21. Holy Pentecost & Mystical Church

Holy Scripture: John 16.12-15; Acts 2.1-41

Selection from Venerable Bede, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles:

“That [fire] which is said to have settled [on them] was a token of royal power. Or certainly [by this] was indicated that his resting place is among the saints…. The church’s humility recovers the unity of languages which the pride of Babylon had shattered.”

Venerable Bede, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 29.

Selection from St. Gregory Palamas, regarding the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

“Those miracles accomplished by the Lord in the flesh, which bore witness that He was God’s only-begotten Son in His own person, united with us in the last days, came to an end. One the other hand, those wonders began which proclaimed the Holy Spirit as a divine person in His own right, that we might come to know and contemplate the great and venerable mystery of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit had been active before: it was He who spoke through the prophets and proclaimed things to come. Later He worked through the disciples to drive out demons and heal diseases. But now He was manifested to all in His own person through the tongues of fire, and sitting enthroned as Lord upon each of Christ’s disciples, He made them instruments of His power.

Why did He appear in the form of tongues? It was to demonstrate the He shared the same nature as the Word of God, for there is no relationship close than that between word and tongue. It was also because of teaching, since teaching Christ’s gospel needs a tongue full of grace. But why fiery tongues? Not just because the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and Son – and our God is fire (cf. Heb. 12:129), a fire consuming wickedness – but also because of the twofold energy of the apostles’ preaching, which can bring both benefit and punishment. As it is the property of fire to illuminate and burn, so Christ’s teaching enlightens those who obey but finally hands over the disobedient to eternal fire and punishment.”

St. Gregory Palamas, “On Pentecost,” The Saving Work of Christ: Sermons by St. Gregory Palamas, ed. by Christopher Veniamin (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Press, 2008), 131.

Selection from Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, A Visual Catechism of the Orthodox Church:

“With the creation of the angels and men we have the first phase of the Church. Then through the fall of men we had the fall of the Church. Nevertheless a small remnant of the Church remained in the persons of the Prophets and the righteous men of the Old Testament. However, through the incarnation of Christ, and especially with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles became members of the Body of Christ, members of the Church. Thus the Church of the Old Testament, which was spiritual, now became fleshly, the Body of Christ….. The true members of the Church are the saints, that is to say the Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, holy men and ascetics, and those who married and lived in the world and have fallen asleep in peace. In general the members of the Church are deified, that is to say, those who at different depths partake of the uncreated Grace of God. But those who are living sacramentally and, in imitation of the saints, are struggling to be cured are also members of the Church”[1]

Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, A Visual Catechism of the Orthodox Church (Levadia, GRE: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2007), 84-85

[1] The Great Horologion, Reading for “Holy Pentecost” (Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1997), 633-634.

The Church as Hospital

Selection from St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise:

God planted the fair Garden,

He built the pure Church;

Upon the Tree of Knowledge

He established the injunction.

He gave joy, but they took no delight,

He gave admonition, but they were

unafraid.

In the Church He implanted the Word

which cause rejoicing with its promises,

which causes fear with its warnings:

he who despises the Word, perishes,

he who takes warning, lives.

The assembly of saints

bears resemblance to Paradise:

in it each day is plucked

the fruit of Him who gives life to all;

in it, my brethren, is trodden

the cluster of grapes, to be the

Medicine of Life.

The serpent is crippled and bound

by the curse,

while Eve’s mouth is sealed

with a silence that is beneficial

but it also serves once again

as a harp to sing the praises of her Creator.

Among the saints none is naked,

For they have put on glory,

nor is any clad in those leaves

or standing in shame,

for they have found, through our Lord,

the robe that belongs to Adam and Eve.

As the Church

purges her ears

of the serpent’s poison,

those who had lost their garments,

having listened to it and become diseased,

have now been renewed and whitened.

The effortless power,

The arm which never tires,

planted this Paradise,

adorned it without effort.

But it is the effort of free will

that adorns the Church with

all manner of fruits.

The Creator saw the Church

and was pleased;

He resided in that Paradise

which she had planted for His honor,

just as He had planted the Garden

for her delight. (Hymn VI.7-10)

St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, trans. by Sebastian Brock (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 111-112, 157-159.

