The following Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its Differences with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, is designed to give the student an overall basic knowledge of Orthodoxy. Although it is a MUST read, there will not be a test on it.

Primer 1 - A

A Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its difference with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church

Orthodoxy and God:

Man receives his knowledge of God from His divine Revelation in the universe and especially in Jesus Christ. Even so, man realizes that this knowledge is far from complete in his mind. We (mankind) know God indirectly, “For our knowledge is imperfect”, (1 Cor. 13:9), “in a mirror dimly”, (1 Cor. 13:12), this is because our knowledge is taken indirectly from God’s revelation in the universe and in Christ. The essence of God is unknown to man and untaught by man. We can only know that which is about God, but cannot understand God Himself.

So what do we know? We know that God is a spiritual Being without matter, and He cannot be contained in space or time. There is no place in the universe where God is not present; His energy is witnessed in every part of the universe. This is the ‘Ever-Presence of God’.

The Eternity of God means that God is above time, thus Ever-Present, without end. Time is humanly understood as the moving of things which have a beginning and an end and are changeable. But God is above and beyond time. There is no duration of time as far as God is concerned, for “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day”, 2 Peter 3:8. This is the ‘Eternity of God’.

The divine power can do “all things”, and God can do whatever he wills; not what He can do, but rather what He WILLS to do. God’s WILL is God’s power, and God wills whatever He wants to do. “God can do whatever He wills, but He does NOT do whatever He can do; for He can destroy the universe but He does not will to do so” (Damascene Orthodox Faith, Vol. 1, 13). In God’s Person, His power and will are indispensable to one another. As such, God’s attribute as absolute prevails. This is the ‘Almightiness of God’.

These are the natural attributes of god – His Ever-presence, Eternity and Almightiness – they derive from the central characteristic of God’s ABSOLUTENESS.

Through the fall (the sin) of Adam and Eve, mankind and all of creation have become corrupt and separated from God. No longer could we walk with God in the cool of the evening as did Adam in the Garden of Eden. But God so loved the world that He sent His only Begotten Son that we may have eternal life. In other words, God became a man that man may become as God.

It is through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only Begotten Son of God, the LOGOS (Word of God) that brought the Church into being. The source of our Salvation is through Jesus Christ and His Church.

The Primitive Church:

Christian Biblical revelation takes place in a historical context which means that it is a revelation of historical fact and data, illuminating God’s actions in history. It is in the realm of time and space that mankind’s salvation is revealed as God’s chosen way to redeem us.

The worship of Orthodox Christianity is a witness to history, as it recalls, in its rich diversity, particular historical events that involve not only the earthly life of Jesus Christ our Lord, but also the life of the Church, its saints, ascetics, martyrs, and theologians. Each celebration of the liturgy, each celebration of a feast, is a celebration of time and of the eschatological reality, and at the same time it is anticipation of the “world to come” – of what lies beyond the realm of history – as well as remembrance of a concrete historical past. Also, history lies at the very heart of Orthodoxy’s conviction that it is the true Church of Christ on earth. What forms the basis of this claim? It is actually due to its possession of an uninterrupted historical and theological continuity that Orthodoxy is able to rightfully make this claim. The Orthodox Church, even though it has undergone changes and developed through the centuries, has remained in its essential identity – its organic and spiritual continuity – substantially coextensive with the Church of the Apostles. Thus it is, in effect, the living continuation in time and space of the primitive Church in Jerusalem.

The Impact of Christianity on History:

The first four centuries of the Christian era were among the most creative. The victory of Christianity over the persecutions was revolutionary for both the Roman Empire and the European civilization that was to follow. It was during this period that the Church achieved a certain self-identity and self-awareness, which has since become the norm for Orthodoxy. In the beginning, the Church was without a New Testament. Scripture simply meant the Old Testament. Increasingly, the Church recognized the need to bring together all of the writings of apostolic origin or inspiration into a single canon. To this day, this collection of twenty-seven books still constitutes the total apostolic witness for the Church and is identical with our present day New Testament. Thus we can say that the most significant events in the history of Christianity during this period was its transformation into a religion of two Testaments. These writings were acknowledged and received by the community of the Church because they coincided with its own Tradition and the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling in its midst since Pentecost. Christians, strictly speaking, lived solely by these Tradition decades before the content of the New Testament was determined. Scripture in the Orthodox Church is routinely interpreted within the context of Tradition. Father Georges Florovsky famously argued, “it is within this larger setting of the Church’s living memory (Tradition) that Scripture discloses its authentic message.”

The Early Administrative Structure of the Church:

Equally critical to the life of the Church was the formation of its administrative structure. The ministry of the Apostles was itinerate rather than stationary. After founding a church community, the Apostles would depart for another mission, leaving behind others to administer the new congregation and preside over the Eucharist and Baptism. This resulted in a local hierarchy developing whose functions were stationary, administrative, and sacramental in contrast with the mobile authority of the Apostles. The presiding official of each community, especially at each of the Sunday Eucharistic meal, was the episcopos, or bishop, who was assisted by priests and deacons. This system with its three-fold pattern of bishop, priest, and deacon was already in place in many areas by the early second century. There was nothing unusual in this development. After all, the Last Supper – the first Liturgy – could not have taken place without the Lord’s presiding presence. From the beginning, the existence of a presiding head was taken for granted by the Church. This establishment of a local “monarchial” episcopate is still at the very center of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The Medieval Period:

If the early fourth century marked the end of the persecutions and the Church’s formative age, it also marked the dawn of the medieval period. With the fourth century the Church was standing on the threshold of a new civilization. Constantine’s recognition of Christianity was decisive, but equally important was his decision to move the imperial residence – the center of Roman government – to Constantinople in the year 330. The importance of this event in the history of the Eastern Church can hardly be exaggerated. This capital situated in the old Greek city of Byzantium, soon became the center of the new emerging Orthodox civilization. There is a division in the opinion of the historical question of Byzantium’s contribution to civilization. But its lasting legacy lies in the area of religion and art. It is these two areas which gave Byzantine culture much of its unity. The new culture that developed was clearly dominated by the Christian vision of life, rather than the pagan. One need only turn to Justinian’s (532) “Great Church” of the Holy Wisdom – the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople – to understand this. Not only did Constantinople, the “New Rome” become the setting for this new civilization, but it also became the unrivaled center of Orthodox Christianity. It is during this important period that the city’s bishop assumed the title of “ecumenical patriarch.”

Ecumenical Synods and Heresies:

The Byzantine Empire had remarkable endurance, surviving for over a millennium until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. The seven ecumenical synods (councils) with their doctrinal formulations are of particular importance to the Byzantine period, as these synods were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. They constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the persons of Christ, and the incarnation. The decisions of these synods constitute an authoritive norm against which all subsequent theology is measured, and they remain binding for the whole Church; non-acceptance constitutes exclusion from the communion of the Church. This explains the separation from the Church of such groups as the Jacobites, Armenians, Copts, and Nestorians. The ultimate acceptance of these synods by the Church as a whole is what gave the Church its validity and authority. Their acceptance was due, to a large part, to the great theologians of the age; their literary defense of these synods was decisive. These fathers of the Church were such men as saints Basil, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and Gregory of Nyssa. Their writings still constitute an inexhaustible theological source for contemporary Orthodox Christians.

