"One Lord, One Faith" (Ephes.
4:5)
(Oops ... meant to go to Comparative
page 1? Or to page 2?)
A. Its History
a. The beginning of the decline of the Papacy
The Western Church had taken the downward path. Various scandals shook the faithful. In order to get money together to build St. Peter's, use was made of the infamous "indulgencies". The faithful who bought these believed that the souls of their dead relatives would be forgiven, removed from the fire of Purgatory and placed forthwith "in a place of verdure". And so they all made haste to get such a precious piece of paper. The Church reeked of simony. And this gnawed at the souls of some sensitive clerics of the Papal Church. They fought a running battle against this arbitrary behaviour and gained supporters in their fight. This struggle, however, did not have the desired effect and a rift occurred, a schism between the Papal Church and these clerics and their followers. The revolutionary (reformist) clerics were Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (although Luther's protest was not due to love for the truth to come out).
b. Their common characteristics
a. Their tradition (see also On Tradition)
Holy Tradition is instructions: what should happen in the Church and how. These ordinances, particularly in the Orthodox Church, "spring" from the Holy Fathers, who were purified through asceticism and who shone as vessels of the Holy Spirit. These instructions were rejected by the reformers. In their stead, they put their own views and guidelines as to what should happen in the Church and how. They adopted another tradition - their own. Nor could it have happened otherwise since they broke away and formed their own Church.
Through their asceticism and continence they had reached great heights and were sensitive to the things which were wrong in the Papal Church. But it was now, after they had thrown out the baby with the bath-water, that they created the tradition of the Protestants.
b. Perhaps they are actually opposed to the Scriptures?
1. "The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17)
The Protestants declare that faith alone is sufficient for salvation.
The word for "faith" used by St. Paul is etymologically related to verbs which have a variety of meanings, all of which have to do with being persuaded and being obedient. The underlying idea is that if you're persuaded of the truth of something, you will "obey" it. The Orthodox interpretation of this passage, then, is that he or she who is persuaded of the truth of the Law of God and submits to it will be saved.
Even if we overlook all this, however, and supposing that they are right to say belief in Christ is all you need to be saved, the question then arises: "What do we mean by belief in Christ?".
"Everything is possible to him who believes" (Mark 9:23). In other words, it's not belief that God can do anything which makes you a member of the faithful, but belief that you can do anything through God! St. John of the Ladder in his Discourse 27 also makes this point. Now, is this the kind of faith the Protestants have? Do they walk on water as if it were dry land, the way St. Peter did? (When he started sinking, remember, the Lord castigated him for his lack of faith). Do they move mountains? Does the Lord feed them by a raven the way he did His faithful servant, the Prophet Elijah and so on?
If they have that kind of faith, then they most certainly will be saved.
And, of course, faith like that, by its very nature, would impel them towards actions pleasing to the Lord. It would be impossible for such faith to remain dead. How beautifully St. James, the Brother of Our Lord, writes on the prophet combination of faith and works (James 2:14-26).
We do see such faith, however, in the lives of the saints of the Eastern Church. They sacrifice themselves, "burn up" their bodies with the fire of fasts and vigils for the sake of Christ. This is what faith in Christ urges them to do, and this is where the words of the Lord apply: "Everything is possible to him who believes". And so we see the Lord feeding them, as He fed the Prophet Elijah, we see them walking on the water, like the Apostle Peter and performing other wonders. That is the kind of faith the Lord wants, and if anyone substitutes something else, they are, in fact, opposed to Scripture.
Faith is not a matter of emotionalism...
2. The prayers of the saints (see also Saints)
"There is one intercessor between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
Protestants, basing their arguments on this, reject the prayers of the Saints. But let's look at this more closely.
Christ alone was crucified for us. No one, therefore, intercedes for us as Christ does. This is why St. Paul wrote the above.
Are there other intercessors, apart from Christ? If there are, they'll be much inferior to Him. Well, there certainly are - the Saints. In Scripture, many Saints (Abraham, Moses et al.) interceded on behalf of mankind. When righteous Job was adrift on the sea of tribulation, three friends went to comfort him. And they sinned. Now God did not seek repentance from the men themselves. He Himself ordained their intercessor. He sent them to Job the holy for him to supplicate on their behalf (Job 42:7-8). After his death, Job would certainly have continued to pray to God. Unless we are to suppose that after his death he fell into some great sin and lost his boldness towards God ...
Basing its belief on this and many other passages (Exod. 32:11-14, Jerem. 7:16, Rom. 15:30 etc.), the Orthodox Church maintains that the Saints pray to God for us and that we the faithful can call upon their prayers (see also the notes on Saints).
3. Confession (see also Mystic Confession)
Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics confess before a priest, Protestants directly to God. There are many Biblical passages which say that the Apostles and their successors have authority "to bind and to loose" the sins of the people (Matth. 16:19. 18:18. John 20:20-23 etc.). Now in order to exercise that power, they have to know the sins of the people. And for them to know the sins, the people have to confess before them.
Let us allow that these passages are unclear. The question arises: How should confession take place? Before a priest or directly to God? Apply the "no lose" argument. If these passages mean confession before a priest, then the Orthodox and Roman Churches are on the right path and the Protestants are in the wrong. If the passages mean confession directly to God, the Orthodox and Roman Churches are still on the right path, since God will certainly hear any confession made through a priest. So which is more beneficial to the soul, confession directly to God or before a priest?
That great doctor of souls, St. John of the Ladder writes on this: "The very thought that the sin you're about to commit will have to be confessed (before a priest) will act as a restraint on you and won't let you sin" (Discourse IV, 46). And when the thought of confession leaves your mind, "you continuously sin without fear, as if you were in the dark" (ibid.). So confession before a priest is a soul-saving event. And in that case, of course, it is completely in line with the will of the Lord.