Selection from St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise:

More numerous and glorious

than the stars

in the sky that we behold

are the blossoms of that land,

and the fragrance which exhales from it

through divine Grace

is like a physician

sent to heal the ills

of a land that is under a curse;

by its healing breath it cures

the sickness that entered in

through the serpent.

The breath that wafts

from some blessed corner of Paradise

gives sweetness

to the bitterness of this region,

it tempers the curse

on this earth of ours.

That Garden is

the life-breath

of the diseased world

that has been so long in sickness;

that breath proclaims that a saving remedy

has been sent to heal our mortality.

What need was there

that from that land

a river should flow forth

and divide itself,

except that the blessing of Paradise

should be mingled by means of water

as it issues forth

to irrigate the world,

making clean its fountains

that had become polluted by curses

— just as the “sickly water”

Had been made wholesome by the salt.

Thus it is with another spring,

full of perfumes,

which issues from Eden

and penetrates into the atmosphere

as a beneficial breeze

by which our souls are stirred;

our inhalation is healed

by this healing breath

from Paradise;

springs receive a blessings

from that blessed spring

which issues forth from there.

A vast censer

exhaling fragrance

impregnates the air

with its odoriferous smoke,

imparting to all who are near it

a whiff from which to benefit.

How much the more so

with Paradise the glorious:

even its fence assists us,

modifying somewhat

that curse upon the earth

by the scent of its aromas.

When the blessed Apostles

were gathered together

the place shook

and the scent of Paradise,

having recognized its home,

poured forth its perfumes,

delighting the heralds

by whom

the guests are instructed

and come to His banquet;

eagerly He awaits their arrival

for He is the Lover of mankind.

Make me worthy through Your grace

to attain to Paradise’s gift

—this treasure of perfumes,

this storehouse of scents.

My hunger takes delight

in the breath of its fragrance,

for its scent gives nourishment to all

at all times,

and whoever inhales it

is overjoyed and forgets his earthly bread;

this is the table of the Kingdom—

blessed is He who prepares it in Eden. (Hymn XI. 9-15)

St. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise, trans. by Sebastian Brock (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990), 157-159.

Selection from St. Theophylact’s commentary on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.29-37):

“And at every baptism those who are baptized are delivered from wounds of the soul when they are chrismated with the oil of myrrh and then immediately commune of the divine Blood. The Lord lifted up our wounded nature upon His own beast of burden, namely, upon His own Body. For He made us members of Himself and communicants of His own Body; and when we were lying down, wounded, He raised us up to His own dignity, making us one Body with Himself. The inn is the Church, which receives all. But the law did not receive all. For the law says, the Ammanite and the Moabite shall not enter into the Church of God. But now, from every tribe and people, God accepts those who fear Him and who desire to believe and become a member of Christ’s body, the Church. God receives all, even sinners and publicans. See the preciseness of His expression, how He says that the Samaritan brought him to an inn, and took care of him. Before he brought him to the inn, he had only bound his wounds. What then am I saying? That the Church had been established, becoming the inn which receives all, and was increased by the faith of nearly all people, then there were the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the grace of God was spread far and wide. You may learn this from the Acts of the Apostles. The innkeeper is a type and symbol of every apostle, teacher, and archpastor, to whom the Lord gave two pence, representing the two Testaments, Old and New. Just as both coins bear the image of the one king, so do both Testaments bear the words of the same God. When the Lord ascended into the heavens He left these two coins in the hands of the apostles, and in the hands of the bishops and teachers of every generation.”

Blessed Theophylact, The Explanation by Belssed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. John, trans. by Fr. Christopher Stade, vol 3 of Blessed Theophylact’s Explanation of the New Testament, commentary on Luke 10.29-37 (House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1997), 120. See also entire section, pp. 117-120.

