Orthodox Reflections

Part IX of the Western Series

How Western Beliefs Changed the Original Gospel Message

… Reactionary Reform Rejects Holy Tradition…

Irene Polidoulis MD

with the blessing of her spiritual father

Instead of returning to the decisions, teachings and practices of the early Church and the Ecumenical Councils, the Protestant Reformers rejected Holy Tradition and relied solely upon Holy Scripture (sola scriptura). Luther, for example, wrote and published pamphlets against Rome, Holy Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils which he thought supported Papal claims. He believed that anyone could interpret the Bible, even if their interpretation differed with that of the Holy Fathers. Luther’s new theology allowed anyone to pick and choose what they judged to be valid and true, completely disregarding the last fifteen centuries of truths established by a Living Church. The belief that anyone can freely interpret Holy Scripture on their own resulted in the splintering of Protestantism into hundreds of sects. Instead of correcting the errors of the Roman Catholic church, Luther and the other Reformers destroyed many of the foundations of the early Apostolic Church.¹

Holy Tradition

Holy Tradition began as the unwritten teachings of Jesus that were conveyed orally, first by Jesus, Himself, then by the Apostles, and then primarily through oral sermons and written letters of bishops and priests during the first three centuries of Christianity. Jesus, Himself, wrote nothing down, testifying of Himself by means of His Almighty Power. The Apostles also preferred to teach and spread the Gospel orally, verifying the Truth through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Few of Jesus’ close followers, (the “seventy”) who received the Great Commission, wrote anything down. The four Evangelists wrote the Gospels, and one of these along with 3 other Apostles wrote the Epistles. The latter include St. Paul who initially persecuted the early Church as Saul, St. Peter (one of the “twelve”), James the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and Jude. James and Jude were called the “brothers” of Lord, as they were sons of Joseph the Betrothed from his first marriage. These authors of the New Testament did not record every detail when they wrote things down. The Epistles were written mainly because of the need to edify those churches or persons that could not soon be visited because of climate, distance, incarceration or persecution. The Evangelists recorded what they considered to be the most important and salvific testimony of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Saviour of the world.  Face to face verbal communication was always the preferred approach for spreading the Gospel message.

One clear example of unrecorded oral teaching in the New Testament is found in Acts when Paul addresses the Ephesian elders and says,

I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, “it is more blessed to give than to receive [emphasis mine].”  (Acts 20:35)

Luke, the author of Acts, does not record this saying in his own Gospel; nor does it appear in any of the four Gospels. This is another witness to the sayings of Jesus being transmitted in an oral tradition. This method is known as Holy Tradition and is also supported by Scripture. For example, in his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes,

For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received. (1 Corinthians 15:13)

and

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or by our epistles [emphasis mine]. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

St. John the Evangelist writes,

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink; but I trust to come unto you and speak face to face that our joy may be full [emphasis mine]. (3 John 1:13-14).

John concluded his gospel with,

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written [emphasis mine]”  (John 21: 25). ²

The “many other things” that Jesus did, were not lost, because nothing that God ever says or does is in vain. They were conveyed orally and verified as truths by the miraculous Power of the Holy Spirit. To this day, these and subsequent events remain carved in the memory of the Church and many of them subsequently did get compiled into written records. All that was taught, whether orally or in writing, constitutes Sacred, or Holy Tradition. Hence,

Holy Tradition is the unwritten book of the New Testament [emphasis mine].
(St. Nektarios of Aegina, Metropolitan of Pentapolis, 1846-1920)

Holy Tradition is everything that the Holy Spirit inspired the Church to say, write and do from the day of Pentecost to the present. Holy or Sacred Tradition contains the Church’s unchangeable, dogmatic truths, and is to be distinguished from the traditions of local customs that are man-made. The faithful do not simply observe Holy Tradition, they enter into it and live it; and by living it, they enter into the Life of the Holy Spirit.²  St Porphyrios (1906-1991) described Holy Tradition as the Life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, as lived by Christ Himself, by His Apostles, by His Saints and by the Ecumenical Councils, all having correctly interpreted His teachings by the Holy Spirit of Truth.³ This same Spirit that emboldened and enlightened the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost to help them recollect and understand everything that Jesus said and did, has continued working within the Church in the same manner, comforting, supporting and transforming the lives of those who truly seek Christ. Therefore, to change Holy Tradition amounts to falsifying history, denying the Holy Spirit, and changing the Gospel message.