Protestants don't have their rein over their sins. There's no shame at having to confess aloud nor any admonition from the priest. The road to sin is open. And because people are naturally pleasure-seeking, they easily incline towards "sin which clings so closely" (Heb. 12:1), particularly those of the flesh. Unless, of course, they are overwhelmed by the fear of God so that this fear becomes a rein on their sins, as was the case with the righteous Joseph (Gen. 39:9; c.f. Psalms 118:120). Wherever there is fear of God, however, there is also humility and a contrite heart. Where there is humility, the faithful do not hesitate to confess, not only before a priest but before everyone!
4. What will you do?
A question arises - cloning, for example - and Scripture says nothing about it. Neither allows nor forbids. But something has to be done. In that case, whatever happens will be outside Scripture. So how can we now talk about sola scriptura?
Some other examples:
a. Infant baptism (see also Nepiobaptism)
There is absolutely no Biblical passage which specifically forbids infant baptism, nor is there any which imposes it (at least directly; however read here). So whatever we do with respect to this will be outside the letter of the Scriptures. The point is, what is closer to the spirit?
Through baptism, you become a member of the Kingdom of God. So why shouldn't infants become members of that Kingdom? Who are we to deprive them of such a blessing? Might Christ Himself, perhaps, have objections? But He says: "of such is the Kingdom of heaven" (Matth. 19:14). If you think about it in this light, those who practice infant baptism must be right. Always provided, of course, as we said above, that it is proper baptism.
b. The Sign of the Cross (see also The Elevation of the Cross)
Suppose you're a Protestant and someone asks you whether it's right to make the sign of the Cross, what will you say, knowing that Scripture says neither that we have to make it nor that it's forbidden.
Whatever you say, you're going to be outside the letter of the Scriptures. So how do you approach its spirit? When you decide to make the sign of the Cross, which St. Paul considered his proud boast (Gal. 6:14).
The Protestants have utterly rejected the Precious Cross. According to St. Paul, they're in a lamentable position (c.f. Philip. 3:18). The Orthodox, however, have taken It to their hearts, so who is walking in accordance to the spirit and letter of Scripture?
c. The question of fasting
Someone asks you if we should fast on Fridays, for example. Again, there's nothing in the Scriptures about it. So you have to advise them to do what's best (fine thing it would be if Christians did what's worst!). Of course, if you're a glutton, it's best to eat, but if you have any restraint and control it's best to fast.
On Fridays, we commemorate the fact that Christ was crucified, so it's a day of mourning. As, indeed, it was in the Old Testament (1 Kings 1:12. 31:13). When you fast on Fridays, you remember the Passion of Christ. And there's a Greek proverb which says: "Whoever saw a son on the Cross and the mother at the table?".
The Lord said: "When the Bridegroom departs, then they (My disciples) will fast" (Matth. 9:15). The Lord departed on the day of His Ascension, so from then on His disciples would have fasted, in line with His wishes. The first Christians certainly fasted (Acts 14:23). So did the Apostle Paul (2 Corinth. 11:27). It follows, therefore, that people who don't fast are not living in accordance with the wishes of the Lord nor in the ascetic spirit of the Holy Gospels. But the Orthodox fast on Fridays, Wednesdays, during Great Lent, Great Week, the Christmas fast, the Apostles' fast, the Dormition fast and so on.
d. Conclusion
The faith of the Protestants not only departs from the Scriptures at many points, but is also actually opposed to it. Not only do they reject Holy tradition, but they also cut things off from the Scriptures.
A. The worst sin
Just before He was crucified, Christ prayed with pain in His soul in Gerhsemane. Among other things, he begged His Father for unity in His Church: "so that they may be one as we are" (John 17:11). Unity of the Church, then, is His will. It is His joy. On the other hand, our crucified Lord is grieved when His Church is divided. And not only that. He becomes angry - greatly so. "Nothing angers God so much as division in the Church" (St. John Chrysostom, PG 57, 250).
The saintly Pope Pelagius II (579-590 AD) said:
"Creating a rift within the Church is a greater sin than denying Christ! Through apostasy, one person goes to Hell, the apostate. If a schism is created, he who provoked it will go to Hell, but so will all those who follow him" (Ep. ad episcopos istriae II, in H. Denzinger - K. Rahner, Enchiridion Symboloroum, Roma, N.247).
Anyone who causes a schism remains unpardoned forever. His sin is not forgiven even by the most outstanding martyrdom! "Not even the blood of martyrdom can absolve this sin, declares St. John Chrysostom" (ibid.).
It is known that the Papal Church caused the schism between East and West (even Pope John Paul II acknowledges this in a recent encyclical (May 1995) entitled "Orientale Lumen"). Have we recognised the magnitude of this sin? The same is true of the Protestants who broke away from the Papal Church. The same is also true of the Monophysites (who broke away from the One Church).
B. The most glorious martyrdom
On the basis of the above, everything possible must be done to prevent a schism within the Church of Christ, as St. Dionysius of Alexandria writes to Bishop Navation (The Rudder, ibid. p. 33, note 2). And any struggle waged to prevent schism within the Church is more pleasing to God even than martyrdom which is suffered for refusal to deny the Lord.
Anyone who is martyred suffers for his or her benefit, but anyone who struggles to prevent schism within the Church is doing so for the benefit of the whole Church.
C. The Holy Fathers who were great martyrs
With this in mind, the most holy fathers, in their sacred efforts against heretics attempted, above all, to prevent a split within the Church.
a. They showed tolerance
1. St. Cyril of Alexandria does not, in his letters, revile or hurl abuse at Nestor, the leader of a heresy. On the contrary, he addresses him flatteringly. "Your piety" or "Your reverence", he writes to him. And he himself explained: We do not apply the knife or the flame to a wound immediately, but await the proper time (Migne 77, 124-125). He attempted both to win him over in Christ and to prevent schism within His Church. That is how that great pillar of Orthodoxy acted. (How many at that time reviled him as a traitor ...).
