"One Lord, One Faith" (Ephes. 4:5)
(Oops...meant to go to Comparative page 1? Or to page 3?)
How did the Scriptures come about?
Monastery of Philotheou, Mount Athos (Holy Mountain), Chalkidiki (N.E. Greece).
30% of the world's population is Christian. However, they do not all have the same beliefs; some are Orthodox, some are Catholic, some are Protestant, and so forth.
Nevertheless, all the different beliefs have the same source and are sustained by the same holy book - the Scriptures. How has this come about? And where is the right Belief to be found? As a mere example, here is a few fallacies we fall into when we are confused.
We will be dealing with these matters in this section.
1. HOW DID THE SCRIPTURES COME ABOUT?
A. The books of the New Testament
a. Its 'canon'
In the early Christian era, heretics, Gnostics and others, corrupted the teachings of the Church in order to support their own doctrines. In other words, they presented texts which they wrongly attributed to the holy Apostles. Because of this, a number of regional Synods were called from time to time in order to determine the authenticity of the texts. Through these Synods, the Church separated out the authentic texts from the false ones. Its criterion was the extent to which they were in use throughout the Church. In other words, whichever texts were in use were considered authentic.
This canon included the four Gospels and the Acts of the holy Apostles, which were commonly accepted at that time. The other books of the New Testament were not included in this "canon", because they were not in general use. Gradually, however, their use spread, with the result that complete standardisation was achieved within the Church. After this, Constantine the Great commissioned Eusebius of Caesarea to draw up the canon of the New Testament. This new and final canon was commonly accepted and used.
It ought to be noted that the sacred book of the Apocalypse, or Revelation, was not included in this canon. It was included later, in 410 AD, at the Synod of Carthage (Canon 32).
1. Included in the canon of the New Testament were the four recognized gospels. The Apostles also wrote other books, however. The Apostle Thomas wrote an 'Apocryphal' Gospel, as did James, the Brother of our Lord.
Why then were these not included? Who decided on this? And using what criterion?
2. Luke and Mark were not disciples of the Lord. (The former was the Apostle Paul's disciple, and the latter the Apostle Peter's). The Apostle Thomas and James, the Brother of our Lord, were disciples of the Lord. And yet the Gospels of the Lord's disciples were excluded from the New Testament! While the gospels of Luke and Mark - who were not disciples of the Lord but of the pre-eminent Apostles Peter and Paul - were included!!!
3. But then again, Clement was also a disciple of the Apostle Paul. And St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Theologian. And they, too, wrote books. Why, then, were their books not included in the New Testament?
4. And why was Clement's epistle initially included in the Canon of the New Testament, while the Epistles to Philemon and to Timothy were excluded? (Canon 85 of the holy Apostles).
And why, finally, was the holy book of the Revelation included in the 'Canon' of the New Testament so belatedly?
All the above questions have the same answer: the Church decided on them. It was the Church that decided which books were to go in and which were to be rejected. In other words, the Church subjected the books of the New Testament to judgment, to investigation and to scrutiny.
The Scriptures didn't come down from Heaven! The Scriptures came from the Church and not the Church from the Scriptures. The Church is over and above the Scriptures.
And yet, there are Christians (= Protestants) who accept the Scriptures, but who reject Tradition - which gave birth to the Scriptures. It's astonishing how they can accept the child without accepting the mother.
c. The new Testament as a God-inspired book
1. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16). The Apostle Paul is not talking here about the texts of the New Testament, because at that stage there were none. He means the Old Testament texts (c.f. 2 Tim. 3:15), which were used in the liturgical assemblies. And these texts were not, of course, established as 'God-inspired' simply from the moment when the apostle said that they were. They were already commonly recognized as being God-inspired by the Church and within the Church.
2. And the New Testament is God-inspired, too. But who confirms this? Who guarantees it?
The very same Church that established the Canon of the New Testament also decides and says that these particular holy books are God-inspired. These and only these.
All Christians share an unshakable belief in the Divinely-inspired nature of the New Testament. Nobody, but nobody doubts this. It is as if it were decreed by the Holy Spirit. Which it is. How appalling if it were a human decision. We would doubt its authenticity, we would criticize it and reject it...
d. Holy Scriptures - Holy Tradition
i. Tradition gave birth to the Scriptures
Those who reject Holy Tradition and yet accept the Scriptures as divinely-inspired, should ask themselves whether it is possible for the Holy Scriptures to exist without Holy Tradition. Of course, they do have what they see as sound arguments.
Tradition, they say, is simply the postman that carries the letter to the recipient. Good or bad, he still makes sure the letter gets to the recipient. And Holy Tradition, like any other postman, transmitted the Holy Scriptures.
There is, however, one important difference: the postman merely carries the letter, without knowing either the sender or the contents of the letter. While Holy Tradition investigated, in detail, both the sender and the contents of the Scriptures. There is simply no comparison between the two.
