DANCE, 0 ISAIAH

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ON SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
EASTERN ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY
AND OTHER FAITHS

NH [Kéll'
Constantine Platis
Copyright © 2000 Constantine Platis.
All rights reserved. Reproduction of the whole or any part of the contents without written permission is
prohibited.

Bible quotes marked (RSV) are from one of the following:

Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights
reserved.

Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Apocrypha, copyright 1957; The Third and Fourth Books of the
Maccabees and Psalm 151, copyright 1977 by the DiviSion of Christian Education of the National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Contents

Preface................................................................................................................... .. i

Chapter 1. Posture and Liturgical Gestures........................................................... .. 1

Chapter 2. Church Services and Things Seen in the Church.................. ............. .. 11

Chapter 3. Roman Catholics

Section A. Papal Primacy................................................................ .. 15

B. Papal “Infallibility”........................................................ .. 19
C. Refusal to Ordain Married Men....................................... 21
D. Filioque Addition to the Creed ..................................... .. 23
E. Satisfaction, Indulgences, Purgatory............................... 25
F. “Immaculate” Conception of the Virgin Mary................ 33

Chapter 4. Protestants

Protestant Introduction ..................................................................... .. 37

Section A. The Bible........................................................................ .. 39

B. Bread and Wine Become Body and Blood.................... .. 47
C. The Eucharist a Sacrifice............................................... .. 51
D. Faith and Works............................................................. .. 55
E. Water in the Eucharist.................................................... .. 65
F. Fasting... ......................................................................... .. 67
G. More on Mysteries (Sacraments) and Salvation ............ .. 73
H. Prayers for the Deceased............................................... .. 89
1. Saints .............................................................................. .. 93
J. Fixed Wording in the Prayers......................................... .. 103
K. Relics ............................................................................. .. 107
L. Religious Processions .................................................... .. 109
M. Icons and the Cross ...................... ............................... .. 113
N. Angels............................................................................ .. 119
0. Permanent Monastic Vows............................................ .. 121
P. Christian Zionism ........................................................... .. 127
Q. Views of Some Fundamentalists on the Creation .......... .. 133

Chapter 5. Cremation ............................................................................................ .. 135

Chapter 6. More Questions on Rules in the Christian Life.................................. .. 137

Chapter 7. Crown Wearers ................................................................................... .. 141

Chapter 8. Questions about Sources ..................................................................... .. 147

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... .. 149

Index ............................................................... .. ...................................................... 15 1

Index of Bible References.................................................................................... .. 157

 Preface

Each chapter or section deals with one subject (identified at the upper left of the first page of each
chapter). On the left side of each page are the questions (numbered) and to the right of each
question (with the same number) are answers.

These questions (or false statements) deserve a brief Orthodox answer. My wife and I have been
personally asked many of these, including something out of each chapter, and the others come
from non-Orthodox religious literature. It is not enough to answer, “Ask so and soy he will know.”
If they are asking me, they probably 1% asked so and so, and considered his reply (if any)
unconvincing.

The Bible tells us to “Always be prepared to make a defense to everyone” who asks about our
faith (1 Pet. 3:15);1 the verse adds, “but do it with gentleness and respect.”

The Orthodox Church has condemned some of the writings of Origen and of Blessed Theodoret.2
Blessed Augustine taught several things the Orthodox condemn. I have found it necessary to quote
these writers on other subjects. I have tried to avoid their false teachings. Their works in general
should be read with caution. Similarly, when I quote any recent writer (for example, Afanassiev,
Kritopoulos, or V. Lossky) this is not to be taken to mean that I agree with absolutely everything
he ever wrote.

I am obliged to those who read the text and offered suggestions, especially Metropolitan Ephraim
of Boston of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America, Fr. Michael Azkoul, Fr. Seraphim
Johnson, and Fr. George Turpa. (It is with Metropolitan Ephraim's approval that this book is
published.) Their knowledge and discernment in theological and other matters were of great help
to me.

I also want to thank Constantine Norton, who did much of the typing.

1 When I have said any of the things in this book to anyone, it has been as a defense. I always wait until someone asks the
question (or makes the statement).
2 He recanted the false teachings.
1. Posture and Liturgical Gestures
Question
1. Why do Orthodox Christians stand
during most of their church
services?
Why are there traditionally no
pews in Orthodox Churches?
1 Orante or orant is a figure of a person standing with outstretched arms as if in prayer. (In Byzantine iconography the Theotokos
is commonly depicted as an orant.)
2 St. Nicholas Cabasilas, Commentary 9n the Divine Liturgy 21
3 Synagogal custom dating back to the lst century AD. omits the prostration on all festivals (,IE 1: 210-211).
An Orthodox answer
1. Pews were introduced into non-Orthodox churches only after the
1500‘s. For some non-Orthodox, sitting (or for others, kneeling) has
become accepted as the most common posture for public prayer.
But in ancient times (and down to the present in our Orthodox
Church), standing is considered the normal posture, except for
occasions requiring a special expression of humble worship
(prostrations, kneeling). Even today many of the older Roman
Catholic churches do not have pews or kneelers. Standing was
considered by the Jews of the Old Testament to be the usual posture
for praying to the Lord (Ex. 33:10; 1 Kg.[Sarn.] 1:26; Lk. 18:13)
and in listening to Him speak (Ex. 19:17). The early Christians
adopted this posture as the usual one for prayer (in Mk. 11:25 Christ
says, “When you stand praying,"—compare Rev. 7:9). We know
this also because of the many images of the oranteI in the catacombs
and on ancient sarcophagi, and also from the testimony of very
early (2nd and 3rd-century) Church Fathers (St. Justin, Apology
1:67; St. Cyprian, D3 dominica oration; 31).
For the early Christians, as for pagans and Jews, standing was an
expression of respect. Servants, for example, stand in the presence
of the person they serve? To Tertullian (Qg oratione 23), kneeling is
a sign of penance, but standing signifies joy, and for this reason
standing is customary between Paseha (Easter) and Pentecost; he
writes that it is against Church discipline to kneel on Sundays (2
corona militis 3). The first Council ofNicaea (canon 20) says that
prayer on Sundays and during the days of Pentecost must be made
standing and not kneeling. St. Basil writes that the Church
prescribes this because the season of Pascha (and Sunday, a weekly
celebration3 of the Resurrection) “is a reminder of the resurrection
expected in the age to come” (12; Spirjtu Sanctg 27[66]), a future
world in which there is no penance, an age in which sorrow is
abolished.
One main argument against pews is they inhibit traditional
Orthodox worship practices such as prostrations and bows from the
waist.
 Question
2. When is sitting acceptable?
3. What is the origin and significance
of profound bows (bows from the
waist)?
4. What is the origin of bowing the
head?
5. What is the origin of prostrations?
4 John M. Barkley, T_he_ Worship pine Reformed Church, p. 31-32
5 Commentary @ th_e Divine Liturgy 35
2
An Orthodox answer
2. Sitting is permitted for listening to the sermon, the Psalms, and (for
some persons) the Epistle. Sitting is a normal position for both
speaker (111. 8:2) and listener. The child Jesus was found seated
among the teachers in the Temple, “both hearing them and
questioning them” (Lk. 2:46). in the synagogue, Christ sat down to
preach (Lk. 4:20). For the early Christians, sitting is customary for
listening to the sermon (Acts 20:9), while standing is the usual
practice for prayer. In the early Church, the preacher usually
delivered his sermon sitting. This is mentioned by St. Justin
(Apology 1:67), St. John Chrysostom (fioniily on Elm. 8), and
Blessed Augustine (Qe catechigandis rudibus 13); the people
hearing the sermon stood in many churches but sat in others (M).
Sitting is customary in church for listening to Old Testament
readings (St. Justin, Apology 1:67). St. Symeon ofThessalonica
explains that during the Epistle reading, bishops and priests sit
because it is the work of their colleague (an Apostle) being read,
and like him “they also have the Apostolic grace" (BQ 155:724).
But to listen to the Gospel everyone stands (Apostolic Constitutions
2:57; also see Dt. 5:31, which speaks of standing to hear the Lord’s
commands), since the special dignity of Christ calls for the more
respectful posture of standing.
In some non-Orthodox church services, sitting has become the most
common posture for prayer in modern times, a public prayer posture
not found in the Bible or in Christian history. In the worship of the
Church of Scotland, sitting for prayer began in the latter half of the
17th century, when it was introduced in many places;4 it became
more common during the 18th.
3. In Ex. 34:8
Moses made haste to bow [literally: bend forward] toward
the earth, and worshipped.
During the early centuries the low bow, rather than genuflection,
was prescribed by the Church as the customary act of worship, and
this earlier practice has persisted in the Eastern Churches.
The bow signifies humble supplication and worship when directed
toward God, and reverence and veneration when directed toward
men or objects. A common gesture in ancient pagan rites, it was
introduced early into Christian prayer and became one of the most
common gestures in the liturgy, often used on occasions for which
genuflection was later substituted in the Latin Church.
4. In Ex. 4:31 and 12:28(27) the people “bowed their heads and
worshipped.” St. Nicholas Cabasilas writes that bowing heads in the
Divine Liturgy shows our servitude to God the Father.
5. “Making a prostration” (touching one’s face to the floor in worship,
in a servile way) was common among ancient nations, especially the
Jews (Gen. 17:3, 33:3; Josh. 5:15ll4}; 4[2] Kg. 2:15; Neh. 8:6; Tob.
12: I6; Jdt. 9:1; 2 Macc. 10:4). It is also found in the New Testament
(1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 1:17, 4:9-1 1, 7:1 1). It was an outward form of
repentance during the very early centuries of the Church (Tertullian,
m pgenitentia 9).
 Question
6. What is the origin and significance
of raising the eyes and hands?
7. Why do you face east during
prayer?
8. Why does a priest or bishop make a
gesture of blessing by raising his
hand?
zlSCtillSItlll
An Orthodox answer chapt. 1
6. Since it has always been believed that the dwelling place of God is in
the sky (Ex. 19:18-20, 20:22). the upward movement of one’s
thoughts is naturally accompanied by corresponding gestures of the
two parts ofthe body most capable of expressing this movement:
the eyes and the hands. Lifting up one‘s hands in prayer was
common among the Jews (Neh. 8:6, Ps. l33[134]:2, Lam. 3:41, 2
Macc. 3:20). These gestures were used in prayer by Christ (raising
the eyes [Jn. 11:41]), and by His earliest followers (lifting the hands
[1 Tim. 218]). These are mentioned by St. Clement of Rome
(Corinthians 1:29), and Tertullian (Apglogeticum 30).
Elevation of the hands signifies other things as well—through it,
man is able to express in a graphic and intense way his desire to be
reconciled to God, his childlike dependence upon God, and his
waiting for God’s answer.
7. The Jews turned toward the Temple in Jerusalem when they prayed
(Dan. 6:10; 3[1] Kg. 8:44,48) but the Church in its earliest period
decided that when we pray we should face east instead (Clement of
Alexandria, Miscellanies 7:7; Teitullian, A_d_ nationes 13). This is
also done in private prayers at home (Origen, Prayer 32).
One reason we face east, according to St. Basil the Great (E m
Sancto 27[66]): in our prayers we are
seeking our own ancient homeland (Heb. 11:14), paradise,
which God planted in Eden in the east (Gen. 2:8).
The Apostolic Constitutions (2:57) say the same thing—when
standing in prayer everyone turns to the east,
remembering the ancient situation of paradise in the east
from which the first man was expelled.
Another reason: our prayers are said in expectation of Christ’s
coming again. (He ascended into heaven “toward the east” [Ps.
67:33 LXX] and is expected to return from that same direction [Mt
24:27]). Facing east during prayer causes us to ask ourselves that
all-important question, “When He appears from that direction, am I
prepared to meet Christ?” (compare 1 Th. 4:17).
This practice gradually fell into disuse in western Europe, though in
some places it lingered on in private devotion in the Middle Ages.
8. In the OT, the priests were appointed to instruct and offer sacrifices,
but God also chose them to bless in His name (Dt. 21 :5, l Chr.
23 :13). The priest’s hand was raised towards those to be blessed
(Lev. 9:22).
As Christ was carried up into heaven, He blessed His disciples by
lifting up His hands (Lk. 24:50-51).
This sort of benediction had the sanction of God in the OT, and it
has the sanction of the example of Christ. From Him and His
Apostles it passed traditionally through the Church to the present
time.
b.)
 Question
9. Why are the fingers composed in an
unusual way (while blessing)?
10. Why is the priest’s hand kissed by
the believers on various occasions?
11. Why is incense used in the
Church? What is the purpose of
incense? Is it mentioned in the
Bible?
12. But does the Bible say anything
about earthly Christian worship
using incense?
6 In this passage, the incense can not refer only to the prayers.
4
An Orthodox answer
9. Since the benediction is offered in the name of Christ, the bishops
and priests compose the fingers of their right hand in such a way as
to form the abbreviation for “Jesus Christ” in Greek.
The index finger is stretched out straight and the middle finger
slightly bent, producing the letters E (the first and last letters ofthe
Greek word for Jesus). The thumb is laid across the bent ring finger
and the little finger is slightly bent making the letters ZQQ (the first
and last letters of the Greek word for Christ). Thus the priest offers
his blessing in the name ofJesus Christ, from whom all blessings
flow; and since the power of Christ’s blessing comes from His
Cross, the blessing is always given by tracing the sign of the cross
over the person or objects to whom it is given.
10. During the Divine Liturgy it is through the priest that the bread and
wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10: 16).
The hand of the priest is, therefore, an instrument that conveys
divine grace. By his blessing, he grants sanctity to Christians and to
the objects blessed. This is why Orthodox Christians through the
centuries customarily kiss the hand of the priest, when he distributes
the blessed bread (antidoron) and on other occasions.
The priest’s hand is an extension of the hand of the bishop, whom
St. Isidore of Mt. Pelusium calls the image of Christ (E 78:272C).
ll.
a. Incense is something given “with the prayers” (Rev. 8:3-4),6 and
b. Incense is a prayer (Rev. 5:8—“bowls full of incenses, which are
the prayers of the saints”).
In the OT worship, the burning of incense was commanded by God
(Ex. 30:1-9, 40:27).
12. Yes. The Prophet Malachi, predicting the conversion of the gentile
nations to God (to Christ), says that everywhere they will offer
incense to God, and a pure sacrifice (Mal. 1:11). He predicted that
Christian worship on earth would use incense.
 Question
13. Can incense (in the church)
symbolize something? (Also asked:
Why does the priest cense the
entire church [or the sanctuary]
before the Liturgy? This is done
before the Vigil in some
monasteries.)
14. Why does the priest cense towards
the altar and icons?
15. Why does the priest cense towards
the worshippers?
Why do the worshippers respond to
being censed by slight bows, or by
making the sign of the cross? (1
often wondered this.)
7 Q_n mg Templem mg Divine Mystegi O_ffl1§ Church “Treatise on Prayer” 54-55
8 St. Ambrose (Eviduis 5[30]), St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 38:17), St. Gregory the Great (Gospel Homily 8)
9 Incense is offered in sacrifice to God in the OT (Lev. 2:], Ex. 30:1-9).
An Orthodox answer chapt. 1
13. Since it looks like a cloud, incense symbolizes God’s presence, as
clouds commonly do in the Bible. When the Temple in Jerusalem
was being dedicated, the glory of God in the form ofa cloud filled
the building (3[1] Kg. 8:10-1 1). It was from a cloud that God called
to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 24:15-18). At the Transfiguration, God‘s
voice came from a bright cloud (Mt. 17:5).
St. Symeon of Thessalonica writes that the priest censes the church
because the clouds of incense symbolize the glory of God, which
fills the church as it filled the tabernacle of Moses and Aaron and
the Temple of Solomon.7
St. Germanus of Constantinople, in his commentary on the Divine
Liturgy, says, “the fragrant smoke indicates the fragrance of the
Holy Spirit” (30) and His coming invisibly and filling us with
fragrance through the service (3 7). (In this chapter he says that the
incense in the liturgy also represents the perfumes used at Christ's
burial.) 1n the commentary of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem on the
liturgy (18), the censer with incense symbolizes the grace of the
Holy Spirit (P_G 87:3997C).
14. The priest censes towards the altar and icons as a tribute of honor to
Christ and to the Saints. (The Saints have become “partakers of the
divine nature” [2 Pet. 1:4].) 1n the New Testament, the first who
presented incense to Christ were the wise men (Mt. 2:1 1). The
Church Fatherss and other early ecclesiastical writers explain the
three gifls given by the Magi to Christ: gold befits a king, incense
because He is God,9 and myrrh because He is a human being.
15. Each person stands as an image of God. When he censes the clergy
and the congregation, the priest is paying homage and respect to the
divine image in each person. The priest is telling the worshippers
that they can rise to where God is, becoming “partakers of the
divine nature" (2 Pet. 1:4) if they will receive the Mysteries and will
offer to God their prayers and their “entire lives;“ the priest also
reminds them that the lost likeness to God can be to an extent
restored when Christ is being formed in them through the Holy
Spirit (that is, when they keep themselves loyal and holy). The
priest in effect says, “1 have offered the prayers for you that only 1
can do, but this is not enough (it is not magic); you must do your
part, too.” By bowing, the worshippers acknowledge the priest’s
recognition of this image (and his request).
Assuming the likeness of Christ, man becomes a “temple of the
Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19).
This also expresses the wish of the priest that the worshipper’s
prayers may ascend to heaven as the fumes of the incense rise (Ps.
140[141]:2, Rev. 5:8).
The incense is also perceived as a blessing, since it has been
b1essed--1ike holy water.
 Question An Orthodox answer

16. Why then does the priest cense the
body of the deceased person (at a
funeral service)?
16. The priest is paying respect to the body that God will one day
resurrect.
Also, the body of an Orthodox Christian is to be treated with respect
because it has become a receptacle for the body and blood of Christ.

17. Why is lighting a candle 17. Candles are offered to give light to the service and to make the feast
considered an act of worship? more splendid (that is, bright, brilliant).

(At the Reformation, all Reformed There is also symbolic meaning. Blessed Jerome writes that
Churches abolished the use of throughout the Eastern Church candles are lit for the Gospel
candles.) reading, even in daylight, not to drive away the darkness but as a
visible sign ofjoy (Against Vigilantius 7).

Christ calls l-Iimselfthe light of the world (Jn. 8:12). He is called

l ‘1 light in other places in the Bible (Lk. 2:32). Lighting a candle when
_1 entering a church shows our belief that Christ is the light of the
world and that we are called daily to reflect His light in our lives
(Mt. 5:14-16). It reminds us that when we were baptized we
received Christ, the light of the world. St. Gregory Nazianzen tells
us that the baptismal candle is a sign of illumination and faith
(Qration 40:46).

What happens to the candle actually happens to the saints. Each

saint is the candle that is lit with the flame of God. (Fire is the
symbol of God who “is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29]). God
appeared as fire in the burning bush (Ex. 32-4), on Mt. Sinai (Ex.
24:17), and in the Prophet Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek. 1:27). The Holy
Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost in the form of tongues
as of fire (Acts 2:1-4). Since God is fire, St. Symeon the New
Theologian (lQiscogrses 15:3) writes that He kindles the Christian’s
mind, which is the lamp of the soul. Just as a lamp must be tended
by adding oil and trimming the wick in order to produce fire and
light, so the believer must be adorned with virtues, but he must also
receive the fire that is the Holy Spirit.

musse- llli‘lTrlll-l At Christ’s Transfiguration, “His face shone like the sun” (Mt.
- 17:2). Many Saints of the Church at various times actually shone.
Jesus, the light ofthe world, was shining from within the saints as
He was transforming their lives. The inner light sometimes
produces a visible outer glow. In Sayings gLfflLe Desert Fathers St.
Pambo’s face shone like lightning as did Moses’ face (Pambo 12). It
was the same with the face and body of St. Silvanus (Silvanus 12).
When he was near death, the face of St. Sisoes the Great shone like
the sun (Sisoes l4), and St. Arsenius the Great once was seen just
like a flame (Arsenius 27). in biographies of other Saints, their
 Question An Orthodox answer chapt. l

faces or bodies were sometimes seen to shine with a bright light,

such as St. Sergius of Radonezh (Klimenko), St. Seraphim of Sarov
(Nicholas Motovilov), St. Amvrossy of Optina (Orthodox Word
1:151), and St. John of Kronstadt (D. A. Arapova, p. 12). A fire was
sometimes seen coming from the head of St. Martin of Tours; it is
mentioned by a Father of the Church, St. Gregory of Tours:
1 think that this fire contains a mystical sacrament...as it
becomes visible it produces such light but does not burn
anyone. (Glory _o_th_e Confessors 38[39])
St. Gregory adds that one of these fires appeared to Moses in the
burning bush (Ex. 3:2-4).

The saints, who have come to know the Lord through the Holy
Spirit, progressively assume the likeness of the Lord; as St. John the
Theologian says,
When He appears, we shall resemble (literally: be like)
Him.10 (1 In. 32)
Yes, the candle we light in church is a symbol. lts flame is a flame
outside us. But it acts as a reminder of what can happen to us if we
only permit the Holy Spirit to ignite an inner flame in us.

18. Is it this divine light that is I8. In icons the halo is a way of showing (and this is usually not visible
depicted around the faces of Christ to human eyes) that man’s condition is transformed by, and the
and the Saints on Orthodox icons? persons depicted are permeated by the uncreated divine light,11
which shines from their faces.

Shadows are not found in icons because the divine light permeates
all things and has become an inner light shining from within.
Shadows would result if there were outer light only (illuminating
objects from only one side).

19. Were lamps or candles used in the 19. Yes. In Acts 20:8, we read that there were many lamps (Greek
very early Church? lampathes) in the room where Sunday services were held. To say a
room has mm lamps means it is illumined with more light than is
needed for persons to function in it.

In the earliest Christian era, a lamp or lamps (Latin lucemae) were

lighted and blessed for the Lucernarium (a 2nd-century'2 early
evening ceremony)“ In the 3rd century, candles were carried in
funeral processions and were lighted at tombs, especially at the
tombs of the martyrs. This is not a practice introduced in the Church
after the conversion of St. Constantine in the 4th century.

In the OT, God prescribed that a seven-branched lamp stand of gold

be erected in the tabernacle (Ex. 25:31-40), and that a light be kept
burning there perpetually (Ex. 27:20-21, Lev. 24:2-4).

‘0 To “be like Him” means to be deified—-to resemble the divine nature.

1‘ the glory of God (uncreated energy)
12 also mentioned in about AD. 217 by St. Hippolytus of Rome (Apostolic Tradition 26)
13 The Jews had a blessing prayer for lighting lamps when day faded, and Christians continued the custom.
 Question
20. Is making the sign of the cross
(tracing the sign of the cross)
referred to in the Bible?
21. Did the very early Church (1st and
2nd centuries) make the sign of the
cross?
22. Are you saying that this sign is not
a “later invention” in the Church?
23. But is this sign mentioned in the
New Testament?
24. What is the purpose of making the
sign ofthe cross?
25. What is the origin of the kiss of
peace?
1“ Encvclopaedia Biblica “Cuttings of the Flesh,” charts and p. 162 in G. R. Driver, Semitic Writing
'5 Eusebius, Gospel Demonstration 6:25; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Qatechetical Lectures 12:8 (compare Eusebius, Llfg 9;”
M312)
8
An Orthodox answer
20. Yes. Ezek. 9:4 refers to a mark, the Hebrew letter “taw” (written in
Ezekiel’s time in the old script'4 as a cross [+] or an _X [cross of St.
Andrew]), placed on the foreheads of those who had not
participated in pagan worship and who thus would be saved from
slaughter on the day of destruction. In this verse, the scribe is
ordered to put a “mark” on those who lament the sins of Jerusalem.
The Hebrew word for “mark” is the name of the last letter of the
Hebrew alphabet, “law,” which was cross-shaped when the book of
Ezekiel was written (about 593 BC).
21. Yes. The early Christians, of course, interpreted this verse to mean
the sign of the cross (St. Cyprian, Treatise 122122). The early
Christian writer Tertullian writes in about the year AD. 204 that at
every going in and out, when putting on clothes and shoes, when
sitting at table, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, Christians
trace on the forehead the sign of the cross (13 corona militis 3).
In Christian Baptism, from early times, candidates were signed with
the cross. This is mentioned by St. Dionysius the Areopagite
(Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2:2:5)
22. Right. It was there from the beginning. Much later, it was dropped
by most Protestants.
23. In Is. 66:18-19 LXX
the Lord said...“they will come and see My glory. And I
will leave a sign on them."
This passage is always interpreted by the Fathers of the Church and
other early Christian writers as the sign of the cross.15 Remember
that Christ refers to His own Cross as His glory (Jn. 13:31; St. John
Chrysostom, Homily 9n J_n. 72:3, 77:4).
24. There are many ways to answer this question. Making the sign of
the cross is a way of outwardly professing one’s Christian faith (St.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechgtical Lecturgs 13:36), and sometimes
outward signs are needed to remind us, and others around us, of
this faith. Faith is a remedy for all illnesses. The sign of the cross is
also a shield and weapon against demons (St. John of Damascus,
Orthodox Faith 4:11) and a reminder of our savior’s triumph over
death and the devil.
25. St. Peter writes, “Greet one another with a kiss of love” (1 Pet.
5:14). This is found in many other places in the NT.
St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century describes the Eucharistic
service, saying that at a certain point in the service, “We salute one
another with a kiss” (Apology 1:65).
 Question
26. During the Pascha (Easter) service
in our old-calendar Greek parish (in
America) the people go around at a
prescribed time to greet each other
with the words “Christ is risen” and
a kiss. Is this kiss a Russian
custom? I’ve never seen this done
in the new-calendar Greek
churches.
27. When I am in an Orthodox Church,
why will worshippers sometimes
criticize me about my posture,
saying such things as “Don’t lean
against the wall; Take your hands
out of your pockets; Don’t clasp
your hands behind you," or tell
older children who are apparently
being good and paying attention
“Face forward” at the first sign of
even slight distraction?
28. Why do women cover their heads
in church?
29. But Paul is only writing about the
social custom of his time.
Author’s other sources:
C. S. Calian, lggn @d Pulpit
Anthony M. Coniaris, Sacred Symbols 1% Speak, vol. 1
Nicholas Elias, The Divine Liturgy
ER_E, “Kneeling”
N_C_E, “Liturgical Gestures”
Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning o_f Icons
‘6 George A. Megas, Greek Calendar Customs, p. 107
An Orthodox answer chapt. 1
26. My reply to the lady who asked me this was, “No, this is also
Greek. It is done in Greece (inside the church), at least in some
places.”16 It is prescribed in the typicon (directions for services).
St. Theodore the Studite writes,
We kiss each other as a sign of His resurrection. (Q_n tlE
Em Icons 1 :10)
27. All the worshippers are present not just to receive something done
for them by a priest but also to perform a service to each other. The
church services are not just something the priest does for us—he
must be present for the Divine Liturgy but according to Orthodox
custom, he should not perform it by himself without any
worshippers present in the congregation.
The clergy and laity are performing a service for each other.
Singing in church, we do not always address God, but are
sometimes “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual odes” (Eph. 5:19).
So we must all “act and dress the part." If you were to see the priest
leaning against the altar table and with shirt sleeves rolled up, you
would think he was not paying serious attention to the job, and soon
some persons present would probably give up their efforts to
concentrate, wouldn’t they? Well, how must the priest feel when he
turns to the congregation and sees the same type of distraction?
Isn’t it just as bad?
The priest’s role is not magic—he has not only to say some words
correctly over oblivious persons. He and the other worshippers must
concentrate.
28. This is the teaching of the New Testament about worship. “Any
woman who prays” must veil her head; the Apostle further states
that to leave her head uncovered would be “shameful” (1 Cor. 11:5
6).
29. He is not writing only about the custom of the period. See the rest
of the above passage. He writes that women must veil their heads
because failure to do so would be an offense to the angels (verse
10).
2. Church Services and Things Seen in the Church

Question An Orthodox answer

1. What is the prominently-displayed
b074, ShaPEd like '4 Chumh, near the
rear of the altar table?
1. In Greek this is called the altophorion, and it is also called the
tabernacle or ark (the Greek word for “ark” also means “box”). In
this box is kept a dried piece of the Holy Gifts (the body of Christ
immersed in His Blood) cut into small pieces and used for taking
Communion to persons who can not participate in the Liturgy
because ofillness.‘

2. Why do bishops carry a crozier (a 2. This is a reminder that the elders (clergy) are given authority to
staff resembling a shepherd’s “shepherd God’s flock” (1 Pet. 5:2) and must care for the flock as a
crook)? father for his children. This is why the crozier is also called
pate_ri_s_s_a from the Greek word for father (pater).2

The episcopal crozier has a double crook near the top. The crook is
usually made like serpent’s heads at both ends, in memory of
Christ’s words, “Be wise as serpents” (Mt. 10:16).3

This is also a reminder of Moses’ holding up the brass serpent in the

desert (Jn. 3:14) on a signal staff, that is, a flagpole (Num. 21:5-9
LXX).

3. Why are metal medallions (such as 3. These are called “votive offerings” (tanrata in modern Greek
sculptured legs, feet, and I [singular tamal) and are found not only in pagan religions but also
abandoned chtChifs) somellmes in the Bible, where we see that votive offerings were sometimes
placed 9“ an 16011 if a particular made in the worship of God. See Dt. 12:5-6, l l; Lv. 23:38; Num.
prayer 15 answsred?1§n’tthls 29:39 (especially in the RSV, where they are called “votive
custom pagan in origin? Offerings”)_

(Roman calhOIics 3150 have these-) These are witnesses to answered prayers. If you were healed,
wouldn’t you want to tell everyone? Well, this is a way to do it.

1 St. Justin mentions this practice (carrying the Eucharist to those absent) in AD. 155 (Apology l:65,67).
2 D. Sokolof, AManua] ofthe Onhgdgx Church’s Divine Service; p. 32
a . .
1 id.

11
 Question
4. In some churches, on Pentecost day,
why are branches of green leaves
strewn around the church floor and
placed on the walls?
(This custom is Russian and
Finnish.)
5. Why does the Orthodox Church
make such great use of symbols—
aren’t they unnecessary?
12
An Orthodox answer
4. When the Holy Spirit is received by those believing in Christ,
sometimes the amazing and unexpected occurs. The Prophet Isaiah
foresaw this; God says,
I will give water to the thirsty that walk in a dry land; I will
put My Spirit upon your descendants, and My blessings
upon your children. (Is. 44:3)
Green things growing in the desert (or appearing on a hard floor)
are unexpected. So are the many gifts or “fruit” of the Holy Spirit
(Gal. 5:22) that flow out of our previously hard hearts. Believers
become storehouses of this water. Christ describes this when
speaking about the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Christ
were to receive on Pentecost day; Christ says,
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of
his belly will flow rivers ofliving water.” (Jn. 7:3 8-39)
5. Sometimes in the Bible, words are not enough to convey a message,
so God commanded that symbols be used in addition, as when the
Prophet Jeremiah made bonds and yokes and wore them around his
neck to express the coming servitude of Judah (Jer. 34:1[27:2]). St.
Agabus acted in the same way, binding his own hands and feet to
foretell St. Paul’s imprisonment (Acts 21:10:11). In Ezek. 12 God
also commanded the Prophet Ezekiel to perform various acts that
symbolize exile, such as carrying baggage.
When a demonstration was formed to welcome Christ to Jerusalem
(on Palm Sunday) as victor over death (because He had just raised
St. Lazarus from the dead) the crowd waved pahn branches (Jn.
12:13) as symbols of victory (1 Mace. 13:51). Didn’t Christ know
their thoughts and intentions—couldn’t He hear their shouts and
words (and ours today)? He could. Yet He did not say “I hear you—
you don’t need symbols.”
1€NT0 Jillillfiillfiltli' @
itr:
/
 Question
6. Why do Orthodox clergy wear
vestments? In the earliest period of
the Church, the clergy wore the
same style of clothes as did laymen
during church services. (A Lutheran
asked me this once, which surprised
me, since his ministers wear
vestments.)
7. Why do nearly all Orthodox
churches exclude the use of
musical instruments (such as the
organ) in church services?
Instruments were used in the OT.
In the NT,
the four living creatures and
the 24 elders fell before the
Lamb, each having kitharas
[harps]...and they sing a new
song. (Rev. 5:8-9)
4 Oration 5:35 (IE 35:709) “Let us take up hymns instead of drums.”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 2
6. The style of liturgical garments worn by the clergy has not changed
since the beginning. In the earliest centuries, clergy and laymen
wore the same style of garments during church services, but
beginning in about the 5th century, when the laymen began to dress
differently than they had before, the Church decided that the clergy
should not follow these changes. There are good reasons for this.
The Church saw that in certain cultures or eras, men’s secular
clothing might be immodest or vary greatly from what is used in
other parts of the world.
This is not to imply that during church services before the 5th
century the clergy’s garments were indistinguishable from those of
laymen; those worn by the clergy were worn only during church
services, and although their clothes were styled like those of the
period, the clergy‘s were distinctive. For example, canon 22 of the
Council of Laodicea (AD 343'381) says that the orarion (deacon’s
stole) is to be worn by the deacons and not subdeacons. In the
Eastern Church the deacon’s stole is still called the orarion; the
epitrachelion is the stole worn only by priests and bishops. A
vestment worn around the shoulders only by bishops is the
omophorion. Orthodox writers have noticed of course that Christian
vestments have descended from OT ones. In his commentary on the
Divine Liturgy (19), St. Gennanus of Constantinople writes,
the omophorion is like the stole of Aaron, which the high
priests of the [Old] Law also wore, placing long cloths on
their left shoulders.
7. Historically, musical instruments have been forbidden in the worship
of the Eastern Church. So far as I know, the Eastem Fathers who
mention them, such as St. Gregory Nazianzen4 and St. John
Chtysostom,S argue against their use. Clement of Alexandria
(Instructor 2:4) approves ol'certain instruments but admits that none
were used in the Church. A Western Father, St. Niceta of Remesiana
(De utilitate hymnorum 9), writes that their use was rejected in the
Church.
I do not know of any Church Father or other early writer who gives
a literal interpretation to the harp in Revelation. A literal
interpretation is impossible, since these are “harps of God” (Rev.
15:2) that the saints have. Looking at Orthodox commentaries on
Revelation, we see that St. Victorinus (ANF 7:357) calls this “their
confession in their mouth,” and Archbishop Averky Taushev
(generally following the interpretation of St. Andrew of Caesarea
DE 106:356]) says harps represent the harmony to be seen in the
saints between the word of truth and the deed of righteousness.
So far as I know, looking beyond St. John Chrysostom’s argument
above, the word “harp” in the Psalms is never interpreted literally by
any Church Father or other early Christian writer. Clement of
Alexandria uses it to mean the mouth inspired by the Spirit
(Instructor 2:4). To Blessed Augustine the verse “Praise the Lord
with harp” means “Praise the Lord, presenting unto Him your
bodies a living sacrifice” (Qt; t_h_e_ g 32[33]:2). To St. Basil the
verse means “to render harmoniously the actions of the body.” Since
we sinned with the body, we should use the body to destroy sin.
“Have you reviled? Bless. Have you defrauded? Make restitution”
(Homin 152 [g 46:229]).
 Question An Orthodox answer

8. Why do some Orthodox priests wish
the entire congregation “many
years” at the conclusion of the
Sunday service? Isn’t this wish
only for holidays and joyous
personal occasions such as
birthdays and name days?
8. Every Sunday is a holiday.‘5 It is the weekly celebration of the
Resurrection of Christ. The Church has always celebrated the
holiday weekly, as we see in the NT (Acts 20:7) and in other
writings from the same period (1st and 2nd centuries): Didache 14,
St. Ignatius’ Magnesians 9, and St. Barnabas’ Letter 15.

5 In his commentary on Ps. 150 (Ki 552497) he says God, knowing the weakness of the Jews, had allowed them to use
instruments.
6 “a joyous holiday because of His having risen from the dead” (canon 15 of St. Peter of Alexandria, confirmed by the 6th
Ecumenical Council)

14
3. Roman Catholics—A. Papal Primacy1

Catholic statement An Orthodox answer

1. From the beginning, the Roman
Church was credited with
preeminence over the others. This is
a matter of history. St. lrenaeus of
Lyons (2nd century) says,
To this [Roman] Church, on
aCCOUflt Of more potent
principality, it is necessary that
every Church resort. (Against
Heresies 3:3 :2)
In Sermons, Pope St. Leo I (the
Great) in the 5th century called
himself “primate of all bishops”
(3:4), because each pope is the heir
of the Apostle Peter (2:2).
1. When your church was still in union with the Orthodox, our
Churches did consider the Roman Church to have a position of
primacy. But what kind of primacy? The Church, East and West,
did not consider the pope to be ruler of the universal Church.
Canon 4 of the Council at Sardica2 decided that any bishop
deposed by a synod of his own province has a right to appeal to
the pope of Rome, who will judge and render a decision. But
beyond this, the Church never considered the pope’s jurisdiction
(his authority to govern or legislate) to extend into the East. He
did not have any power to interfere in the internal affairs of the
other Churches. The pope in the early centuries was considered
primus Luge; pares (first among equals) in relation to the other
patriarchs. Until the late 7th century nothing more than this type
of primacy was claimed by the popes.
A pope could not summon Ecumenical Councils (which alone
decided controversies); he had to petition the emperor to do so. It
was not the pope’s right to preside over them in person or by a
representative. The pope’s signature was not required to validate
their decrees. Councils, regarded as ecumenical (binding) by East
and West alike, were convened and issued their decrees without
submitting them to the separate or final approval of the pope.3

In the earliest years there were three controversies between

Churches (one about Easter, one about heretical baptism, and one
other) in which popes were unable to carry out their own will and
practice, and the other Churches kept their different usage without
its leading to any permanent division. The pope’s authority did not
extend beyond his own territory, certainly not into the East. The
early Church could n__ot have considered the pope’s authority to
extend over all the world; otherwise the worldwide Church would
not have decided at its Council of Chalcedon (canon 28) to
recognize Constantinople as a patriarchate of the highest level,
second to Rome in rank but equal Q Rome in rights. (The Council
explicitly says that it recognizes these two positions only because
Rome, and later Constantinople, was capital of the Roman
Empire—the “potent principality” that St. lrenaeus of Lyons gives
as the reason for primacy in your quote at left.) On the basis of
this canon, canonist Neilus Doxopatres says they argue falsely
who say that Rome is given its position of first honor on
account of St. Peter. For you see, this canon of the holy
council clearly says that because Rome has the imperial
authority, it has the position of first honor. (Amilgem_ent
911$ Eatriarchal ices [RQ l32:1100])

l H . ,, . . . . . “ .
Primacy means preeminence, that is, being first (as in importance, order, or rank). instead of primacy," some Orthodox
prefer to use the word “seniority” (Greek: prgsveig).
2 convoked in 343 by the emperors of the East and West, and later ratified by an Ecumenical Council
3 Sometimes a pope objected to a decision of an Ecumenical Council. Pope St Leo 1 objected to the 28th canon of the Council of
Chalcedon, but the Roman Church never annulled this canon. Although Pope St. Leo rejected canon 28 immediately after the
Council,
“he later seems to have resigned himself in the face of accomplished facts and to have no
longer contested the claims of Constantinople.” (Quasten’s Patrology 4:609)

15
 Catholic statement
2. But Christ made the Apostle Peter
the first holder of supreme power in
the Church, a power that passed on
to his successors, the bishops of
Rome. Christ told St. Peter,
You are Peter, and on this rock
I will build My Church and the
gates of hades will not prevail
against it. (Mt. 16:18)4
In Jn. 21:15-17, Christ told St.
Peter, “Shepherd My sheep.”
Although the Bible doesn’t say that
this power passed from St. Peter to
his successors, the Bible implies it
because he was leader of the
Apostles (see the book of Acts). The
Bible does not contradict our view
of papal primacy.
4 In the next verse He promises St. Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” or the power to “bind” and “loose.”
5 Pope St. Gregory condemned the teaching that there was a bishop of bishops, or a bishop over the whole Church (Leger 5:18).
6 In other words, “On this rock I will build My Church” means, “On faith like yours 1 will build My Church.”
16
An Orthodox answer
2. The Bible certainly does contradict papal primacy (as you teach it).
Christ did not build His Church only on St. Peter. Eph. 2:19-20
says God’s household is “built upon the foundation of the
Apostles [plural],” not on one.
Of all the Church Fathers who interpret these two Bible passages
you have quoted (Mt. 16:18, In. 21:15-17). not one applies them
to any right of the Roman bishops (popes) to rule over the other
patriarchs. Many Fathers and other early ecclesiastical writers
comment on these texts—St. Hippolytus, Orlgen, St. Cyprian, St.
Firmilian, St. John Chrysostom, Eusebius, St. llilary ofl’oitiers,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, Blessed Augustine, St. Cyril
of Jerusalem, St. Aphrahat, Pope St. Leo the Great, Blessed
Jerome, Blessed Theodoret, Procopius of Gaza. Pope St. Gregory
the Great,5 and othersb—yet not one has even hinted that the
primacy of the Roman pope (that is, a position of power over the
other Churches) is the outcome of what Christ told St. Peter. Some
of the Fathers consider this rock or foundation on which Christ
would build His Church to be Christ Himself, or St. Peter’s
confession of faith6 in Christ (Mt. 16:16-17), or else they think St.
Peter was the foundation equally with the other Apostles (Rev.
21 :14). None of the writers says that “the gates of hades will not
prevail" promises infallibility (or any right to rule over other
Churches) to all popes. St. Cyprian (Lstter 70[71]:3) remarks on
this verse, saying that St. Peter never claimed that he held the type
of primacy that would require that he “be obeyed“ by the other
Apostles when St. Paul “disputed with him about circumcision.”
In Mt. 18:18 we see that all the Apostles are later given the power
to “bind” and “loose.” The “power of the keys" was given to all
bishops of the Church, not only to the Roman popes. To say this
power was given only to the Roman popes contradicts all patristic
interpretations and the teaching tradition of the Church.
You mention that the book of Acts shows that St. Peter was leader
of the Apostles. But nothing here shows that he ordered the others
about. In Acts 1 he directs the election of Judas’ successor. He
does not tell the others how to vote. In Acts 2 and 3 he preaches
the first sermons after the descent of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5 he
judges Ananias and Sapphira, but these were two lay members of
a local congregation. in Acts 15 at the council of Jerusalem, he
does not settle the dispute—he does not have the last word and
someone else gives the judgment (Acts 15:6-21).
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 3-A

3. But Pope St. Clement in about AD.
97 must have considered himself to
have authority over the worldwide
Church. In his letter to the
Corinthians, who had rebelled
against their clergy (1:47), he not
only advises obedience (1:57), but
also tells them that disobedience to
his command will be a sin (1:59).
3. St. John Chrysostom calls St. Peter “the mouthpiece of the
disciples and leader ofthe group” (Homin fl it. m 88:1).
Mouthpiece means one who expresses or interprets another’s
views. In those days, the pope was spokesman for the group of
apostolic successors (the bishops of the world). He did not dictate
to that group. In the situation at left, he is advising only what the
other bishops in the worldwide Church were already advising. It is
the duty ofa spokesman, especially because ofhis greater
prestige, to speak for the other patriarchs to those in rebellion.
Since he was first-ranking bishop of the worldwide Church, all its
members would expect him (when persons, even outside his local
Church, are committing spiritual suicide) to send a stern letter
trying to dissuade the dissidents.

4. But among the Church Fathers, Pope
St. Gregory the Great writes,
By the voice of the Lord the
care of the entire Church was
entrusted to the holy Apostle
and leader of all the Apostles,
Peter. (m 5:37)
4. But Pope St. Gregory does not consider himself or anyone else
to be at any given time sole occupant of St. Peter’s office.
Pope St. Gregory (Letter 7:40 PNF ser. 2, 12:228]) calls
St. Eulogius, bishop ofAlexandria “he who occupies [St.]
Peter’s chair," and adds that by divine authority three bishops
(namely of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria) preside over the
single See.