The seven ecumenical councils are important for another reason. The threefold ministerial structure of the Church was already a reality in many communities by the post-apostolic period. Each of these self-contained local churches, with its own independent hierarchal structure, was a self-governing unit. However, exact standards governing the relations of these churches with each other had not yet been defined. Still, a certain “power structure” modeled upon the organization of the Roman Empire eventually emerged; a provincial system in which churches were grouped in provinces had developed even before the beginning of the fourth century. In such cases it was the norm to give greater honor to the “metropolitan” or bishop of the capital city (metropolis) of each province. Likewise, given the importance of certain cities in the Roman administration, special precedence was given the presiding bishop of the three largest cities in the empire: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. These developments, in which a church was ranked according to its civil importance in the administrative divisions of the Roman state, had evolved by common consensus without ecclesiastical legislation to support it. This problem was addressed by the ecumenical synods. The fathers of the first synod (325) formerly recognized the status of the three dioceses of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and with the emergence of Constantinople as the new capital of the empire, this patriarchal system was further modified, since the change brought about in the civil administration by Constantinople’s new status could not help but to affect the ecclesiastical structure. At the synod of 381, Constantinople, as the “New Rome,” was given second place after the old Rome, while Alexandria was assigned third place. This legislation received further confirmation at the fourth synod of Chalcedon (451), when Constantinople, along with Jerusalem, was granted patriarchal status.

So, by the fifth century, a “pentarchy” or system of five sees (patriarchates) had been established, with a settled order of precedence. As the ancient center and the largest city of the empire, Rome, understandably, was given the primacy of honor within the pentarchy into which Christendom was now divided. This system of patriarchs and metropolitans was exclusively the result of ecclesiastical legislation; there was nothing inherently divine in its origin. None of the five sees possessed its authority by divine right. Had this been so, Alexandria could not have been demoted to third rank in order to have Constantinople exalted to second place. The determining factor was nothing more than their secular status as the most important cities in the empire. Another thing to note is that each of the five patriarchs was totally sovereign within their sphere of jurisdiction. The primacy of Rome, as such, did not entail universal jurisdictional power over the others. The Church of the East (the Orthodox Church) has always held that all bishops were equal in rank to each other. It made absolutely no difference if they were patriarchs, metropolitans, or just plain bishops of small local Diocese, they were considered equal. No one bishop however exalted his see or diocese could claim supremacy over the others. The bishop of Rome was simply honored as the “first among equals”.

Crisis over Icons:

 Since the visual arts played a prominent role in the personal lives of the Orthodox faithful, as well as in the liturgical life of the Church, it is only right and proper to give a mention, even if only brief, of Byzantine iconoclasm and the seventh ecumenical synod (787) which condemned it. Byzantine religious art is among the empire’s lasting legacies, even to this day. Had the iconoclasts won, their victory would have had a decisive impact and would have altered the course of Byzantine painting. Iconoclasm is often thought of as apart from the christological debates which the earlier ecumenical synods were concerned. But, the issue, to a great degree, most certainly was christological in nature. To understand this, we need to start with the basic iconoclast objection to images. The iconoclasts argued how could the divinity of Christ be depicted or represented without falling into idolatry? To the iconoclasts, the veneration of the Lord’s icon was nothing less than idolatrous worship of inanimate wood and paint, which was very plainly forbidden by Holy Scripture to Christians. However, as cogent an argument it was, it did not convince the Fathers of the seventh ecumenical synod.

The fathers argued that a material image, it is true, is made of wood and paint, but it is only a symbol. It is not an object of absolute veneration or worship. On the contrary, icons are only relatively venerated since the true object of veneration is ultimately the person imaged or depicted in the icon, not the icon itself. A clear distinction must be made between veneration (proskynesis timetike) by which an icon should be honored, and worship (latreia) which belongs to God alone. In other words, it is altogether unlawful to worship icons, for God alone is worshipped and adored; however, icons should and could be venerated. This insistence that icons should be honored brings us to the second important argument of the Church – the Christological argument. This argument holds that a representation of the Lord or of the saints is entirely permissible and necessary because of the incarnation. In other words, the Son of God, the image of the Father, can be shown pictorially precisely because through the incarnation, he became visible and discernable by assuming a human nature and by becoming man. Any repudiation of the Lord’s image is tantamount to a denial of the mystery of the incarnation. The defeat of iconoclasm is celebrated annually by the Orthodox Church on the first Sunday of Lent. The “Feast of Orthodoxy” commemorates the final restoration of images (11 March 843).

Affect of the Byzantine Period on the Church:

Not only did devotional art receive its definitive form during the Byzantine period, but the liturgical life of the Church did also. The see of Constantinople played crucial a determining role in the process of “Byzantinization” of the Church. Before its rise to political importance in the fourth century, Constantinople was merely a minor bishopric having no liturgical tradition of its own. Its liturgical life was gradually formed from other local liturgical elements and traditions. Older sees such as Antioch and Jerusalem were major contributors to this process. Also involved in the formation of the “Byzantine rite” was Constantinople’s resident imperial court with its own elaborate ceremonial. Given Constantinople’s growing importance in the Church, this new liturgical synthesis became the standard and eventually replaced all other local rites within the Church by the ninth century. Not only the liturgy, but the whole cycle of services, such as compline, vespers, etc., used today in the Orthodox Church is substantially identical with the original Byzantine rite of Constantinople.

The Influence of Monasticism on the Church:

The two areas of influence, liturgy and iconography, would not have been possible without the contributions made by Byzantine monasticism. The victory of the Church over iconoclasm was by and large due to the work of Byzantine monks, as are liturgical regulations governing the cycle of Orthodox services today. Monasticism as a permanent institution did not exist prior to the fourth century. Its institutional origins will not be found in any single specific directive of the Lord or in any particular passage of the New Testament. Yet, its foundations are rooted in the totality of the Gospel message – which is the source of both its creativity and strength. Behind the physical withdrawal into the desert or monastery lies the renunciation of the world and of Satan to which every Christian commits them selves at baptism. The monastic vocation is intimately bound to the baptismal vow. Entering a monastery is simply another means by which some have chosen to live the absolute ideal of the Gospel. This may appear to be an extreme way to follow Jesus Christ, but all Christians, whether inside or outside a monastery, are ultimately called to the same renunciation, the same perfection, and the same fulfillment of the Gospel. A personal search for holiness is not the special preserve of monks.