Since they reject Holy Tradition, which "made" the Scriptures, they ought really to question the validity of the Scriptures themselves. And they should produce their own "divinely-inspired" Scriptures. This they haven't had the gall to do (although the Jehovah's Witnesses have altered them to suit themselves). They've kicked over the traces of Holy Tradition.
ii. The Church existed even without the Holy Scriptures
When the Apostles spread out to the four corners of the known world there was no Christian Scripture; and yet the Church existed. And, of course, it was not underpinned by the Scriptures because they didn't yet exist. It was underpinned by the experiences and testimony of the holy Apostles. Whatever they had heard from Christ, and whatever they had seen, this they preached. And it was this that became the belief of the Church. Even if we lost the Scriptures, the faith of the Church would not be lost. Precisely because it is alive within the Church. Holy Writ exists in unwritten form within the Church, which is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) ('ground' as in 'bulwark').
The Apostles, then, from what they had seen and heard, wrote their holy Gospels and epistles. There are other things which they said (2 John 12) but didn't write down. And Holy Tradition preserves these in an unfathomable way (Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great). The Apostle Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold fast to what he told them by word of mouth in exactly the same way as to that which he told them in writing (2 Thes. 2:15 and Phil. 4:9). And he praises the Corinthians for keeping the traditions (1 Corinth. 11:2).
iii. Rejection of Tradition damages the Gospels
The Protestants say that there is no need for Tradition. Scripture is sufficient for our faith. St. John the Evangelist says explicitly: "But these are written, that ye might believe" (John 20:31). St. John means, however, no more than what he says: he has written his Gospel so that people might believe. This is not to say either that the other Gospels are irrelevant nor that Tradition is of no consequence.
Tradition, as we have seen, contains teachings of the holy Apostles (c.f. 2 Thess. 2:15). Now if these teachings are from the Holy Spirit and you oppose them, might you not be blaspheming against the Holy Spirit? And even if they're not from the Holy Spirit, but are at least not contrary to Scripture, you won't go to Hell if you observe them!
Holy Tradition preserves facts which have to do with the life of Christ. The Gospels tell us, for example, that Christ was crucified on Golgotha and that he was buried in a tomb that Joseph had hewn from rock. But where Golgotha is and where precisely Christ was crucified and then buried is preserved for us by Holy Tradition.
Holy Tradition is the treasure-house of the right Belief. At the same time it supports scripture, clarifies it and enriches it. If we reject it, says Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, 27), we will make serious mistakes in important matters and will thus damage the Gospel.
(If you are a Protestant rejecting Tradition, or consider it as unimportant and unneeded, and you need to see more evidence related to the importance of the Divine Tradition in Church, based only on evidence from the Scriptures, please go here.)
A. The three correct ways
a. With an open mind
Let's suppose that until yesterday you knew nothing about a particular subject. And that today you heard something about it. You formed an opinion - your own. From now on, your efforts will be directed not at trying to change it, but at doing your best to strengthen this view which you happen to have formulated. Unless this view isn't to your advantage, in which case you'll try to form an opinion in accordance with your own interests. And when you do, you will again try to reinforce this new opinion. In other words, whenever people make up their minds about something, they don't keep an open mind about it, but instead do whatever they can to support their views.
And the very same thing happens with studying Scripture. Everyone tries to bolster in his or her own mind the faith which they happen to belong to. Catholics study in order to support their faith. The Monophysites do the same, as do the Protestants, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest. And when the Holy Scriptures don't happen to suit them, they behave like Procustes (the robber in Greek mythology, who stretched people or cut off their legs to make them fit his bed). They "tailor" the Scriptures to meet their own requirements.
They start off with a set of fixed beliefs. In which case there's not much point studying the Scriptures. If we really want to be taught, if we really want to learn where Truth is hidden and where there is deceit, we first have to empty our minds of any preconceived ideas and should bow before this most holy book with an empty mind. As though we knew nothing. As if we were only now starting to learn. In this way, and only in this way, shall we find the Truth. "Therefore take exact note of Scripture and from it you will find the solution to the matter" (Canon 16 of Basil the Great).
b. In the round
The holy Scriptures have to be studied in the round, as a whole. We want, for example, to see what they have to say about Christ. We have to study all the relevant passages, and not just some (the ones which suit our purpose...). If we study all the passages, we'll have an overall, true picture of Christ. If we study only some, our picture will be incomplete - and therefore mistaken. Let's see this in practice, through some relevant quotations:
And this is where heretics go astray.
c. Don't link unrelated things
The Gospel says about Judas: "And he went and hanged himself" (Matth. 27:5). To the young man, to whom he tells the parable of the good Samaritan, Christ says: "go and do the same" (Luke 10:37). Both quotations are from the Scriptures. In one case a particular situation is described, and in the other case another situation is touched upon. There is no relation whatsoever between them. To link them would clearly be absurd. And yet, this methodology - though not, so far, this example! - is popular among heretics.