2. Theodore of Mopsouestia was a heretic. Some Orthodox bishops commemorated his name in the official lists at the Divine Liturgy and, to avoid a schism within the Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria remained in communion with them (Migne: 99:1085).
3.When St. John Chrysostom was unjustly removed from office by the illegal Synod in Drys, forty friends of his, all bishops, refused to be in communion with his successor, the Elder Arsakios. Yet St. John, although burning in the furnace of injustice, urged his friends the bishops to remain in communion with his successor, to prevent a rift in the Church. "On the one hand commune, so as not to split the Church, but on the other, do not sign" (Migne: 47:27).
The bold saint was terrified of a schism!
4. Even more astonishing:
The Filioque heresy appeared in the West in the 6th century. Yet the Church in the East was tolerant for centuries (!) towards the West and the Filioque, in order to prevent a schism.
b. They played "politics"
In their heroic efforts to keep the faith incorrupt and the Church intact, the holy Fathers became "as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves" (Matth. 10:16 ; c.f. Luke 16:8).
Basil the Great did not immediately confess the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Wise in God, he played "politics". Had he not done so, he would have infuriated the Arians, and with the aid of the secular power, they would have taken over his Archiepiscopal throne. In which case, the faith would have been in danger (The Rudder, ibid. p. 53). How many people condemned this great pillar of the Church as a coward. And as a heretic!
And the most scandalous thing of all:
At the time of Arianism,
certain Orthodox bishops publicly proclaimed that they were Arians.
Their thinking
that, if they publicly confessed their Orthodoxy, they would be dethroned and
heretical bishops would come in their place. In order to save the faith, then,
they pretended to be Arians and remained on their thrones. But in secret they
ordained Orthodox priests and so on and supported Orthodoxy.
Then the period of the Arian controversy passed. Tranquility returned to the Church. How did the Mother Church deal with those bishops who, while publicly Arians, were secretly Orthodox? Did it remove them from office? Not only did it refrain from doing so, it even appointed them to sees. That pillar of Orthodoxy, Athanasius the Great, in a letter to Bishop Rufinianus, suggests that this decision of the Church be respected. And that he should announce it to the clergy and laity.
D. Conclusion
In war, strategy is everything. And the battle, the fight on behalf of the faith needs strategy. This is how the most inspired holy Fathers acted and the faith was saved. War without strategy ends in rout. And a battle on behalf of the Church without strategy leads to damage to the Church. What a deception! Here we are, struggling to do good to the Church and in fact we're working hard at doing harm, at dividing it!
There are heresies and schisms so that those who are well-tried shall be manifest (1 Corinth. 11:19).
The Catholics and Protestants were manifestly untried.
A. "And the Gates of Hell shall not Prevail against It" (Matth. 16:18)
"The gates of hell", are the mouths of the heretics, the worst thing there is for the Church. And yet, no heresy, however, terrible it may be, is ever going to "conquer" the One Church. In other words, the Church Itself will never go astray. That's what the Lord said in this prophecy, so it must be right.
So the fiery darts of the rabid heretics have surrounded it on all sides. And yet it remains entire, spotless and infallible! Christ's prophecy has been fulfilled.
Its weaknesses (heresies, scandals and so on) are its strengths. They prove that Christ is at the helm. He is the Head. What is there for Christ the All-Powerful to fear? "And for this reason we are not only convinced but confess it to be true and certain that it is impossible for the catholic Church to sin or to be entirely deceived or ever to choose falsehood at the expense of the truth" (Dositheos of Jerusalem, Confession of Faith, term 16).
And so, for two thousand years, the One Church, the Orthodox, has been kept intact, as it will be in the future, however bleak that is. The Lord Himself said so in the prophecy above (Matth. 16:18).
B. "I am with you..." (Matth. 28:20)
."I am with you at all times until the close of the age" (Matth. 28:20), said the Lord to His disciples. The Apostles weren't going to live till the end of the world and the Lord knew this. Yet He promised to be with them "until the close of the age". Clearly He meant the successors of the Holy Apostles. It is with these people that the Lord is and will remain "until the close of the age". Who are these lucky people?
a. The Protestants
They made their appearance in around the year 1500 AD . So, for 1500 years, they didn't exist. But the Lord didn't say, "I'll be with you", after 1500 onwards. What He said was "I am with you" here and now. Forever. Without interruption. The Lord can't have been lying. He really was and is in the company of His disciples and their successors, as their Head.
He was such until 1500 AD, when the Protestants appeared. And there was at that time a Church which had not strayed from the truth. How could it, with Christ at the helm? Had Christ been absent, His Church would most assuredly have fallen into error. But in that case, He'd have been breaking His promise (Matth. 28:20). So the Lord wasn't lying and the Church held fast to the Truth.
Protestants maintain, however, that the Church was in error until 1500, when they themselves came along and put things right. What they mean, in effect, is that they corrected the Lord's mistakes! Of course, they don't see it like that, but still, they have to ask themselves where Christ was all that time when the Church was in error. Was He totally absent from the whole Church?
b. The Monophysites
They made their appearance during the 5th century. Again the same question arises: Is it possible that the Lord was at the help of the Church for five whole centuries and that the Church was in error all this time?
c. The Roman Catholics
In 1054, they cut themselves off from the One Church which was and is under the guidance of the Lord. (They made their own Church). This led, as it must, to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which, as we've seen, is a grievous error. It also led to the Inquisition and other atrocities which are a fair indication that the Roman Church is torn away from the One Church, which is under the guidance of the Lord.
d. Christ was Orthodox
"Is Christ divisible?" (1 Corinth. 1:13). Truth is not material that you can cut up and share out. And then, if you collect the pieces, you can put them back together and make the material whole again. Christ, the truth, cannot be divided. You can't have a bit of Christ among the Catholics, a bit among the Protestants and a bit in Orthodoxy. Christ is One and Indivisible.