Asceticism grew and influenced Orthodox spirituality, prayer, piety, and general Church life because of its essentially Christian goals. Another area that is perhaps less well known, in which monasticism contributed to the Church, is the fact that the Church often recruited its episcopate from the countless monastic communities in the Byzantine countryside. One monastery, in particular, on Mt. Athos, besides producing 144 bishops, provided the Church with 26 patriarchs. Two thirds of the patriarchs of Constantinople between the ninth and thirteenth centuries were monastics. As the established faith of the Byzantine Empire, the Church was often in danger of identifying itself with the state, of becoming worldly and in the process, losing its eschatological dimension. The monastic presence was always there to remind the Church of its true nature and identity with another Kingdom. Its fierce opposition to any compromise of the Christian vision was crucial in the Church’s survival and independence.

The Byzantine Church has often been called a “state” or “national” Church. This is misleading and, not to mention, offensive. It is true that the Byzantine world became more Greek language wise and geographically as a result of the defection of the non-Greek speaking areas of Syria and Egypt during the period of the ecumenical synods. Also, the schism between Eastern and Western Christendom further isolated and confined Christian Byzantium. These loses were considerable and tragic for both the Church and the empire. Although the Church is “eastern” by virtue of its geography, it is Catholic and Orthodox in its theology and tradition. Through out history, the Byzantine Church itself was never as confined or isolated as the Byzantine Empire. This was due to the vigor of the Church’s missionary drive in Eastern Europe and the Slavic world, soon after the iconoclastic controversy is proof of this.

The Slavic Conversion:

Patriarch Photius, one of Byzantium’s most educated churchmen, initiated the evangelization or christianization of the Slavs. His choosing of the brothers Cyril and Methodius for this mission was a sign of genius as well as missionary insight, as both the brothers spoke the Slavic dialect which was in use at that time among the Slavic settlers near their native city of Thessalonica. Once they received their commission, from Patriarch Photius, Cyril and Methodius set about creating an alphabet, which we call the Cyrillic alphabet. They then translated the Scriptures and the liturgy. This was the origin of Church Slavonic, the common liturgical language still used by the Russian Orthodox and other Slavic Orthodox Christians. Their first mission to Moravia was unsuccessful due to the fact that they were forced to flee by German missionaries and the changing political situation at the time, but their work was not in vain. It wasn’t too long before Byzantine missionaries, including the exiled disciples of Cyril and Methodius, turned to other areas. Most of the pagan Slavic world, including Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia had been converted to Byzantine Christianity, by the beginning of the eleventh century. Bulgaria was officially recognized as a patriarchate by Constantinople in 945, Serbia in 1346, and Russia in 1589. All of these nations, however, had been converted to Christianity long before these dates. The conversion of Russia actually began with the baptism of Vladimir of Kiev in 989, on which occasion he also married the Byzantine princess Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II.

The Creation of an Orthodox Commonwealth:

The expansion into the Slavic world had the effect of creating an Orthodox “Commonwealth”. Byzantine art, literature, and culture were no longer confined within Byzantium’s own political frontiers, but now extended far and wide into the Balkans and the northern part of Russia to create a single Byzantine Orthodox commonwealth. The Slavic nations were not only Christianized, but also civilized by the Byzantines. So it can be said that the saving message of the New Testament was also accompanied by the gift of civilization, which was a major factor in the formation and future development of the Slavic culture. Not only was the conversion of the Slavs pivotal in the destiny of the emerging Slavic nations but it was equally decisive for the future of the Church. It was in this missionary vigor which preserved Byzantine Christianity’s universality. The inclusion of Slavic Orthodoxy into the Orthodox fold permanently enlarged the Church’s area of geographic distribution. The Slavic element also brought immense riches into the Church. Few peoples have embraced the Orthodox faith with as much ardor and devotion as the Slavs.

The Split between East and West:

Western Christianity at this time was zealously imposing a uniform Latin liturgical language on converts, while Byzantine Christianity refused to do so. Greek was seldom used as a missionary language among the Slavs. The Byzantines avoided the principle of a single liturgical language. The Cyrillic alphabet and liturgy, which employed the vernacular language of the peoples, created native-speaking Churches in the Balkans and elsewhere. In short, Orthodox Christianity insisted on preaching the Gospel in the ordinary language of the people so as to be directly and immediately understood by the new converts. That, after all, is the goal of Christian missions. It is no wonder that in the history of Orthodoxy, the legacy of the “Apostles to the Slavs,” Saints Cyril and Methodius, is among the most precious.

Now, we need to examine one final event in the life of the medieval Church – the schism between Eastern and Western Christianity. This tragic division was not a sudden event, but rather a prolonged process that spanned centuries. The cracks and fissures in Christian unity were visible as early as the fourth century. Thus the traditional date of 1054, marking the beginning of the schism and the excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius by papal legates, is inaccurate.

In reality, there is no exact date. What really took place was a complex chain of events whose climax was only reached in the thirteenth century with the sacking of Constantinople by western Crusaders in 1204. We must also keep in mind that the events leading to the schism were not always theological in nature. Cultural, linguistic, and political differences were often mixed with the theological. Unlike the Copts or Armenians who broke from the Church in the fifth century and established ethnic churches at the cost of their universality and catholicity, the eastern and western parts of the Church remained loyal to the faith and authority of the seven ecumenical synods. They were united by virtue of their common faith and tradition, in one Church. The transfer of the Roman capital to the Bosporus brought mistrust, rivalry, and even jealousy to the relations of the two great sees of Rome and Constantinople. It was easy for Rome to be jealous of Constantinople since it was at a time that Rome was rapidly losing its political prominence. As a matter of fact, Rome refused to recognize the conciliar legislation which promoted Constantinople to second rank. The estrangement was aggravated by the German invasions in the west, which had the effect of weakening contacts. The rise of Islam with its conquest of most of the Mediterranean coastline, along with the arrival of pagan Slavs in the Balkans at the same time, further aggravated this separation by driving a physical wedge between the two worlds. The once unified world of the Mediterranean was quickly vanishing and communications between the Greek East and the Latin West had become dangerous and practically ceased by the 600s.

The Photian Schism:

In the ninth century the split widen further when the missionary ambitions of the two communions clashed over the Christianization of Bulgaria and Moravia. The election of Patriarch Photius even caused a temporary division which came to be known as the “Photian Schism.” But it was the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor by the pope and the revival in 800 of a western “Roman Empire” which best illustrate how far the gulf had widened. For the East, the West was acting as if the Roman Empire, with its legitimate emperor in Constantinople, had ceased to exist. The Byzantine Empire’s claim to world sovereignty was being ignored. Charlemagne’s new “empire” was usurping the legitimate role of the Roman Empire in Constantinople. This was a threat to the unity of Christendom and, indirectly, the shared faith of the one Church.