During the fourth century, Archbishop St. Basil, theologian and scholar, emphasized the central importance of Holy Tradition as follows:

Of the doctrines and injunctions kept by the Church, some we have from written instructions, but some we have received from Apostolic tradition by succession in private. Both the former and the latter have the same force in piety; and this will be contradicted by no one who has ever so little knowledge in the ordinance of the Church. For were we to dare to reject unwritten customs, as if they had no great importance, we should insensibly mutilate the Gospel, even in the most essential points, or rather, for the teaching of the Apostles leave but an empty name. (St. Basil the Great)

 Over the centuries many books have been compiled to preserve and teach various aspects of Holy Tradition. More modern examples include The Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos,⁴ The Twelve Apostles⁴ (a sequel to the Acts) and so on. Indeed, so many books of this kind have been written over the centuries, that altogether, they would comprise an enormous library. As Christ’s Church grew and developed, so did the Church’s prayer life, worship, sayings and practices, music, art and architecture. The Divine Liturgy developed from the ancient Christian worship services. As Christ ordained His Apostles, and as they ordained bishops (overseers), presbyters/priests (celebrants), and deacons (servers) to succeed them, an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession was formed to the present day, along with Church organization and government. New miracles in the name of Christ took place and new saints witnessed and were martyred for their faith. These are events that were continuously recorded and engraved in the memory of the Church using art, music and literature, to edify future generations. Alongside these, the New Testament literature was also written, and Ecumenical Councils were held, from which sprang the Creed of Faith and other writings to combat heresies and false teachings. This unbroken, living continuity with the ancient Christian Church can also be summed up as Sacred or Holy Tradition.²

 The New Testament

One very important outcome of Holy Tradition is the New Testament, which arose from the Holy Tradition of the Church over the course of her history, in the same manner as the Old Testament arose from the Holy Tradition (oral and written collections) of the Hebrews over the course of their history. The Great Prophet Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament from Genesis to Deuteronomy based on his divine prophetic gift and what was known at his time from Holy Tradition which had been passed down orally from as far back as Adam and Eve.

After Pentecost, the first Christians mostly studied the Old Testament, because almost 100 years passed before all 27 books of the New Testament came into existence.² During the first century, Christianity spread by means of oral Holy Tradition. The writings that gradually emerged were hand copied, circulated and shared among the early churches. The first New Testament books to be written were the letters, or Epistles, of St. Paul to the Christian Churches of Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi and areas of Asia Minor. Paul also wrote pastoral letters to Timothy the first Bishop of Ephesus,⁵ Titus, the first Bishop of Crete,⁶ and Philemon the first Bishop of the city of Gaza.⁷ He wrote to help the early Christian churches solve certain problems and to clarify issues they were having while he was away or in prison.

In addition to these Epistles, between 50 and 100 A.D., the life of Jesus was written down in texts known as the Gospels or the Evangelion. St. Mark wrote the first Gospel by the year 70 A.D. to prepare the Christians of Jerusalem for impending persecutions. Then, saints Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and guide to write their Gospels but added collections that were both known and important to them and their local churches. [OR Staff Note: There is debate over whether Matthew or Mark was the first Gospel written. Click here for a view in favor of Matthean priority.]

Many years later, near the end of the first century, the Apostle John wrote his Gospel. John wrote a more theological Gospel in response to internal and external problems facing the Church. As the early life of Christ and His parables were already mentioned in the first three Gospels, John found it unnecessary to repeat them.² In ancient times, other writers also wrote gospels and letters, but not all of them, or all parts of them, were not accepted by the early Church as being authentic and having Apostolic authority. By the middle of the 2^nd Century A.D., many people had written many things about Jesus. Some of this literature was fanciful and imaginary and lacked credibility.