Selection from St. Augustine’s “Sermons on New Testament Lessons,” Sermon LXXXI, commenting on the Parable of the Good Samaritan:

“He fell into death, became infirm, was left in the way by robbers half dead; the Samaritan, which is by interpretation keeper, passing by lifted him up on his own beast; he is still being brought to the inn. Why is he lifted up? He is still in process of curing. ‘But,’ he will say, ‘it is enough for me that in baptism I received remission of all sins.’ Because iniquity was blotted out, was therefore infirmity brought to an end? ‘I received,’ says he, ‘remission of all sins.’ It is true. All sins were blotted out in the Sacrament of Baptism, all entirely, of words, deeds, thoughts, all were blotted out. But this is the ‘oil and wine’ which was poured in by the way. Ye remember, beloved Brethren, that man who was wounded by the robbers, and half dead by the way, how he was strengthened, by receiving oil and wine for his wounds. His error indeed was already pardoned, and yet his weakness is in process of healing in the inn. The inn, if ye recognize, is the Church. In the time present, an inn, because in life we are passing by: it will be a home, whence we shall never remove, when we shall have got in perfect health unto the kingdom of heaven. Meanwhile receive we gladly our treatment to be cured.”

St. Augustine of Hippo, “Sermons on New Testament Lessons,” Sermon LXXXI, NPNF, First Series, p. 503.

Selection from St. John Chrysostom, “Homily Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren”:

“I account you happy for the zeal, beloved, with which you flock into the Father’s house. For from this zeal I have ground for feeling confidence about your health also with respect to the soul; for indeed the school of the Church is an admirable surgery–a surgery, not for bodies, but for souls. For it is spiritual, and sets right, not fleshly wounds, but errors of the mind, and of these errors and wounds the medicine is the word. This medicine is compounded, not from the herbs growing on the earth, but from the words proceeding from heaven–this no hands of physicians, but tongues of preachers have dispensed. On this account it lasts right through; and neither is its virtue impaired by length of time, nor defeated by any strength of diseases. For certainly the medicines of physicians have both these defects; for while they are fresh they display their proper strength, but when much time has passed; just as those bodies which have grown old; they become weaker; and often too the difficult character of maladies is wont to baffle them; since they are but human. Whereas the divine medicine is not such as this; but after much time has intervened, it still retains all its inherent virtue. Ever since at least Moses was born (for from thence dates the beginning of the Scripture) it has healed so many human beings; and not only has it not lost its proper power, but neither has any disease ever yet overcome it.

This medicine it is not possible to get by payment of silver; but he who has displayed sincerity of purpose and disposition goes his way having it all. On account of this both rich and poor alike obtain the benefit of this healing process. For where there is a necessity to pay down money the man of large means indeed shares the benefit; but the poor man often has to go away deprived of the gain, since his income does not suffice him for the making up of the medicine. But in this case, since it is not possible to pay down silver coin, but it is needful to display faith and a good purpose, he who has paid down these with forwardness of mind, this is he who most reaps the advantage; since indeed these are the price paid for the medicinal treatment. And the rich and the poor man share the benefit alike; or rather it is not alike that they share the benefit, but often the poor man goes away in the enjoyment of more. What ever can be the reason? It is because the rich man, possessed beforehand by many thoughts, having the pride and puffed-up temper belonging to wealthiness; living with carelessness and lazy ease as companions, receives the medicine of the hearing of the Scriptures not with much attention, nor with much earnestness; but the poor man, far removed from delicate living and gluttony and indolence; spending all his time in handicraft and honest labours; and gathering hence much love of wisdom for the soul; becomes thereby more attentive and free from slackness, and is wont to give his mind with more accurate care to all that is said: whence also, inasmuch as the price he has paid is higher, the benefit which he departs having reaped is greater.”
St. John Chrysostom, “Homily Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren,” NPNF, 1st Series, Vol. 9, St. John Chrysostom: On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies on the Statutes.