These historical facts no longer exist today, yet the schism continues. We must the search for the ultimate root cause of the schism in the intellectual and theological differences rather than in the political, geographical, or historical factors. Two basic problems were involved, the primacy of the bishop of Rome and the procession of the Holy Spirit. These doctrinal novelties were first openly discussed in Photius’ Patriarchate. To repeat, by the fifth century Christendom was divided into five sees with Rome holding the primacy of honor. This was determined by canonical decision and did not entail hegemony of anyone local church or patriarchate over the others. For all of that, during the progressive split noted above, Rome began to interpret her primacy in terms of sovereignty, as a God-given right involving universal jurisdiction over the Church. Thus, the collegial and conciliar nature of the Church was gradually abandoned by the West in favor of supremacy of unlimited papal power over the entire Church. These ideas were given final systematic expression in the West during the Gregorian Reform movement of the eleventh century. Rome’s understanding of the nature of episcopal power was in direct violation of the Church’s essentially conciliar structure. The ecclesiologies of the East and the West were mutually antithetical making subsequent attempts to heal the schism and bridge the divisions, a failure. Rome insisted on basing its claims to “true and proper jurisdiction” (as it was put at the Vatican Council of 1870) on St. Peter. This Roman exegesis of Mathew 16:18 was unknown to the Fathers who had ruled on the Church’s organization. For them, St. Peter’s primacy could never be the exclusive prerogative of anyone bishop. All bishops must, like St. Peter, confess Jesus as the Christ and, as such, all are Peter’s successors. To believe other wise would be to violate the bishops’ charismatic equality; no one can hold a position superior to that of the others.

Equally upsetting to the Orthodox East was the western interpretation of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Like the primacy issue, this also developed gradually and entered the Creed in the West almost unnoticed. This theologically complex issue involved the addition by the West of the Latin phrase “filioque” (“and from the Son”) to the Creed. The original Creed which was sanctioned by the synods and still used by the Orthodox Church today did not contain this phrase; the text simply states “the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father.” The Latin phrase was unacceptable to the Byzantines since it implied that the Spirit now had two sources of procession, the Father and the Son, rather than the Father alone. In short, the balance between the three persons of the Trinity was altered. The Orthodox Church, then as now, believes that this is theologically indefensible. In addition to the dogmatic issue raised by the filioque, the Byzantines argued that the phrase had been added unilaterally and, therefore illegitimately, since the East had never been consulted. Only another ecumenical synod could introduce such an alteration. The synods which had drawn up the original Creed, had expressly forbidden any subtraction or addition to the text of the Creed.

The Fall of Constantinople:

The great misfortune for Christianity was the fall of Constantinople in 1453. For Eastern Christendom it was nothing short of a disaster, since the entire Orthodox communion of the Balkans and the Near East found itself suddenly isolated from the West as a result of the Ottoman conquest. For the next four hundred years it would be imprisoned within a hostile Islamic world, a world which it little in common either religiously or culturally. Only Orthodox Russia managed to escape this fate.

This new Ottoman government that rose from the ashes of the Byzantine civilization was neither primitive nor barbaric. Islam did, at that time, tolerated Christians as another People of the Book and recognized Jesus as a great prophet. As a result, the Church was not obliterated nor was its canonical and hierarchal organization disrupted in any significant way, so its administration continued to function. One of the first things allowed by Mehmet the Conqueror was the election of a new patriarch, Gennadius Scholarius. The Hagia Sofia and the Parthenon, both of which had been Christian churches for nearly a millennium were taken over and converted into mosques by the Muslims, countless other churches in Constantinople and elsewhere, remained in Christian hands. It is also striking that the patriarch’s and the hierarchy’s positions were strengthened, and they were given, not only ecclesiastical, but also civil power over all Christians living in Ottoman territories. Since Islamic law does not make a distinction between nationality and religion, all Christians, regardless of their language or nationality, were viewed as a single millet (nation). Thus, the patriarch, being the highest ranking hierarch, was therefore invested with civil and religious authority and made ethnarch, head of the entire Christian Orthodox population, which meant that all Orthodox churches in the Ottoman territory were under Constantinople.

But, in all honesty, all of these rights and privileges, which included freedom of worship and religious organization, seldom reflected stark reality. In fact, the privileges of the patriarch and of the Church were at the mercy and whim of the Sultan, as all Christians were looked upon as little more than second-class citizens, and Turkish corruption and brutality was not a myth. It was the “infidel” Christians who experienced this more than anyone else. Another devastating factor for the Church was that it could not bear witness to Christ. It was very dangerous, if not impossible to do missionary work among Muslims, whereas conversion to Islam was completely legal, but if converts to Islam returned to the Church, they would be put to death by the Muslim authorities. Also, new churches could not be built, church bells were not allowed to be rung, and finally, the education of the clergy and of the Christian population were either of a rudimentary sort or it ceased entirely.

Results of Turkish Corruption:

The Church could not remain immune from the affects of the Turkish system of corruption. Sadly, the patriarchal throne was often sold to the highest bidder, while the investiture of a new patriarch was accompanied by a huge payment to the government. As result, in order to recoup their losses, the patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Worse yet, the patriarchal throne was never really secure. Between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries few patriarchs died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisoning of patriarchs is well documented in history. If the patriarch’s position was precarious, so was that of the hierarchy. Patriarch Gregory V was hung from the gate of the patriarchate in 1821 on Resurrection Sunday (Easter). This followed up with the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops. To this date, the gate of the patriarchate still remains closed in St. Gregory’s memory. The above summary imparts to you the persecutions, decay, and stark humiliation that the Eastern Church was forced to suffer under Ottoman Turkish rule. Add to this, the militant communist atheism under which most Orthodox suffered following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, and you will get some semblance of the dislocation and suffering of Eastern Christians during the last five hundred years. The serious problems that the Western Church had to face following the French Revolution and the secularization of western society in general, pale in comparison to what was faced by the Orthodox Church.

Primer 2 – A

A Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its difference with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church

The Papacy and Orthodoxy:

Along with the previously mentioned conditions faced by the Orthodox Church, we must, in all fairness, mention Rome’s proselytizing pressure. Evidence of this is appallingly plentiful. Rome prepared missionaries in special schools such as the College of St. Athanasius in Rome, which opened in 1577. They were then sent to the East in order to engage in direct proselytizing of the Orthodox. This network of Roman propaganda also embraced the Orthodox Slavic world. The pressure of the Catholic Polish monarchy and the Jesuits in Poland and Lithuania on Orthodox canonically dependent on Constantinople is well known. The Uniat Ukrainian Church was, in part, the result of such pressure through the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596. Due to the historical situation that the Orthodox Church found itself in, there was little that they could do to counter this aggressive Romanization.

