(Christ loved the church and gave himself for it) (Ephesians 5:25).
(The Church is one with the Master. She is his body, his flesh, and his bones. The Church is the living vine, which is nourished by him and grows in him. Never think of the church in isolation from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.) John of Kronstadt

God and the Church:

Every Orthodox Christian is keenly aware that he belongs to a group. Khomyakov says: (We know that when one of us falls, he must fall alone, but no one is saved alone. He is saved in the church, as one of its members and in communion with the rest of its members) {(The Church is One), Section Nine}.

We saw in the first part of this book {i.e. the book (The Orthodox Church in the Past and Present), by the author, Al-Nour Publications (publisher)} some of what distinguishes the Orthodox faith from the doctrine in the churches of the West. In contrast to Protestantism, the Orthodox Church emphasizes the hierarchical structure of the Church and the succession. The apostolate therein, as well as the episcopate and the priesthood. The Orthodox Church agrees with the Romans in honoring the saints and praying for the dead. But while Rome thinks in the logic of the superiority and comprehensive authority of the Pope, we find Orthodoxy thinking in the logic of the Council of Bishops and the Ecumenical Council. Where the Roman Church places the infallibility of the Pope at the forefront, Orthodoxy emphasizes the infallibility of the Church as a whole. The two sides are not always completely fair to each other, but it seems to the Orthodox that Romans in general finds it easy to view the Church as a temporal and organizational authority. It also seems to Catholics that the Orthodox teachings related to the Church, no matter how high their importance in spiritual and mystical aspects, remain vague, incoherent, and incomplete. Orthodoxy can respond to this by saying that it does not completely neglect the temporal organization of the Church, and whoever reads the laws of {see: (The Collection of Canon Law), Al-Nour Publications (Al-Nashr)} of the Orthodox Church sees how precise and precise its laws are.

But the idea that Orthodoxy holds about the Church is certainly spiritual and mystical, meaning that Orthodox theology never addresses any temporal aspect of the Church separately, but rather always looks at it in relation to its relationship with Christ and the Holy Spirit {See (Orthodox Views on the Church) by a group of theologians and (Introduction To the Christian Faith) by Kosti Bandali and a group of authors, Al-Noor Publications (publisher)}. Every Orthodox thinking about church matters always goes back to the special relationship that exists between it and God. There are three phrases that describe this relationship: The church is:

• First, the image of the Holy Trinity,
• Secondly, the body of Christ,
• Third, the extension of Pentecost.

The church is an image of the Holy Trinity

Just as man was created in the image of the Triune God, so the Church as a whole is an icon of the Trinity, and it displays on earth the mystery of unity in diversity. In the Trinity, the three persons make up one God, but each is a complete person. In the same way, the Church unites within herself the multiplicity of human beings, but does not affect the personal differences among them. Just as the three hypostases (reside) one in the other, so the members of the Church, in turn, mutually support one another. There is no conflict in the Church between freedom and authority. There is unity in the church, but there is no comprehensive unity that denies diversity and difference. When the Orthodox call the Church “universal,” they have in mind, in what they place, that living wonder of the union of multiple people into one.

The concept of the Church as a living icon of the Trinity has many applications. (Unity in multiplicity): Just as each person of the Trinity is independent in itself, so the church is composed of many independent churches. Just as the three persons of the Trinity are equal, so no bishop in the Church can claim to have absolute authority over others.

This idea of the Church as an icon of the Trinity also helps to recognize the Orthodox emphasis on councils: the council is an expression of the Trinitarian nature of the Church. In it we witness the secret of unity in diversity, which is represented in accordance with the image of the Trinity, when the many bishops, gathered without coercion, reach one common decision under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Just as the pluralism of the Church is related to the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, the unity of the Church is specifically linked to the hypostasis of the Son, that is, to Christ.

The Church is the body of Christ

(So we, being many, are one body in Christ) (Romans 12:5). There is the closest connection between Christ and the Church, and in the words of Ignatius of Antioch: (Where Christ is, there is the universal Church) {His Epistle to the People of Smyrna, 8, 2. See (The Apostolic Fathers), Al-Nour Publications}. The church is an extension of the incarnation and the place in which it continues. As one of the Greek theologians, Christos Androutsos, wrote, the Church is “the center and instrument of Christ’s saving work... and it is only a continuation and extension of his prophetic, priestly, and royal authority... and the Church and its founder are inextricably linked... the Church is Christ with us” {(Dogmatic Theology), Athens, 1907 , pp. 262 to 265}. Christ did not leave the church when He ascended to heaven, for He promised: (Behold, I am with you always and to the end of the age) (Matthew 20:28), and also: (Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst of them) (Matthew 20:18).