Epilogue

In the remainder of this chapter it is important to remember that, as St. Symeon of Thessalonica writes, the
Orthodox would again call the pope a successor of St. Peter (and also first-rank patriarch), only if the pope
returns to the Orthodox faith ofSt. Peter (Against fl Heresies 23 [m 155:120-121]).7

Author’s other sources:

Rene-Francois Guettée, The Papacy
Hans Kt‘mg, Infallible? “Firm Foundations”
ERE, “Infallibility”
NCE, “Papacy”

7 Compare John Meyendorff in lh_e Primacy _fEeter, p. 19-20.

17
18
3. Roman Catholics—B. Papal “Infallibility”l
Catholic statement
1. Christ says to the Apostle Peter,
I have prayed for you that
your faith may not fail, and
when you have returned,
strengthen your brothers. (Lk.
22:32)
Isn’t this proof for papal
infallibility?
1 the belief that the pope can not err when he teaches that a certain doctrine concerning faith or morals is binding on the universal
Church
2 Catholic scholars generally regard St. John of Damascus (died about 750) as the last of the Eastern Fathers and St. Gregory the
Great or Isidore of Seville (both died in the early 7th century) as the last of the Western.
An Orthodox answer
i. These words refer only to St. Peter personally, to his coming denial
of Christ and his re-conversion; he is told that after his failure of
faith he is to strengthen the other Apostles, whose faith would
likewise waver. Nothing in this verse (or anywhere else in the Bible
or the rest of Tradition) implies that there would be future
infallibilily in a succession of popes just because they hold the
office St. Peter supposedly first held in the Roman Church. No
writer until the end of the 7th century ever dreamed of such an
interpretation. 11o Church Father who comments on this verse
explains it as anything beyond a prayer of Christ that St. Peter may
not lose his faith entirely in his approaching trial, and a request that
he strengthen the faith of the other Apostles. None agrees with your
interpretation at lefi. The first person to imagine that this verse
promises infallibility to the Roman popes was Pope Agatho in 680.
The Tridentine profession of faith (imposed on Roman Catholic
clergy and theologians) contains a vow never to interpret the Bible
“contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers” (Council of
Trent, session 4).2 Therefore every Roman Catholic bishop and
theologian breaks his oath when he interprets this passage as a gift
of infallibility promised by Christ to the popes.
As we have seen in the section on papal primacy, the ancient
Church showed no recognition that popes could dictate (or even
needed to ratify) the decisions of the great Councils, which alone
settled controversies about the faith. If the pope had been
considered infallible, he certainly would have been asked to decide
these issues. On 113 contrary. the early Church condemned some
popes for teaching false beliefs. Pope Vigilius in the 6th century
approved some Nestorian (heretical) writing; he was then
condemned for this by the 5th Ecumenical Council, to whose decree
he yielded in 554, saying (very sensibly) that it is no disgrace to
perceive and retract a previous error. Pope Honorius I in the 7th
century endorsed the Monothelite heresy in two public letters to
Eastern patriarchs, and after his death was condemned as a heretic
by the 6th Ecumenical Council (without any dissenting voice) in the
presence of the enrissaries of his successor~a sentence that his
successors carried out, removing his name from the liturgy.
19
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer

2. We know that some popes such as 2. Pope Vigilius was n_ot giving only his private opinion when he was a
Honorius I and Vigilius held false heretic,3 because he excommunicated (excluded from the Church)
beliefs. We don’t claim that all ofa the critics of the heretical writing he was trying to defend. One
pope’s teaching is infallible. person Vigilius excommunicated for this reason was St. Mennas,
Neither his opinions as a private Patriarch of Constantinople,4 who is commemorated Aug. 25 on
instructor nor his formal speeches both the Latin and Greek calendars.
(however authoritative they may
be) are infallible. He is infallible Even if you limit papal infallibility to those cases in which a pope
only when he officially exercises explicitly imposes on the faithful the obligation to believe
the supreme “magisterium” something under pain of excommunication, Pope Vigilius’ false
(teaching authority), for example in belief cenainly qualifies, proving that what you say about papal
encyclicals. Some Roman Catholics “infallibility” does not make sense.
limit infallibility even more,
confining infallibility to those
exercises of the “magisterium” in
which the pope specifically
declares that he is requiring all the
faithful to believe something under
pain of exclusion from the church.

3. In AD. 416 councils met in
Carthage and Milevum. Both
condemned the Pelagian heretics.
The councils’ decision was sent to
Rome. When the pope’s answer
(condemning the Pelagians) was
received,5 Augustine said
conclusively, “The case is
finished” (Sermon 131 :10 [LL
3817341).
It is the basis of the famous phrase,
“Roma locuta: causa finita e_st—
Rome has spoken; the case is
finished?”
3. By the mid-5th century, the Roman Church had established its
authority in some matters over the entire West,7 including northwest
Africa (in which Carthage, Milevum, and Augustine’s see [Hippo]
were located).
What happened at lefi is standard procedure. The head of each self
ruling Orthodox Church is allowed a primacy within the boundaries
of his Church,8 for example, Romania or Russia. A council of
bishops meeting to settle an extraordinary dispute can not make
decisions without him; neither can he without their consent.9 The
pope did not have authority over the Church of the whole world. He
replied only to those within the boundaries of his own (Western)
Church.
Blessed Augustine is in effect telling the heretics, “There is no one
else to whom you can now turn (in this [Western] Church)”

Author’s other sources:

Rene-Francois Guettée, T_hs Papacy
Hans Kiing, Infallible? “Firm Foundations”
E, 11th ed., “Infallibility”
Eitli, “Infallibility”

3 . . . .
nor was he JUSI making speeches or Writing letters
4 ME, “Vigilius, Pope,” “Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople”
5 The reply also says that nothing should ever be conclusively settled without consulting the Roman See.
6 a saying the origin of which is not exactly known however, and not found in the works of Augustine
7 J. N. D. Kelly, my Christian Doctgines, p. 417, 419
8 fig Primacy 01% m th_e g Zrthodox Church “The Church which Presides in Love” p. 66-67
9 canon 9 ofAntioch (AD. 341)

20
3. Roman Catholics—C. Refusal to Ordain Married Men

Tit. 1:5-7 says that a presbyter (priest) must be

“without reproach, the husband of one wife, his children believers.”

Catholic question An Orthodox answer

1. What is so bad about (the Western
Church) forbidding the ordination
of married men to be deacons and
priests?
St. Paul writes that celibacy is
better for one Who WiShes to Serve
60d, because ifa man has a Wife,
he will be occupied, at least to
some extent, with pleasing her
instead of being completely
occupied with the affairs of the
Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-34).
1. Our correctly-believing Church has always permitted the ordination
of married men to be deacons and priests. Even in the West, until
about the time of the division between East and West in the 11th
century, men married only once could be ordained (Apostolic
Constitutions 6:17), even if their wives were still living,1
In your Bible quote at lefi, it is best to quote the entire passage; in
the next verse (35), St. Paul adds,
I say this for your own advantage, and not to lay any
restraint on you...
St. Paul had no intention of forbidding the ordination of married
men, and neither had the early Church, which had both married and
unmarried priests.

' Although in the West celibacy was required beginning in the 4th century for those who lived with their wives.

21
22
3. Roman Catholics—D. Filioquel Addition to the Creed

Many Protestants also believe this addition is correct. Some Anglican Churches dropped the filioque clause in recent
years, while others are considering it. The Old Catholics dropped it from the Credo in the Mass.2 Some Reformed
Protestant theologians appear willing to abandon the filioque.

Catholic statement An Orthodox answer

1. The filioque is not explicitly stated
in the Bible. But Gal. 4:6 implies
it, saying
God sent forth the Spirit of
His Son into your hearts.
The Spirit is called the Spirit of the
Son, proving that the Spirit
proceeds also from the Son.
1. Gal. 4:6 neither proves nor even implies that the Holy Spirit has His
existence from the Son, for, as St. Photius writes concerning this
Bible verse,
It is one thing to belong to someone, but another thing to
have existence from someone.4
He says in the same work (22) that in Jn. 16:14
The Savior did not say, “He will receive of Me,” but “He
[the Spirit] will receive ofMine."
From the phrase “into your hearts" it is apparent that the Bible
quote at left refers not to the timeless incident in which the Holy
Spirit’s existence is caused, but rather to the Spirit’s “being sent"
into created human beings in time.

2. The Bible and the original Creed
say the Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father (Jn. 15:26) but do not
say “from the Father only.”
2. Neither the Bible nor the original Creed says that the Holy Spirit also
proceeds from the Son in eternity.
Only an Ecumenical Council may make an addition to the Creed.
To use the words of Archbishop Niketas of Nicomedia, the Creed
may be expanded only by “some universal council of the Western
and Eastern Church” (EL 18811209-10).

l The lst and 2nd Ecumenical Councils wrote a creed (a list of beliefs), part of which says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the
Father.” To this phrase the Latin Church much later added “and from the Son.” The Latin Church soon separated from the
Eastern Church, partly because of this issue.
2 Growth i_n Agreement, p. 395; SpiritgLngd, Spirit QjChrist, p. 97
3 Spirit o_fGod Spirit olcmigt, p. 112-117
4 @ th_e Mystagogy o_fth_e Holy Spirit, “The Anathemas”

23
 Catholic statement
3. Some Fathers of the Church say that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father only.
But other Fathers say that the Holy
Spirit proceeds from both the *
Father and the Son; St. Gregory the
Great can be cited.
The filioque is not something
invented recently (after the time of
the Fathers).
8T. YINCCNT or LéRms
5 St. Zachary was noted during his own lifetime for his Greek translation of the Dialogues. and he was venerated as a Saint
immediately after his death.
° m Spiritus Sancti potentia 5, 18; Embers; 7
24
An Orthodox answer
3. Pope St. Gregory the Great is a Church Father in whose works the
filioque is supposedly found. But the filioque passage (in Dialogue
2:38) is not found in the Greek translation made by Pope St.
Zachary.5 The Greek reads “proceeds from the Father and remains
in the Son” and this (unlike today’s Latin reading) suits the context.
Orthodox Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople claims that none
of the Fathers ever taught the filioque. St. Mark of Ephesus
considers the early Christian works containing the filioque to be
corrupted by later forgeries. He writes,
But the voices of the Western Fathers and teachers that give
the cause of the Spirit to the Son, I neither recognize (for
they were never later projected in our language, neither
were they tested by the Ecumenical Councils) nor do I
acknowledge; I surmise they are corrupted and interpolated.
(E 102:3 52)
A few other Passages from St. Gregory the Great are imagined by
some to teach the filioque, but do not, when the context is
examined. For example, Morals 2:92 says, “for the same Spirit even
in substance is brought forth from Him.” But “Him” refers to God
the Father earlier in the sentence.
The consensus in teaching among the Church Fathers who take a
clear position is the Holy Spirit proceeds
a. from the Father (St. Ephrem of Syria [Bibliotheca orientalis
1:65], St. Niceta of Remesianaf St. Thalassius [492-100], St.
Gregory Nazianzen [Oration 39:12], St. Sophronius of Jerusalem
[Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum 11:466C]),
b. from the Father only (St. Dionysius the Areopagite [Q th_e
Divine Names 2:5], Blessed Theodoret [PG 76:432], St. Gregory
Palamas, [A M Decalggue 6]), or
c. from the Father through the Son (St. Dionysius the Great of
Alexandria |Letter t_o Dionysius, Bishop ngome 2:8-9], St. Hilary
ofPoitiers [_D_e Trinitate 12:57, 8:19-20, 2:1], St. John of Damascus
[Orthodox Faith 1:12], St. Tarasius of Constantinople [Mansi, Qp_.
c_it‘ 1231122], St. Gregory of Sinai [@ Commandments m
Doctrines 27]).
When the early Christian writers are not unanimous, it is best to
remember the words of St. Vincent of Lérins, a Church Father who
says that in the universal Church we should be very careful to teach
only what “has been believed everywhere, always, and by all” or at
least by “almost all” our holy ancestors and Fathers (Commonitory
2[6]). The filioque was not taught “always” (it was not taught
before the 5th century); nor has it been taught “everywhere” (it has
been believed only in the Latin Church).
3. Roman Catholics—E. Satisfaction, Indulgences, Purgatory
Satisfaction, a term of Roman law, means payment of a debt, or making amends for an offense committed (or, as
some would say, paying the price for wrongdoing). Of course, Orthodox and Protestants agree that when sin is
committed, the following are due: confession, a change in one‘s life, and, when one’s fellow man is injured,
restitution to trim. A few Church Fathers and other early Christian writers teach that m addition to these, punishment
is due.

But when some Orthodox writers speak of penitential “satisfaction” they mean only those things a penitent should do
that will humble himself to God and will testify by contn'te deeds to the change of mind he has claimed in his
confession. in other words, all these writers by “satisfaction” mean only fruits befitting repentance (Mt. 3:5~8). The
Orthodox Confession ofDositheus of 1692 (decree 18) gives examples of satisfaction or "fruits worthy of repentance”
upon which Christ insists (Mt. 3:5-8): pouring forth tears, kneeling in prayers, relieving the poor, and in short.
showing by one‘s works his love towards God and his neighbor.

A few Roman Catholic teachings must first be explained, since they are foreign to Protestant and Orthodox thought.
The following are taught only by Roman Catholics:

a. Purgatory is a state (or place or condition) of suffering between death and the Last Judgment in which the souls of
those who have died with unforgiven venial sins, and of those who still owe some debt of punislnnent for forgiven
mortal or Venial sins, are punished1 and thus are purified before they enter heaven.2

b. This punishment is payment of a penalty owed to God because He has been offended by some sin. In the (Roman
Catholic) sacrament of Penance, eternal punislunent is remitted by absolution, but the temporal (non-eternal)
punislnnent often remains due and can be compensated for by prayers and good works imposed by the priest and
accepted by the penitent This payment of the temporal punishment incurred by a sin is called satisfaction.

1;. An indulgence is a grant from the church’s treasury to reduce the penalty a penitent must pay. Just as some of the
ptmishments imposed by the Roman criminal code were gradually commuted in medieval times for tines ofmoney, so
the years or months of penalties imposed by the earlier Church laws were commuted for proportionate fines, the
recitation ofu certain number of Psalms, and the like.3 Indulgence is not mere permission to omit or postpone
payment but rather a payment, partial or entire, of the debt of temporal punishment that the sinner owes, by applying
to the offender the “treasury of the church."

d. This “treasury of the churc ” is made up partly of excess satisfaction stored up by the church since some of the
saints have done more than what was needed to pay for the punishment due to their own sins. It is this surplus of
unused payment that accumulates in the church's treasury (like a bank account) from which the pope may draw to
distribute to the spiritually needy. To the obvious objection that no one can do penance, or take medicine for
another’s personal ilhress, the 13th-century Roman Catholic writer Bonaventure answered that penance is not only
medicinal (which must be borne by the patient personally) but also punitive (which may be paid by someone else).
Eastern Orthodox reject this notion that this “payment” could be made by anyone else.

' Although most Roman Catholic theologians since the East-West split teach that souls in purgatory are tormented by fire, the
Roman Catholic Church has not (officially) dogrnatically defined the nature or duration of the purgatorial purification. This fire
is not essential to belief in purgatory.
2 Here we need to distinguish between "purgatory" and “hades” and “hell?~ “purgatory” is punisiunent after death cleansing for
those whose destination is heaven. To use Orthodox tenninology. “bodes” is the abode of the dead. those “destined” for hell
foretasting their end: while the saved foretaste heaven. "Hell" is eternal punishment after Judgment.
3 All agree that the Church always had authority “to shorten the duration lofdeprivation ot'Conununron assigned as the regular
penalty—my insertion] and diminish the number of peuances imposed by the Church after the penitent had proved his
sincerity“ just as the civil government can shorten the term ol‘unprisomnent of(or even give a full pardon to) a convict; today’s
indulgences, however. are “legally fixed, independently of the special circumstances of the individual case.” (Adolph Harnack,
Histog o_fDogrna vol. 5, p. 323-29)

25
 Catholic statement
1. All members of the Church contribute
to the well-being of an ailing member
of the Church. St. Paul rejoiced in the
suffering he bore for the Christians at
Colossae, adding,
In my flesh I complete what is
lacking in Christ’s afflictions
for [the sake of] His body, the
Church. (Col. 1:24)
2. The principle underlying the
indulgence grant is as old as the
Church herself.
4 in his first letter to Tubingen (Augsburg gill Constantinople p. 45). He further writes that penances are assigned by the priest
as by a physician as remedies for each sin (p. 57).
26
An Orthodox answer
. St. Paul czm’t refer to the payment Christ made for sin: he says
nothing here about sin or atonement. The verse can’t refer to the
satisfaction required in penance. which is what you are claiming:
it says nothing about these. Christ says no one can produce these
for me; I must produce these myself if I am to avoid the “coming
wratli“—~hc makes this clear. using harsh language (Mt. 3:5-8).
It is true that the Church in certain cases shortens penalties
assigned, for example, when the offender shows signs of
contrition. or at the approach of death (St. Cyprian. Letter
51[55]:5). This is done because the circumstances (of the
individual case) make completion unnecessary or impossible. not
because payment has been made by someone else.
The only remaining possibility is that St. Paul refers to the
sufferings he endures because of his apostolic work (compare 2
Tim. 2:9). His sufienrigs are not a punishment for the sin of
others. but are endured in the interest of others.
2. Both the practice of, and the reasoning supporting, the indulgence
grant have been taught only by Roman Catholics and only since
the split between the Eastern and Western Church.
The indulgence grant can not be made unless the Church accepts
“vicarious satisfaction." the notion that penances are not only
medicinal (which must be shouldered by the penitent personally
[since no one can take medicine for another‘s ailments]) but also
something that can be paid by others. The Church of the first
1.000 years did not consider penances to be payable by others.
The Eastern Church has never made indulgence grants. The
Western Church never did until the 11th century (EQE,
“Indulgences,” p. 483), after its split from the Orthodox Church.
The first application of an indulgence to the souls in “purgatory”
was in the 15th century (i_bi_d., p. 484).
How nruch better off the Roman Church would be if it had been
content to keep all the beliefs and practices of the Church as it
had been before the year 1000! The abuses connected with alms~
indulgences would have been avoided. How much less cause for
Protestant revolt there would have been!
Indulgences turn “true satisfactions." which Patriarch Jeremiah II
says are traditionally made “with great toil and time and sincere
repentance. with tears’“1 into a crude attempt to evade sins’
penalties and buy various easy pardons from God from a fixed
price list.
 Catholic statement
3. Since you offer prayer for the dead,
you must believe in an intermediate
state between death and Final
Judgment, where the souls of those
who are not yet free from
imperfection go for a temporary stay
before they enter heaven.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 3-E
3. Yes, but unlike you, we don’t call it purgatory. The dead there
foretaste of their coming reward or damnation (St. Ambrose, D_e
bono rnortis 10:45-47).
m Expanded Catechism o_f the Orthodox Church (part 1, on the
11th article) says,
Such souls as have departed with faith, but without
having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of
repentance. . .may be aided towards the attainment of a
blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf,
especially such as are offered in union with the oblation
of the bloodless sacrifice of the body and blood of
Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their
memory.
Among the Eastern Orthodox, there is only one position
regarding those in the Church who will be eventually saved, but
who have died with small sins for which they have not repented,
or with great sins for which they have repented without yet
having brought forth fruits befitting repentance. (When Orthodox
and Protestants speak of “fruits worthy of repentance,” they do
not mean punishment of the penitent. They mean acts
[appropriate to genuine repentance] such as being reconciled with
a neighbor against whom one has sinned.) Suffering is not what
gets them out of their predicament. All forgiveness of sins after
death comes solely from God’s mercy through prayers and good
deeds performed for them by the living. (No satisfaction is due for
forgiven sins.)
27
 Catholic statement
4. The Bible does not teach purgatory,
but some of the Fathers do.
5 Great Catechism 8, 35', Q1 Infants’ Earlv Deaths
° Q me M gill Resurrection (NPNF ser. 2, 5: 451)
28
An Orthodox answer
4. In the correctly-believing Church we must be careful to teach only
those things taught by all the Church Fathers; if the Fathers do not
agree on a subject, then we may teach only what is taught by
“almost all” of them, to use the words of St. Vincent of Le’rins
(Commonitog 2[6]). Only a tiny minority of the Church’s early
writers teach purgatory, so this does not qualify as an Orthodox
teaching.
Let’s look at early Christian writings cited on the subject of
“purgatorial punishments.”
(The Roman Catholic teaching about “purgatory” refers to
punishment m the preliminary judgment [which occurs at death]
and before the Final Judgment. The fire through which souls may
have to pass at the Final Judgment is a different subject, upon
which I will touch in the last answer.)
a. Blessed Augustine (12 civitate D_ei 21:26, compare Enchiridion
69) says that some believers may pass through a purging fire of
tribulation between death and the Last Judgment, to purify them
from improper attachment to worldly things. Here Augustine is
only guessing. He admits this when he writes about this purgatory
theory “This I do not contradict, because possibly it is true” (g
civitate D_ei 21 :26), proving that in his day the Church did not
require belief in any sort of purgatory.
b. St. Gregory of Nyssa5 teaches that gibaptized persons will be
purified by a refiner’s fire afiar the resurrection. (This is not the
later Roman Catholic teaching of “purgatory,” which is m for the
baptized and 0_nly in some intermediate state between death and
resurrection.) But note that he describes this only as @ opinion,
using the words, “I think”
In such a manner, I think, we may figure to ourselves the
agonized struggle of that soul which has wrapped itself up
in earthly material passions.
c. St. Gregory the Great (Dialogue 4:41 @ 3912481) teaches a
cleansing fire before judgment, because of some minor
faults that may remain to be purged away.
He goes on to say that these “slight transgressions” will be
troublesome for the soul after death if they are not forgiven
while one is still alive.
Concerning this dialogue, M. McC. Gatch writes in Studia
Patristica (vol. 10, 1970, p. 81-82).
it has been tempting for readers of the Dialogues to see the
doctrine of purgatory as it was later to be set forth and
defined. However, in the absence of language definitely
propounding an immediately postmortem fire and
purgation, there is nothing to prevent the reader from
understanding that Gregory refers to the purging fire of the
Judgement day
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 3-E

Gatch’s next paragraph says that in St. Gregory’s next dialogue (the
one concerning the deacon Pascltasius) the supposedly purgatorial
passage can
refer to a purgation of minor faults by fire just before the
appearance of the Judge.‘

We need to follow those teachings agreed upon by nearly all persons

in the Church. and not what two or three ~“teachers wrote expressing
as their personal opinion.”7 The teachings found in the Church‘s
prayers are always agreed upon by all Orthodox. and in the
following prayer from the lroparia of the burial service (for laymen),
we sing to God about the deceased,
Show compassion on Your creature, 0 Master, and purify
[him] by Your mercy. (My emphasized word is
blagoutrobiem in Slavonic.)
The Church has decided that the purification one undergoes after
death is performed “not by fire Igor other punishment—my insertion]
but only through God’s mercy.”

7 St. Mark of Ephesus (Homily @ me Latin Chapters Concerning Purgatorial EiLe 1:11) advises this caution.
8&11110

29
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer

5. But St. Maximus the Confessor9 is 5. Look at the Greek column in the E, not the Latin. St. Maximus does
asked what is meant by St. n_ot say “_y punishment.” Look up the word kathairo, or for more detail,
Diadochus’ statement that katharos in Liddell and Scott’s unabridged Greek-English Lexicon, in
in the future age some will be the metaphorical sense: “free, clear of debt, liability, etc.” Continuing
judged through fire 211151 in the entry, when used with the genitive case, as it is in your quote at
Punfied- _ _ left, the first example given is katharos egklematon, which means
He rephesr those havmg $1115 cleared of accusations or charges or litigation. Your St. Maximus quote
come to the com OfJUdgment at left reads, “cleared e_f [liability to] punishment,” or, as we would say,
and there are purified “cleared of all charges.”
[cleansed] by punishment, as
'f th bein burn d, 'f .
the 53033118888 gown 5w 1 When Fathers such as those mentioned at left refer to fire at the
scale on the balance of good judgment, we should assume they refer not to any Roman Catholic-style
and wicked works “purgatory” (between death and the Last Judgment). but rather to what
some earlier Fathers and teachers write about “fire” at the judgment.
This fire has nothing to do with purgatory.

a. Lactantius writes (lgivine Institutes 7 :20-21) that at the final

Judgment, all who have known God pass through a trial by fire. It does
not harm the penitent. Those with weighty sins are scorched by it and
burnt.

b. St. Ambrose says fire will prove persons at the Last Judgment,
purifying and refreshing the righteous. but eternally torturing the
wicked (in Psalmum 36 enarratio 26). He teaches that since the
expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise there has been a fire (which
burns away sin) at its entrance through which all who seek to enter
must pass (Expositio i_n psalinum ewiii 20: 12-15).“' He says this fire
burns away sins that are involuntary and not serious 3:14-17). So
far as i know, he does not call the fire a punishment; nor does he say it
causes suffering to those who pass the ordeal (those admitted to
paradise)—he says the fire purifies them but touches them only in a
dew-like way
as it was on the Three Children when they were exposed to the
burning of the fiery funiace. (l_1_i psalmum 36 enarratio 26)
When speaking about how the eternally lost remain in the fire while the
others (those to be saved) pass through it, he compares this to the
Hebrews passing safely through the Red Sea and the Egyptians
drowning in it (ML). The water did not cause suffering or loss to the
Israelites. He says that the only way one can successfiilly pass through
the fire in the next world is to have the fire of love in this world
7 , (Expositio i_n psalmum cxviii 20: 12-15), and also humility:
‘ While we are here [in this life—my insertion] let us hold fast
humility, that when each of us comes to the Judgment of God, to
those fires through which we are to pass, he may say, “0 consider
my humility and deliver me.” (M)
Earlier in the passage he identifies that fire that melts away faults “of
human frailty” as “divine love." The means of purification, as we have
seen in the Orthodox burial service above, is through God’s merg.
'1
' y - '. -" jit 0. St. Basil (like St. Ambrose) says the trial at the Judgment is called
‘lt the “baptism of fire;” the fire will test what sort of work each man has
\ ‘-' ' done (Ila Spiritu Sancto 15[36]).

“T;
>r .
1"" d. St. Cyril of Jenisalem (Catechetical Lecture 15:21) says that men will
r. a
i“| ' be tried by a river of fire (Dan. 7:10) at the Judgment. Each man’s
- e1 . . . .
; ,_ works Will deternnne the outcome of his trial.

9 Quaestiones e_t dubia 10 (E 90:792-93)

'0 Citations in this paragraph appear in English in F. Homes Dudden, Ill @ an_d Times 95; Ambrose p. 660-62.

3O
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 3-E

St. Maxirnus says that for the saved it will be “as if they were being
burned.” When their works are tested by fire, this may cause apprehension
in some persons,11 and this may be one reason why they may benefit from
the prayers and works (changed lives) of the living, the persons whose lives
they have influenced.

Author’s other sources:

E_B 11th ed., “Indulgence,” “Purgatory”
15E “Eschatology,” “Indulgences,” “Satisfaction”
Richard F. Littledale, m Reasons Against Joining me Church o_f Rome
N_CE “Purgatory,” “Penance, Sacramental”

H (as if the persons themselves were being burned, instead of their works)

St. Gregory of Nyssa says that at the final Judgment

“eVen those who have lived with a good conscience will begin to doubt, as they see others
dragged down into that black darkness by their evil conscience as by an executioner.”
But he immediately adds that a merciful man
“will be led to the Judge accompanied by praise and gratitude from the voices of those to
whom he has done good, shining with confidence because of his good works.” (Beatitudes
5 [ACW 1811411)
31
3. Roman Catholics—F. “Immaculate” Conception 0f the Virgin Mary
Sin may be defined, among other ways, as a) man’s failure (in thought, words, or deeds) to attain goals God appoints,
and b) estrangement from God, the only source of well-being.

Original Q is the state of sin that according to Christian teaching characterizes all human beings as a result of Adam’s
fall. (Some Orthodox writers call it “ancestral [Greek ro atorikon sin.”) The Orthodox usually define the fall’s effects
on human nature as above all a hereditary mortality;1 a condition closely followed by sorrows, desires, fears,
misfortunes, and a resulting powerful downward inclination2 to sin. Only Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin. We did not
inherit it; nor does God hold us guilty of it.3 The Confession of Dositheus 6 (apparently condensing Gen. 3:17-20 and
Rom. 5:12-19) lists examples of the consequences for man of Adam’s first sin:
sweats in labor, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in childbearing...[living] a laborious
life, and lastly, bodily death.

Roman Catholics say that the Mother of God never committed any “actual” sin (sin traceable to the personal will of the
sinner). The Roman Catholic teaching (of the “Immaculate” Conception) declares that she was also preserved from all
the consequences of original sin from the moment she was conceived (that Mary was in all ways sinless). The Orthodox
do not agree with this.

1 St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctrinal Questions @d Answers 6), Blessed Theodoret (On Q 50:7 [m 80:1244-45]). St. John
Chrysostom writes that “the many were made sinners by one man’s disobedience” (Rom. 5:19) means only that they were made
“liable to (likely to incur) punishment and condemned to death” (Llomily @ Rom. 10:2).
2 Blessed Theodoret (ibid,)

The Bible tells us that men

“through fear of death were subject to bondage throughout their lifetime” (Heb. 2:15).
3 St. Cyril of Alexandria (1m)

33
 Catholic statement
1. The Immaculate Conception of the
Virgin Mary is not in the
Scriptures, and the earliest Church
Fathers regarded her as holy but
not absolutely sinless.
But well before the split between
East and West, the prayers of your
Byzantine Church call her
“spotless” (Great Canon of St.
Andrew of Crete) and similar terms
such as “pure” (St. Ephrem of
Syria, Hymns @ the Nativity
22:23[15:23]), or “completely
blameless.”
2. Is belief in the Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary an‘
option that the Orthodox Church
permits to its followers?
4 @m& 35:14; EcivitateD_ei 20:6
34
An Orthodox answer
1. Just because the Mother of God is called “spotless” (achrantgs ,
“completely holy” (mug), “completely blameless”
tpanamomos), and similar terms in our prayers, this does not mean
that she was in all ways sinless from the beginning. We know from
the writings of the Fathers and other early Christian writers that she
was n_ot exempt from ah the bad effects of Adam’s first sin.
a. St. Ambrose calls her “free through grace from every stain of sin”
(Expositio in psalmum cxviii 22:30 [11 15:1599]) but he can n_ot
mean that she was sinless from the beginning of her life to the end,
since he writes that Christ alone was never overcome by the vanity
of this world nor swollen with the pride of the flesh (Q9 C_air_1
1 :3:10). In his next sentence he concludes,
Hence no one is without sin, not even an infant one day old,
even though he never committed a sin. (IE 421366)
b. Blessed Augustine (@ natura _e_t gratia 42 [36]) writes that she
was given the grace to be the only person to completely conquer
sin. Here he is not writing about any lifelong freedom from sin. We
know this because he writes elsewhere that that except Christ, no
man has ever lived without sin.4 Mary is not excepted by any of the
Fathers or other early Christian writers.
The Roman Catholic teaching about the Virgin Mary being
“immaculately” conceived is an innovation. Until the 12th century
(well after the East-West split) there was no thought about
exempting her from the law of original sin. The Church Fathers do
not teach this, nor does any Ecumenical Council. (Those Church
Fathers and other early Christian writers who have written on the
subject explicitly teach the opposite, that she m born in original
sin.)
The Confession of Dositheus 6, sent in the name of all the Eastern
Patriarchs in reply to an inquiry in the early 18th century, says the
Mother of God was born subject to the consequences of original sin.
2. No. It is not possible that the Virgin Mary or anyone else (except
Christ) was immaculately conceived.
Your innovation contradicts one of the basic teachings of
Christianity, which says that only one person has lived a completely
sinless life. The Bible says, “All sinned” (Rom. 3:23), except only
one—Christ (Heb. 4:15, 1 Jn. 3:5). Job 14:4-5 LXX says,
For who will be pure from defilement? Not even one, even
if his life should be but a single day on the earth.
The first Roman Catholic to whom I gave these replies happened to
be of the Byzantine Rite, so I told her, “Look in your prayer book
(Hours of Pascha):”
Having seen the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship the
holy Lord Jesus, m only sinless gig. (emphasis mine)
 Catholic statement
3. But in mm m 27:8, St.
Ephrem of Syria writes,
Truly, You and Your mother
are alone in being in every
respect beautiful. For in You
Lord is no spot, nor any stain
[or fault] in Your mother. But
my5 children do not at all
resemble these two beauties.
Notice, he says “in every respect,”
which includes lack of original sin.
If he were speaking here only of
actual sin, the Virgin Mary would
not be “alone” with Christ in the
possession of this immunity, but
would have to be relegated to the
same rank as infants who died after
baptism. (Elsewhere in the same
work [62:24] he gives first place in
the resurrection to infants who died
after baptism, and maintains that
they surpass all the Saints in
honor.)
4. But St. Ephrem says,
Two innocent and simple
women, Mary and Eve were
placed at par, [but
afterwards] one became the
cause of our death, the other
of our well-being. (Opera
Syriaca 2:327A)
He must have thought Mary was
constituted pure from all sin of m
kind, as Eve had been before the
fall.
5 St. Ephrem is speaking here in the person of the Church of Edessa, who had just before called herself beautiful, and had been
finding fault with her children (verse 7).
6 She was not free from all the consequences of Adam’s disobedience, nor was she without “actual” sin (see St. John
Chrysostom’s homily on the marriage at Cana).
7 Leonid Ouspensky, “lconography of the Descent of the Holy Spirit,” in g Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 31:309-347;
Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology g_fth_e Eastern Church, p. 193; Michael Azkoul, Orthodox Christian Witness #1313
An Orthodox answer chapt. 3—F
3. The Mother of God surpasses these newly-baptized infants in a way
that differs from what you are trying to prove. Mary had the choice
to sin but did not. It is in this way that she differs from newly
baptized infants. Mary has been victorious over the temptations (an
honor that infants can not claim). The Bible likewise speaks of the
blessedness of those who could have sinned but did not. It even uses
the same word, “unblemished.” Sir. 34(31):8-10 says “a blameless
(or unblemished, spotless) person [Greek amomos]” whom “we will
call blessed” is one who
could have transgressed but did not transgress, who could
have done evil but did not do it.
What St. Ephrem says does not mean she was immune to a_ll the
consequences of Adam’s sin. On the contrary, St. Ephrem
specifically writes that she was n_ot immune to at least one aspect of
original sin (one of the consequences of the sinful choice of Adam
and Eve), namely, pains in childbearing:
The Firstbom entered the womb but the pure one perceived
Him not. He stirred and emerged with birth pangs, and the
fair one felt Him. (Hymnsgm dig Nativigg 21:21 [numbered
14:22 in NENF ser. 2, vol. 13])
(Here it needs to be noted that his opinion [that she had pains in
childbirth] is not the prevailing one in the Church.)
4. Your translation is not correct. It does not say that Mary and Eve
were “at par” or “equal.” It says only that both women floruerunt
(meaning only “were in high repute”), a term which, like “innocent”
and “simple,” is commonly used to describe countless other persons
besides Mary. You do not consider any of those others to be born
without original sin.
These two women lived in a sinless condition; Eve was completely
sinless from the beginning to her fall; Mary, although always
exceptionally holy, was not sinless6 (and deified) before her second
reception of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.7
35
 Catholic statement An Orthodox answer

5. But St. Proclus of Constantinople
(early 5th century) says in his
sermons of praise to the Virgin
Mary GE 65),
For from her, whom He had
formed without any flaw, He
came forth, without
contracting any stain. (1 :3)
He says concerning her being with
child that she,
who had been formed of pure
mold (16:8),
became t e temple of God.
5. He does not say that this formation occurred at the time she was
conceived in her mother. It appears that becoming completely
sinless (even for the Theotokos) is a gradual process (which
involves not only man’s consent, but to a certain extent his co
operation also), as is deification; referring to Song of S. 511-3, he
says later in these sermons on the Theotokos (6:17):
She [Mary] is that beautiful spouse of the Song of Songs,
who put off the 01d garment,8 washed her feet, and
reverently received the immortal Bridegroom within her
own bride chamber.

6. But your Matins service of the Entry
of the Theotokos (in Festal
Menaion) says her body was “never
subject to the taint of sin” (canticle
9, canon 1).
6. The translation at left is not correct. In their preface, the translators
admit that in the other English translation (that of N. Orloff, in a
book that has long been out of print, Feria! Menaion) “the literal
sense of the original” has been rendered “with conscientious
accuracy.” Professor Orloff translates this passage, “thy body I
acknowledge to be ineffably free from the pollution of sin.” The
Church’s services do not specify when the Theotokos attained this
freedom.

8 Greek chjtgn (garment [of skin] in Gen. 3:21)—interpreted by St. Methodius (Qn th_e Resurrection 1:4) and St. Gregory of
Nazianzen (Oration 38:12) to mean mortality, and by St. Gregory of Nyssa (Qn th_e Soul m Resurrection [LIPNE ser. 2, 5:465])
to mean all the human body’s habits and characteristics that resulted from the fall, such as the passions, aging, illness, and death

36
4. Protestant Introduction

Placing a certain question in the “Protestant” category does not imply that all Protestants would ask that
particular question. (On some of these questions, most Protestants would disagree with the asker.) Ifyou
are Protestant and “the shoe does not fit you,” I am not necessarily saying it is yours.

Author’s sources (for entire chapter) not mentioned at end of any section:
Louis Cassels, What’s t_h_e Difference?
Apostolos Makrakis, @ Orthodox-Protestant Dialogue
George Mastrantonis, Augsburg QC! Constantinople
Paul O’Callaghan, M Eastern Orthodox Response to Evangelical Claims
J. Smolin, Q Questions o_f th_e Orthodox Faith Disputed by Sectarians
(in Orthodox L_ife)
H. B Swete, England versus Rome