These were the humiliating conditions and restrictions which the Eastern Church was forced to live under until the early nineteenth century. The role played by the ecumenical patriarch in this and the preceding chapter of its history was decisive. This was due to the preeminent position of the city of Constantinople during the Byzantine period, when its bishop acquired a rank second only to Rome. But it was also the result of the schism with Rome. Rome’s defection left Constantinople with undisputed primacy among the other eastern patriarchates. This how Constantinople became the primary see of Orthodoxy. Finally, under the Ottoman ethnarchic system its geographic boundaries were enlarged, with the result that most of the Orthodox community came under its jurisdiction.  How the patriarch of Constantinople became the senior bishop in Orthodoxy is a major theme of Orthodox church history. Although the patriarch’s primatial status has never been in question – it is, and remains, the first see of Orthodoxy. Its geographical boundaries have since been greatly reduced due to the result of the struggle for freedom undertaken by the various Orthodox nationalities under Ottoman rule. The new independent nation states could not remain ecclesiastically under the jurisdiction of a patriarch who was still within the orbit of the foreign and hostile Ottoman state.

Constantinople and the Modern National Churches:

One of the first nations to be influenced by the French Revolution’s explosive ideas was Greece; It was the first to break the Turkish yoke, gaining its independence early in the century. It wasn’t long before a synod of bishops declared the Church of the new Kingdom of Greece autocephalous. The New Greek nation could not be headed by a patriarch. Instead, Greece’s autocephalous status, which was recognized by Constantinople in 1850, meant that it could elect its own head (kephale). The Orthodox Church of Greece is today governed by a Holy Synod presided over by the Archbishop of Athens. Mt. Athos and the semiautonomous Church of Crete alone remain under the Patriarch of Constantinople’s jurisdiction. The island of Cyprus, however, is independent of both Constantinople and Greece. Its autonomous state dates from the third ecumenical synod in 431 which accorded it this unique position. Up to that time it had been subject to the patriarchate of Antioch. Like Greece, this ancient Church is governed by a synod of bishops and a presiding archbishop.

The ethnarchic system introduced by the Ottoman Turks brought most of the autocephalous and patriarchal Slavic Churches under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. Such a subjugation and loss of patriarchal status was understandably unpopular. As a result, several independent national Churches came into being once political freedom was gained. The Church of Serbia, which had lost its patriarchate during the Turkish period, became autocephalous in 1879, and its primate was recognized as patriarch by Constantinople in 1922. Romania the largest self-governing Church after Russia, was declared autocephalous in 1885 and became a patriarchate in 1925. The Church of Bulgaria declared itself autocephalous in 1860, but it was not until 1945 that Constantinople recognized it; its metropolitan in Sofia assumed the title of patriarch in 1953. Russia, which had remained outside the Turkish fold, was recognized as a patriarchate by Constantinople in 1589. Nevertheless, this also was eventually abolished, but not by Constantinople. Tsar Peter the Great replaced it by a governing Synod in 1721. This Synodal period lasted until the Bolshevik Revolution, when the patriarchate was once again restored in 1917. Today, Russia ranks fifth after the four ancient patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

The Ancient Patriarchates:

As a result of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the ancient sees of the Near East also achieved greater freedom as well. They two were often under the influence of Constantinople during the period of Turkish captivity. Despite the defection of the Church of Egypt in the fifth century, when it refused to accept the fourth ecumenical synod and created a national Coptic Church, the patriarchate of Alexandria continued to survive. The ancient title of the patriarch is still “pope and patriarch”, which is an eloquent illustration that the designation of “pope” was never the exclusive privilege of the bishop of Rome in the Church. Today, the patriarch and the clergy of this see are Greek. Its jurisdiction extends over all Orthodox on the African continent. A flourishing Orthodox Church now exists in Uganda. Antioch, which was one of the largest cities of the Roman Empire, now ranks third after Constantinople. It is made up of Arabic-speaking Orthodox Christians living in Syria and Lebanon. Up until the late nineteenth century its patriarch and bishops were Greek, but since 1899 they have been Arabs. Jerusalem has been an independent patriarchate since the fifth century. Unlike Antioch, its patriarch is Greek although its faithful are for the most part Arabs. This venerable see is the guardian and protector of the Holy Places.

The Modern Structure:

From what we have read about nineteenth century developments that the authority enjoyed by Constantinople today is no longer based on any vast ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Constantinople has been stripped both of its former territories and most of its flock, during the last century and a half. Greece and the Balkans are no longer under its jurisdiction. Inside Turkey itself, moreover, the Orthodox Christian communities of Asia Minor have ceased to exist. The patriarch’s immediate flock today is made up of those Orthodox still living in Constantinople. Therefore, the patriarch’s position rests on its primatial status rather than on any wide territorial jurisdiction. No less striking is the fact that world wide Orthodoxy, like the ancient Church, is a decentralized body consisting of four ancient patriarchates and many local or national Churches, most of which enjoy full self-governing status. The Orthodox community of Churches is not a monolithic structure. Even though the Orthodox Church lacks a centralized authority, all members of this living body are bound together by a common canonical and liturgical tradition, by a single doctrinal and sacramental unity, and by a common faith stretching back  to the original Christian nucleus of Apostolic times. Within this historical reality lie the true Catholic and universal Church. In Christian history, catholicity has never been coextensive with organizational or institutional uniformity.

Primer 2 – B

A Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its difference with the Roman Jurisdiction of the

Catholic Church

Orthodoxy and Twenty-first Century Ideology:

Through most of the twentieth century, the tragedy of the Orthodox Church has been to live, at least for a large portion of the faithful, under the new political framework of atheistic totalitarianism. Communism under the iron hand of the former Soviet Union was the latest in a long series of misfortunes – Arabic, Seljuk, Crusader, Mongol, Ottoman – with which it has had to cope in the last millennium and a half. As St. Paul stated: “it was given to us not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him” (Phil. 1:29).  There was one significant difference between the communist boot and the oppressive regimes of the past: the previous non-Christian political regimes under which the Church was forced to live were rarely deliberately anti-Christian. Plainly put, there has never been an exact precedent for the communist catastrophe. None of the past regimes were ever as insistent as communism in its belief that religion must be tolerated. According to Vladimir Lenin, a communist regime cannot remain neutral on the question of religion but must show itself to be merciless towards it. There was no place for the Church in Lenin’s classless society.

The result of this militant atheism has been to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. Thousands of bishops, monks, clergy and faithful died as martyrs for Christ, both in Russia and in the other communist nations. Their numbers may very well exceed the number of Christians who perished during the days of the Roman Empire. What was just as frightening for the Church was communism’s indirect, but systematic, strangulation policy. In the Soviet Union, along with the methodical closing, desecration and destruction of churches, ecclesiastical authorities were not allowed to carry on any charitable or social work. Nor could the Church own any property. What few places of worship that remained were legally viewed as state property which the government permitted the Church to use. But even more devastating was the fact that the Church was not permitted to carry on educational or instructional activity of any kind. Outside of sermons during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy it could not instruct the faithful or its youth.

