Stump the Priest: Obedience to the Church

"Is an Orthodox Christian obliged to follow all that the Church teaches, or is there some leeway that is left to individual choice?"

If the Church clearly teaches something, then an Orthodox Christian that wishes to go to heaven should endeavor to embrace that teaching and obey it with all their heart and soul.

Christ taught us:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me" (Luke 10:16).

And so obedience to the Church is the equivalent of obedience to Christ. And so, for example, when the Scriptures, as understood and explained by the Church, teach us us that something is either forbidden or obligatory, that should settle the matter.

Further, the Seventh Ecumenical Council declared:

"If anyone breaks any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema."

But of course this applies to what the Church actually does teach. When it comes to matters that are debatable, to the extent that the debate has any real merit, there could be room for reasonable disagreement. So if there is a question about what the Church teaches, it needs to be examined on its own merits. However, often people try to raise questions about matters that there really is no question about, and so if you catch yourself grasping at straws in attempt to find a justification to ignore something that you know the Church really does teach, you should know that we ultimately will have to give an account to the God who knows whether or not we are just making excuses because we don't what to hear the Church.

Stump the Priest: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?

Question: "Is it possible for someone to be pro-life and pro-choice?"

We should define our terms here. By "pro-life," we mean that we oppose the shedding of innocent blood, at any stage of development, including unborn children. If someone is "pro-choice" they mean that they believe it should be up to the mother to decide whether or not she will have an abortion, for any reason. If someone says that they are pro-life and pro-choice, this can only mean that they personally oppose abortion, but they think that others should be free to decide the matter for themselves, because they don't want to "impose their morality" on anyone else.

Is this a morally defensible position? To answer this question, we first have to ask why a Christian would oppose abortion? We oppose abortion not because we don't like it. We oppose abortion because we believe that it is the murder of an innocent life -- the only exception being the very rare circumstances in which it is necessary to save the life of the mother, and in such cases it almost always would mean the death of both mother and child to do nothing.

The Scriptures are abundantly clear that God takes the shedding of innocent blood very seriously. We are told that God destroyed the kingdom of Judah because they engaged in child sacrifice:

"And he [Manasseh] made his son pass through the fire [a form of child sacrifice], and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger" (2 Kings 21:6).

"3 Surely at the commandment of the Lord this [the destruction of Judah by the Babylonians] came upon Judah, to remove them from His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, 4 and also because of the innocent blood that he had shed; for he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon" (2 Kings 24:3-4).

The belief that abortion is murder is not a recently adopted Christian position. In the Didache, which is the oldest Christian document outside of the New Testament, it says unambiguously:

"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born" (Didache 2:2).

Canon 91 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council says:

"As for women who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers."

Likewise, St. Basil says in his second canon:

"A woman that aborts deliberately is liable to trial as a murderess." 

So an Orthodox Christian that actually believes what the Church teaches can only oppose abortion on the grounds that it is the wrongful taking of an innocent human life.

So can a person really be opposed to rape, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

Could a person oppose lynching, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

Can a person oppose abortion, but not want to "impose their morality" on others? No.

And as a matter of fact every law reflects someone's morality. There is no reason why Christians should not use their power to vote to influence the laws to protect innocent life.

Stump the Priest: Bishop of Rome

Question: "Why does the Orthodox Church not have a Bishop of Rome?"

There is no official answer to this question that I am aware of, but I think there are two reasons for this. Up until relatively recently, any Orthodox bishop who claimed that title would probably have ended in prison at the hands of the civil authorities in Italy, because they did not have anything like a first amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion. The other reasons is that if any local Church established a diocese in Rome, the canons say that this bishop would be the first in the diptychs, and this would quickly become a very divisive issue in the Church. So if there was to ever be a bishop of Rome in the Orthodox Church, I think there would first have to be pan-Orthodox agreement to establish such a see, and an agreement on how that would be understood in terms of the canons.

A Response to "Holy Communion and Menstruation"

St. Dionysius of Alexandria

Fr. Ted Bobosh has written an article on a topic that comes up from time to time -- whether or not we should observe the custom of women refraining from Communion during their menstrual cycle. Curiously, Fr. Ted appeals to Apostolic Constitutions as his primary basis for rejecting this custom, but makes no mention of the Ecumenical Canons that endorse the same custom. This is curious because Canon 2 of the Quinisext Council specifically rejects the Apostolic Constitutions because it contains many impious and heretical interpolations. And in that same canon, the Holy Fathers affirmed the canons of St. Dionysius of Alexandria (who reposed in 264 AD.) as well as those of St. Timothy of Alexandria (who reposed in 384, and was one of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council), and in those canons, this custom is affirmed (see Canon 2 of St. Dionysius and Canon 7 of St. Timothy).

