approached and saw the city, He wept' (Luke 19,41).
• He slept: 'but He was asleep' (Matth. 8, 24).
• He felt hunger and thirst 'And having fasted for forty days and forty nights, he was then hungry ' (Matth. 4, 2).
• He ate and drank 'the Son of Man has come eating and drinking...' (Matth. 11. 19).
These passages — and many others besides — clearly show that Christ was a man in reality and not in imagination, as the Monophysites believe. Of course; God, as God, could have pretended to be a man, pretending to sleep, to weep, to eat, to drink and so on. But equally, He could have been a man in essence, a real person. Which of the two views is right? Who can give us the right answer? The Church can and did, through the holy Synods.
B. What the Holy Synods say
From 428-431 AD, Nestorios was Patriarch of Constantinople. He believed and preached that the Mother of God did not give birth to Christ the God/Man, but to Christ the man (which is why she should be called the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God). Later, after birth, the divine Word was united with Christ the man. This union was external, in precisely the same way as two planks of wood touch and are joined. Christ, therefore, according to Nestorios, had two natures and two personalities, the divine and the human: 'the natures are two and the persons are two'. Then, in 431 AD, the Third Ecumenical Synod was convened in
In
Eutyches' mistake was that in the struggle against Nestorios, he didn 'tproclaim the true faith, as did the Church at the Third Ecumenical Synod, but instead proclaimed a different one.
At a Synod which took place in
• Confirmed the condemnation of Eutyches.
• Condemned Bishop Dioskoros of
• Again proclaimed the true faith.
In other words, that the union of the two Natures of Christ 'suffered no change, nor mingling, nor division, but preserved intact the particular nature of each ' (Theotokion of the 3rd Tone). The two natures were united 'without confusion, without change, without division and without separation' as the definition given by the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod clearly lays down. The expressions 'without confusion and without change' deal the mortal blow to Monophysite beliefs, while the words 'without division and without separation' deliver the fatal wound to Nestorianism.
Given this, the Monophysites ought to have accepted the faith as proclaimed by the
5. THE ROMAN CATHOLICS
A. Deviations in the realm of worship
a. The celebration of Easter
The First Ecumenical Synod made it an eternal and inviolable condition that Christian Easter should be celebrated after the Passover of the Jews. The
The Orthodox Church, however, remains loyal to tradition.
b. Baptism
1. Baptism by sprinkling
Christ was baptized bodily in the
This immersion has a symbolic character. It represents the death and burial of the Lord. So when the person being baptized is plunged into the water, he or she partakes in the death and burial of the Lord. 'Do you not know that as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have been baptized into His death? For we have been buried with Him through baptism into death' (Rom. 6, 3-4).
The Church of Rome itself conducted baptism according to the model of the baptism of Christ until the 14th century. In other words, the person being baptized was plunged into the water. This is shown by the baptisteries which survive in
Here the Orthodox church remains loyal to tradition.
There always was baptism through sprinkling in the tradition of the Church, of course, but it was reserved for those who were seriously ill. The
2. Chrismation
a. Chrismation always took place immediately after Holy Baptism, as the ordinances of the Holy Apostles make clear. 'And after this, when he has been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, let him by anointed with myrrh'. And the Synod in
The
Here, too., the Orthodox Church has held fast to tradition.
b. People are to be anointed on the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth and the ears (Canon 7of the Second Ecumenical Synod), while according to Saint Cyril of
The West has gone astray here, also. Since 1250, people have been anointed only on the forehead.
Here, too, the Orthodox Church has held fast to tradition.
c. The Divine Liturgy
1. The Prayer of Invocation (the 'Epiklesis')
From as early as the beginnings of the
The
sanctified.
Whereas the Greek Orthodox church has preserved the 'epiclesis' in its liturgies.
2. The use of unleavened bread
The Lord, 'on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread' (Matth. 26,17),celebrated the Passover with His disciples. The law was, that at the Passover, unleavened bread was to be used. And at this great supper, the Lord gave His disciples the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist (Mark 14, 22-25). When He did so, did He use unleavened or leavened bread?
a. Christ introduced a number of 'innovations' into this celebration of the Passover. In the first place, He celebrated on a Thursday, while the normal day was Saturday. He also washed His disciples feet before the meal and used a large cup or bowl for wine. It's therefore possible that He introduced an innovation in the use of leavened bread.
b. Whenever leavened bread is referred to in the Scriptures, it is called simply 'bread'. Unleavened bread, similarly, is always defined as such. At the transmission of the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, it says: 'He took bread' (Luke 22, 19), meaning leavened bread. Otherwise it would have said: 'He took unleavened bread'.
c. The first Christians used leavened bread for the celebration of the Sacrament (Acts 2, 42-4 7). They got this from the holy Apostles. And they, as eye witnesses, had seen how the Lord had celebrated the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist.
The Lord, therefore, used leavened bread when He gave His disciples the Divine Eucharist, as the Orthodox Church has done for centuries.
And as did the
3. Communion in two kinds
Christ said: 'Take, eat; this is My body' and 'Drink from this, all of you for this is My blood' (Matth. 26, 27-8).
The
In the realm of the Divine Liturgy ( 'Invocation ', use of leavened bread, giving the Precious Blood to everyone), the Orthodox Church has adhered to Apostolic Tradition.
B. The Filioque
a. Historical perspective
The filioque was introduced at the third local Synod of Toledo in
This addition was clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and, as was to be expected, provoked violent reactions within the ranks of the
b. The two mysteries
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son (Ja. 15, 26). We have, then, two functions: the procession and the mission.
1 The Procession
Each Person of the Holy Trinity has His own characteristic.The Father is 'Unbegotten'. Christ is 'Begotten '; He is, in other words, born eternally from the Father. And the Holy Spirit ' Proceeds'; proceeds, that is, eternally from the Father. Both the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are mysteries. We do not know exactly what this procession is, nor what precisely this nativity is, as the great master of dogma of our Church John the Damascan declared. Saint Gregory the Theologian agrees with him.
'Who proceeds from the Father'(Jn. 15, 26) : The verb 'proceeds' is in the present tense and expresses the eternal continuous procession of the Holy Spirit. This procession is something which happens within the Holy Trinity and for the Holy Trinity.
2 The Mission
'Whom I shall send to you' (Jn. 15, 26) While the verb 'proceeds' is in the present tense, the verb 'shall send' is in the future. It expresses something that will happen in the future, in other words on the day of Pentecost, when the Lord was to send the All-Holy Spirit to His disciples. ' When the Comforter comes (into the world), Whom I shall send to you' (Jn. 15, 26). In other words, while the mission is something which happens within the Holy Trinity, it does not happen for the Holy Trinity but for the world.