The unity between Christ and the Church takes place mainly through the holy sacraments: through baptism a person is buried and rises with Christ, and in the sacrament of thanksgiving the members of the body of Christ, that is, the Church, participate in his body. The Eucharist, as it unites the members of the Church with Christ, at the same time unites them among themselves: (For we who are many are one bread and one body, for we all partake of the one bread) (1 Corinthians 10:17). The Eucharist is what establishes the unity of the Church. The Church, as Ignatius of Antioch saw, is a eucharistic community and a sacramental entity, which exists in its fullest aspects where the sacrament of thanksgiving is held. It is not a coincidence that the meaning of the expression “the Body of Christ” refers to both the Church and the sacrament of thanksgiving, and that the phrase “communion of saints” in the “Creed of the Apostles” refers to “communion of the holy people” (i.e., “communion of saints”) and “communion of holy things” ( That is, fellowship in secrets.

We must think of the Church in the sense of sacraments first. Its external organization, no matter how high its status, is second only to its secret life.

The Church is an extension of Pentecost

Emphasizing to this extent that the Church is the body of Christ may be at the expense of the role of the Holy Spirit. But as we previously indicated, the Son and the Holy Spirit complement one another’s role in their work among humans, and this principle is as true in the Church’s doctrine as in any other matter. While Ignatius of Antioch said that (wherever Christ is, there is the universal Church), Irenaeus also rightly affirms that (wherever the Church is, there is the Holy Spirit, and wherever the Holy Spirit is there is the Church) {(Against Heresies), 3, 24, 1}. The fact that the Church is the body of Christ precisely means that it is also the temple and residence of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a spirit of freedom. While Christ unites us, the Holy Spirit works to secure our infinite pluralism within the Church. At Pentecost, the fiery tongues were divided, descending on each person present individually. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a gift to the Church, but at the same time it is a personal gift that each person absorbs in his own way. (There are different kinds of gifts, but the Spirit is one) (1 Corinthians 4:12). Life in the church does not mean the absence of special features, nor does it require imposing a uniform, rigid model on everyone. Quite the opposite. The saints never behaved according to gloomy monotony, but rather proved to be very distinct personalities. Holiness is not boring and monotonous, but evil is the source of boredom.

The Church, visible and invisible:

This, then, in brief, is the relationship that exists between the Church and God. The Church, which is the icon of the Holy Trinity, the body of Christ, and the fullness of the Spirit, is both visible and invisible, divine and human. It is visible because it is made up of physical groups that pray on earth. It is invisible because it is also the church of saints and angels. It is human because its members on earth are sinners, and it is divine because it is the body of Christ. There is no separation between the visible and the invisible, because they both constitute a unique and continuous reality. (The visible Church, that is, the Church on earth, lives in complete communion and unity with the entire body of the Church, of which Christ is the head) {Khomiakov, (The Church is One), Section Two}. The Church stands at the intersection of the present age and the age to come, and it lives in both ages together.

Orthodoxy, while using the phrase (a visible church and an invisible church), emphasizes that there are not two churches, but rather one church. The famous Russian theologian Khomyakov says in this regard: (Only for man can the distinction between the visible Church and the invisible Church be accepted, because its unity is in fact an absolute, true unity. Those who are still in this world, those who have finished their earthly wanderings, and those who Just as the angels were not born to live on this earth, and those belonging to future generations who have not yet begun their human lives, they are all united in the one Church, in the one grace of God... The Church, the body of Christ, is integrated and assimilated throughout time without any change in its basic unity and the life of grace within it. Therefore, talking about the visible and invisible Church is a conversation with regard to man only) {(The Church is One, First Section}).

The Church, in Khomyakov's opinion, is completed on earth without losing its basic characteristics. In the opinion of Father George Florovksi, it is the “sensual image of eternity in time” {(Sobornost: The University of the Church), in (The Church of God), p. 63}. This is a fundamental point in Orthodox teachings. Orthodoxy is not satisfied with believing in an ideal, invisible and heavenly church, because this (ideal church) exists on earth in a visible form within a tangible reality.

Church of the Penitents:

Orthodoxy does not forget that there is a human element in the Church alongside the divine element. The Chalcedonian doctrine applies to the Church and Christ alike. Just as Christ, the God-Man, has two natures, divine and human, in the Church there is a synergy (synergeia) between the divine and the human. However, there is a clear difference between the humanity of Christ and the humanity of the Church. The former is perfect and without sin, while the latter has not yet fully reached this level. There is a part of the Church's humanity - like the saint in heaven - that alone has reached a state of perfection, while it often happens on this earth that Church members abuse their human freedom. The Church on earth exists in a state of constant tension. It is the body of Christ, and therefore perfect and without sin, but since its members are imperfect and sinful, it must continually “become itself” {the idea of “becoming itself” being the final word in the eschatological teaching of the New Testament} on an ongoing basis.