Besides enduring external persecutions, another problem that arose for the early Church, was internal conflicts in the form of heresies (wrong teachings) that divided the Church. As early as the first century, some tried to Judaize the early Christians (Acts 15:1-41) and some tried to fuse Christian teachings to those of other pagan religions or philosophies (Galatians 1:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17). Still others tried to take advantage of early Christian generosity and hospitality by impersonating the true Apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:7-15).⁸

Therefore, the early Church needed a process by which it could clearly distinguish between false teachings and doctrines, both oral and written, that were true and possessed Apostolic authority, and those that were false and did not possess it. The process that developed came to be known as the New Testament Canon, which was synodically finalized near the end of the fourth century at the third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. where St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, played a key role.⁹ The New Testament Canon uses three criteria that can be applied to all areas of Holy Tradition:

1. 1. 1. Apostolicity – It must have been taught by the Apostles who received it from Christ.
      2. Catholicity (or Universality) – It must have been jointly taught by all the Apostles, accepted and lived throughout the entire Church.
      3. Conformity – It must not conflict with or contradict any other scripture or teachings of the Church.⁹

Apostolicity, Catholicity and Conformity became the fundamental basis and foundation for Church authority. Using these criteria, the New Testament was compiled as we know it today. Those writings that did not fulfil all three criteria of the New Testament Canon are known as Apocrypha, and were not included in the New Testament.⁸ For early Christians, the Bible was most naturally understood in the context of the Church, that community of believers who lived, taught and worshiped in accordance with what the Apostles had received from the Lord Himself. All of the Church’s history, biographies of the saints, oral teachings, worship, sayings and practices, hymnography, art, the Sacraments, the Divine Liturgy and the New Testament are part of Holy Tradition, because all have their basis in Apostolicity, Catholicity and Conformity.⁹ To accept the New Testament but to reject Holy Tradition, which includes the Ecumenical Synods that compiled it, makes no sense, as the latter gave rise to the former.

In the Roman Catholic church, which had departed from Holy Tradition, the basis and foundation for church authority later changed to include Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. The Magisterium, which includes the Pope and his bishops was officially adopted during the First Vatican Council (1869-1870 A.D.).¹⁰  Instead of rejecting the changes made to Holy Tradition by the Roman Catholic church, the Protestant Reformers rejected Holy Tradition in its totality, centering their church authority only on Scripture – sola scriptura. This became very problematic because, without the teachings of the Holy Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, the Wisdom with which the Holy Spirit had enlightened the early Church was lost, and many interpretations and misinterpretations of “sola scriptura” arose.  St. Irenaeus of Lyon (2^nd century) had this to say about Sola Scriptura:

Even if the apostles had not left their writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches? Many barbarian peoples who believed in Christ follow this rule, having [the message of their] salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink [emphasis mine]. (Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heretics)

This is one of the clearest refutations of Sola Scriptura from the early Church that was taught and recorded centuries before any schisms or heresies occurred. This does not discount the importance of Holy Scripture, but it does emphasize the much greater importance of entering the Life of the Holy Spirit that lives in the Church that was established by Christ. By living a Church-centred life, many illiterate people became steeped in the knowledge and wisdom of the Christian Faith, even being able to read a word of Holy Scripture.

As already mentioned, the New Testament teachings were first lived and taught orally by Christ, who interpreted many of His own parables for His disciples. Christ’s most important teachings were later written down by these same men whom He ordained as His Apostles. These men were transformed from Disciples to Apostles at Pentecost, when they were enlightened and empowered by the grace of the Holy Spirit to carry out His mission by in turn, correctly interpreting and courageously spreading His message of salvation, for the most part, orally.