B. The three interpreters
a. The devil
The devil knows the Scriptures. He tried to deceive Christ with Biblical passages (Matth. 4:4-7). And what's more, the devil is exceedingly crafty. He is so cunning that he can deceive you through Biblical passages without your even realising!!! You think that you're explaining the Bible properly, and the explanation's all your own!
St. John of the Ladder, who for years wrestled with the devil at close quarters, shares his great experience with us: "There are some unclean devils who, as soon as someone starts studying Holy Scriptures, reveal their interpretation to them. The aim being to drive them to heresy and blasphemy" (Discourse 26. B. 36).
The consoling factor is that St. John also let us into the "secret": i.e. how we can recognise this cunning trap. He says that diabolical interpretations "Cause turbulence in the soul, disorder and unruly satisfaction" (Ibid.).
How careful we must be ...
b. Our passions
1. If we examined ourselves under a spiritual microscope, we'd discover important "findings". We'd be amazed to see that we carry around inside us a whole chain of unclean passions: hatred, jealousy, vanity, anger and so on. And it's not as though there's only a few of them. St. Peter the Damascan, who counted them one by one, tells us that all together, hidden within us, we have 298 (!) passions (Philokalia).
2. We also have a certain amount of knowledge which we happen to have picked up (and which might be wrong anyway ...). This knowledge gets mixed up with our passions, forms an "amalgam" and then we externalise it. To put it differently, our words, our judgments and our thoughts are merely the externalisation of what's inside us. But do we understand what we're externalising? Scripture says: "People have all lost understanding" (Jeremiah 28:17).
3. Our passions don't sit inactive within us. They move, act and produce "works" i.e. sins. Sins are the children of our passions. And since there's no logic in our passions (because they're passions), so in their children, sins, there's no logic either, just foolishness. "I have been exceedingly foolish" (2 Kings 24:10) said David when he sinned. And again: "My bruises stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness" (Psalm 37:6). Christ Himself said about those who crucified Him "for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). They didn't know what they were doing because they had been blinded by sin. "For their own wickedness blinded them" (Wisdom of Solomon 2:21).
It's only natural that such people won't understand the words of the Lord, but will get things all mixed up. Here's an example: When the Lord told the Jews "I go away and you shall seek me" (John 8:21), they thought He was going to commit suicide. "Perhaps he will kill himself", they said (John 8:22).
Who among us, honestly, would dare say that he or she is completely free of sin and passions? So, let's not be so sure that we've got the right interpretation of the holy book of the Scriptures.
c. The holy Fathers
The holy Fathers, with the sword of asceticism (very strict fasting - total abstinence from food - exhausting, all-night prayers, sleeping on the floor and so on) cut out from within themselves the passions and the actions of the passions. They freed their souls from the prison of the passions, as in the Biblical "bring my soul out of prison that I may confess your name" (Psalm 141:7). They cast off the covering which hid their eyes and so, with clear vision, they understood the real, wonderful meaning of Scripture as in the Biblical text: "uncover any eyes and I shall understand the wonders of your Law" (Psalm 118:18). And so their opinion, their discourse, is a guarantee "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the counsel of saints is understanding: for to know the Law is (the sign) of a sound mind" (Proverbs 9:10).
Let's look at this in greater detail: You're talking to two people. One is your friend, "your right-hand man", someone who's worked with you for years. The other is simply someone you've met two or three times. Occasionally, as you're talking to them, you don't express yourself very clearly, so that your friend understands one thing, your acquaintance another. Which of the two will have understood the unclear points better? Obviously your friend, who's been with you for years. He knows your mind, your way of thinking. And on that basis he clarifies your lack of clarity.
In Scripture, it is God Who is speaking. And in some passages, His meaning is not clear. So who will understand these passages better? Obviously those who are close with Him not only during the day, but at night, too, through prayer. Those whose flesh withers on them from fasting and keeping vigil for Christ's sake. Those who apply Scripture as fully as possible. Those who harmonise their will and desires with the will of God: "We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5).
And this elect portion of mankind are the holy Fathers (of whom more will be said later). This is why the One Church, through Canon 19 of the Holy Quinisext Oecumenical Synod, forbids any interpretation of Biblical passages without reference to the Holy Fathers.
C. The proper approach to Scripture
a. The attitude of our bodies
On the Sabbath, Christ went to the synagogue. He took a text from the Prophet Isaiah. He stood up and read the holy text standing. When he'd finished, he sat down (Luke 3:6). Through this example, our Lord teaches us that we should do the same when we study Scripture. It is precisely for this reason that in the Orthodox Church, before the Gospel is read, the congregation hears the exhortation: "Wisdom. Stand and let us hear the Holy Gospel".
b. The attitude of our souls
The Fathers ruled that the Holy Gospel should not be read at the beginning of any service. And this was no accident. It was so that our souls should warm up and be prepared, by hearing various psalms and hymns. And just before the reading we have a special prayer: "And that we may be deemed worthy of hearing ...", or, during the Holy Liturgy, the prayer: "Master, Lover of mankind, make the pure light of your divine knowledge shine in our hearts and open the eyes of our mind to understand the message of your Gospel" is said secretly. And even that is not enough. The priest blesses: "Peace be with you all". Peace is also required. And then again, the final warning: "Let us attend". What is required, then, is prayer and God's peace if we are to study and understand the Holy Gospel.
c. Study
Scripture is holy and we are sinners. If we have grasped this, then we can proceed, in study or discussion of Biblical passages, with a deep feeling of our unworthiness, "in fear and trembling". That in itself will make us dissatisfied with our own thoughts and interpretations and make us turn to the wisdom of the Fathers.