But human sin does not affect the essential nature of the Church. We cannot say that since Christians make mistakes and are incomplete, the Church is also incomplete and wrong. Because the Church, even on this earth, is something from heaven and cannot err. Saint Ephrem the Syrian was right when he spoke about (the Church of the Repentant and the Church of the Perished), but this particular Church is at the same time the icon of the Trinity. How can the members of the Church be sinners and yet belong to the Church of sinners and yet belong to the fellowship of saints? (The secret of the Church is that sinners together become something different from what each of them is individually. This (different thing) is the Body of Christ) {Meyendorff, (What Unites the Church?), in (The Ecumenical Review), No. 12, 1960 , p. 298}.

This is how Orthodoxy approaches the mystery of the Church: the Church as a whole is connected to God, and is a new life in the image of the Holy Trinity, a life in Christ and the Holy Spirit that is achieved by participation in the Holy Mysteries. The Church is one reality, earthly and heavenly, visible and invisible, human and divine.

Church unity:

(The Church is one. Its unity inevitably results from the unity of God) {(The Church is One), Section One}. This is Khomyakov's introduction to his famous research on the Church. If we look seriously at the connection between God and the Church, we cannot help but think that the Church is in fact one, just as God is one. There is only one Christ, and therefore there can only be one body of Christ. This unity is not only an ideal and invisible unity. Orthodox theology rejects the separation of the (invisible) Church from the (visible) Church, and thus refuses to say that the Church from what is not seen is one, but to the extent that it appears clearly, it is fragmented. No, the Church is one in the sense that there is only one visible group on earth that can claim to be the true Church. The undivided church is not just something that existed in the past and that people hope will exist again in the future, but something that exists here and in the present. Unity is one of the basic characteristics that distinguishes the Church. Since the Church on earth, despite the sins of its members, maintains its main characteristics, it will always remain one in the present and in the future in a visible way. Some may split from the church, but never from splits in the church. Although such divisions on a human level impoverish the life of the Church in a terrible way, they do not affect at all the essence of the nature of the Church.

In its teachings on the subject of the visible unity of the Church, Orthodoxy appears much closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. But if we ask how this visible unity is maintained, Romans and the East will not give the same answers. In the Roman view, the Pope is the unifying principle, with his authority extending to the entire body of the Church, while the Orthodox do not believe that any bishop has comprehensive authority over the universe. What, then, achieves the unity of the Church for Orthodoxy? It is participation in the sacred mysteries. Orthodox theology about the Church is first and foremost the theology of the Church. Every local church is formed, according to Ignatius of Antioch, when believers gather around their bishop to perform the sacrament of thanksgiving. Likewise, the universal Church is formed by the fellowship of all the heads of the local churches with each other. Unity is not imposed from the outside by the authority of a Supreme Pontiff, but rather is generated from within when performing the sacrament of thanksgiving. The structure of the church is not a royal structure, based on the authority of one head. Rather, it is a collective structure that is formed through the partnership of the bishops among themselves and the partnership of each one of them with his people. The act of communion, then, is the measure of membership in the church. An individual loses his membership in the church if he breaks off communion with his bishop, and the bishop loses his membership in the church if he breaks off communion with other bishops.

Orthodoxy, which believes that the Church on earth is still one, and that it should remain so in a visible way, also believes that it is itself that one visible Church. This is a bold claim, and it may seem to many to be arrogant, but in doing so they have misunderstood the spirit that permeates Orthodoxy when it says this. The Orthodox believe that their Church is the true Church, not because of anyone's merit but by God's grace. They say with the Apostle Paul: “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surplus of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Corinthians 4:7). Although they believe that they are undeserving, the Orthodox are humbly convinced that they have received from God this unique gift and this precious treasure. If they claim not to have them, they will be committing treason against heaven.

There is no salvation outside the church:

Besides the teachings regarding the unity of the Church, Orthodoxy also teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. This belief is based on the same foundation as the belief that the unity of the Church cannot be ruptured, that is, it is based on the depth of the connection between God and His Church. As St. Cyprian says: “No man can take God as a father unless he takes the Church as a mother” {(On the Unity of the Universal Church), 6}. For him, this was an obvious truth, as he could not separate God from the Church. God's saving plan reaches us through his body, that is, in the church. (The strength of this saying (there is no salvation outside the Church) lies in its repetition: There is no salvation outside the Church because the Church is salvation) {Florovsky, (Catholicism of the Church) in (The Church of God), p. 53}. But should we conclude that everyone who does not belong to the church in a visible way must be doomed? Of course not, just as it is illogical to believe that visible affiliation with the Church necessarily means attaining salvation, as the Blessed Augustine wisely noted: (How many ewes are outside, and how many wolves are inside) {Sermons in the Gospel of John, 14, 12}. Just as there is no division between the (visible) Church and the (invisible) Church, there can be people in the Church whose membership God alone knows. We believe that in order to be saved, we must belong in some sense to the Church, but we are not always able to say in what sense and how to belong {see Chapter Seven of this book}.