All of Christendom universally accepts that the Epistles of the Apostles, which are found in the Bible, are divinely inspired theological interpretations that explain the Christian Faith; but even these, themselves, need proper interpretation in the correct context of the times and circumstances they were written, to be properly understood by subsequent generations. As Christ had His Disciples who He commissioned as His Apostles, the Apostles also had their disciples, as in the case of St. Paul and Timothy. In an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession, the Apostles ordained many of their disciples as Bishops. These were spiritual teachers, theologians, and many became saints, who correctly explained the Biblical doctrines (teachings) of the Christian Faith in ways that were relevant to the challenges of their time. This they did in defense of Christianity against pagan philosophies and other heresies that would continuously arise. In the Orthodox Church, these saints are called the Holy Fathers of the Church, and their teachings, which interpret and complement Holy Scripture, are called Patristic (fatherly) Teachings.¹¹

Since the Holy Spirit is One, there can only be one divinely inspired interpretation of God’s Word, oral or written (Holy Scripture), as it is impossible for the Holy Spirit of Truth to inspire differing or conflicting interpretations. Without divinely inspired Holy Tradition to guide scriptural interpretation, all manner of harmful ideas and false heresies have arisen outside the Orthodox Church. In the West, different sects holding opposing doctrines appeal equally to the Bible by ignoring Holy Tradition and relying entirely on their own private interpretations. They do this despite God’s clear warning which is recorded in the Bible:

No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were prompted by the Holy Spirit [emphasis mine]. (2 Peter 1:20)

 Therefore, no one can interpret Scripture by himself, because we are one body, told to “be of one mind” (Phil. 1:27). “Be one in thought, one in heart, one in soul, one in mind [emphasis mine]” (Phil. 2:2).

Thus, as the Nicene Creed states, “I believe in the Bible,” must be balanced with, “I believe in one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic Church [emphasis mine].”¹²  The enduring belief in the East is that this one Church is the original, authentic and dogmatically unaltered Orthodox Church.

The Orthodox Church has always insisted that everyone read the Bible with the guidance of the Apostolic and post-Apostolic Holy Fathers, who lived, experienced and passed on the teachings of Christ as they were guided to do so by the Holy Spirit. In Orthodoxy, the Head of the Church is not a Pope or a Patriarch, but Christ, for in Orthodoxy, the Church is not an earthly institution. She is the mystical body and bride of Christ. As one head can only belong to one body, and as Christ is One (one Christ), so His mystical body, His bride, the Church, can only be one (one Church). Christ cannot be the Head of multiple churches, each teaching different dogmas. He can only be the Head of that Church which teaches His Truths.

The Church is One, and She is the only place where one can receive the complete and unabridged plenteousness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit…There is no Christianity outside of the Church for us. If Christ founded the Church, and the Church is His Body, then separation from his Body means death. (St. Hilarion Troitsky, On Life in the Church).

Scroll Down to Continue

The Church

Protestants claim that “The Bible is God-given while the Church is man-made.”  If the Bible is God-given, the process – Holy Tradition – by which God gave us the Bible must also be God-given. The following quotes from Biblical Scripture indicate that the Church, too, is God-given. St. Paul writes,¹¹

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth [emphasis mine].  (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

and

For this reason, I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church [emphasis mine].  (1 Corinthians 4:17)

 and

And God placed all things under His feet and appointed Him to be head over everything for the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way [emphasis mine]. (Ephesians 1:22)                                                                 

and

And He is the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy [emphasis mine].            (Colossians 1:18)

and finally, Jesus, Himself, said,

 And I tell you that you are Peter [of rocky faith] and on this rock [bedrock of faith] I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it [emphasis mine]. (Matthew 16:18)

The Saints and the Virgin Mary Theotokos

Protestants fault Orthodox Christians for worshipping Mary and the saints and using them as intercessors to God, rather than praying directly to Christ. In fact, Orthodox Christians worship only God. They venerate (honour) Mary, holding her in high esteem. The Gospel of St. Luke says she is the “favoured one,” and the mother of God since “the Child to be born [of her] will be called holy, the Son of God,” and “behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed” (Luke 1:26-56).