If we haven't realised, however, that the Scriptures are holy and that we're sinners, then we'll approach them with pharisaical hearts. We'll believe that we'll be able to plumb the unfathomable depths of Scripture by ourselves, in which case the wisdom and experience of our holy Fathers will be superfluous.
We analyse the Scriptures and so do the Saints. We present our own thoughts, which might come from the Scriptures (?) and do come from our uncleansed souls. The Saints present their thoughts, too, taken from the Scriptures and from their cleansed souls. Yet we suffer from the delusion that our thoughts are better. Not, of course, because of any virtue we think we may have, but because we're deluded when we think we know better. (Mark you, people who are insane also think they're right). But is this humility? Is it ever possible to interpret the divinely-inspired Scriptures with such an outlook and to derive any benefit? Quite the contrary. It's our egotism we're feeding. And so, instead of being enlightened we're plunged into deeper darkness. We'd be better off not studying the Scriptures at all. Remember, the devil studies them, as well ...
d. Whom do you have as a guide?
So there are three interpreters of Scripture. Our passions, the devil and the Holy Spirit, speaking through the Fathers.
You're involved with Bible study. Are you sure you've got the Holy Spirit as a Guide? Suppose it's your passions talking. Or are you above passion? And what if the devil appears to you "as an angel of light" (2 Corinth. 11:4) and makes a fool of you? Or will he make an exception in your case? "But I base my interpretation on the Scriptures!", you say. So do the heretics. "Me, a heretic?" I hear you protest. But no heretic ever calls himself one.
You have to be very careful here. You're a Christian, so the cunning enemy will deceive you with passages from the Scriptures, not from the Koran (although that's been known as well!). He tried to deceive Christ with Biblical passages, but Christ overcame him. Precisely because He was Christ.
How careful we have to be.
"Do not many of you become teachers, my brethren, seeing that we shall be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).
a. The outset
At the beginning of Christianity there were no Orthodox, nor Monophysites, no Catholics nor Protestants. All were One Church. Thereafter, some of them changed course; they went astray. Some others held to the original course.
Those who went astray were also deceived. They were cut off from the One Chruch. Those who didn't go astray remained firm in the Truth. They held on to the Truth.
b. How can we discover the Truth?
Those who have the Truth declare: "We possess the Truth and the others are under deception". Those who are under deception also say: "It's the others who are deluded". It is a characteristic common to all to think they possess the Truth. You understand delusion when you're freed of it. As long as you persist in it, you think you possess the Truth. So one sign of delusion is the conviction (illusion), that you're right. So if you do believe that you possess the Truth, you'd better ask yourself whether you really do or whether you're being deluded.
How will you find out? How will you realise if you've left the course steered by the One Church?
Ask yourself: When am I going astray?
The answer is:
a. when I proclaim new concepts, which until now were unheard of,
and
b. when I contravene agreements.
On this basis, let's see who went astray.
i. The Monophysites
The Church believed, as it still does, that Christ had two natures, the divine and the human. During the 5th century AD, some people appeared (= the Monophysites) who proclaimed that the divine nature of Christ absorbed His human nature, and that He, therefore, in essence, had only one nature - the divine. They insisted on this new doctrine and, together with their new faith, were cut off from the One Church. So they went astray.
ii. The Western Church (Roman Catholic)
The Creed was adopted by the First Oecumenical Synod in Nicea. It was supplemented by the Second Oecumenical Synod in Constantinople, which at the same time added an eternal and inviolable condition: "Let no one add or subtract anything from this Creed" (Canon 1). And this binding declaration was proclaimed by the Church for centuries.
a. The Third Oecumenical Synod in Ephesus, through its 7th Canon, explicitly states that "in no wise shall any faith be offered other than that ordained by the holy Fathers gathered in the city of Nicea, with the Holy Spirit". And it anathematises "those who dare to compose another faith".
b. The Fourth Oecumenical Synod anathematised all those who taught or teach any creed other than the one set out by the 318 holy Fathers and elucidated by the 150 holy Fathers of the Second Oecumenical Synod.
c. The Synod in Aghia Sophia (the Church of Holy Wisdom), in 786 AD, through its 6th and 7th acts laid down that:
iii. The Protestants
The Protestants reacted against the arbitrariness of Catholicism and broke away from it. Once they had broken away, or, more correctly, once they had been cut off, there were two possibilites: either a return to the One Church, or a progression beyond Catholicism. They chose the second.