In the 'procession', the 'centre' is the Father, in the 'mission' it is the Son. The procession happens outside time, the 'mission' happened within time. The procession happens for the Holy Trinity, the mission for the world. This is abundantly clear from the words of the Lord quoted above.
c. The Filioque is heretical
The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. Either the
We would ask just one question: Where does it say in Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Nowhere! On the contrary, it says clearly and bluntly (Jn. 15,26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Saint Symeon of
'If the Holy Spirit really did proceed from the Son as well, then Christ would not have concealed this, because He is good. Just as He did not conceal the fact that the Holy Spirit is sent by Him '. And he goes on to say: 'How dare you innovate, you proud man? How do you grant to Christ a privilege of which He Himself makes no mention? Who knows more about the procession without beginning of the Holy Spirit, you or Christ? ' (Complete Works, p. 417 [in Greek ]).
Westerners maintain that the Filioque is implied in the Creed. By the same token, we could say that other teachings are implied, such as, for example, that the Son is eternally begotten by the Holy Spirit as well, but then we 're on a slippery slope.
In their efforts to strike a blow at Arianism and to boost the status of the Son of God, Westerners developed the Filioque. Then they tried to find Biblical support for it. In other words, they looked for justifications for what they had already decided.
C.The Pope
a.Infallibility
1. What it is and when it was adopted
In 1870, the First Vatican Council met, the main item on the agenda being the adoption of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. When this matter was put forward for discussion, many of the bishops present at the Council reacted strongly against it. Some two hundred of them indignantly withdrew from the Council in protest.
At its fourth session, the climate of which was oppressive, the Council finally managed to adopt the dogma of Infallibility. In other words, when the Pope speaks to the whole Church ex cathedra on matters of faith, he is considered infallible. Even if he himself is corrupt, when he speaks thus, he is infallible and anyone who contradicts this is to be anathematized.
At the same time, the Council recognized the Pope 'by divine right' as the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Historical review
What does the long-standing practice of the Church have to say about Infallibility? Has the Pope really been infallible from the outset? Or is this, perhaps, an innovation and therefore an alteration of tradition?
a. The local Synod of Carthage sent a long letter of reprimand (!) to Pope Celestinus. Among much else, it told him that; 'No-one wants to believe it possible that God has given proper judgment to the Bishop of Rome alone, and not to the whole assembly of bishops who make up the Synod' (The Rudder, p. 541 (in Greek ]).
b. Pope Virgilius replied to the Fifth Ecumenical Synod that:
• he considered that it was possible to condemn him.
• he was duty bound to obey the Synod! And, indeed, this Holy Synod deposed the Pope and erased his name from the holy diptychs of Orthodox Hierarchs. The Bishops of North Africa, at a Synod in 550 AD actually excommunicated Virgilius.
c. Pope Honorius I (f 640 AD), was condemned by his successors Leo and Hadrian. The holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod (
d. The Synod of Constance (1414-1418) decided that:
• Ecumenical Synods derive their authority directly from the Lord
• They are over and above the Pope
• They are empowered to punish him
e. When the Synod of Basle (1431-39) was convened in 1431, the newly-elected Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) published a Bull, declaring its dissolution. The Synod didn't conform, however, and responded to the Pope that only the Synod had the right to postpone, transfer or dissolve the Synod. It declared the Pope to be out of order and continued with its work.
Conclusion:
In the life of the Church, the Pope was not considered infallible. The adoption, therefore, of the dogma of Infallibility is an innovation and, at the same time, a distortion of Tradition.
3. The two authorities
Before the establishment of the dogma of Infallibility, the supreme authority in the
The real point is that the standing of the Pope had fallen sharply and something had to be done ...
4. The Church as a 'Pillar and Buttress of the Truth' (I Tim. 3, 15)
No matter how holy people are, they're still people And as people, they're still imperfect. Because of this, they're liable, at any moment, to fall into error. No-one is infallible. For three years, Judas was close to Christ. He even worked miracles.But still he went astray. Origen, the greatly ascetic genius, went astray. Nestorios, Patriarch of Constantinople, went astray. As did many others besides.
The thing which makes the greatest impression is this:
The Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet they disagreed among themselves. On the question of circumcision, for example (Gal. 2,11-14). It was for this reason that the Apostolic Synod convened in
One person doesn't decide on matters of the Church, many people do. In 1433, the Roman Catholic Nicholas of Cusa wrote, concerning the supremacy of general councils: 'Accordingly, ecclesiastical canons are rightly decreed by a common councillor the Church is a Congregation. A single person cannot rightly issue ecclesiastical canons' (De concordantla catholica). In any case, it is easier for one person to be deluded than for many. The Church itself decides on Church matters, as 'the pillar and buttress of the truth' (I Tim. 3, 15).
God could have granted Infallibility to His Apostles and their successors. He didn't do so in order to protect them. If
In effect, the Pope has dared to say 7 am the truth' (Jn. 14, 6).
The Primacy
1. The Position of Saint Peter among the Apostles.
Saint John the Evangelist was celibate and a bosom friend of the Lord. The Apostle Peter was married and denied the Lord thrice. And yet the Lord didn't 'anoint'
And as the first, Saint Peter imitated His Master. He was always a servant (cf. Matth. 20, 27). First in service, first in love.
• Although first, he calls the Presbyters 'Co-Presbyters ' (Pet. 5, 1).
• Although first, he consented to being rebuked in front of everyone by the Apostle Paul.
• Although first, he didn't insist on his own way in the matter of circumcision, which was the cause
of his rebuke.
• When the question of a replacement for Judas came up, again he refrained from imposing his opinion. Lots were cast (Acts 1, 21).
• In the matter of the choice of deacons, he did much the same. He let the people choose (Acts 6,2-3). In that he was first, he had the authority to choose the deacons himself and to replace Judas. But he refrained from making use of his authority and behaving in an autocratic manner. That is where his love and his humility led him. S. The 'Primacy' in the Tradition of the Church
Tt is meet that the Bishops of each Nation should appoint one as primate and that he should lead them, as head...' (Canon XXXIV of the Holy Apostles).
A practical example of the sort of man this should be was given by the first of the Apostles. First in love and first in service. Authority as 'presiding in love 'is taught by Saint Ignatios the God-Bearer. The Eastern Church recognized the Pope's 'primacy' of honour. The Second Ecumenical Synod, in its 3rd Canon, recognizes this primacy of honour, the position of first among equals. Roughly the same is said by the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in Canon XXVIII.
He is recognized as 'first', 'father' and 'head', but not as 'lord' or 'master', to whom absolute obedience is due. Such authority lies solely with the Synod of Bishops, as the holy Fathers of the Synod of Carthage rightly stated. It goes without saying that this primacy of honour belongs to the Pope on condition that he is Orthodox.