The Dispersion of Orthodoxy:

In modern historical Orthodoxy, one of the most striking developments has been the dispersion of Orthodox Christians to the West. Immigration from both Greece and the Middle East in the last hundred years has created a large Orthodox diaspora in Western Europe, North and South America, and Australia. Also, the Bolshevik Revolution forced thousands of Russian exiles to the West. All of this has resulted in the traditional frontiers of Orthodoxy to be profoundly modified. Millions of Orthodox are no longer “eastern” since they live permanently in their newly adopted countries in the West. Virtually all of the Orthodox nationalities – Greek, Arab, Russian, Serbian, Albanian, Ukrainian, Romanian, and Bulgarian – are represented here in the United States. The Greek Archdiocese of America is the largest of this group. The Archdiocese is under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople.

1768 historically marks the arrival of the first Greek Orthodox to the New World. They founded the Greek colony of New Smyrna about forty miles south of St. Augustine, Florida. A small group of New Orleans Greek merchants built the first church in 1864. The Greek Archdiocese of North and South America itself was officially incorporated in New York in 1921. The second largest group in the United States is the Russian Orthodox. One of the first Russian Orthodox Church communities in North America was in Alaska, where a number of Russian Orthodox missionaries had labored. In 1794, the Russian Orthodox Church established its first mission in North America, at Kodiak Island in southeastern Alaska. In 1799, the Russian Orthodox Church appointed the first American Bishop.

By 1808 the capital was moved to Novoarkhangelsk (Sitka), where the Cathedral of St. Michael was erected in 1848.  The “Golden Age” of the Orthodox Church in Alaska ended with the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867.

The story of the many remarkable priests and monks who served the Church in Alaska, recounted in a number of valuable journals in the Church Archives, is one of incredible achievements against often overwhelming odds. They contended daily with bitter cold and deep snows, traveling by dogsled to attend their widely dispersed parishes. The constant lack of essential resources led them to sell candles and books, and to sometimes sacrifice their own salaries to meet parish expenses. Despite the sale of Alaska to the United States, and the incursion of other sectarian groups, Catholic and Protestant, the Russian Orthodox priests continued their mission, leaving an indelible mark upon the culture of the Native Alaskans, visible even today.

It was through the work of +Aftimios Ofiesh, a Russian Orthodox Archbishop of Brooklyn, NY, that the ground work was laid for the establishment of an American Orthodox Catholic Church, after receiving this charge in 1927 through an act of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America (under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate). 

In 1951, by Archbishop Michael of the Greek Archdiocese, a Toma (decree) was issued granting the American Orthodox Churches autocephalous and autonomous standing. This grant was reinforced by a second Toma, issued in 1976 by Metropolitan Archbishop Ireney of the Orthodox Church in America. Today, the American Orthodox Churches are each governed by their own Synod of Bishops headed by a Metropolitan Archbishop.

The Orthodox Christians View of Non-Christian Religions:

There is on-going and numerous contacts among people of different faiths in today’s pluralistic society. Difficulties arise as each religion holds to its own claim to “truth”. A major challenge for Orthodox Christians is to articulate theologically correct approaches to people of other religious beliefs.

The Orthodox attitude toward non-Christian religions begins with the Christian understanding of God. The emphasis is on the mystery of divine reality, the essence of God, which exceeds human capabilities. That God’s essence is incomprehensible and inaccessible to the human mind, and that it is beyond all creaturely approach, is a basic truth of Orthodox Christianity.

While the essence of God remains beyond our human understanding, God reveals Himself through His Glory.  God’s glory (doxa, kaboth, shekhina) is revealed to mankind in their true intimate relation as an, end and fulfillment of the original creation of man. This revealed glory of God – His energies – penetrates all of creation and is the starting point for Christian life and hope, and our relationship to God.

There are three points of view that Christians have adopted with regard to non-Christian religions. The first view is that non-Christians will be damned because there is “no salvation” outside the visible body of Christ, the Church.  The second view is that the non-Christian may be saved in spite of the religion he/she practices, but only through the mercy of God. Lastly, the third view is that non-Christians may be saved by means of the very religion they practice, for non-Christian religions may also contain saving truths. These three views are in parallel with the three approaches of exclusivism, inclusivism, and cultural pluralism.

The claim of exclusivism has been rejected by many Orthodox scholars as untenable. Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of truth, not in the interest of fostering world peace or facilitating missionary endeavors. The majority of Orthodox scholars would be or are open to inclusivism. As to cultural pluralism, there is a small percentage of Orthodox scholars who would espouse it but with qualifications. Relativism and syncretism are out. The view that Christianity is just one of the world religions that offers the blessing of salvation is unacceptable to the Orthodox Church. The focus of the Orthodox Church is on the Spirit of God, the Paraclete, who leads us “Into all the truth,” where in Christ all become one.

The issue of Christian Truth is of the utmost importance in the Orthodox view of other religions. It was Pontius Pilate who asked “What is Truth?” (John 18:38).  He asked Jesus this question who was standing before him. Jesus remained silent. Orthodox Christians interpret this silence as Jesus’ reply that the Truth was standing before him - Christ is the Truth.

In Orthodoxy there is a fusion between the truth claim of Christianity and a mandate for tolerance. One can not be a Christian without embracing tolerance as a concomitant of Christian love, though this tolerance does not mean acceptance of that which violates the teachings of Holy Scripture.

The ultimate salvation of all people, which includes non-Christians, is dependant on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God’s loving grace and salvation. For, as St. Paul reminds us, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33)

Primer 2 – C

A Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its difference with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church

The Orthodox View on Papal Primacy:

From an Orthodox perspective it is imperative to study the primacy of Rome in the context of the primacies of the patriarchs of the East and their role in the universal Church.

It would be impossible to reach any sort of agreement on the significance of the bishop of Rome if we were to start our debate with a comparison of classic Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of the papacy.

If we define “primacy” as a form of power, then that brings up the question of whether in the Orthodox Church there is a power superior to that of a bishop (a power over the bishop) and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer would have to be a resounding NO: there is no power over the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, such supreme power does exist and it is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the foundation of its canonical system

The 1974 Orthodox statement on the nature of the Church and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum total of all local churches, which all together makes up the Body of Christ. This type of thinking would mean that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole. Therefore if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal Bishop as the focal point of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, this model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of thinking which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.

Eucharistic ecclesiology affirms the catholicity of the local church, and allows no room what-so-ever for the categories of “parts” or “whole”. The very essence of this ecclesiology is that the universal Church subsists in toto in the local church.

The communion of local churches, which are identical in faith, order and charisms of the Holy Spirit, bear witness to their unity when they come together through their bishops, in synods.

It should be remembered that the synod is not “power” in the juridical sense of the word, since there can exist no power over the Church, the Body of Christ. Rather the synod is a witness to the identity of all churches as the Church of God in faith, life, and “agape” (Christen Love).  If in his own church the bishop is priest, teacher and pastor, the divinely appointed witness and keeper of the Catholic faith, it is through the agreement of all bishops, as revealed in the synod that all churches both manifest and maintain the ontological unity of tradition.