And if Catholicism had become so different from the One Church, you can tell how different the Protestants became! The famous (non-Orthodox) English Byzantinist Sir Stephen Runciman was entirely justified in his concern over the future of the Roman and Protestant churches when he said in London, on 12 January 1994, that they rationalise everything so easily but forget that at bottom religion is mystical.
c. "Like the gentile and the tax-collector" (Matth. 18:17)
The Lord said: "And if he refuses to
listen even to the assembly, let him be to you like a gentile and a tax-collector".
In our case the tax-collectors and Gentiles are those who have refused to listen
to the decisions of the Synods of the Church, local or Oecumenical. These are:
a. The Monophysites, who, as we shall see, didn't accept the decisions of the Fourth Oecumenical Synod in Chalcedon.
b. The Catholics, who rebelled against the decision of the Second Oecumenical Synod regarding the Creed.
c. The Protestants, who "kicked over the traces" of the Church.
d. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and so on who did the same as the Protestants.
e. The Old Calendarists in Greece, who have rebelled against the decision of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece (i.e. the local Synod) which met in 1924 and dealt with the change in the calendar.
d. "the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2)
The sons of disobedience are the children of God who have not submitted to their Heavenly Father and who trample His commandments underfoot. Among them, the spirit of deceit is at work, according to St. Paul (Eph. 2:2).
The heretics were disobedient towards the Church and were simultaneously cut off from it (while a sinner at least remains within the Church). These are the sons of disobedience par excellence. And they are in thrall to a great spirit of delusion (c.f. 2 Thesal. 2:11 . Tim. 2:26).
To put it differently: since they've cut themselves off from the One Church, the source of the Truth, they are, of necessity, going down the path of delusion. So they've got all the necessary tools to carry out the works of delusion. As long as they remain outside the Truth, their guide will be delusion.
For example:
a. The Old Calendarists in Greece, guided by the spirit of delusion have broken up into (so far) six groups ...
b. The Roman Church, also under the guidance of the spirit of delusion, carried out actions, in the past, which were clearly against the Church. To mention but two, there were the Crusades, which resulted in the most foul desecration of Christian churches, and the Inquisition.
Of course, there are justifications for all these things. But the problem is not whether we ourselves can justify our actions, since we know our conscience full well and can run rings round it. The problem is whether God accepts our justifications. And God "cannot be fooled" (Gal. 6:7).
c. The Protestants quite apart from the fact that they've broken up into countless sects and heresies, have gone so far as to ordain women and bless marriages between homosexuals. God alone knows what other "brainwaves" they'll come up with, inspired by the spirit of delusion.
Now, it's true that they have their justifications for all this. But then, Lucifer himself, when he rebelled so insolently, had his justifications. And he was so terribly wrong. Even though he was Lucifer, the Light-Bearer, the Prince of Angels!
e. "They have all gone astray" (Psalm 13:4)
"They have all gone astray and are good for nothing and there is not one who does good" (Psalm 13:4). Is this true in our case, too? Have all Churches gone astray? Isn't there even one which has retained "the whole truth"?
Christ Himself said, in prophecy concerning His Church: "And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matth. 16:18). And the Lord can't be wrong. Therefore there is One Church which preserves the truth intact.
A. It was possible
Many Biblical passages prove that the faith of the Monophysites is incorrect. They make it perfectly obvious that Christ also had a human nature. Here are some of them:
The Church can and did, through the holy Synods.
B. What the Holy Synods say
From 428-431 AD, Nestor was Patriarch of Constantinople. He believed and preached that the Mother of God did not give birth to Christ the God/Man (Theanthropos), but to Christ the man (which is why she should be called the Mother of Christ, not the Mother of God). Later, after birth, the divine Word was united with Christ the man. This union was external, in precisely the same way as two planks of wood touch and are joined. Christ, therefore, according to Nestor, had two natures and two personalities, the divine and the human: "the natures are two and the persons are two". Then, in 431 AD, the Third Oecumenical Synod was convened in Ephesus and condemned Nestor's doctrine. And it proclaimed the true faith for all to hear. Which is that the Mother of God gave birth to perfect man and perfect God "of the same essence as the Father as regards Divinity, and of the same essence as us as regards humanity".
In Constantinople, where Nestor was Patriarch, there was also a man called Eutyches, the archimandrite or abbot of a monastery. When he heard the heretical doctrine of Patriarch Nestor, he did his best to fight against it. In doing so, he went to the other extreme. Whereas Nestor separated the two natures of Christ, Eutyches preached that the divine nature absorbed and completely neutralized the human.
Eutyches' mistake was that in the struggle against Nestor, he didn't proclaim the true faith, as did the Church at the Third Oecumenical Synod, but instead proclaimed a different one.