And He promised to be with us, "I am with you at all times" (Matth. 28:20). And He has not broken His promise. He is still with us, here on earth. He rests in His Indivisible Church, in His Orthodoxy. "One Lord, one faith" (Ephes. 4:5).
E. Prophets and Apostles
Wherever Christ is, there you'll find the Prophets. And the Apostles. So it follows that the Prophets were Orthodox, as were St. Peter, St. Paul and the whole number of the Twelve Apostles.
Naturally, their teaching was Orthodox, too.
A. The birth of heresies
a. "The work of ignorance and weak faith"
St. Peter teaches that the Scriptures are distorted by the ignorant and unstable (2 Peter 3:16). Those who are unstable are people who have no firm support in the faith. And it's the weak who need support. So heresy comes from:
b. Work of the flesh (Galat. 5:20)
When the soul is overwhelmed with cares and passions of the flesh it is impossible for it to receive the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Basil the Great, Epistle 210:6). Such people, "corrupt in mind and disreputable the faith" (2 Tim. 3:8), blunder about in the dark. They ponder in the dark and philosophise in the dark. They get confused and stumble in a mess of uncontrolled thoughts.
This is how heresies "are discovered". This is why heresy is a work of the flesh (Galat. 5:2), i.e. of a carnal outlook.
B. A sketch of the typical heretic
a. Stubbornness
Not
all Christians are fully aware of the teachings of the One Church, so it's possible
that some might have the wrong end of the stick on certain matters of dogma.
That they hold heretical views, in other words. That doesn't mean, of course,
that they're to be stigmatised as heretics. They're still Orthodox. They would
only become heretics if, after being corrected time and time again by the Church,
they insisted on clinging to their mistaken views. Typically, heretics are not
open to correction and that's when they are cut off from the One Church (c.f.
Canon 6 of the Second Oecumenical Synod).
b. "foolish and tardy of heart" (Luke 24:25)
Those who didn't believe what the prophets said were called "foolish and tardy of heart" by the Lord. Hard-hearted, in other words. Proud. And those who don't believe what Christ says through the Scriptures are equally foolish and proud.
c. "such a person is perverted" (Tit. 3:11)
A heretic is a twisted piece of wood and can't be straightened.
If you accept the number three and see three books in a row, you'll say: "There are three books". Suppose for a moment that you don't accept the number three. You'll think up the most ridiculous arguments to prove that there aren't three books there. (Some of these might be technically correct but ludicrously unnecessary, e.g. "There are 100 - 97 books here". Others are simply wrong: "Here we have book A and book B. We also have book B and book C. Therefore we have four books".) This is the way heretics are in their thinking They won't simply accept the Truth, because of their egotism. The whole of their efforts are directed towards rejecting it. St. John of the Ladder put his finger on the heart of the problem. It's as difficult for fire to come out of snow, he writes, as it is to find humility among heretics (Discourse 25:31).
d. Fixed ideas
Heretics get it into their heads that the faith they hold is the only correct one. This belief has become so firmly and deeply embedded that nothing on earth will remove it. Their whole beings are infused by this thought, this belief. Their slogan is "Even if you convince me, you won't convince me".
Basil the Great writes:
"The Ethiope cannot change his skin, nor the leopard its spots, and nor can they who have been weaned onto perverse doctrines throw off the evil of heresy" (Epistle 130:1).
This is why St. Paul, under divine inspiration, writes that you should admonish a man who is factious twice or thrice, then have nothing more to do with him (Tit. 3:11).
C. Heresy: the worst evil!
a. "let it be anathema"
Even if an angel from Heaven were to proclaim a faith other than that of the Gospels, "let it be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). This very severe sentence on the part of St. Paul shows just how serious a matter the alteration of the faith is. It's separation from Jesus Christ, the source of Life. When people were condemning St. Agathos, who was actually very pure, for being a thief, an adulterer, a philanderer and much else besides, he accepted the charges with equanimity. But when they called him a heretic, he reacted sharply: "No, brethren! Because heresy is separation from God". The great Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dositheos, forgave all those who had embittered him, but wouldn't forgive, either then or in the age to come, those who slandered him as a heretic (I. Oudot, patriarchatus Constantinopolitani Acta Selecta II, Roma 1967 p. 1).
b. The worst form of heresy
According to St. Basil the Great, the basic dogma of our faith is belief in the divinity of the Son of God (Against Eunomios II, 22). That is the special characteristic of being a Christian. It follows, then, that the worst form of heresy is denial of the divinity of Christ (such is the heresy of the Jehovah's Witnesses). St. Basil also says that "we must lament over those who deny Christ" (Epistle 210:5). Because they destroy the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which is the strength of our faith.
D. Heresy and the Wrath of God
The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, lit their censers, laid incense on them and censed the tent of meeting. But they didn't perform the ritual properly; they offered "strange fire" to the Lord, i.e. other than what the Lord expected from them. And the Lord not only rejected their offering but consumed them with fire (Levit. 10:1). Yet the sons of Aaron thought they were doing something pleasing to God. They thought...
Now if the Lord is so wrathful over a matter such as that, how much more so will He be when the contravention of His ordinances has to do with questions of vital importance, such as the faith.
Both Arius and Nestor suffered frightful deaths. In both cases, their bowels burst.
E. Do heretics become saints?
A sinner can't become sanctified if he doesn't cut himself off from sin. Nor can the heretic, unless he cuts himself off from his heresy and returns to the One Church, the source of sanctification. As long as he persists in heresy, he's in sin (Tit. 3:11).
It doesn't matter how much heretics fast, keep vigil, pray and do good works, they cannot rise spiritually and don't acquire sanctifying grace. Without the true faith, their works are dead (James 2:20-22). St. John of the Ladder says that if someone does good works but doesn't have the true faith, it's as if he draws water and then pours it into a pitcher with a hole in it (Discourse 26, C 43). St. John Chrysostom says the same (PG. vol. 51, 287).