Selection from Timothy S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, on the establishment of medical facilities within the life of the Church:

“From their origins in the fourth century until 1453 Byzantine hospitals were conceived as expressions of Christian charity. They carried out in the real world the orthodox doctrine regarding philanthropic medicine. When Basil the Great opened his extensive charitable institution—his ptochotropheion—outside Caesarea, he saw its medical services as the deepest possible expressions of philanthropia. As Greagory of Nazianz phrased it, one could see there love put to the test in their treatment of disease. John Chrysostom built his hospitals in Constantinople ‘for the glory of Christ’ and staffed them with ascetics who viewed their service to the sick as a religious duty. Sampson, the legendary physician of the Eastern capital, founded his hospital on the principles of the physicians’ profession and on the divine laws which Christ laid down. Even after Justinian introduced the archiatroi of the ancient pagan profession in the Christian xenones, a step which encouraged lay professionals to enter hospital service at all levels on the staff, the religious mission of the nosokomeion was never forgotten. When, about 800, Theodore Stoudites described a large nosokomeion with a complete staff of physicians and nurses, he emphasized that all the doctors from the chief physicians to the practical nurses strove to follow the divine plan of philanthropia. When John II Komnenos established the Pantokrator Xenon in the twelfth century, he prayed that it would always be a fountain of mercy, a refuge for men and women, a pure offering to the Lord. Moreover, John hoped that the philanthropia which he displayed in founding this hospital would attain for him the forgiveness of his many sins. The emperor also reminded the physicians, medical assistants (hypourgoi), and servants of the Pantokrator that they should never neglect patients, since Christ, the Creator of All, considered these sick his beloved brethren. Thus, John wanted the monks and the lay staff of the Pantokrator complex to care not only for the buildings he had built—the lifeless temples—but especially for the patients of the hospital—the living temples of God.”
Note: Philanthopia means “love toward mankind”

Timothy S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), 61-62.

Selections from David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies:

“St. Ephraim the Syrian (A.D. C. 306-373), when the city of Edessa was ravaged by plague, established hospitals open to all who were afflicted. St. Basil the Great (A.D. 329-379) founded a hospital in Cappadocia with a ward set aside for the care of lepers, whom he did not disdain to nurse with his own hands. St. Benedict of Nursia (AD. C. 480-547) opened a free infirmary at Monte Cassino and made care of the sick a paramount duty of his monks. In Rome, the Christian noblewoman and scholar St. Fabiola (d. A.D. C. 399) established the first public hospital in Western Europe and—despite her wealth and position—often ventured out into the streets personally to seek out those who needed care. St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), while patriarch of Constantinople, used his influence to fund several such institutions in the city; and in the diakoniai of Constantinople, for centuries, many rich members of the laity labored to care for the poor and ill, bathing the sick, ministering to their needs assisting them with alms.”

“It was once fashionable among historians of medicine to claim that, until quite recently, hospitals were little more than hospices and shelters, offering nothing like systematic medical treatment and making no particular effort to heal their patients. It is clear now, though, that in the Eastern Christian Roman world, at least as early as the sixth century, and probably earlier, there were free hospitals served by physicians and surgeons, with established regimes of treatment and convalescent care, and with regular and trained staff. In their developed form, the hospitals of Byzantium came in a variety of specializations: some cared for the ill and injured, some were homes for the aged and infirm, some were devoted to foundlings, some were shelters for the homeless poor, and some were principally orphanages. In later centuries, Muslim society and, after the First Crusade, Latin Christian society established hospitals of their own on the Byzantine model, the most famous of which was the massive Hospital of St. John created in Jerusalem by the Hospitallers in 1099, in imitation of which hospitals were built all over Western Europe throughout the later Middle ages.”

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009), 30, 72.

More images of the Mystery of the Church:

New Israel: royal priesthood Hebrews 12.18-24; 1 Peter 2.4-12

The Living Temple of God 1 Cor. 3.16, 6.13-19; 2 Cor. 6.14-18; Eph.2.19.-22

The Body of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12-27; Romans 12.1-8

The Great Cloud of Witnesses Hebrews 11.1-12.2

The New Jerusalem Revelation 22

22. Do you want to be healed?

23. What will you do?

24. Where do you find the Church?

Where is the Church? You find the Church Where You Find the Orthodox Bishop

Note: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ is found where the Orthodox bishop, the successor of the Holy Apostles, is found. In other words, if you find a local congregation under the authority and pastoral care of an Orthodox bishop, who is in communion with and recognized by other canonical Orthodox bishops, you have found the authentic Church. No religious group separated with an Orthodox bishop can properly be called “the Church.”