With the passage of time, however, this 'primacy ' has lost its original meaning for the
3. Other deviations
Apart from the above, the
• its teaching on created Divine Energies
• the fire of Purgatory
• the immaculate conception of the Mother of God
• and so on.
To conclude, then: the
6. ORTHODOXY
• The Orthodox Church has not added anything to the Creed, nor has it subtracted anything. It has fully respected the relevant decisions of the Second and Third Ecumenical Synods.
• During the course of the 8th Ecumenical Synod (
• It has retained the liturgical, theological and other wealth of the
Conclusion:
a. The Orthodox Church has not deviated in the slightest from the holy Faith, which Christ and His disciples delivered to us.
b. For this the Orthodox Church is called 'Catholic (i.e. all-embracing) and Apostolic 1 'Catholic ', because it retains the "whole truth" and 'Apostolic ' because the whole truth is the Faith of the Holy Apostles.
7. THE PROTESTANTS
A. Its History
a. The beginning of the decline of the Papacy
The Western Church had taken the downward path. Various scandals shook the faithful. In order to get the money together to build Saint Peter's, use was made of the famous 'indulgences'. The faithful who bought these believed that the souls of their dead relatives would be forgiven, removed from the fire of Purgatory and placed forthwith 'in a place of verdure'. And so they all made haste to get such a precious piece of paper. The Church reeked of simony. And this gnawed at the souls of some sensitive clerics of the
b. Their common characteristics
• They were all, of course, members of the Roman Church.
• They were all clerics and, therefore, monks.
• They raised their voices in protest against the things which were wrong in their Church. And since they weren't heeded, they broke away and formed their own Church.
• They all agreed that faith was the only means of salvation. They rejected any other means such as good works or asceticism. They accepted the Mass and Baptis m as sacraments, bee ause they are mentioned in the New Testament. They did not, however, accept the transubstantiation of the bread and wine at the
They rejected the other mysteries as not being necessary for salvation.
• They accepted the Filioque and the teaching concerning absolute Pre-determination.
• They accepted only Scripture as authority in the Church. They rejected Holy Tradition absolutely.
• Finally, although monks and celibate clergymen, they demanded the abolition of clerical celibacy, setting the example themselves. They also demanded the abolition of fasting.
B. Their Theology
a. Their tradition
Holy Tradition is instructions: what should happen in the Church and how. These ordinances, particularly in the Orthodox Church, 'spring'from the Holy Fathers, who were purified through asceticism and who shone as vessels of the Holy Spirit. These instructions were rejected by the reformers. In their stead, they put their own views and guidelines as to what should happen in the Church and how. They adopted another tradition - their own. Nor could it have happened otherwise since they broke away and formed their own Church.
Through their asceticism and continence they had reached great heights and were sensitive to the things which were wrong in the
b. Perhaps they are actually opposed to the Scriptures?
1. 'The just shall live by faith'(
The Protestants declare that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.
The word for 'faith' used by
Even if we overlook all this, however, and supposing that they are right to say belief in Christ is all you need to be saved, the question then arises: 'What do we mean by belief in Christ?'.
'Everything is possible to him who believes' (Mark 9,23). In other words, it's not belief that God can do anything which makes you a member of the faithful, but belief that you can do anything through God!
If they have that kind of faith, then they most certainly will be saved.
And, of course, faith like that, by it's very nature, would impel them towards actions pleasing to the Lord. It would be impossible for such faith to remain dead. How beautifully Saint James, the Brother of Our Lord, writes on the proper combination of faith and works (James 2, 14-26).
We do see such faith, however, in the lives of the saints of the Eastern Church. They sacrifice themselves, 'burn up' their bodies with the fire of fasts and vigils for the sake of Christ. This is what their faith in Christ urges them to do, and this is where the words of the Lord apply: 'Everything is possible to him who believes'. And so we see the Lord feeding them, as He fed the Prophet Elijah, we see them walking on the water, like the Apostle Peter and performing other wonders. That is the kind of faith the Lord wants, and if anyone substitutes something else, they are, in fact, opposed to Scripture.
Faith is not a matter of emotionalism...
2. The prayers of the saints
'There is one intercessor between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus' (I Tim. 3, 5). Protestants, basing their arguments on this, reject the prayers of the Saints. But let's look at this more closely.
Christ alone was crucified for us. No-one, therefore, intercedes for us as Christ does. This is why
Are there other intercessors, apart from Christ? If there are, they'll be much inferior to Him. Well, there certainly are - the Saints. In Scripture, many Saints (Abraham, Moses et al.) interceded on behalf of mankind. When righteous Job was adrift on the sea of tribulation, three friends went to comfort him And they sinned. Now God did not seek repentance from the men themselves. He Himself ordained their intercessor. He sent them to Job the holy for him to supplicate on their behalf (Job 42, 7-8). After his death, Job would certainly have continued to pray to God. Unless we are to suppose that after his death he fell into some great sin and lost his boldness towards God...
Basing its belief on this and many other passages (Ex. 32, 11-14, Jer. 7, 16, Rom. 15, 30 etc.), the Orthodox Church maintains that the Saints pray to God for us and that we the faithful can call upon their prayers.
3. Confession
Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics confess before a priest, Protestants directly to God. There are many Biblical passages which say that the Apostles and their successors have the authority 'to bind and to loose' the sins of the people (Matth. 16, 19 and 18, 18; Jn 20, 20-23 etc.). Now in order to exercise that power, they have to know the sins of the people. And for them to know the sins, the people have to confess before them.
Let us allow that these passages are unclear. The question arises: How should confession take place? Before a priest or directly to God? Apply the 'no lose' argument. If these passages mean confession before a priest, then the Orthodox and
That great doctor of souls,
Protestants don't have that rein over their sins. There's no shame at having to confess aloud nor any admonition from the priest. The road to sin is open. And because people are naturally pleasure-seeking, they easily incline towards 'sin which clings so closely' (Heb. IS, l), particularly those of the flesh. Unless, of course, they are overwhelmed by the fear of God so that this fear becomes a rein on their sins, as was the case with the righteous Joseph (Gen. 39, 9;cf. Ps. 118, 120). Wherever there is fear of God, however, there is also humility and a contrite heart. Where there is humility, the faithful do not hesitate to confess, not only before a priest but before everyone!
4. What will you do?
A question arises - cloning, for example - and Scripture says nothing about it. Neither allows nor forbids. But something has to be done. In that case, whatever happens will be outside Scripture. So how can we now talk about sola scriptural
Some other examples:
a. Infant baptism
There is absolutely no Biblical passage which specifically forbids infant baptism, nor is there any which imposes it. So whatever we do with respect to this will be outside the letter of the Scriptures. The point is, what is closer to the spirit?