Infallibility of the Church:

The Church is infallible, and infallibility is of course due to the indissoluble unity between God and the Church and to the fact that Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot fall into error. Since the Church is the body of Christ, and since it is a continuing Pentecostal, it cannot help but be infallible. It is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). (But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth) (John 16:13). Christ promised this during the Last Supper, and Orthodoxy believes that Christ's promise must be fulfilled. As Dositheus said: (We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and therefore we believe and acknowledge the absolute truth that it is impossible for the universal Church to fall into error, go astray, or choose a lie instead of the truth) {His Confession, 12}.

The Church expresses her infallibility in particular in ecumenical councils. But before we can realize the meaning of what the Ecumenical Council represents, we must recognize the position that both bishops and laity occupy in the Orthodox Church.

Bishops and laypeople:

The Orthodox Church is hierarchical. The apostolic succession of bishops is an essential element in its structure. Dositheus says: (The bishop is very necessary in the church, because without him the church or the Christian would not exist, and it would not be possible to even talk about them. The bishop is a living image of God on earth... and the source of all the mysteries of the universal Church through which we obtain salvation) {His Confession, 10}. Cyprian says: (If someone is against the bishop, he is outside the church) {Epistle 96, 8}.

Upon his election and ordination, the Orthodox bishop is given threefold authority:

• A- Management and direction.
• B- Education.
• C- Establishing secrets.

Firstly, The bishop is appointed by God to guide and lead the flock entrusted to him. He is a “king” in his diocese.

secondly, The bishop, upon his ordination, receives a special gift from the Holy Spirit by which he becomes a teacher of the faith. He performs this educational function in a particular way when he delivers the sermon during the Divine Liturgy. When other members of the Church - priests or lay people - preach sermons, they do so in their capacity as delegates from the bishop. But despite the special talent he has acquired, regret may be exposed to error in his teaching: the principle of “synergism” applies here as well, and the divine element does not exclude the human element. The bishop is a human being, and therefore he is subject to error. The Church is infallible, but people are not infallible.

Third, The bishop, as Dositheus says, is the “fountain of all secrets.” In the early Church, the bishop was the one who always performed the Eucharistic service, and when a priest celebrates the Divine Mass in our days, he does so as a representative of his bishop.

But the Church is not only hierarchical, but rather prophetic and moved by the gifts and graces of the Spirit. (Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies) (1 Thessalonians 5:19-20). The Holy Spirit descends on all of God's people. There is a special, consecrated priesthood composed of bishops, priests, and deacons, but the entire People of God is a people of prophets and priests at the same time. There were, in the Apostolic Church, in addition to the grace of the priesthood transmitted by the laying on of hands, other gifts granted directly by the Holy Spirit: The Apostle Paul mentioned in this regard (the gifts of healing), (speaking in tongues), and (working wonders), and so on (1 Corinthians 28). :12-30).

These gifts are rarely found in our days, but the Church has never been devoid of them. For example, we mention the gift of “spiritual eldership” in Russia during the nineteenth century, which was not granted by special ordination, but rather was exercised by the laity, the bishop, or the priest alike. Seraphim of Sarovsky and the Fathers of Optino in that era had an influence greater than that of any bishop.

Recently, some Russian immigrant theologians have highlighted this (spiritual) aspect versus the (institutional) aspect of church life. Some Byzantine fathers, including Simeon the New Theologian, had previously stressed this aspect. More than once in the history of Orthodoxy, the Charismatics came into conflict with the church leadership. But there is no contradiction in the end between these two elements of the Church, as both are moved by the same Holy Spirit.

The bishop has the powers of a king and a ruler, but these expressions must not be understood in a purely literal sense, because the bishop in exercising his powers is guided by the law of Christian love. He is not a tyrant, but a father. This Orthodox position towards the bishop is clearly expressed in one of the prayers of the bishops’ ordination service: (You, O Christ, make this one appointed as an administrator of the grace of the presidency of the priesthood, following your example, O true shepherd, laying down his life for your sheep, a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, a trainer of the ignorant, a teacher of children. A lamp in the world, so that when he educates the souls entrusted to him in the present life, he will stand before your altar without shame and obtain the great reward that you have prepared for those who strive to teach your gospel.

The authority of the bishop is essentially the authority of the church. No matter how great his privileges are, he can never be above the church, but rather remains a privileged person in the church. The bishop and the people constitute an organic unit that cannot be separated from each other. Without a bishop, there will be no Orthodox people. But there will be no true bishop without Orthodox people. Cyprian says: (The church is the people in union, and the bishop is the flock connected to its shepherd. The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop) {Epistle 96, 8}.

The relationships between the bishop and his flock are mutual relationships: the bishop is appointed by God to teach the faith, but bishops are not the only ones who protect the faith. Rather, it is the entire people of God, bishops, priests, and lay people, who preserve the faith. Proclaiming the truth is not the same as possessing it. Believers possess the truth, but it is the job of the bishop to proclaim it. Infallibility pertains to the Church as a whole and does not pertain to bishops individually. The Orthodox Patriarchs had previously written to Pope Pius IX in the year 1848: (No patriarch or council can introduce new teaching into our ranks, because the preserver of the faith is the body of the Church itself, that is, the entire people) {See the full text of the letter in (a synodal and episcopal letter) Al-Noor Publications (publisher)}.