Contrary to the suggestion of the quote from the Apostolic Constitutions that Fr. Ted cited, no one believes that a women is separated from God during her menstrual cycle, cannot pray, or is deprived of the Holy Spirit. Nor does anyone teach that having a menstrual cycle is in any way sinful. Nor is the custom of women refraining from communion during this time an absolute prohibition. We do, however, have customs of ritual purity in the Orthodox Church. For example, when clergy are vesting for the liturgy, we ritually wash our hands -- not because they are physically dirty. Any clergyman with any sense has washed his hands before he comes into the Church. However, this action does remind us of our need for spiritual cleansing. If a priest cuts himself when serving the proskomedia, he must leave the altar, and not return until the bleeding has stopped. If a priest is driving and a young child runs out in front of his car, and is killed, that priest will never be allowed to serve the Liturgy again -- not because he killed the child intentionally, but because he has blood on his hands, and so can no longer offer the unbloody sacrifice of the Eucharist.

With the New Testament, the Old Testament worship has been replaced by a new Liturgy (Hebrews 8:6), but this does not mean that there is no continuity between the Old and the New Covenants. Some things have been set aside completely, and other things have been retained to one degree or another. In the Old Testament we see that there was quite a bit of concern about blood, and we see that even in the New Testament this concern has not been set aside (see, for example Acts 15:23-29).

The customs that we retain have a symbolic and didactic significance, but they are not absolute. If a woman was in danger of death during her menstrual period, she would of course be communed without any hesitation, because then the didactic value of this custom would be superseded by the more immediate need to prepare the woman for her death.

Fr. Ted did not mention the oft quote epistle of St. Gregory the Great in which he said that this custom should not be obligatory, but it should be noted that he also says that if a woman wishes to observe this custom it is praiseworthy -- which is very much in contrast to the position usually taken by those who cite St. Gregory on this subject. It should also be noted that St. Gregory the Great reposed in 604 AD., and the Quinisext Council was held in 692 AD. -- and so we do not know what he would have written had he lived after the time of that Council.

If someone wishes to argue that the canons of Ss. Dionysius and Timothy of Alexandria were due to the historical conditions of the times in which they lived, and that modern sanitation has made this practice no longer necessary, at least they are attempting to take the canons seriously rather than merely dismissing them. But those who take the position that the practice has never had any justification have a serious problem in explaining how these canons could have been affirmed by an Ecumenical Council -- and beyond that, they have the problem in dealing with the Old Testament laws regarding menstruation. Do they not believe that the Mosaic Law was inspired by God? Regardless of whether one thinks we should observe the custom in question today or not, if "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 2:15-17), then these laws could not be just a matter of ancient superstition, ignorance, or misogyny.

It should also be noted that the Russian Church has recently reaffirmed this practice, in the document: On the Patricipation of the Faithful in the Eucharist, which was approved at the Synod meeting held on February 2nd - 3rd, 2015 in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow.

See also:

On "Ritual Impurity": In Response to Sister Vassa (Larin), by Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov

More to the Point: Should Nuns Light Their Icon Lamps?, By Fr. Sergei Sveshnikov

Churching and the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord

Stump the Priest: Celibacy

Great-Martyr Catherine

Question: "The Hebrew Bible nowhere thought celibacy praiseworthy (St. Paul was an exception). So why does Orthodoxy teach that monastic celibacy is the greatest ideal and superior to marriage?"

The assumption of this question seems to be that if St. Paul was the only one in Scripture that suggested that a life of celibacy was praiseworthy, that this would be insufficient to establish that this was so. That is a dangerous approach to take, and is rooted in an insufficient understanding of the inspiration of Scripture.

Aside from that, it is not true that St. Paul is the only one that advises that a life of celibacy is praiseworthy. In Matthew 19, after Christ talks about divorce, and the high standards that Christians are held to with regard to marital fidelity, the apostles responded by saying: "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry" (Matthew 19:10). And Christ did not answer by saying, that this statement was incorrect. Instead he says: "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:11-12).