Through baptism, you become a member of the
b. The sign of the Cross
Suppose you're a Protestant and someone asks you whether it's right to make the sign of the Cross, what will you say, knowing that Scripture says neither that we have to make it nor that it's forbidden.
Whatever you say, you're going to be outside the letter of the Scriptures. So how do you approach its spirit? When you decide to make the sign of the Cross, which
The Protestants have utterly rejected the Precious Cross. According to
c. The question of fasting
Someone asks you if we should fast on Fridays, for example. Again, there's nothing in the Scriptures about it. So you have to advise them to do what's best (fine thing it would be if Christians did what's worst!) Of course, if you're a glutton, it's best to eat, but if you have any restraint and control it's best to fast.
On Fridays, we commemorate the fact that Christ was crucified, so it's a day of mourning. As, indeed, it was in the Old Testament (IKings 1,12and 31, 13). When you fast on Fridays, you remember the Passion of Christ. And there's a Greek proverb which says: 'Whoever saw a son on the Cross and the mother at the table?The Lord said: 'When the Bridegroom departs, then they (My disciples) will fast' (Matth. 9-15). The Lord departed on the day of His Ascension, so from then on His disciples would have fasted, in line with His wishes. The first Christians certainly fasted (Acts 14, 23). So did the Apostle Paul (II Cor. 11, 27). It follows, therefore, that people who don't fast are not living in accordance with the wishes of the Lord nor in the ascetic spirit of the Holy Gospels. But the Orthodox fast on Fridays, Wednesdays, during Great Lent, Great Week, the Christmas fast, the Apostles' fast, the Dormition fast and so on.
d. Conclusion
The faith of the Protestants not only departs from the Scriptures at many points, but is also actually opposed to it. Not only do they reject Holy tradition, but they also cut things off from the Scriptures.
8. THE SCHISM
A. The worst sin
Just before he was crucified, Christ prayed with pain in His soul in Gerhsemane. Among other things, he begged His Father for unity in His Church: 'so that they may be one as we are' (Jn. 17, ll). Unity of the Church, then, is His will. It is His joy. On the other hand, our crucified Lord is grieved when His Church is divided. And not only that. He becomes angry - greatly so. 'Nothing angers God so much as division in the Church' (Saint John Chrysostom, PG 57, 250).
The saintly Pope Pelagius II (579-
Creating a rift within the Church is a greater sin than denying Christ! Through apostasy, o:ne person goes to Hell, the apostate. If a schism is created, he who provoked it will go to Hell, but so will all those who follow him (Ep. ad episcopos Istriae II, in H. Denzinger - K. Rahner, Enchiridion Symboloroum, Roma, N.247).
Anyone who causes a schism remains un-pardoned forever. His sin is not forgiven even by the most outstanding martyrdom! 'Not even the blood of martyrdom can absolve this sin, declares Saint John Chrysostom' (ibid).
It is known that the
B. The most glorius martyrdom
On the basis of the above, everything possible must be done to prevent a schism within the
C. The Holy Fathers who were great martyrs
With this in mind, the most holy fathers, in their sacred efforts against heretics attempted, above all, to prevent a split within the Church.
a. They showed tolerance
1. Saint Cyril of
2. Theodoros of Mopsouestia was a heretic. Some Orthodox bishops commemorated his name in the official lists at the Divine Liturgy and, to avoid a schism within the Church, Saint Cyril of Alexandria remained in communion with them (Migne: 99, 1085).
3. When
The bold saint was terrified of a schism!
4. Even more astonishing:
The Filioque heresy appeared in the West in the 6lh century. Yet the Church in the East was tolerant for centuries (!) towards the West and the Filioque, in order to prevent a schism.
b. They played 'polities'
In their heroic efforts to keep the faith incorrupt and the Church intact, the holy Fathers became 'as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves' (Matt. 10, 16; cf. Luke 16, 8).
Basil the Great did not immediately confess the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Wise in God, he played 'polities'. Had he not done so, he would have infuriated the Arians, and with the aid of the secular power, they would have taken over his Archiepiscopal throne. In which case, the faith would have been in danger (The Rudder, ibid.p.53). How many people condemned this great pillar of the Church as a coward. And as a heretic!
And the most scandalous thing of all:
At the time of Arianism, certain Orthodox bishop publicly proclaimed that they were Arians. Their thinking was that, if they publicly confessed their Orthodoxy, they would be dethroned and heretical bishops would come in their place. In which case, the faith would be in danger. In order to save the faith, then, they pretended to be Arians and remained on their thrones. But in secret they ordained Orthodox priests and so on and supported Orthodoxy.
Then the period of the Arian controversy passed. Tranquillity returned to the Church. How did the
D. Conclusion
In war, strategy is everything. And the battle, the fight on behalf of the faith needs strategy. This is how the most inspired holy Fathers acted and the faith was saved. War without strategy ends in rout. And a battle on behalf of the Church without strategy leads to damage to the Church. What a deception! Here we are, struggling to do good to the Church and in fact we're working hard at doing harm, at dividing it!
There are heresies and schisms so that those who are well-tried shall be made manifest (I Cor. 11,19).
The Catholics and Protestants were manifestly untried.
9. CHRIST WAS ORTHODOX
A. 'And the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against It' (Matth. 16, 18)
'The gates of hell', are the mouths of the heretics, the worst thing there is for the Church. And yet, no heresy, however, terrible it may be, is ever going to 'conquer' the
So far the Church has undergone terrible trials. For two thousand years now, the fiery darts of the rabid heretics have surrounded it on all sides. And yet it remains entire, spotless and infallible! Christ's prophesy has been fulfilled.
Its weaknesses (heresies, scandals and so on) are its strengths. They prove that Christ is at the helm. He is the Head. What is there for Christ the All-Powerful to fear? 'And for this reason we are not only convinced but confess it to be true and certain that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to sin or to be entirely deceived or ever to choose falsehood at the expense of the truth' (Dositheos of Jerusalem, 'Ομολογία Πίστεως, όρος 16).
And so, for two thousand years, the
B. 'I am with you...' (Matth. 28,20)
'I am with you at all times until the close of the age' (Matth. 28, 20), said the Lord to His disciples. The Apostles weren't going to live till the end of the world and the Lord knew this. Yet He promised to be with them 'until the close of the age'. Clearly He meant the successors of the Holy Apostles. It is with these people that the Lord is and will remain 'until the close of the age'. Who are these lucky people?
a. The Protestants
They made their appearance in around the year 1500 AD. So, for 1,500 years, they didn't exist. But the Lord didn't say, 'I'll be with you', after 1500 onwards. What He said was 'I am with you' here and now. For ever. Without interruption. The Lord can't have been lying. He really was and is in the company of His disciples and their successors, as their Head.