In times of discord the synod becomes the common voice, the common testimony of the ontological unity of several or all churches. For the Orthodox Church, the truth that a synod affirms makes the synod an authority in the life of the Church. This authority or primacy of the synod cannot and should not be conceived as power over the local church but rather as a charismatic instrument through which the churches of God witness and express their ontological unity in the truth of the gospel. The primacy of the synod, through which the local churches witness and express their unity in the salvific truths of Christ, does not exclude the primacy of the first bishop or the metropolitan. In the regional synods, in which all the bishops of the area must take part, the primacy of the first bishop must be acknowledged and respected as the thirty-four Apostolic Canon states: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account his as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent… but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity…” From this canon, it is evident that the regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops and therefore of all the churches of an area.

We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church in the same way. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the Church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as a "supreme power" which transforms Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo‑Christian period this center was first the church of Jerusalem and later the Church of Rome ‑ "presiding in agape" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.

For the Orthodox, the essence and the purpose of this primacy is to express and preserve the unity of the Church in faith and life; to express and preserve the unanimity of all churches; to keep them from isolating themselves into ecclesiastical provincialism, losing the catholicity, separating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the solicitude of the churches so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always the whole of the Catholic tradition and not any one "part" of it. The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdiction but implies that of an "order" of Church which does not subordinate one church to another, but which makes it possible for all churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all.

Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).

Please bear in mind, that the question of primacy is not the only barrier to reunification between East and West, which must be overcome. There is also the question of the various innovations and non-biblical teachings that has crept into the Roman Church over the years since the schism. Some of these are:

A) Rome’s insistence of enforced celibacy of the priesthood;

B) The matter of the filioque;

C) The teaching of indulgences;

D) The latest teaching by Rome that Mary (the Theotokos) is the co-redemptrix with Jesus Christ.

Unless these problems can be resolved, no true Orthodox Christian will ever accept any reunification with Rome.

Orthodox Worship:

From the office of Vespers comes a beautiful invitation that marks the start of each day for the Orthodox Church, and it expresses the attitude that is at the very heart of Orthodoxy. This invitation reads:

O Come let us Worship and bow down before our King and God.
O Come, let us worship and bow down before Christ, our King and God.
O Come, let us worship and bow down to Christ Himself, our King and God.

The Worship of God – the father, son, and Holy Spirit, - is fundamental to the life and spirit of the Orthodox Church.

Being that worship is of the utmost importance to Orthodoxy, the best introduction to the Orthodox Church is for the non-Orthodox to attend the Divine Liturgy. A new comer, at first may be overwhelmed by the singing, the smell of incense, and the ceremonies, but it is in that very Worship that the rich traditions, as well as the living faith of Orthodoxy are truly experienced.

Worship is an experience which involves the entire Church. When each of us comes together for Worship, we do so as members of a Church which transcends the boundaries of society, of time and of space. Although we gather at a particular moment and at a particular place, our actions reach beyond the parish, into the very Kingdom of God. We worship in the company of both the living and the departed faithful.

There are two dimensions to Worship in the Orthodox Church which are reflected throughout the many Services of the Church. First, Worship is a manifestation of God's presence and action in the midst of His people. It is God who gathers His scattered people together, and it is He who reveals Himself as we enter into His presence. The Worship of the Orthodox Church very vividly expresses the truth that God dwells among His people and that we are created to share in His life.

Second, Worship is our corporate response of thanksgiving to the presence of God and a remembrance of His saving actions - especially the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Orthodox Worship is centered upon God. He has acted in history, and He continues to act through the Holy Spirit. We are mindful of His actions and we respond to His love with praise and thanksgiving. In so doing we come closer to God.

Expressions of Orthodox Worship:

Worship in the Orthodox Church is expressed in four principal ways:

1. The Eucharist, which is the most important worship experience of Orthodoxy. Eucharist means thanksgiving and is known in the Orthodox Church as the Divine Liturgy.

2. The Sacraments, which affirm God's presence and action in the important events of our Christian lives. All the major Sacraments are closely related to the Eucharist. These are: Baptism, Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the sick.

3. Special Services and Blessings, which also affirm God's presence and action in all the events, needs and tasks of our life.

4. The Daily Offices, which are the services of public prayer which occur throughout the day. The most important are Matins, which is the morning prayer of the Church, and Vespers, which is the evening prayer of the Church.

Although Orthodox Services can quite often be elaborate, solemn, and lengthy, they express a deep and pervasive sense of joy. This mood is an expression of our belief in the Resurrection of Christ and the deification of humanity, which are dominant themes of Orthodox Worship. In order to enhance this feeling and to encourage full participation, Services are always sung or chanted.

Worship is not just simply expressed in words. In addition to prayers, hymns, and scriptural readings, there are a number of ceremonies, gestures, and processions. The Church makes rich use of non verbal symbols to express God's presence and our relationship to Him. Orthodox Worship involves the whole person; one's intellect, feelings, and senses.

Worship services in the Orthodox Church follow a prescribed order. There is a framework and design to our Worship. This is valuable in order to preserve its corporate dimension and maintain continuity with the past. There are elements that remain unchanged; and there are parts which change according to the Feast, season, or particular circumstance. The regulating of the Services by the whole Church emphasizes the fact that Worship is an expression of the entire Church, and not the composition on a particular priest and congregation.

Another very important purpose of Worship is the teaching of the Faith. There is a very real and close relationship between the Worship and the teachings of the Church. Faith is expressed in Worship, and Worship serves to strengthen and communicate Faith. The prayers, hymns, and liturgical gestures of Orthodoxy are important mediums of teaching. The regulating of the Services also serves to preserve the true Faith and to guard it against error.

Since Worship in Orthodoxy is an expression of the entire Church the active participation and involvement of the congregation is required, however, the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and the Sacraments is always led by an ordained clergymen. In the local parish, this will generally be a priest who acts in the name of the bishop, and who is sometime assisted by a deacon. When the bishop is present, he presides at the Services. The vestments of the clergy express their special calling to the ministry as well as their particular office. This strong sense of community is expressed in the prayers and exhortations which are in the plural tense. The congregation is expected to participate actively in the Services in ways such as: singing the hymns; concluding the prayers with "Amen"; responding to the petitions; making the sign of the Cross; bowing; and, especially, by receiving Holy Communion at the Divine Liturgy. Standing is the preferred posture of prayer in the Orthodox Church. The congregation kneels only at particularly solemn moments, such as the Invocation of the Holy Spirit during the Divine Liturgy.

Orthodox Worship has always been celebrated in the language of the people. There is no official or universal liturgical language. Often, two or more languages are used in the Services to accommodate the needs of the congregation. Throughout the world, Services are celebrated in more than twenty languages which include such diverse ones as Greek, Slavonic, Arabic, Albanian, Rumanian, English, and Luganda.