So obviously, if Christ says that those who can accept it, should accept it, it must be a good thing, and since Christ Himself lived as a celibate, that is further proof that this is a praiseworthy life.

This is of course not to say that those who are married are to be condemned. Canon 51 of the Apostles says:

"If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly."

So if you are celibate out of asceticism, that is good. If you are celibate because you despise marriage, you are not only to be deposed or excommunicated, but expelled from the Church... which is one of the most strongly worded canons to be found among the Ecumenical Canons.

So marriage is good. Celibacy for the right reason is a higher good (1 Corinthians 7:32-24). Neither is evil in and of itself, but despising marriage is evil, and despising celibacy is also evil.

Stump the Priest: "Valid Sacraments"

A Container for Holy Chrism

Question: "Someone has been insisting to me that the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the validity of the Sacraments of the Roman Church. And in fact, have since at least 1776. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev said something to this effect as well at one point, but I'm not sure I buy it, how would you respond?"

I think they probably meant to say "since at least 1666-1667, which were the dates of the a controversial council in Moscow, which condemned the Old Rite, and deposed Patriarch Nikon. That council is a topic unto itself, but the documents of that council do speak of "valid" Roman Catholic sacraments. But one can find this expression in one of the oldest Liturgical texts published in English, which is still widely used today -- the Hapgood Service Book, translated by Isabel Hapgood, with the blessing of St. Tikhon of Moscow.

Even in the Ecumenical Canons, we find provision for receiving converts from certain groups by means other than baptism, though included among those canons is the canon of St. Cyprian of Carthage that states that there is no true baptism outside of the Church. This canon was affirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in its second canon. However, that same canon also affirmed the canons of St. Basil, and his first canon, provides a bit more nuance. He agreed that the Church is under no obligation to recognize baptisms that take place outside of the Church, but states that for the sake of "economia" the Church may do so, though he also noted that in different regions, different practices prevailed when it came to how certain heretics or schismatics were received. So in terms of theological principle, we affirm that there are no sacraments, in the fullest sense, outside of the Church, but the Church does receive converts from heterodox or schismatic groups by economia -- which could mean that we chrismate them, or in some cases that we simply accept them by confession and a profession of faith. And in the Hapgood Service, there is a service provided for this very purpose.

Beginning on page 454 of the Hapgood Service Book, there is a service entitled "THE OFFICE FOR RECEIVING INTO THE ORTHODOX FAITH SUCH PERSONS AS HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN ORTHODOX, BUT HAVE BEEN REARED FROM INFANCY OUTSIDE THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, YET HAVE RECEIVED VALID BAPTISM, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT".

But the question we have to ask is, what does it mean when it speaks of "valid baptism"? First off we should ask, what does true baptism do? Among other things, it unites one to the Church. But right after the above quoted heading, it says: "The power of granting absolution to such persons, and of uniting them to the Church properly devolveth on a Bishop. Nevertheless, that the converts to Orthodoxy may not be tempted to return to their heresy by reason of delay, it is wiser and more expedient that the Bishop should delegate his power, and grant his blessing therewith, to a Priest well versed in divine lore, and who is competent to instruct such a person in the articles of the Orthodox faith, and to correct his erroneous opinions." And so if a "valid baptism" outside of the Orthodox Church united one with the Church, there would not be a further need for any service to unite them to the Church, but that is precisely what this services is intended to do.

The first question the convert is asked is "Wilt thou renounce the errors and false doctrines of the Roman-Latin [or Armenian, or Lutheran, or Reformed) Confession?" and  then they are asked "Dost thou desire to enter into and abide in the communion of the Orthodox-Catholic Faith?" And after the convert is asked to renounce specifically the false teachings of their former confession, and to affirm the basic tenets of the Orthodox Faith, they are told "Enter thou into the Orthodox Church; and cast away all the errors and false doctrines wherein thou hast dwelt: and honor the Lord God, the Father Almighty, and his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, one true and living God, the holy Trinity, one in essence and indivisible." And all of this is in the service that would be used, even for those being received by confession and profession of faith. This service makes it abundantly clear that we are uniting someone to the Church who was previously not united to the Church.