37
4. Protestants—A. The Bible
Protestant statement
1. Christians must not teach or believe
anything about salvation except
what can be found in the Bible.
An Orthodox answer
1. Generally, you are right. This is taught by St. Cyril of Jerusalem
(Catechetical Lecture 4:17) and St. Vincent of Lérins
(Commonitory 2). At least, if someone is telling you something
false about God or the Church or salvation, you will almost always
know by comparing what he says to the Bible. Acts 17:11 praises
the Beroeans for the way they received the good news about Christ,
because they were “examining the Scriptures daily to see whether
these things were so.” If any teaching is unfamiliar to you, it must
not contradict the Bible.
But St. Vincent (in the above citation) cautions that since the Bible
is susceptible to such a variety of conflicting interpretations, we
must be careful to adhere to the “norm” (or “standard”) of Church
interpretation, which he identifies as what “has been believed
everywhere, always, and by all” or at least by “almost all” Church
Fathers.
The Bible is not the only communication from God. The Bible is
only a part of the bigger package called Holy Tradition. This
Tradition (not all of it written) was handed down from the Apostles
to their successors. One of their successors writes in the lst century:
We turn to the honorable holy rule of our tradition [literal
translation], so that we can find out what is good and
pleasing and acceptable in the sight of Him who made us.
(St. Clement of Rome, Corinthians 1:7 [EC_W])
1n the 2nd century, St. lrenaeus writes that we use not only the
Scriptures to argue against heretics but also
that Tradition which originates from the Apostles, [and]
which is preserved by means ofthe successions of
presbyters in the Churches. (Against Heresies 3:2:1-2)
The Bible contains some (but not all [Jn. 21:25]) of what Christ said
and did. The Church wrote the Bible. She did not put everything she
believes into it. The Bible itself is “written tradition.” Orthodox
believe only what is found in “the faith once delivered (or
traditioned) t0 the saints” (Jude 3).
 Protestant statement
2. The Scripture is the only word of
God.
3. I admit that the teaching of both the
Old and New Testaments was
passed down orally to God’s people
before being written.
But once the Bible was put
together, the Church has the
responsibility to hold only to it.
Luke says he wrote an “orderly
account (RSV)” of the words and
works of Christ so we “may know
the certainty” of them (Lk. 1:1-4).
The Church should not “believe
beyond what is written” (1 Cor.
4:6). Why then do you even bother
with these other parts of the pre
Bible Tradition, even if they are
from God?
4. But the Bible (Col. 2:8) warns
against following “human
tradition” that is “not according to
Christ.”
I Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are saved and will be in heaven (according to Christ [Mt. 8:11]), but in their lifetimes none ofthe
Bible had yet been written, not even any ofthe OT.
40
An Orthodox answer
2. No it isn’t. Oral Holy Tradition is also called “the word of God” in
the Bible; Acts 17:13 and 1 Th. 2:13 call St. Paul’s past oral
Christian preaching (which occurred before any of the NT was
written) “the word of God.” Note that no other part of the NT is
known to have been written before 1 Thessalonians.
Let me ask you a question. Weren’t people saved in the years after
Christ but before the New Testament was written? Of course they
were.l It was this oral Apostolic Tradition (in the authority of the
Orthodox Church) which decided which writings are doctrinally
sound and can be included the NT. This Tradition determined which
books could be called genuine new Scripture in the 2nd century
AD. The Church made this list by comparing the various Christian
writings to the teachings handed down by the Holy Tradition—in
this way some books were rejected and some accepted as (NT)
Scripture.
You can’t accept the Bible without also accepting the Church’s
Tradition, because th_e Church @fined th_e Bible—the Bible itself
did not, and neither did Christ.
3. We continue to “bother” with the extra-Biblical parts of the Holy
Tradition because God My Ms that this be done
even after the Bible was written. When St. Paul tells us “not to
believe beyond what is written,” he obviously does not mean we
should forget all parts of the Holy Tradition other than the Bible,
because he also says (in 2 Th. 2:15),
So then, brothers, stand firm and keep the traditions that
you were taught, either by word [of mouth] or by our letter.
Note, he does not say, “Don’t keep any traditions unless they are
found in the Scriptures.”
Similarly, before the time of Moses, there were no Scriptures. It was
only by orally-transmitted sacred Tradition that anyone knew about
God. But, once the books of Moses were written, God still
recommended that the people continue to pass down the sacred
Tradition by word of mouth (Ex. 1021-2, Ps. 77[78]:l-3,6), possibly
because some important things had been left unwritten.
4. Agreed; but the Tradition of the Church is of the Holy Spirit.
This verse at left is about the false tradition (inventions of “human”
minds), not the Tradition received from God. Look at the entire
verse, which criticizes those who attempt to trick you “through
philosophy and empty deceit.” The Apostle is warning here against
useless speculation concerning unprovable things.
St. Paul seems to be speaking against persons whom we could in
some ways call Gnostics (when we consider the errors he criticizes
further on in chapter 2).
 Protestant statement
5. But in Mk. 7:7-8 Christ quotes the
OT, which says,
In vain do they worship Me,
teaching as doctrines the
commandments of men. You
leave the commandment of
God and keep the tradition of
men.
6. Why should I accept the opinion of
a group of men rather than trust my
own opinion?
The Bible says,
If anyone of you lacks
wisdom, let him ask God.
(Jas. 1:5)
The best way to interpret the Bible
is by means of the Bible itself. We
believe that gacj rim gr;
understand th_e Bible gn_d_ integpret
i_t Q himself, by comparing one
passage with another.
7. We too are enabled by the Holy
Spirit to understand the Bible.
Because we have the Holy Spirit,
we have no need that anyone
should teach us, according to 1 Jn.
2:27 (and, as C01. 3:16 says, we can
teach each other “in all wisdom”).
8. But we (the Protestants) agree on
the essentials. If we are divided
over unimportant issues, what’s so
bad about that?
2 verbally giving something to God but in fact keeping it for private use
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-A
5. The traditions received from God are not the ones being criticized
here. Here Christ condemns the “commandments of men” and “the
tradition of men” which not only are not from God, but also conflict
wiLh ng’s directions. See the context, in which He criticizes not
the divinely-commanded customs but the human-invented ones
(such as calling something Corbanz) which He says prevent
fulfillment of the divine commandments such as caring for one’s
parents. In verse 13 He speaks against “annulling the word of God
by your tradition [from men] you hand on.”
6. That (each person interpreting the Bible for himself) is why you are
divided into hundreds of sects. The Bible does not say everyone can
easily understand everything in the Bible. Q me contrary, even the
Apostles were not able by themselves to interpret the Scriptures
(Lk. 24:19-32). Writing about St. Paul’s letters, St. Peter says in 2
Pet. 3:16 (RSV) that they contain some things in them “hard to
understand,“ which some persons “twist to their own destruction, as
they do the other Scriptures.” Each generation must not reinterpret
the Bible. Instead we must follow the interpretation of those who
have gone before us (the Fathers, especially the decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils and the wording of the Church’s prayers). We
always look to them for guidance. When St. Philip asked, “Do you
understand what you are reading?” the Ethiopian eunuch (who was
reading the Scriptures) answered, “How can I, unless someone
guides me?” (Acts 8:30-31 RSV). He asked the guidance of St.
Philip, as we ask the Church.
Yes, as you say, those who lack wisdom must ask God (Jas. 1:5),
but the way God answers this request is to reveal His “manifold
wisdom" to all “through the Church” according to Eph. 319-10,
rather than by enlightening each one of us directly. St. Paul is
saying that God has placed the gift ofteaching i_rt the Church; he
would not say this if the Scriptures were always completely
understandable to all Christians who read them.
It is the Holy Spirit (who inspired the writing of the Bible) who
guides the Church in understanding “all the truth” (Jn. 16:13) so that
the Church will not be led into errors.
7. Protestants can’t all be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each
denomination believes something different. The same Spirit could
not have inspired all of you.
The Bible says that our God “is not the God ofconfusion” but of
order (1 Cor. 14:33), so when He reveals Himselfthrough the Holy
Spirit, He does not make selflcontradictory statements. If
revelations are received that are contradictory, then they can’t all be
coming from the Holy Spirit.
8. Ifyou really considered these differences to be unimportant, you’d
re-unite with each other (with the other Protestants).
Jn. 16:13 does not say the Spirit will teach you the essentials; it
says, “He will guide you into all the truth.”
41
 Protestant statement
9. Why does your Church use the
Septuagint3 as its official version of
the OT? Its meaning does not
always agree with the Hebrew.
Why not use the Hebrew? The OT
was originally written in Hebrew or
Aramaic, not Greek.
10. How do you know that in the
passages where there is
disagreement between versions, the
Septuagint is correct and today’s
Hebrew is wrong?
Where the two versions differ, how
do you know that the LXX
translation is correct and not the
result of great freedom exercised
by the translators, as some think?
3 a translation of the OT into Greek begun in the mid-3rd century B.C.
4 St. Irenaeus and St. Cyril of Jerusalem claim for the LXX the same inspiration as the original.
5 For example, Acts 15:17 quotes Am. 9:12 LXX; Heb. 2:7 quotes Ps. 8:5-6 LXX; Heb. 11:21 quotes Gen. 47:31 LXX; 1 Pet.
4:18 quotes Pr. 11:31 LXX.
42
An Orthodox answer
9. The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek was
the official OT version of the earliest Church (2nd and 3rd centuries
A.D.).
Where our (LXX) version differs from today’s Hebrew version
(used by the Jews and Protestants), it is today’s Hebrew that is
incorrect. The LXX is an exact translation into Greek. According to
lst-century A.D. Jewish writers Philo (E m Mosis 2:5-7) and
Flavius Josephus (Antiquities if the J_eg@ 12:2:12) the LXX
translation is both exact and divinely inspired.
The oldest complete manuscript of today’s Hebrew version of the
OT is from the 11th century _A_.]Q.——older ones have disappeared in
whole or in part. But the oldest complete LXX manuscript we have
is from the 4th century AD. The LXX is quoted by the NT, by
Christ, by the Fathers of the Church, including the earliest (St.
Clement of Rome, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St.
Irenaeus“), and by Jewish writers Philo and Josephus.
In the 2nd century A.D., St. Justin Martyr (Qillggg wit_h_ Trim
71-73) said the Jews had begun to refitse to admit that the LXX
translation is a correct one; he cited several prophetic (OT) passages
about Christ, saying that the Jews had cut some of them out of the
Scripture and that they had changed the meaning of others. These
verses were an embarrassment to the Jews who rejected Jesus
Christ. For example, Ps. 21 :16 (LXX only) says,
The assembly [Greek synagoge] of the evil doers
surrounded Me; they pierced My hands and feet.
Since the time of Christ, the Jews failed to make accurate copies of
their Bible. By the l lth century A.D., many errors had crept in.
During that period the Jews garbled their Bible to the point where it
contradicts itself; 2 Kg. 24:8 says Jehoiachin became king at age 18,
but 2 Chr. 36:9 says age eight. But our LXX (Alexandrine Text)
gives 18 in both cases, as well as in l Esd. 1:43.
10. We know that the LXX is correct because when the NT quotes the
OT, it quotes the LXX, including passages in which today’s Hebrew
OT differs in meaning.5 The NT never quotes the Hebrew against
the LXX. To Protestants we must say. if you believe that the LXX
version (where it differs from today’s Hebrew) is not the accurate
one. then you had better pitch the NT into the trash can since the NT
contains many of these same “errors” that you are imagining.
Protestants! Wake up! Did the Holy Spirit (who inspired the writing
of the OT make mistakes when He inspired the writing of the NT?
Couldn’t God remember what had been written a few centuries
earlier?
 Protestant statement
11. You say the NT never quotes the
Hebrew against the LXX. But Jn.
19:37 says, “They will look on Him
whom they pierced,” a quote from
the Hebrew version onech. 12:10.
The LXX incorrectly renders this,
“They will look on Me, because
they have mocked.”
12. Why does your Bible contain some
OT books not in the Protestant
Bible?
13. But the NT writers do not quote
these books (as they do from other
OT books).
14. Did the early Church (in the first
two centuries A.D.) consider these
to be part of the Bible?
6 Oxford Dictionary of_e Christian Church “Apocrypha”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-A
11. At least one old manuscript of the LXX, the Codex Venetus,
includes “on Him whom they pierced” in this verse, making it agree
with the NT quote (Septuaginta [G6ttingen]).
12. These books (such as Baruch, 1 Esdras, additions to Esther, Judith,
Letter of Jeremiah, 1 through 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh,
Sirach, Song of 3 Young Men, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon) are part
of the Bible because in the earliest years of the Church they were
part of the LXX version of the OT (the version quoted by Christ, the
NT, and the Fathers of the Church). These books were not grouped
together, nor in any other way identified as different from the other
books of the OT.
13. The NT does not quote from ll] your OT books, yet you have not
dropped these from your Bible.
It is not true that the NT does not quote any of the books the
Protestants dropped. Jas. 1:19 (“Let every man be quick to hear,
slow to speak” [RSV]) quotes Sir. 5:11 (“Be quick to hear, and use
self-restraint in answering”) by paraphrasing (slightly rewording the
text but keeping the meaning). When the NT quotes the OT, it does
not always quote word for word.
St. Paul uses passages from Wis. 5: 17-18 in Eph. 6:11-14 (“put on
the complete armor of God” and “having put on the breastplate of
righteousness”).
14. Yes. All books of the LXX were generally accepted as Scripture by
the Church from the beginning down to the 4th century AD.6
The Church writers of the first two centuries, such as St. Clement of
Rome, St. Polycarp, St. Barnabas, St. lrenaeus of Lyons, and
Clement of Alexandria quote passages from these books (often
calling them “Scripture,” “divine Scripture,” “words of the
prophet,” and the like), as does the Didache.
Not until later (about AD. 170) did anyone write that these books
should not be part of the Bible, and even then it was the opinion of a
few, not of the Church, which officially decided at the council held
at Carthage in AD. 419 (canon 24 [Greek 27]) that these are part of
Scripture. (Also see Apostolic Canon 85.) The 6th and 7th
Ecumenical Councils ratified this decision.
Even after a few writers (of this later period) made a distinction
between the two categories, these books were still customarily cited
as Scripture, even by some of those (such as Blessed Jerome [Letter
118: 1] and Origen [D_e principiis 2:81) who imagined a distinction.
43
 Protestant statement
15. Wis. 8:19-20 says,
As a child I was by nature
well endowed, and had a
good soul. Rather, being
good, I came into a body
undefiled.
The author is saying that his soul
existed before entering his body.
Preexistence of souls is rejected by
Protestants and Orthodox, who say
only Christ preexisted (Jn. 1:2).
Isn’t this reason enough to reject
these books? (Someone asked me
this after church one day.)
16. Wis. 1 1:17 says that God “made
the world out of formless matter.”
But you (and we) teach that
creation was “9); nihilo [out of
nothing],” not out of some pre—
existing material.
17. Jdt. 1:7 calls Nabuchodonosor king
of the Assyrians, and says (1:1) he
reigned in Nineveh. This is an
error. We know from Dan. 4:25-27
(29-30) that he was king of
Babylon.
I8. Judith (9:IO,13) asks God’s help in
her plan of deceit, in which she
killed Holofemes, chief captain of
the invading heathen army.
Falsehood can not be justified.
An Orthodox answer
15. I answered that this passage does not sound to me like Solomon is
speaking about himself or about people in general, since no one has
lived even the first day of his life undefiled (Job 14:4-5 LXX),
except Christ. In this passage quoted at left, it is He who is speaking
(about Himself) through Solomon, using the first person “1" and the
past tense, as He had done in other places in the OT, for example,
They divided My clothes among them, and for My garment
they cast lots. (Ps. 21[221118, .ln. 19:24)
I know ofonly one Church writer who writes on Wis. 8:20, Origen,
and he does not interpret it to mean preexistence of souls. He
instead explains it (Homily on Lg, 12:4:1) as 1 do in the paragraph
above. It is significant that Origen, who mistakenly teaches that
every soul lived before its body, takes this passage to refer to Christ
instead of to all people.
l6. Nothing in this verse (or any other Bible verse) says that this
material has eternally existed. This “formless matter” was itself
created by God, as is taught elsewhere in the Bible and by the
Church Fathers and other early Christian writers.
In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But
the earth was invisible and not arranged [unshaped or
unconstructed], (Gen. 1:1-2 LXX)
which means shapeless matter.
In the 2nd century, St. Theophilus writes regarding these Genesis
verses, that God made our world, having first created for Himself
the necessary matter (E M 2:10). This is taught later by St.
Athanasius @ tfi Incarnation o_f 113 Word 2:4) and St. John of
Damascus (Orthodox Balm 2:5).
l7. This is not a crude error. Christian writers have said that the name
is a pseudonym for some other king. One likely candidate,
according to Gottfried Brunner, is Araka, a pretender to the fallen
Babylonian throne who styled himself Nabuchodonosor IV and
probably established himself in the Syrian city of Ninus-vetus (fi'om
which the name Nineveh) until he was crushed by Darius I. The
high priest Alcimus from that period (who Josephus says was also
called Jakeimos) could be the high priest Joakim in Jdt. 4 and 15
(NCE “Judith, Book of”).
18. The invading army planned to defile God’s sanctuary (9:8, compare
4:1), and force everyone to call upon their heathen king as a god
(3:8). This was war. The high priest Joakim asked the people to
resist and they did (4:6-8).
In similar war situations lying is sometimes considered acceptable
by the Bible; Rahab hid the Israelite spies on her roof, covering
them herself with flax-stalks (Josh. 2:6), yet when the men sent by
the king of Jericho asked her to produce the men who had entered
her house, she lied, saying, “I do not know where they have gone.
Pursue them if you will capture them” (2:5). The NT disagrees with
your opinion that what Rahab did (in this situation of crisis) was not
justified. Jas. 2:25 says Rahab was “justified” by what she did
“when she received the messengers and sent them out another way”
(RSV).
 Protestant statement
19. In Jdt. 14:10, Achior believed in
God, was circumcised, and was
admitted to the house of Israel,
even though he is an Ammonite
(14:5).
This is a direct contradiction to Dt.
23 :3,
N0 Ammonite or Moabite
shall enter the assembly of
the Lord, even to the tenth
generation he shall not enter
the assembly of the Lord,
even for ever.
20. But none of the writers of these
books claims inspiration for his
works, and one explicitly disclaims
it (1 Mace. 4:46, 9:27 says there
were no longer any prophets among
the people of Israel).
21. 2 Macc. 3:11 calls Hyrcanus “son
of Tobias.” But Hyrcanus was
actually his grandson.
22. 2 Macc. 10:3 says that after the
Temple was purified, sacrifices
were offered after a lapse of two
years. This is an error; 1 Mace.
1:54 and 4:52 say it was three
years.
23. But there are so many other
(irreconcilable) differences
between the two books (1 and 2
Maccabees). For example, they
never agree on the number of
troops on either side in a battle.
24. In Tob. 1:4, there is a
chronological error. Tobit claims
he was “still a young man” during
an event that occurred over 100
years earlier. He could not have
been young then, or even yet born.
7 in some degree historical
8 Q, “Biblical Literature, (ApOcrypha and Pseudepigrapha)”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-A
19. The Dt. quote at left does not say “for ever” but “even until the
age.”
Some say that since Judith is more than 10 generations removed
from Jacob, Achior is more than 10 generations away from the
Ammonites and Moabites who mistreated the Israelites (Anchor
Bible).
Another explanation is to assume here that Achior was given a
special dispensation, after all, Ruth the Moabitess (great
grandmother of King David and ancestress of [Christ] God), was
admitted to the Jewish community. Some rabbis during the second
Jewish Commonwealth taught that the prohibition applied to males
but not females; others thought that even males could be accepted,
but still other rabbis insisted that there must be no exceptions
Lib—id)
20. The author of 1 Macc. says that prophets had ceased to appear in
Israel, and had not reappeared during the events covered by his
history (9:27); but a future prophet was expected (4:46). St. John the
Baptizer, born about a century later, was the last prophet of Old
Israel.
To write a book like 1 Maccabees, which is basically history, a
prophet is not needed. However, the book does have religious value,
since it says that the victories of Judas Maccabeus and his family
over their enemies came about by means of “help from heaven”
(12:15).
21. The original Greek does not say “son of Tobias” but only “of
Tobias.” But even if it did say “son of,” that can mean “related to”
or “descendant of.” In the NT we see that Jesus is called “son of
David” (Lk. 18:38), as is St. Joseph the Betrothed (Mt. 1:20); the
meaning in both cases is obviously “descendant of David.”
22. The author of 2 Maccabees is saying something he does not mean
literally; compare our English expression “a couple of years.” The
word “couple,” according to Webster’s dictionary can mean “an
indefinite small number” or “a few,” for example, “a couple of days
ago.”
23. These §WO books are not exactly histories. They are Quasi-historical7
books.
Ancient authors of all nationalities tended to exaggerate the
size of an enemy army. (Anghor Bible note on 2 Macc.
8:24)
24. Why is it unbelievable that someone could live that long? In Gen.
47:28 we read that Jacob lived 147 years.
45
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

25. Tob. 14:15 says Nineveh was
captured by Nabuchodonosor and
Assuerus, but history says Nineveh
was conquered by Nabopolassar
and Cyaxares.
25. These two are pseudonyms. The author apparently knew the real
names, since he chose pseudonyms that sound much like the
historical names.

26. In Tob. 1:15 there is a historical 26. The book does not say that this transition took place immediately.
error.
And when Enemessar died,
his son Senacherim reigned
in his place.
This did not happen immediately.
There was one ruler, Sargon,
between the two.

27. On the way from Nineveh to
Persia, Tobias and the angel come
to the Tigris River (Tob. 6:1). This
is a geographical error. The river is
west of Nineveh, so it is not on the
way to Persia.
27. The city of Nineveh, their starting point, was on the Tigris River.
The river is not out of the way, especially when they had to go to the
river to catch the fish (see the next two verses) from which they
obtained the medicine needed to heal Sarah and Tobit.

28. The ancient historian Arrian
(Anabasis 3 : 19-20) writes that the
journey from Ecbatana to Rages
took Alexander’s army 11 days of
forced marches. Yet Tob. 9 says the
same journey (round trip) took
Raphael much fewer than 22 days.
The book of Tobit thus contains a
geographical error; its author must
have supposed the distance to be
much shorter.
28. Raphael (still pretending to be a human being) began the journey
with a servant and two camels but the book does not say they went
the entire distance with Raphael, who could have left them
somewhere along the road and hurried on alone, especially since
Tobias told him that Tobit would be greatly distressed by any delay
(9:4).
Angels can fly (Dan. 9:21), so I am not surprised that Raphael’s
travel time was considerably shorter than that of Alexander’s army,
at least on the trip t_o Rages when Raphael could travel alone. (On
the way back, he was not alone, being accompanied by Gabael).

Author’s other sources:

Intemreter’s Bible, “The Literature and Religion of the Apocrypha”
Integpreter’s Dictionag ch_e Bible, “Canon of the OT”

46
4. Protestants—B. Bread and Wine Become Body and Blood
Some Anglicans will find that this section does not generally apply to them, as will most Lutherans (although the
Lutheran position differs from that of the Orthodox).

Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

1. The bread and wine of the Lord’s
Supper are not the real body and
blood of Jesus. They are only
symbols.
1. Christ does not agree with you. When He took bread and blessed it at
the Last Supper He said, “This is My body” (Mt. 26:26). Taking the
cup He said, “This is My blood” (Mt. 26:27-28). Notice, He says,
“This He does not say, “This symbolizes” as Evangelicals say.
He does not say, “This is a substitute for.” It is strange that persons
who consider themselves “Bible fundamentalists” can not accept the
plain truth as Jesus states it.

2. But there were times when Christ
said things He did not mean
literally. When I point to a picture
on the wall and say, “That’s my
sister,” I of course don’t mean that
the paper is actually my Sister_
2. The Mystical1 Supper is not the only time Christ spoke of this. In Jn.
6:51-56, Christ stated His position so clearly that His meaning was
understood by all who heard. Christ said,
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If
anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. (RSV)
He then explained that by the word “bread” He meant His own
flesh. “And the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is
My flesh.” And when the Jews heard this, they were scandalized,
saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?” Jesus
answered that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have
eternal life, and to be raised on the last day (Jn. 6:53-54). To
remove any doubt about whether this food He’d give is really His
body, He added,
For My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. He
who eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me and
I in him. (Jn. 6:55-56)

I mystical, that is, with hidden meaning

47
 Protestant statement
3. There have always been some
persons who interpret these
words of Christ as not literally
intended.
2 @ m Resurrection pftm Flesh was written by Tertullian after he left the Church.
48
An Orthodox answer
3. Let’s go back to this same incident. Just as at present, there were many
students of the Lord who heard gn_d understood this teaching of Christ
but would not accept it (Jn. 6:60) and the Scripture says these disciples
immediately ceased to follow the Lord rather than accept His teaching
on this subject (Jn. 6:66). These were in fact the first Protestants!
Yes, there were things Christ said which He did not mean literally, but
these words were obviously not among them. If Christ did not mean
these words to be literal, He (being the God who “desires all men to be
saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”) would have said to
the dissident disciples, “Wait, come back. I didn’t mean it literally!” But
He did not make any such statement, and let them leave His Church.
Yes, there have always been some who held Protestant beliefs on the
subject of Communion, but (as in Jn. 6), th_ey M always bel outside
Christ’s Church. St. Ignatius (martyred about AD. 107) writes that the
heretical Docetists
hold aloof from the Eucharist [Holy Communion] and the
services of prayer because they refuse to admit that the
Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ. (Smymeans 7)
This is in the earliest period of Church history.
Note: St. Ignatius (a pupil of St. John the Apostle) was ordained Bishop
of Antioch by St. Paul the Apostle. If the early Church believed as most
Protestants do, would it have made St. Ignatius a bishop, believing as he
did? Wouldn’t it have deposed him, instead of letting him stay bishop
for the rest of his life? You are asking us to believe that this man, who
was personally instructh by the Apostles, did not understand what the
Apostles really taught, but that some of the founders of Protestantism
(1,500 years later) really did.
St. Justin Martyr, in Argo—logy 1:66 (about AD. 155), writes concerning
the Eucharist:
This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to
partake except one who believes that the things we teach are
true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and
for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we
do not receive these things as common bread or common drink;
but as Jesus Christ our savior being incamate by God’s word
took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been
taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer that
comes from Him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished
by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.
Notice what he believes in his last sentence.
In 1 Cor. 11:27-32 we are warned that we can become ill and even die if
we receive Holy Communion without the proper preparation of self
examination. People don’t die from something that’s just a symbol.
Stop and think a minute. No Church Father (or other writer in the
Church2 until the 9th century) can be cited by those who hold the
position at left. With regard to this important subject, did the Holy Spirit
allow everyone in the Church to stay in error for the first eight centuries
of her existence?
 Protestant statement
4. But couldn’t Christ have meant that
He is only spiritually present in the
bread and wine?
(Presbyterians and other members
of Reformed Churches say this, as
do many Anglicans)
5. At the Last Supper, when Christ
broke the bread and said, “Do this
in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor.
11:23-26), didn’t this mean the
bread and wine are to be looked
upon only as “memorials,”
reminders, and symbols?
6. But after giving the wine to the
disciples, Jesus said,
I shall by no means drink
from the fruit of the vine until
the kingdom of God comes.
(Lk. 22:18)
He said that the wine, even after
He had given it to them, remained
“the fruit of the vine.”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4B
4. No. He could have said it that way but He didn’t. Q th_e contrary,
describing the bread in each of these verses (Jn. 6:51-56), He uses
the word “flesh” (Greek M), which He also uses in Lk. 24:39
(after the Resurrection) to explain to those who imagined they were
seeing a spirit that He was not merely present spiritually but also
physically: “A spirit does not have fleLh (sarx) and bones as you see
that I have.”
If Christ were only spiritually present in the bread and wine, then
St. Paul would not say that in receiving Holy Communion we
partake of Christ’s “body” and “blood” (1 Cor. 10:16). Instead he
would say that we partake only of Christ’s spirit.
Back to Jn. 6, those who were shocked at the cannibalistic intention
of Christ’s instruction, were shocked because that was the
inescapable meaning of Christ’s words. If some clear intention of
Christ is strange, unpopular, or embarrassing, we must not twist and
reinterpret Christ’s words to conform to our notion of what is
proper.
The earliest Church gave a literal interpretation to these words of
Christ (“flesh” and “blood”). St. Ignatius continues his statement I
have quoted (in my answer 3 above) by saying the Eucharist is
the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our
sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up again,
(§myrneans 7)
leaving no room for a strictly symbolic or spiritual interpretation of
this passage.
5. No, this is not necessarily the only meaning. At a memorial service,
the person being remembered can be physically present, for
example when a memorial service is held at his grave.
Worshipping in church, we look back on the events of Christ’s life.
We hear about and see pictures of what He did. This does not mean
that His body can’t also be physically present while we remember
Him. Since someone died for us, seeing His body and blood
actually present in the room can act as a reminder of what He did
for us, better than could a picture or a story.
You quote 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Read the entire passage (verses 23-32);
people do not become ill or die from eating something that is only a
symbol.
6. It did not remain wine for long. In the next few verses He changed
the bread into His body, and He transformed the wine as well.
49
 Protestant statement
7. But in the verse you mention (Lk.
22:20 [also 1 Cor. 11:25]) He says,
“This cup is the new covenant in
My blood.” He calls the cup’s
contents “the new covenant.” The
cup’s contents were not literally a
covenant, even though He calls
them one, just as He calls the bread
His body. He is not speaking in
literal terms here. They did not
literally drink the covenant.
8. We cannot think that Jesus was
here (in the Jn. 6 verses you cite)
establishing the eating and
drinking of His literal flesh and
blood to give eternal life, because
in verse 63 He says,
It is the Spirit who gives
life; the flesh profits
nothing; the words that I
speak unto you, they are
spirit, and they are life.3
3 Statement and answer 8 were appended in 2012.
50
An Orthodox answer
7. They did literally drink the covenant. The cup’s contents (by then His
blood) certainly were a covenant (agreement). His shed blood can
(and does) constitute a new agreement between God and man. The
agreement involved His blood being shed (as a payment) and His
death. See “This is My blood ofthe new covenant” (Mt. 26:28, Mk.
14:24 [compare Heb. 10:29, 13:20]). When He calls His blood an
agreement He is speaking literally.
The new covenant was caused by the Crucifixion (shedding of
blood) and resurrection (new life). We share in the covenant
between God and man in Christ by the Eucharist.
8. Why did Christ say, “the flesh profits nothing,” even though He had
just before said that one must eat His flesh to have eternal life? The
answer is, “It profits nothing, but only in the manner in which they
understood it.” (Blessed Augustine, NPNFI 7:175) Christ told them
this because they incorrectly thought that He would give them
ordinary human flesh to eat.
“The flesh profits nothing,” only when alone. Let the spirit
be added to the flesh... and it profits very much. For if the
flesh profited nothing, the Word would not be made flesh to
dwell among us. dbl.)
This is also taught by St Cyril ofAlexandria (Commentary
gth_e Gospel ngohn 11).
4. Protestants—C. The Eucharist a Sacrifice

This section does not apply to Anglicans (Calledtpflifl Unity, p. 5, 79-84).

Protestant question An Orthodox answer

1. Christ offered Himself once for sin.
How then can the Orthodox believe
that the Eucharist (Holy
Communion) is a sacrifice offered
by the priest?
1. The Orthodox Church teaches that Christ’s one offering of Himself
is the one complete sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice to which nothing
can be added, and which is not repeated. That sacrifice replaces the
old sacrifices and establishes a new and eternal covenant between
God and man. Christ’s death on the Cross can never be repeated.

In the Divine Liturgy, the sacrifice offered is Christ Himself and it

is Christ Himself who offers. (He is both priest and victim.)
For it is You who offers and who are offered. (from the
priest’s prayer of the Cherubic Hymn)

The human priest, as performer of the Eucharist, is only the

instrument of the invisible and actual celebrant, the Lord Himself.1
St. Cyprian says the human priest officiates “in Christ’s stead”
when he offers the sacrifice, Christ’s body and blood, to God the
Father {Letter 62[63]:14). C. Androutsos writes,
On Golgotha our Lord offered His bodily life in a bloody
sacrifice; in the Eucharist He sacrifices Himself by the
priest in a bloodless and mystical way.2

1 John Karmiris, A Synopsis thh_e Dogmatic Theology thh_e Orthodox Catholic Church p. 101
2 Frank Gavin, Some Aspects o_fContemporag Greek Orthodox Thought, p. 349

51
 Protestant question
2. Since Christ has “by one offering
perfected for ever those sanctified”
and since neither He nor you
repeats His sacrifice, how then can
your altar table be a place where
Christ makes a sacrifice of
Himself?
3 George R. Berry, Greek-Englishm Lgxicon (in back of his Interlinear Greek-English M)
4 Nicolas Afanassiev writes that the Eucharist is not a repetition but in a way a prolongation of the Last Supper (“The Church
Which Presides in Love” in 113 Primacy o_fPeter p. 77).
5 Commentagl o_n th_e Divine Litprgy 32
6 Timothy Ware, Orthodox Churgh 14
52
An Orthodox answer
2. The Bible verse you quote does not mean the same as “for ever.”
Instead, the exact translation says Christ “by one offering has
perfected continually3 those being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). This
Greek phrase in question (e_is t_o Mg) has been mistranslated in
some English Bibles as “for ever,” but what the Greek says here is
“an action continuing for ever (continuing perpetually), without
interruption.” Of course He died only once in history. A death can
not continue thousands of years. But He through the human priest
can transform bread and wine into His body and blood. Christ
through the human minister can offer the food up to God the Father
(St. Cyprian, Letter 62[63]: 14).4
Many different theories are proposed by various theologians, but the
standard Orthodox answer to your question is given by St. Nicholas
Cabasilas: To sacrifice a sheep means to change its state; it is
changed from an unsacrificed sheep to a sacrificed one. The same is
true here; the bread is changed from unsacrificed bread into
something sacrificed (that is, into that very body of Christ that was
actually sacrificed). The sacrifice is accomplished through this
transformation, as that of the sheep was when it was changed fiom
one state to another. Therefore this sacrificial act (this offering of
sacrifice, which Christ makes) does not require repeated bloody
killing of Christ’s body. So, although this transformation takes
place many times, yet nothing prevents the reality into which it is
changed from being one and the same thing always—a single body
that has undergone a unique (single) bloody sacrifice.5 The events
of Christ’s sacrifice (the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the
Crucifixion, and so forth) “are not repeated in the Eucharist, but
they are made presen 3’6
But to summarize, the Eucharist is a sacrifice because the sacrifice
at Calvary, Christ’s body and blood, is made present on the table for
our salvation.
 Protestant question An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-C

3. But does the Bible call the Eucharist 3. Yes. Heb. 13:10 calls our Christian altar a place from which a
a sacrifice? sacrifice is eaten.
We have a sacrificial altar from which those who serve in
the tabernacle have no right to eat.

In Gen. 14:18-20 we read

And Melchisedech, king of Salem, brought forth bread and
wine; he was the priest of the most high God. And he
blessed Abram... And Abram gave him the tithe of all.
This bringing forth of bread and wine on the part of Melchisedech
was a true sacrifice, and it is on account ofthis sacrificial act that the
Bible teaches that Melchisedech, in his capacity of priest, was a
prototype of Christ at the Last Supper.7 St. Paul writes concerning
Christ:
You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchisedech.
(Heb. 5:6)
Melchisedech, according to the “order” or rite employed, offered a
bloodless sacrifice. Therefore Christ, being a priest of the same
order, must also forever offer a bloodless sacrifice; Christ resembles
his priestly prototype not in his bloody sacrifice on the Cross, but at
the Last Supper, where He made a bloodless food offering (although
he went beyond this mere offering of bread and wine to transform the
food into His body and blood).8

4. But in the earliest period of the
Church, was the Eucharist
considered a sacrifice?
4. Yes. This is the only opinion among the Church Fathers, including
several writing during the very earliest years of the Church.
The Prophet Malachi, predicting the conversion of the gentiles to
God (to Christ), says they will everywhere offer “a pure sacrifice” to
God, in contrast to the corrupt Jewish sacrificial practices of his time
(Mal. 1:6-11 LXX——the Greek uses the word “sacrifice”).

There can be no doubt that St. Justin (martyred about AD. 165) in
Mgr; m Imil] identifies the Eucharist as the sacrifice
foretold in Mal. 1:11; he quotes the prophecy, then immediately
adds:
[So] He then speaks of those gentiles, namely us, who in
every place offer sacrifices to Him, that is the bread of the
Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist. . ..
This same interpretation of Mal. 1:1 1 is taught by St. Irenaeus
(Agm mums) later in the 2nd century, and by St.
l-Iippolytus (Q11 Qaniel 4:35 lgiQS 1:1:278-80]) early in the 3rd.

St. Cyprian in the 3rd century (Letter 62[63]: l4-17) plainly calls the
Eucharist a sacrifice: Christ instituted this sacrifice, the body and
blood of Christ are the gift offered, and the human priest “officiating
in Christ’s stead” offers it to God the Father.

7 Joseph Pohle (adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss), The Sacraments, vol. 2, p. 301-05; St. Cyprian, Letter 62(63):4
8 . .
lbld.

53
54
4. Protestants—D. Faith and Works

This section deals with “salvation through faith only,” one of the chief teachings of the early Protestants. The
statements at left are today commonly made by Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and some other Protestants. Liberal
Protestants are unlikely to make them.

When Protestants use the word “faith” in this section, they mean it above all as a subjective experience (that is, peculiar
to a particular individual-—j:iersonal),l as “trust” or “the feeling of beingjustified.” The Orthodox would reply that, to
some degree this is correct, but faith is also a doctriueto be followed, that is, the entire content of Christ’s instruction to
the Apostles (Mt. 28:20), “the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3): the teachings of the Church. To believe in
Christ as Savior and God is to also believe all that lie taught. In other words, the Orthodox say that faith is not merely
“that we believe” but “what we believe.”

Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

1. We are saved through faith only.
(Frequently a Protestant [on
finding out we are Orthodox] will
mention this [and usually nothing
else] to determine “which side we
are on.” Another way of testing us
is to ask us, “Which saves, ‘faith,’
or ‘faith plus works"?”)
1. For us to be saved, faith is required (Heb. 1 1:6), but nowhere does
the Bible say that salvation comes through faith only. The word
“only” is not there, even though Luther added it in his translation of
the Bible, after the word “faith” in the verse “For we reckon a man
is justified by faith, without works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28). Instead
of conforming his theology to the Bible, Luther preferred to alter
the Bible.
The Protestants’ decision to combat false Roman Catholic teachings
(such as indulgence grants and purgatory) by inventing this “faith
only” doctrine,‘ and the Protestants’ determination to quote Bible
verses that appear to say this (while they misinterpret, or [like
Luther] even reject sections of the Bible that flatly contradict “faith
only”) show the state of blindness to which the Western
denominations have come since the abandonment of Orthodoxy in
the western European countries 900 years ago.

Orthodox do not become involved in this controversy, but when I

am asked, I say only that i_t '5 God who saves. If we participate in
the Mysteries, God will show us what He wants from us.

2. Yes, God saves us, but how? (Like
the Catholics, they always want to
know “how.”) Protestants say that
God’s grace does this by giving us
faith as a free gilt, and that works
do not save but are just badges or
evidence proving that someone has
sincere faith.
2. God saves by giv_ing gs various gifts: faith, works, and above all His
great mercy. True, that grace is a “free gift.” We do not deserve it.
God is not compelled to give it. Grace is mercy. But grace is not
irresistible.
Phil. 2: 12-13 tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and
trembling, “for it is God who works” in us, “both to will and to
work.” Works are not just witnesses certifying our calling. Works
will determine reward or punishment for each of us.3 Man co
operates with God’s grace; he is not saved by grace alone, nor
through faith alone.

How are we saved? Through Baptism and following the Lord and
being obedient to His commandments. The Church Fathers were
very literal and pragmatic about this. Not theories but tangible
action from God saves us.

I Here the Word “subjective” (for example, subjective judgments) is contrasted to the adjective “objective.” (An objective
judgment is undistorted by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.)
' never taught by anyone before the Protestant Reformation
3 Confession of l205itheus, also called the Acts of the Council of Jerusalem (AD. 1692), decree 13. In this decree the Council
also gives the typical Orthodox reply: “the faith which is in us, justifies through works.”

55
 Protestant statement
3. Our term “only” offends some
people. But Rom. 3:28 says “a man
is justified by faith, without works
ofthe Law.” Rom. 3:20 says the
same.
Works can not be a requirement for
salvation. Gal. 2:21 says
justification is God’s gift,
for if righteousness [could be
gained] through the Law,
Christ died for nothing.
By excluding works of the Law,
the Apostle means not only the
ceremonial or civil works, but also
the Ten Commandments. Since no
one in this mortal life is able to
keep these perfectly, the Apostle
discards justification through
works of the Law.
4. You say that our term “faith only” is
not in the Bible. But in effect Christ
does say this in Mk. 5:36 when He
says, “Only believe! [Greek monon
pisteve I”
5. But God gives salvation to us as a
“free gift” (Rom. 5:15-17 RSV,
3:24, 6:23 RSV). You don’t have to
work for a fiee gift.
4 The Orthodox Church, however, does not generally agree with Augustine on the subject of grace.
5 St. Nicholas Cabasilas, Qommgptagppm Divine ! ,iturgy 51
56
An Orthodox answer
3. Of course, there are two kinds of good works, not to be confused
with each other.
a. First, there are works produced by God through us (Phil. 2:12
13). These works are needed for our salvation. Jn. 3:21 mentions
these good deeds that have been “performed in God.”
b. Then, there are human-produced works (done without God’s
help), which do not produce one’s salvation. In Lk. 6:32-34 some
good works are done by the lost, too. Without being guided by
God’s grace, one is unable (of himself) to do any saving works
(“Without Me you can do nothing” [Jn. 15:25]). St. Paul says these
“works of the Law” can’t save (Rom. 3:9-20).
Blessed Augustine makes this same distinction; “works ofthe Law,”
which can notjustify anyone, are those which one believes to be his
own works, done without God’s help and gift. without faith in Jesus
Christ (L); Spiritu e_t littera 50[29]). In Philokglia 1:127, St. Mark
the Monk similarly says that when Christ “will reward every man
according to his works” (Mt. 16:27), salvation will depend on
whether his works are done with faith or without faith in
Himself. (Q11 lime mind—nkthatmfi ade
mummm 22)
Works contributing to salvation are those done in Christians (those
believing in Christ). Works that save are those achieved by Christ’s
power, with which our will co-operates and agrees (Qgpfessiog o_f
Mlle—us, decree 14).
Our Mysteries such as Holy Communion, by the way, are (unlike
the OT sacrifices) not human-produced works. (Protestants often
characterize “ceremonies” as “useless” for salvation.) No human
alive today has the power to transform wine and bread into Christ’s
body grid blood. It is God who produces this change; the priest only
prays.
4. This is said to the ruler of the synagogue who had just heard (in the
previous verse), “Your daughter died. Why trouble the Teacher
further?” The subject here is raising a girl from the dead, not
salvation. In his commentary on this verse, Blessed Theophylact the
Bulgarian writes that Christ says this to encourage a man who was
very discouraged.
5. If I am given a gift, for example on the day of my baptism, this does
not mean that I need never do anything to guard it; nor does it
mean that no one will ever be able to take it away from me.
 Protestant statement
6. But Eph. 2:8-9 says
By grace you have been
saved through faith, and this
is not of your own doing, it is
the gift of God, not because
of works, lest anyone might
boast.
(This is very frequently quoted.)
7. But what about the repentant thief
on the cross next to Christ’s Cross?
He was saved, according to Christ,
and this was without works. (This
is frequently claimed.)
8. But Tit. 3:5 says God the Savior
saved us not because of deeds
we did in righteousness.
9. But couldn’t James mean only to
weaken the false opinion of the
hypocrites who think faith means
simply knowing about the life of
Christ and furthermore boast of
faith without works? (Protestants
believe that if one’s faith is
genuine, he will do good works.)
10. By justification, Paul means the
one-time act (of God) of which a
person takes hold through faith
alone. By this he means the event
by which the Christian life is
begun; works are not involved in
this.
But this same word (justification)
to James means what happens in a
believer’s subsequent life (the
process by which he is sanctified);
works are involved in this. To
James, “deeds” mean the
believer’s works, the outward
evidence of a saved life.
6 Some Fathers of the Church call prayer a great work (see answer 21 [t]).
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-D
6. The works mentioned here are obviously human works (which can’t
save), works “of your own doing.” These are the only works of
which anyone could “boast”—the others are done with God’s
assistance. But I must welcome “grace” and I must “believe.”
Neither is forced on me (St. John Chrysostom, mil on Ep_h_. l).
The Pharisees were noted for their works (their rigorousness in
keeping the Law), yet this righteousness was inadequate for
salvation (Mt. 5:20) and faithless (their works were done without
faith in Jesus Christ [Jn. 7145-491). Note also that in some ways
their interpretation of the Law was a device to evade its obligations
(Mt. 1521-9, Mk. 7:1-13).
7. If there is time, works are needed. The criminal on the cross had no
time. I-Iowever, note that his witnessing was a public act (a good
work).
8. Yes. The verse says God “saved us not because of deeds u did” by
ourselves. (The deeds are God’s, according to Phil. 2:12-13). 11%
deeds at; Q required according to Jas. 2: 14-26, which says that
faith is mg enough to save us, and that works are also needed,
giving examples of persons saved by works. To sum up, Jas. 2:24
says, “A man is justified by works and mLt by faith only.”
9. No. St. James doesn’t say it that way. He says that faith is not
enough for salvation (2:24). Faith is made complete by good works
(2:22).
10. St. Paul does not take your position. He writes in Rom. 2:2-8 that
those persisting “in good wor ” will be given “eternal life” at the
Last Judgment. He does assign some role to works in justification
(salvation). It is impossible to persist in a one-time act. (My
“justification” [“sanctification”] begins at Baptism; it is a process
that I may abandon.)
In 1 Tim. 6:18-19 he similarly writes that those who “do good” and
are “rich in good works, willing to give” will take hold of salvation.
When asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Christ points
the asker to the keeping of the commandments (Mk. 10: 17-22). This
can not be understood as a “one-time act,” nor can Christ’s words
here: “come follow Me.”
57
 Protestant statement
11. But in these cases (Rom. 2:7,13)
the cases are hypothetical. Paul is
not teaching the possibility of
salvation by works but is, instead,
showing why all men without
exception are lost. He later writes
that no man has continued in doing
good, and no man is a doer ofthe
Law (see 3:9-20). The means of
justification for sinners, entirely
through faith in Christ, is set forth
in 3:21 to 8:39.
Rom. 7:18 says, “I can will what is
right but I can not do it” (RSV).
12. But we believe that for James,
“faith” means subscription to sound
theology (mere acceptance of
theological statements such as
“God is one”)——th_at faith is not
enough to save; whereas to Paul
faith means the believer’s loyal
relationship to Christ (trust in the
atoning work of Christ to the extent
of full commitment to Him)—th_at
faith is enough to save.
13. Good works do not obtain
forgiveness of sins, grace, or
justification. Good works obtain
other physical and spiritual rewards
in this life and in the next
(Augsburg Confession, article 4).
14. Do Orthodox believe in the Roman
Catholic doctrine of indulgences?
58
An Orthodox answer
11. lfyou look carefully (Rom. 3:20), you will see that it is only the
keeping of th_e QM (works of the Law) that he describes as an
impossibility. In 2:6-7 (which I have cited above), he does not use
the word “Law.” There’s a difference. God is not working in those
persons who rely entirely on self effort. He does work in Christians.
St. Paul nowhere says salvation is entirely through faith. When he
says, “I can will what is right but I can not do it” (Rom. 7:18 RSV),
he doesn’t refer to serious sins; he is speaking only about the fact
that believers continue to commit venial sins. This is the
interpretation of St. John Cassian (Conferences 23:14-15). All this is
apparent from the context of St. Paul's entire letter. In 6:6 he writes
our “old self” is now dead, put to death on the Cross with Christ,
enabling us to “no longer be enslaved to sin.” He says sin must not
be permitted to reign in us (6:12) who “are no longer under Law
[self effort] but under grace [co-operating with God]” (6:14). At the
Last Judgment, those saved will have done good (Mt. 25:31-46).
The Pastor of Herrnas (2: 12:3) writes in the 2nd century that God’s
commandments can be kept by rightly-believing Christians; see also
the homilies attributed to St. Macarius of Egypt (paraphrase by St.
Symeon Metaphrastis 29).
12. If St. James were criticizing persons who lack genuine faith and
who rely only on their acceptance of statements about God, he
would not declare works to be the lacking ingredient, as he does. By
your reasoning, he would prescribe faith in Christ, or loyalty to
Christ, which he does not do.
l3. That’s rm what St. James says. He says Abraham was “justified by
works” (2:21). St. James calls good works a cause of salvation, not
just a product.
Not by any stretch of the imagination can Jas. 2 be “explained” so
as to agree with traditional Protestant theology. Luther, more
realistic than today’s Protestants, realized that his “faith only”
doctrine just did not agree with what St. James wrote, so Luther
declared that the book of James is not a canonical part of the Bible
(NCE, “Bible [Canon]” p. 387). Today’s Protestants, though, do
accept the book of James as part of the Bible.
14. No. Indulgences have never been a part of Orthodox belief or
practice and are not taught by the Scriptures or the Fathers. We
admire Protestant zeal in abolishing false Roman Catholic doctrines
(such as indulgences and purgatory) but instead of accomplishing
this reform by inventing new, non-Biblical doctrines (such as “faith
only”) the Protestants should have adopted the beliefs of the early
Church, to which the Orthodox Church has never stopped adhering.
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-D

15 . Are you saying that the early 15. _Y_e_s. Christ and the Apostles plainly teach that reward and
Church believed in the necessity of punishment at the Judgment will be on the basis of works (Rev.
good works for salvation? 20:1 1-15), g teaching mat Qt; not hp made t_o agree with th_e“ aith
only” doctrine.

When asked, “What must I do to inherit etemal life?” (RSV) Christ

does not criticize the question by answering, “Nothing you do can
achieve that!” Instead, He points the asker to the keeping of the
commandments and the giving of alms to the poor (Mk. 10:17-22).

God has certain works He would like to perform through us. At the
final Judgment, Christ will ask us whether we “did” these works; it
is on this basis that He will judge us and divide the sheep from the
goats (Mt. 25:31-46). Note, He asks not whether we “ elieved”
(although this is needed) but whether we “5131” (that is, whether we
allowed God to act with us).

Rom. 2:5-8 says that on Judgment Day those who have persisted in
good work will be given eternal life.

The Old Testament also teaches forgiveness of sins through giving

of alms. Pr. 15:27 LXX is one place—“By almsgiving and faithful
dealings sins will be purged away.” Sir. 3:30 is another—“Water
will extinguish a blazing fire: so almsgiving will atone for sin.” This
is also taught in Tob. 12:9.

The necessity of good works for salvation was taught by the early
Church, the Apostolic Fathers,7 the Greek Fathers, and the Latin
Fathers.g St. John Chrysostom calls these good works “gifts of
grace” (Homily Q m 8).