At a Synod which took place in Constantinople in 448, the Church condemned the new and erroneous belief of Eutyches. But since his teachings had spread widely and had reached as far as Alexandria, (where they were preached by the Bishop of Alexandria, Dioskoros), another Synod, the Fourth Oecumenical, was held in Chalcedon in 451. The 630 holy Fathers who constituted this Synod:
Given this, the Monophysites ought to have accepted the faith as proclaimed by the One Church. But they didn't. They remained firmly entrenched in their new beliefs. And so, they cut themselves off from the One Church.
Back to Top of this page Back to Chapter Three
A. Deviations in the realm of worship
a. The celebration of Easter
The First Oecumenical Synod made it an eternal and inviolable condition that Christian Easter should be celebrated after the Passover of the Jews. The Western Church disregards this ruling. And this transgression begets another. It sometimes happens that they celebrate Christian Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover is being celebrated. This is explicitly forbidden by Canon Seven of the Holy Apostles.
The Orthodox Church, however, remains loyal to tradition.
b. Baptism
1. Baptism by sprinkling
Christ was baptized bodily in the Jordan: "And when Jesus had been baptized, He immediately went up from the water" (Matth. 3:16). And the Apostle Philip immersed and baptised in the river the Ethiopian eunuch: "Both of them went down into the water...and they went up out of the water" (Acts 8:38-39). And the ordinances of the holy Apostles declare that the person being baptised is immersed in the water (Book VII, chap. 45).
This immersion has a symbolic meaning. It represents the death and burial of the Lord. So when the person being baptised is plunged into the water, he or she partakes in the death and burial of the Lord. "Do you not know that as many of us as have been baptised into Jesus Christ have been baptised into His death? For we have been buried with Him through baptism into death" (Rom. 6:3-4).
The Church of Rome itself conducted baptism according to the model of the baptism of Christ until the 14th century. In other words, the person being baptised was plunged into the water. This is evident by the baptisteries which survive in Rome and elsewhere. But since then, and without any real reason, the Roman Church has breached this long tradition. Now it merely sprinkles future Christians with little water.
Here the Orthodox church remains loyal to tradition.
There always was baptism through sprinkling in the tradition of Church, of course, but it was reserved for those who were seriously ill. The Western Church, however, extended this exceptional form of baptism to those who were perfectly well, thus altering both the essence and the symbolism of Baptism.
2. Chrismation
a. Chrismation always took place immediately after Holy Baptism, as the ordinances of the Holy Apostles make clear. "And after this, when he has been baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, let him be anointed with myrrh". And the Synod in Laodicea says: "And it is needful that those who have been enlightened should be anointed with heavenly myrrh after baptism and be partakers in the Kingdom of Christ" (Canon 48).
The Western Church went off the rails here too. It separated chrismation from baptism.
Here, too, the Orthodox Church has held fast to tradition.
b. People are to be anointed on the forehead, the eyes, the nose, the mouth and the ears (Canon 7 of the Second Oecumenical Synod), while according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, they are to be anointed "on the breast".
The West has gone astray here, also. Since 1250, people have been anointed only on the forehead.
Here, too, the Orthodox Church has held fast to tradition.
c. The Divine Liturgy
1. The Prayer of Invocation (the "Epiclesis")
From as early as the beginnings of the Early Church, there was, during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and just before the sanctification of the Precious Gifts, a prayer of "invocation". This is explicitly mentioned by St. Basil the Great (Canon 1). Which is why both he and St. John Chrysostom, following the ancient tradition of the Church, established a prayer of "epiclesis" in their liturgies.
The Western Church introduced innovations here, also. They removed this special prayer from their liturgies. As a result, they really ought to ask themselves whether the Precious Gifts are actually sanctified.
Whereas the Orthodox church has preserved the "epiclesis" in its liturgies.
2. The use of unleavened bread
The Lord, "on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread" (Matth. 26:17), celebrated the Passover with His disciples. The law was, that at the Passover, unleavened bread was to be used. And at this great supper, the Lord gave His disciples the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist (Mark 14:22-25). When He did so, did He use unleavened or leavened bread?
a. Christ introduced a number of "innovations" into this celebration of the Passover. In the first place, He celebrated on a Thursday, while the normal day was Saturday. He also washed His disciples' feet before the meal and used a large cup or bowl for wine. It's therefore possible that He introduced an innovation in the use of leavened bread.
b. Whenever leavened bread is referred to in the Scriptures, it is called simply "bread". Unleavened bread, similarly, is always defined as such. At the transmission of the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist, it says: "He took bread" (Luke 22:19), meaning leavened bread. Otherwise it would have said: "He took unleavened bread".
c. The first Christians used leavened bread for the celebration of the Sacrament (Acts 2:42-47). They got this from the holy Apostles. And they, as eye witnesses, had seen how the Lord had celebrated the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist.
The Lord, therefore, used leavened bread when He gave His disciples the Divine Eucharist, as the Orthodox Church has done for centuries.
And as did the Western Church until the Schism in 1054. It was only then, and in order to have a stick to beat the Orthodox with, that the Western Church changed this centuries' old tradition and started using unleavened bread for the Sacrament.