So what happens when the Church accepts a baptism that was done outside of the Church, by economia? St. Augustine compared baptism to the "military mark" which was a tattoo a soldier was given when entered the Roman Army, and it showed what commander he belonged to. St. Augustine said that such a mark could be retained by deserters (schismatics), and it could illicitly be given to those who had never been in the army, and yet unless and until such men actually joined (or rejoined) the army, those marks did not have the real significance that they should have... however if they did rejoin or join the army, the mark would not need to be redone. And so what happens when someone is received by economia is they are finally united to the Church, and their baptism is then given the real meaning of what true baptism is.

And so when we speak of "valid" Roman Catholic Sacraments, we mean that they are valid in the sense of their outward form. I have not seen any official Russian Orthodox statements that said that the Roman Catholic eucharist was "valid", and this is because we can receive a convert who was been baptized by economia, and we can even receive a Roman Catholic Priest in rank, by economia... but we could never receive the Roman Catholic eucharist by economia. This does not mean that we say that Roman Catholics are all going to hell, or that their worship and devotion to God has no meaning to God. Those things are between them and God. This is not a matter for us to pass judgment. We also pass no judgment on the souls of those outside of the Church, but we can say that at least in this life, they remain outside of the Church until and unless they are received into the Orthodox Church.

Stump the Priest: How do we know what the Orthodox Church believes?

The Council of the Holy Fathers 

(various Fathers with St. Constantine the Great, holding the Nicean Creed)

Question: "How does doctrinal authority work in Orthodoxy? In a simplified form, how do I know what Orthodox believe? Less simply, what are the common sources for Orthodox when seeking to believe what the Church teaches? And how is it possible to know that certain teachings are definitely the Orthodox position, not only a possible opinion?"

There are different sources of doctrinal authority in the Orthodox Church: 1. Scripture; 2. Apostolic Tradition; 3. Ecclesiastical Tradition; and 4. the living witness of the Church.

We believe that the Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant word of God, and Scripture is the core of the Orthodox Tradition. However, while we can distinguish Scripture from the rest of the Tradition, we cannot properly understand Scripture outside of the context of that Tradition.

Apostolic Tradition has its origins in Christ Himself, and is preserved in a number of different ways. For example, many aspects of Apostolic Tradition are preserved in the Ecumenical Canons. The basic elements of our worship are based on Apostolic Tradition. It is also preserved in the collective memory of the Church, and is reflected in the writings of the Fathers of the Church.

Not every canon of the Church is based directly on Scripture or Apostolic Tradition. There are also Traditions that are Ecclesiastical Traditions. The Scriptures tell us that Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and to loose, and Apostolic Tradition tells us that this authority was passed on from the Apostles to their successors, the Bishops. When confronted with heresies or problems that are not addressed directly by Scripture or Apostolic Tradition, the Church has made decisions that are binding. The most authoritative examples of this would be the Ecumenical Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, and those local and patristic canons that those councils approved. Like the Scriptures, the Church believes that these Ecumenical Canons as well as the doctrinal statements made by these councils have an authority like Scripture, and are infallible.

While the above referenced sources of authority have greater weight, because their authority has been firmly established and universally recognized in the Church, the Church continues to have the power to bind and to loose, and so the Church makes decisions all of the time that have authority for Orthodox Christians. For example, we cannot find in Scripture or the Ecumenical Canons a clear answer to the question of what we should make of artificial insemination, local Orthodox Churches have made statements on this question. For example, in an All-Russian Council in 2000, the Russian Church issued a document called  "The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church," which addressed this question, as well as many other contemporary issues. Technically, this council would only have immediate authority over those in the Russian Orthodox Church, however, other local Churches received it favorably at the time it was issued. At some point in the future, this document may be universally received, and then have a greater level of authority than it does today, but already, Orthodox Christians outside of the Russian Church have looked to it for guidance on these issues.

It takes time for the body of the Church as a whole to come to firm conclusions about the authority of a council, or the writings of a saint. No council had universal authority simply by virtue of it meeting with a certain number of bishops. It was only when the Church as a whole was able to reflect on such councils that they were either embraced, or rejected.

There are theological or practical matters that there is not a firm, universal answer for, and so within certain bounds, there is room for theological opinions (theologoumena) which may or may not be correct. This does not, however, mean that a person can believe whatever he wants. For example, one could have different opinions on how literally we should interpret the seven days of creation in the first chapter of Genesis, but it would be beyond the bounds of acceptable opinion to suggest that the universe came into being by chance, and God did not create it.