 Orthodox Christians also venerate the saints and look upon them as the triumphant members of the Church in God’s Heavenly Kingdom. Chapter 12 of Hebrews relates the whole cloud of saints, martyrs and witnesses, both in Old Testament times and in Apostolic times. Hebrews 12:23 reminds us of “[the] general assembly and church [Greek: εκκλησία, ecclesia] of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, [of] God the Judge of all, [and of] the spirits of righteous men made perfect [emphasis mine]…” Scripture also tells us that both Enoch (Genesis 5:24, Hebrews 11:5-6) and Elijah (II Kings 2:11) ascended into Heaven alive and in bodily form.

While Protestants seek out one another for intercessory prayer, Orthodox faithful also look to the angels, forefathers, prophets, apostles, martyrs and saints as role models and ask them through prayer to intercede to God on their behalf. As members of the Church Triumphant, these are closer to God in heaven, compared to us, who are still members of the Church Militant. They are our trusted heroes because they have successfully “crossed the finish line” and received the Crown of Life.¹¹

 Icons

As Moses had been instructed to do by God, from the earliest of times, the Church has used art, incense and music, to beautify and augment the worshiper’s experience, and to teach Christian truths by involving all the senses. One example of this aspect of Holy Tradition, which dates to Apostolic times, is iconography. Icons are painted images, typically of biblical scenes, the life of Jesus, historical events of the Church, and portraits of saints. They were initially used as a form of teaching and communication, much as a picture book would be used to teach a young child. The first icons created by the human hand were painted by Luke the Evangelist, who drew the Virgin Mary holding Christ. He painted five different versions of the Theotokos (God bearer), all of which are highly venerated and miraculous images of the Virgin.¹³ One of these icons is called Directress whose prototype is currently kept on Mount Athos. There is a specific reference to this icon in the Service of the Small Paraklesis to the Virgin Mary, which was written and composed to music in the ninth century:

…Speechless be the lips of impious ones,

Those who do not reverence

Your great icon, the sacred one

Which is called Directress,

And was depicted for us

By one of the apostles,

Luke the Evangelist…¹⁴

St. Luke Paints the Virgin Mary holding Christ

St. Luke, who was an artist, as well as a physician, had met the Virgin Mary, Theotokos. According to Holy Tradition, he requested her permission to paint her portrait. This was granted by the Mother of God, on the condition that he would also paint her Son, Jesus. In her humility, she wanted Him, her God, to be the focus. For this reason, most icons of the Theotokos depict her holding the Christ Child with one arm, “directing” our focus to Him with the other. In this manner, she draws the worshipper’s attention to the One who should be worshipped. This historical detail is not recorded in the Bible, but it is recorded in the Church’s memory and is part of Holy Tradition. This is one example of why the Orthodox regard rejecting Holy Tradition akin to rejecting the history of the Church. It would be as nonsensical and profane as any nation of the world to reject its own history.

Many miracles have been recorded throughout the history of the Church, that support the tradition of iconography. These include miraculously replicating icons, healing icons, weeping and myrrh-streaming icons, bleeding icons and icons that have resisted destruction. One example is the icon of the All-Holy Lady of Jerusalem, which is acheiropoieton (Greek: αχειροποίητον), meaning painted without human hands. The original is kept in her empty tomb, in Bethany, near Jerusalem. Another is the “Sweet Kissing” icon of the Mother of God which miraculously stood on the sea and made its way to Mount Athos during the Period of Iconoclasm (726-843 A.D.), where it is still kept today; and there are many more examples.

Luke’s icons started a long tradition of iconography which was also practised in the catacombs. As did the Old Testament Jews, the early Christians also sang hymns during their worship services. The hymn quoted above is an example of how early Christian singing during worship developed into the beautiful and poetic hymnology still used today.² It also shows how one tradition, hymnology, cross references and supports another tradition such as the history of iconography. Over the centuries, Holy Tradition has, in this manner, become a vast network of customs, music, literature and art that teach theological and historical truths with the depth, richness and beauty befitting a King.