F. Do miracles occur among heretics?
1. Heretics may not believe correctly, but many of them still believe in Jesus Christ as God and the Son of God. They believe in the consubstantial Trinity, which is the basic doctrine of our faith. This is why God shows His pleasure towards them and performs miracles for them.
His mercy isn't limited to them, however. He does wonders even for idolaters! St. Arsenius the Cappadocian performed miracles for Turks and could hardly have done so without God's approval. So miracles alone are not a criterion of true faith.
2.But there are some miracles which happen only in the Orthodox Church, which miracles show its uniqueness. Here is one of those miracles: It takes us back to the Holy Land and to the correct celebration of a ritual. Every year on Saturday before Easter Sunday, at the Tomb of Our Lord, the Holy Light of the Resurrection miraculously springs forth from the Tomb and lights the candles held by the Orthodox Patriarch - and sometimes those of the people, too.
And this happens only at the Orthodox Liturgy.
G. Our relations with heretics
a. Love
Christ forbids us to have enemies. He demands that we love our neighbours as ourselves, no matter who our neighbour might be. Even heretics? Certainly! Christ, Who is Love, makes no distinctions, as St. Nektarios of Pentapolis points out. St. Gregory the Theologian calls the heretics friends and brothers (Theological 2:5).
b. Solidarity and help
"So while we have yet time, let us do good to all people, especially those who are of the house of the faith" (Gal. 6:10). By all means, let's do what we can for everybody, St. Paul adjures us, though he gives priority to those of the faith.
And this help and understanding for heretics doesn't apply at all times and on all occasions. It doesn't extend to helping them spread their false doctrines. When it comes to this, we must oppose them vigorously, as St. John Chrysostom says (Discourse 46:2, on Matthew).
c. Misinterpretation of 2 John 10:11
St. John the Evangelist writes that if someone comes to you "and does not bring this doctrine" then you shouldn't receive him into your house or even greet him. If you do greet him, then you participate in his evil work (2 John 10:11). The holy Fathers communicated with heretics. They even welcomed them to their cells (St. Sisoes, for instance, invited heretics into his cells and gave them something to eat, as well). Were they contravening the command of St. John? What sort of saints were they if they didn't keept to the letter of the Scripture?
St. John didn't mean not to have any dealings at all with heretics, on a friendly or family basis, but rather he was warning against having anything to do with their teaching. If a heretic comes to your house with the express intention of bringing another faith, then get rid of him at once.
St. John the Evangelist was addressing lay people who are weak in the faith. As a way of protecting them from the clever arguments of the heretics, he advises having nothing to do with them. But those who are really strong may debate with heretics (c.f. 2 Tim. 2:2), with the aim of correcting them. St. Gregory the Theologian also urges the faithful to debate with heretics in order to correct them (Discourse 6:22).
11. THE HOLY FATHERS: REAL THEOLOGIANS
A. "The natural man does not receive the things of the spirit" (1 Corinth. 2:14)
A polluted spring of necessity produces polluted water. It is impossible for it to produce pure drinking water. Something of the sort is also true of our souls. Because of our many passions, our souls are like a polluted spring. If your intellect is wallowing in this polluted spring, it can't produce pure thoughts (c.f. St. Gregory the Sinaite in the Philokalia). In other words, people who are at the mercy of their passions are in no state to deal with theology. Nor, indeed, do they have the necessary pre-conditions for a proper understanding of the Divine Mysteries. Under the burden of their passions, their intellect can't fly up to the heavens. If it does, it will crash and be destroyed. To put it another way, when people who are at the mercy of their passions speak, even about God, they don't speak the truth and so they do harm to the faithful (c.f. Job 34:37 and Ezek. 13:3).
From which we may conclude: "A soul which has not been purified and has not received Divine Light is unable to understand the things of God" (Basil the Great, Against Eunomios, B, 16).
"In Your Light shall we see Light" (Psalm. 35:9).
B. Those who are fit for theology
. Those who are fit for theology are people who have dried up the polluted spring, who have overcome "through continence the fiery and mortifying impulses and movements of the passions" (Dismissal Hymn of the Blessed Fathers). And just as a pure reservoir produces pure drinking water, so a pure, passionless soul "produces" clean, purified thoughts. "A good man out of his good treasure brings forth good things" (Matth. 12:35). Such people are the Holy Fathers.
Their souls, purified by asceticism, have become "radars" which can pick up the messages of God. They have become "an abyss of knowledge and the abode of mysteries" (The Ladder, Discourse 26:14). Those who have become deified understand the things of God, we are told by St. Gregory the Theologian, who was speaking from experience (Theological E, 12). Just as a clear eye sees the page and understands it, so the purified intellect studies the things of God and understands them. Purification is "the pen of a ready writer" (Psal. 44:2). "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see the Lord" (Matth. 5:8).
The Holy Fathers,
because they have been purified, "shall be taught by God" (John 6:45).
In other words, on such a gleaming heart God "writes His dogmata as on blank tablet", easily and fluently (St. Peter the Damascan, Philokalia). This is confirmed by another specialist in these matters, St. Maximos the Confessor (also in the Philokalia) as well as all the other deified Holy Fathers. On the basis of this, according to St. Gregory Palamas, the teaching of God and that of the deified Saints is one and the same!
So for the Orthodox Church, theologians are not people who are well-educated academics, whose hearts may be polluted. For the Orthodox, theologians are people who are purified and enlightened. Anyone whose teaching is contrary to theirs is not merely an outcast, but is an enemy to the truth of God being someone who "has railed against God in vain" (Canon 1 of the Holy Quinusext Oecumenical Synod in Trullo).
a. Why rejection?
There has been a notable trend for some time towards rejection of Patristic thought. Why should this be?