So how does one go about acquainting themselves to what the Church teaches? You have to be Orthodox, you have to live the sacramental life of the Church, and you need to study -- study the Scriptures, the writings of the saints, the lives of the saints, and you would also do well to read good books by more contemporary authors that are recognized as good and useful texts. The longer you are Orthodox, and are actively engaged in trying to learn your faith, the more you will acquire an Orthodox mindset, and will become increasingly discerning.

Stump the Priest: The Orthodox Canon

Question: "In the Orthodox Study Bible and in other places online, I've seen a chart comparing the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox canon of Scripture. My question is from what canon of what council does Orthodoxy draw her canon of Scripture from?"

On the one hand we have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century. On the other hand we have an Old Testament canon that has a precisely defined core, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the New, but not the Old?

The New Testament Canon is fixed, largely due to the false canon of the heretic Marcion. The Old Testament canon has been less precisely defined, and so one still encounters some disagreement on the fringes of the list... though most of the books are not questioned at all. The Church simply has not felt the need to be more precise... but this can be an uncomfortable thing for some folks to deal with. However, if you have the proper understanding of Tradition, it becomes much less of an issue.

If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the writings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much, because we see Scripture as being part of Tradition, not as something separate to it, and certainly not as something opposed to it.

The term "Deuterocanon" is actually of Roman Catholic origin, but I think it is a useful term. In Russian texts, and some patristic texts, you find the phrase "non-canonical" books, but by this, the distinction is between the Hebrew canon and the books excluded by the Hebrew canon which the Church has embraced. Another term is "Readable book", which means a book can be read in Church.

Yet another term is "apocrypha", which we generally do not use with reference to these books, but Origen had some interesting comments on the origin of the the term "apocrypha." In his letter to Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.) he was responding to the question of why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contain the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responded that he was not unaware of this fact, and he proceeded to defend its authenticity. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:

"And, forsooth, when we notice such things we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery?! Are we to suppose that that providence which the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things? In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." Nor do I say this because I shun the labor of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, laboring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true readings as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."

Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew text are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:

"The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges as they could, some of which have been preserved in the uncanonical writings (apocrypha) [which gives new meaning to the term "hidden books"]. As an example, take the story told about Isaiah, and guaranteed by the epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword"."

He goes on to mention that, by a tradition contained in the Apocryphal books, we know that the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in half.

The Orthodox Study Bible list of Old Testament books is based on the books included in the Greek Editions of the Scriptures, published by the Church of Greece. The Church of Greece based their decision in part on the decree of the Synod of Jerusalem:

"What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?

Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucar] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be, with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture, genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most  ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.." (The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) (from the Confession of St. Dositheus).

The Synod of Jerusalem was held in large part to respond to Protestantism, and in this case, they were responding to the general Protestant position on the canon of the Old Testament, which was to adopt the Hebrew Canon, and to reject any Old Testament books not included by the Jews as "apocrypha." The Council of Jerusalem called these books canonical, not non-canonical, or deuterocanonical. However, the Greek Bible used by the OSB includes several more books, which were not mentioned by that council (see: http://my.execpc.com/~gto/Apocrypha/Summaries/table.html) And you will see that the Russian Bible includes some more yet. The Synod of Jerusalem did not specifically address them. The Greek Church probably included them because editions of the LXX have long included these books. The Russian Church probably also included 2nd Esdras (aka 3rd Esdras) because it was included in the canonical list found in the canons of the Holy Apostles, and is also found in the Latin Vulgate (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html). Which is also why it was included among the "Apocrypha" of the original editions of  the King James Version.

Why is there no absolutely definitive list? The Church has not felt the need to create one... for the Old Testament. It did in the case of the New because of Marcion, and you do find statements, such as that of the Synod of Jerusalem which defended certain books specifically rejected by the Protestants. But for us, whether or not 2nd Esdras is canonical, deuterocanonical, or simply an appendix, reflecting a book considered to be of traditional importance, is not nearly so big of a deal. But most of the books of the Old Testament are canonical, and there is no dispute about them, and so we do have certainty, just not for every book.

If you have a Revised Standard Version or New Revised Standard Version Bible that includes the "Apocrypha," then you can look at the introduction to each of the books and see who accepts them. The Greeks do not include 2nd Esdras (note the comments below about confusion over the titles of the books of Esdras/Ezra (in the Russian Bible it is called 3rd Esdras). The Russian Bible does not include 4th Maccabees. By the way, neither 4th Maccabees nor 2nd/3rd Esdras is to be found in the Orthodox Study Bible.