7 Shepherd of Hermas 2:8; St. Clement (Corinthians 2:4-6); St. Polycarp (Letter 2); St. Barnabas (Letter 19)
8 St. John Chrysostom (figmjly Q1 Mt, 64:4); St. Diadochus (mi Spiritual Knowledge 20); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical
Lecture 15:25-26); St. Neilus ofAncyra (Advicet_0 Monks [Ill 79:1240]); St. Basil (Letter 295); St. Maximus the Confessor
(Texts 9_n_ Love 1:39)
9 St. Cyprian (Treatise 8[10]:2); St. Ambrose (Qe officiisministrorum 2:2:6-7); St. Valerian of Cimiez (Homily 2:6; 11:7), St.
Eucherius of Lyons (Qe cpntemptu mundi); St. Gregory the Great (Gospel Homily 29)

59
 Protestant statement
16. But don’t a few Church Fathers
say that justification is through
faith only?
60
An Orthodox answer
16. No. Let’s look at these patristic and other early Christian texts.
(Emphases are mine.) Some Latin writers claim that anversion has
nothing to do with our efforts but they also claim that our salvation
m depend in part on our subsequent works, which disagrees with
Protestant teaching on works in salvation.
a. St. Clement is sometimes mentioned. In Corinthians 1:32 he
merely writes, “We are justified not by our om works but by faith.”
Note also that he writes (1 :30) we are “justified by our works, and
not by our words.”
b. St. Ambrose (Letter 83[73]) writes,
Let no one glory, then in his works, since no one is justified
by his deeds, but one who is just has received a gift, being
justified by baptism. It is faith, therefore, which sets us
free... (E; 261468)
(By the way, “justified by Baptism” is not typical Protestant
doctrine.) But in De officiis mipistrogim 2:2:6-7 he says good
works done with faith gain for an upright man the gift of eternal
life.
c. Ambrosiaster writes that we are “justified gratis, by faith only,
neither working anything nor rendering payment in return” (Qp
Rom. 3 :24 [CSEL 81]). But elsewhere he writes,
God by His mercy has saved us through Christ. By His
grace, we, born again, abundantly receive the Holy Spirit,
so that relying on good works, with Him helping us in all
things, we might be thus able to attain the inheritance of the
kingdom of the heavens. (Q m 3:7 [CSEL 81])
He writes that in spite of our initial justification by God’s mercy,
our subsequent life, our works, will finally determine whether we
are saved or condemned. He says that the reformed sinner must live
by God’s law and not backslide lest grace be lost.
d. St. Macarius the Great (Spiritual Homily 37:9) is sometimes
cited. But all he writes is,
It is not hism work that saves a man, but He who
bestows on him the power,
citing Phil. 2: 13:
For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work
His purpose.
 Protestant statement
17. God makes stubborn people into
willing ones. In our conversion
God must do everything. Man does
nothing at all. Protestants say that
in our conversion, human reason
and will are powerless to co
operate with God, who must do
everything.
18. But Paul says,
God is at work in you both to
M and to MHis purpose
(Phil. 2:13),
and Christ says,
Without Me you can do
nothing. (Jn. 155)
God provides all the good will in
conversion. Our part is nothing.
‘0 George H. Tavard, Justification: ggEcumenical Study 2
H Of course, since God sometimes takes the first step, the reverse order is also mentioned in the Bible: “Return us 0 Lord to
You, and we shall return” (Lam. 5:21).
'2 St. Faustus of Riez (l_)_e Gratia_D_ei 2:2-3), St. John of Damascus (Orthodox Faith 2:30), Confession of Dositheus, decree 3
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-D
17. We don’t agree with the Roman Catholic and Protestant teaching
that the inborn corruption of man is so great that in conversion God
must always make the first move. Although in a fallen condition,
man can at least desire, seek, and accept God’s saving power. God‘s
help is needed for salvation, but man is capable of taking the first
step. Our position is the consensus of opinion among the Church
Fathers, and is taught, for example, by St. John Chrysostom
(Homily gt 2 Cg. 12:2), St. John Cassian (Conferences 13:11-13),
St. Faustus of Riez (m gratia D_ei) and St. Hilary of Poitiers, who
writes,
To remain in the faith is indeed God’s gift, but to begin has
its origin in ourselves. Wong; 118znun:20
[CSEL 2214861)“)
So far as I know, ours is the only position taken by any writer until
about the year AD. 400.
We say that sometimes God waits for a man to show good will
before He begins His part. Zech. 1:3 says, “Return to Me, says the
Lord of hosts, and I shall return to you,” and Jas. 4:8 says the
same.
Their position on this aspect of “justification” is one of the pieces of
baggage Protestants unfortunately took with them when they left the
Roman Catholic heresy.
Predestination means God’s pre-assigning of each person to either
be saved or lost. Orthodox say this is based only on God’s
foreknowledge (Rom. 8:29) that the one would make a right use of
his free will and the other a wrong;'2 this is the only explanation
proposed by anyone until the year AD. 400. Non-Orthodox with the
“severe” view on predestination believe we have no say in this
assignment, a view developed by Augustine, who was the first to
question free will.
If salvation depended entirely on God’s selection of the saved, those
not chosen could rightly complain that God is unjust and that they
were doomed by no fault of their own. Certainly “God...desires all
men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4 RSV). it is worth mentioning that
Luther, who took the “severe” position on predestination, translated
this verse “God wills that all be assisted.” Those before and after
him who teach his view on predestination (such as John Calvin)
have had to twist (if not mistranslate) this text.
18. God‘s role in our works is needed, as is His will, but nothing in
these verses (or any other Bible verse) teaches that God provides gll
the will and all the work. The Bible does u say our part is nothing.
The Jn. 15:5 quote at left refers to co-operation between God and
man. Man can forbid it. Love and obedience are our part.
61
 Protestant statement
19. Doesn’t this doctrine of synergy
(co-operation) ascribe too much to
man’s efforts and too little to
God’s?
20. But Jn. 6:44 says no one can come
to Christ unless the Father draws
him. Doesn’t John mean that God’s
role (God’s will) is all that is
needed in our conversion, and that
no man (by nature) wills
conversion?
21. When you say that when God
saves us and heals sin, our co
operation is involved, specifically
what type of works are these
(beyond repenting of, and
confessing the sin)?
‘3 Timothy Ware, Orthodox Church' Metropolitan Philaret, The Law ofCid 9
H St. Macarius (Spiritual Homin 15:30-31), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Homin 104 g W, St. Gregory the Great (Gospel Homin
36)
15 Some of the Bible verses quoted (28:21) show that prayer (like other works done with faith) is performed by God. 1 Kg. 2:9
LXX says the Lord is “giving prayer to him who prays.”
62
An Orthodox answer
19. No. According to this teaching, what God does is of far greater
importance than what man does. 13 We liken the human contribution
to the relationship in which Christ’s humanity co-operated with His
divinity—necessary but secondary.
20. That is not what St. John is saying, since later in his Gospel (12:32),
Christ speaks of drawing ii men to Himself. Of course God‘s role
is needed, as we see in your Bible quote at left, but obviously that is
not all that is needed, since not all persons are converted and saved.
Man can resist.
Lk. 14:23 says that God tells His servant to "compel" persons to
enter His kingdom. Looking at the consensus ofopinion among the
Church Fathers, we see that the meaning here (and one of the
meanings in the dictionary) is “bring great pressure on;”H they do
not interpret this verse to mean an irresistible invitation, or any
forcefiil constraint of man’s will.
2 i_ . Let’s ask the Church Fathers to make a list for us.
a. almsgiving (St. Cyprian, Treatise 8[10]:2 [he quotes Sir. 3:30])
b. forgiving wrongs done to E (St. Dorotheus of Gaza, Discourses
14 [he quotes Lk. 6:37]; St. Mark the Monk, Qn mp Spiritgal Law
29, Qp Those who Think M They m Made Righteous by Works
130)
c. keeping the commandments m ggneral (St. Clement, Corinthians
1:50; St. Justin, Dialogue with Tgpho 95; St. Valerian of Cimiez,
Homin 2:6, 1 1:7; homilies attributed to St. Macarius of Egypt 5:6,
44:5; St. Eucherius of Lyons, Di mm mdi; St. Gregory the
Great, Gospel Homin 8 [obedience and abstinence1)
d. suffering and mamrdom (Shepherd of Herrnas 3:9:28; St. Mark
the Monk, 139 [patiently enduring sufferings not of our
choice])
e. manual work (St. Barnabas, Letter 19)
f. prayer (St. John Climacus, Ladder 28:1,6;15 homilies attributed to
St. Macarius of Egypt [paraphrase by St. Symeon Metaphrastis 19])
g. refusal t_0 judge others (St. Pachomius, Insmictigns 1:44)
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4—D

22. I can not accept what you say
about works (including the
changed life [keeping the
commandments]) being
requirements for salvation, because
this would cause anxiety in a
believer as he sees the persistence
of sin in his own life.
22. The solution to this anxiety is to keep getting up each time 1 fall,
and with God’s help (prayer, fasting, receiving Confession and the
other Mysteries), to do better in the future.
For salvation, the Bible and the Church Fathers say faith, effort,
struggling, and works are required. Here we need to look back at
answer I l on what St. John Cassian writes about the persistence of
venial, not usually serious sins, in the believer’s life.

Eliminating works (as a
requirement for salvation) at least
consoles terrified consciences.
The Church says that a believer sins again and again, and that he
sometimes commits serious sins involuntarily, for example, some
that he does not know to be sins. All this can very well cause
anxiety. But the believer should be using the remedies God has
provided in the life of the Church (in Confession, sins are forgiven
that l have failed to mention due to forgetfulness or ignorance); he
should be seeing progress (or at least not be backsliding) and be
consoled by it. God is not finished with us yet. Confidence in God’s
work (and of course, His mercy) is needed. I’ll end this section as I
began it, by saying salvation is through faith plus works born of
grace plus God’s mercy.

As for the “terrified conscience,” no believer should have it unless

he consciously fails to get up from a fall. God has promised that the
remedies will be effective if We use them.

Epilogue:

A somewhat different answer could be given to the questions in this section. Practically all Eastern Fathers
(and many Western Fathersw) explain salvation (our becoming righteous) in part by saying that God
became man so that man can in some ways be deified; one of those most often quoted is St. Athanasius
(lncamation o_f the Word 54:3). Deifieation means a union with God‘s energies, not His essence (St.
Gregory Palamas in lihilpkalia 4378380390"); this is a personal and organic union, like a grafted plant,
so that the saints and God have one and the same energy so far as this is possible (St. Maximus the
Confessor9 in Ehilokalia 2:240, 4139?“). Man voluntarily conforms his will to God’s; man does not lose his
free will.1

This can explain how the works each man must perform for salvation are in reality performed by God.
(“God [is] the source of all holy works” [Niketas Stithatos in Bhilokalia 4:148].). As St. Dionysius the
Areopagite writes, our salvation can occur only by our deification (Epclesiastigl Hierarchy 1:3), which can
not be caused by man’s own power but is given to him by God in Baptism (ibid. 2:1). It is only by this
inexplainable, gradual operation of deification that we are able to observe the divine commandments Gm.)
and become fellow-workers with God (Celestial Hierarghies 3), who shows His activity in each of us as far
as possible (i_hii). Of course, we do not become exactly like Him but “as much as is attainable" become
similar to Him (ihjd) because, as St. Basil writes, “His energies come down to us, but His essence remains
beyond our reach” (Lettej; 234:1). It is within the above limitations that the Holy Fathers explain God’s
invitation to us to (through the Church) embark on the process of salvation and
become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused
by passions. (2 Pet. 1:4)

16 St. l-lippolytus (QB thelloly 'l‘ljepphany 8, Refptptjon $1le Heresigs 10:29), St. Cyprian ( Treatise 12:2:6), St. Ambrose (m
incarnatipnisdpmipjggc W 4:23), 81.. Hilary of Poitiers (ilengpjtate 914,38; 10:7), St. Gregory of Elvira (BLS
l:363,470), St. Paulinus of Nola [Letter 23:44 [“He said to all the men, ‘You are gods’ (Ps. 81[82]:6)”]), St. Peter Chrysologus
{Seams 67), St. Leo (gem 21 :3), St. Gregory the Great (flospnggmily 7)
17 also Timothy Ware, Orthodox Chprch ll
18 . .
ibid.
‘9 ibid.
63
Author’s other sources:
fl “Free Will and Predestination,” “Justification”
E_Pi “Synergism”
Justification by m, chapters 4 (by Robert B. Eno) and 5 (by William G. Rusch)
Joseph A. Burgess, ed., Building _Un_itv_
John Karrniris, A Synopsis o_f th_e ngmtii Etiqu o_fth_e m m Church “Grace”
Alister McGrath, ARCIC H @ Justification

64
4. Protestants—E. Water in the Eucharist
Protestant question
1. Like some churches, you add water
to the wine in the Holy
Communion. Is this symbolic
(other than to represent the water
that flowed from Christ’s side on
the Cross [Jn. 19:34])?
2. Was water used in the Eucharist in
the very early church?
3. But did Christ add water to the wine
at the Last Supper?
4. Why is hot water added to the
Communion chalice in the
Orthodox liturgy?
Is this (the addition of hot water)
symbolic?
Author’s other sources:
J. G. Davies, ed., A Dictionary QfLiturgy gm Worship “Mixed Chalice”
1 This was the custom in both ancient Greece (Robert Flaceliere, llain Lifi 1g Greece ltflig Time ngericles, p. 172) and ancient
Rome (Ugo Enrico Paoli, Rome, l_ts_ People, L_if§ gm Customs, p. 96).
An Orthodox answer
1. The explanation at left, which I find to be adequate, is found in
patristic writings (for example, St. Ambrose, l_)_e sacramentis 5:1),
as are others.
Luther rejected this practice of adding water to the chalice because
to him it symbolized the human participation with the pure work of
God. The practice is widespread but not universal in the Anglican
churches.
Qdiluted wine symbolizes God’s sending a sword on all nations
because of their transgressions, with the result being vomiting,
desolation, and madness (Jer. 32: 15-29 LXX).
2. Yes. St. Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) writes in Apology 1:65 that
in his time the Eucharist contained bread and a cup of wine mixed
with water. At about the same time, St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies
5:2:3) mentions the mixture of water and wine in the Eucharist. All
the earliest liturgies either include a direction for the adding of
water to the wine, or refer to it in their prayers.
3. Yes, the very early Liturgy of St. James, brother of the Lord, section
30, says that He did. The Jews usually added water to wine (see Pr.
9:2,5).l Drinking wine without adding water is frowned upon by the
closing Verse of 2 Maccabees; the note in the blew Oxford
Annotated Lb]; says this practice was “a mark of the drunkard or
spendthrift.”
4. Adding boiling water (Greek zeon) symbolizes the warmth of faith
that results from the Holy Spirit descending on the Church, which is
the body of Christ. This word for boiling is used in the New
Testament to describe the great warmth of those receiving the Holy
Spirit. “Be boiling with the Spirit, serve the Lord“ (Rom. 12:11). In
Acts 18:25 the same word is used; Apollos was “fervent [literallyz
boiling] in Spirit.”
The boiling water is supposed to bring the blood (wine) to about
body temperature, helping to remind the participants that they are
receiving Christ’s blood.
65
66
4. Protestants—F. Fasting
Statement
1. When Protestants practice fasting it
is for humbling of soul (Ps.
34[35]:13)—it is not a work that
earns surplus “merit”| as Roman
Catholics believe. It is not possible
to earn “merit” by doing more than
God requires. Do you agree?
2. Why do you fast on certain “fixed”
days?
(Protestants fast at times chosen for
personal reasons; when days for
fasting were appointed by
Protestants, these were not the
traditional fast periods of the
Catholics or Orthodox).
3. But what about the fast before
Easter—isn’t this a later invention?
4. Are there some foods you are
forbidden to eat at all times (all
days of the year)?
1 stored surplus spiritual credit regarded as earned by performance of righteous acts
An Orthodox answer
1. Yes. The Orthodox have always agreed with this. Fasting has
nothing to do with “merit.” When one fasts, benefits are for himself
and can not be banked as surplus in a pope’s account to be given to
others in the form of “indulgences.”
We do not agree with Catholics and Protestants when they say
fasting is something that God does not require. Nor can we agree
with Catholics when they consider fasting and the maintenance of
virginity to be generally “works of supererogation.” (They
mistakenly think that acts done beyond the strict demands of God
will earn transferable “merits.”)
2. The earliest Christians did have fixed days for fasting, Wednesday
and Friday of every week, prescribed in the Church order Didache 8
(from the late 1st or 2nd century). The Orthodox Church has
continued this practice although the others have not. Note, the
Didache is not the isolated opinion of one writer but the decision of
the early Church, which at an early date required fasting on fixed
days (Wednesdays, Fridays, and Easter Lent) by all (Apostolic
Canon 69).
In the Old Testament, a fixed day for fasting is prescribed, the Day
of Atonement on the 10th day of the seventh month (Lv. 1629,31;
2327,29). Acts 27:9 mentions this fixed day, saying “the fast had
already passed.”
3. No. St. lrenaeus, in his letter to Pope St. Victor I on the Pascha
controversy (written about AD. 195 and quoted in Eusebius’
Church Llistory 5:24:11-17) says that the custom of fasting before
Easter was of long standing; it “has not originated in our time, but
long before, in that of our ancestors.” This shows that the pre
Paschal fast was known in the early 2nd (if not in the lst) century.
4. No, generally all foods are permitted (1 Cor. 6:12), but the Orthodox
Church forbids eating the blood of animals. Acts 21:25 says
believers should abstain from “things offered to idols and from
blood, and fiom what is strangled.” The OT also forbids eating
blood (Lv. 7:16-17 [26-27], Dt. 12:23-27).
67
 Statement An Orthodox answer

5. Why do you fast? What is the
purpose of fasting? (This is
frequently asked, even though the
person fasting tries to fast secretly.)
5. Several answers can be given. Some of them involve building self
control and ridding body and soul of passions. Among the answers
are:
a. t_o_ _e obedient

Jesus fasted, as did St. Paul, who writes, “Become imitators of me,
as I also am of Christ” (I Cor. 11:1).

b. r-P_Q show repentance

Samuel told the people of Israel to repent, so they fasted (1 Kg.

[Sam] 7:6) and confessed. In 3(1) Kg. 20[21]:27-29 Ahab
repented, and showed it by fasting (and tearing his clothes and
wearing sackcloth); by humbling himself he avoided punishment
fiom God.

c. @ mourning

In Dan. 10:2-3 Daniel fasted when mourning. In Mt. 9:15 Christ

predicts that His followers will fast because of mourning (for Him).

d. tp receive pp answer t_o one’s ra e

In the Bible are several examples of fasting to seek help from God
(2 Chr. 2013-4, 1 Esd. 8:50).

With regard to the healing of a boy, Christ says His disciples failed
to cast out the unclean spirit because “This kind does not go out
/ \ A .1 - except by prayer and fasting” (Mt. 17:18-21). In 2 Kg. (Sam)
Heals Trig a L' 12:21-22 David fasted in an attempt to save his sick child’s life.
CPILBPTIG e.lt_ i_s gservjpe t Go Q .

The Prophetess Anna

did not depart from the Temple, serving with fasts and
petitions night and day. (Lk. 2:37)
St. Paul wrote of ministering to God (serving God) by fasts (2 Cor.
6:4-5; see the Greek because “fasts” is sometimes mistranslated
“hunger”).

f. t_o receive various rewards fro God

Christ promises rewards to those who fast secretly (Mt. 6: 16-18).

g. h i_s an indispensable weapon with which t_o_ fight temptation _@

t_§ devil.

In about AD. 110 St. Polycarp urges fasting for those praying to
avoid temptation (Letter 7). St. Ambrose writes about fasting:
“We can in no other way overcome the enticements
of evil” (Letter 63:15).2
I have heard persons say that after adoption of the Orthodox
practice of fasting, they were much better able to struggle against
thoughts of temptation.

2 also St. Isaac of Syria, Directions 9p Spiritual Training 30

68
 Statement
6. We can be Christians without
fasting.
7. But doesn’t the Bible consider
fasting to be voluntary (instead of a
matter of obligation)?
8. So What if we don’t fast exactly the
same as you do? Unlike you, the
earliest Church was tolerant of
varying fasting practices. Irenaeus
says3 that disagreement in fasting
does not destroy unity in faith.
9. Why do the canons of the Apostles
(Apostolic Canon 69) claim that
those who do not keep the fasts
(Wednesdays, Fridays, and the 40
days before Easter) have fallen
away from the faith?
10. Why do you fast before receiving
the Mysteries such as Unction and
Communion (nothing to eat or
drink from midnight until receiving
Communion the next morning)?
11. Why then, at the Last Supper, did
Christ give the Eucharist to His
Apostles after they had eaten (they
received Communion without
fasting)?
3 quoted in Eusebius, Church History 5:24:13
4 See St. Isaac of Syria, op. c_it. 30.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-F
6. Christ does not agree that your prayers are just as effective without
fasting—He explains that a certain kind of demon could be expelled
only if His disciples both prayed and fasted (Mt. 17:18-21).
7. Christ assumed that His future followers would fast. He said that
after He departed from the world, His disciples “will fast” (Mt.
9:15). He did not say “Maybe they will fast, if they feel like it.”
(Also, in Mt. 6: 16 He said, “When you fast...” not “If you fast”)
8. The problem is not that you fast differently from us. The problem is
that you don’t fast at all. See the context (verse 12)—in St. Irenaeus 7
time there were several different rules of fasting in use, all of which
were acceptable. St. Irenaeus does not say that n_ot fasting a_t a_ll was
one of the acceptable options.
9. The Christian life is a struggle against the temptations, and the
Church from the very beginning has considered fasting a necessary
aid in fighting temptation, as seen in the last part of answer 5 above.
Fasting, therefore, should always be understood as a thing
most necessary in our battle with the evil one. Only a man
who has lost his mind would put down his weapons, strip
himself naked of his armor and then jump into the line of
fire to do battle with the enemy. Such a one would be
committing suicide. A man who calls himself a Christian
and does not fast, is such a man. (written by Holy
Transfiguration Monastery in Orthodox Christian Witness
#199)4
St. Paul writes that his instructions on how to live (1 Th. 4: 1-2)
must not be disregarded because whoever disregards these
instructions disregards not a man but God (1 Th. 4:8). Not to fast is
to disregard the wisdom of the Church and the witness of the
Saints. Jesus fasted. (“Become imitators of me”) What else can
such a person be but fallen who does not follow “the true way?”
St. Patrick (see his canon 29), meeting with other bishops in a local
Church council, decreed that no one could be baptized without first
having kept the 40 days’ fast (before Pascha).
10. Fasting as a preparation for the Mysteries is found in the New
Testament. Acts 13:3 tells of fasting and praying before the
Ordination of two men. Note that the previous verse (in the Greek)
also mentions fasting “while performing the liturgy,” so the pre
Communion fast is a custom that dates back to the Church’s earliest
era, as is the pre-Baptismal fast (lgidache 7, St. Justin’s Apology
1:61, and Tertullian’s E baptismo 20).
11. They did not fast because Christ had not yet been taken away fi'om
them. Answering the question of why His disciples did not fast,
Christ said,
Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom
is with them? But the days will come, when the
bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will
fast. (Mt. 9:15)
69
 Statement
12. Why do even your children fast—
isn’t this bad for them?
13. But doesn’t Mt. 15:11 say that it is
not what goes into the mouth that
defiles a man, but what comes out
of the mouth? (This is frequently
claimed—almost always by
persons who do not want to fast.)
14. But doesn’t I Tim. 4:1-5 criticize
those who depart from the faith by
forbidding marriage and by
requiring abstinence from foods?
Also see Col. 2:16:
Therefore let no man pass
judgment on you in
questions of food or drink.
15. But doesn’t John Chrysostom say
that if you are unable to fast it is
not necessary to do so? He must
not have considered fasting a
requirement.
16. Why do you use the word
“fasting,” which I assume means
not eating at all, when what you
mean is you are eating some types
of foods but not others?
5 St. John Cassian (Conferences 3:21:13-18) and St. Gregory the Great (Pastoral Rule 3:19) remark on this Bible verse that abstinence
is worthy when other good things are added to it. Like what He told the Pharisees in Mt. 23:23, Christ is saying here, “Do the one
(fasting), and don’t neglect the other (the practice ofjustice, mercy, etc.).”
70
An Orthodox answer
12. When Daniel and the three youths, captives in Babylon, ate a diet of
only vegetables and water (in order to avoid eating food not
permitted by Jewish dietary laws), the youths appeared stronger and
more pleasing to the eye than did all the youths who ate the king’s
food and drank his wine (Dan. 1:1-16).
13. I know several persons who are in trouble now because they are
unable or unwilling to control what comes out of their mouths, and I
have yet to see one of these persons control what goes into his
mouth. Not only do they refuse to fast, they do everything possible
to prevent others from fasting.
Fasting is an aid to changing the way we act (for example, fasting
humbles us—Ps. 34[35]:13). Fasting is not the desired result but a
means of achieving it. Mt. 15:115 (the verse you mention at left)
warns us to examine ourselves to determine whether our fasting is
achieving the result of controlling what we say and do (and implies
that fasting does not automatically achieve this—@ m Christ i_s
required). This comment was made to criticize the Pharisees (see
the context—Mt. 15: 1-20) who with few exceptions refused to
believe in Jesus Christ (Jn. 7:48). Although the Pharisees were
careful to fast (Mt. 9: 14), they did not obtain good results from the
fasting because they rejected Christ.
No Orthodox says that the non-fasting foods are evil. We give up
something good for something better, something earthly for
something heavenly.
14. St. Paul is criticizing not the pious traditions here, but heretical ones
and others; see the context in C01. 2. Verse 8 criticizes the “tradition
of men” that is “not according to Christ.” St. Paul writes elsewhere
that he ministers to God by fasts (2 Cor. 6:4-5 [see the Greek]).
The 1 Tim. verses you mention refer to the Gnostic teachers, who
renounced marriage and abstained from certain foods. St. John
Chrysostom says that 1 Tim. 4 refers to Manichaeans, Encratites, and
Marcionites. (See his opening statements in Homin Q l Ti_m. 12.)
15. St. John Chrysostom means if one is physically unable (for
example, due to an illness), he may be excused from fasting
(Concerning flip Statues 20:1). This is the Orthodox practice
(Apostolic Canon 69). He does not say that if you lack willpower
you can just forget it.
16. In Webster’s dictionary, fasting has two meanings—abstinence
from food, but also abstinence from some foods.
There are times when we eat nothing at all. This type of fasting
(eating and drinking nothing at all, day and night) is mentioned in
the Bible (Est. 4:16).
But there is also abstinence from certain foods; this is the type of
fasting we usually do. (For example, Dan. 10:3 says Daniel ate no
meat, wine, or “pleasant bread” for three weeks.)
 Statement
17. Why are your fasts relaxed on
Saturdays (except Holy Saturday),
Sundays, and holidays?
Author’s other sources:
ERE “Fasting”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-F
l7. Strict fasting is not appropriate on those days. Like Judith (.Idt. 8:6),
who didn‘t fast on Saturdays (Sabbaths) and on feast days (religious
holidays), we relax the strictness of fasting when these days fall
during fast periods. Since the Resurrection, all Sundays are holidays
since they are weekly celebrations of the most important holiday of
all (Pascha).
Strict fasting on the Lord’s Day and Saturday was not permitted in
the early Church, except on the day before Easter (Apostolic Canon
66[64]).
We do not keep a strict fast on Sundays or Paschal week, because
they are “icons” of the heavenly kingdom where there will no longer
be any need to fast.
71
4. Protestants—G. More on the Mysteries (the Sacraments) and Salvation
Protestant statement
1. Receiving the sacraments (such as
Baptism) does not save anyone.
2. But we believe that being “born
again” means only being converted
to Christ and changing one’s ways.
(Very often these persons will be
able to recall the specific day of
conversion.)
3. Have you been “born again?”
4. Did Christ really require Baptism
for salvation?
5. Did Christ require receiving Holy
Communion for someone to be
saved?
An Orthodox answer
1. The Bible definitely disagrees with you, and so did the early Church.
St. Peter writes that “Baptism now saves us” (1 Pet. 3:21), and also
says (in his sermon in Acts 2:38) that Baptism is “for the
forgiveness of sins.” Tit. 3:4-5 says God “saved us through the
washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” In the
mid-2nd century, St. Justin Martyr calls Baptism rebirth and regards
it as forgiveness of past sin (Apology 1:61).
Of course, no one believes that Baptism by itself guarantees
salvation—faith and repentance (a sincere intention to change one’s
life) are required—but we believe in “baptismal regeneration,”
which means, as St. Basil writes,
we are saved. . .because we were reborn through the grace
given in our baptism. (@ Spiritu Sanctg 10:26)
, 2. Christ says that one must be “born again” to be saved, and
immediately afterwards, when asked how it is possible for someone
to be bom a second time, He replies that the new birth He talks
about is Baptism—a birth “of water and of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:5).
To Christ, being “born again” means something beyond what
Protestants mean when they ask, “Have you been born again?”
Christ requires that someone participate in the Mysteries
(sacraments) such as Baptism.
3. A simple answer is “Yes—‘ of water and of the Spirit,’” adding “Jn.
3:5.”
4. Yes. He says, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk.
16: 16), and
unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God. (Jn. 3:5)
5. Yes. He says we must eat His body and drink His blood, otherwise
we have no life in us (Jn. 6:53), and that
he who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life
and I will raise him up on the last day. (Jn. 6:54)
73
 Protestant statement
6. We believe that justification is not a
continuous, gradual process of
infusing grace through the
sacraments. Justification is not a
process worked in man, but a
single and complete act by God
without stages or degrees.
(However, sanctification is a
process by which man grows in all
the gifts of grace.’) Grace reaches
man through a promise, and we
take hold of that promise by faith
only (not through sacraments).
There are degrees of faith by which
we take hold of this promise, but
justification is always the same.
The Greek verb “to justify”
(dikaioo) means only “to acquit [in
a law court],” not “to make
righteous.” Man does not become
righteous, he is only declared
righteous as a gift, through faith
only, because of Christ’s sacrifice
on the cross.
7. You say that salvation is not instant,
that it is a process. But Rom. 10:9
says,
If you confess with your
mouth the Lord Jesus, and
believe in your heart that God
raised him from the dead, you
will be saved.
Doesn’t this mean all you need to
do is profess Christ and believe?
8. Your people make it sound like
salvation isn’t easy.
1 But Protestants do say that no one may continue in the ways of sin, and that genuine contrition and improvement are required.
2 The Greek word used here, tethlimmenos, can also mean “beset by afflictions” (not only “narrow”).
74
An Orthodox answer
6. The verb you describe at left has as its first meaning (Liddell and
Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon) “to set right.” When a man is
justified, he is set on the right path.
The Greek noun “justification” in the Bible (dikaiosyne) can
translate as “righteousness,” its first meaning in Liddell and Scott.
Some Protestants think this word means only “justification” or
“acquittal in a law court,” even though in some New Testament
contexts such as Mt. 5:20 it must mean “righteousness” instead:
Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, by no means will you enter the kingdom of
heaven.
In this context there are degrees. The other meaning of the Greek
word (“acquittal”) can’t be substituted here, because with acquittal, a
person is either acquitted or he is not—there are no degrees as there
are in the kind of “righteousness” seen in this quote.
When asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Christ points
the asker to the keeping of the commandments (Mk. 10:17-22),
obviously a process.
On Judgment Day, those who have persisted in good work will be
given eternal life (Rom. 2:5-9). This can only be a process.
. He does not say, “Confess with your mouth and believe and that’s all
you need.” You must not only “say” and “believe” but also “do.”
Christ says in Mt. 7:21,
Not everyone who says to Me “Lord, Lord” will enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father
who is in heaven.
Works are also needed—see the Faith and Works section. If we are
saved by our words and faith only, the Bible would not say we will
be judged (given reward or punishment) on the basis of what we
have done, as it does in Rom. 215-9, and Rev. 20:13.
If salvation were not a process, St. Paul would never hav_e @, “Our
salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (Rom. 13:11).
Note—even St. Paul did not claim to have completed this process.
Why do you think you have?
. That’s because it really isn‘t easy. Christ says,
The gate is narrow and the way is difficuth that leads to
life, and those who find it are few. (Mt. 7:14)
He does not say, “It is easy,just believe and that’s all you need." If it
were easy, Christ (when asked whether few would be saved) wppld
ppt have said, “Strive to enter” into salvation (Lk. 13:23-24). Nor
would St. Peter have advised Us to “strive (be busy) to make your
calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10).
In 1 Pet. 4:18 (a quote from Pr. 11:31 LXX) we read,
If the righteous man is saved with toil [Greek mis],
where will the ungodly and sinner appear? (See mli_s in
Liddell and Scott’s Greek~English Lexicpn.)
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G

9. Are you saved? Have you been 9. One possible answer is, “I am being saved (see Acts 2:47). I have
saved? made the decision to follow Christ.”

Another good answer is, “Yes, and (as Christ prescribed in answer 8
above) struggling.”

Yet another answer would be, “I have ‘entered on the path of

salvation’” (St. Mark the Monk, Letter t_o Nicolas file Solitary).

10. Your people, when asked, “Are 10. St. Paul said, “X gu are saved”3——he never said “I am saved” or
you saved,” usually answer, “I am anything similar. On the contrary, while still in this life, St. Paul
being saved,” or “I will be saved.” said, “I press on towards” (literally: “I am pursuing”) the goal of
These are Biblical answers, but the attaining the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3:11-12). He specifically
Bible also says, “You are saved” says he had not yet attained it.
(Eph. 2:5,8) and “Your faith has
saVed you” (Lk. 7:50). Why don’t
many of you use the past or present
tense? (You don’t say, “I am
saved.” Why not?)

11. I am not disagreeing with this
modesty. I am criticizing the way
some of your people lack
certainty. They say a person never
knows for certain whether he is to
be saved.
But the Bible says we can know
m; it says,
I write these things to you
who believe in the name of
the Son of God, in order that
you may m that you have
eternal life, (1 Jn. 5:13)
and it says, “We m that we
have passed out of death into life”
(1 Jn. 3:14). It doesn’t say “we
hope;” it says, “we know.”
11. The only person who can be absolutely certain of his salvation is
one who knows (who has been told by God directly) that he has been
saved, predestined. But God has not told us who is saved and who is
condemned, lest the saved become lazy. God knows both, although
He predetermines neither.
On this subject, Peter E. Gillquist in his foreword to Am 1 Saved? by
Theodore Bobosh, points out two extremes to avoid. First the
“never-sure.” (Such a position is the opposite of faith: “it is no faith
at all”) Second is the “cock-sure,” since, of course, one can fall
away and lose salvation. He adds that the Orthodox understanding of
salvation means “we are confident4 in our salvation, but not cocky”
(we don’t presume upon God’s promise, as in the case of one who
begins to backslide into questionable practices).
One commits the same sins over and over again. Where is the
absolute certainty of salvation? (One must confidently keep taking
the remedy of repentance.)

My question is this-—are you sure God keeps His promises. (He has said that “he who endures to the
you’re going to heaven after you end will be saved” [Mk. 13:13]). I am confident because I know that
die? i_f I persevere to the end of my life, mg I will be saved.

St. Gregory the Great says on this subject,

Let us tremble, then, at the blessings we have received,
and not despair of those who have not yet obtained them.
For we know what we are today; but we know not what
we may become after a little while. (Morals 25:21)

3 See the context. He is speaking of Christ’s resurrection (which, according to Rom. 4:25 was for our salvation, just as His death
was) and since this a past event (Christ had finished that part of our salvation) and since we are participants in His resurrection,
the Bible can speak of this aspect of our salvation in the present or past tense.
4 St. John Chrysostom uses this word (Greek parrhesia) when he writes that we should approach the tribunal of God’s Judgment
seat with confidence (closing sentence of Homily on m. 13); he says that since we do not on our own merits possess this
confidence, it must be characterized by extreme humility or will deserve condemnation (Q th_e Incomprgbensible Natgre arm
5:49-50). St. Gregory of Nyssa says that at the Judgment seat of Christ, those who have shown mercy will shine with confidence
(Beatitudes 5).

75
 Protestant statement
12. Does your church even use the
word “certainty?”
13. Unlike your people, we say, “Once
saved, always saved.” (This is
called “assurance of salvation”)
Christ says no one will seize His
sheep from out of His hand (Jn.
10:27-29).
76
An Orthodox answer
12. Yes, in the Mysteries.
By receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit in Chrismation, the
candidate is “made secure,” in other words, given assurance (prayer
book of St. Serapion of Thmuis [16]).
In Confession, one’s sins are forgiven. This is a guarantee
(according to what Christ says about Confession), not a “maybe.”
13. Quoting the Bible passage at left, St. John Chrysostom says,
As long as we are in the hand of God, “no one is able to
pluck us out” (Jn. 10:28), for that hand is strong; but when
we fall away from that hand and that help, then we are lost,
then we are exposed, ready to be snatched away. (Homily
whiflfi)
So long as I love and obey God, no one can take me from Him.
We, however, by the light of Christ, have truly and
confidently maintained that whoever is lost is lost by his
own fault; yet he could have been saved through grace if
he had cooperated with it; and, on the other hand, whoever
through grace attains, by means of obedient service, to
perfection, might nevertheless through his own fault, his
own negligence, fall and be lost.... We exclude, however,
all [personal] pride, [since] we declare all we received
from the hand of the Lord to be a gift, not a reward. (St.
Faustus of Riez, Epistolagd chidum [PL 53:682])
The Bible says it i_s possible for someone, after he has believed, to
fall away from faith and lose his salvation. Christ says,
Unless anyone remains in Me, he is cast outside as a branch
and dries up [withers]. (Jn. 15:6)
Heb. 3: 12 says it is possible to depart from God, as does 2 Pet.
2:20-21. Certame it should be obvious that “once saved, always
saved” is not a scriptural belief.
In Phil. 3: 10-14, St. Paul did not consider himself to have
completed his race but kept pressing on in order “that somehow I
may arrive at the resurrection of the dead.” He did not consider
himself (while still living) to have the type of secure reservation
made for him in heaven that you claim, otherwise he would not
have said “that somehow I may arrive at the resurrection of the
dead.”
 Protestant statement
14. Orthodox believers do not refer to
themselves (or other living persons)
as saved. Yet what they say at a
funeral seems to be a different
story. Does someone have to die to
receive certainty?
Doesn’t 1 Jn. 5:12 say, “He who has
the Son has 1ife”—meaning we
have salvation in the here and now
(that is, in this life)?
15 . Have you accepted Christ as your
personal savior?
16. Some of your people have
ignorantly given a magical
interpretation to the sacraments,
even though the official teaching of
your Church says otherwise.
5 One can fall away, even after years of struggle, so we never declare anyone to be saved or a Saint (with a capital “S”) until afler
his death, when we have seen that he has persevered until the end.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G
14. The Orthodox Church’s members have embarked on the ship (the
Orthodox Church) which Christ has promised will reach its
destination (heaven)—He says, “The gates of hades will not prevail
against it” (Mt. 16:18). If I don’t jump off the ship, I will arrive with
it.5 This is the “certainty” we have.
You have confused “certainty,” which a living person can have
(when he boards the ship on the day of his baptism and chrismation
and each time he participates in the other Mysteries such as
Confession to a priest), with “completing one’s course,” which is not
possible for someone still living.
Perilous times (serious temptations) may lie ahead on your voyage.
We know the ship to be unsinkable, so yes, we have the certainty
(here and now) that we’ll arrive, provided we don’t jump off the ship
through apostasy or other serious sins of which we refuse to repent.
St. Paul writes, “Our salvation is nearer now than when we first
believed” (Rom. 13:11). It is nearer; it is not yet here.
15. To “make a decision for Christ”—that is, to publicly state that the
Lord Jesus Christ is one’s personal savior—is only the beginning of
the process of salvation. We can not agree with Protestants who say
that after this public declaration, nothing more is required for
salvation.
Here we return to the Faith and Works matter. When asked, “What
must I do to inherit eternal life?” Christ does not reply that faith (and
public declarations) are adequate for salvation—He specifically says
that keeping the commandments (changing one’s life, becoming
obedient to God) is required (Mk. 10: 17-19).
For salvation, Christ requires us (through God’s power) to struggle
and to begin changing our lives. This obedience to God, rather than
just the verbal “commitment to Christ” is the means Christ has
prescribed for salvation. Mt. 7:21 says we will be judged not so
much on what we publicly profess but rather on whether we do
God’s will:
Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord” will enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father
who is in heaven.
16. Some people burn themselves by fire too, yet you have not
abolished it. Our Church has done its best to caution people that
mere formalistic reception of the Mysteries not only does not save,
it is dangerous. God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29), consuming
the unworthy. If one receives Communion unworthily, without first
having examined himself and judged himself, he can receive
feebleness, illness, and even death according to 1 Cor. 11:27-30.
The Church, by requiring Confession before Mysteries such as
Communion and Unction, is emphasizing that one must have faith
and change his life, that it is not magic.
77
 Protestant statement
17. But this Communion of the
unworthy can not refer to believers
coming to Holy Communion
without proper self-examination
since Rom. 8:1 says there is no
condemnation for those who are in
Christ.
18. I can see why you require
Confession before Holy
Communion, but why do you
require Confession before the other
sacraments?
l9. Fasting and confession don’t make
one “worthy” to receive the
sacraments. No matter what we do,
we are still unworthy.
20. Why do you immerse those you
baptize? The amount of water is of
little importance. (Most non
Orthodox, including Catholics of
the Latin rite and many Protestants,
baptize by only pouring or
sprinkling water.)
21. When one is baptized, why do you
require that his sponsors (the
godparents) be Orthodox? (This is
frequently asked.)
Why aren’t parents allowed to be
sponsors of their own children?
22. Did the earliest Christians (in the
first two centuries) have
godparents?
6 This is not an uncommon occurrence in eras (such as the Church’s first) in which thousands of believers are martyred.
78
An Orthodox answer
17. You are mistaken. When St. Paul says “many of you are feeble and
ill” and so forth (1 Cor. 11:30), it is the believers (“called saints”) he
addresses (see the beginning of his letter—1 Cor. 1:2).
Just because a Christian will avoid condemnation (doom), this does
not mean he is completely immune fiom all the ill effects of his
negligence (neglect of Confession).
18. This is in the Bible. Mt. 315-6 says that “confessing their sins they
were baptized.” It was done before baptism in the very early Church
(Tertullian, De Baptismg 20).
But if one can not receive Holy Communion, neither is be eligible
for the other Sacraments. All Sacraments are but dimensions of the
Eucharist.
19. See the post-Communion prayers—“the unworthy” are made
“worthy” by Holy Communion. St. Paul tells us to confess our sins
before Communion (1.Cor. 11:27-32).
20. There are many reasons.
a. The Bible’s (Greek) word for baptize means to dip or immerse.
b. When Christ was baptized, He was immersed. (Mk. 1:9-10 says
He came up out of the water.)
0. Acts 8:38-39 shows that the Apostles also baptized by
immersion. (“They both went down into the water. . .they came up
out of the water.” [RSV])
d. Rom. 6:4 says Baptism is a sort of burial. You can’t be buried in
a cup of water.
e. Our Church has always baptized by triple immersion, and so did
the Roman Catholics in the early centuries—see St. Leo the Great
(Letter 16:4), Blessed Jerome (Dialogue Against th_e Luciferians 8),
and Apostolic Canon 50, to cite but a few.
21. The purpose of having a sponsor is to help instruct the newly
baptized person in the faith and to guarantee that a small child will
stay in the Church if his parents die.6 The Church does not think it
wise to permit persons (sponsors) to become guarantors of a faith
they themselves do not hold.
22. Yes. The sponsor in Baptism is mentioned by Tertullian (P_e
baptismo 18) between AD. 198 and 203, and by St. Dionysius the
Areopagite (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2:2:5, 2:2:7).
 Protestant statement
23. Why do you baptize infants? Mk.
16:16 says one who “believes and
is baptized will be saved.” Doesn’t
this mean one should believe first
and be baptized afterwards? Infants
can not have faith in Christ. (Some
Protestants permit only adults to be
baptized.)
7 Until the 13th century the Roman Catholics also gave Communion to small children.
8 On the eve of the Reformation, infant Confirmation was still the normal practice among Roman Catholics.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G
23. Faith as a prerequisite for Baptism belongs to adults. Jesus says to
adults, not to infants, “believe.”
All are subject to judgment, according to Job. 14:3 LXX, and the
next two verses say,
For who will be pure from defilement? Not even one, even
if his life should be but a single day on the earth.
How will the infant be saved unless incorporated into Christ?
Baptism is the sacrament of incorporation; therefore children must
be baptized. One never knows how long a child will live. He may
not live to become an adult. According to 1 Cor. 10:1-4, when
Moses led God’s people through the Red Sea, this was a preview of
Baptism—notice it says “all were baptized,” which included infants.
St. Paul does not say, “The infants were left behind in Egypt with the
hope that when they get old enough to make their own choice they’d
flee slavery.”
The Bible does not prohibit infant baptism, and it does not give an
example of any Christian child being baptized as an adult. The
Church in the 2nd century baptized infants—see St. lrenaeus
(A gainst Heresie52:22:4), who included infants and children in
those “reborn to God (renascuntur in Deum),” which refers to
Baptism (compare 3:17: 1). God sometimes even calls someone
while he is still in his mother’s womb, consecrating him to be a
prophet (Jer. 1:5).
The Orthodox do not say that God can be known only by those who
can understand (mentally comprehend) Him. In a passage defending
baptism of children (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7:3:11), St. Dionysius
the Areopagite writes,
“Not all divine things can be comprehended by our
intelligence.” (transl. Thomas L. Campbell)
We (unlike Roman Catholics) give Holy Communion7 and
Chrismation8 to baptized infants. My question in return is: What
about those who are mentally very retarded? Are they forever denied
God’s grace?
Baptism is needed by each person, including infants, to obtain (in
addition to the eradication of sins) beneficial effects such as:
a. liberation from the fear of death (St. Hippolytus, Q _t_h_e_ Holy
Theophany 8; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 3:11)
b. becoming a son of God by adoption (St. Firmilian, in St.
Cyprian’s Letter 74[75]:l4; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 9p_. g 11:9; St.
Gregory of Elvira, m 1:446)
c. the gift of illumination (prayers of Orthodox Baptism service)
d. God dwelling in our heart (St. Aphrahat, Demonstration 6: 14; St.
Hesychius the Priest, Q11 Watchfulness and Holiness 104)
e. a break in the continuity of (but not a complete disappearance of)
evil (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechism 35 [NPNF series 2,
5:503]. He adds, “the man is in a measure freed from his congenital
tendency to evil”)
79
 Protestant statement
24. But Jn. 3:5 says
Unless a man be born of
water and the Spirit, he can
not enter the kingdom of
God.
Doesn’t this (“man”) refer only to
baptism of adults?
25. Why do you confess sins to a
priest? Only God can forgive sins.
26. But we consider these words to
mean only that He gave them the
same authority He bestowed on
them in Mt. 16:19 and 18:18:
whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.
(RSV)
(“Bind” and “loose” can mean to
decide what’s forbidden and what’s
permitted.) This is the authority
Christ gives in Jn. 20:23 when
speaking about the power to
“forgive” sins. He does not mean
absolution.
We do not read that ecclesiastical
penalties were assigned to penitents
in the time of the Apostles, not even
to those who had committed sins
publicly.
27. Did the earliest Church (before
about AD. 200) consider the clergy
to have the power to absolve?
9 In the early Church, those confessing certain sins were penalized by being deprived of Communion until they were near death.
’0 Calvin (Institutes 3:4:7) claims that since St. Nectarius abolished it in the Church of Constantinople (late 4th century), it must
not have been considered by the early Church to be a command of God. We do not consider the isolated decision of one Patriarch
8O
An Orthodox answer
24. No, the Greek original does not say “a man,” it says “anyone”
(Greek ti_s). Here Christ is plainly speaking about “human beings,”
without regard to age.
25. Only God can forgive sins, but Christ has decided to do this by
giving this authority to the Apostles and their successors—the
bishops, and the presbyters (priests) they ordain. He told the
Apostles,
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, and if you
retain the sins of any, they are retained. (Jn. 20:23)
Among other things, Confession is to the Church, not only to Christ.
Our sins offend the fellowship of believers, not only God. Onerous
and persistent sins lead to our excommunication from the Church.
Return to the fold requires repentance. The Church is represented by
the priest. Therefore, confession is made to him for readmission.
26. Christ does not use the words “bind” and “loose” in Jn. 20:23 (as
He does on other occasions). He uses completely different words, so
we must assume He means just what He says—the authority to
forgive sins. It is especially surprising to me that those who call
themselves “Bible fundamentalists” will not accept these words of
Christ as being literally intended.
Mt. 9:6-8 says that “men” (plural) have received authority from God
to forgive sins (n_ot o_nly Christ). St. Paul considered himself to have
this authority (1 Cor. 5: 1-5)—he excommunicated a certain sinner
(placed him outside the Church, thereby depriving him of health) in
hope that the sinner’s soul would be saved at the time of the final
judgment.9 St. Paul says he forgives someone “in the person of
Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10).
27. Yes. Tertullian urges those who have sinned to confess their sins to
the priest in order to receive a public absolution. In E poenitentia
10 (about AD. 200) he asks the reluctant sinner, “Is it better to be
damned in secret than absolved in public? (ANF 3:664)”
Clement of Alexandria, in Who i_s th_e Rich Man Being Saved? 42,
writes that St. John the Apostle “restored to the Church” a repentant
robber.
Confession to, and absolution by, a priest has been the practice in the
East and West since the very beginning (early Christian writer
Sozomen, Church Histogy 7:16).10
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G

28. Is it absolutely necessary to
confess a serious sin to a priest? As
long as I’m really sorry, can’t I
confess directly to God? (This is
frequently asked by Orthodox,
probably by those with something
embarrassing to confess.)
I have read that there is no evidence
before the 4th or 5th century that
the Church required confession to a
priest or bishop.
28. By Tertullian’s wording in A. D. 200 (in my answer 27 above) it
certainly sounds like the Church in his day required that serious sins
be confessed to men, not only to God.
Christ gave the authority to forgive sins only to the Apostles and
their successors; He told them,
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, and if you
retain the sins of any they are retained. (Jn. 20:23)
Jas. 5:16 says, “Confess [your] transgressions to one another.” The
Old Testament also warns us not to “hide” our sins but to confess
them and forsake them (Pr. 28:13, Josh. 7:19).