He was such until 1500 AD, when the Protestants appeared. And there was at that time a Church which had not strayed from the truth. How could it, with Christ at the helm? Had Christ been absent, His Church would most assuredly have fallen into error. But in that case, He'd have been breaking His promise (Matth. 28 20). So the Lord wasn't lying and the Church held fast to the Truth.
Protestants maintain, however, that the Church was in error until 1500, when they themselves came along and put things right. What they mean, in effect, if we take the words of the Lord into account, is that they corrected the Lord's mistakes! Of course, they don't see it like that, but still, they have to as,k themselves where Christ was all that time when the Church was in error. Was He totally absent from the whole Church?
b. The Monophysites.
They made their appearance during the 5th century. Again the same question arises: Is it possible that the Lord was at the helm of the Church for five whole centuries and that the Church was in error all this time?
c. The Roman Catholics
In 1054, they cut themselves off from the
d. Christ was Orthodox
Is Christ divisible?' (iCor. 1, 13). Truth is not material that you can cut up and share out. And then, if you collect the pieces, you can put them back together and make the material whole again. Christ, the Truth, can't be divided. Tou can't have a bit of Christ among the Catholics, a bit among the Protestants and a bit in Orthodoxy. Christ is One and Indivisible.
And He promised to be with us, 7 am with you at all times' (Matth. 28.20). And He has not broken His promise. He is still with us, here on earth. He rests in His Indivisible Church, in His Orthodoxy. 'One Lord, one faith' (Ephes. 4, 5).
E. Prophets and Apostles
Wherever Christ is, there you'll find the
Prophets. And the Apostles. So it follows that the
Prophets were Orthodox, as were Saint Peter,
Paul and the whole number of the Twelve Apostles.
Naturally, their teaching was Orthodox, too.
10. CONCERNING HERESIES
A. The birth of heresies
a. 'The work of ignorance and weak faith'
Saint Peter teaches that the Scriptures are distorted by the ignorant and unstable (2 Peter 3, 16). Those who are unstable are people who have no firm support in the faith. And it's the weak who need support. So heresy comes from:
• the ignorant
• the people who are weak in faith.
And these people act 'at the instigation of the devil who works evil' (Verse for vespers on January 21).
b. Work of the flesh (Gal. 5, 20.)
When the soul is overwhelmed with cares and passions of the flesh it is impossible for it to receive the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Basil the Great, Epistle 210, 6). Such people, 'corrupt in mind and disreputable concerning the faith' (2 Tim. 3, 8), blunder about in the dark. They ponder in the dark and philosophize in the dark. They get confused and stumble about in a mess of uncontrolled thoughts. This is how heresies 'are discovered'. This is why heresy is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5, 20), i. e. of a carnal outlook .
B. A sketch of the typical heretic
a. Stubbornness
Not all Christians are fully aware of the teachings of the
b. 'foolish and tardy of heart' (Luke 24, 25)
Those who didn't believe what the Prophets said were called 'foolish and tardy of heart'by the Lord. Hard-hearted, in other words. Proud. And those who don't believe what Christ says through the Scriptures are equally foolish and proud.
c. 'such a person is perverted' (Tit. 3,11)
A heretic is a twisted piece of wood and can't be straightened.
If you accept the number three and see three books in a row, you'll say: 'There are three books'. Suppose for a moment that you don't accept the number three. You'll think up the most ridiculous arguments to prove that there aren't three books there. (Some of these might be technically correct but ludicrously unnecessary, e.g. 'There are 100-97books here'. Others are simply wrong: 'Here we have book A and book B. We also have book B and book C. Therefore we have four books'. This is the way heretics are in their thinking. They won't simply accept the Truth, because of their egotism. The whole of their efforts are directed towards rejecting it.
d. Fixed ideas
Heretics get it into their heads that the faith they hold is the only correct one. This belief has become so firmly and deeply embedded that nothing on earth will remove it. Their whole beings are infused by this thought, this belief. Their slogan is 'Even if you convince me, you won't convince me'.
Basil the Great writes:
'The Ethiope cannot change his skin, nor the leopard its spots, and nor can they who have been weaned onto perverse doctrines throw off the evil of heresy' (Epistle
C. Heresy: the worst evil! a. 'let it be anathema'
Even if an angel from Heaven were to proclaim a faith other than that of the Gospels, 'let it be anathema ' (Gal. 1, 8). This very severe sentence on the part of
b. The worst form of heresy
According to Saint Basil the Great, the basic dogma of our faith is belief in the divinity of the Son of God (Against Eunomios II, 25). That is the special characteristic of being a Christian. It follows, then, that the worst form of heresy is denial of the divinity of Christ (such is the heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses). Saint Basil also says that 'we must lament over those who deny Christ' (Epistle 210, 5). Because they destroy the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which is the strength of our faith.
D. Heresy and the Wrath of God
The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, lit their censers, laid incense on them and censed the tent of meeting. But they didn't perform the ritual properly; they offered 'strange fire' to the Lord, i.e. other than what the Lord expected from them. And the Lord not only rejected their offering but consumed them with fire (Levit.
Now if the Lord is so wrathful over a matter such as that, how much more so will He be when the contravention of His ordinances has to do with questions of vital importance, such as the faith.
Both Arius and Nestorios suffered frightful deaths. In both cases, their bowels burst.
E. Do heretics become saints?
A sinner can't become sanctified if he doesn 't cut himself off from sin. Nor can the heretic, unless he cuts himself off from his heresy and returns to the
F. Do miracles occur among heretics?
1. Heretics may not believe correctly, but many of them still believe in Jesus Christ as God and the Son of God. They believe in the consub-stantial Trinity, which is the basic doctrine of our faith. This is why God shows His pleasure towards them and performs miracles for them.
His mercy isn't limited to them, however. He does wonders even for idolaters! Saint Arsenics the Cappadocian performed miracles for Turks and could hardly have done so without God's approval. So miracles alone are not a criterion of true faith.