Now, if you look at the Orthodox Study Bible, you will see that it has 1st Ezra and 2nd Ezra. Why they did this, and without better notes in the introduction is beyond me. What they call 1st Ezra is a deuterocanonical book, found in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint, but not considered deuterocanonical by the Roman Catholic Church.  In the Vulgate, and the in the King James, RSV, and NRSV Apocrypha, this book is 1st Esdras. What they call 2nd Ezra, is the book that is called "Ezra" in just about any Bible in English -- and so if you are trying to find a passage in the book of Ezra that most English speakers will have in mind, you will need to look in 2nd Ezra... but most people, who don't look closely, will probably think that 2nd Ezra is either 1st or 2nd Esdras.This is one of my complaints about the OSB: they opted to use non-standard names for many of the Old Testament books, and so they are going to confuse a lot of people who are trying to find a passage of scripture in this or that book. I also think they made a huge mistake adopting the Greek order of the books. They should have used the Vulgate order, because that is the basic order we have used in English Bibles for the past 400+ years.

For more information see:

An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible

Biblical Canon and Interpretation

All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon, by Joel Kalvesmaki

Various Canons and comments on the canon of the Old Testament

Stump the Priest: Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

The Holy Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils

Question: "Does the Orthodox Church teach that the Ecumenical Councils are infallible?"

We do not believe that everything that anyone happened to say at an Ecumenical Council is infallible, but we most certainly do believe that the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, and this is because we believe that the Church as a whole, is infallible. Individual members, and even local Churches may error, but it is not possible for the entire Church to teach that which is erroneous -- and ecumenical councils are certainly an example of what the Church as a whole teaches.

Fr. George Florovsky observed: "The teaching authority of the Ecumenical Councils is grounded in the infallibility of the Church. The ultimate "authority" is vested in the Church, which is forever the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth" (The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century).

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, which was written in response to a Papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, in which he called for the reunion of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church, states:

"...having recourse to the fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fully persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church, and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows."

And St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain states, as he begins his famous commentary on the Ecumenical Canons:

"So every ecumenical council that possesses these characteristic features is in fact the Holy and Catholic Church itself in which in the Symbol of Faith (called the Creed in English) we profess to believe. ...being infallible and sinless. For the Church, which the Ecumenical Council takes the place of as its personal representative, is a pillar and framework of the truth, according to St. Paul (I Tim. 3:15); accordingly, whatever seems right to Ecumenical Councils seems right also to the Holy Spirit of Truth: for, it says, “He shall teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said unto you” (John 14:26)" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 157).

Canon 1 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council states, with regard to all the Ecumenical canons and decrees of the previous Councils (as well as those of local Councils and Fathers whom these Councils specifically affirmed, states:

"For those who have been allotted a sacerdotal dignity, the representations of canonical ordinances amount to testimonies and directions. Gladly accepting these, we sing to the Lord God with David, the spokesman of God, the following words: “I have delighted in the way of thy testimonies as much as in all wealth,” and “thy testimonies which thou hast commanded witness righteousness,… Thy testimonies are righteousness forever: give me understanding, and I shall live” (Ps. 119:14, 138 and 144). And if forever the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God, and to live in them, it is plain that they remain unwavering and rigid. For Moses, too, the beholder of God, says so in the following words: “To them there is nothing to add, and from them there is nothing to remove” (Deut. 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, exulting in them, cries: “which things the angels would like to peep into” (I Pet. 1:12). And Paul says: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8). Seeing that these things are so and are attested to us, and rejoicing at them “as one that findeth great spoil” (Ps. 119:162), we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts and of those of our holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whomsoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whomsoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penance anyone whom they make liable to a penance. For “Let your conduct be free from avarice; being content with such things as are at hand” (Heb. 13:5), explicitly cries the divine apostle Paul, who ascended into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words (II Cor. 12:2-4)."

And St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain adds two comments in his notes to his commentary on this canon:

"Note here how respectable and reverend the divine Canons are. For this holy Council, by calling them “testimonies” and “justifications,” and the like, dignifies these very same divine Canons with those title and names with which the divinely inspired and holy Bible is dignified."

And

"That is why Photius, in Title I, ch. 2, says that the third ordinance of Title II of the Novels invests the Canons of the seven Councils and their dogmas with the same authoritativeness as the divine Scriptures." (Rudder, p. 428f).