Commenting on this statement, Khomyakov wrote: “The Pope is greatly mistaken in his belief that we consider the clerical administration to be the custodian of doctrines. The reality is completely different. The integrity of the doctrine and its stability in the truth are not related to the hierarchical clerical system, but rather are protected by the community, by each people.” The Church, which is the Body of Christ) {From a letter mentioned in Birkbeck’s book: (Russia and the English Church), p. 94}.

Ecumenical councils:

This concept of the status of the people and their place in the Church should remain fresh in mind when we look at the nature of the Ecumenical Council: the people do not teach, but rather preserve. Therefore, although the laity can attend councils and actively participate in their work, only bishops make final decisions on matters of faith by virtue of their gift of teaching.

But some councils of bishops may fall into error or go astray. So, how can we be sure that a council is in fact an ecumenical council so that its decisions are ultimately infallible? Many councils considered themselves ecumenical and claimed to speak on behalf of the entire Church, but the Church later rejected them on the grounds that they were heretical. It suffices to bring to mind the Council of Ephesus in the year 449, the Council of Hiaria against icons in the year 754, and the Council of Florence in the year 1438-1439, provided that these councils appear from the external aspect as if they do not differ from the Ecumenical Councils. So what are the evidences by which the authentic ecumenical council can be determined?

The issue is more difficult than it seems at first. Despite the many studies conducted by the Orthodox on it during the last hundred years, we cannot say that it has reached satisfactory results. All Orthodox are aware of the seven councils that their church considers ecumenical, but the concept of what makes them ecumenical is actually less clear. It should be recognized that some points of Orthodox theology regarding councils are still ambiguous and require more thought and effort by theologians. With this deficiency in mind, let us look at the current Orthodox trend on this subject.

The opinion of Khomyakov and his school in this regard seems clear and unambiguous at first glance: the council cannot be considered ecumenical unless its decisions are accepted by the entire Church. The councils of Florence, Hiaria, and others, although they had ecumenical aspects, were not ecumenical because they did not receive the approval of the entire church. (It can be commented on by saying that the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was rejected by Egypt and Syria. Can it then be said that it was accepted by the (entire) Church?) Khomyakov also says: The bishops, as teachers of the faith, determine the truth and announce it in the councils, but their determinations should be respected. After that, with the approval of all the people of God, including the laity, because it is the people of God as a whole that preserves the honorable tradition. Other Orthodox theologians view this point of view with some caution, as they believe that it would jeopardize episcopal privileges and make the idea of the Church too (democratic). However, Khomyakov's theory, when put in a careful and balanced form, remains generally accepted in the eyes of contemporary Orthodox thought.

It is self-evident that the acceptance of the decisions of a council by the entire Church should not be understood in a legal sense: (This does not mean that the decisions of the councils should be concluded within the framework of a general popular referendum, and that they are not acceptable without this referendum. There is no referendum of this kind, but From historical experience, we know that the voice of a council must be revealed whether it is truly the voice of the Church or not. That is all there is to it) {Father Sergius Bulgakov: (The Orthodox Church), p. 89}.

In a true ecumenical council, the bishops recognize and proclaim the truth. This declaration is confirmed by approval by the entire Christian people, an approval that is not expressed through declaration and disclosure, but rather is a lived approval.

Likewise, it is not the number of members or their geographical affiliation that achieves the ecumenism of a council: (The Ecumenical Council is considered this way, not because accredited representatives of the Council of Autonomous Churches participated in it, but because it bore witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church) {Metropolitan Seraphim, (The Orthodox Church), p. 51}.

The ecumenism of a council cannot be defined by external standards only: (Truth has no external standard as it is clear in itself and is internally self-evident) {Vladimir Lossky, (Introduction to the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church), p. 188}. The infallibility of the Church cannot be clearly expressed, nor can it be understood in the (material) sense: (It is not the ecumenism of the councils, but rather their reality that makes their decisions binding on us. Here we touch the essential secret of the Orthodox doctrine about the Church: the Church is the marvel of God’s presence among human beings, and that is beyond Every explicit (norm) or (infallibility) is declared. It is not enough to call the Ecumenical Council to convene... Rather, the one who said: (I am the way, the truth, and the life) must also join the ranks of those gathered. Without this presence, no matter how many councils there are and how comprehensive they are in terms of representation. It will not have its place within the truth. It is usually difficult for Protestants and Catholics to understand this basic truth in Orthodoxy. They and those express the presence of God in the Church in a material form - some in the letter of the Bible, others in the person of the Pope - and in doing so they do not put the miracle aside, but They clothe it in concrete form: As for Orthodoxy, the only “standard of truth” remains God himself, God who lives secretly in the Church, guiding her to the path of truth) {Father Jan Meyendorff, the text is mentioned in the book of Father Le Guillot: (Evangelization and Union), Paris , 1960, Part Two, p. 313}.