For St. John of Damascus (8^th century), Holy Tradition is the cohesive system of the Holy Scriptures, the Creed, the Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers’ writings, the Canons, the liturgical books, and the Holy Icons. Regarding the latter, St. John was a staunch defender of the icons during Iconoclasm, something for which he was punished by the severing of his right hand, an amputation that was miraculously healed when he prayed in front of the icon of the Virgin Mary. This miracle was considered just another proof by the Church that the veneration of icons should be preserved. St. John emphasized the vital role of Holy Tradition in the Church, stating,

We do not change the everlasting boundaries which our fathers have set, but we keep the Tradition, just as we received it [emphasis mine]. (St. John of Damascus, On the Holy Icons, II, 12).

 Protestants accuse Orthodox Christians of idolatry when it comes to the veneration of icons and the use of various articles and utensils in their worship. They base their rejection of icons and religious articles on the second of the Ten Commandments, ^“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…” (Exodus 20:4-5). The Orthodox Church believes that Protestants have taken this commandment out of context with the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Indeed, the Orthodox faithful do not worship anything or anyone other than the Holy Trinity, but they do make graven images for the purpose of worshipping the One true God who, as we know, desires to be worshipped in a particular manner.¹¹

This is seen in Exodus, chapters 25-31, where God gave Moses meticulous instructions on how to make the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, the golden lampstand, the altars, the priests’ vestments, the incense, the holy oil, and every article and utensil to be used, including the rituals the Israelites were to follow in their worship of the One true God. Many of God’s instructions for worship, that were given to Moses, have been preserved in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the main worship service in the Orthodox Church.

Even Martin Luther allowed for the presence of images in churches and considered them praiseworthy and honourable. He argued that sacred images are not idols because they are not being treated as such. They are not meant to replace God, as with pagan idols, but are rather meant to point our hearts and our minds to Christ and help us imitate those depicted in the icons – people who had devoted their lives to the imitation of Christ.¹⁵

This is why icons are sometimes called “windows to heaven.” This is not because one can literally see into heaven with an icon, but because they serve as a true memorial of the Lord’s presence, by virtue of the people or events they signify. There is nothing sacred about the wood, gold, or paint; it is the people, who are created in the image of God and who show us true and venerable images of Christ, that make icons what they are. This is why, to this day, the Orthodox cense individual people and icons and greet them with a holy kiss. This is not idolatry, but a personal love and affection for one another in the Body of Christ which includes the living on earth, and those who have passed on triumphantly to heaven.¹⁵

A child shows her love for Jesus

The practice of iconography is significantly older than the New Testament. St. Luke painted the Theotokos holding the Christ child in the first century. The painted walls of catacombs, depicting scenes of the life of Christ, also predate the New Testament. Icons form a type of picture book of theology. They relay the record of God’s Truth through scenes and symbols as the printed word does on the pages of the Bible. The early Church fathers taught that icons, for the unlearned, are what books are for the learned; they make the history and theology of the Church accessible to all.¹¹

Today, there are many styles of iconography, such as the Byzantine, Russian, Novgorod and Coptic styles. All these styles depict slightly distorted artistic images of holy persons or sacred events. This is purposely done to avoid realism, and to draw the onlooker’s attention to the message of the icon rather than the art form itself. Icons are much like a treasured photograph of a loved one that one may kiss, or of a special experience one does not wish to forget. It is the memories, the truths, the messages they relay, and the people they represent, that make icons so precious to the Orthodox faithful.

Worship

The ancient Christian Church engaged in corporate worship, at first daily, and then weekly. Worship consisted of prayers, hymns, petitions and scripture readings, concluding with the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ and Holy Communion for the participants. By the end of the third century, the Divine Liturgy became well established. The Liturgy was a worshipful re-enactment of the life of Christ, from His birth and public ministry to the Last Supper and Crucifixion. The climax always was, and remains to this day, the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ from which the participants receive Holy Communion, to obey the commandment of the Lord,

Take and eat; this is my body … Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood … which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28)

In the Orthodox Church, Holy Communion and Chrismation are inseparable from Baptism according to the practises and beliefs of Holy Tradition. Children should not be deprived of Chrismation or Holy Communion because every baptized person is a full member of the Body of Christ and must not be denied His blessings.