See also St. Cyprian of Carthage's Treatise on the Unity of the Church.

Stump the Priest: Old Calendarism

A monk from Esphigemenou monaster, about to toss a Molotov cocktail.

Question: "The Esphigmenou monastery [on Mount Athos] has recently made headlines; what is happening with them and why are the monks being evicted? How do you view Old Calendarists like these monks, who have broken communion with the rest of the Church?"

The history of the Greek Old Calendar movement is a sad one. What is most sad about it is that it was a problem that could have so easily been avoided had the New Calendar not been introduced into the Church of Greece (along with several other local Orthodox Churches) in the manner in which it was.

In the turmoil that followed World War I, you had the Bolsheviks reeking havoc in Russia, and the Greeks having launched a disastrous attempt to recapture Asia Minor from the Turks which led to a mass expulsion of the Greek population of Asia Minor, there were those who seized the opportunity presented by this upheaval to push for various "reforms" in the Church, and one of those "reforms" was to change the Church Calendar. Specifically, the kingdom of Greece had changed the civil calendar to the Gregorian Calendar, and so there were those who wished to push this change in the Church of Greece as well. In 1923, there was a "pan-Orthodox Synod" (which had representatives from less than half of the Church) which was held to consider this change. What they approved was a calendar that was essentially the same as the Gregorian Calendar, but which preserved the Old Calendar Paschalion (which determines the date of Pascha, and therefore all the aspects of the liturgical calendar that are determined by the date of Pascha). In 1924, the Church of Greece adopted this "Revised Julian Calendar," and in reaction, an Old Calendarist movement began.

The Church of Greece in cooperation with the government of Greece began a policy of repressing the Old Calendarists, which only added bitterness to schism. Gradually various divisions emerged among the Old Calendarists. Many of the Old Calendarists declared the New Calendar Church of Greece to be "without grace," and the degree to which extreme stances were taken added to the division among the Old Calendarists.

The history of the various Old Calendarists schisms is very complicated, and having read the conflicting accounts that the different factions have given about their history, it is my opinion that only God knows which of them are telling the truth in any given instance, and there is good reason to believe that none of their accounts add up entirely. But rather than get lost in the woods discussing their history, let me make a few observations, and then get to the key issues to this question:

1. Had the Calendar not been changed the way that it was, there never would have been a schism.

2. Old Calendarists have pointed to many Ecumenical abuses, especially on the part of clergy under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and many of their objections have merit -- though their arguments that the rest of the Orthodox Church has fallen away as a result of these abuses does not stand up to scrutiny. However, those responsible for these abuses have some share in the blame that these groups have not been reconciled with the rest of the Church.

3. However, the Old Calendarists have generally taken a simplistic view of the canons and Church history in an attempt to justify their separation from the Church that has swayed many, but which is not justified by the Tradition and Canons of the Church.

4. Many (probably most) Old Calendarists are sincere, but there are also many who use the issues that motivate the Old Calendarists as an excuse for schism in order to provide a haven for those who simply wish to function outside of the reach of the accountability they would have to face in legitimate Orthodox Churches.

Is the New Calendar a Heresy?

While Old Calendarists cite other issues today, the issue that caused their groups to originally go into schism was the change of the Calendar, and so the question must be asked, is the New Calendar a heresy? Was it a sufficient basis for going into schism, and denouncing the Church of Greece?

I am not on the New Calendar, and I am glad that this is the case for two reasons:

1. I do not believe that the New Calendar should have been introduced unless every local Church agreed to make the change, at the same time. Whatever advantages the New Calendar may have, they are not worth causing division, and that is in fact what it caused.

2. Changing the fixed calendar to the New Calendar, but continuing to use the Old Calendar to determine the date of Pascha causes liturgical chaos. The Typikon was not written with such a strange mix in mind. Personally, I think it would make far more sense to change the entire calendar, so that it still worked with the Typikon. As it is, you have lenten commemorations occurring before Lent (such as the feast of the 40 Martyrs of Sebaste), and you have paschal commemorations occurring during lent (such as the feast of St. George). You also have the Apostles fast often ending before it begins, as it did this year.

But despite these issues, it cannot be successfully argued that the New Calendar is a heresy, and according to the Canons, it is only heresy, preached clearly and unequivocally, that is a sufficient basis for separating from your lawful bishop, or a bishop separating from his lawful synod.