The priest has heard everything before. I’m sure he will not be
shocked.

Note: Although in normal circumstances one must confess to a priest

for absolution, confession to God alone without a priest is permitted
when absolutely no priest is available, for example in times of
persecution.

I would not attempt to determine which sins are serious, but those
persons (on the opposite end of the embarrassment spectrum) who
think they waste the priest’s time by reporting what they imagine to
be trivial sins might look at St. Paul’s lengthy list of sins in Gal.
5:19-22 that prohibit inheritance of God’s kingdom (“enmities,
strifes, jealousies, anger, contentions, divisions, heresies [sects],
envies,” to name fewer than half), a list that he does not consider
complete (he ends it with “and things like these”).

29. But it is impossible to enumerate
all one’s sins. Ps. 18(19):12 says,
But who can discern his
transgressions? Cleanse me
from my hidden faults.
29. The penitent must confess only what he is able to remember. The
prayer of absolution asks God to forgive what the penitent has
confessed and what he has failed to confess, whether through
ignorance or through forgetfulness.
Here it may be noted that irrelevant matter is to be kept out of
Confession, since in the words of Patriarch Metrophanes Kritopoulos
the priest needs to know only the “type” of sins of the penitent
in order to apply the suitable medicine to the ill person—
as a physician also does not heal some illness without
formerly comprehending the nature of the illness—but not
the pet-isons with whom the sin was done, the manner, and
place.

to be infallible, especially since confession to a priest had been the practice in his Church since the beginning, was accepted again
by his successors, and was always practiced by the other Churches (such as Rome) without interruption.
Just a few years before St. Nectarius’ action, an Ecumenical Council decided (canon 2 of Laodicea) that those who have sinned
are to be received again to Communion (if they confess and are converted from their faults) after a time of penance appointed to
them, making it obvious that the Church as a whole considered Confession to a priest a necessity (at least for some sins), not an
0 tion.
‘ I. E., Mesoloras, Symvolike, vol. 1, p. 331 (si_c)

81
 Protestant statement
30. We have private confession and we
permit but do not require a person
to specify the sins he has done.
Some conceal sins because of
shame. (The Lutheran theologians
of Tiibingen wrote this to Patriarch
Jeremiah II of Constantinople.)
31. Why do you call Chrismation
(Confirmation) a sacrament? Did
the Apostles consider it a
sacrament?
32. But was Confirmation instituted by
Christ?
33. Was Chrismation (reception of the
Holy Spirit) performed in the very
early Church (1st and 2nd
centuries)?
34. Why was this practice changed to
just anointing the believer with oil
(with chrism)?
This is not in the Bible, is it?
35. Presbyterians and Lutherans (both
baptize infants) confirm a believer
after some years have passed, so he
can formally affirm his
understanding of (and believing
acceptance of) the baptism that had
been done for him in infancy.
82
An Orthodox answer
30. Sometimes a little embarrassment is good for people in the long
run—shame (when confronting the priest) compels one to avoid
repeating those sins he is ashamed to re-confess. Pr. 26:1 1 LXX
says, concerning one
who returns in his wickedness to his own sin. There is a
shame that brings sin, and there is a shame that is glory
and grace.
There are two kinds or shame, a good and a bad.
God requires that we do certain things that are difficult but it is only
because He knows human nature very well and knows what will
cure us of our ills, humble us, and rout out our evil thoughts. It does
not seem right to you to ask someone to enumerate all his sins. But
we say it is best to accept those remedies Christ has prescribed; we
should not presume to decide the usefulness of the remedies. Pr.
14:12 LXX warns,
There is a road [a way] that segms tp Eright to men, but
the end of it comes to the bottom of hell. (emphasis mine)
31. Yes. The Holy Spirit was received when the Apostles placed their
hands on a believer after he had been baptized (Acts 8: 14-18, 19:4
6).
32. Yes. In Lk. 24:49, just before He was taken up to heaven, Christ
promised the disciples that He would send them the Holy Spirit,
when they would be “clothed with power from on high.”
33. Yes. See St. Theophilus of Antioch, E Athlycus 1:12 (about AD.
180)
34. This change was probably made by the Apostles because they could
not be present in the various communities where baptisms (and the
confirmations, which immediately followed) were taking place. The
patristic evidence is nearly unanimous in calling this sacrament
(with or without the laying on of hands) an anointing with chrism.
The synod of bishops prepares the oil (to which other ingredients are
added) and blesses it for use by the priests who later perform the
chrismations.
The NT does mention reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit through
being anointed with chrism. In 1 Jn. 2:20 we read,
You have [the] anointing from the Holy One and you know
all things.
35 . Neither the Bible, nor the rest of the Church’s Tradition, says that
Chrismation is for the purpose of a person making a declaration that
he realizes or accepts the meaning of a baptism done for him in
infancy years earlier. On the contrary, the Bible says the purpose is
to convey the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8: 17-18, 1915-6).
 Protestant statement
36. Why do your priests anoint the
sick with oil when they offer
prayers for healing?
37. But was this instituted by Christ?
38. But it is the “prayer of fait ” (Jas.
5:15) which causes the healing, not
the oil.
39. The Bible says that all Christians
are priests (1 Pet. 2:9). Why then
do you call your pastors “priests?”
40. Did the earliest Christians
sometimes call presbyters
“priests?”
12 Greek presvyteros, another name for “priest” in the Orthodox Church
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G
36. The sick are anointed in the Mystery of Unction because the Church
has always done this. The Bible says,
Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders12 of the
Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil
in the name of the Lord. (Jas. 5: 14 RSV)
The person receiving Unction must first have confessed to a priest.
37. Yes. Christ “called to Himself the Twelve and began to send them
forth” (Mk. 6:7), and
they went forth and preached that men should repent. And
they expelled many demons and anointed with oil many
that were sick and healed them. (Mk. 6:12-13)
38. In Baptism too, faith and prayer are needed, water by itself being of
no effect, yet you use water in your baptisms. If the oil were of no
use at all, the Bible would not instruct the presbyters to use it (Jas.
5:14).
39. We also teach the priesthood of all believers, in that a_ll may pray
directly to God and receive his grace through prayer. The official
title of an Orthodox priest is the New Testament word presgtgrgs,
which means “elder” in Greek.
But Christ gave His Apostles authority (to perform certain functions)
that He did not give to all Christian believers. In Jn. 20:22-23 He
gave only the Apostles authority to forgive sins. He worded this in a
way that can not possibly be understood to mean that He allows all
Christian believers to perform this function. Before they died, the
Apostles set aside certain (not all) men (Acts 14:23) to perform this
duty. These are the bishops and presbyters.
Yes, St. Peter calls the Christians “a royal priesthood, a holy nation”
(1 Pet. 2:9 RSV). But in Ex. 19:6 God called the Jews exactly the
same thing, yet this did not prevent God from calling the OT
ministers “priests” (Dt. 21 :5, 17:12). If our NT presbyters are
sometimes called “priests” it is to remember this older name and to
cause people to realize that if those who were set aside to offer the
OT sacrifices could be called “priests,” then the same name can be
given to those who tend our sacrificial table (Heb. 13: 10) on which
Christ offers Himself.
40. Yes. They were called “presbyters.” But they were also called
“priests,” for example in St. Clement’s Corinthians 1:40 (written
about AD. 97) and the work M Letters Concerning Virginity 1:13
(probably 2nd century, and believed by some to be by St. Clement).
83
 Protestant statement
41 . Why do you call your presbyters
“father?” Christ says,
Call no man your father on
earth, for one is your Father,
who is in heaven. (Mt. 23:9)
42. Why do you consider Ordination to
be a sacrament? Do you consider it
to convey God’s grace?
(Nearly all Protestants have a
regular ministry, and require for it a
regular call by the church’s lawful
authority, usually with admission by
prayer and the laying on of hands,
but this ordination is for edification
and solemnity, and they do not
consider it to have a sacramental or
indelible effect.)
43 . Why do you not permit women to
be ordained deacons, priests, and
bishops? Why is it that practically
no Orthodox are interested in
changing this situation?
’3 A woman may baptize if no clergy or laymen are present or obtainable.
84
An Orthodox answer
41. Christ couldn’t have meant it literally. He refers to male parents as
“fathers” (Mt. 15:4), as does St. Paul (Eph. 6:4, Col. 3:21), who
also uses this term to designate his ancestors. St. Paul gives the title
“father” to himself—in 1 Cor. 4:15 he writes,
For if you have countless instructors in Christ, yet you do
not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ
Jesus through the Gospel.
St. Paul also addresses the Galatians as his children in Christ (Gal.
4:19). There’s nothing wrong with calling someone one’s “spiritual
father.”
When Christ told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and the
rich man addressed Abraham as “Father Abraham,” Abraham did
not reply, “Don’t you know that only God the Father is to be called
father?” Instead, he answered, “Son, remember...” (Lk. 16:24-25).
Look at the context of Christ’s statement “Call no man your father”
(the verses before and after it [Mt. 23: 1-12])—Christ is teaching
His followers to be humble and not to desire honored treatment or
desire to be publicly addressed by exalted titles, as did the scribes
and Pharisees.
42. Yes, and so does St. Paul. He mentions St. Timothy’s ordination in
2 Tim. 1:6—
I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you
through the laying on of my hands.
Also see 1 Tim. 4: 14.
When Christ ordained the Apostles (Jn. 20:22-23) He breathed on
them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” and then He authorized
them to forgive sins (perform the Mysteries). Only ordained men
could perform these.
43. Women can not be deacons, priests or bishops because the Bible
prevents it (as does all the rest of the Church’s Tradition). As 1 Cor.
14:34-35 says,
women should keep silence in the churches. For they are
not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, even as
the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let
them ask their own husbands at home. For it shameful for a
woman to speak in church.
Women are not allowed to teach religion to adult men or to have
authority over men.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 1
permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men;
she is to keep silent. (1 Tim. 2:11-12 RSV)
If women may not speak in the church or teach, then they can’t
preach sermons.
Christ ordained men but no women to administer the Mysteries (to
forgive sins).13
 Protestant statement ,
44. But Christ was only going along
with the social customs of the day.
ST NINa
QQUHL TO THE aPQSTLQS
45. But in 1 Cor. 14:34 when Paul says
women are not permitted to Speak
in church, he means they are not
permitted to babble or chatter. (A
female Protestant minister claims
this in a book.)
46. Why do you call Marriage one of
the sacraments? Does it really have
to do with salvation?
47. But marriage as a sacrament was
not instituted by Christ.
M This is not entirely true; they may administer Holy Communion from the reserved sacrament, if there are no clergy or laymen
available.
'5 Women are permitted to teach unbelievers.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G
44. Christ and His disciples ate with unwashed hands (Mk. 7:1-5, Lk.
1 1:38) and He ate with tax collectors and sinners (Mt. 9: 10-1 1);
these actions were against social customs of the day.
If He had wanted to ordain women, concern about society’s anger
would not have stopped Him. He knew society was going to kill Him
anyway.
Christianity is not a product of society, so it is not subject to social
change. We don’t change Orthodoxy to make it conform to the
social patterns of the day. Rom. 12:2 says, “Do not be conformed to
this age...”
' You ask why we never speak of “equal rights” in the Church. Just
because each of the sexes has different functions in the Church, does
not imply one is superior and the other inferior. Both are needed.
Both have dignified (but different) roles. St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 12
that the Church is a body made up of many members and that the
Spirit does not give everyone the same gifts. He goes on to say that
all parts of the body are important and necessary, even though their
filnctions are different (verses 21-22). Different function does not
mean inferiority. If all had the same function (eye, car, and so forth),
how could the body function? (verses 17-19)
Women may not administer the Mysteries. ‘4 But many of them have
been given what some consider to be more famous roles. One (she
who gave childbirth to God) is exalted above all the saints and
angelic hierarchies. Through another a whole nation (the country of
Georgia) was converted to Orthodox Christianity. (She is called
“Equal to the Apostles”——apost1e being the top position in the
growth of the Church.15 Through her prayers incurable illnesses were
healed, demonstrating that a woman was given great power by God.)
Another, St. Kasiani, was a hymnographer.
45. The word St. Paul uses here is laleo in Greek, which in this context
means to speak. The word can also mean to chatter or babble, but if
that were the only meaning intended, he would not have directed
women to “keep silence” and to ask their husbands at home if they
wish to inquire about anything.
46. St. Paul in Eph. 5:32 calls Marriage a “Mystery” (or “sacrament”—
the Greek word is the same), and says it refers to Christ and the
Church. God became man to save the Church and Marriage is one of
the ways this is accomplished.
Many sacrifices are required in the married life. Marriage is a
sacrament because in it we receive help from God to do some of the
things required for our salvation. Marriage is not only a legal
agreement between two people; it is also a Mystery in which God is
involved.
47. It was instituted by God, who “united” husband and wife (Mt.
19:6). We know this to be a sacrament (Eph. 5 :32). Both passages
quote Gen. 2:24.
85
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

48. Why don’t you allow an Orthodox
to marry a non-Christian? (Roman
Catholics may ask this too, since
they now permit an unconverted
Jew to marry a Roman Catholic [in
the Catholic Church]).
48. Eph. 5:32 says that Marriage is a Mystery having to do with Christ
and the Church.
How do you bless the marriage union of one who is part of the body
of Christ to one who is part of the body of (fallen) Adam? St. Paul,
after forbidding this type of match, asks a very important question—
what agreement would these two “mismated” persons have (2 Cor.
6:14-18)? Dietary disagreement alone would pose a big problem in
such a marriage. Marriage between an Orthodox and a non-Orthodox
is forbidden by the 6th Ecumenical Council (Quinisext canon 72).

In the OT God forbade His people to marry anyone not a member of

the faith (Dt. 7:3).

49. But in the NT some Christians had 49. These were marriages contracted by two unbelievers, one of whom
unbelievers as spouses. later converted to Christianity. We of course permit and encourage
converts to keep an unbelieving spouse (6th Ecumenical Council
[Quinisext canon 72], 1 Cor. 7:13-15).

50. Like Anglicans and Roman
Catholics, do you consider the
spouses themselves the ministers of
the marriage, the priest being only
the church’s witness?
50. No. In the Orthodox Church the priest is the minister of the grace
bestowed in Marriage, as he is also the minister of the other
Mysteries16 such as the Eucharist.

51. Is intentional childlessness
(through mutual consent) permitted
in marriage? (This is very common
today—among members of all
religions).
51. You would need to ask an Orthodox priest or bishop. Intentional
childlessness is normally not permitted. God says, “Increase and
multiply” (Gen. 1:28).

52. The word “sacrament” (of Latin 52. That is not the only meaning given to the word “mystery” in the
origin and used in the west) is not NT. It is also used in a sacramental sense. In 1 Cor. 4:1 St. Paul
in the Bible. The Orthodox term calls himself one of the “stewards (administrators) of the Mysteries
“Mysteries” is in the Bible, but not of God.” In Eph. 5:32 he calls Marriage a “Mystery.”
in connection with church
ceremonies (as you use the term).
In the Bible, “mystery” means
something previously hidden from
the knowledge of men but revealed
in the age of the Gospel.

53. Have you received “baptism in the 53. Neither the Bible nor the rest of the Tradition speaks of two
(Holy) Spirit?” (Most Pentecostals baptisms (one of water and [later, after Chrismation] one in the Holy
in America believe that speaking in Spirit).
tongues is always initial evidence
of “baptism in the Spirit.” But
charismatics generally do not
consider tongues to be the initial
evidence of Spirit baptism, often
viewing it as one of several
possible gifts given to Spirit
baptized believers.)

’6 In time of urgent necessity, a baptism may be performed by an Orthodox layman or woman when no priest or bishop is
available.

86
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-G

54. Why are your people extremely
skeptical about glossolalia
(speaking in tongues), even when it
appears among other Orthodox?
You say things such as “It is highly
unlikely that all these persons
(meaning especially the non
Orthodox) are having a genuine
experience of the Holy Spirit.”
54. The Orthodox have several concerns.
a. St. Paul considers tongues to be the least of spiritual gifts, not the
most important (1 Cor. 12:28). Even if he had gone around asking
Christians whether they had received “baptism in the Spirit,” he
certainly would n_ot_ have intended this question to mean “Have you
spoken in tongues?” which is what many Pentecostals are asking.
b. Of course all Orthodox say that shouting, uncoordinated praying
aloud, falling, and other acrobatics are not proper in church services,
not even (most Orthodox would say) in “prayer meetings.”l7

Some charismatics claim that Ps. 46(47):l tells us to “shout” to God

in praise, but this word, both the Hebrew and the Greek, is usually
translated not as “shout” but as “make a joyful noise” when it
appears elsewhere, for example Ps. 94(5):],2 and 99(100):1 (KJV,
RSV, and Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton’s LXX). The first meaning of
the Greek word in Liddell and Scott is “to raise the war cry;” another
meaning is “a cry of pain.”

0. St. Paul says that if there is no one present to interpret, a person

should “be silent in church” rather than speak in tongues (1 Cor.
14:28). This certainly i_s not the procedure in some of your churches.
Glossolalia commonly goes on whether or not there is someone
present to interpret.

(1. Some charismatics point out that even those outside the Church
can receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46).
But this was a sign that Cornelius and his household should be
joined to the Church by Baptism. If these persons who experience
glossolalia today are having an experience of the Holy Spirit, then
why do they nearly always continue to believe the same errors that
they had believed before the experience, and sometimes become
even more confirmed than before in their erroneous beliefs? The
Catholic who has this experience remains Catholic. The Protestants
all keep their various wrong beliefs (each one disagreeing with the
others).lg The Holy Spirit we know “will guide you into all truth”
(Jn. 16:13), not confirm persons in their errors.

55. Does your church have only seven
sacraments like the Roman
Catholics? (These are Baptism,
Chrismation, Eucharist [Holy
Communion], Priesthood
[Ordination], Repentance
[Confession], Marriage, and
Unction.)
I have read that there are others.
55. Some consider others (besides those listed at left) to be Mysteries,
for example: the anointing of an emperor at his coronation, the
taking of monastic vows, the things done for the reposed,I9 prayer,20
and the blessing of water. Everything the Church does is “mystical,”
that is, a visible sign that conceals and expresses an invisible truth or
grace.
St. Gregory of Tours considers the fire that appeared to Moses in the
burning bush (Ex. 3:2-4), and the fire seen coming from the head of
St. Martin of Tours, to contain “a mystical sacrament” (Glory of th_e
Confessors 38[39]).

17 The Old and New Testaments give many examples of prostrations and bows from the waist. If someone desires acrobatics, let
him try these instead.
'8 But it has been observed that Orthodox who approve of speaking in tongues adopt non-Orthodox practices such as altar calls in
which adults publicly reaffirm their baptismal vows (Logos 5:172 [the article’s author admits that this practice is “unorthodox”]).
19 St. Dionysius the Areopagite (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7:2 [title]) calls the rite performed over the deceased “Mystery over
those who fell asleep in holiness.” (transl. Thomas L. Campbell)
20 St. Macarius the Great (CE Prayer 1 [PG 34:853]) says that for those deemed worthy, prayer has the effect of“participation in
the Mystical energy.”

87
 Author’s other sources:
ERE “Sacraments”

88
4. Protestants—H. Prayers for the Deceased
Some Anglicans will find that this section does not apply to them.
Protestant statement
1. Why do you pray for the dead?
After a person has died, it is too
late to offer prayers for him.
Doesn’t Lk. 16:26 say that there is
a great Chasm between the 1051 and
the saved that call 1101196 crossed?
2. Are these prayers prescribed in the
Bible?
3. But are explicit prayers for the dead
found in the Bible?
1 See footnotes 3 and 4 in “Saints,” the next section of this chapter.
2 In the earliest years of the Church, this was part of the Septuagint Bible, the version used by Christ and the New Testament
when quoting the OT.
An Orthodox answer
1. The Orthodox Church does not think that prayers will help all the
deceased. We never offer public prayers for some categories of
dead persons (such as atheists or members of non-Christian
religions). Blessed Augustine (E civitate Del 21 :24) says the
Church in this life prays for the departed but not for departed
unbelievers or for those who die guilty of serious sin. The Apostolic
Constitutions (8:43) say that a person will never help the impious
dead, even if he were to give all the goods in the world to the poor.
In the 3rd century, St. Cyprian forbade the Eucharist to be offered
for the repose of a certain sinner who broke an ecclesiastical law
and died impenitent (Letter 65:2).
Just because someone has died and is eventually going to heaven
(after the Last Judgment)1 does not mean that he has no need for my
prayers. He may have committed a serious sin through ignorance
(not knowing it to be a sin). It has been forgiven in Confession, but
I assume that here there is a strong possibility that he had not
brought forth “fruits worthy of repentance.”
The Acts of the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1692 (decree 18)
say that priests can offer prayers and the Eucharist for those dead
who have repented of all their mortal sins while still alive but have
neglected to bring forth “fruits worthy of repentance,” which are
called for in Mt. 3:8 and Lk. 3:8. (Acts 26:20 also says men should
“repent and turn to God and perform deeds worthy of repentance”)
2. Yes. Praying for the dead is a duty imposed by the Bible. We are
told,
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers,
intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, (1
Tim 2: 1)
that is to say, for both the living and the dead, because to the Lord
there is no distinction—“to Him all are living” (Lk. 20:38).
3. Yes. We read that it is good “to pray for the dead. . .that they might
be delivered from sin.” (2 Macc. 12:42-45).2
89
 Protestant statement
4. Were prayers offered for the dead in
the very early Church (1st or 2nd
century)?
5. But Christians do not have to fear
the Judgment seat of Christ.
If they have believed in Christ,
they are immune from
condemnation (Rom. 8:1)
6. Why are the words “Memory
eternal” sung? (Literally, “May
his/her remembrance be
everlasting), I often wondered
this.)
(This and some of the remaining
questions deal with the memorial
service.)
7. But if the departed has conducted
his life properly, and confessed his
sins just before dying, why does he
need the prayers of the living?
3 J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 2:1 (in the 1973 edition) “Epistle of St. Polycarp,” page 496-97
4 When we wish to offer forgiveness to a living person and be reconciled with him, we traditionally ask his forgiveness. This is
even found in the funeral customs of some Orthodox nations. Among the Bulgarians, all relatives kiss the right hand of the
deceased, saying, “Forgive me” @RL “Death and Disposal of the Dead,” p. 426).
90
An Orthodox answer
4. Yes, they certainly were. The Liturgy of St. James (generally
believed by scholars to have been largely formed prior to AD. 200)
offers a prayer that God will “give rest there in the land of the
living” to the deceased righteous “who are of the true faith” (36).
Tertullian in about AD. 204 mentions Christian offerings for the
departed (De corona militis 3). He describes it as a long-standing
custom and not something newly introduced.
The epitaph (composed by himself) of St. Abercius, Bishop of
Hierapolis in Phry ia (died about AD. 175) asks Christian passers
by to pray for him. Also from the 2nd century, other inscriptions on
Christian tombs (notably in the Roman Catacombs) ask for prayers
for the departed.
5. Christians are not automatically acquitted of all charges. Christians
(as well as unbelievers) will stand before the Judgment seat of
Christ (Rom. 14:10, 2 Cor. 5:10) to give account for things such as
having passed judgment on others and for having despised others
(Rom. 14:10). On Judgment Day people will even have to “give
account for every idle word they utter” (Mt. 12:36). Since judgment
is to be that rigorous, our prayers go up to God for Christians who
have departed this life.
6. This is a eulogy and is from the Bible (Ps. 111 [112]:5-7).
The good man is he who pities and lends; he will conduct
his affairs with justice. He will not be moved forever; the
righteous will be in everlasting remembrance. He will not
fear an evil report: his heart is ready to trust in the Lord.
If he conducted his life with justice, if he has given alms and has
repented of his sins, then he has nothing to fear where he is now.
7. The deceased person may be off the hook, but (with regard to his
deeds in life), am 1? He has hurt me, without always explicitly
asking my forgiveness. I’m still holding a grudge. What do I do
now? The Church’s answer is: “Try now to forgive him, because,
although he may not be in a perilous place or confronted by a harsh
accuser; you someday will be, if you harbor grudges against
someone.” At a burial service or memorial service, a survivor
should ask himself, “I am asking God to forgive him, but have I
forgiven this departed person? I am a hypocrite if I ask God to
forgive him when I myself haven’t really forgiven him.”4 Prayers
“for the departed” are sometimes said for the benefit of the living.
Near the beginning of the burial service (for laymen), the deacon
says, “Have mercy upon E O God [emphasis mine].” If we, the
living, benefit from these prayers, the dead person will be joyful
when he sees the changes in our lives, because, in part, m are his
memorial—a permanent memorial that never crumbles, if we
persevere until the end of our lives.
 Protestant statement
8. How do you know the dead are
aware of our efforts to assist them?
Is this in the Bible?
9. Why are there so many memorial
services (3-day, 9-day, 40-day,
one-year)? Doesn’t God hear the
first time? (Someone asked me this
at a dinner party.)
Also asked: Why does the
Orthodox Church in general (not
only in prayers for the dead) use
repetition (for example, “Lord have
mercy” 12 times)? Doesn’t Mt. 6:7
forbid “vain repetition?”
(The asker may also be concerned
about the fact that repetition of
prayers causes long services.)
10. Why are boiled grains of wheat
(kolyva) distributed in the Church
on the day memorial-service
prayers are chanted 40 days after
one’s death and one year after
death? Is this symbolic?
11. Why is the Eucharist offered not
only for the living but also for the
dead? Is this in the Bible?
12. Why are almsgiving and other
good works done for the deceased?
13. Do Orthodox believe as the Roman
Catholics that the souls of the
departed (being in their
intermediate state) can be helped
by someone granting
“indulgences”?
5 Many pagans in ancient times repeated a mantra (a mystical formula spoken or sung as part of a ritual), as do modern pagans, to
communicate with their “gods.” The length of a mantra can be anything from a single syllable (for example, “om”) to an entire
hymn. The words or sounds are usually meaningless to all but the initiated.
6 George R. Berry, Greek-EnglishliT 1,,exicon (in back of his InterlinearGreek-English M)
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-H
8. Yes. The Church has always believed that the souls of all the
departed are conscious. See the parable of Lazarus and the rich man
(Lk. 16:19-31), and note the martyrs in heaven, who are very aware
of the impunity of their persecutors on earth—the martyrs even
complain to God about the delay in justice (Rev. 619-10).
9. In the original Greek, Ml. 6:7 reads, “And in praying do not utter
empty phrases, as the heathens.”S It does not say anything about
repetition but “talking to no purpose” or “babble.”6 Christ used
repetition in prayer; Mt. 26:44 says that He “prayed for the third
time, using the same words.”
Yes, God hears the first time, but do we? Prayers are not always
directed only to God. Sometimes in church services we are
“speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual odes”
(Eph. 5: 19). Since we (the persons addressed) do not always pay the
best of attention, repetition is needed, especially since the prayers
(even those for the dead) are often for our benefit.
The Apostolic Constitutions (8:41-42) give the prayers said for the
deceased, prescribing prayers for them on the third day after death,
on the ninth and fortieth days, and on the anniversary. This work is
from the earliest years of the Church.
Tertullian in about AD. 204 mentions Christian offerings for the
departed on their anniversaries “as birthday honors” (De corona
militjs 3).
10. Yes. It symbolizes the future resurrection, reminding us that, as
Christ says, “Unless a grain of wheat falling into the earth dies, it
remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit” (Jn. 12:24). St. Paul
writes concerning the resurrection, “What you sow does not come to
life unless it dies” (1 Cor. 15:36 RSV).
11. Yes. In 2 Mace. 12:42-45 (which mentions prayers for the dead)
Judas Maccabeus sent money to Jerusalem to make an offering for
sin. Judas was able to reconcile the dead with God by offering the
blood of beasts, says St. Jacob of Serugh, and today the Church
absolves the dead not by perishable sacrifices but in the blood of
Him who is immortal (Q11 t_h_e Commemoration thh_e Reposed 165
185).
12. The Apostolic Constitutions 8:42 recommend that part of the
possessions of the deceased be distributed to the poor in his
“memory.”
13. No. The Orthodox Church has never believed in indulgences. We
commend Protestants for repudiating this false Catholic teaching.
But completely dropping all prayers for the dead was not the right
way to go about this reform.
91
92
4. Protestants—I. Saints
Protestant statement
1. Why do you ask the prayers of the
Saints? Jesus Christ is the only
mediator between God and man (1
Tim. 2:5).
2. But why do you ask for the prayers
of dead people?
3. But in 4(2) Kg. 2:9, Elijah (just
before he was taken up to heaven)
said,
Ask what shall I do for you
before I am taken up from
you.
This implies that he would not be
able to help them after he had gone
from this world.
1 The Bible always identifies this as “mediath of a new covenant (RSV)” (Heb. 9:15, 12:24) or some similar phrase such as
“who gave Himself as a ransom for all (RSV)” (in the verse quoted in statement 1).
2 But a living believer’s prayers can still be effective, as were many of St. John Maximovitch’s (of Shanghai and San Francisco);
those who asked his prayers often received what they needed.
An Orthodox answer
1. To the left is a blatant example of taking a Bible verse out of context
and distorting its meaning.
Between God and man there is only gne mediator (one who
intervenes between two disagreeing parties to reconcile them), but
1% a_t 11g verses m i_t—there are many intercessors (persons who
make requests for us):
First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers,
intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men. (1
Tim. 2:1)
It is important to distinguish between “mediator in salvation” and
“mediator in prayer.” Christ is the only mediator of salvation,1 but
not the only mediator in prayer.
Just because Christ is the only mediator in salvation does not mean
we do not need the prayers of other Christians. Jas. 5:16 says,
Pray for one another that you may be healed. The effective
petition of a righteous man has great power.
2. According to the Bible, the martyrs and other departed Saints are not
dead but alive in God (4 Macc. 16:25). To God, all the Saints are
still alive, even the dead (Lk. 20:3 8).
1 Pet. 3: 12 (quoting from Ps. 33[34]: IS) says that God listens to the
prayers of the righteous. Whose prayers would you ask—the
prayers of a living believer,2 whose heart you can not read for
certain, or the prayers of a departed believer (such as a martyr,
whose faith is known to all by his testimony)?
3. The Prophet Elijah is still alive today jg body. He was settling his
affairs before leaving on a journey. He may have been asking his
student, “Can I give you any goods that you need?" or, “Do you
have any unanswered questions about what I have taught you?”
None of this means (or even implies) that a Saint can do nothing
after his decease.
93
 Protestant statement
4. But are there explicit examples in
the Bible of departed Saints
offering prayers for us?
5. How do you know that the deceased
Saints can hear prayers?
6. But do the deceased saints hear the
living? Do the deceased saints care
about us and about earthly affairs?
Doesn’t the Bible say, “For You
are our Father, though Abraham
does not know us and Israel does
not look upon us” (Is. 63:16)?
94
An Orthodox answer
4. Yes, there certainly are. In 2 Macc. l5:l4 the Prophet Jeremiah after
his death “prays much for the people” of Israel. In the worship
conducted in heaven, the departed elders offer to Christ “the prayers
of the saints” (Rev. 5:8)—notice the wording here; the departed
elders offer not “their own prayers” but “the prayers of the saints.”
“Saints” means the Christian believers, both living and departed.
These “elders” are deceased Saints (and not angels) because,
“elders” in the Bible refers to men (1 Tim. 5:17, Tit. 1:5), not
angels. In all commentaries on Rev. 4:4 I know of written by
Church Fathers or other early Christian writers (St. Victorinus,
Caesarius of Arles [L 3512422], St. Andrew of Caesarea [Pg
1062253]), these elders are interpreted as deceased humans who
have pleased the Lord.
5. Christ tells the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Abraham was
able to hear the requests of the rich man despite the vast, impassable
chasm that separated the two.
6. Since, as we see in Rev. 5:8, the departed Saints offer “the prayers of
the saints,” that is, of the living believers as well, these prayers of
the living must reach the departed Saints in some way.
In Rev. 629-10 the deceased martyrs are aware of what is happening
on earth (the impunity of their murderers) and they pray to God
asking how much longer it will be until He avenges their blood on
the earth.
If departed Prophets and other departed Saints did not care about us
or about earthly affairs, Jeremiah would not offer constant prayers
for the people and the holy city (2 Mace. 15:14), nor would he give
Judas a golden sword from God with which to strike down the
enemy army ( 15:15~ 16). The LXX uses the past tense afler the
comma in the verse you quote, so it does not apply to the present
willingness or ability of the Saints in the next life to hear us and
help us.
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-1

7. How do we even know that the
deceased Saints are saved and in
heaven?
We know that the deceased martyrs
and other Saints gave an obvious
testimony to Christ (during their
lives) but that is all we know about
them for certain. We don’t know
what happened to them in the next
life_ We don’t even know if they
are saved.
7. Although we believe it is best to let Christ judge each deceased
person, this statement deserves a good answer.
We know that the martyrs and other Saints are saved and will be in
heaven because it is very plainly stated in the Bible.3
Christ says, “Whoever loses his life on My account and the
Gospel’s will save it” (Mk. 8:35). In Rev. 6:9, at the heavenly4
worship are
the souls of those who had been killed on account of the
word of God and on account of the witness they held.
Notice it does not say “the souls of some of those who had been
martyred.”

This does not apply only to martyrs. According to 4 Mace. 16:25,

not only do the martyrs “live to God” but also “Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob and all the patriarchs.” Christ says that Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob will be in heaven (Mt. 8:11); He says the repentant
criminal on the cross was that day to enter paradise (Lk. 23:43) and
that Abraham (in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man [Lk.
16:19-31]) is already there. The heavenly Queen at the right hand of
God (Ps. 44[45]:9) is the Theotokos (the woman who gave
childbirth to God), a specific person. (She can’t be a symbol of the
Church as a whole because otherwise there’s no explanation for
those other women in her court [verses 9, 14-15].)

8. When you pray directly to Christ,
why do you mention the names of
the Saints, saying
Lord Jesus Christ, through
the prayers of Saint [names],
have mercy on us?
Isn’t it enough to mention only
Christ’s name?
8. This tradition is also from the Bible. Azariah (Abednego) in the fiery
furnace prayed,
Do not withdraw Your mercy from us, through (Greek _di_as)
Abraham Your beloved, and through (dia) Isaac Your
servant, and Israel Your Saint. (Song of 3 Y. 11)
In Gen. 26:24 God says,
I am the God of Abraham your father; fear not, for I am
with you and will bless you and will multiply your
descendants for your father Abraham’s sake.
Notice what He says in the last five words.

3 The Orthodox say that following the judgment that takes place at death (Sir. 11:26), one’s soul goes to either the temporary place
ofsuffering called “hades” (as did the rich man‘s in Lk. 16:23), or to a place (“Abraham’s bosom”) in which the soul is
“comforted” or “consoled” (Lk. 16: 22-25 [“pamdisc” in Lk. 23:43]). Only following the Final Judgment, when souls and bodies
are reunited, will souls in hades be transferred to hell (hades is a temporary residence because it will give up its dead [Rev. 20: 13
14]) and those in paradise will go into heaven (St. Ambrose [Letter 46(7 l )1, St. lrenaeus [Aggm’st Heresies 5:31]). Both body and
soul must be rewarded or punished (St. Ambrose, Deexcessu fratrjs sin Satyri 2:88). Christ and the Theotokos, now united with
their bodies, are in heaven.
4 Here the Bible says that some (the martyrs) are in heaven (Rev. 6:9-10) before the Last Judgment when their souls will be
reunited with their bodies. Some explain this by saying that paradise is a part of heaven (Archimandrite Panteleimon, Eternal
Mysteries Beyond 1E Grave 38); 2 Cor. 12:2-4 places “paradise” in the “third heaven.” Others (St. Ambrose, Letter 46[7 1]) say
that some of the eminent Saints are already in heaven.
5 In Liddell and Scott, the translations for dia with the accusativc (of persons) are (in this order): through, by aid of, by means of,
or for the sake of.

95
 Protestant statement
9. You worship the Saints, which is
improper. God alone is to be
worshipped (Mt. 4:10, Dt. 6:13).
10. But Paul and Barnabas would not
permit anyone to venerate them in
Acts 14:11-15.
1 1. But Peter refused the type of
veneration the Orthodox give to
Saints. When Cornelius fell down
at Peter’s feet to venerate him (to
make a prostration) Peter refused to
be venerated, lifting Cornelius up
(Acts 10:25-26).
96
An Orthodox answer
9. We worship God alone. In these two verses you cite, the Greek word
used for worship (latria) means the kind of worship belonging only
to God. The respect we pay to Saints is not latria, but merely dulia
and hyperdplia, which mean “veneration.”
In the NT, when the word “latria” is used, it always means (as in
Orthodox theology) the worship belonging only to God. Other
words sometimes translated “worship” appear many times in the
Bible (such as QLSIQLQQQ); these words do not always refer to the
worship given to God; they are sometimes used to denote the honor
given to Saints. For example, in 4(2) Kg. 2: 15 when the sons of the
prophets saw Elisha, they said,
The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha. And they came to meet
him, and they did obeisance to the ground to him.
(The Greek word proskyneo is used here, as in
4[2] Kg. 4:37 where the Shunammite woman also made a
prostration to venerate the Prophet Elisha).
Venerating (honoring) the Saints does not prevent us from
worshipping God, just as love for men does not prevent or detract
from love for God.
When introduced to the King or Queen, or to a member of the
royal family, and on leaving, Protestants make a bow (the head
only, not from the waist) or curtsey in Denmark, Norway, the
United Kingdom, and elsewhere.
Actually, when we venerate, praise, and pay respect to the Saints
we are honoring and praising God because ofwhat He has done
through them (in their lives). This is what St. Paul means when he
says Christ will be “glorified in His saints” (2 Th. 1:10). Ps. 150:]
LXX (see the Greek) says the same—“Praise God in His saints.”
10. They did not accept veneration, partly because the pagans called
them “gods.” They called St. Barnabas “Zeus [the god Jupiter];” St.
Paul they called “Hermes [the god Mercury],” and the pagan priest
wanted to offer sacrifice. Of course, the Apostles had to completely
reject this type of honor being paid.
As soon as St. Polycarp was martyred, his flock announced its
intention to honor him by celebrating “the anniversary of his
martyrdom” (Mar_tyrdom pf _S_t. Polycan 18 [written in the mid-2nd
century]).
11. St. Peter in this passage is still a living man and from the time of
the NT on, the Church never permits the veneration of any living
person as a Saint (even though it had been done in the OT). As long
as someone is still alive, he may fall into sin and lose his salvation
(St. Peter said in verse 26, “I too am a man”), so we never pay the
reverence due a Saint to a living person.
 Protestant statement
12. We do not object to giving honor
or respect to the Saints (that is,
speaking well of them and
regarding them as examples to be
imitated), but asking their prayers
is something quite different.
Asking the Saints’ prayers is not
good because it causes people to
think that the Saints’ ears are more
open (than are God’s) to our
requests.
13. But there is no example in the
Bible of some pi_ou§_ man who
asked the prayers of some saint.
(The Tt'lbingen [Protestant]
theologians wrote this in their
correspondence to Patriarch
Jeremiah II of Constantinople.)
14. If Christ wished to be honored
through veneration of His mother
or Saints, He or the Apostles would
have left us some written
command.
15. We know that the very early
Church greatly praised the martyrs,
but in the first two centuries were
the martyrs asked to pray for the
living?
16. Why do you call only some
deceased believers “Saints?” The
Bible calls all Christian believers
“saints.”
6 QQS 1:1 :98; quoted in H. Delehaye, Q Origines Q Culte_de_s Martyrs, 1933 edition, p. 109
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-1
12. Difficult as it is for man’s proud mind to accept, God sometimes
will refuse a request unless one asks the prayers of a righteous man.
For example, when King Abimelech unknowingly angered God,
God told him that Abraham, being a prophet, would pray for him
and he would live (Gen. 20:7).
When Eliphaz and his two friends angered God by speaking falsely
about Him, God told them that Job will pray for them and that He
will accept only Job’s prayer not to punish them (Job 42:7-9).
13. Yes there is. St. Paul, obviously a pious man, having addressed his
second letter to the Corinthians
To God’s Church at Corinth, with all the saints who are in
the whole of Achaia, (2 Cor. 1:1)
asks for the saints’ prayers for him in verse 11.
14. They did. Christ is to be “glorified in His saints.” (2 Th. 1:10). Ps.
150:1 LXX says, “Praise God in His saints.” They are proof of
God’s power; they are reflections of His glory; they are windows
through which we see Him who made them.
15. Yes. In the time of St. Hippolytus of Rome there is unmistakable
evidence of a belief in the power of the deceased Saints to intercede
for the living. In about AD. 200, St. Hippolytus Commenta Q
_D__an. 2:30) addresses the three youths in the furnace,
Remember me, I ask you, that your lot in martyrdom [in
witness] may befall me also.6
This can not be understood if the practice of asking the prayers of
the deceased Saints was not known.
16. Since the Church invokes deceased Saints by name in its prayers,
there has to be agreement as to which departed persons may be
invoked in public prayers. The Church designates these persons
(martyrs and others, using its own standards), giving them the title
Saint with a capital “S.” This does not mean we don’t consider all
other departed saved persons to be saints in the Biblical sense.
97
 Protestant statement
17. Why do you give the Virgin Mary
the name “Theotokos” (the woman
who gave birth to God)? This is
not found in the Bible.
18. How can your writers such as
Irenaeus in the 2nd century
(Against Heresies 322:4) say that
Mary, because of her “obedience”
became the “cause of salvation”
when only Christ did this? Adam
and Eve said “no” to God, but it
was only Christ who undid it by
saying “yes” to God.
19. But nowhere in the Bible is the
Virgin Mary referred to as the
queen or mistress of heaven as in
some of your prayers.
7 The 5th-century heretic Nestorius, opposing the use of the term “Theotokos,” said, “I can not call him who was two or three
months old God” (Socrates, Church Histogg 7:34).
8 IE Qghgdox Church and th_e Churches gjm Reformation, p. 93
9 A sword pierced through her own soul also (Lk. 2:35). St. Cyril of Alexandria (his commentary on this verse) interprets this as
the pain she suffered when she saw Christ crucified.
98
An Orthodox answer
17. Yes, it is. In Lk. 1:43, Elizabeth addresses Mary as “the mother of
my Lord” (meaning God). Mt. 1:23 (quoting Is. 7:14 LXX) says,
Behold the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and
His name will be called Emmanuel, which means: God
with us.
When using the term “Theotokos” we of course mean only “she
who gave childbirth to Him who is God and man at the same time.”
We do not mean that the divine nature had been born of a woman.
The term is designed not only to honor Mary, but also to explain the
position of her Son.7 The word stresses that Christ the man is also
Christ the God.
The name “Theotokos” for the Virgin Mary is accepted by
Episcopalians (Called t_o M Unigl, p. 325), Lutherans (Formula of
Concord, article 8), Martin Luther (Works, vol. 21, p. 308, 311),
and by Reformed Protestant theologians Karl Barth (one of the 20th
century’s best-known theologians) and Jean-Jacques von Allmen.8
18. In order for God to become man, a woman had to say “yes” to God.
He asked Mary and she consented. This is why it is said that she
caused salvation to come into the world. If she were not willing to
undergo sacrifices, the man who saved us could not have come into
the world. A woman was needed to do this (to produce a child who
was completely human and also completely divine).
This is not so easy for her as you might think. Those Jews and
others who blaspheme her Son, revile her as well, accusing her of
adultery. How you rightly praise Abraham for his willingness to
sacrifice his only son (an innocent boy), yet you have few words of
praise for the woman who actually did see her only Son painfully
killed (innocent though He was) in a sacrifice.9
19. Yes she is. In Ps. 44(45):9 “the queen” stands at the right hand of
God. Notice, she is not “a queen,” of whom many will be in heaven.
This “queen” can not represent the Church because there are other
women in heaven with her, the virgins who escort her in verses 14—15
(compare the ladies of honor in verse 9).
 Protestant statement
20. But Jeremiah condemns those who
burn incense to the queen of heaven
(Jer. 51[44]:17-19, 25); in Jer.
7:16-20 God says the same.
21. Why do you honor Christ’s mother
so much, calling her 'such
superlative names of praise (such
as “completely holy” and “most
blessed”)? She was just one of the
righteous women of the Bible.
22. But did the earliest Church give
her such a place of honor?
23. But Christ said to Mary, “0
woman, what have I to do with
you?” (Jn. 2:4). This was a
disparaging remark.
24. But when someone remarked to
Christ that blessed is the woman
that bore Him, He replied, “Blessed
rather are they who hear the word
of God and keep it” (Lk. 11:27-28),
meaning that those who obey Hirn
are blessed instead of she.
25. The Bible nowhere gives an
example of the Virgin Mary using
her influence to intercede with
Christ, either during her lifetime or
after her death.
10 probably the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar (whom some identify as the Canaanite goddess Astarte)
1] Can many Protestants make this same confession?
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-1
20. In Jer. 7: 16-20 the LXX version of the OT (the version quoted by
Christ and the writers of the NT) uses “the host of heaven,” not
“queen,” identifying this “queen of heaven” in the other chapter as
one of the goddesses10 worshipped by those who give worship
to the sun and moon and all the stars and all the host of
heaven, which they have loved and served. (Jer. 8:2)
According to Acts 7:42-43, “to worship the host of heaven”
includes worshipping the star of a god.
21. The Bible says, “Blessed are you among women” (Lk. 1:42 RSV),
and predicts that, from that time on, “all generations” would call her
“blessed” (Lk. 1:48).“ Ps. 44:17 LXX says about the Virgin Mary,
queen of heaven:
Your name will be remembered in all generations; therefore
the peoples will thank you forever, even throughout all
ages.
22. Yes. In Acts 1:14 she is in the place of honor as the first among the
Christian women gathered together, since she is the only one named
(even though several men are named). She was considered more
than just one of the righteous women of the Bible.
23. This is a mistranslation of Christ’s reply to His mother at the
marriage at Cana when she said that the wine was gone. See the
original Greek, which says,
And Jesus said to her, “0 woman, what is that to Me and to
you? My time has not yet come.”
George R. Berry writes in his Greek-English M Lexicon under
“woman,”
The vocative is the form of ordinary address, often used in
reverence and honor.
It is the vocative case Jesus uses in your citation at left and at other
times; this is His normal, polite way of addressing women, for
example, “0 woman, great is your faith” (Mt. 15:28).
Blessed Theophylact the Bulgarian (in his commentary on the Bible
passage at left [P_G 123:1189]) says that by performing His mother’s
request, He honored her.
24. This is another mistranslation. The word “rather” is not in the
original. It has been used in the various English versions for the
Greek word “menoun,” which means “so then,” “indeed then” or
“yes indeed,” th_e opposite o_f th_e m rather. His reply should read,
“Indeed then, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep
it.” The meaning is, “She is indeed blessed because she gave birth
to Christ, and also because she is one of those who listened to and
obeyed God.”
Using “rather” here is not a uniform job of translating, when the
same Greek word is correctly translated “indeed (RSV)” in Rom.
10:18 or “yes verily (KJV),” or “of course (NIV).”
25. At the marriage in Cana, after the wine was gone, Christ granted
His mother’s request and produced wine (Jn. 2:1-11).
The people of the earth will supplicate (humbly ask) the favor of the
queen of heaven (Ps. 44[45]: 12), desiring her intercessions.
99
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

26. But in your prayers, why do you
sometimes ask, “Most holy
Theotokos, save us?” Christ is the
only savior.
26. When St. Paul writes of himself,
I have become all things to all [men] that] might by all
means save some (1 Cor. 9:22)
is he claiming to be a savior? Of course not. When he writes,
Take heed to yourself and to the teaching; hold to these, for
by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (1
Tim. 4:16)
is St. Paul telling St. Timothy to take over Christ’s role as savior?
Of course not. He and St. Timothy, through their prayers and
teaching, were only guiding people towards salvation (towards
Christ). This is what we ask the Theotokos to do for us when we ask
her prayers, asking “Most holy Theotokos, save us.”