 Let the children come to me. (Luke 18:16)

and

Unless one is born of water and the Spirit (baptism and chrismation) he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”   (John 3:5)

and

“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood [Holy Communion], you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

 When the Roman Catholic Church separated Chrismation from Baptism, Holy Communion was also given to the child much later in life, at the medieval “age of reason,” about 7 years of age. During the 8^th century, the Roman Catholic church began using unleavened bread (wafers) instead of leavened bread, which was used by Christ.¹

Orthodox Holy Communion

In the Medieval period, the Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas (13^th century), used scholasticism to theorize that both the Body and Blood belong to the same species (i.e. Christ). Therefore, it would make no difference if a person took one or the other or both. He started a new tradition in the Roman Catholic church which began offering lay persons only the Body of Christ (unleavened wafers) for Holy Communion; and the Blood (wine) of Christ became reserved only for the clergy. Orthodoxy considers this contrary to Holy Scripture, where Jesus explicitly states,

Truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you [emphasis mine]” (John 6:53) and “Take, eat; this is my body…Drink of it all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins [emphasis mine].”  (Matthew 26:26-29)

“For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread [Jesus] that came down from heaven, not like the bread [manna] the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread [Jesus] will live forever.” Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.  (John 6:55-59)

In the Orthodox Church, Holy Communion is a bloodless sacrifice in spiritual form and is the centre and climax of Orthodox Liturgical worship. The faithful offer plain gifts (bread and wine) and receive Holy Gifts, the very Blood and Body of the Risen Lord. This is accomplished through the synergy of the Holy Spirit and the joint prayers of the Orthodox clergy and laity. This joint activity consecrates the gifts (bread and wine) by mystically changing them into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Holy Communion is the “Sacrament of Sacraments” because, even though we do not “see” Him, the presence of the Lord becomes real in Holy Communion, which gives Man* the ability to be united with Christ.

 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  (John 6:56)

There are many testimonies of Orthodox priests and lay people over the centuries, who have experienced Eucharistic miracles. Some have seen flesh and blood in the chalice during Holy Communion, or even tasted raw flesh, while other congregants did not. According to the witnesses, the experience was so frightening that it is no wonder God protects us, in a manner of speaking, from our human inability to handle such an experience.

Today, many Roman Catholic parishes have restored communion to both kinds (the Body and Blood of Christ), but most Protestants do not accept that the bread and wine are changed by the Holy Spirit into the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. For them, the Eucharist is a mere remembrance of the Last Supper, and some groups even use grape juice or other beverages instead of red wine. In addition, the Eucharist is not usually the central focus of Protestant worship, and many groups offer it only occasionally, and after the conclusion of their service, not as the focus or climax of their worship as did the original Church and the present-day Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church does not recognize these forms of communion as valid sacraments, but leaves final judgment to God, for one cannot negate the Grace of God working in “mysterious ways.”¹¹

As the Protestant Reformers formed churches that continued to divide and fragment because of “sola scriptura,” Protestantism experienced an ever-widening departure, not only from Holy Tradition, but even from basic Biblical doctrine, such as the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and the sacraments instituted by Christ and taught by Holy Scripture. For example, the Mormons do not believe in the Triune God; the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in the divinity of Christ; and the Quakers do not believe in worship or any sacrament. The Church of Christ Scientist (Christian Science) believes that there is no distinction between God and nature, Creator and creation, God and Man, or Christ’s human & divine natures. They deny the Biblical doctrine of Man’s fall and his salvation in Christ.  Mainstream Christianity does not consider these splinter groups to be Christian.¹¹

Most Christian Protestant sects adhere only to two Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, considering the Eucharist to be merely symbolic and not the actual Body and Blood of Christ. This was all the result of the Reformers’ rejection of Holy Tradition, which was in direct, albeit reactionary, opposition to the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. By ignoring the system of Ecumenical Councils, Rome became a monolithic, central authority that considered itself “free from error.” This, however, does not mean that the hierarchical priesthood, as established by Christ and the Apostolic Succession of the Church should be totally rejected. The same holds true for many other things the Reformers rejected.¹¹