St. Maximos the Confessor, that great philosopher and saint of our Church makes the following comment of great weight:
Parents love their children excessively. And they think that they're more clever and more beautiful than other children. It makes no difference if other people think them stupid and ugly. Likewise, the intellect loves its children - thoughts - pathologically and to excess. And it matters not in the least if other people think them stupid (Euergetinos, vo. I, p. 239). Given this, it's difficult, if not impossible for people with passions to disown their own rationale and to accept that of others, even if the others are saints. They're hindered by their natural, gross egocentricity. So for them to reject the thoughts of the Holy Fathers is not a sign of their superior theology, but rather an indication of egotism, disrespect and Godlessness (St. Gregory Palamas, Epistle to Dionysius). To argue that the Holy Fathers have erred, which is why you reject them is simply a cover-up for your self-centredness. And, of course, they do err, as people, when they come into conflict with the official teachings of the Church. In that case, you do well to reject them. But where they don't err and are in conflict with your own views, do you then accept what they say?
And if the Holy Fathers, who conquered the passions and the devil, who are still subject to the passions and the devil? And yet we blithely continue with our own Pharisaical reasoning, with the diabolical thought that "the Fathers are wrong, we aren't". And that in itself puts us right outside the Biblical atmosphere, which is one of humility.
C. Scholastic (western) theology
While the Eastern Orthodox Church considers those people who shone through asceticism and filled their hearts with the Grace of the Holy Spirit most fit to express the faith and theology, the Western Church considers as its finest servants in these fields those who have filled their brains with secular learning and wisdom.
The great contrast which exists between the East and the West here showed distinctly during the controversy which broke out between Barlaam, a monk of the Western Church and St. Gregory Palamas, a monk of the Eastern Church over the teachings of the hesychasts and the Uncreated Light. It was impossible for Barlaam, well-meaning though he was, to fly up to the heavens because he was still weighed down by his passions. It was, therefore, by the very nature of things impossible for him to comprehend the elevated theological concepts expressed by the purified Gregory. The former, as an earthly man, spoke in an earthly manner, while the latter, who was heavenly, spoke in a heavenly way (c.f. John 3:31).
This obvious difference between Eastern and Western Theology was also observed by Latin monks during the Council of Florence (1448 AD). Silvester Syropoulos tells us:
1.That when the ascetics of Italy heard the Patristic teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Council they rejoiced and were glad. On the other hand, they felt exactly the opposite when they heard the Aristotelian syllogisms of the Latin theologians.
2.When a certain Georgian representative, who was without education, heard the Latin theologians mentioning Aristotle all the time, he was dismayed and shouted: "What Aristotle? And more Aristotle. Aristotle no good!". When asked what he thought was good, he replied, "St. Basil! St. Gregory!" (V. Laurent, Les Mimoires de Silv. Syropoulos, Concilium Florentinum, Series B, vol. IX, book 9, 28, p. 464, Rome 1971).
Apart from anything else, the total failure of Western theology was officially acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council.
The difference between the East and West is not superficial. It's a difference in mode of thinking, in conceptualisation, in thoughts and in the means of approach to vital matters.
12. THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY FATHERS
A. The Apostles were God-inspired
Were the Apostles always inspired by God when they talked and acted? Did all their actions and expressions come from the Holy Spirit? When they ate, slept, awoke, walked, rested and so on, were they acting in a divinely-inspired way? And was the dispute which arose between the Apostles Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) divinely-inspired?
St. Basil teaches that the Holy Spirit is not always active in the saints, but only when there's "necessity" (On the Holy Spirit, 27). So the Holy Apostles didn't always act under inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but only when there was "necessity". This means that they sometimes used their own judgment which, of course, might have been wrong. If they had always and in everything acted in the Holy Spirit, how would they have been any different from God the All-Perfect?
B. The divine inspiration of the holy Fathers
The Apostle Paul was not a member of the Twelve, nor was he present on the day of Pentecost. But he did spend three years in harsh asceticism in the Arabian desert (Gal. 1:17) and became a vessel of the Holy Spirit. And it was in this way that he wrote his divinely-inspired epistles. The same is true of the Holy Fathers. They also fought hard ascetic battles in deserts and mountains and thus acquired the Holy Spirit. They then gave us their divinely-inspired writings. And, like the Apostles, they didn't always act and write in a divinely-inspired way. So when did they do so?
When we discuss the theology of the faith, we base our efforts on the teachings of the holy Hierarchs, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Athanasios, Cyril et al. But what did these champions of the faith do for support in their battle against the heresies which were an abomination to God? How weren't they deceived, how weren't they carried away on the billowing waves of those dreadful heresies? How were they so sure and confident that what they were proclaiming was in fact the truth? How did they formulate those dogmata of the faith beyond words, with such sureness and clarity?
We can answer these questions with another one. How could the Holy Spirit, Who was guiding the Church "into all truth" remain indifferent at such crucial moments? It is unthinkable that It would abandon Its Church on a sea of appalling heresies. No, the Holy Spirit spoke through the mouths of our Fathers. Their teachings are the work of the Holy Spirit, as were the teachings of the Apostles.
C. What does the Church teach?
The Church makes no distinction between the divine inspiration of the Apostles and of the Fathers. For the Church, both groups are divinely-inspired and equally so.
1. Canon 1 of the Holy Quinisext Oecumenical Synod in Trullo declares:
The Church, therefore, decided and declared that the authors of the Scriptures were divinely-inspired. And that same Church decided and declared that the same is true of the holy Fathers. So if you accept the Scriptures as divinely-inspired, then logically you must accept the Fathers. Otherwise you should take another look at your reasoning.
D. Prophets - Apostles - Holy Fathers
The Apostles proclaimed Christ to the ends of the earth. The holy Fathers "protected" Christ from the darts of heresies. "Through them (the Holy Fathers) you have led us to the true faith" (Dismissal Hymn of the Holy Fathers). The saints are the guides of Orthodoxy, as the Dismissal Hymn of the Blessed tells us.