The living and the dead:

In God and in the Church, there is no separation between the living and the dead, they are all one in the love of the Father. Whether we are alive or dead, as members of the Church, we always belong to the same family, and our responsibility continues to bear each other's burdens. Just as the Orthodox Christian prays for others and asks them to pray for him, he also prays for the dead believers and asks for their prayers as well. Death does not sever the bond of mutual love that binds all members of the Church together.

Praying for the deceased

(You, O Lord, give rest to the souls of your servants, where the righteous rest, where there is neither pain nor sorrow nor sighing, but life that does not perish.)

(O God of all souls and bodies, you who trampled death and abolished the power of Satan and gave life to your world, you, O Lord, rest the souls of your formerly asleep servants in a bright place, in a place of greenness, in a place of freshness, where there is no pain, no sorrow, and no sighing. Forgive them every sin. They did it by word, deed, or thought.)

This is how the Orthodox Church prays for the departed believers. The Orthodox believe that it is the duty of the living to pray for the deceased, and that these prayers are beneficial for the dead. In order to know how prayer helps the dead, we must know the condition of their souls throughout the period from death until the resurrection of the body, on the last day. Most Orthodox theologians reject the idea of purgatory (according to Catholic teaching, souls go to purgatory to atone for their sins there through torment), at least in this form. The majority believes that deceased believers are never tormented. But there is another school that says that they may be tormented, but their torment has a purifying and not an expiatory nature. This is because when a person dies in the grace of God, God forgives him for his sins, and does not impose punishments on him to atone for them: Christ, the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world, is the only one who saves us and makes atonement for us. However, there is a third school that leaves the issue in limbo. This school says: Let us avoid delving into the details related to life after death, and instead let us maintain a kind of disapproval and agnosticism. One day, Saint Anthony the Great was wondering about the Divine Mass, and he heard a voice saying to him: (Be careful, Anthony, for these matters are God’s decree, and you are not allowed to violate them) {(Sayings of the Desert Fathers), Anthony, 2}.

Saints

Simeon the New Theologian says that the saints form a golden chain: (The Holy Trinity encompasses all human beings, from the first to the last, from their heads to their feet, and draws them together... The saints of each generation join the saints who came before them, and in their likeness they are filled with light and form with them a golden chain in which they form Every saint is a distinct link, connected to the two neighboring links by the path of faith, love, and good deeds. Thus, they all form one chain connected to God, and this chain is not easily broken) {The Hundred Chapters, 3, 2-4}.

This is the Orthodox idea of the communion of saints: a chain of mutual love and prayer in which all members of the Church on earth (called to holiness) have their place.

Every Orthodox can, in his private life, ask any member of the Church, whether his sainthood has been declared or not, to mention him in his prayers, and it is very natural for an orphan child to end his prayers asking not only for the intercession of the Mother of God and the saints, but also for the intercession of his parents. But in corporate worship, the Church directs her prayers only to those who have been declared saintly. However, on some exceptional occasions, some collective prayers were held to request the intercession of people who had not yet been officially canonized. During the era of the Ottoman Empire, the Greek Church took the initiative to commemorate its martyrs without an official declaration of their holiness, in order to avoid attracting the attention of the Turks. The request for the intercession of these (new martyrs) began in most cases based on a spontaneous popular initiative. The same thing happened with the new martyrs in Russia. In many places, inside and outside the borders of the Soviet Union, these martyrs were commemorated as saints, knowing that the current circumstances of the Russian Church make it impossible to officially declare their sainthood.

Honoring saints is closely related to honoring icons. The Orthodox hang icons not only in their churches, but also in every room of their homes, as well as in cars and buses. This constant presence of icons serves as a point of contact between living members of the Church and those who came before them. The icon helps the Orthodox not to look at the saints as if they were mythical images from the distant past, but rather encourages them to look at them as contemporary people and as personal friends.

On the day of his baptism, the Orthodox takes the name of a saint (as a symbol of his entry into the unity of the Church, not only the Church on earth, but also the Church in Heaven) {Peter Kovalevsky, (An Exposition of the Orthodox Catholic Faith), Paris, 1957, p. 16}. He then expresses in a special way his attachment to the saint whose name he bears, generally placing his icon in his room and directing his daily prayers to him. He also celebrates the feast of his patron saint, and this feast is more important, among most Orthodox peoples, than the physical day of birth.

The Orthodox Christian prays not only to the saints, but also to the angels, especially his guardian angel. And the angels (they erect a fence around us with their intercession that protects us just as they protect us under the shade of their wings of intangible glory) {from the service of the Feast of the Archangels}.