The Canons

If you ask an Old Calendarist for the canonical basis of their schism, they will point to Canon 15 of the First and Second Council (The Protodeutera Council) of Constantinople, held in 861, which states in part:

"But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudobishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions."

Another basis that is often appealed to is the example of St. Theodore the Studite, who broke communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople because he allowed the Emperor to enter into a fourth marriage.. which was certainly contrary to the well established Tradition of the Church. This controversy is known as the Moechian Controversy (from the Greek word "μοιχός," which means "adulterer," because St. Theodore considered this marriage to be nothing more than adultery). During this controversy, St. Theodore the Studite briefly separated himself from two Patriarchs who are also Saints of the Church.The fact that he separated from two saints of the Church suggests that the example is not one that is so clear cut that one could base a great deal upon it.

Aside from that, a few decades after the repose of St. Theodore, the First and Second Synod was called in Constantinople, and while they did say that a bishop preaching heresy bareheaded in the Church was grounds for schism, they made it very clear that personal sins or canonical violations were not a sufficient basis for a schism.

Canon 13 of that council states:

“The All-evil One having planted the seed of heretical tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy Council has decreed that henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan’s judgment, and, judging matters before a trial has been held, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop” (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 469).


Canon 14 says:

“If any Bishop, on the allegation that charges of crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall secede or apostatize from him before a conciliar or synodal verdict has been issued against him, and shall abstain from communion with him, and fail to mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine mystagogy (i.e., liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic mystery), the holy Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by seceding from his own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan so” (Ibid., p. 470).


Essentially, this says that what goes for Deacons and Priests, goes for a Bishop in his dealings with his Metropolitan too.


And then we have Canon 15:


“The rules laid down with reference to Presbyters and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter’s name in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a conciliar verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof, and create a schism, and disrupt the union of the Church. But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Councils, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it barehead in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudobishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions” (Ibid., p. 470f).


And so what was said in the previous canons about separating from Bishops and Metropolitans is all the more applicable to one’s Patriarch. There is only one exception given here, and that is when one separates from their Bishop, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, on the basis of heresy that is publicly taught “bareheaded” in the Church.  The canon does not say it is justified merely on the grounds that a bishops holds a heretical opinion.  It also does not say it is justified because such an heretical opinion might be inferred from his actions or vaguely worded statements. It is only when it is a heresy that has been condemned by the fathers or councils, and is taught publicly, and “bareheadedly”.

These canons, coming as they do in the wake of the Moechian controversy, were clearly designed to ensure that another such controversy would not occur. They clearly define the only basis for schism prior to a conciliar verdict, and that is the clear preaching of heresy. Furthermore, even this canon does not provide for the establishment of parallel jurisdictions prior to a conciliar verdict. In other words, you could withdraw from communion from a bishop who is preaching heresy, but until the Church deals with the matter, you have no grounds for establishing rival Synods, as the Greek Old Calendarists have done.

Now getting back to the monks at Esphigmenou, while all the monasteries on Mount Athos have at times raised objections to actions and statements of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and while they all have remained on the Old Calendar, all of them remain in communion with the rest of the Church... except for this monastery. It has unfortunately attracted the most extreme monks on the Holy Mountain, and they have painted themselves into a theological and ecclesiological corner.

There have been other examples of Orthodox governments using military force to remove heretical or schismatic monks from a monastery, but I think it would have been better in this case for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to focus their attention on removing the points of scandal that have inspired these monks to take the extreme position that they have, and then to attempt to reason with them in good faith, rather than resorting to the use of force at this point.

The shame of it all is that among the Old Calendarists there are many people who are very pious and devout, and were it not for the issues that have led them into schism, they would be great assets to the rest of the Church and contribute much to its strength. We should pray that they will see their error in their position, but we should also speak out against examples of modernism and ecumenism when we see them, because these things are not only a temptation that has led many into schism -- they are also things that could eventual divide the Church even further. The more we all embrace the Tradition of the Church, the more we will be united; but the more that people in the Church disregard that Tradition, the more division will be the result.

I would recommend that you read "Anti-Patristic: The Stance of the Zealot Old Calendarists, by Monk Basil of the Holy Monastery of Saint Gregory (Grigoriou), Mount Athos.

I would also recommend you read "A Rejoinder to Hieromonk Patapios’ essay: “The Deficient Scholarship of Monk Basil’s Comments on the Allegedly Anti-Patristic Stand of the So-Called“Old Calendarist Zealots."