27. Of the large mural-type icons in
the church (not those on the
iconostasion but on the walls), why
is the icon of the Theotokos in the
most conspicuous location?
Shouldn’t Christ’s icon be there,
instead of high up in the dome?
(This is frequently asked.)
27. The icon of the Theotokos containing the child on the apse over the
altar area is a reminder that in the Christian life our goal is for
Christ to be formed in us (Gal. 4:19). He was formed in her, not
only physically but also in the conduct of her life.
This icon also shows that she has passed from death to life (Ps.
13 1 [1321:812), as did her Son, and thus dwells in the heavens, as
symbolized by the sanctuary.

But partly surrounded by the apse we find the church furnishing to

which the most meaning is attached (and much direction directed),
the Holy Table, which corresponds to Christ. In patristic writings it
symbolizes, for example, the spot in the tomb where Christ was
placed (St. Germanus’ commentary on the Divine Liturgy 4), or the
manger. St. Germanus furthermore calls the Holy Table the throne
of God, on which He rested in the body (M), and it is natural that
attention in a room would be directed to a king’s throne.

28. Why is this icon called 28. This is short for Mela t0_n own, which in Greek means she is
“Platytera?” “more spacious than the heavens.” The Theotokos is given this title
because inside her she contained Christ who, although a human
baby, was at the same time, the uncontainable God (who can not be
contained even by the entire created universe [3(1) Kg. 8127]). St.
Zeno of Verona (a 4th-century martyr) writes:
Her womb is big with majesty. . .the Virgin holds Him
whom the world and the world’s fullness cannot contain.
(Tractatus 2:9 [fl 11:415])

w.

1it
y
_
I

'2 This interpretation is given in the Church’s Dormition service. Note that Ephratha (v. 6 in this Psalm) was in ancient times an
alternate name for Bethlehem.

100
 Protestant statement
29. Why do you say Mary remained a
virgin her entire life? This is not in
the Bible, is it?
30. But Mt. 1:25 says that Joseph did
not have marital relations with
Mary “until” she had given birth to
a son named Jesus. Doesn’t this
mean that they had conjugal
relations after Christ’s birth?
31. But Lk. 2:7 says that Mary “gave
birth to her firstborn son,” implying
that she had other children after
Him.
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-1
29. In Lk. 1:34 we see that Mary obviously intended to maintain her
virginity (even though she had agreed to establish [verse 27] the
outward appearance of a marriage), otherwise she would not have
replied to Gabriel‘s announcement (that she would give birth to
Christ), “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
Ezck. 44: 1 -2 refers to a gate through which only the Lord has
entered, after which it will remain shut, so that no one else may pass
through it. This “gate” refers to the woman who gave childbirth to
God. So far as l know, this verse is always interpreted in this way
by the Church Fathers, including one from about the year AD. 300,
St. Methodius (Oration % Svmeon MAnna 10). Just as in .ln. 10:9
Christ calls Himself “the door” through which those to be saved
will pass, the Prophet Ezekiel refers to Mary as the door through
which God entered the world.
Mary was not only “a virgin at the time” Christ was born, but also
remained virgin for the rest of her life. The Prophet Isaiah calls her
“the virgin,” not “a virgin” (Is. 7:14 LXX, quoted in Mt. 1:23 and
often mistranslated—see the Greek in both cases).
30. No. During Jacob’s dream at Bethel, God told him He would give
him and his offspring the land on which he was lying, that his
offspring would spread out in all directions, and that by him and by
his offspring (Christ) all the races of the earth would be blessed.
Note God’s use of the word “untilz”
And behold l am with you and will preserve you wherever
you go and will bring you back to this land; forI will not
desert you [singular] until I have done all that of which I
have spoken to you. (Gen. 28:15)
God did not leave Jacob afier He had done all the things of which
He had spoken to him, as we see in Mt. 8: 11 or 4 Macc. 16:25.
In Ps. 109(110):1 (quoted in Mt. 22:44) we read,
The Lord said to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make
Your enemies Your footstool.
This passage is not implying that alter the enemies of Christ are
defeated, the honor of sitting at His Father’s right hand will expire.
Even today, when teachers have to leave the classroom for
a few minutes they tell their class, “Be quiet until I return."
Does this mean that what they are really saying is: “But
when 1 return, let there be Pandemoniumtl”??? (Orthodox
Christian Witness #1097, p. 5)
31. Firstborn is a word that means only the “child which opened the
womb.” The two terms are used as synonyms in Ex. 13:2 when God
said,
Consecrate to Me all the firstbom; whatever is the first to
open the womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and
of beast, is Mine.
“Firstborn” does not necessarily mean that other children followed,
because the name applies to an “only child” as well—God did not
say, “My directions are to be followed only if there are later
children.”
In 1 Kg. 6:10 LXX we read of “two cows that had calved for the
first time.” They are described this way even though they never
calved a second time (verse 14 tells us they were soon sacrificed).
101
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

32. But several men are called
“brothers” of Christ in the New
Testament. Do you say (like the
Roman Catholics) that these all
were cousins of Jesus?
32. No. Before the end of the 4th century, no one ever proposed such a
theory. There is evidence that they were not Christ’s cousins,
because in the 2nd century St. Hegesippus calls St. James a
“brother”'3 of Christ but uses“cousin”' when referring to another
relative of the Lord.

An older tradition, going back to the mid-2nd-century work

Protoevangelium o_f James 17, says that the “brothers of Jesus” were
sons of St. Joseph the Betrothed by an earlier marriage. Among the
earlier Fathers and other early ecclesiastical writers, this is the
opinion of St. Epiphanius (Against Heresies 78), Origen
(Commentary Q m 10:17), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Glaphyra g
@ 7 [E 69:53l]), St. Hilary of Poitiers (Commentarius in
Meir—m 1:4 [fig 9:922]), and Eusebius (Church My 2: 1 :2).
This explanation has always been widely accepted and is the view
of the Orthodox Church and of some Protestants. Joseph B.
Lightfoot accepted this tradition. 15

Epilogue:

Some Protestants would agree with the Orthodox on some points:

Although the Reformation rejected the invocation of the Saints, it did not deny the intercession of the
Saints in heaven (Growth in Agreement, p. 210). Anglicans say that the Saints (especially Mary) can be
intercessors without diminishing Christ’s unique role as mediator of salvation (Called t_o M Unig, p.
326); they also say that veneration (dulia) of Saints is not the same as the worship (latria) due to God alone
(_ib_id., p. 325). Some Anglicans include in their prayer book prayers addressed to God to hear the Saints on
behalf of the living believers (Growth in Agreement p. 59), but few Anglican Churches address requests
directly to the Saints for prayers.“

'3 quoted in Eusebius, Church History 2:23:4

'4 ibid., 422.4
‘5 g. Paul’s Epistle t_o at; car, “The Brethren of the Lord”
‘6 Anglr'gan-Or'thodox Dialogue, 1984, p. 37, 48

102
4. Protestants—J. Fixed Wording in the Prayers1

“Free prayer” (composed by the minister [or a layman], although not always extemporaneously) is a standard practice
in most American Protestant churches other that the Anglican and the Lutheran.

Question An Orthodox answer

1. Why are the prayers in all your
(Orthodox) services (and usually
even the prayers you say at home,
in private) read entirely from a
prayer book (or recited from
memory)?
Why don’t your ministers compose
their own prayers?
1. In the New Testament’s worship services, each minister did not
compose his own public prayers. Pre-written prayers were used
from the beginning. Those being instructed by the Apostles
persevered in “the prayers” (Acts 2:42 RSV), that is, “fixed”
prayers. If you search the whole NT, you will not find a group
service in which a minister composes his own prayers. In the Old
Testament, we do find some fixed wording prescribed for prayers
(Dt. 26:5-10, 13-15).
The Church Fathers have carefully thought out these prayers found
in our service books; the historical Church has approved the
wording by selecting certain prayers. It would be pride for us to
think we can improve on these prayers. No one can improve the
prayer (in the Divine Liturgy) in which we ask for “all those things
good and profitable for our souls.” One can’t use better wording
than this—by trying to use his own words he can make mistakes;2
doesn’t God know us well enough to know which things are best for
us? He actually knows better than we.

2. But aren’t pre-written prayers often 2. Of course, it must be admitted that there is the danger that “prayers
read without thinking? by rote” can get to be recited mechanically and unthinkingly, but the
answer to this is only to say that the reader (and listener) must pay
attention.

Unwritten, “free” prayers can also become rote. People often start
stringing many stock phrases together with no attention at all, for
example,
Lord, we just want to thank You today for letting us all be
together, and we just want to praise You for the blessings
of Your word to us, and we just want to...
In Churches that use such prayers, the minister often ends up using
almost the identical words and phrases each week, and the
congregation can daydream through them just as well as through set
ones.

1 By prayers with prescribed wording I refer especially to prayers that are not direct quotes from the Bible.
At a meeting I heard an extemporaneous “prayer” in which the minister told God all about the issues the meeting would address
and how it should resolve them. Halfway through it, 1 (and the two persons standing next to me) had forgotten it was a prayer and
thought it was a speech.

103
 Question
3. But “fixed” prayers were not used in
the earliest Church, were they?
4. Wouldn’t more Bible reading be a
better use of worship time than so
many fixed prayers?
5. Are self-worded prayers permitted in
your [individual] prayers at home?
6. Why isn’t there any quiet time in
your church services?
3 W. O. E. Oesterley, fire Jewish Background oftlggghristian Liturgy, p. 46-54
4 Demetrios J. Constantelos, “The Holy Scriptures in Greek Orthodox Worship,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 12,
no. 1 (summer 1966), p. 78
104
An Orthodox answer
3. Some “fixed” prayers were used in this period. The Didache a
Church order (late lst or 2nd century), gives fixed prayers (not
direct quotes from the Bible) to be said at the Eucharist (9 and 10).
This is the earliest period of Church history.
In Eph. 5:19 we find in their worship “psalms and hymns and
spiritual odes.” (Odes are poems.)
Speaking of the 1st century—Christ, the Apostles, and the other
earliest Christians approved of “fixed” prayers—we know this
because they customarily took part in the synagogue worship (Lk.
4:16) and also Temple worship (Acts 2:46, 3:1), both of which by
their time included memorized prayers.3 We know from the
M_is_hna_h (Tamid 5:1) that the Temple service included fixed
prayers, two of which were not quotes from the Bible: “True and
constant” and “Ahabah.”
. We have more of the Bible read in our services than Protestants
have in theirs. This statement at first is surprising, but it is true (C.
S. Calian, @ an_d Pulpit, p. 123). One study of seven Orthodox
services (three Liturgies and four Mysteries) found that more than
25% of the text of these services is comprised of quotes from the
Bible.4 (About half the quotes are from the Old Testament and half
from the New.) If one includes the content of the liturgy that alludes
to Scripture, the percentage is even higher.
5. Yes. Although we don’t use them when we come together for
church services, self-worded prayers are not despised by the
Church. On the contrary, these prayers are encouraged by our
spiritual instructors if they are said in private (for example,
following one’s morning or evening prayers).
Formal confession to the priest is a time for composing one’s own
words.
6. The Orthodox church services, unlike others, are not designed to
allow silent prayers of one’s own. In our church services, prayers
are chanted out loud, and without interruption. When we go to
church to pray, we don’t go there to say our private prayers. (In
corporate worship, the church prays.) Private prayers, says Mt. 6:5
6, should be said at home in one’s room with the door closed and
not in public places of worship or other public places.
 Question An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-J

7. Must one leave his personal requests 7. No. Brief silent periods do exist in the church services (such as just
at home? before receiving Communion) and one’s silent prayer requests can
be made then, and are actually encouraged.

In a Church’s quiet vestibule, before services begin, when lighting a

candle, one’s personal requests do often come to mind and silent
prayers are sometimes formed there.

Every “Lord have mercy” and “Grant this, 0 Lord” (after each
petitionj) should be considered by each worshipper to be his
personal request also. It would be a big mistake for him to imagine
that these requests are made only for others.

Author’s other sources:

ERE “Prayer (Christian, Liturgical)”

5 For example, “For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, and necessity,” or for “Christian endings to our life,
painless, blameless, peaceful, and for a good defense at the dread Judgment seat of Christ.”

105
4. Protestants—K. Relics
Protestant question
1. Why do you honor the Saints’ relics
(their bodily remains and objects
that had been in contact with their
bodies)?
2. Is this type of healing mentioned in
the Bible?
3. But God doesn’t need material items
in order to work miracles
4. But isn’t it true that the body can
hinder our progress in the Christian
life?
An Orthodox answer
1. The Saints’ bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16).
God’s grace is active in the Saints’ bodies not only during life, but
obviously remains active in many of their relics after death. God
uses these relics as an instrument of healing.
2. Yes, it certainly is. The bones of the Prophet Elisha are shown to be
an instrument conveying God’s power. A dead man, for example,
was brought back to life as soon as he touched the bones of Elisha
(4[2] Kg. 13:20-21). This was not the only miracle worked by his
relics. The Bible says that after the Prophet Elisha’s death his body
worked wondrous deeds (Sir. 48: 13-14). Note the plural—~“deeds.”
God worked miracles not only through St. Paul but through his
belongings, too. St. Paul’s
handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his skin to
the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out
ofthem. (Acts 19:11—12)
The Prophet Elijah’s mantle also worked a miracle in 4(2) Kg. 2:14.
3. Christ sometimes performed miracles using material items. (In Jn.
9:1-7 He made clay with His spit, applying it to the eyes of the
blind man in order to heal him.) Why didn’t He heal by word only,
as He had done at other times? He has His reasons. Who are you to
question God and object to what He has decided to do? “Who are
you, to answer back to God?” (Rom. 9:20).
Looking at the Incarnation and most of the sacraments, we see that
material can be a vehicle of the Holy Spirit. The material world is
being salvaged by Christ. Rom. 8:21 says, “The creation itself will
be set free from its slavery to decay.” The bodies of some Saints
have not decayed.
God might work miracles through relics partly to disprove the false
belief in the early Christian centuries (among heretical groups we
would today call Gnostics) that all material is evil, that the spiritual
element in man is kept “prisoner” in the body, that only after the
soul is released from this “prison” (that is, after death) can man
really know God and be with Him, and that the body is “crude
material,” which prevents man’s ascent to God.
Christianity teaches that the body and the rest of the material
creation are good, and that Christ had an earthly body in reality and
not only in appearance.
Sometimes God does things (like working wonders through relics)
to put up a guardrail to keep us fi'om leaving the path of correct
belief.
4. It is not really the body that is the problem. The devils never had
bodies and they fell away.
107
 Protestant question
5. (A question about the Christians’
esteem for the martyrs.) Beyond
the ordinary affection for a
departed loved one (such as trying
to gather and shield the remains
from the malice of the persecutors,
or visiting the place of burial) did
the earliest Christians venerate the
relics of martyrs?
6. Why did canon 7 ofthe 2nd Council
ofNicaea (AD. 787) require
placing relics under the altar when
consecrating a church? How is this
done?
0 ON? NQNI'I NI _l.l GUthHM'BBBJL 9P1. .
{DQ3
on .“a..,___z
0/117
1.!
NI
t2
MaN
.‘ngL
|
l __
TH€ NJBlE JOSQPA, HAVING TAKEN DOWN I
7. But what about the abuse of
relics—all the outrageous fraud and
sale, to say nothing of the
superstition involved. (The asker
will probably be able to give many
examples of this abuse; Protestants
are usually very familiar with the
many scandals of their mother, the
Roman church.)
Do you blame the first Protestants
for repudiating relics altogether (all
the relics existing then)? How
could they have known which
Roman Catholic relics were real
and which were fakes?
1 In the Church’s earliest era chapels (and, beginning with the time of St. Constantine, churches) were built over martyrs’ tombs
or relics.
2 see Smalcald Articles (part 2, article 2)
3 part 2, article 2 (English translation in the Lutheran MQConcord)
4 To use plain English, relics are called foolish, useless, and unsupported by Scripture (article 22).
108
An Orthodox answer
5. Yes. After St. Ignatius (martyred in about AD. 107) was eaten by
the beasts, only his larger bones remained. These “were taken to
Antioch and placed in linen as an inestimable treasure left to the
holy Church” (Mamrdom _(fi g. Ignatius 6). After the centurion
burned the corpse of St. Polycarp (he was martyred in mid-2nd
century), “We [the Christians] gathered up his bones, more precious
to us than jewels,” placing them in a suitable place where the
anniversary of his martyrdom would be celebrated with rejoicing
(Mar_tyrdom o_fSt. Polycam 18 [written shortly after the martyr’s
death]).
All of the many Church Fathers who have written about relics
defend their use.
6. Because the earliest Christians celebrated the Eucharist at the tomb
of a martyr (often on the stone slab that covered the body), it is
considered proper to continue this custom.I (Compare Rev. 6:9—the
souls of Christ’s martyrs are under the altar.)
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, this is done by placing small bits
of relics in an antimension (a linen cloth [depicted at left] placed on
the Holy Table [altar]). On this cloth the Eucharist is celebrated.
E The antimension is spread out on the altar table at the beginning of
a the liturgy, and is considered a portable altar. When a church is fully
a consecrated, relics are actually fastened inside the table.
a
>
,1.
7. Yes, it was hard to tell the genuine Roman Catholic relics from the
fakes. (This may have been because they had no experience of their
power.) But the proper solution to the problem was not to reject all
possibility of miracles being worked through relics (even relics to
come in the future).
Most Orthodox relics have been handed down from generation to
generation; thus a “pedigree” exists for these relics.
As you study this and all other subjects in this book, unload from
your backs the heavy burden of prejudice. The earliest Protestants
went too far. Instead of rejecting only the Roman Catholic abuses of
relics and only the false Roman Catholic teaching of indulgence
grants (in the minds of many early Protestants, the veneration of
relics was closely associated with the sale of indulgencesz), the
Protestants threw out the baby with the dirty bathwater, calling all
relics “useless” (Lutheran Smalcald Articles3 and the Anglican 39
articles of religion‘). Protestant reader! Certainly as an honest
person you can see that these Protestant statements are contrary to
the truths handed down to us in the Bible. How “useless” were St.
Paul’s handkerchiefs to the various ill persons who were healed
through these items? Orthodox reader! Do not be misled by
Protestant claims. Certainly you can see the falseness of their claim
that all their beliefs are based solely on the Bible.
4. Protestants—L. Religious Processions
“Today Adam is recovered and dances in a circle with the angels, having winged his way to heaven. Today the whole
circle ofthe earth is filled withjoy...; the heavenly kingdom is urgent to summon those who mind celestial things to
join the divine service ofthe incorporeal circle dances.” (Homin 1 [on the Annunciation], attributed to St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus, about AD. 240)
Question
1. Why do you have religious
processions? What is their purpose?
(Most Protestants have abolished
them all.) Aren’t they pagan in
origin?
More frequently asked: In the
Orthodox wedding, why do the
priest, bridegroom, bride, and
sponsors make a procession around
a table? (This is also done in the
Orthodox baptism ceremony.)
. Aren’t processions around a table
reminiscent of the worshippers of
Baal who, calling on Baal to
answer them, walked about the
altar that they had made (3[l] Kg.
18:26)?
Lo.) . Is a procession around a table to be
found in the Bible (in the legitimate
worship of God)?
. Is this walking around the table
somehow a sort of religious dance?
(The accompanying hymn
mentions Isaiah dancing.)
l Oration 5:35, translation in E. Louis Backman, Religious Dances 3
An Orthodox answer
l. Processions are seen not only in pagan religions; they are also found
in the Old Testament worship. In obedience to Joshua’s instructions
a procession (of priests and the multitude) around Jericho served as
a blessing (Josh. 6:1-21). Note that the Ark of the Covenant was
carried in the procession. Note also that no one questioned the
propriety of the procession.
In Temple times, on the seventh day of Sukkot (the feast of
Tabemacles) the people of Israel carried willow branches in
procession around the altar seven times (fl “Sukkot”).
It is said that the purpose of circular processions (in Judaism and
Christianity) is to remember God’s power (compare Josh. 6),
without which we are unable to defeat the enemies of our salvation.
2. In the LXX, the Orthodox Church’s version of the OT, the quote you
mention does not say they went around the altar. The correct
wording is, “They ran up and down on the altar that they had made.”
This action is not found in churches.
3. Yes.
I will wash my hands in innocence, and will go in a circle
around Your altar, O Lord, to hear the voice of praise and
to declare all Your wondrous deeds. (Ps. 25[26]:6-7)
4. Although it is a walk, and although the step is kept slow (the priest
leads the pace by holding his hand onto the hands of the bridal
couple), St. Symeon of Thessalonica (E 155:513) calls this a
khoreia (a dance in a circle). In the 2nd century, Clement of
Alexandria (Exhortation t_o th_e Heathen 12) writes that if you are
initiated into the Christian Mysteries “you will perform a circle
dance” with the angels at your baptism. Some writers see
similarities between this walk and some examples of dance in the
OT, one of which is the Prophet David’s victorious dance in front of
the Ark (2 Kg. [Sam.] 6:16,21). St. Gregory Nazianzen compares
this to our sacraments when he calls David’s dance “swift encircling
steps in the manner of the Mysteries.”l In another example the
Prophetess Miriam roused devotion to God through song and dance;
while leading the women ofIsrael in the circle dances (Greek
khoroi) she said,
Let us sing to the Lord for He has been very greatly
glorified. The horse and rider he has cast into the sea. (Ex.
15:20-21)
Note that she and all the other women performed these circle dances
immediately after the escape through the Red Sea. The Bible calls
this escape a preview of our Baptism (1 Cor. 10:2).
109
 Question An Orthodox answer

5. Why is this seen in the marriage
ceremony? Because of general
happiness, or is there also a
religious significance? Also, why is
“Dance, 0 Isaiah, the Virgin is with
Child,” sung at this point, followed
by a hymn that asks only for the
intercessions of the martyrs (of all
persons!)?
5. The Prophet Isaiah rejoiced because he knew that God was to become
man born of the virgin (Is. 7: 14) and offer a solution to that unbearable
problem which man has had since the fall of Adam and Eve. This
problem: the human nature had changed into a nature that strives for
selfish gain at the expense of others. St. Maximus the Confessor says
that because in the beginning the evil one deceived man, partly
“through self love” there arose countless vices and competing opinions
among men, which “distanced God and each other of us,” and this
divided the human nature (Letter 2 [P_G_ 91:396D]). In the original
nature, people were in agreement with each other and cared about each
other’s welfare, but in the “fallen nature” everyone is concerned with
his own desires, and each person finds himself alone—our “nature”
split into many pieces.2 By receiving the Mysteries, faithful Christians
become one—not only one in agreement, but also organically one—
united with Christ and with each other by becoming of the same body
and same blood with Him.

We ask the martyrs’ prayers at this time probably because in them we

see such selflessness—an extreme willingness to do what Christ asks
and a complete disregard for one’s own worldly welfare. The martyrs
died for Christ, hence the appeal to martyrs. Marriage is martyrdom.
We “die” to ourselves. The Church asks the martyrs’ prayers, partly to
remind us that even with God’s help, this change in us does not come
easily but only with self-abasement by each married person (casting
aside one’s own comfort in favor of the needs of others).

According to many Church Fathers, the angels and Saints dance (in a
circle) in paradise.3 Christ says that one cause of joy to the angels is the
repentance (literally: “change of mind”) of a sinner (Lk. 15:10) and this
rehabilitation of sinners is what occurs in the sacraments. St. Cyril of
Jerusalem says angels dance around a person being baptized
(Catechetical Lecture 3: 16).

We form a procession‘1 to imitate their joy, because as Isaiah foresaw,

our only unsolvable problem has now been solved (through Christ). If
someone came and solved your worst problem, wouldn’t you leap up
for joy? This joy is not only for the married but for each believer who
has united himself with Christ, so we also see this procession at the
Baptism service. Walking around the altar table is done at the Orthodox
service for Ordination of a deacon (also of a priest or bishop) with the
same hymns (including “Dance, 0 Isaiah”) used at the wedding service.
In Marriage, as in the other Mysteries, this transformation comes about
not entirely by human effort, but by permitting God to work with us.
The purpose of all the Mysteries is to produce changes in us. Today we
see many who marry intending to have “happiness” and a good time
and intending n_ot to change their lives much. 'Ihese marriages often
fail, of course. Others see marriage as “having to compromise,” closer
to the truth but still not correct—sometimes compromise can’t be
made;5 one partner then has to give in. So Marriage is a sacrifice (of
self), and if husband and wife see it as such, and allow God to heal the
split, the marriage will last.

2 St. Maximus writes that countless passions became established in human life, and man’s “one nature was divided into
innumerable pieces” (lo Thalassius About Various Difficulties Qffle Divine Scripture prologue [m 90:256B]).
3 St. Methodius, Symposium 6:5 (“together with Christ the Judge in heaven [literal translation]”); St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,
Homily 1; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 8:23 (m 35:816); St. Gregory the Great, Ggspgl Homin 37 (see the Latin); St.
Anastasius of Sinai, I_nHexaemeron 12 (IE 89:1074-75); St. John of Damascus, Barlaam m Iggsaph 12:108. This continues in
the resurrection (St. Thalassius 3:100). Also see James Miller, Measures of Wisdom 7, and E. Louis Backman, Religious Dances
3.

110
 Question An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-L

6. I do not find in the Bible that the
bread and wine of the Eucharist
were carried about in processions
such as the Great Entrance in your
liturgy.
6. In the eucharistic liturgy of the most primitivc Church there was a
very simple “offeitory” processionb (transfer of the sacred elements
[gifts] to the altar where they are to be consecrated). St. Justin
Martyr (2nd century) writes concerning this point in the liturgy
(when the time comes for the eucharistic prayer):
Then bread and a cup of wine mixed with water are brought
to the president of the brethren. (Apology 1:65)
Not many years later, St. Hippolytus adds that this transfer was
performed by the deacons (Apostolic Tradition 23).

In the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy, the offerings are not
yet consecrated. But in “the Entry of the Presanctified” (during the
Liturgy of the Presanctified), the gifts have previously been
consecrated and are the true body and blood of Christ. In Josh. 6: l
21, the Ark of the Covenant was carried in procession, with
beneficial results. This is Bible evidence for the question you raise,
because this ark (box) or its cover was considered a throne on which
God was invisibly seated (compare Num. 10:35-36),7 just as the
Eucharist is regarded as Christ’s physical presence by the NT and
the correctly-believing Church.

St. Gennanus of Constantinople, a Church Father, in his

commentary on the Divine Liturgy (37), writes that the Great
Entrance is also an imitation of the burial of Christ, when St. Joseph
of Arimathea took down the body from the Cross, bound it in linen
cloths with aromatics, carried it with St. Nicodemus, and placed it
in a new tomb (Jn. 19:3 8-41).

4 St. Basil the Great asks,

“Could there be anything more blessed than to imitate on earth the circle dance [Greekz
khoreia] of angels?” (Letter 2:2).
5 For example, if he wants to live in one city because the work he likes can only be done there, and she wants to live in a distant
state because her relatives are there, compromise is not possible—someone has to give in.
6 Nowadays, the gifts are already in the sanctuary on a side table, so the procession makes a circle from the sanctuary (through
the nave) to the sanctuary. But in an earlier age the procession began outside the sanctuary (actually outside the church building)
in a side building where the clergy vested and prepared the gifts from the people (Robert Taft, Great Entrang, p. 178, 189).
7 To some Fathers, the Ark of the Covenant was a prefigurement of Christ’s body (St. lrenaeus, fragment 48; St. Cyril of
Alexandria, PG 68:585,597).

lll
4. Protestants—M. Icons and the Cross

Kissing religious objects as a sign of reverence (such as kissing the Gospel book during Oitltros) is not the exotic,
idolatrous taboo some Protestants imagine it to be.

Jews kissed the floor of the Temple during the time of Christ and the Apostles. (More will be said on this below.)
When entering or leaving a house, pious Jews kiss the mezuzahl (or touch it and kiss the fmgers). Jews kiss the
fringes of the tallit (prayer shawl) when putting it on, and kiss the scroll of the Law.2

In the Anglican Church, the altar is kissed, and the Gospel book is kissed by the reader (deacon, assisting priest, or
celebrant] alter it is sung or read; in their Liturgy of Good Friday, the cross can be venerated in one of two ways-—
one is by kneeling, the other is by kneeling and kissing the foot of the cross. Among Anglican clergy it is customary
to kiss the cross of the stole before putting it on.

Until recent times, in England’s law courts all Christians taking the oath (sworn on the Gospels) kissed the Bible at
the conclusion of the words of the oath.3

Similarly, all directions for the British coronation oath (including one from the mid-20th century") list the promises to
be made by the king, after which he is to lay his hand on the Gospels and say, “The things which I have here before
promised I will perform and keep. So help me God.” Then the king is to kiss the Bible and sign the oath.

In the United States, the President at his inauguration also lays his hand on a Bible when he takes the oath of office.
(Nearly all used a Bible, although it is not required by law.) George Washington, immediately after taking the
presidential oath, kissed the Bible and most presidents who followed him have kept this tradition.

I a small parchment scroll inscribed with Dt. 6:4-9 and 11:13~21 and the name Shaddai and placed in a case fixed to the
doorpost by some Jewish families as a sign and reminder of their faith

In the movie J§s_u§, made in 1978-79 by the organization named The Genesis Project, Christ kisses the mezuzah: in another
scene He kisses the phylncteries (small boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and worn on the left arm and
on the heady by Jewish men during morning weekday prayers). In the Evangelical Christian periodical Christituiit I I9tl_a_\_/ there
is a movie review (Oct. 5. 1979) and a longer article on the movie (Dec. 21, 1979); neither mentions these practices.
‘ St. Leontius ofNeapolis ( in Cyprus) likens our veneration of icons to the Jews” veneration of the book 01' the Law, saying
that, just as they do not worship the skin or ink but the Words of God in it, neither do we worship the wood and paint but
through it worship Christ (Semion 3 [Eli 93:1600]).
3 This was still done in 1893', see F. A. Stringer, Oaths M Affirmations in ere_a_t Bjtain Ml Ireland.
4 Francis C. Eeles, T_he Coronation Service, It_s Meaning Qt] Histogr, 1952. Appendix 2 “The Form and Order Observed in the
Coronation of H. M. King George VI, 1937,” part 4

113
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

1. Why do you make icons (of Christ
and the Saints)? The Bible forbids
the making of images.
You shall not make for
yourself an idol, or any
likeness of anything that is
in heaven above, or that is in
the earth beneath, or that is
in the waters under the
earth. (Ex. 20:4)
1. Ex. 20:4 seems to forbid the making of all images. But in Ex. 25: 18-20
(also see Heb. 9:5) God commanded that hammered-gold images of
cherubim be placed over the mercy seat (the cover of the Ark) in the
tabernacle.5 In Num. 21:8-9 He commanded Moses to make a brass
serpent. Was God breaking His own rules? Was He telling Moses to
make idols? Of course not. Look at the very next verse after the one
forbidding images:
You shall not bow down to them nor worship6 them. (Ex.
2015)
which forbids the worship of images. Idolatry is the issue; otherwise
God would not have commanded that images be made.

Solomon knew the commandment against making images, yet he

placed inside the Temple images of cherubim (3[l] Kg. 6:23, 7:29; 2
Chr. 3: 10). In his vision of the restored Temple. the Prophet Ezekiel
saw carved images of cherubim and of palm trees on the walls. Each
cherub had two faces: the face of a man toward one side and the face
of a lion toward the other (Ezek. 41:17-20). Isn’t it just as acceptable
to adorn the walls of the church with pictures of Christ and of the
Saints, rather than with carved figures of beasts and trees? (St. John of
Damascus, Q tl_ie @y Images 1:20)

5 hi 26:31-33, God also commanded that woven images of cherubini be made on the tabernacle partition (curtain) that
separated the most holy place (holy of holies) from the holy place (sanctuary).
6 latria (the Bible’s word for the worship to be. given to God alone)

114
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-M

2. Yes, we know that Solomon made
images of cherubim, but nowhere
in the Scriptures do we find that
images were venerated.
We consider the Bible alone to be
infallible. We don’t consider the
decisions of the 7th (or any other)
Ecumenical Synod to be infallible
unless they agree with the Bible.
Icons (and of course crosses) are
acceptable if used to remember
Christ and the martyrs (to
encourage believers to imitate their
perseverance in faith and their
bravery) but icons should not be
venerated, and neither should the
cross. (Some refer to it as an image
of disgrace.)
2. We do find a material item venerated in the Old Testament—the
Temple.7
Jews kissed the floor of the Temple @ 1:210).8 Sukkah 53a in the
Babylonian Talmud describes a prostration in which the ground of
a court of the Temple was kissed. (Note that at the feast of
Tabernacles described here we find Christ worshipping during the
same period [Jn. 7: 10]9).
In Ps. we read:
Exalt the Lord our God and venerate His footstool for He
is holy. (Ps. 98[99]:5 LXX [the OT version quoted by
Christ and the writers of the NT where the LXX disagrees
with today’s Hebrew versionl)
Some English translations mistranslate this “worship at His
footstool” but this is not what the original says; there is no “at.”10
In 1 Chr. 28:2 the Temple is identified as God’s footstoolH and the
resting place for the Ark of the Covenant. (This Ark [a box] or its
cover was considered a throne on which God was invisibly seated
[compare Num. 10135-361.)

There is no longer a Temple. God permitted it to be destroyed in

AD. 70, soon after the people placed His feet on a very different
footstool, the Cross. Temple sacrifices, of course, are no longer
needed. Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross replaced them. As the Cross
replaced the Temple as the place of blood sacrifice and atonement
(Heb. 8-10), the Cross also replaced the Temple as the footstool
that the Bible commands God’s people to venerate.

Veneration of the cross (an image) is mentioned in the Bible if we

are humble enough to accept the following interpretation of the
Psalms verse above given by certain of the Church Fathers (the
verse’s meaning for us today). This verse is interpreted to refer to
the Cross by the Church’s Great Vespers service of the Elevation of
the Cross.‘“

Commenting on this verse, Euthyrnius Zigabenus (P_G 1281989)

says that with regard to the divinity, God’s footstool is the earth (Is.
66:1, Mt. 5:35), but with regard to the humanity, His footstool is
Golgotha or the Cross.

St. John of Damascus (Orthodox m 4:11) says that in a similar

verse, Ps. 131(132):7, “the place where His feet stood” means the
Cross because of the following verse, which says “Arise O Lord
into Your rest.” for the Resurrection comes after the Cross.

Just as the OT Church did not consider Ex. 20 to completely

prohibit veneration of all items, neither does the correctly-believing
New Testament Church.

I St. John of Damascus (O_n tl_re my Images 2114,22) demonstrates that

“the tent [tabernacle], the veil, the ark, the altar, and everything within the tent were
images and types, the works of men’s hands, and that they were venerated by all
Israel. . _For God said to Moses, ‘See that you make eVerything according to the pattern
shown to you on the mountain.”’ (Ex. 25:40 [Heb 8:5 quotes this verse and calls the tent a
copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary.])
8 Note that today pious Jews kiss the Western Wall of the Temple Mount (the platform on which the Temple was built) in
Jerusalem.

115
 Protestant statement An Orthodox answer

After Christ sanctified the Cross by shedding His blood on it, for
the Christians it stopped being a sign of disgrace or shame, and
became instead a sign of glory. Christ referred to His own Cross as
His glory (Jn. 13:31; St. John Chrysostom, Homin @ J_n. 72:3,
77:4).

3. You admit that Ex. 2014-5 forbids 3. If a person kisses a picture of his mother, is he worshipping a piece
giving divine worship to images. of paper?

But in your OT version (LXX)
these verses say that neither latria
(which is for God alone) n_or
prosgnesis (which you say can be
given to others) may be given to
images.
Isn’t this (proskynesis) what the
Orthodox do when they bow to
icons and kiss them?
According to the decree of the 2nd Council of Nicaea, honor ‘ven
to icons really passes on to the persons depicted on the icon.1 St.
Basil (D_e Spiritu Sancto 18:45 [NPNF ser. 2, 8:28]) says that “the
honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype.” St. John of
Damascus (Orthodox Ethh 4:16) says the same.
Today some Protestants perform acts of reverence to certain
material objects to show honor to particular persons. The homage
given to the image (or to some other material item) passes through
it to the person or persons honored. Men raise their hats14 as they
pass the Cenotaph 5 in the center of the roadway of Parliament
Street, London. Almost no one in England considers this an act of
idolatry, even though gestures of reverence are undeniably directed
to a monument of stone.16 This gesture shows that they remember
the dead as worthy of honor. Until the mid-20th century, in
England all persons stood up at the conclusion of a movie
performance when the King’s picture was shown and “God Save
the King” was sung. In the United States, Protestants stand to
salute the flag, pledging allegiance to it “and to the republic for
which it stands.”

4. The earliest Christian use of art (for
example in the catacombs) was for
depicting only various symbols.
such as palms, the vine, and the
chi-rho monograms.
4. The earliest Christian art was not all symbolic. Some of it depicted
concrete persons and events, such as the 2nd-century17 frescoes in
the Roman catacomb of St. Priscilla. In about AD. 210, in a work
written against the Catholics, Tertullian mentions “the patron”
depicted on the Catholic communion chalice (E pudicitia 10).

9 He and the Apostles customarily worshipped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1) for as much of their lives as was possible (St.
James, stepbrother of Christ, until the day of his martyrdom), which they would never have done had they considered any
worship practices in it to be idolatrous.
0 .Menaachem I-Iaran (Temples @ Temple-Service m Ancient Israel, p. 256) translates it, “Bow down to His footstool.”
Hararr (M), citing this verse, says the whole Temple is sometimes designated God’s “throne” or “footstool.”
I; sneliera of Andrew of Jerusalem and of John the Monk
The Council pointed out, of course, that this veneration of Saints or angels is not latria (the Bible’s word for the worship
given to God alone) but prnskynesis (veneration).
This is the equivalent ofbowing the head. It is also a gesture performed by High Church Anglican clergy in the liturgy.
15 an empty tomb [its literal meaning in Greek) or monument erected in honor ofa person or group of persons whose remains
afire elsewhere—in this case the more than |,0i1(l,0tlfl men of the British Empire who fell in World WarI
Wreaths of flowers are often laid on the base of the monument, another comparison to Orthodox icons sometimes garlanded
with flowers.
I’ Some now say these are 3rd-century.

116
 Protestant statement
5. The earliest Christian art was not
venerated. I have read that only
later (well into the 4th century) did
images begin to be venerated.
'8 ANF 6:369 (translation from closing words of St. John of Damascus, @ tli Holy Ima es)
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-M
5. Your sources are mistaken This is not something that came into the
Church after the conversion of St. Constantine.
St. Methodius in about 300 writes that just as when everyone pays
honor to the emperor’s images, honor is paid not to the material of
the image, but to the king, and similarly, when anyone shows
disrespect to any of these images he is prosecuted “for showing
contempt” for the king,
We make golden images ofGod’s angels, principalities,
and powers, to give honor and glory to Him. (Q1 E
Resurrection 2:24)18
117
118
4. Protestants—N. Angels
Protestant comment
1. Why do you ask the prayers of
angels?
2. But why do you venerate them?
3. But did the earliest Christians
venerate angels?
4. But doesn’t Acts 7:42 say it is
improper “to worship the host of
heaven?” (RSV)
An Orthodox answer
1. We ask their prayers because the Bible tells us that angels offer our
prayers to God.
And so, when you and your daughter-in-law Sarah prayed,
I brought a reminder of your prayer before the Holy One...I
am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the
prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory
of the Holy One. (Tob. 12:12,15 RSV)
In Rev. 8:3-4 we read the same thing—the prayers of the saints rise
to God from an angel’s hand.
St. Ambrose recommends asking the prayers of angels (D2 viduis
9:55).
2. We venerate angels because they are venerated in the Bible. For
example, as soon as the angel Raphael revealed his identity to Tobit
and his son, the two men fell on their faces (Tob. 12:16). Note,
Raphael did not reject their veneration.
3. Yes. St. Justin Martyr’s Apology 1:6, written about AD. 155, says
that we venerate the host of the “good angels.” This is the earliest
period of Church history.
4. Look at the context (the next verse—which mentions worshipping
images of “the star of your god Remphan”); what is being criticized
here is not veneration of angels but worship of idols and of the stars.
Also, the word “worship” here is latri_a, one of the few times it
appears in the New Testament. This word means the type of
worship to be given only to God, so this can’t refer to our
veneration of angels.
“The host of heaven” also refers to the star-gods worshipped with
the god Baal (4[2] Kg. 17:16, 21:3-5).
119
 Protestant comment An Orthodox answer

5. But doesn’t Col. 2:18 criticize those 5. No. The verse criticizes those who insist on “reli ion of the angels”
who insist on veneration of angels? (the literal translation) or “angel-centered religion,” and refers to
those teaching a Gnostic-like error which considered angels more
powerful mediators than Christ.1

The Orthodox Church is certainly not an “angel-centered” religion.

Only rarely are prayers addressed to angels. Even in our private
prayers, the prayer to one’s guardian angel is only a small part of
one’s morning or evening prayers. We ask for their intercession. We
do not offer latria to them.

6. But in Rev. 19:10, 22:9 the angel 6. The angel (inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal fiiture events to St.
refused to be venerated by John. John and to the Church) considered himself to have the same
dignity as St. John (inspired by the Holy Spirit to testify about the
words and acts of Christ).

This verse is saying that the angels and Apostles (like St. John) are
of the same rank or honor, so that an Apostle should not venerate an
angel.2 The verse says nothing about what the rest of us might do.
The women in Lk. 24:5 bowed their faces down to the ground to the
two angels they found in Christ’s empty tomb.