Mother of God {See (Orthodox Views on the Mother of God) in the series (Get to Know Your Church), Al-Nour Publications, 1983 (publisher)}

The Virgin Mary has a special status among all saints, and the Orthodox venerate her as “more honorable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim.” While the Mother of God is glorified and honored in this way, it is important to note that the Orthodox Church never calls for her to be worshiped as we worship God. The distinction is very clear in the linguistic expression of Greek theology: there is a special word dedicated to the worship of God (Latreia), while there are different expressions used in honor of the Virgin: (Duleia, Hyperduleia, Proskynesis).

Mary is mentioned most often when holding Orthodox liturgical services and is usually called by her full title: (All-Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed, Glorious, Our Lady, Mother of God, Ever-Virgin, Mary). It is a title that includes the three main epithets that the Orthodox Church dedicates to Our Lady: (Theotokos), (Eternal Virginity) (Aeparthenos), and (Panagia). The first of these titles was granted to the Virgin by the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesians 431). As for the second title, it was stated by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople 553) {At first glance, the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity appears to be in conflict with the text of the Bible, according to the Gospel of Mark (3:31), which mentions the phrase (siblings) of Jesus. But the Greek word also means a brother from one of the parents, a cousin, or even a relative, in addition to the true meaning of (brother). As for the title (All Holiness), it has not been defined doctrinally, but rather it is accepted and used by all Orthodox.

The name “Mother of God” is of utmost importance, because it is the key to Orthodox worship directed to the Virgin. We honor Mary because she is the mother of our God. We do not honor her separately from him, but because of her relationship with Christ. Thus, the honor that is given to Mary does not detract from the worship of God at all, but on the contrary. The more we appreciate Mary, the more we know about the majesty of her Son, because in honor of the Son we baptize in honoring the Mother.

We honor the mother for her son. The Orthodox teaching regarding the Mother of God stems from her teaching about Christ. When the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus emphasized calling Mary the Mother of God, this was not with the intention of glorifying her, but rather in order to preserve the true doctrine related to the person of Christ. Whoever thinks about all the implications of this basic phrase: (And the Word became flesh), must bow with respect before the one who was chosen to be an instrument of this great mystery. And those who refuse to honor Mary are the same ones who do not truly believe in the Incarnation.

But it is not only because she is the Mother of God that the Orthodox honor Mary, but also because she is “all holiness.” Among all of God's creatures, she is the highest example of the synergy between God's provision and human freedom. God, who always respects human freedom, did not want him to be incarnated without the free consent of his mother. He waited for her spontaneous answer: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38). She could have refused. She was not only indifferent, but she participated willingly in the mystery of the incarnation. As Nicholas Capsilas said: (The incarnation was not only the act of the Father, His power, and His Spirit... but it was also the act of the will and faith of the Virgin... And just as God was incarnated of His own free will, so He willed that His mother should conceive Him with her full freedom and consent) {On the Annunciation, 4-5 }.

Just as Christ is the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve, the one whose obedience to God's will created a balance with Eve's disobedience in Paradise. (Thus, what was complicated by Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. And what the Virgin Eve bound in her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed in her faith) {Irenaeus, (Against Heresies), 3, 22, 4}. (Death is through Eve and life is through Mary) {Irenaeus, his epistle 22, 21}.

The Orthodox Church calls Mary “all-holy,” just as it calls her “pure,” who is “immaculate.” All Orthodox believe that she never committed any actual sin. But have you also been freed from original sin? In other words, does Orthodoxy agree with the Catholic doctrine proclaimed by Pope Pius The Orthodox Church has never issued an official statement on this subject. But since the year 1854, the majority of Orthodox have rejected this new doctrine for many reasons: it seems useless, and, as the Catholics defined it, includes a mistaken interpretation of original sin, and it is also a cause for doubt because it favors Mary over the descendants of Adam, placing her separately from all the other righteous men and women of the Old Testament. .

But Orthodoxy, which rejects the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, firmly believes in the bodily assumption of the Virgin. Our Lady, like all other human beings, knew natural death, but the resurrection of her body occurred before everyone else. Therefore, she has transcended death and judgment and lives from now on in the age to come. But it is not completely separated from humanity, because we hope to one day share in the glory of the body it already enjoys.

This belief in the Assumption of the Mother of God is expressed unambiguously in the pieces that the Church sings on August 15, the feast day of the Dormition of Our Lady. But Orthodoxy, unlike the Roman Church, has not resorted to declaring the doctrine of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin, and it never intends to do so. The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have been declared as doctrines, because they are related to the preaching of the Church, but the glorification of the Virgin is considered part of the internal tradition of the Church: (It is difficult to speak and even more difficult to think about the secrets that the Church keeps in the hidden depth of her inner conscience... and the Mother of God has never been the subject of apostolic preaching. While Christ was preached on the rooftops and proclaimed over the heads of witnesses through a unified religious teaching for the entire universe, the mystery of the Mother of God was announced only to those within the Church... It is more than a display of faith, it is the basis of our hope, the fruit of faith that has matured from tradition. Let us therefore be silent and refrain from introducing glory. The Most High Mother of God in the Scope of Doctrine) {Vladimir Lossky, (Panagia), in the book (The Mother of God), Mascall Publications, p. 35}.