2. But there are some miracles which happen only in the Orthodox Church, which miracles show its uniqunes. Here is one of those miracles: It takes us back to the
G. Our relations with heretics a. Love
Christ forbids us to have enemies. He demands that we love our neighbours as ourselves, no matter who our neighbour might be. Even heretics? Certainly! Christ, Who is Love, makes no distinctions, as Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis points out. Saint Gregory the Theologian calls the heretics friends and brothers
b. Solidarity and help
'So while we have yet time, let us do good to all people, especially those who are of the house of the faith' (Gal. 6, 10). By all means, let's do what we can for everybody,
And this help and understanding for heretics doesn't apply at all times and on all occasions. It doesn't extend to helping them spread their false doctrines. When it comes to this, we must oppose them vigorously, as Saint John Chrysostom says (Discourse 46, 2, on Matthew).
c. Misinterpretation of 2 John 10-11
11. THE HOLY FATHERS: REAL THEOLOGIANS
A. 'The natural man does not receive the things of the spirit' (l Cor. 2,14)
A polluted spring of necessity produces polluted water. It is impossible for it to produce pure drinking water. Something of the sort is also true of our souls. Because of our many passions, our souls are like a polluted spring. If your intellect is wallowing in this polluted spring, it can't produce pure thoughts (Cf. Saint Gregory the Sinaite in the Philokalia). In other words, people who are at the mercy of their passions are in no state to deal with theology. Nor, indeed, do they have the necessary pre-conditions for a proper understanding of the Divine Mysteries. Under the burden of their passions, their intellect can't fly up to the heavens. If it does, it will crash and be destroyed. To put it another way, when people who are at the mercy of their passions speak, even about God, they don't speak the truth and so they do harm to the faithful (Cf. Job 34, 37, and Ezek. 13, 3).
From which we may conclude: 'A soul whichhas not been purified and has not received Divine Light is unable to understand the things of God' (Basil the Great, Against Eunomios, B, 16).
'In Your Light shall we see Light' (Ps. 35, 9).
B. Those who are fit for theology
Those who are fit for theology are people who have dried up the polluted spring, who have overcome 'through continence the fiery and mortifying impulses and movements of the passions' (Dismissal Hymn of the Blessed Fathers). And just as a pure reservoir produces pure drinking water, so a pure, passionless soul 'produces' clean, purified thoughts 'A good man out of his good treasure brings forth good things' (Matth. 12, 35). Such people are the Holy Fathers.
Their souls, purified by asceticism, have become 'radars' which can pick up the messages of God. They have become 'an abyss of knowledge and the abode of mysteries' (The Ladder, Discourse 36, 14). Those who have become deified understand the things of God, we are told by Saint Gregory the Theologian, who was speaking from experience (0e:ohoYtxo<; E, 12). Just as a clear eye sees the page and understands it, so the purified intellect studies the things of Grod and understands them. Purification is 'the pen of a ready writer' (Ps. 44, 2). 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see the Lord' (Matth. 5, 8).
The Holy Fathers, because they have been purified, 'shall be taught by God' (Jn. 6, 45). In other words, on such a gleaming heart God 'writes His dogmas as on a blank tablet', easily and fluently (Saint Peter the Damascan, Philokalia). This is confirmed by another specialist in these matters, Saint Maximos the Confessor (also in the Philokalia) as well as all the other deified Holy Fathers. On the basis of this, according to Saint Gregory Palamas, the teaching of God and that of the deified Saints is one and the same!
So for the Orthodox Church, theologians are not people who are well-educated academics, whose hearts may be polluted. For the Orthodox, theologians are people who are purified and enlightened. Anyone whose teaching is contrary to theirs is not merely an outcast, but is an enemy to the truth of God being someone who 'has railed against God in vain' (Canon lot the Holy Quinisext Ecumenical Synod in Trullo).
b. Why rejection?
There has been a notable trend for some time towards rejection of Patristic thought. Why should this be?
Saint Maximos the Confessor, that great philosopher and saint of our Church makes the following comment of great weight:
Parents love their children excessively. And they think that they're more clever and more beautiful than other children. It makes no difference if other people think them stupid and ugly. Likewise, the intellect loves its children-thoughts -pathologically and to excess. And it matters not in the least if other people think them stupid (Ευεργετινός, vol. 1,p . 239). Given this, it's difficult, if not impossible for people with passions to disown their own rationale and to accept that of others, even if the others are saints. They're hindered by their natural, gross egocentricity. So for them to reject the thoughts of the Holy Fathers is not a sign of their superior theology, but rather an indication of egotism, disrespect and Godlessness (Saint Gregory Palamas, Epistle to Dionysios).To argue that the Holy Fathers have erred, which is why you reject them is simply a cover-up for your self-centredness. And, of course, they do err, as people, when "hey come into conflict with the official teachings of the Church. In that case, you do well to reject them. But where they don't err and are in conflict with your own views, do you then accept what they say?
And if the Holy Fathers, who conquered the passions and the devil, can fall into error, how much more so can we, who are still subject to the passions and to the devil? And yet we blithely continue with our own Pharisaical reasoning, with the diabolical thought that 'the Fathers are wrong, we aren 't'. And that in itself puts us right outside the Biblical at mosphere, which is one of humility.
C. Scholastic (western) theology
While the Eastern Orthodox Church considers those people who shone through asceticism and filled their hearts with the Grace of the Holy Spirit most fit to express the faith and theology, the Western Church considers as its finest servants in these fields those who have filled their brains with secular learning and wisdom.
The great contrast which exists between the East and the West here showed distinctly during the controversy which broke out between Barlaam, a monk of the
This obvious difference between Eastern and Western Theology was also observed by Latin monks during the Council of Florence (1448 AD). Silvester Syropoulos tells us:
1. That when the ascetics of
2. When a certain Georgian representative, who was without education, heard the Latin theologians mentioning Aristotle all the time, he was dismayed and shouted: 'What Aristotle? And more Aristotle. Aristotle no good!'. When asked what he thought was good, he replied, 'Saint Basil!Saint Gregory!' (V.Laurent, LesMimoires deSilv. Syropoulos (Concilium Florentinum, Series B, vol. IX, book 9, 28, p. 464.)
Apart from anything else, the total failure of Western theology was officially acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council.
The difference between the East and West is not superficial. It's a difference in mode of thinking, in conceptualization, in thoughts and in the means of approach to vital matters.
12. THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS
A. The Aposties were God-inspired
Were the Apostles always inspired by God when they talked and acted? Did all their actions and expressions come from the Holy Spirit? When they ate, slept, awoke, walked, rested and so on, were they acting in a divinely-inspired way? And was the dispute which arose between the Apostles Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15, 39) divinely-inspired?
Saint Basil teaches that the Holy Spirit is not always active in the saints, but only when there's 'necessity' (On the Holy Spirit, 27). So the Holy Apostles didn't always act under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but only when there was 'necessity'. This means that they sometimes used their own judgment which, of course, might have been wrong. If they had always and in everything acted in the Holy Spirit, how would they have been any different from God the All-Perfect?