41119 -~MURKHE€3R€RS 1'

1 The Gnostics, who flourished during the first four centuries A.D., believed man to be a prisoner within a universe created by an
evil subordinate god. Man’s task was to return to the heavens from which he had come. To do this, a soul had to pass through
seven spheres, each controlled by an angel. The angels allowed to pass through only those souls who addressed them with the
proper names and recited the correct formulas. The knowledge of these names and formulas gave the Gnostics their name, which
literally means “the knowing ones” (ER “Angels” p. 284).
2 Nor should a prophet. Daniel fell on his face when the angel Gabriel began explaining a vision. The angel, whose dignity is the
same as his, touched him and set him on his feet (Dan. 8:17-18).

120
4. Protestants—O. Permanent Monastic Vows
Protestant statement
1. The Bible does not recommend the
monastic life as pleasing to God, or
as being better than the married
life.
2. We know that the Bible says,
Make your vows to the Lord
our God, and perform them,
(Ps. 75[76]:l 1)
but when someone has made a
mistake (is not suited to the
monastic life), he or she should be
permitted to cancel this vow. In
Num. 3016(5) God permitted some
monastic-like vows to be canceled
or abrogated with no penalty
imposed on the one who made the
vow.
3. But does the NT specifically say
that monastic vows must be
permanent?
4. Were monastic vows mentioned by
Christian writers of the first two
centuries?
l Only cenobitic monastics (those who live together in a monastic community) truly follow this.
The Nazirites were pledged to a measure of asceticism (including abstinence from wine) but their vows were not really
monastic in the modern sense.
A brief Orthodox answer
1. St. Paul teaches that, for those who can endure it, the celibate life is
better (1 Cor. 7127,38), although he of course approves of marriage
(1 Cor. 7:28).
Christ also recommends voluntary poverty (Mt. 19:21) and St. Paul
describes the Jerusalem community as a Christian group in which
all was owned in common1 (Acts 2:44, 4:32—35 [although 5:4 shows
this was not a rule everywhere]).
2. Vows could be canceled for certain reasons in the Old Testament,
but monastic-like vows in the OT2 were not usually permanent in
duration anyway (Num. 6:13)——most were made only for a certain
period of time.
Dt. 23:21 warns that it is a sin to refuse to perform a vow made to
the Lord. Failure to keep one’s vows (vows to the monastic life, or
the vows of marriage) is a serious sin. If any monk or nun were to
leave the monastery and marry he or she would normally be
excommunicated (Council of Chalcedon, canon 16).
Since 1823 the Russian Church has permitted persons to be excused
from monastic vows in rare instances.
3. Yes. In 1 Tim. 5:11-12 St. Paul writes against enrolling young
women in the monastic order of widows because after enrollment
they may “desire to marry and so they incur condemnation for
having violated their first pledge." He considers this pledge or vow
permanent, otherwise he would not have said that one who breaks
her “pledge” brings “condemnation” upon herself.
Also see Acts 5:1-5. Ananias voluntarily promised his property to
God. No one forced him to do it. But once he did, and then withheld
part of the proceeds from its sale, he sinned. Vows to God are
promises and may not be broken. Ec. 5:3-5(4-6) says it is better not
to make a vow to God than to vow and later rescind it.
4. Yes. In about AD. 100, St. Ignatius writes in Polycarp 5 (ECW),
If anyone is capable of passing all his days in chastity, in
honor of the Lord’s body, let him do so without any
boasting...
and in Smyrneans 13:1 (ECW) he greets the families, and “those
virgins whom you call widows.” In about the year AD. 200,
Tertullian writes about “virgins. . .espoused to Christ” (_De oratigne
22).
121
 Protestant statement
5. Struggling is not only for monks but
for all Christians. Why do you need
monasteries?
6. We see many who believe that by
entering the monastic life they are
able to wipe out their past sins.
This belief is an insult to the saving
work of the savior Christ, who
promises forgiveness through faith.
7. Do you consider the taking of
monastic vows a sacrament of
sorts?
122
A brief Orthodox answer
5. Yes, struggling (such as fasting and praying) is for all Christians, but
monastics have voluntarily added an additional burden on their
backs (celibacy). Cenobitic monasticism is an aid to them because it
secludes them from the outside world with its visual and other
temptations.
Some other aids to struggling that monasticism offers are common
prayer, poverty, and obedience.
6. See the section on faith and works and the section on more on the
Mysteries. Since you use a Biblical term at left (wipe out [blot out]
one’s sins) I will just add that Ps. 50(51):1 LXX can translate not
“blot out my transgression” but “efface my transgression.” Blotting
out or wiping out is fairly instant, but effacing something (such as
wearing away the image on a coin) can take God time, as He
performs various works through us.
7. The power to persevere in celibacy is given by God. In AD. 96 St.
Clement of Rome writes in Corinthians 1:38 (ECW),
Also, one who is physically chaste must not brag of it,
knowing that the ability to control his desires has been
given him by Another.
Through the Mysteries of the Church, God gives persons the
abilities needed for salvation.
Some consider the taking of monastic vows to be a sacrament (one
of the Mysteries). St. Dionysius the Aeropagite calls the ceremony
of monastic consecration one of the Mysteries (Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy 6:2 [title]). St. Theodore the Studite (Letter 2:165), and
the monk Job (in AD. 1270) are also of this opinion, as is Russian
theologian Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky. Orthodox writers
Konstantin Leontiev and Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople
consider it a form of the sacrament of Repentance.
 Protestant statement
8. Monasticism as practiced by some
Orthodox is unacceptable because
the Bible recommends not
obedience but freedom—1 Cor.
7.23 says, “Do not become the
slaves of men.”
This rs seen in Mysteries such as Marriage or the anomting of the emperor at his coronation. The taking of monastic vows is
also a sacrament of sorts.
A brief Orthodox answer chapt. 4-0
8. St. Paul also writes that wives are to obey their husbands (Col. 3:18,
Eph. 5:22, also see 1 Pet. 3:1-6) and that everyone must obey the
state authorities, such as an emperor (Rom. 13:1, 1 Pet. 2: 13, Pr.
24:21). ls St. Paul contradicting himself on the subject of freedom?
No, he is saying that freedom is not an absolute rule—exceptions
are stated, because sometimes one man is ordained by God to rule
others who are obligated to obey.3 The only exceptions to these
obligations would be if the emperor or husband tells you to deny
Christ or to do some other act that you know will separate you from
God.
If a monk is having difficulty struggling against temptations, he is
better off without freedom, such as the freedom to go out as he
pleases.
An individual monk, distrusting his own judgment, which has failed
before, will, because of his confidence in the greater experience of
another, submit to the suggestions of a spiritual father.
A monk willingly gives up his worldly freedom to gain freedom in
Christ; Christ explained that the truly fi'ee man is one He
emancipates @111 si_n and its slavery (Jn. 8:31-36). We should not
ridicule anyone who has found monastic obedience to be the best
way to achieve this. Since monasticism is considered in a way a
sacrament, the obedience is not really to a man but to God, who acts
through the human spiritual director, much as He acts in the
Mystery of Repentance.
123
 Protestant statement
9. I have read that there are no separate
monastic orders in the Orthodox
Church.
Yet I hear of so many different
types of monks—why is this?
10. Why is the monastic clothing black
in color?
11. What do monastics vow?
12. Do you consider monks to belong
to the clergy?
124
A brief Orthodox answer
9. There are no separate orders. We consider all monastics to be
members of one great monastic brotherhood.
But there are four types of monk:
a. eremitic (a solitary) or hermit, also called a hesychast (one who
lives in quiet) or an anchorite
b. semi-eremitic (He lives in a colony but does not have a common
life with [eat with, or most days say prayers with] others.)
c. cenobitic (He lives together in a community with others, with
whom meals are taken and daily Offices said.)
d. idiorrythmic (allowed to own private property [singly, or together
with others])
There are also three grades of monk:
a. rasophore (Slavonic ryasonosets)—a beginner who has passed the
regular term of probation and is obligated to remain a monk for life
b. stavrophore or mikroschemgs (Slavonic krestonosets l—also
called a “proficient” monk, he wears the lesser “schema.” (Schema
means the monastic clothing or habit.) Like the rasophore, he wears
only part of the monastic habit.
c. megaloschemos or monk of the highest grade (Slavonic
skhimnik)—also called perfect (complete) monk. He wears the full
monastic habit or great schema. In this grade there are stricter fasts,
more prayer, and greater silence.
10. This shows penitence and deadness to the world.
11. They vow:
a. stability (to stay in the same monastery and in the monastic life
for one’s entire life)
am
c. obedience to Christ, to those who represent Him here below, and
to the rule
d. povegy. In cenobitic monasteries the monks can not own
individual property; in monasteries of the idiorrhythmic life, they
can—the rule of poverty is relaxed, and the brothers receive pay for
their work.
12. No, except for those who have been ordained priests or deacons,
who are called priest-monks or deacon-monks.
 Protestant statement
13. Like Roman Catholics, do you
consider monastic efforts to be
works of supererogation, in other
words, merits that can be
transferred to others? (This is one
of the main Protestant objections to
Roman Catholic monasticism.)
Author’s other source:
N. F. Robinson, Monasticism i_n th_e Orthodox Church
A brief Orthodox answer chapt. 4-0
13. No. We do not agree with the Roman Catholics that maintenance of
virginity is a work of supererogation (an act done beyond the strict
demands of God that they mistakenly think will earn merits that can
be banked as surplus in a pope’s account to be given to others in the
form of “indulgences”). It is admirable that Protestants repudiate
this false teaching, but abolishing monasticism is not the right way
to correct this error.
125
1.26
4. Protestants—P. Christian Zionism
Zionism is the movement that favors a national or religious community in Palestine for Jews. With this I have no
quarrel. What 1 am criticizing here is the false belief of most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, and others that from
th_e Q Zhristian standpoint there are theological reasons for Zionism.
Statement
1. God did after all promise them the
land of Palestine. (This is claimed
by some Christians, including some
Orthodox.) God gave to the people
of Israel the land occupied by
modem-day Israel as well as other
parts of the Middle East (Gen.
15218—21).
All the promises (30d made to the
people of Israel (in the Old
Testament) are still in effect.
2. But God gave to Abraham and to his
descendants
all the land of Canaan for an
everlasting possession.
(Geri. 17:8 RSV)
3. Why do you say that God’s
promises are no longer in effect?
An Orthodox answer
]. Christian Zionists believe that the land rightfully belongs to the Jews
because of the promises God made in the OT, especially His
promise to Abram in Gen. 13:15, which they read thus: “All the
land that you see will I give to you and to your offspring for ever.”
This seems clear enough. But this is not a correct translation. The
Hebrew word (M) used here does not mean for ever—it means
for a limited span of time or “for an age” (age-lasting). 1n the
(Greek-language) Septuagint, the official version used by the
Orthodox Church, the term used does not necessarily mean for ever
(compare Dt. 23:3 with Jdt. 1415,10). Neither language lacks words
meaning “for ever” (words used in other places in the Bible but not
when talking about the Palestinian promise). In Hebrew, for
example, le-olam va-ed (to the age and onward—Ex. 15:18, Ps.
10:16), and in Greek e_is Qantas m aionas (to all the ages
[throughout all the ages]—Jude 25) or diapantos (for ever—Rom.
11:10).
2. The word used here also translates “an age-lasting possession,” not
“everlasting.”
3. God’s promises are not unconditional. The old nation of Israel was
expected to obey God (obedience includes acgeptance _Qf th_e Si
God sent) or the nation risked losing everything. Yet only a few (“a
remnant,” in the words of Rom. 11:5) did accept Him when He
came. God’s promises (including giving them the land) are
conditional upon the Jews’ obedience to God (Dt. 28: 15-25,45-68).
If they failed to do “all” that God has commanded (Dt. 28:58), then
they will be “removed from the land” they were then entering (verse
63) and would be scattered by God “among all nations, from one
end of the earth to the other” (verse 64).
Those Jews (the “remnant” in Rom. 11:5) who remained faithful to
God (by accepting His Son) remain branches on God’s tree. The
unbelieving Jews had been branches but are now “broken off” and
we, the non-Jewish believers in Christ “were grafted in their place
to share the richness” of the tree (Rom. 11:17).
The New Israel is made up of this “remnant” and us (those new
branches grafted onto Christ). In other words, the Church is the
New Israel.
127
 Statement
4. I do not deny that all the saved are
the people of God. But the NT
specifically says that God’s
rejection of Israel is not final
(Rom. 11:1-2,25-27).
The Bible predicts the conversion
of the Jews to Christ, so they will
again become “heirs.”
Rom. 11:29 says that God’s gifts to
the Jews and His call are
“irrevocable.”
5. But does the Bible specifically say
that today’s unbelieving Jews (that
is, the physical descendants of
Abraham through Isaac and Jacob)
are no longer inheritors of God’s
promises?
128
An Orthodox answer
4. Yes, St. Paul says they will be brought to repentance (Rom. 11:25
31) but he mentions no return to the land. The return is t_o m, by
which he means belief in Jesus Christ. This is the “irrevocable” gift
that St. Paul mentions here. The Jews will be re-grafted onto Christ.
God has not given up on them.
5. Yes. St. Paul and Christ make it clear, in the strongest language
possible, that with the coming of Christ to the world, the only heirs
to the promises (the only sons of Israel) are those who accept Jesus
as the Messiah sent by God. St. Paul writes to the baptized
Christians,
And E you are Christ’s, m you are Abraham’s offspring,
heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3:29 RSV, emphases
mine)
Gal. 3: 1 6 specifically says that “the promises were made to
Abraham and to his offspring” and that “offspring” does n_0t refer
“to many but to one. . .which is Christ.”
In Jn. 8:39-44 the Jews (who do not believe in Jesus Christ) claim
“Abraham is our father,” but Christ answers them,
If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what
Abramam did, but now you seek to kill Me...this is not
what Abraham did. (RSV)
Christ tells them that they now have a different father. They protest,
“We have one Father, [that is], God.” But Christ answers,
If God were your Father, you would have loved Me,
because I came from God. ..You are of your father the
devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.
Christ’s words here of course mean that if one is no longer a son,
then he is no longer an inheritor of the various benefits to be given
to the sons.
As St. Paul writes, “Not all are children of Abraham because they
are his descendants” (Rom. 9:7 RSV), and in the next verse,
It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of
God, but the children of the promise are counted for
descendants.
In other words, one must now accept Christ and be Abraham’s
spiritual descendant (through faith rather than through physical
birth) in order to remain an inheritor of the promises given to
Abraham’s “offspring. . .which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16 RSV).
 Statement
6. You say Paul does not mention a
return to the land. But Am. 9:11-15
does,1 as does Jer. 23:3-8. God
promised the people of Israel that
He would gather them from
everywhere and bring them into
their own land (Ezek. 37: l2-14,21—
22). This has happened in the 20th
century, even though they reject
Jesus Christ.
1 The g legrd NIV Scofield Study Bible (1984) titles this passage “The Final Restoration of Israel, 9: 1 1-15” and “The Lord’s
second advent.”
2 St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5:34:l, 5:15:l), St. Cyprian ( lreatise 12:3:58), Apostolic Constitutions 5:1:7, St. Ambrose (m
Spiritu Sancto 3:19:149). The same interpretation is given by early Christian writers Rufinus (Q th_e Apostles’ Creed 44) and
Sulpitius Severus (Sacred History 2:3 [Disregard 19th and 20th-century notes; look at what the ancient writer really says.]).
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-P
6. Today’s Jews have returned to Palestine as a result of their own
efforts, not because of a divine promise.
So far as I know, except for certain recent Protestant writers (of the
last two or three centuries), all Bible interpreters teach that the
prophecies at left, and all other prophecies about Israel, were
fulfilled in Israel’s past, or in Christ, or must be applied to the
Church (since most Jews rejected their Messiah).
None of the Church Fathers or other early Christian writers
interprets any Bible passage to mean a future return of the Jews to
Palestine. St. Barnabas writes that Christians, not Jews, are
inheritors of the covenant (Letter 13). St. Irenaeus says Abraham’s
seed (those who fear God and believe in Him) is the Church—those
who receive through the Lord adoption to God (Against Heresies
5:32:2). In Tractatus adversus Iudaeos Blessed Augustine likewise
says that the prophecies of the Old Testament have been fulfilled in
Christ (3 [4], 7[9]) and the Church (7[9]), although he urges an
attitude of humility and love toward the Jews (-10[15]).
The OT prophecies at left, and some related ones, are interpreted by
the NT, the Church Fathers, and other early Christian writers. None
of their interpretations agrees with those of the Christian Zionists.
a. Ezek. 37:12-14,21-22. This is the Prophet Ezekiel’s famous
vision of many human dry bones that connected each to its joint
and were covered by flesh and skin. God says here (verse 12) that
He will take His people out of their graves and bring them into the
“land” of Israel. Christian Zionists incorrectly interpret these graves
to be the nations where the people of Israel are living at the time
Israel is to be restored, saying that the vision does not depict the
physical resurrection of individuals but the political and spiritual
revivals of Israel. The Orthodox Church interprets this passage to
refer instead to the resurrection (Bible readings of the service on
Great Saturday). So far as I know, no Church Father who
comments on these verses interprets the graves to mean nations. A11
interpret the grave in these verses to mean death.2 “Land” used here
is interpreted (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:34: 1) to mean the
kingdom to be inherited by the saints after their resurrection. Heb.
11:14-16 similarly says that the OT saints were
seeking a homeland. . .aspiring to a better country, that is, a
heavenly one.
129
 Statement An Orthodox answer

b. Ezek. 36:24-25 (the restoration of Israel to its land). No Church

Father (or any other early Christian writer) interprets these verses to
refer to today’s Jews.

c. Am. 9:11-15. (Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell3 interpret

this passage [which speaks of Israel’s return to its land] to mean
today's state of lsrael). We can believe either the Christian Zionist
interpretation, or the book of Acts, but not both. Acts 15 quotes fi'om
this passage and interprets the prophecy to have been fulfilled at
Christ’s {m coming (explicitly saying this refers to the Apostle
Peter’s preaching to the Gentiles). The Christian Zionist
interpretation says that these verses refer to Christ’s second coming.
One of the two is mistaken. We must choose between the two.

The Church Fathers and the other early Christian writers who have
written on this passage4 do not interpret it to apply to Christ’s
second coming or any return of the Jews to Palestine.

(1. Jer. 23:3-8. The only Church Father I know of who comments on
these lines (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:34:1) applies this
prophecy to the Church. The only other early writer I know of who
comments on this Bible passage (Eusebius, Demonstration 7:3) says
that the king to arise from the seed of David is the Sun of
Righteousness (Christ).

Some will be surprised that I have included the opinion of the

Church Fathers in this section’s answers (which speak mostly to
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals) as if I were talking mostly to
Roman Catholics, Orthodox,5 or Anglicans.6 But such an appeal to
Evangelicals, based on the Fathers, should not fall on deaf ears.
After all, when an Evangelical minister is accused of heretical
teaching about the Trinity, he will sometimes deny the charge by
saying his thinking on the Trinity is “identical with the Church
Fathers” (Time, Mar. 5, 1990, p. 62).

3 MTG—day, Jan. 22, 1982, p. 16

4 St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:12:14), St. Methodius (@mg Resurrection 1:12), Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:12
5 An Ecumenical Council in 692 decrees:
“If any controversy is raised in regard to Scripture, let them [the bishops and other clergy]
not interpret it otherwise than as the lights and doctors of the Church in their writings have
expounded it, and in these let them glory rather than in making things up out of their own
heads, lest through their inexperience they depart from what is proper.” (Council in Trullo,
canon 19)
6 The English canon of 1571 directs preachers
“to take heed that they do not teach anything in their sermons as though they would have it
completely held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrine of the
Old and New Testaments, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered
from that doctrine.”

130
 Statement
7. But Ezek. 34:11-31 says the people
of Israel will be secure in their
own land (verse 27) and will no
longer be plundered by the nations
(verse 28). This must yet be
future, because ever since the Jews
returned to Palestine after the
captivity, they were continually
under the Gentile yoke until they
were driven from the land in AD.
70.
8. But aren’t the Jews still under
God’s special blessing?
God says He will bless those who
bless Abraham’s line and curse
those who curse it, and that in
Abraham’s posterity will all the
nations and tribes of the earth be
blessed (Gen. 12:2-3, 22:17-18;
Acts 3:25).
If anyone wants to believe the
Bible and obtain God’s blessing,
he ought to be a loyal,
enthusiastic supporter of the state
of Israel.
7 Clement of Alexandria (Instructh 1:9), St. Aphrahat (Demgnstration 10:3)
8 St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century applies these verses to the Christians of his day (Dialogpe m Trypho 115)
An Orthodox answer chapt. 4-P
7. The Church Fathers and other early Christian writers who comment
on these verses7 and on Zech. 2 (which says similar things)8 interpret
them to mean the Church, or Israel’s past, not the Jews of the fixture.
As for their “land” (their situation of blessedness to which the
Church had returned), Christ does promise them (the Church) a
secure and permanent estate that their enemy will never conquer
(Mt. 16:18).
8. Anyone who wants to believe the Bible should realize that Gal. 3:16
says that Abraham’s posterity, “his offspring,” does not refer “to
many [to the unbelieving Jews of today] but to one. . .which is
Christ.” In Christ are all the nations of the earth blessed.
St. Paul says the Jews
displease God and oppose all men by hindering us from
speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved. . .But
wrath has come upon them at last! (1 Th. 2: 14-16)
Was God still blessing the Jews when they assisted in persecuting
His Church in the early Christian era? Is God still blessing the
Israelis today, now that they fanatically oppose the Gospel and pass
laws to restrict Christian missions? Christ says,
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father
who sent Him. (Jn. 5:23 RSV)
St. Justin says that the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of
Abraham are the Christians (Dialogpe w_ith_ l gpho 11). St. Gregory
the Great (Gospel Homin 6) says Christians are now Abraham’s
offspring through our faith in Christ; “the Jews have ceased to be
his children on account of their unbelief.” See also the homilies
attributed to St. Macarius of Egypt (4:23).
Epilogue. I have no ethnic bias. I am writing not against the Jews
here, but against those “Evangelical” and other Christians who use
faulty and very untraditional theological arguments to convince
Christians to support the government of Israel. If someone fails to
support theological Zionism, this does not mean he is anti-Jewish.
For example, a sizeable number of Jews oppose Zionism for
theological or other reasons. Until the arrival of their expected
messiah, the Satmar community (numbering 50,000 in Israel)
opposes (as do some other ultra-Orthodox Jews) a Jewish state in
Palestine. The American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist
organization, was founded by a group of Reform rabbis.
I have always said that I think Jews have the right to exist in a state
of their own in Palestine. I hold this opinion not because of any
religious reasons, but only because Jews have continuously lived
there for several thousands of years.
131
132
4. Protestants—Q. Views of Some Fundamentalists on the Creation

In this section I am giving my own opinions. Nothing in this section is to be taken to mean that I believe there has been
organic evolution (the theory that the various species of living things have their origin in other preexisting species and
were produced by a process of change in successive generations over the ages), a theory that has not been proven by
science (and, like others, may not stand the test of time).1

Statement An answer

1. Gen. 1 says that the heavens and
earth were created in six days.
These six days were each 24 hours
long.
1. It is far from certain that the word “day” in Gen. means 24 hours as
some members of the fundamentalist movement presuppose.
Of the Church Fathers who express an opinion on the subject, n_ot
a_ll consider all six of these “days” of Gen. to be 24-hour days.
Some denied that the time of six days was occupied in the creation
of the world.

St. Basil says concerning the first “day” of creation:

Thus, whether you call it day, or whether you call it age
(Greek aionz) you express the same idea. (Hexaemergn 2:8)

St. John of Damascus describes the first part of the creation week
(when the world was still unformed and there was yet no sun) as an
“age,” which he says denotes not time as measured by the course of
the sun or days and nights, but rather an age-long interval
(Orthodox Faith 2:1).

Sometimes a Church Father describes the duration of time of these

“days” of creation as “instantaneous” (St. Gregory Palamasz).

To those who want an answer for everything, I would say some

things are mysteries (Sir. 3:21-22 [22-23]), and the exact duration of
time in the creation (something the Fathers couldn’t agree about) is
probably one such mystery.

2. “Fundamentalist” Protestants 2. If anything leads to a collapse of faith (and denial of the truth of
emphasize the literally-interpreted other parts of the Bible) as you fear, it is insistence on literal
Bible as fundamental to Christian interpretation of words such as “days” in Gen. when it is unlikely
life and teaching. that the Prophet Moses intended the word to be taken literally.

The Bible contains some language

that is not literally intended, for
example, “the earth saw” (Ps.
96[97]:4), or “the sun knows” (Ps.
103[104]:19). However, the Bible
should be interpreted literally
wherever possible.

1 Properties of creatures can change, but this is not proof of evolution, since it has not been shown that one kind or species can be
changed into another.
2 an age; a long period of time
3 Topics ifNatural m Theological Science 21 (in Philgkalia 4:354)

133
 Statement
3. Don’t your above answers
contradict your chumh’s OffiCial
P°5iti°h that it has how been abom
7,500 years Since the creation 0f
the world?
(Someone asked me this after
Chumh one daY- He had seleh a St-
Herman Calendar dated thls waY-)
4 Jack Finegan, Handbook gLfBihlical Chrgnglogy 235-36
134
An answer
3. No. I take this to mean since the ggmpletign of the creation. It could
have been much longer than 7,500 years since the beginning of “one
day” (the “day” during which formless matter and the waters were
created [Gen l:1-5]), if we accept the view of the writers I have
quoted in answer 1 above—these writers say that the first day was
not 24 hours long.
The Church adopted the computation at left from the
Chgonographies of Christian writer Julius Africanus (about A.D.
l70-about 240), who takes as his starting point the creation i
Adam and reckons his years “from Adam.”4
5. Cremation

From Apostolic times, Christians followed the Semitic practice of burial and avoided the practice of cremation then
common in the Roman Empire. Because of the influence of the Christian practice, cremation practically ceased in the
Roman Empire in the 5th century, and except as a rare emergency measure was nearly unknown in Europe for over
1,000 years. When Christian missionaries carried the faith to lands outside Europe, converts adjusted to the practice of
burial without major difficulty. No serious objection to it was raised until about 100 years ago, when the practice of
cremation began to be revived in Europe.

Frequently-asked question An Orthodox answer

1. Why does the Orthodox Church
forbid its members to be cremated?
(This is very frequently asked.)
1. From Apostolic times, Christians practiced only burial, not
cremation.
St. Paul writes that God will be angered if anyone destroys the
physical body.
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's
Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God
will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy and that temple
you are. (1 Cor. 3:16-17 RSV)
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit in you, which you have from God, and [that] you are
not your own? (1 Cor. 6:19)

God has certain uses to which He desires to put our bodies, and this
is not only before our deaths but also sometimes afterwards. The
body belongs to God to do with as He pleases (1 Cor. 6:19), both
before and after death. “Whether we live or whether we die we are
the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8 RSV). Sometimes He preserves the body of
a Saint so it does not decay; sometimes a sweet-smelling fragrance
exudes from the undecomposed body (or the clean bones) and God
works healings through the relics. If Christians were to be cremated,
it would be more difficult to determine who is a Saint, since
unearthing the body undecomposed and sweet-smelling is a
common sign of Sainthood. Also, the Church would not have
recognizable relics (or even bones).

The Bible (1 Cor. 15:35-44) presupposes that the Christian’s

perishable, physical body will first be buried (planted or sown like a
seed), before being raised imperishable. Burial is not optional; it is
something that must not be neglected (Sir. 38:16).

Cremation is incompatible with the unbroken custom of burial in

the Church’s ceremony for the departed.

Cremation is forbidden because the body of an Orthodox is a

member of Christ; it is sacred. Moreover, Christ was buried, not
cremated.

2. Will persons who insist on their 2. No. The Church permits services for cremated persons only where
own cremation be permitted a the law requires cremation, or in the case of some natural disaster in
funeral service in the Church? which cremation may be necessary to guard the health of the living,
or if the deceased is to be cremated against his last wishes.

Author’s other source:

N E, “Cremation”

135
136
6. More Questions on Rules in the Christian Life
Question
1. I was at an Orthodox Church’s
picnic and a boy threw away a few
hot dog buns. The priest noticed
and really scolded the kid, saying,
“This is a sin and must not be
done.” My mother (from Greece)
says that bread thrown down on the
floor (by children) must be picked
up because it would be a sin if we
stepped on it. Why is this?
2. Why do so many Orthodox bishops
and priests wear beards?
3. I saw the movie m LE Hunter.
Does the Orthodox Church now
permit a funeral service in the
church for a suicide?
4. Why do you not give Holy
Communion to non-Orthodox?
1 The bishop is Christ’s image (St. Isidore of Mt. Pelusium, [E 78:272]), as is the priest (St. Theodore the Studite, Against me
[conomachi 4 [E 99:493CD]).
An Orthodox answer
1. In an affluent society, some people forget that discarding bread and
other food is against the wishes of Christ (even though He was very
wealthy in this respect). He could make food miraculously, yet,
when He did, He said, “Gather up the leftover fragments, so that
nothing be lost” (Jn. 6:12).
Tertullian (m corona militis 3) writes that early Christians did not
permit any bread or wine to be cast on the ground.
2. According to Lev. 21:5, priests must not shave their faces. Shaving
the beard or the head is an ancient custom of mourning or deep
grief, especially in connection with defeat and ruin (Is. 15:2, Jer.
3 l [48]:37-38), which seem inappropriate for the glory and rejoicing
of the divine services.
Not using the “razor” is a characteristic of men consecrated to God
(Num. 6:5 and Jg. 13:5, which speak of the Nazirite vow).
Some would add that, since Christ had a beard, a bearded bishop or
priest looks more Christ-like.1
3. No, unless it can be proven that the deceased was mentally ill (had
no control over himself) and therefore not responsible. The man in
the movie was not in a normal state of mind. He didn’t recognize
familiar persons.
The genuine Christian believer will not lose hope because of
suffering or personal failure; he knows he must endure pain and
hardship because God has allowed these for the believer’s spiritual
progress.
4. St. Paul writes,
Watch those who create divisions and offenses in
opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid
them. (Rom. 16:17)
“Avoid them” does not mean “permit them to receive Holy
Communion in your churches.” In Tit. 3:10 he wams,
As for a factious man [that is, one who wants to split the
church into factions--my insertion], after admonishing him
once or twice, avoid him.
St. Justin Martyr describes the Eucharist in about AD. 155 as
something
of which no one is allowed to partake except one who
believes that the things we teach are true, and has received
the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth.
(Am 1166)
137
 Question
5. In most years, why does your Easter
come later than the other? Is it
because you use this old calendar
that is 13 days behind?
6. Why do you not permit abortion?
(The 91st canon of the Council of
Trullo says anyone performing or
receiving an abortion is subject to
the penalty prescribed for
murderers.)
7. Why do you call the fetus a “baby?”
8. Did the earliest Christians (in the
first two centuries) condemn
abortion?
9. Why do you have a church
ceremony for a woman returning to
church after having given birth?
10. But is this re-adrnission service in
the Bible?
11. But why is this service done 40
days after her baby’s birth? Why
does the mother have to wait 40
days to attend church? (This is the
cause of controversy and
misunderstanding among my
relatives in Greece.)
2 Abortion might be permitted to save the mother’s life (Stanley S. Harakas, Contemporgy Mgral Issues 22).
138
An Orthodox answer
5. Yes, but there’s more to it than this. The traditional Orthodox
practice forbids celebration of Pascha (Easter) on or before the day
assigned in the early years for the Jewish Passover. The Western
church does not have this prohibition.
6. The Church considers this murder2 because a baby in the womb is a
person separate from the mother. We know this from the Bible. God
called the Prophet Isaiah’s name when he was still in his mother’s
womb (Is. 49:1). Before the Prophet Jeremiah was born, God
consecrated him to be a prophet to the nations (Jer. 1:5). St. Paul
wrote the same thing—that God had “selected” him in his mother’s
womb and called him to preach Christ among the nations (Gal. 1:15
16).
7. We call him or her a “baby” because this is the term the Bible uses.
Lk. l:41,44 says the “baby” leaped for joy in the womb, not the
“fetus.” Keep in mind that the author was a physician.
8. Yes. See Didache 2 and St. Barnabas’ Letter 19 (both are lst or 2nd
century A.D.), Athenagoras’ A P_le_a E Christians 35 (about AD.
177), and Tertullian’s Apologeticum 9 (about AD. 197).
9. She has suffered (maybe greatly), bled, undergone temporary
displacement of her internal organs, she may have gone through
mental depression, and she has a child to thank God for. Don’t you
think she needs a church service?
Also, during this service the newborn is formally received into
church attendance.
10. Yes, in Lv. 1221-8.
11. In the Bible passage mentioned in answer 10 (Lv. 12:1-8), 40 days
must go by after the child’s birth for the mother’s purification (from
her discharges) to be completed. She needs to rest and recuperate.
Traditional long Orthodox services (with their standing) are n_ot the
place for this. She needs to be at home with relatives helping her.
She does not need to be going to church services. God has given
other tasks to her. If traditional Greek society’s rules confine her to
her house (until she is readmitted to church attendance), it is for her
own good that she recuperate and it is for the baby’s good to be
nursed, and this can not be done if she leaves the baby at the baby
sitter’s and goes to work two weeks after giving birth, as many
women have been doing lately.
 Question
12. But the New Testament doesn’t
say anything about this service,
does it?
13. But in this readmission service,
why are prayers included for the
forgiveness of sins?
14. Why do you condemn astrology?
(Astrologers claim that the
positions and aspects of the fixed
stars, the sun, moon, and planets
can reveal a person’s character or
future, and can predict terrestrial
and human events.)
3 Christian mothers and infants can follow this example.
4 On the contrary, I Tim. 2:15 says the woman “will be saved by childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness, with
prudence.”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 6
12. Yes, it does. This service is part of Church Tradition. Christ’s
mother, being pious, went to the Temple for this service when the
time came for her purification (Lk. 2:22-27), taking also the baby
Jesus to be presented to the Lord.3 (It is in these verses that they ran
into St. Symeon the God-receiver and St. Anna the Prophetess.)
13. All church services of readmission include prayers for the
forgiveness of sins. In Lv. 12:6 a sin offering was prescribed (for
this service) but this is for inadvertent sins—for sins committed
unwittingly. Just because there is a church service, and just because
it includes prayers of this type, doesn’t mean sex or childbirth is
considered evil in any way. It is not for these reasons that a woman
is ritually unable to resume attending church but rather (according
to Lv. 12:7) because of her bodily discharge.
14. Very simply, we speak against it because the Bible (and the rest of
the Church’s Tradition) forbid astrology.
Someone using astrology as an excuse may claim, “I will not be
able to avoid getting angry today; my horoscope says that anger will
enslave me today.” When God judges each of us, he will not be able
to use the position of the stars as an excuse for why he failed to do
those things God wanted him to do. Is. 47: 13 says “let the
astrologers of the sky stand and save you” and the next verse even
mentions the flames that will torment those who have used
astrology.
139
 Question
15. I don’t use astrology as an
excuse—I’m only asking, what’s
wrong with trying to act at
favorable times so as to escape
various failures which are
sometimes predictable by knowing
the time of my birth?
16. Some things are fated (decreed by
a higher power). We can never
change them. (“F ate” is often used
to describe an adverse condition or
end.)
17. I would just like to know what the
future holds. What’s wrong with
that?
Author’s other sources:
NCE “Fate and Fatalism”
s . . .
eclipses, comets, astronomrcal observations
6 All we need to know is that God gives us the abilities to cope with whatever comes.
140
An Orthodox answer
15. In Jer. 10:2 God tells us not to learn the ways of the heathen
nations, and not to be alarmed (discouraged) at the signs of the sky5
as those unbelieving nations are.
16. I do not agree with astrological fatalism, which claims that an
individual’s character and personality traits are fated. God would be
unjust to punish anyone in the next life for things the man can’t
help.
Fate is not a Christian concept. Although God has determined the
duration of a man’s life, He at times is willing to prolong it because
of man’s prayers, tears, and virtue. Thus He added 15 years to the
length of King Hezekiah’s life (Is. 38:1-6); He extended the life of
St. Dius (July 19) by the same period. But just as God can, in
response to prayer, lengthen life, so He sometimes shortens it
because of sin.
17. First, all astrologers and mediums are wrong in some of their
predictions.
Second, the Bible says we do not need to know exactly what is
coming in the future and that when we do need information of this
kind, God will reveal it through one of His prophets. Moses says in
Dt. 18:10-15 that none of God’s followers may practice divination
or be a soothsayer, medium, or necromancer, nor give them any
heed, and that God will provide “for you a prophet like me...him
you shall heed” (RSV).
7. Crown Wearers

Question An Orthodox answer

1. In the Orthodox marriage ceremony . The bridegroom’s wedding crown is mentioned in the Bible. One
why do the bride and bridegroom place is Song of S. 3:11. (Neither Solomon, nor his mother who
wear crowns? Aren’t crowns pagan placed the wedding crown on his head, was a pagan.) Another is Is.
in origin? 61:10 LXX:
Let my soul rejoice in the Lord, for He has clothed me with
the robe of salvation, and the garment ofj 0y: He has put a
crown on me as on a bridegroom, and adorned me with
ornaments as a bride.

In the 1st century BC. the chaplet (wreath on the head) was worn
by the Jews when the feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (Book f
Jubilees 16:30)]

'illamace -

2. In the Orthodox services why do 2. Describing the vestrnents worn only by the high priest, the Old
bishops wear crowns? Is this a late Testament mentions a turban-like miter with a gold plate tied to the
invention? Isn’t it of papal origin front of it (Ex. 29:6) and “a gold crown on the miter” (Sir. 45:12).
(11th century)? In 1 Macc. 10:20 the high priest wore a gold crown.

Occasional references are made in early Christian writings to a

bishop’s crown. One is in Blessed Augustine’s Letter (to
L5; , Proculeianus) 33:5, written in 396.

4‘. /
.
/
ii. \‘1./
\ i
\(1

A
ad .1[511
a
‘ LIT—1.4 F'

l Tacitus confirms this; he writes that the Jewish priests in the 1st century AD. wore crowns of ivy (Histories 5:5).

141
 Question
3. What do Church crowns symbolize?
STS. C‘lRlL 3ND MfTHODIUS
EQUHL TO THE‘. ZIFQSTLES
2 Many of these (Serbs during World War II, Asia Minor Greeks in 1922, Assyrians from 1915 to 1918, and others) were
martyred by persons other than militant atheists.
142
An Orthodox answer
3. Many answers can be given—generally applicable to both wedding
and bishops’ crowns, as well as to the crown of the monarch (who is
the topic of question 4).
a. witness tg Christ
Various types of crowns are given to faithful witnesses to Christ.
One is the martyr’s “crown of life” (4 Mace. 17:15, compare Rev.
2: 10), granted to those who have been killed because of their faith
in Christ. (Many Orthodox Christians received this reward in the
20th century?) The word for “martyr” in Greek also means
“witness.” St. Paul speaks of his converts as being his joy and his
crown (Phil. 4: 1). Since the earthly Church worship is a preview of
the Church in heaven, we see these crowns even here in this life, in
the divine services.
Crowns are worn by persons witnessing to others something about
God for the purpose of instruction, life changing, and salvation. The
martyrs died to strengthen the faith of their fellow Christians; their
deaths are testimonies to the afterlife. Bishops, successors of the
Apostles, preach Christ, that is, witness to those around them.
Sometimes missionaries who have imitated the Apostles (in
converting many souls to Christ) are called “Equal to the Apostles”
and of course have the same crown of reward mentioned by St.
Paul.
Marriage partners spend a lifetime witnessing to the spouse and to
their children (through words, actions, and sacrifices)—in the
Orthodox understanding, one of the main purposes of Marriage is
the attainment of eternal life by husband, wife, and each child.
b. j_oy mid victog
Wearing a chaplet was a token ofjoy. In ancient Greece, crowns
and chaplets were not worn when mourning. In the Old Testament
the chaplet was worn at some times of rejoicing, for example, in Jdt.
15: 13—in celebration of her victory, Blessed Judith was crowned
with an olive wreath and led all the women in a circle dance, all the
men of Israel following with crowns and singing.
c. authority
Crowns, of course, symbolize power to rule.
Bishops pilot the church, often through perilous times.
 Question An Orthodox answer chapt. 7

The priest crowns the newlyweds king and queen of their new
household, for they are now independent of parental jurisdiction. The
children who will be born are the subjects of this kingdom.

The marriage crown is a reminder that m i_s_ 1M helpless but has

authority over the spouse and over the children. If a Marriage partner is
willing to assert himself (in witnessing Christ) and to make sacrifices,
many problems will be absent from the family’s life.

The ring (given in the Orthodox Betrothal service3 as well as in other

churches’ wedding ceremonies) also symbolizes that someone is vested
with authority (Gen. 41 :41-42). Rings are worn continually afterwards
as a reminder of this authority. (A ring is also a pledge given when a
contract or agreement is made between two people [Gen. 38:18]).
However, a ring by itself does not make the strongest possible
impression that authority is given someone. A crown makes a stronger
impression of this.

(1. “glory m honor”

When the bride and groom are crowned in the Orthodox wedding, the
priest blesses them and says, “0 Lord our God, crown them with glory
and honor.”

Those presbyters (ministers) who pastor their congregational flocks

well “will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:4).

e. They g9 worn by m making a sacrifice (Q being sacrificed).

Christ wore a thorn crown on the Cross.

In pagan religions, sacrificers commonly wore chaplets or crowns

(ancient Greeks, Romans, Persians) as did sacrificial victims (ancient
Greeks, Romans, Mexicans, Hindus, Teutons).

In the ancient Jewish procession of the first fruits the sacrificial ox’s
horns were garlanded with a wreath of olive leaves (_lfi “Crowns”).

The Eucharist (Divine Liturgy), at which the bishop presides, is a

sacrifice (although his crown is removed during certain parts of the
service). Marriage partners must realize that many sacrifices will be
required of them since Marriage involves great self-sacrifice.