As hard as the Reformers tried to justifiably sever themselves from the despotism of the Roman West, they failed to shed the erroneous theology that used guilt and fear to keep a tight grip on its people. Western theology progressively lost so many of the puzzle pieces of the icon of Christ, that people could no longer recognize the Saviour.  Without the ancient wisdom of the East, the Reformers repeated many of the dogmatic errors of their Latin predecessors. Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.), who was a professor of Philosophy with a Doctorate in Theology, was well aware of the Patristic teachings of the East.⁷ John Wycliff (1320-1384 A.D.) and John Huss (1369-1414 A.D. ) were also educated Theologians.⁷  Despite their knowledge and education, instead of returning to God’s revealed Truths, upheld by the Apostolic Traditions of the early Church Fathers, they imitated the Papacy by using human rationalism to fabricate new dogmas.

It is, indeed, tragic that the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church were so injurious as to draw such a strong reaction from the Reformers that they rejected everything that had been corrupted by Rome, saving only the Holy Scriptures. It is unfortunate that so much trust had been lost that no genuine effort was made to “try” Orthodoxy as an alternative to Rome, ultimately creating thousands of Protestant denominations. It wasn’t until four centuries later, when East and West met on the foreign soil of North America, that an awareness of Orthodoxy emerged, and a “meeting of the minds” slowly began. The influx of Eastern European immigrants to North American “Western” neighbourhoods, the translation of Orthodox literature into English, and the disillusionment of “sola scriptura” with no authority outside of one’s self, have all sparked a genuine “homecoming” to the Orthodox Church for those who want to return to their ancient Christian roots, to an authentic Christianity, and the fullness of a truly Human and Christian life.

 To be continued with Part X – Sacrifice and Redemption …

 Footnotes

 *The term Man is used interchangeably and in the plural sense to mean both the masculine and the feminine together. The terms he, him, his also denote the singular feminine unless otherwise stated in the text. These terms will be used in this manner throughout all Parts of this Series.

 References

1. Mathews, Eastern Orthodoxy Compared,72, 47-49
2. Nicozisin, A History of the Church – Part 1, 66-67, 64-65
3. Hieromonk Savvas of the Holy Mountain. Healing the Soul – Saint Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia as a Model for our Lives. Translated and edited from the Greek original by the Sisterhood of the Saint John Chrysostomos Greek Orthodox Monastery, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, 2021 (Ecclesiology, pp 61-63)
4. Written and Compiled by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, Colorado
5. Apostle Timothy of the Seventy

https://oca.org/saints/lives/2018/01/04/100033-apostle-timothy-of-the-seventy

6. Apostle Titus of the Seventy and Bishop of Crete https://oca.org/saints/lives/2010/08/25/102393-apostle-titus-of-the-seventy-and-bishop-of-crete
7. Apostle Philemon of the Seventy,” accessed July 28, 2018, https://oca.org/saints/lives/2011/11/22/103359-apostle-philemon-of-the-seventy.
8. Nicozisin, The Orthodox Church: A Well-Kept Secret, A Journey through Church History, Pg. 23
9. R. Evans, ed., The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004), 15–16.
10. How a Roman Catholic View of Church Authority Compares to a Protestant View https://www.9marks.org/article/how-a-roman-catholic-view-of-church-authority-compares-to-a-protestant-view/
11. Nicozisin, The Orthodox Church: A Well-Kept Secret, 21–23, 120-124, 118-121
12. Anthony M. Coniaris. Living a Balanced Life in an Unbalanced World. Light & Life Publishing Company, Minneapolis MN (Chapter 6, pp 70-73; Chapter 11 pp 106-108)
13. Convent, The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, 426–428
14. Theophanes, The Service of the Small Paraklesis to the Most Holy Theotokos, ed. Demetri Kangelaris and Nicholas Kasemeotes, Revised 1997 edition. (Brookline, Mass: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1984), 30.
15. V. Martini, “Is There Really a Patristic Critique of Icons? (Part 5 of 5),” Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, last modified May 23, 2013 https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/05/23/is-there-really-a-patristic-critique-of-icons-part-5-of-5/