B. The divine inspiration of the holy Fathers
The Apostle Paul was not a member of the Twelve, nor was he present on the day of Pentecost. But he did spend three years in harsh asceticism in the
When we discuss the theology of the faith, we base our efforts on the teachings of the holy Hier-archs, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasios, Cyril et al. But what did these champions of the faith do for support in their battle against the heresies which were an abomination to God? How weren't they deceived, how weren't they carried away on the billowing waves of those dreadful heresies? How were they so sure and confident that what they were proclaiming was in fact the truth? How did they formulate those dogmas of the faith beyond words, with such sureness and clarity?
We can answer these questions with another one. How could the Holy Spirit, Who was guiding the Church 'into al] truth' remain indifferent at such crucial moments? It is unthinkable that He would abandon His Church on a sea of appalling heresies. No, the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouths of our Holy Fathers. Their teachings are
the work of the Holy Spirit, as were the teachings of the Apostles.
C. What does the Church teach?
The Church makes no distinction between the divine inspiration of the Apostles and of the Fathers. For the Church, both groups are divinely-inspired and equally so.
1. Canon 1 of the Holy Quinisext Ecumenical Synod in Trullo declares:
• that the holy Fathers are the luminaries of the world
• that not only their dogmas but the whole of their writings are God-given.
2. The 7th Ecumenical Synod also characterizes the teachings of our saints as divinely-inspired. And it anathematizes those who oppose 'the divinely-inspired theology of the Saints' (Triodion, Sunday of Orthodoxy).
The Church, therefore, decided and declared that the authors of the Scriptures were divinely-inspired. And that same Church decided and declared that the same is true of the holy Fathers. So if you accept the Scriptures as divinely-inspired, then logically you must accept the Fathers. Otherwise you should take another look at your reasoning.
D. Prophets - Apostles - Holy Fathers
The Apostles proclaimed Christ to the ends of the earth. The holy Fathers 'protected' Christ from the darts of heretics: 'Through them (the holy Fathers) you have led us all to the true faith' (Dismissal Hymn of the Holy Fathers). The saints are the guides of Orthodoxy, as the Dismissal Hymn of the Blessed tells us.
Saint Basil the Great wondered in which category to place Saint Gregory the Theologian. 'Shouldn 't I place him with the Prophets and the Apostles' (On the Holy Spirit 29, 74). And Saint Gregory the Theologian says of Saint Basil that his theology is equal in value to the words inscribed by Moses on the tablets at God's direction (Funeral Speech 43). And Athanasios the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Palamas and the whole band of the holy Fathers are to be placed in the same category as the Prophets and the holy Apostles.
The Prophets had the Holy Spirit, as did the Apostles and the Fathers. They all had the same spirit and they all resembled each other in this. Therefore they have the same faith and, of course, the same teachings.
The Fathers continue the theology of the Prophets, of
13. CONCERNING ECUMENICAL SYNODS
A. The Apostolic Synod
The holy Apostles didn't agree among themselves on the question of circumcision (Gal. 2, 11-13). The Fifth Ecumenical Synods says about this that: 'Despite the fact that the Grace of the Holy Spirit was so richly present in every one of the holy Apostles that they had no need of advice from other quarters as to what they should do, despite this, before they gathered together and each one checked his views against testimony from the Scriptures, each one had a different opinion as to the question under discussion, i.e. whether the Gentiles should be circumcised'.
In order to reach a solution to this problem, the Apostles gathered in
The decision of the Apostolic Synod was divinely-inspired (Acts 15, 28). Why? Because the divinely-inspired Apostles took part. But it wasn't only the Apostles who took part in the Synod. The people did, too, and they put forward their views (Acts 15, 12). Were the people divinely-inspired as well? Or did the Apostles simply ignore them? Apart from the people, the Presbyters also took part. And the decisions were taken 'by the Apostles and the Presbyters' (Acts 16, 4). So were the Presbyters also divinely-inspired? Let's suppose that the decisions of the Synod were divinely-inspired because the Apostles imposed their views in a tactful manner. But before the Synod started the Apostles couldn't reach agreement on the subject. So when were they divinely-inspired? Before the Synod or during it?
There is one answer to this, and only one. The decisions of the Apostolic Synod were divinely-inspired because all the Apostles were there. The whole body of the Church was present. The Church which is the 'the pillar and buttress of the truth ' (I Tim. 3, 15).
B. The Ecumenical Synods
'And He will give you another Comforter to stay with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth' (Jn. 14, 16). By saying 'with you for ever' the Lord didn't mean that the Holy Spirit would remain on earth with His disciples themselves, precisely because they wouldn't be alive for ever. What He meant was that He would be with their successors, i.e. the hierarchs of the Church. The Spirit of Truth will remain with them unto the ages of ages.
And something else.
Christ didn't say that the Spirit of Truth would be with each of them, but with all of them. (
Since the time of the Apostolic Synod, a number of problems have arisen in the life of the Church, especially heresies. And just as the Apostles called their (Ecumenical) Synod to discuss the matter of circumcision and to come to a decision in the Holy Spirit, so their successors throughout the ages have called similar Ecumenical Synods. And they discussed the problems which arose and formulated dogma in the Holy Spirit (Canon 7 of the Third Ecumenical Synod). Their doctrines are characterized as being 'divinely-inspired' (Ode nine of the Canon for August 12and Verse from Vespers for 12May).
The Holy Spirit Who enlightened the Apostleswas the same Holy Spirit Who enlightened the Fathers. 'For all are enlightened by one and the same Spirit', declares the Church (Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod). 'Having received all the ... brand of the holy Spirit... they spoke by divine inspiration '. (Pentecostarion, Praises for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers).
Do you doubt? The Holy Spirit isn't present in the Church? He isn't active? He doesn't guide the Church? He doesn't teach it, doesn't reveal to it all the Truth? If He didn't act when the Ecumenical Synods were called, the purpose of which was to proclaim the truth, then when did He act? How was it that He acted at the Apostolic Synod but didn't act at the Ecumenical Synods? Unless, of course, we're saying that the Holy Spirit has ceased to be present and active in the Church since the Apostolic Synod, in which case we're making a liar out of Christ! (cf. Jn. 14, 16).
It's interesting that the Church had to deal seriously with the matter of the divine inspiration of the Ecumenical Synods in the 14th century, at the Synod held in 1351. Divine inspiration was not doubted by the Orthodox, but by the supporters of Barlaam, who were influenced by non-Orthodox ideas.
C. Food for thought
The Scriptures don't say that they alone are divinely-inspired, nor that divine inspiration stops with them. They leave open the question of further divine inspiration. So the notion that only the Scriptures are divinely inspired is not borne out by the Scriptures themselves.
What do those who deny the divine inspiration of the Ecumenical Synods base their belief on? What ecclesiastical testimony do they have for it?