3 This immediately precedes the Marriage service.

143
 Question
4. Why did the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia declare
Tsar Nicholas II and his family
to be martyrs?
1n Orthodox monarchies, why
was the emperor admitted into
the altar area through the center
gate (through which only clergy
may pass) during the
coronation? Was his considered
to be a Church office?
4 It was not absolutely necessary that the emperor be royal born, nor from a specific ethnic group. The only prerequisite was that
the emperor had to be an Orthodox Christian and it was only under this condition that he received a two-fold anointing as a king
and as a bishop.
144
An Orthodox answer
4. Yes, his was a religious office in addition to a state office. Secular
states (most of today’s govemments) exist only to promote worldly
happiness for the greatest number of citizens. But the Christian state
had two goals—the restraint of evil and the promotion of its citizens’
salvation.
The Orthodox Christian emperor was not just “head of state.” His
anointing at his coronation was a sacrament (as at David’s anointing
[to be king], by which 1 Kg.[Sam.] 16:13 says he received the Holy
Spirit). He was anointed, as was Saul (l Kg.[Sam.] 10:1), David (I
Kg.[Sam.] 16:13), and Solomon (anointed king in 3[1] Kg. 1:39 by
Zadok the priest), to protect and guide God’s people. He was more
than a layman. At the coronation, the emperor recited the Creed (an
affirmation of his Orthodox faith, the only real requirement for him
to be qualified to be emperor“), then he was anointed with a
sacramental oil on the head, breast, and hands as God’s Anointed (1
Kg.[Sam.] 10:1,24) by the Metropolitan, then was admitted through
the main gates (only for clergy) into the altar area during the Divine
Liturgy and received Holy Communion in his hand (the privilege
only of bishops and priests). He was “the father of his people,” and
his duties were to execute justice, defend the nation fi'om foreign
invasion and domestic strife, and to help the needy. Like a “father,”
he had the authority to say “no” to the nation, who were his
“children.” It was his right to say to his people, “No. I don’t permit
this, for religious reasons.” I don’t'defend everything the last Tsar
and his wife did in their reign, but if you think they were killed only
for punishment of their political acts, then think again. Why were
their children killed? What was their crime? Something more was
involved. The royal family was killed because (as a dynastic
monarchy that exercised its religious authority) it was a restraining
wall (like a dam) holding back a flood of evil from engulfing society.
They were killed by those who set up a Soviet society in which
abortions outnumbered births as in the late 1920’s, in which most
churches were forcibly closed or demolished even where there were
enough believers to maintain them, in which catechism classes were
forbidden, and in which many believers were martyred.
The emperor has the responsibility to be a witness, to tell people
about Christ (or at least to protect everyone’s right to live and each
person’s right to have the choice of church attendance). Sometimes
an emperor was killed for this witnessing and we might say (of Tsar
Nicholas II, for example) that he has exchanged the royal crown for
an imperishable crown of martyrdom. Because of his great influence,
an emperor has more opportunity to witness in this life.
Note: By this 1 am not advocating any one form of government. I am
only saying that the emperor did manage to hold back many of the
evils we see in today’s world.
Also note: By this I am not saying that the Church ceases to exist
without a monarch. I am only trying to answer the question: “Why
did the Church anoint him to an office that is both ecclesiastical and
governmental?”
 Question
5. How can you declare Tsar
Nicholas II to be a Saint? His life
wasn’t a good example for others
to follow. He did so many bad
things, such as dismissing
competent wartime government
ministers and replacing them with
Rasputin’s useless nominees.
Author’s other sources:
ERE “Crown”
Michael Azkoul, Sacred Monarchy gm th_e Modern Secular State
5 See for example, the life of the martyr St. Boniface ofTarsus (May 14 in Butler’s! jves 911$ Saints; December 19 in Erplogue
m Ochrid).
t? The parliament’s executive committee (including all three of the members who hoped to preserve the throne) and the Soviet
wanted Nicholas to abdicate (Robert K. Massie, Nichglas and Alexandra 28).
7 Baroness Sophie Buksgevden, Life m Tragedy 91Alexandra Feodorovna, Empress pf Russia, chapter “March l917-August
1917”
An Orthodox answer chapt. 7
Also, I have mentioned that Orthodoxy was spread and
strengthened (for example, all the Councils) under this form of
government. Not everything was ideal under emperors and kings.
Many “anointed ones” turned out to be enemies of the Church
when they were heretics. I am not trying to restore any monarchies.
I’m pointing out that monarchy is not essentially the great evil that
our democratically-oriented education has taught us it is. Every
human government has its advantages and disadvantages.
5. Martyrs are declared to be Saints because of their martyrdom.
Sometimes this declaration is in spite of many of the things they did
in their lives. Dispassion (holiness) is essential. But some martyrs
were not the best example during much of their lifetimes.5 The
martyrs and confessors (those who suffered because of their belief
in Christ, without being killed) are made perfect through their
suffering for God.
Very simply put, we declare Sainthood for the martyrs because
Christ says, “Whoever loses his life on account of Me and of the
Gospel will save it” (Mk. 8:35). The Old Testament says the same:
Those who die for God, live to God, as do Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs. (4 Macc. 16:25)
It does not say, “The martyrs live in God provided their lives were
upright from the very beginning.” In Rev. 6:9 the souls of the
martyrs are at the heavenly worship. It does not say, “The souls of
some of the martyrs are there.”
To answer your question more specifically, I’ll say one more thing
about the last tsar and his wife. God (wishing our salvation) wants
each person to repent. Sometimes He permits great humiliation and
suffering so we will change our minds. In the humiliation between
abdication6 and the end of their lives, such a change of mind did
take place, according to a biographer who knew them well.
The Emperor realized the mistaken judgments on his own
part that had led in some measure to the cataclysm.
Later in the same paragraph she writes concerning the empress:
By degrees I think she began to see that she and the
emperor had made many political mistakes, and given their
confidence to people who had mismanaged affairs.7
Many vicious slanders were perpetrated against the tsar and his
wife, especially some of the accusations about Rasputin and their
relationship to him.
145
146
8. Questions about Sources
Question
1'. I would like to check some of
your sources. Where do I find a
Septuagint and a literal
translation of the New
Testament? Where do I find the
works of those you call “Fathers
of the Church” and other early
Christian writers?
I This is also called “textus receptus” or “Received Text.”
2 But watch out for English translation errors.
My answer
1. I very much recommend that you examine my sources to see whether or
not I am correct. This is especially wise when you read any book (such
as this one) in which the author often paraphrases his sources (gives
the meaning in his own words) instead of quoting word for word. You
should check to see that he has not changed the meaning.
a. Septuagint O_ld Testament.
A Catholic or Protestant bookstore will have it or can order it.
Zondervan publishes one (in print at this writing); the Greek and
English are side by side on each page. It is a large book and not cheap.
If you don’t want to buy one, a seminary library will have one you can
look at.
b- m m in a_n gal—ct @
This is not expensive and not hard to find. A Protestant bookstore
should have it. Look for an “interlinear Greek-English New
Testament.” They are given this name because between the lines of the
Greek (original) text is a literal English translation. Just below each
Greek word is its literal English translation so you know what the
original really says, not what some dishonest (or at least mistaken)
English Bible translation wants you to think it says. Zondervan
publishes “interlinear” New Testaments; one of them (the George R.
Berry, the one I use) contains the Greek text our Church uses, the
Elzevir edition of 1624.1 On the side of each page is also an English
version (such as the King James). Or, instead of an “interlinear” NT,
you could use an “analytical” concordance. Look up an English word;
this concordance will tell not only where in the Bible the word is
found, but also from what Greek word each one was translated. Next to
the Greek word will be its literal translation.
0. Fathers of th_e Church.
There are various English editions (sets of books).2 Some (such as the
Fathers of th_e Church series) have the word “Fathers” in the title, as
does the Eerdmans edition. It is titled T_he Ante-_Nicene Fathers and
T_he Nicene @ Post-Nicene Fathers. Another edition is called Ancient
Christian Writers. These books can be consulted by the public in
seminary libraries or in the libraries of universities with religion
departments.
A note of caution: Tertullian rightly said that the Scriptures are
prohibited to heretics (m magic—ripgm W). The Bible is
the Church’s book and is part of her Tradition. It can not be read
without “the faith once delivered (traditioned) to the saints” (Jude 3).
When Bible study is unaided by reference to the rest of the Church’s
Tradition, there will be some harmful results. When a student says to
himself, “This is what lthink this means,” disregarding m th_e my
Church believed @ g subject, he is making a mistake.
147
 Question
2. You commonly quote the Fathers
of the Church (even in your
answers to Protestantsl). The
Church Fathers do not always
agree with each other. They and
the other early Christian writers
are not a very strong leg on which
to stand. Most Protestants do not
consider the Fathers to be highly
authoritative (that is, official or
conclusive proof).
Very commonly, an Orthodox
writer will cite only one Father or
two. This is not convincing.
148
My answer
2. On many important subjects there _is complete agreement among the
Fathers and all other writers of the early Church. So many
Protestants officially reject the unanimous opinion of the Fathers
and of all other writers of the early Church (which includes the
opinion of the Church Fathers of the first and second centuries
A.D.) on subjects such as the Eucharist is Christ’s body and blood,
the Eucharist is a sacrifice, and the proper use of relics; because of
this rejection we know that their Protestant denominations can not
be a restoration of the early Church. Since Roman Catholics teach
papal infallibility and indulgence grants (to give two examples),
which they can do only by ignoring the unanimous opinion of the
Church Fathers on these subjects, it is obvious that today’s Roman
Church can not be a continuation of the early Church. Unlike the
other churches, the Orthodox Church never rejects the consensus
(the unanimous or nearly-unanimous opinion) of the Fathers.
1 agree that wherever possible, authors should avoid citing only one
Church Father. Where I have cited only one Father or other early
Christian writer, it has usually been to answer the question, “Was
this belief or practice known in the very early Church?”
Abbreviations
Mk. Mark
Mt. Matthew
Bible, fl Testament alphabetical list (parentheses refer NT New Testament
to Protestant/Jewish versions) 1 Pet. 1 Peter
2 Pet. 2 Peter
Am. Amos Phil. Philippians
Bar. Baruch Rev. Revelation
1 Chr. 1 Chronicles Rom. Romans
2 Chr. 2 Chronicles 1 Th. 1 Thessalonians
Dan. Daniel 2 Th. 2 Thessalonians
Dt. Deuteronomy 1 Tim. 1 Timothy
Ec. Ecclesiastes 2 Tim. 2 Timothy
l Esd. l Esdras (2 Ezra)l
Tit. Titus
Est. Esther
Ex. Exodus m Versions
Ezek. Ezekiel
Gen. Genesis
KJV King James
Hos. Hosea NIV New International
Is. Isaiah
RSV Revised Standard
Jdt. Judith
Jer. Jeremiah g Qhurch Eatherg gm other Christian writegs
Jg. Judges
Job Job
AC_,W Ancient Christian Writers
Josh. Joshua
1 Kg. (1 Sam.) l Kingdoms (1 Samuel) m Antp-Nicene Fathers
2 Kg. (2 Sam.) 2 Kingdoms (2 Samuel) Qt ISL Coppps Qhristigorum, Series Latina
3(1) Kg. 3 Kingdoms (1 Kings) CSEL Coppus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum
4(2) Kg. 4 Kingdoms (2 Kings) Latinorum
Lam.
Lev.
Lamentations
Leviticus
'“l
ECW Early Christian Writings, m
Apostolic Fathers (Penguin Classics)
LXX Septuagint version Ihp Eathers _(jflti Church; Am
1 Macc. 1 Maccabees Translation (Patristic Series), The
2 Macc. 2 Maccabees
Catholic University of America Press
4 Macc. 4 Maccabees2
U)
"Uzlg D_ie griechischen christlichen
Mal; Malachi
Schriftsteller
Neh. Nehemiah
"UNF Nicene a_nd Post-Nicene Fathers
Num. Numbers
OT Old Testament j Batrologia firaega, ed. J.-P. Migne (in
Pr. Proverbs Greek and Latin)
Ps. Psalms pU
"U
_ Eatrglggia Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne (in
Sir. Sirach or Ecclesiasticus Latin)
Song of S.
Song of 3 Y.
Song of Solomon
Prayer of Azariah and Song of 3 Young
l: Patrng Lama. Snardamrm (iI1
Latin)
Men
Tob. Tobit Encyclopedias
Wis. Wisdom of Solomon
Zech. Zechariah Q Encyclopaedia Britannica
fl Encyclopaedia llpdaica
Bible, New Testament. alphabetical list
it Encyclopedia _o_f Religion, editor in
chief Mircea Eliade, 1987
Acts Acts
@ Elngyglopaedia 9_fReligign md Ethicg
Col. Colossians
no year given
1 Cor. 1 Corinthians
JE ,! eyyish Encyclgpaedia
2 Cor. 2 Corinthians
Eph. Ephesians @ NJ mm 1967
Gal. Galatians
Heb. Hebrews
Jas. James
Jn. John
1 Jn. 1 John
Jude Jude
Lk. Luke

I called 3 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate

2 In Greek Orthodox Bibles this appears in an appendix.

149
 wears crown 7
Index
blessing, hand (of priest or bishop) raised in 1:8
body, and soul:
chapter number:section letter (if any):question or answer
to be reunited following last Judgment 4:I:n.3
numbers (if applicable)
both to be rewarded or punished 4:I:n.3
no one may destroy body 5:1
ep.—epilogue
born again 4:G:l-4
intro—introduction
bows:
n.—footn0te
from waist 1:3
pr.—preface
slight (bowing the head) 124,15, 4:1:9
branches of green leaves in some churches on Pentecost 2:4
.A_ bread, not to be discarded 6:1
Adam’s sin, only Adam guilty of 3 :F intro. burial:
St. Abercius 4:H:4 presupposed by Bible 5:1
abortion 6:6-8 a duty in Bible 5:1
Abraham’s “offspring” (who inherits God’s promises to in Orthodox ceremony for deceased 5:1
Abraham) is Christ 4:P:5,8
Adam, has been about 7,500 years since creation of 4:Q:3
altar table 4:1:27
-C_
candles 1:17-19
contains small bits of relics 4:K:6
childbirth, woman’s return to church attendance after 6:9
St. Ambrose l:n.8, 3:A:2, 3:E:3,5, 3:F:l, 4:D:16,n.9,n.16,
4:E:l, 4:P:5, 4:I:n.3,n.4, 4:N:1, 4:P:n.2 13
childlessness, intentional, normally forbidden 4:G:51
St. Anastasius of Sinai 4:L:n.3
Chrismation (Confirmation):
ancestral sin 3:F
given to baptized infants 4:G:23
St. Andrew of Caesarea 2:7, 4:I:4
St. Andrew of Crete 3:F:1
a sacrament, conveys gift of Holy Spirit 4:G:3 1-35
Christ:
angel-centered religion 4:N:5
alone without sin 3:F, 4:G:23
angels:
alone undefiled 3:F, 4:A:15, 4:G:23
dance now in paradise according to many Church
both priest and victim 4:C
Fathers 4:L:5
those men in NT called brothers of 4:I:32
their prayers asked 4:N:l
offer our prayers to God 4:N:l and His members sole inheritors of God’s promises to
Abraham 4:P
venerated in Bible 4:N:2
venerated by earliest Christians 4:N:3,6
alone Abraham’s offspring 4:P
St. Clement of Rome 1:6, 3:A:3, 4:A:1,9,l4, 4:D:l6,2l,n.7,
should not be venerated by apostle or prophet 4:N:6
4:G:40, 4:0:7
antimension 4:K:6
clergy, vestments of 2:6
St. Aphrahat 3:A:2, 4:G:23, 4:P:n.7
Communion:
aflgphorion 2:1
required for salvation 4:G:5
Ascension 1:7-8 given to baptized infants 4:G:23
astrology 6:14-17 not given to non-Orthodox 6:4
St. Athanasius 4:A:16, 4:D:ep. g MEucharist
Blessed Augustine pr., 1:2, 2:7, 3:A:2, 3:B:3, 3:E:4, 3:F:l,
Confession of sins to priest 4:G:25-30
4:D:3,17, 4:H:1, 4:P:6, 7:2
required before Communion and other Mysteries
4:G: 16-1 8
-13 listing all one’s sins impossible 4:G:29
Baptism: confidence at Judgment seat 4:G:11
for forgiveness of sins 4:G:1 Confirmation. E Chrismation
necessary for salvation 4:G:4
conscience, terrified 4:D:22
by immersion 4:G:20 conversion, man can make first move in 4:D:l7
of infants 4:G:23
coronation:
sponsors in 4:G:21-22 of British monarch 4:M:intro.
“baptism in the Holy Spirit” 4:G:53 of Orthodox emperor 7:4
St. Barnabas 2:8, 4:A: l4, 4:D:n.7,21, 4:P:6, 6:8 council of bishops, can not settle dispute without primate’s
St. Basil the Great 1:1,7, 2:7, 4:D:n.8,ep., 4:G:1, 4:L:n.4,
consent nor he without theirs 3:B:3
4:M:3, 4:Q:l Covenant, New 4:B:7, 4:C:l, 4:I:n.l
beards 6:2
creation of world:
Bible: out of nothing 4:A:16
defined by Church 4:A:2 six “days” may not each have been 24 hours long 4:Q
each man may not interpret for himself 4:A:1-8, 8:1 cremation, normally forbidden 5
Septuagint version of OT 4:A:9-11 cross:
OT books dropped by Protestants 4:A:12-28 tracing sign of 1:20-24
contains some things not literally intended 2:7, veneration of 4:M
4:G:41, 4:Q crowns:
bishop: worn in wedding 7
bearded 6:2 worn by bishops 7
Christ’s image 6:n.l

151
 symbolism of 7 on Wednesdays, Fridays, and in Great Lent done since
crozier (bishop’s) 2:2 earliest Church 4:F:2-3
St. Cyprian 1:1,21, 3:A:2, 3:E:1, 4:C, 4:D:21,n.9,n.16, obligatory 4:F:9
4:G:23, 4:H:1, 4:P:n.2 before receiving Mysteries 4:F:10-11
St. Cyril ofAIexandria 3:F:n. 1, 4:D:n.l4, 4:L:n.7, father, priests called 4:G:41
4:I:32,n.9 Fathers of Church, when unanimous must not be ignored
St. Cyril of Jerusalem l:24,n.15, 3:A:2, 3:E:5, 4:A:l,n.4, 3:A, 3:B:1, 4:B, 4:C, 4:1(:5, 4:P:n.S-6, 8:2
4:D:n.8, 4:G:23, 4:L:5 St. Faustus ofRiez 4:D: l7, 4:G:13
filioggg 31D
-1) fire
dance, in circle, of angels and of Saints in paradise 4:L:5 at Last Judgment 3:E:5
“days” of creation: symbol of God 1:17
not always interpreted literally by Church Fathers St. Firmilian 3:A:2, 4:G:23
4:Q:1 firstbom, Christ 4:1:31
deceased: flag, saluting 4:M:3
ceremony for 3:E:4, 4:H forgiving (a living or deceased person) 4:H:7,n.4
considered sacrament by some 4:G:55 “free prayer” 4:]
Orthodox funeral normally forbidden: “fruits worthy of repentance” 3:E
for suicide 6:3 funeral service. §e_e deceased, ceremony for
for persons insisting on owri cremation 5:2
Eucharist offered for 4:H:1 1 -6
memorial service for, 4:H:6-10 garment of skin 3:F:n.8
kolyva 4:H:10 St. Gerrnanus of Constantinople 1:13, 2:6, 4:L:6
prayers for 4:H gestures, liturgical l
prayers explicitly in Bible 4:H:3 glossolalia, skepticism about 4:G:54
prayers offered in very early Church 4:H:4 Gnostics 4:N:5
their purification through God’s mercy 3:E:3-5 godparents 4:G:21-22
deification of man 4:D:ep. Gospel book kissed 4:M:intro.
St. Diadochus 3:E:5, 4:D:n.8 grace:
St. Dionysius the Areopagite 1:21, 3:D:3, 4:D:ep., man co-operates with 4:D
4:G:22,23,n.l9, 4:0:7 not irresistible 4:D
St. Dionysius the Great of Alexandria 3:D:3 St. Gregory of Elvira 4:D:n.16, 4:G:23
St. Dorotheus of Gaza 4:D:21 St. Gregory the Great 1:n.8, 3:A:2,4, 3:D:3, 3:E:4,
M 4:I:9,ep. 4:D:2l,n.9,n.l4,n.l6, 4:F:n.5, 4:G:l l, 4:L:n.3,
4:P:8
.15. St. Gregory Nazianzen l:l7,n.8, 2:7, 3:A:2, 3:D:3, 3:F:n.8,
east, facing, in prayer 1:7 4:L:4,n.3
Easter (Pascha), date of 6:5 St. Gregory ofNyssa 3:E:4,n.l l, 3:F:n.8, 4:G:23,n.4
emperor, Orthodox: St. Gregory of Sinai 3:D:3
anointing of (at coronation) 7:4 St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, 4:L:pr.,n.3
rite considered sacrament by some 4:G:55 St. Gregory ofTours 1:17, 4:G:55
his office also ecclesiastical 7:4 St. Gregory Palamas 3:D:3, 4:D:ep., 4:Q:1
St. Ephrem of Syria 3:D:3, 3:F:1,3,4
St. Epiphanius 4:1:32 _H_
epitimign (ecclesiastical penalty) 3:E:intro.,1-2, 4:G:26 hades 4:1:n.3
Church always had authority (in exceptional cases) to hand of priest:
remit part of 3:E:intro.,1 raised in blessing 1:8
“equal to the Apostles,” title 4:G:44, 7:3 kissed 1:10
Eucharist: hands, lifting one’s l:6,n.l
dried and taken to the absent 2:] “harp” in Bible, how interpreted by Church Fathers 2:7
body and blood of Christ 4:B head, covering (woman’s) in worship 1:28-29
bread and wine of, not mere symbols 4:E St. Hegesippus 4:I:32
a sacrifice 4:C St. Hermas 4:D:11,21,n.7
contains (hot) water 4:E St. Hesychius the Priest 4:G:23
offered for deceased 4:H:11 St. Hilary of Poitiers 3:A:2, 3:D:3, 4:D:17,n.16, 411132
S_eg_ all Communion St. Hippolytus 1:n.12, 3:A:2, 4:C:4, 4:D:n.16, 4:G:23,
St. Eucherius of Lyons 4:D:21,n.9 4:1:15, 4:L:6
evolution, theory of 4:Q:intro. Holy Spirit:
Qnihilg. _Sfl creation of world, out of nothing gift of, conveyed in Chrismation 4:G:31-35
eyes, raising one’s 1:6 procession of 3:D
host of heaven 4:N:4
-F_ hypgjglia 4:I:9
faith and works 4:D
fasting 42F -1
on fixed days 4:F:2-3 icons, veneration of 4:M

152
St. Ignatius ofAntioch 2:8, 4:A:9, 4:B:3,4, 4:K:5, 4:O:4 St. Macarius the Great of Egypt 4:D:1 l,l6,21,n.14,
“immaculate” conception of Virgin Mary 31F 4:G:n.20, 4:P:8
image, at least one venerated by Jews in Temple times 4:M mantra 4:H:n.5
images made in OT worship of God 4:M St. Mark of Ephesus 3:D:3, 3:E:n.7,n.8
incense 1:11-16 St. Mark the Monk 4:D:3,21, 4:G:9
indulgence grants unknown in early Church and in Marriage:
correctly-believing Church 3:E:2; 4:D:1,14; to non-Christian forbidden 4:G:48
4:F:1; 4:H:13, 4:K:7, 4:0:13 a sacrament 4:G:46-50
infallibility of Roman pope. E pope of Rome, infallibility to non-Orthodox forbidden by canon 4:G:48
instruments, musical, not used in worship 2:7 martyrs, some became good examples for others only near
St. Irenaeus 3:A:1, 4:C:4, 4:A:1,9,14,n.4, 4:E:2, 4:F:3,8, end oflives 7:5. galsg Saints
4:L:n.7, 4:I:l8,n.3, 4:P:6 Mary (Virgin) 4:1: 17-32
St. Isaac of Syria, 4:P:n.2,n.4 “immaculate” conception of 32F
St. Isidore of Mt. Pelusium 1:10, 6:n.1 called Theotokos 4:1: 17
Israel: called queen of heaven 4:1: 19
Christians the true spiritual 4:P honored 4:1:17,2l-24
God’s OT promises to people of 4:P her prayers requested 4:I:25-26
remained eternally virgin 4:I:29-32
_J_ Platytera icon of 4:I:27-28
St. Jacob of Serugh 4:H:11 St. Maximus the Confessor 3:E:5, 4:D:ep.,n.8, 4:L:5
St. James the Brother of God 4:1:32, 4:M:n.9 Melchisedech 4:C:3
Liturgy of St. James 4:E:3, 4:H:4 memorial service for deceased 4:H:6-10
Blessed Jerome 1:17, 3:A:2, 4:A:14, 4:G:20 St. Mennas of Constantinople 3:B:2
Jews no longer heirs to God’s promises 4:P merits (transferable). 5g; indulgence grants
St. John Cassian 4:D:11,17,22, 4:F:n.5 St. Methodius 3:F:n.8, 4:I:29, 4:L:n.3, 4:M:5, 4:P:n.4
St. John Chrysostom 1:2,23, 2:7, 3:A:2,3, 3:F:n.l,n.6, mezuzah 4:M:intro.
4:D:6,15,l7,n.8, 4:P:l4,15, 4:G:n.4, 4:M:2 monastic consecration ceremony considered sacrament by
St. John Climacus 4:D:21 some 4:G:55, 4:0:7
St. John ofDamascus 1:24, 3:D:3, 4:A:16, 4:D:n.12, monastic life pleasing to God 4:0:1
4:L:n.3, 4:M:l-3, 4:Q:1 monastic-like vows in OT 4:0:2, 6:2
St. Joseph the Betrothed, had sons by earlier marriage monastic orders, no separate 4:0:9
4:I:32 monastic vows 4:0
Judgment, Final 3:E, 4:D:10-11,15 in NT 4:0:3
body and soul to be reunited at 4:I:n.3 permanent 4:0
judgment seat, should be approached with confidence what vowed 4:0: 1 1
4:G:n.4 monks:
justification 4:D, 4:G:6 types 4:0:9
St. Justin Martyr 1:1,2,25, 2:n.1, 4:A:9, 4:E:3, 4:C:4, grades 4:0:9
4:D:21, 4:E:2, 4:F:lO, 4:G:l, 4:L:6, 4:N:3, most are laymen 4:0:12
4:P:8,n.8, 6:4 musical instruments not used in worship 2:7
Mysteries 4:B,C,E,G,L. E a_lg Baptism, Eucharist,
_K Chrismation, Confession, Unction, Marriage,
St. Kasiani 4:G:44 Ordination
keys to kingdom ot heaven 3:A:2
kissing 1:10,25,26; 4:H:n.4; 4:M _N_
of Gospel book 4:M:intro. Nazirite (monastic-like) vows in OT 4:0:2, 6:2
of Law scroll by Jews 4:M:intro., n.2 St. Nectarius of Constantinople 4:G:n.10
kglyva 4:H: 10 St. Neilus of Ancyra 4:D:n.8
kneeling forbidden on Sundays 1:1 St. Niceta of Remesiana 2:7, 3:D:3
St. Nicholas Cabasilas 1:1,4, 4:C:2, 4:D:3
_L_ St. Nicholas II, Tsar, a martyr 7:5
lamps 1:17,]9
land promised to people of Israel 4:P _0_
@ (worship given to God alone) not given to: orante 1:1
Saints 4:1:9,ep., 4:M:n.13 Ordination:
icons 4:M:l,3 of married men to priesthood, not prohibited 3:C
angels 4:M:n.13, 4:N:4 a sacrament, conveys God’s gift 4:G:42
Law, works of the, can’t save 4:D:l-ll of women forbidden 4:G:43-45
Law scroll kissed by Jews 4:M:intro., n.2 original sin 3:F
St. Leo I the Great 3:A: l,2,n.3, 4:D:n.16, 4:G:20 OT, Septuagint version of A:4:9-28
St. Leontius ofNeapolis 4:M:n.2
Lucemarium 1:19 _p_
St. Pachomius 4:D:21
_M_ Palestine promised to people of Israel 4:P
paradise 4:1:n.3,4zL15

153
Pascha (Easter), date of 6:5 abuse of, and fraud 4:K:7
rm 2:2 all called “useless” by official Protestant confessions
St. Patrick 4:F:9 4:K:7
St. Paulinus ofNola 4:D:n. 16 cremation not conducive to use of 5:1
penalty, ecclesiastical. SE epitimion repetition in prayer 4:H:9
penances. E epitimion Resurrection 4:G:n.3
Pentecost 1:17, 2:4, 3:F:4 celebrated weekly since earliest times 2:8
St. Peter of Alexandria 2:n.6 ring, wedding, symbolism of 7:3
St. Peter Chrysologus 4:D:n.16 rock, upon which Christ built Church 3:A:2
petition in liturgy 4:] :7 Roman Catholics 3
pews, in Orthodox churches traditionally no 1:1 Roman Church preeminent since earliest times 32A
St. Photius 3:D:1 Rome, pope of. E pope of Rome
phylacteries 4:M:n.1 Royal Gate, emperor’s passage through 7:4
Platytera icon of Theotokos 4:I:27-28
St. Polycarp 4:A:14, 4:D:n.7, 4:F:5, 4:I:10, 4:K:5 _5_
pope of Rome: sacraments. S_ee Mysteries
primacy of 31A sacrifice 7:3
seniority of 3:A:n.1 Eucharist a 4:C
infallibility of: Christ both priest and victim of 4:C, 7:3
unknown in early Church 3:B Saints:
preposterous even when limited by some Roman some shone 1:17
Catholics 3:B:2 deceased:
not taught by any Church Father or other early are asked for prayers 4:1: 1-6,15
writer 3:B pray for living 4:I:1-6,15
several condemned as heretics 3:B their present state 4:I:7
posture in worship 1 venerated 4:I:9-14,ep., 4:M:n.13
prayer: not worshipped with M4:I:9-14,ep., 4:M:n.13
standing is usual posture for 1:1-2 bodies often remain undecomposed 4:K, 5
considered sacrament by some 4:G:55 dance now in paradise according to many Church
repetition in 4:H:9 Fathers 4:L:5
fixed wording in 4:] salvation:
§e_e_ M deceased Baptism‘required for 41624
predestination 4:D: 17 Communion required for 4:G:5
preexistence of soul denied 4:A: 15 a process 4:G:6-15
presveia 3:A:n.l confidence about one’s 4:G:11
priest: assurance of one’s 4:G:1 1-14
Christ’s image 6:n.l satisfaction 3:E
Christ’s instrument in performing Eucharist 4:C saved?, are you 4:G:9-14
priests: m 4:0:9
all Christians are 4:G:39 seniority (of papal office) 3:A:n.1
presbyters called 4:G:39-40 Septuagint version of OT 4:A:9-28
called Father 4:G:41 always quoted by NT 4:A:9-11
processions, religious 4:L St. Serapion of Thmuis 4:G: 12
in Bible 4:L:1-3 shouting, improper in Church services 4:G:54
around a table in some Mysteries 4:L:1-5 sm:
called circle dance by some Fathers 4:L:4 original (ancestral) 3:F
Entry of Presanctified 4:L:6 actual (personally-willed) 3:F
St. Proclus of Constantinople 3:F:5 unintentional 3:E:5, 4:D:11,22, 4:H:l, 6:13
prostrations in worship 1:5 only Christ without 3:F, 4:G:23
forbidden on Sundays 1:1 venial 4:D:11
proskyneo, prosgnesis. E veneration mortal 4:G:28, 4:H:1
Protestants 4 E M Confession of sins
purgatory 3:E, 4:D:14 sitting in church 1:2
St. Sophronius of Jerusalem 1:13, 3:D:3
.11. soul:
Red Sea, old Israel’s escape through: preexistence of, denied 4:A:15
a preview of Baptism 4:G:23, 4:L:4 and body to be reunited at last Judgment 4:I:n.3
likened to next world’s test of fire 3:E:5 staff of bishop 2:2
relics: standing, normal posture for prayer 1:1-2
honor and veneration given to 4:K suicide, funeral service normally forbidden for a 6:3
healing through, Biblical 4:K:2 Sunday worship 2:8
veneration and use of: supererogation, works of. E indulgence grants
in earliest Church 4:K:5 Supper, Last, not repeated but made present 4:C
defended by Church Fathers 4:K:5 symbolic acts in Bible:
small bits of, in altar table 4:K:6 carrying baggage 2:5

154
 wearing bonds and yokes 2:5 worship. $1; latria
symbols used in worship:
incense 1:11-16 _Z_
candles and lamps 1:17-19 St. Zachary 3:D:3
crozier (bishop’s staff) 2:2 St. Zeno of Verona 4:1:28
votive offerings 2:3 Zionism 4:P:intro.
branches of green leaves (on Pentecost) 2:4 Christian 4:P
palm branches 2:5
bread and wine of Eucharist, not mere symbols 41B
boiled wheat (kolyva) 4:H: 10
crown 7
ring (wedding) 7:3
St. Symeon the New Theologian 1:17
St. Symeon of Thessalonica 1:2,13, 3:A:ep, 4:L:4
synergy 4:D

_T_
tallit (prayer shawl) 4:M:intr0.
St. Tarasius of Constantinople 3:D:3
Temple venerated by OT Jews 4:M:intro.,2
St. Thalassius 3:D:3, 4:L:n.3
St. Theodore the Studite 1:26, 4:0:7, 6:n.1
Blessed Theodoret pr., 3:A:2, 3:D:3, 3:F:n.1,n.2
St. Theophilus of Antioch 4:A:16, 4:G:33
Blessed Theophylact the Bulgarian 4:D:4, 4:I:23
Theotokos:
Virgin Mary is 4:I:17
Platytera icon of 4:I:2'7-28
SQ also Mary
Tradition, Holy 4:A:1-8, 8:1
traditions of men 4:A:4-5
Transfiguration 1:17
“treasury of the church” 3:E:intro.

_U_
Unction, Holy 4:G:16,36-38

_V_
St. Valerian of Cimiez 4:D:21,n.9
veneration given to:
Saints 4:I:9-14,ep., 4:M:n.13
relics 4:K
icons 4:M
angels 4:N
Temple by OT Jews 4:M:intro.,2
vestments of clergy 2:6
victim of sacrifice:
Christ 4:C, 7:3
pagan victims 7:3
St. Victorinus 2:7, 4:I:4
St. Vincent ofLérins 3:D:3, 3:E:4, 4:A:1
votive offerings 2:3
vow to God, a sin to break 4:0:2-3

_W_
water in Eucharist 4:E
water, blessing of, considered sacrament by some 4:G:55
will, man’s, in conversion (synergy) 4:D
wine, undiluted, its symbolism 4:E:1
works (including keeping commandments), required for
salvation 4:D
works of the Law 4:D:1-11
women:
may not speak in church 4:G:43-45
may not be ordained 4:G:43-44

155
156
Index of Bible References

Bible, @ Testament, alphabetical list of books followed by Bible chapter: Bible verse (parentheses refer to
Protestant/Jewish versions), chapter number of this book. section letter (if any);

Am. 9:11-15,4.P; 9:12 LXX,4.A

“.

1 Chr. 23:13,]; 28:2,4.M

2 Chr. 3:10,4.M; 20:3—4,4.F; 36:9,4.A

Dan. 1:1-16,4.F; 4:25-27 (29-30),4.A; 6:10,]; 7:10,3.E; 8:17-18,4.N; 9:21,4.A; 10:2-3,4.F;

10:3,4.F

Dt. 6:13,4.I; 7:3,4.G; l8:10-15,6; 125-6,2; 12:ll,2; 17:12,4.G; 21:5,1,4.G; 23:3,4.A,4.P;

23:21,4.0; 26:5-10,4.J; 26:13-15,4.J; 28:15-25,4.P; 28:45-68,4.P

Be. 5:3-5(4-6),4.0

1 Esd. 1:43,4.A; 8:50,4.F

Est. 4:16,4.F

Ex. 3:2-4,l,1,4.G; 4:31,]; 10:1-2,4.A; 12:28(27),1; 19:6,4.G; 19:17,]; 19:18-20,1; 20:4-5,4.M;

20:22,]; 24:15-18,1; 24:17,1; 25:18-20',4.M; 25:31-40,1;25:40,4.M; 26:31-33,4.M; 27:20
21,l; 29:6,7; 30:1-9,1,1; 33:10,]; 34:8,]; 40:27,]

Ezek. 1:27,]; 9:4,]; 12,2; 34:11-31,4,P; 36:24-25,4.P; 37:12-14,4.P; 37:21-22,4.P; 44:1-2,4.I

Gen. 1,4.Q; 1:1-2 LXX,4.A; 1:28,4.G; 2:8,]; 2:24,4.G; 3:17-20,3,F; 3:21,3.F; 12:2-3,4.P;
13:15,4.P; l4:18-20,4.C; 17:3,]; 17:8,4.P; 20:7,4.I; 26:24,4.I; 28:15,4.I; 33:3,]; 47:28,4.A;
47:31 LXX,4.A

7:14 LXX,4.I,4.I; 15:2,6; 38:1-6,6; 44:3,2; 47:13,6; 49:1,6; 61:10 LXX,7; 63:16 LXX,4.I;
66:18-19 LXX,1

1:7,4.A; 4:6-8,4.A; 8:6,4.F; 9,4.A; 9:1,1; 14:5,4.P; 14:10,4.A,4.P; 15:13,7

1:5,4.G,6; 7:16-20 LXX,4.I; 10:2,6; 23:3-8,4.P; 31[48]:37-38,6; 32:15-29 LXX,4.E;

34:1(27:2),2

13:5,6

Job 14:3-5 LXX,4.G; 14:4-5 LXX,3.F,4.A; 42:7-9,4:I

Josh. 2:5-6,4.A; 5:15(l4),1; 6:1-21,4.L; 7:19,4.G

1 Kg. (1 Sam.) l:26,l; 2:9 LXX,4.D; 6:10-14 LXX,4.I; 7:6,4.F; 10:1,7; 10:24,7; 16:13,7

2 Kg. (2 Sam.) 12:21-22,4.F

3(1) Kg. 6:23,4.M; 7:29,4.M; 8:10-11,1; 8:27,4.I; 8:44,]; 8:48,]; 18:26 LXX,4.L; 20(21):27-29,4.F

4(2) Kg. 2:9,4.I; 2:14,4.K; 2:15,],4.1; 4:37,4.I; 13:20-21,4.K; 17:16,4.N; 21:3-5,4.N; 24:8,4.A

Lam. 3:41,]; 5:21,4.D

Lev. 2:1,]; 9:22,l; 12:1-8,6; 21:5,6; 23:38,2; 24:2-4,1

1 Macc. 1:54,4.A; 4:46,4.A; 4:52,4.A; 9:27,4.A; 10:20,7; 12:15,4.A; 13:51,2

2 Mace. 3:11,4.A; 3:20,]; 8:24,4.A; 10:3,4.A; 10:4,]; 12:42-45,4.H,4.H; 15:14,4.I; 15:15-16,4.I

4 Mace. 16:25,4.I,4.I,7; l7:15,7

157
 Mal. 1:6-11 LXX,4.C;1:11,1,4.C
Neh. 8:6,1
Num. 6:5,6; 6:13,4.0; 21:5-9 LXX,2; 21:8-9,4.M; 29:39,2; 30:6(5),4.0
Pr. 9:2-5,4.E; 11:31 LXX,4.A,4.G; 15:27 LXX,4.D; 24:21,4.o; 26:11 1.xx,4.o; 28:13,4.G
Ps. 8:5-6 LXX,4.A; 18(19):12,4.G; 21:16 LXX,4.A; 21(22):l8,4.A; 25(26):6-7,4.L;
33(34):1s,4.1; 34(35):13,4.F,4.F; 44(45):9-15,41; 44:17 LXX,4.I;46(47):1,4.G; 50(51)=1
LXX,4.0; 67:33 LXX,1; 75(76):11,4.0; 77(78):1-3,4.A; 77(78):6,4.A; 81(82):6,4.D;
98(99):5 LXX,4.M; 109(110):1,411; 111(112):5-7,4.H; 131(132):7,4.M; 131(132):s,4.1;
133(134):2,1; 140(141):2,1; 150:1 LXX,4.1
Sir. 3:21-22(22-23),4.Q; 3:30,4.D,4.D; 5:11,4.A; ll:26,4.I; 34(31):8-l0,3.F; 38:16,5; 45:12,7;
48:13-14,4.K

Song of S. 3:11,7;5:1-3,3.F

Song of 3 Y. 11,4.1

Tob. 1:4,4.A; l:15,4.A; 6:1,4.A; 9,4.A; 12:9,4.D; l2:12,4.N; 12:15,4.N; 12:16,],4.N; l4:15,4.A

Wis. 5:17-18,4.A; 8:19-20,4.A; ll:l7,4.A

Zech. 1:3,4.D; 12:10,4.A

158
Bible, New Testament, alphabetical list

Acts 1:14,4.I; 2:1-4,1; 2:38,4.G; 2:42,4.J; 2:44,4.0; 2:47,4.G; 3:25,4.P; 4:32-35,4.0; 5:1-5,4.0;
7:42,4.N; 8:14-18,4.G; 8:30-31,4.A; 8:38-39,4.G; 10:25-26,4.l; 10:44-46,4.G; 13:3,4.F;
14:11-15,4.I; 14:23,4.G; 15,4:P; 15:6-21,3.A; 15:17,4.A; 17:11,4.A; l7:13,4.A; 18:25,4.E;
20:8,]; l9:4-6,4.G; 19:11-12,4.K; 20:7,2; 20:9,1; 21:10:11,2; 21:25,4.F

Col. 1:24,3.E; 2:8,4.A,4.F; 2:16,4.F; 2:18,4.N; 3:16,4.A; 3:18,4.0; 3:21,4.G

1 Cor. 122,4.G; 3:16,4.K; 3:16-17,5; 4:1,4.G; 4:6,4.A; 4:15,4.G; 5:1-5,4.G; 6:12,4.F; 6:19,],5; 7:13
15,4.G; 7.23,4.0; 7:27-28,4.0; 7:38,4.0; 7:32-35,3.C; 9:22,4.1; lO:l-4,4.G; 10:16,l,4.B;
ll:l,4.F; 11:5-10,1; 11:23-32,4.B; 11:27-30,4.G; 12,4.G; l2:28,4.G; 14:25,]; l4:28,4.G;
14:33,4.A; 14:34-35,4.G; 15:35-44,5

2 Cor. 2:10,4.G; 6:4-5,4.F,4.F; 5:10,4.H; 6:14-18,4.G; 12:2-4,4.I

Eph. 2:5,4.G; 2:8,4.G; 2:8-9,4.D; 2:19-20,3.A; 3:9-10,4.A; 5:19,],4.H,4.J; 5:22,4.0; 5:32,4.G,4.G;

6:4,4.G; 6:11-14,4.A

Gal. l:15-16,6; 2:21,4.D; 3:16,4.P,4.P; 3:29,4.P; 4:6,3.D; 4:19,4.G,4.I; 5:19-22,4.G; 5:22,2

Heb. 2:7,4.A; 2:15,3.F; 3:12,4.G; 4:15,3.F; 5:6,4.C; 8:5,4.M; 9:5,4.M; 9:15,4:I; 10:14,4.C;
l0:29,4.B; 11:6,4.D; 11:14,]; ll:l4-l6,4.P; 11:21,4.A; 12:24,4.I; 12:29,],4.G;
l3:10,4.C,4.G; 13:20,4.B

1:5,4.A; l:19,4.A; 2,4.D; 2:25,4.A; 4:8,4.D; 5:14-15,4.G; 5:16,4.G

1:2,4.A; 2:4,4.I; 3:2,]; 3:5,4.G,4.G; 3:14,2; 3:21,4.D; 5:23,4.P; 6,4.B; 6:12,6; 6:44,4.D;
6:53-54,4.G; 7:38-39,2; 7:45-49,4.D; 8:2,]; 8:12,]; 8:31-36,4.0; 8:39-44,4.P; 9:1-7,4.K;
10:27-29,4.G; 11:41,]; 12:13,2; 12:32,4.D; 13:31,],4.M; 15:5,4.D,4.D; 15:6,4.G; 15:26,3.D;
16:13,4.A,4.A,4.G; 16:14,3.D; 19:24,4.A; 19:34,4.E; 19:37,4.A; 20:22-23,4.G,4.G;
20:23,4.G; 21:15-17,3.A; 21:25,4.A

l Jn. 2:20,4.G; 2:27,4.A; 3:5,3.F; 3:14,4.G; 5:12,4.G; 5:13,4.G

Jude 3,4.A,8

Lk. 1:1-4,4.A; 1:27-28,4.I; 1:34,4.I; 1:41,6; l:42,4.I; 1:43,4.I; 1:44,6; 1:48,4.I; 2:7,4.I; 2:22
27,6; 2:32,]; 2:37,4.F; 2:46,]; 3:8,4.H; 4:20,]; 6:32-34,4.D; 6:37,4.D; 7:50,4.G; 11:27
28,4.I; 11:38,4.G; 13:23-24,4.G; l4:23,4.D; 16:22-25,4.I; 16:24-25,4.G; 16:26,4.H; 18:13,];
18:38,4.A; 20:38,4.H,4.I; 22:18-20,4.B; 22:32,3.B; 23:43,4.I; 24:5,4.N; 24:19-32,4.A;
24:39,4.B; 24:49,4.G; 24:50-51,1

Mk. 1:9-10,4.G; 5:36,4.D; 6:7,4.G; 6:12-13,4.G; 7:7-8,4.A; 7:1-5,4.G; 7:1-13,4.D; 7:13,4.A;

8:35,7; 10:17-19,4.G; 10:17-22,4.D,4.D,4.G; ll:25,l; 13:13,4.G; 14:24,4.B; 16:16,4.G,4.G

MT. 1:20,4.A; 1:23,4.I,4.I; 1:25,4.I; 2:11,]; 3:5-6,4.G; 3:5-8,3.E,3.E; 3:8,4.H; 4:10,4.I; 5:14-16,1;
5:20,4.D,4.G; 6:5-6,4.J; 6:7,4.H; 6:16,4.F; 6:16-18,4.F; 7:14,4.G; 7:21,4.G,4.G; 8:11,4.A;
9:6-8,4.G; 9:10-11,4.G; 9:14,4.F; 9:15,4.F,4.F; 10:16,2; 12:36,4.H; 15:1-9,4.D; 15:1-20,4.F;
15:4,4.G; 15:11,4.F; 16:16-17,3.A; 16:18,3.A,4.G,4.P; 16:19,4.G; l6:27,4.D; 17:5,]; 17:2,];
17:18-21,4.F,4.F; 18:18,3.A,4.G; 19:6,4.G; 22:44,4.I; 23:1-12,4.G; 23:9,4.G; 24:27,]; 25:31
46,4.D,4.D; 26:26-28,4.B; 26:44,4.H; 28:20,4.D

1 Pet. 2:9,4.G; 2:13,4.0; 3:12,4.I; 3:15,pr.; 4:18,4.A,4.G; 5:2,2; 5:4,7; 5:14,]

2 Pet. 1:4,],4.D; 2:20-21,4.G; 3:16,4.A

Phil. 2:12-13,4.D,4.D,4.D,4.D; 3:10-14,4.G; 3:11-12,4.G

Rev. 1:17,]; 2:10,7; 4:9-11,1; 5:8,],1,4.I; 5:8-9,2; 6:9-10,4.H,4,I,4,I; 7:9,]; 7:11,]; 8:3-4,1,4.N;
15:2,2; 19:10,4.N; 20:11-15,4.D; 20:13,4.G; 20:13-14,4,I; 21:14,3.A; 22:9,4.N

159
 Rom. 2:2-8,4.D,4.D; 2:5-9,4.G; 2:]3,4.D; 3:9-20,4.D; 3:20,4.D,4.D; 3:23,3.F; 3:24,4.D;
3:28,4.D,4.D; 5:12-19,3.F; 5:15-17,4.D; 5:19,3.F; 6:4,4.G; 6:23,4.D; 7:18,4.D; 8:1,4.G,4.1—1;
8:21,4.K; 8:29,4.D; 9:7,4.P; 10:9,4.G; ll:25-31,4.P; 12:2,4.G; 12:ll,4.E; 13:1,4.0;
13:11,4.G,4.G; 14:8,5; 14:10,4.H; l6:l7,6

1 Th. 2:13,4.A; 4:1-2,4.F; 4:8,4.F; 4:17,1

2 Th. 2:15,4.A

1 Tim. 2:1-5,4.1; 2:4,4.D; 2:8,1; 2:11-12,4,G; 2:15,6; 4:1-5,4.F; 4:16,4.l; 5:11-12,4.0; 5:17,4.I;
6:18-19,4.D

2 Tim. 1:6,4.G; 2:9,3:E

Tit. 1:5,4.I; 1:5-7,3.C; 3:4-5,4.G; 3:5,4.D; 3:10,6

160