St. Basil the Great wondered in which category to place St. Gregory the Theologian. "Shouldn't I place him with the Prophets and the Apostles" (On the Holy Spirit 29:74). And St. Gregory the Theologian says of St. Basil that his theology is equal in value to the words inscribed by Moses on the tablets at God's direction (Funeral Speech 43). And Athanasios the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory Palamas and the whole band of the holy Fathers are to be placed in the same category as the Prophets and the holy Apostles.
The Prophets had the Holy Spirit, as did the Apostles and the Fathers. They all had the same spirit and they all resembled each other in this. Therefore they have the same faith and, of course, the same teachings.
The Fathers continue the theology of the Prophets, of St. John the Theologian, of St. Peter and Paul and of all the Apostles.
13. CONCERNING OECUMENICAL SYNODS
A. The Apostolic Synod
The holy Apostles didn't agree among themselves on the question of circumcision (Galat. 2:11-13). The Fifth Oecumenical Synod says about this that: "Despite the fact that the Grace of the Holy Spirit was so richly present in every one of the holy Apostles that they had no need of advice from other quarters as to what they should do, despite this, before they gathered together and each one checked his views against testimony from the Scriptures, each one had a different opinion as to the question under discussion, i.e. whether the Gentiles should be circumcised".
In order to reach a solution to this problem, the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem. The well-known Apostolic Synod was called (Acts 15:1-33). There they discussed the matter and resolved it. They all had one vote on the matter. Then they announced to the Gentiles by letter that they were of one mind and were acting as "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28).
The decision of the Apostolic Synod was divinely-inspired (Acts 15:28). Why? Because the divinely-inspired Apostles took part. But it wasn't only the Apostles who took part in the Synod. The people did, too, and they put forward their views (Acts 15:12). Were the people divinely-inspired as well? Or did the Apostles simply ignore them? Apart from the people, the Presbyters also took part. And the decisions were taken "by the Apostles and the Presbyters" (Acts 16:4). So were the Presbyters also divinely-inspired? Let's suppose that the decisions of the Synod were divinely-inspired because the Apostles imposed their views in a tactful manner. But before the Synod started the Apostles couldn't reach agreement on the subject. So when were they divinely-inspired? Before the Synod or during it?
There is one answer to this, and only one. The decisions of the Apostolic Synod were divinely-inspired because all the Apostles were there. The whole body of the Church was present. The Church which is "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
B. The Oecumenical Synods
"And He will give you another Comforter to stay with you forever, the Spirit of Truth" (John 14:16). By saying "with you forever" the Lord didn't mean that the Holy Spirit would remain on earth with His disciples themselves, precisely because they wouldn't be alive forever. What He meant was that He would be with their successors, i.e. the hierarchs of the Church. the Spirit of Truth will remain with them unto the ages of ages.
And something else.
Christ didn't say that the Spirit of Truth would be with each of them, but with all of them. (St. John wrote his Gospel in Greek and it's quite clear in the Greek that this is what he means). When they were to come together in the same place and when they were of one mind. As was the case at the Apostolic Synod "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28) and not "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to me".
Since the time of the Apostolic Synod, a number of problems have arisen in the life of the Church, especially heresies. And just as the Apostles called their (Oecumenical) Synod to discuss the matter of circumcision and to come to a decision in the Holy Spirit, so their successors throughout the ages have called similar Oecumenical Synods. And they discussed the problems which arose and formulated dogma in the Holy Spirit (Canon 7 of the Third Oecumenical Synod). Their doctrines are characterised as being "divinely-inspired" (Ode nine of the Canon for August 12 and Verse from Vespers for May 12).
The Holy Spirit Who enlightened the Apostles was the same Holy Spirit who enlightened the Holy Fathers. "For all are enlightened by one and the same Spirit", declares the Church (Canon 1 of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod). "Having received all the... brand of the holy Spirit... they spoke by divine inspiration". (Pentecostarion, Praises for the Sunday of the Holy Fathers).
Do you doubt? The Holy Spirit isn't present in the Church? It isn't active? It doesn't guide the Church? It doesn't teach it, doesn't reveal to it all the Truth? If It didn't act when the Oecumenical Synods were called, the purpose of which was to proclaim the truth, then when did It act? How was it that It acted at the Apostolic Synod but didn't act at the Oecumenical Synods? Unless of course we're saying that the Holy Spirit has ceased to be present and active in the Church since the Apostolic Synod, in which case we're making a liar out of Christ! (c.f. John 14:16).
It's interesting that the Church had to deal seriously with the matter of the divine inspiration of the Oecumenical Synods in the 14th century, at the Synod held in 1351. Divine inspiration was not doubted by the Orthodox, but by the supporters of Barlaam, who were influenced by non-Orthodox ideas.
C. Food for thought
The Scriptures don't say that they alone are divinely-inspired, nor that divine inspiration stops with them. They leave open the question of further divine inspiration. So the notion that only the Scriptures are divinely inspired is not borne out of the Scriptures themselves.
What do those who deny the divine inspiration of the Oecumenical Synods base their belief on? What ecclesiastical testimony do they have for it?
Here is the dilemma:
The idea that only the texts of the Scriptures are divinely-inspired is a view put forward by ill-informed spiteful people. That the other texts of the Church are also divinely-inspired is maintained indirectly by the Scriptures (c.f. John 16:13) and quite clearly by the teachings of the holy Oecumenical Synods.
So who are you going to believe? Spiteful, worldly people, or the saintly and God-bearing Fathers of the Oecumenical Synods?
a. Limiting divine inspiration to the Scriptures is disobedient to the decision of the Church. And this is disobedience on a matter of faith! Disobedience based on pride (c.f. Deuter. 17:12). And such disobedience deprives you of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures: "The Lord opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1 Peter 5:5).
b. If the Lord will punish us for "every idle word" (Matth. 6:22), what punishment awaits those who proclaim and spread false teachings?
c. If rejection of the divine inspiration of the Synods isn't blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then what is it?