Here is the dilemma:
The idea that only the texts of the Scriptures are divinely-inspired is a view put forward by ill-informed, spiteful people. That the other texts of the Church are also divinely-inspired is maintained indirectly by the Scriptures (cf. Jn 16, 13) and quite clearly by the teachings of the holy Ecumenical Synods.
So who are you going to believe? Spiteful, worldly people, or the saintly and God-bearing Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods?
a. Limiting divine inspiration to the Scriptures is disobedient to the decision of the Church. And this is disobedience on a matter of faith! Disobedience based on pride (cf. Deuter. 11, 12). And such disobedience deprives you of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures: 'The Lord opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble' (I Peter. 5, 5).
b. If the Lord will punish us for 'every idle word' (Matth. 6, 22), what punishment awaits those who proclaim and spread false teachings?
c. If rejection of the divine inspiration of the Synods isn't blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then what is it?
D. When is a Synod considered to be divinely-inspired ?
a. Pre-condition: maintenance of tradition
A Synod is called 'to discover' the Truth. Now the Truth of the Church is to be found in its tradition. That is where the holy Fathers seek Truth. Athanasios the Great writes: 'The holy Fathers in Nicea concerning the faith did not say "it seemed good" but "thus believes the catholic Church " and at once confessed what they believe, showing that this outlook was not an innovation but was Apostolic and what they wrote was not of themselves but was the same as what the Apostles taught' (Athanasios the Great, Patrologiae Greca., vol. 26, 688). And Saint Cyril, when he was called upon to draw up a commonly acceptable 'definition of faith' with the Nestorians, answered: '/ did not come here to find a faith, but to establish the faith of the fathers, which has been shaken'. Even the arch-heretic Arius confessed to his mother: 'Go on believing as you did. Athanasios is right'. The Third and Fourth Ecumenical Synods, in propounding their definitions of dogma, stated that they formulated them 'following the holy fathers'.
His Grace1 Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis defines the Ecumenicity of a Synod as follows:
'The characteristic of an Ecumenical Synod is the search for the truth in humility, within the traditions of the Church. In other words, it is not the official manner in which it is called nor the host of Bishops which defines the Ecumenical Synod, but precisely the search for truth, in humility and within the climate of tradition'. This means that: 'The Ecumenical Synod does not alter in the slightest the teachings of the Church which have been handed down, but accepts them in their entirety, keeps them and continues them'.
b. The gift of divine inspiration
When the Synod is called on the above understanding, then automatically it receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. And this is what happened. At the holy Ecumenical Synods, the first and main speakers were men of the greatest humility. They spoke and the other Fathers listened to them in boundless humility. They approved their views because in them they found an expression of their own faith. In such a spiritually-charged atmosphere, it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke. That is how the Synods were divinely-inspired.
E. Can the Synod fall into error?
Is it possible for an Ecumenical Synod to be called and for it not to be divinely-inspired? And thus wrong? But of course! If it scorns the decisions of previous Synods, if it brings in innovations. To put it differently, if those who are attending the Synod do not seek the Truth in humility and within the tradition of the Church, bxit try instead to 'discover' it in their brains. In such an oppressive climate, the Holy Spirit will not descend. 'The Lord opposes the proud'. In that case, the Synod would cease to be divinely-inspired and would not be Ecumenical. It \vou!d be a 'pirate version'.
14. THE WAY TO ORTHODOXY
A. Orthodox intuition
At the Sacrament of Baptism the Creed is read by or on behalf of the person being baptized. In this way, the Orthodox faith is inscribed in a mysterious way upon the soul of the baptized person. So all Orthodox Christians, whether they're theologians or not, have the ability to tell Orthodox doctrines from heresies. 'As the palate tastes the meat of game (i.e. is able to tell the difference between various foods), so the heart distinguishes false words' (Sirach 36, 19).
When sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, they're not alarmed, but 'hegoes before them, for they know his voice' (John 10, 4). When an Orthodox soul hears Orthodox doctrines, it isn't perturbed. They strike a perfect answering chord. (The hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ was analyzed at the Third Ecumenical Synod. When the deeply-theological epistle of saint Cyril was read aloud, Eutychios, Bishop of Theodosio-polis in Asta said: 'Since we have believed from an early age, nothing in the epistle of Cyril which has been read has alarmed us' (A.C.O. l,l,2p.27). The Bishop wasn't perturbed precisely besause the Orthodox Faith had been inscribed within him at the Sacrament of Baptism.
When the sheep hear the voice of a strange shepherd, they're alarmed. They don't follow him, 'but flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers' (John 4, 5). When the Orthodox soul hears the voice of a strange shepherd, when it hears heretical doctrines, it is alarmed. It recognizes the wolf that has come to tear apart the flock.
B. Qualifications for a candidate to Orthodoxy a. Humility
Let's say you're a Protestant. You were weaned on your faith as a child, grew up with it. You were taught it at home, at school, in society. It took deep hold of you. Is it possible for you, with so much investment and so many pre-formed opinions to see that you're in error?
'The manifestation of your words will enlighten and instruct the simple'(Psalm 118, 30). If we transfer these divinely-inspired words to this case, we see that you have to become 'simple' or 'like a babe', you have to have the humility to see and to accept the true faith. 'You have hidden these things from the wise and have revealed them to babes' says the Lord (Matth. 11, 25). As long as you're not prepared to bow before the Truth, as long as you stand with your head high, don't expect to find the Truth. Don't expect that by your own will, in your own mind, you'll be able to rise to the Truth.
b. The right frame of mind
'To know the law is (a sign of) a sound mind' (Prov. 9, 10). In other words, you've got to be in the right frame of mind. You have to have a sincere desire to get at the Truth. If you don't want this with all your heart, if you're only pretending that you want it, you won't find it. And if you do, you won't believe it!
c. God's help
You're not alone in this God-pleasing effort. You have Christ the Ail-Powerful with you. He dearly wants you to come 'toknowledge of the truth' (l Tim. 2, 4). Just so long as you make a start. He waits for you to make the first move. He waits for you!
As many as have really desired with their whole heart to come into the
The mystery of God's love for mankind is very great.
d. Tour time hasn't come?
Tou've been trying for years to find the Truth but still haven't done so. That's not God's fault, of course. It'snot possible, says Saint John Chrysostom, for God to overlook someone who lives in an upright manner and is free of his or her passions. Even if such people go astray, He Himself, God, will bring them back to the Truth (Homily 24, 1. On Matthew). So if you still haven't found the Truth, it's your responsibility. Don't give up.
'Seek and you shall find' (Luke 11, 19).
The author, archim. Vassilios Bakoyannis, was born in 1953 at the
«Apostle Andrew» Press, Patras