Eschatology:

For the Christian, there are ultimately only two realities: heaven and hell. The Church is waiting for the final exhaustion of time, waiting for what theology calls Apocatastasis in Greek, meaning (the restoration of all), when Christ returns victorious to judge the living and the dead. This (restoration) also includes, as we saw previously, redemption and glorification of matter. On the Day of Judgment, the righteous will rise from their graves and take on a body again, but it is not a body like the one we know. Rather, it is a transfigured (spiritual) body, in which inner holiness is clearly visible. It will not be only the human body that will be transformed, but rather the entire creation will be transformed, as God creates a new heaven and a new earth.

However, hell exists just as heaven exists. In recent years, many Christians - not only in the West but also in the Orthodox Church - have come to believe that the idea of hell is incompatible with the idea of a loving God. But this only indicates confusion in thinking. Yes, God loves us with an infinite love, but He gave us free will, and since we are free we can reject God. Since freedom exists, hell exists because it is nothing but the rejection of God. If we denied the existence of hell, we would automatically deny freedom of destiny. Mark the Hermit wrote (beginning of the fifth century): (No one matches God in kindness and mercy, but He does not forgive those who do not repent) {(Among those who consider that they are justified by works), 71}. God does not force us to love Him, because love is only true to the extent that it is freedom. So how can God bring back to Him those who reject all reconciliation?

The Orthodox position on the Day of Judgment and Hell is clearly expressed in the Gospel readings adopted by the Church on the three Sundays preceding Great Lent. It is the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector on the first Sunday, and then the parable of the prodigal son on the second Sunday, both of which express God’s vast mercy and forgiveness toward the repentant sinner. But in the Gospel of the Third Sunday (Judgment Sunday), the parable of the sheep and the goats brings back to our memory that we can reject God and choose hell: (Then he will say to those on the left: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire) (Matthew 25:41).

There is no terrorism in the Orthodox doctrine of God. Orthodox Christians do not crawl before Him in panic and shrouded in servile fear, because they know that He is a “philanthropos.” But that does not prevent them from recognizing that at his second coming, Christ will come as judge.

Hell is not a place where God imprisons man, but rather it is a place where man imprisons himself as a result of his abuse of his freedom. Even in hell, sinners are not deprived of God's love, but as a result of their choice, they experience in torment what the saints experience in bliss. (Love of God becomes an unbearable torment for those who have not acquired it within themselves) {Vladimir Lossky, the aforementioned book, p. 234}.

Hell exists as a logical possibility, yet many fathers believed that in the end everyone, without exception, would return to God. To say that everyone should be saved is a kind of heresy, because that denies freedom of destiny. But one has the right to hope that all may be saved. Until the last day, we should not despair of anyone's salvation, but rather hope and pray for everyone's reconciliation with God. No one should be excluded from our prayers filled with love. Ishaq Al-Syriani asks: (What guides us to the merciful heart? It is the heart that burns with love for the entire creation, for humans, birds, animals, and devils, for all creatures) {(Sufi articles) in (Nasqiyat) by Ishaq Al-Syriani, in the Fathers of the Church series, Al-Nour Publications. }. Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians can even hope for the salvation of Satan.

The Bible ends on a note of eager expectation: (Come, Lord Jesus!) (Revelation 22:20). The early Christians prayed in the same spirit: (May grace come and the world go on). These early Christians were mistaken in believing that the end of the world was so close. Two thousand years had passed and it had not yet come. We do not know the times and times, and the current situation may also continue for thousands of years. But these early Christians were right on the other hand: whether the end comes sooner or later, it is always spiritually expected to appear, even if it is not the case temporally. The day of the Lord will come (like a thief in the night) (1 Thessalonians 5:2), when the sons of men do not expect His presence. Christians, then, as in the days of the apostles, must always be prepared and be in constant anticipation. One of the encouraging signs of the renaissance in contemporary Orthodoxy is the renewed awareness of the Second Coming and its importance. (When he asked one of the priests, during his visit to Russia, what was the most pressing issue for the Russian Church, one of the priests answered him without hesitation: It is the issue of the Second Coming (Parousia) {Paul Evdokimov, (Orthodoxy), p. 9}.

But this second coming is not an event that concerns the future alone, because the age to come, in the life of the Church, is dawning from now on. For the members of the Church of God, the “last days” have begun since they are already reaping the first fruits of the Kingdom of God. (Come, Lord Jesus) ! It comes from now on in the Divine Liturgy and in church worship.

Book: The Orthodox Church: Faith and Doctrine
Chapter Three: The Church of God
Written by: Bishop Callistus (Timothy) Ware