3. Communion in two kinds
Christ said: "Take, eat; this is My body" and "drink from this, all of you for this is My blood" (Matth. 26:27-28).
The One Church, obedient to the Lord's command gives to clergy and laity the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Roman Church did the same until the 12th century. From then on, and in breach of the words of the Lord, it has given only the Body of the Lord, although it now seems that they have understood their error and there are moves towards giving the laity the Blood of the Lord again.
In the realm of the Divine Liturgy ("Invocation", use of leavened bread, giving the Precious Blood to everyone), the Orthodox Church has adhered to Apostolic Tradition.
B. The Filioque
a. Historical perspective
The filioque was introduced at the third local Synod of Toledo in Spain (589 AD) and confirmed by the fourth local Synod which met in the same city in 633 AD
This addition was clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the holy Oecumenical Synods, and, as was to be expected, provoked violent reactions within the ranks of the Western Church. Pope Leo III also reacted strongly. In 816 he personally ordered that the Creed, without the filioque, be inscribed in Greek and Latin on silver plaques. These reactions, however, proved insufficient to impede the "invasion" by the filioque, the use of which spread and eventually became prevalent throughout the West.
b. The two mysteries
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son (John 15:26). We have, then, two functions: the procession and the mission.
1. The Procession
Each Person of the Holy Trinity has His own characteristic. The Father is "Unbegotten". Christ is "Begotten"; He is, in other words, born eternally from the Father. And the Holy Spirit "Proceeds"; proceeds, that is, eternally from the Father. Both the nativity of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are mysteries. We do not know exactly what this procession is, nor what precisely this nativity is, as the great master of dogma of our Church, John the Damascan declared. St. Gregory the Theologian agrees with him.
"Who proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26): The verb "proceeds" is in the present tense and expresses the eternal continuous procession of the Holy Spirit. This procession is something which happens within the Holy Trinity and for the Holy Trinity.
2. The Mission
"Whom I shall send to you" (John 15:26).
While the verb "proceeds" is in the present tense, the verb "shall send" is in the future. It expresses something that will happen in the future, in other words on the day of Pentecost, when the Lord was to send the All-Holy Spirit to His disciples. "When the Comforter comes (into the world), Whom I shall send to you" (John 15:26). In other words, while the mission is something which happens within the Holy trinity, it does not happen for the Holy trinity but for the world.
In the "procession", the "centre" is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son. The procession happens outside time, the "mission" happened within time. The procession happens for the Holy trinity, the mission for the world. This is abundantly clear from the words of the Lord quoted above.
c. The Filioque is heretical
The Western Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Eastern Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. Either the Western Church is confusing the "procession" with the "mission" or is deliberately closing its eyes to the difference.
We would ask just one question: Where does it say in the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son? Nowhere! On the contrary, it says clearly and bluntly (John 15:26) that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
St. Symeon of Thessaloniki, who was so deeply knowledgable on Theology, makes the following very trenchant observation:
"If the Holy Spirit really did proceed from the Son as well, then Christ would not have concealed this, because He is good. Just as He did not conceal the fact that the Holy Spirit is sent by Him". And he goes on to say: "How dare you innovate, you proud man? How do you grant to Christ a privilege of which He Himself makes no mention? Who knows more about the procession without beginning of the Holy Spirit, you or Christ?" (Complete Works, p. 417).
Westerners maintain that the filioque is implied in the Creed. By the same token, we could say that other teachings are implied, such as, for example, that the Son is eternally begotten by the Holy Spirit as well, but then we're on a slippery slope.
In their efforts to strike a blow at Arianism and to boost the status of the Son of God, Westerners developed the filioque. Then they tried to find Biblical support for it. In other words, they looked for justifications for what they had already decided.
C. The Pope
a. Infallibility
1. What it is and when it was adopted
In 1870, the First Vatican Council met, the main item on the agenda being the adoption of the dogma of Papal Infallibility. When this matter was put forward for discussion, many of the bishops present at the Council reacted strongly against it. Some two hundred of them indignantly withdrew from the Council in protest.
At its fourth session, the climate of which was oppresive, the Council finally managed to adopt the dogma of Infallibility. In other words, when the Pope speaks to the whole Church ex cathedra on matters of faith, he is considered infallible. Even if he himself is corrupt, when he speaks thus, he is infallible and anyone who contradicts this is to be anathematised.
At the same time, the Council recognised the Pope "by divine right" as the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Historical review
What does the long-standing practice of the Church have to say about Infallibility? Has the Pope really been infallible from the outset? Or is this, perhaps, an innovation and therefore an alteration of tradition?
a. The local Synod of Carthage sent a long letter of reprimand (!) to Pope Celestinus. Among much else, it told him that: "No one wants to believe it possible that God has given proper judgment to the Bishop of Rome alone, and not to the whole assembly of bishops who make up the Synod" (The Rudder, p. 541).
b. Pope Vigilius replied to the Fifth Oecumenical Synod that:
d. The Synod of Constance (1414-1418) decided that:
Conclusion:
In the life of the Church, the Pope was not considered infallible. The adoption, therefore, of the dogma of Infallibility is an innovation and, at the same time, a distortion of Tradition.