Selections from the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch:

“Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church…. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop’s knowledge is in the devil’s service.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter to the Smyrnaeans,” par. 8-9, ANF, vol. 1.

“For when you subject yourself to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to be living not in human fashion but like Jesus Christ, who died for us so that by believing in his death you might escape dying. Therefore it is necessary that, as is actually the case, you do nothing apart from the bishop, but be subject also to the presbyter as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope; for if we live in him we shall be found in him.”

“Similarly all are to respect the deacons as Jesus Christ and the bishop as a copy of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and the band of the apostles. For apart from these no group can be called a church. I am convinced that you accept this. For I have received an embodiment of your love, and have it with me, in your bishop, whose demeanor is a great lesson and whose gentleness is his power.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter to the Trallians,” The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by Jack N. Sparks (Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 1978), 92-93.

Apostolic Succession: From the Apostles to the Bishops

Note: The following selections show the seamless transition from the Holy Apostles, upon whom Christ founded His Church, to the bishops, who were consecrated by the Apostles to shepherd the local churches. Apostolic succession refers to the historical continuity of the clergy from the Apostles to today within the Orthodox Church. Apostolic succession requires the passing down and reception of Holy Tradition within the Church from generation to generation until today. Therefore, a mere tracing of one’s ordination historically back to the Apostles as a genealogy is not sufficient to claim Apostolic succession. A Bishop or Priest must also be within the Orthodox Church, the Church of the Apostles, while believing and proclaiming the Apostolic Faith preserved and lived in every generation of the Church.

Selection from St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies:

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time….”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Ch. 3, ANF, Vol. 1.

St. Gregory Palamas, Sermon “On Pentecost,” about Apostolic Succession since Pentecost:

“The promise was now fulfilled and the Holy Spirit, given and sent by both the Father and the Son, descended. He shone round about the holy disciples and with divine power kindles them all like lamps or, rather, He revealed them as heavenly lights set above the whole world, who had the word of eternal life, and through them He illuminated all the earth. If from one burning lamp someone lights another, then another from that one, and so on in succession, he has light continuously. In the same way, through the apostles ordaining their successors, and these successors ordaining others, and so on, the grace of the Holy Spirit is handed down through all generations and enlightens all who obey their spiritual shepherd and teachers.

Each hierarch in turn comes to give the city this grace and gift of God and the enlightenment of the divine Spirit through the gospel. Those who reject any of them as can happen, interrupt God’s grace, break the divine succession, separate themselves from God and deliver themselves up to sinful rebellions and all kinds of disasters….”

St. Gregory Palamas, “On Pentecost,” The Saving Work of Christ: Sermons by St. Gregory Palamas, ed. by Christopher Veniamin (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Press, 2008), 133-134.

Selections from Eusebius, Church History:

Bk. III, Chapter IV, The First Successors of the Apostles:

“Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.”

“As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.”

“Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.”

“But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our history.”

Bk. III, Chapter XI.–Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

“After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.”

“They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.”

Bk. II, Chapter XXIV.–Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark.

“When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria.”

Chapter XIV.–Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

“In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop.”

Bk. III. Chapter XXII.–Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.

“At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.”

Eusebius, Church History, NPNF, second series, vol. 1, pp. 128, 136-138, 146-147, 149.

25. Becoming a Catechumen

26. You are in Good Company

27. Behold the Mystery

28. The Holy Tradition

Selections from Holy Scripture on Holy Tradition:

Holy Tradition (Apostolic Tradition): John 16. 13; 2 Thess. 2.13-17; 3.1-6; 1 Cor. 15.3-11

Religious “traditions of men” (opposite of Holy Tradition): Matthew 15.1-9; Col. 2.6-12

Selection from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies:

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times….”

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III, ANF, Vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 415-416.