D. When is a Synod considered to be divinely-inspired?
a. Pre-condition: maintenance of tradition
A Synod is called "to discover" the Truth.
Now the Truth of the Church is to be found in its tradition. That is where the holy Fathers seek Truth. Athanasios the Great writes: "The holy Fathers in Nicea concerning the faith did not say "it seems good" but "thus believe the catholic Church" and at once confessed what they believe, showing that this outlook was not an innovation but was Apostolic and what they wrote was not of themselves but was the same as what the Apostles taught" (Athanasios the Great, Patrologiae Greca., vol. 26, 688). And St. Cyril, when he was called upon to draw up a commonly acceptable "definition of faith" with the Nestorians, answered: "I did not come here to find a faith, but to establish the faith of the fathers, which has been shaken". Even the arch-heretic Arius confessed to his mother: "Go on believing as you did. Athanasios is right". The Third and Fourth Oecumenical Synods, in propounding their definitions of dogma, stated that they formulated them "following the holy fathers".
His Grace Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis defines the Oecumenicity of a Synod as follows:
"The characteristic of an Oecumenical Synod is the search for the truth in humility, within the traditions of the Church. In other words, it is not the official manner in which it is called nor the host of Bishops which defines the Oecumenical Synod, but precisely the search for truth, in humility and within the climate of tradition". This means that: "The Oecumenical Synod does not alter in the slightest the teachings of the Church which have been handed down, but accepts them in their entirety, keeps them and continues them".
b. The gift of divine inspiration
When the Synod is called on the above understanding, then automatically it receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. And this is what happened. At the holy Oecumenical Synods, the first and main speakers were men of the greatest humility. They spoke and the other Fathers listened to them in boundless humility. They approved their views because in them they found an expression of their own faith. In such a spiritually-charged atmosphere, it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke. That is how the Synods were divinely-inspired.
E. Can the Synod fall into error?
Is it possible for an Oecumenical Synod to be called and for it not to be divinely inspired? And thus wrong? But of course! If it scorns the decisions of previous Synods, if it brings in innovations. To put it differently, if those who are attending the Synod do not seek the Truth in humility and within the tradition of the Church, but try instead to "discover" it in their brains. In such an oppressive climate, the Holy Spirit will not descend. "The Lord opposes the proud". In that case, the Synod would cease to be divinely-inspired and would not be Oecumenical. It would be a "pirate version".
A. Orthodox intuition
At the Sacrament of Baptism the Creed is read by or on behalf of the person being baptised. In this way, the Orthodox faith is inscribed in a mysterious way upon the soul of the baptised person. So all Orthodox Christians, whether they're theologians or not, have the ability to tell Orthodox doctrines from heresies. "As the palate tastes the meat of game (i.e. is able to tell the difference between various food), so the heart distinguishes false words" (Sirach 36:19).
When sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, they're not alarmed, but "he goes before them, for they know his voice" (John 10:4). When an Orthodox soul hears Orthodox doctrines, it isn't perturbed. They strike a perfect answering chord. (The hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ was analyzed at the Third Oecumenical Synod. When the deeply-theological epistle of St. Cyril was read aloud, Eytychios, Bishop of Theodosiopolis in Asta said: "Since we have believed from an early age, nothing in the epistle of Cyril which has been read has alarmed us" (A.C.O. 1, 1, 2 p. 27)).
The Bishop wasn't perturbed precisely because the Orthodox Faith had been inscribed within him at the Sacrament of Baptism.
When the sheep hear the voice of a strange shepherd, they're alarmed. They don't follow him, "but flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 4:5). When the Orthodox soul hears the voice of a strange shepherd, when it hears heretical doctrines, it is alarmed. it recognises the wolf that has come to tear apart the flock.
B. Qualifications for a candidate to Orthodoxy
a. Humility
Let's say you're a Protestant. You were weaned on your faith as a child, grew up with it. You were taught it at home, at school, in society. It took deep hold of you. Is it possible for you, with so much investment and so many pre-formed opinions to see that you're in error?
"The manifestation of your words will enlighten and instruct the simple" (Psalm 118:30). If we transfer these divinely-inspired words to this case, we see that you have the humility to see and to accept the true faith. "You have hidden these things from the wise and have revealed them to babies" says the Lord (Matth. 11:25). As long as you're not prepared to bow before the Truth, as long as you stand with your head high, don't expect to find the Truth. Don't expect that by your own will, in your own mind, you'll be able to rise to the Truth.
b. The right frame of mind
"To know the law is (a sign of) a sound mind" (Prov. 9:10). In other words, you've got to be in the right frame of mind. You have to have a sincere desire to get at the Truth. If you don't want this with all your heart, if you're only pretending that you want it, you won't find it. And if you do, you won't believe it!
c. God's help
You're not alone in this God-pleasing effort. You have Christ the All-Powerful with you. He dearly wants you to come "to knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). Just so long as you make a start. He waits for you to make the first move. He waits for you!
As many as have really desired with their whole heart to come into the One Church, God has approched and strengthened. We have many examples which show the wondrous way God has acted among Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Jehova's Witnesses and others and guided their steps towards Orthodoxy.
The mystery of God's love for mankind is very great.
d. Your time hasn't come?
You've been trying for years to find the truth but still haven't done so. That's not God's fault, of course. It's not possible, says St. John Chrysostom, for God to overlook someone who lives in an upright manner and is free of his or her passions. Even if such people go astray, He, Himself, God, will bring them back to the Truth (Homily 24:1. On Matthew). So if you still haven't found the Truth, it's your responsibility. Don't give up.
"Seek and you shall find" (Luke 11:19).