Primer 2 – D

A Basic Primer of Orthodox Catholicism and its difference with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church

Lastly, an Introduction to the Divine Liturgy - The Most Ancient Service:

THE DIVINE LITURGY is considered the most significant ancient Christian service, not so much for its phrasing and words as for its meaning. In fact, the Divine Liturgy was in practice right after the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Disciples of Christ on the 50th day after His Resurrection, as the sacred writer of the Acts of the Apostles records (Acts 2:46 ff). The Divine Liturgy in its infancy at the beginning of the Christian era consisted of free hymns and prayers for the officiating of a certain framework of faith. It was officiated long before the beginning of the writings of the New Testament. The Divine Liturgy as such was the center of the inspiration of the first Christians in their communion with God and with one another.

In upper rooms and catacombs the Apostles and later the Presbyters and Bishops of the primitive Christian Church offered the Divine Liturgy for its sacred Mysteries. It seems that relics and reminiscences of that time were preserved in the Divine Liturgies of the 2nd century and especially of the 4th century when the Liturgies took their final form. But whatever were the various forms of the Divine Liturgy of the primitive Church, as well as of the Church of the final formation of the Divine Liturgy, the meaning given to it by both the celebrants and the communicants was one and the same; that is, the belief of the awesome change of the sacred Species of the Bread and Wine into the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Lord.

The Apostle Paul refers to the meaning of the Divine Liturgy (1 Cor. 11: 23-30) quoting the words of the Lord, saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." And the Apostle admonishes, saying, "For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (v. 25, 26). He also stresses the point that he who draws near the cup "unworthily" will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27), and orders a thorough examination before receiving Holy Communion because otherwise the Holy Communion will be "damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body" (v. 29).

THE MOST ANCIENT DESCRIPTION of the order and time of the Holy Eucharist (Divine Liturgy) is preserved in the 1st Apology by Justin the Martyr, Ch. 67, written in 138 A.D. (Migne 6, 429-432). In brief, he refers to the day, which he calls the day of the sun (the Lord's Day, the day of Kyrios that is Kyriake, Sunday, the first day of the week, in memory of the Resurrection of the Lord.) On this day the Christians gathered together to participate in the Divine Liturgy. As to the order of the diagram of the Liturgy, Justin refers to:

1. The reading of the Scriptures,

2. The exhortation by the Notable, Proestos,

3. The offering of prayers,

4. The offering of bread, wine and water,

5. The long thanksgiving, Eucharistic, prayer of sanctification by the Notable,

6. The partaking of Holy Communion, and

7. The collection for charity.

It is the same order that St. Chrysostom follows in his Liturgy used today.

There are various Liturgies used in the Orthodox Church today, some of them were created in the East, others in the West. But there are similarities which reflect one original source, the Apostles. There are the Syriac, Egyptian, Persian, Byzantine, Spanish and Roman types of Liturgies. Among them are those which are ascribed to Clement, and St. Jacob (James, very ancient), both in Greek.

Another, ascribed to St. Mark, is that of the Presanctified Gifts by St. Mark. Of the Byzantine type are those of Basil the Great, of St. Chrysostom, and that of the Presanctified Gifts. In Alexandria, the Liturgy of Mark was used yet in the 12th century as Theodore Balsomon instructed in the 32nd canon of the Synod in Troulo.

The Liturgy of the "Brother of God," James, is very ancient. The Penthecte Synod (Quinisext 692 A.D.) decreed that James handed down the mystic service (Divine Liturgy). It is true least in its basic prayers and diagram, which are in line with the same thoughts the 5th catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem. In the Eastern Orthodox Church this Liturgy of James is seldom officiated.

St. Basil's Liturgy is attested to not only by the Penthecte Synod (692 A.D.) but also by his friend Gregory of Nazianzus, who in his Funeral Oration said that Basil wrote "provisions of prayers, decencies of the Altar;" also by Leontios the Byzantine who put the Prayer of Oblation of Basil together with that of the Apostles; thirdly by the letter of the Monks of Skythia to the African Bishops (520 A.D.) reporting that almost the entire East repeated the Liturgy of St. Basil. Those are a few documents, among many others, establishing St. Basil's Liturgy as a genuine work. St. Basil's Liturgy is celebrated about 10 times a year, including the Sundays of Lent.

The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is very ancient, "known to the Church before the initiators Basil and Chrysostom" as Patriarch Michael (12th century) infers. It is ascribed rather to Apostle James or Peter. The information that Pope Gregory, the Dialogos, wrote this Liturgy is untrue for many reasons, among them that he did not know the Greek language. As for the use of this Liturgy the 52nd canon of the 6th Ecumenical Synod refers to it, decreeing that "in all the fasting days of Lent, save Saturday, Sunday and the day of Annunciation, the sacred celebration of the Presanctified Gifts should take place." This Liturgy is celebrated in connection with the vesper service during the evenings. It keeps its venerable character even now when it is officiated during the mornings. It is called that of the Presanctified Gifts because the Sacred Gifts have been sanctified previously in the Liturgy of St. Basil or St. Chrysostom. This Liturgy is not celebrated for the awesome change of the Gifts, but rather for the partaking of the Presanctified Gifts by the faithful Christians.

St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy is well known and very common in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It may be celebrated every day of the year except the ones of St. Basil and those of the Presanctified Gifts, and on Good Friday. It is shorter than that of St. Basil and much reduced compared to St. James'. St. Chrysostom's Liturgy put an end to the free prayers and hymns in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This Liturgy placed a seal on the free forms of the re-enactment of the Mystic Supper of the Lord, depicting it in its finest form with a destiny of enduring far into the future. Despite the addition of hymns at later times, the St. Chrysostom Liturgy remains the same majestic religious masterpiece with grandeur and dramatic appeal matching the human expression and the divine act. St. Chrysostom (345-407A.D.) was an eloquent preacher, writer and one of the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, whose writings have been translated into many languages and have nourished the Christian Church throughout the centuries.

The Celebrant and Communicants during the Liturgy are bound to participate and respond to each other and among them selves in the name of the Lord. It is not a scene of a vigorous actor with an inactive audience. All of them have an important part in the Divine Liturgy, both for its celebration and for their participation in it. It is a corporal worship of the whole body of Christ - His Church. Each member has an active part in it. The faithful should be there prepared to act. Self-examination and purity of the body and soul constitute the good "soil" of the parable for accepting the seed of the word and the communion, and for giving hundredfold in one's response. The Divine Liturgy is not a mere prayer offered to God; it is a real communion with God. At this moment takes place an exchange of human and divine personalities, whatever the great difference between them.

THE SPOKEN WORDS of the Divine Liturgy are 15 minutes of reading material which perpetuate the most cherished thoughts of our Christian heritage. They should be studied literally once and for all in the life of the faithful. There are books with the Divine Liturgy in the ecclesiastical languages - Greek, Slavonic, etc., and with translations into English to help the English-speaking people learn and follow the Divine Liturgy in its ecclesiastical language. There is no dogma forbidding the translation of the Divine Liturgy or even the Bible into vernacular language; for many centuries, however, the ecclesiastical language carried on the traditional thoughts and meanings of the Divine Liturgy to the extent that a translation into English may not render the full meaning and grandeur of the ecclesiastical language.