Selection from St. Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory:

“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”

St. Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory, Chapter II: “A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity,” para. 6, NPNF, Second Series, Vol. 11 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 132. The text is also available online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html

Selection from Fr. Georges Florovsky, “The Catholicity of the Church”:

“Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is, primarily, the principle of growth and regeneration. Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Church. Tradition is authority to teach…, authority to bear witness to the truth. The Church bears witness to the truth not by reminiscence or from the words of others, but from its own living, unceasing experience, from its catholic fullness…. Therein consists that ‘tradition of truth,’ traditio veritatis, about which St. Irenaeus spoke…. Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical, principle.”

Fr. Georges Florovsky, “The Catholicity of the Church,” Chapter III of the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. I: Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Büchervertriebsanstalt, Vaduz, Europa, 1987), 47.

Selection from Vladimir Lossky, “Tradition and Traditions”:

“The pure notion of tradition can then be defined by saying that it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the church, communicating to each member of the body of Christ the faculty of hearing, or receiving, of knowing the truth in the light which belongs to it, and not according to the natural light of human reason. This is true gnosis, owed to an action of the divine light (fwtismo>j th?j gnw<sewj th?j do<chj tou? qeou?, 2 Cor. 4:6), the unique tradition, independent of all philosophy, independent of all that lives ‘according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ’” (Col. 2:8).

Vladimir Lossky, “Tradition and Traditions,” Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, 134, from Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, 141-186; italics mine.

Selections from Protospresbyter John S. Romanides, “Patristic Theology”:

“We happen to be entrusted with a treasure – the theology of Orthodox Tradition. Orthodox theology is the culmination and product of centuries of experiences that have been repeated, renewed, and recorded by those who have experienced theosis at different times. We have the experience of the patriarchs and the prophets as well as the later experiences of the Apostles. We call all of these experiences ‘glorification.’”

“Although it is not clear in the Old Testament Who the Holy Spirit is, the Apostles discovered Who He is by experience. Their experience repeats the experience of the prophets, but there is a difference because the Apostles were glorified after the Incarnation: Yahweh of the Old Testament now has the human nature of Christ. Although three of the Apostles were partially glorified during the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor, all of the Apostles were fully glorified at Pentecost, during which they reached the highest state of glorification that any human being can ever reach in this life.

After the experiences of the Apostles come the experiences of the glorified who include the Church Fathers and those saints who reached theosis. And so the experience of theosis continues to appear in each generation up to the present. The experience of theosis is the core of the Orthodox tradition, the foundation of the local and ecumenical councils, and the basis for the Church’s canon law and liturgical life today.

If the contemporary Orthodox theologian is to acquire objectivity, he must rely on the experience of theosis. In other words, we can positively state that a student of Patristic tradition has acquired objectivity in his theological method only when he has personally undergone purification and illumination, and reached theosis. Only in this way will the researcher not only understand the Patristic tradition, but also verify for himself the truth of this tradition through the Holy Spirit.

Protospresbyter John S. Romanides, “Patristic Theology,” trans. by Hieromonk Alexis (Dalles, OR: Uncut Mountain Press, 2008), 92-94

Selection from Metropolitan Kallistos, The Orthodox Church:

“True Orthodox fidelity to the past must always be a creative fidelity; for true Orthodoxy can never rest satisfied with a barren ‘theology of repetition’, which, parrot-like, repeats accepted formulae without striving to understand what lies behind them. Loyalty to Tradition, properly understood, is not something mechanical, a passive and automatic process of transmitting the accepted wisdom of an era in the distant past. An Orthodox thinker must see Tradition from within, he must enter into its inner spirit, he must re-experience the meaning of Tradition in a manner that is exploratory, courageous, and full of imaginative creativity. In order to live within Tradition, it is not enough simply to give intellectual assent to a system of doctrine; for Tradition is far more than a set of abstract propositions—it is life, a personal encounter with Christ in the Holy Spirit. Tradition is not only kept by the Church—it lives the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church. The Orthodox conception of Tradition is not static but dynamic, not a dead acceptance of the past but a living discover of the Holy Spirit in the present. Tradition, while inwardly changeless (for God does not change), is constantly assuming new forms, which supplement the old without superseding them.”

Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy Ware) of Diokleia, The Orthodox Church, new edition (New York: Penguin Books), 198.

29. The Sign of the Cross

30. The Greeting and Blessing