3. The two authorities
Before the establishment of the dogma of Infallibility, the supreme authority in the Western Church was the Oecumenical Synod. It was this which was infallible. Was it inadequate as an infallible voice? If so, it was not authoritative and its decisions were open to doubt. Now the dogma of "Papal Infallibility" is open to question precicely because it came from a questionable Synod. If the Oecumenical Synod was authoritative, what need was there of the Infallibility of the Pope? And what would you need an Oecumenical Synod for, if the Pope was already infallible?
The real point is that the standing of the Pope had fallen sharply and something had to be done ...
4. The Church as a "Pillar and Ground of the Truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)
No matter how holy people are, they're still people. And as people, they're still imperfect. Because of this, they're liable, at any moment, to fall into error. No one is infallible. For three years, Judas was close to Christ. He even worked miracles. But still he went astray. Origen, the greatly ascetic genius, went astray. Nestor, patriarch of Constantinople, went astray. As did many others besides.
The thing which makes the greatest impression is this:
The Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet they disagreed among themselves. On the question of circumcision, for example (Gal. 2:11-14). It was for this reason that the Apostolic Synod convened in Jerusalem and took the proper decision in the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:11).
One person doesn't decide on matters of the Church, many people do. In 1433, the Roman Catholic Nicholas of Cusa wrote, concerning the supremacy of general councils: "Accordingly, ecclesiastical canons are rightly decreed by a common council; for the Church is a Congregation. A single person cannot rightly issue ecclesiastical canons" (De concodantia catholica). In any case, it is easier for one person to be deluded than for many. The Church itself decides on Church matters, as "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
God could have granted Infallibility to His Apostles and their successors. He didn't do so in order to protect them. If St. Paul, who was so humble, came close to being proud (2 Cor. 12:7) and therefore of being deluded, how much more would people at a lower spiritual level be at the mercy of pride and delusion. And "Infallibility" is a tremendous temptation.
In effect, the Pope has dared to say "I am the truth" (John 14:6).
b. The Primacy
1. The Position of St. Peter among the Apostles.
St. John the Evangelist was celibate and a bosom friend of the Lord. The Apostle Peter was married and denied the Lord thrice. And yet the Lord didn't "anoint" St. John to be the first in the choir of the Apostles, but St. Peter. Because St. Peter excelled in humility.
And as the first, St. Peter imitated His Master. He was always a servant (c.f. Matth. 20:27). First in service, first in Love.
2. The "Primacy" in the Tradition of the Church
"It is meet that the Bishops of each Nation should appoint one as primate and that he should lead them, as head ..." (Canon XXXIV of the Holy Apostles).
A practical example of the sort of man this should be was given by the first of the Apostles. First in love and first in service. Authority as "presiding in love" is taught by St. Ignatius the God-Bearer.
The Eastern Church recognised the Pope's "primacy" of honour. The Second Oecumenical Synod, in its third Canon, recognises this primacy of honour, the position of first among equals. Roughly the same it said by the Fourth Oecumenical Synod in Canon XXVIII.
He is recognised as "first", "father" and "head" but not as "lord" or "master", to whom absolute obedience is due. Such authority lies solely with the Synod of Bishops, as the holy Fathers of the Synod of Carthage rightly stated. It goes without saying that this primacy of honour belongs to the Pope on condition that he is Orthodox.
With the passage of time, however, this "primacy" has lost its original meaning for the Papal Church. It has lost its spiritual content. From being primacy in service, it has become primacy in authority - and secular authority at that. We ought to note here, that primacy of authority, in the worldly sense, was officially adopted as dogma at the First Vatican Counsil (1870).
3. Other deviations
Apart from the above, the Western Church has also deviated at other vital points in the realms of worship and faith, such as:
To conclude then: the Western Church has changed in all these areas. There is a wide gap between the East and the West.
Conclusion:
a. The Orthodox Church has not deviated in the slightest from the holy Faith, which Christ and His disciples delivered to us.
b. For this the Orthodox Church is called "Catholic (i.e. all-embracing, whole, lacking nothing) and Apostolic"! "Catholic" because it retains the "whole truth" and "Apostolic" because the whole truth is the Faith of the Holy Apostles
FOOTNOTES
Constance and Basle = Both Synods were of course later on downplayed in Roman Catholicism. Today they would argue that we quote the examples of "schismatic synods". Of course, it was only decided that they were schismatic in retrospect, exactly because they did not suit the later needs of the Papacy. We shall give more evidence on this when we analyse (or rather unmask) the pretenses of the Papacy in our Advanced Analysis notes (in progress).
WCC = Of course the beliefs of individual members of the World Council of Churches while respected (which is why they are quoted) do not imply acceptance of their later tendencies on acting as "one religious body" using the theory of branches or other machinations of the Devil.