…so that you may know how to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1).

§122. Connection to the Previous Section, the Importance of the Subject, the Church’s Teaching on It, and the Division of the Teaching

Until now, we have been, so to speak, in the sanctuary of Orthodox dogmatic theology; now we enter the Holy of Holies. The Christian religion is not merely a religion, but specifically a restored religion. The dogmas concerning God in Himself and in His general relationship to the world and to humanity—which we have previously sought to study—belong to Christianity as a religion in general and would have had a place in the original religion, had humanity preserved it: for even Adam knew no other God but the true God—that is, the Triune God, the Creator and Provider—to whom he was bound to obey and render due honor; in this, his primitive religion was expressed. Now we shall expound the dogmas belonging to Christianity specifically as a restored religion, — dogmas concerning God the Savior and His special, supernatural relationship to fallen humanity, dogmas that could not have existed in the religion of the primeval age and constitute the very core and essence of the Gospel message. “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23); “I resolved to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2), said St. Paul the Apostle, wishing to highlight the central theme of the Christian gospel.

The importance of these dogmas is further heightened for us by their special closeness to us. Previously, in the light of Revelation, we contemplated God as the Supreme Being, with His infinite perfections, in His unapproachable Trinity; we contemplated God the Creator and Provider, common to all creatures, and among them, to us as well. Now we shall behold God drawing near to us to the utmost degree and sincerely partaking of our flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14); we will see Him, above all, as our God, as our Recreator, our Provider, our Redeemer, and our Rewarder, who, if He extends the blessings granted to us to other creatures as well, does so only through us.

The main features of Orthodox teaching on this subject—so important and so close to us—are contained in the last ten articles of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and are set forth as follows:

3. For our sake and for our salvation, He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

4. Who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered, and was buried.

5. And He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

6. And ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

7. And He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.

8. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, of whom the prophets spoke.

9. In the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

10. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

11. I look forward to the resurrection of the dead,

12. and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Here, the great work of our salvation is presented from two perspectives: first, as a work belonging exclusively to God the Savior, who accomplished it through His only-begotten Son, who became incarnate, suffered on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father (Articles 3–6); and second, as a work bestowed by God the Savior upon humanity, with the participation of the person himself—the believer, the confessor, the one who hopes— — appropriated through the Church, through baptism and the other sacraments by the grace of the life-giving Spirit, and for whose appropriation or failure to appropriate the Lord will one day come to judge the living and the dead and to reward each according to their deeds in the life of the age to come (Articles 7–12). In other words: what is set forth here is the doctrine—

1) about God the Savior in Himself, as the One who accomplished our salvation, and—

2) about God the Savior in His special relationship to the human race.

Section I.
On God the Savior

God, through Christ, has reconciled the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19).

§123. Contents of this section

In Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the work of our salvation is attributed both to God in general, as a common work of all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity; and—in particular—to the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, to accomplish this work, came down to earth, became incarnate, suffered, and died on the cross. That is why God in general is sometimes called our Savior—[1] —while at other times, in the strictest sense, the Son of God— —the Lord Jesus is called our Savior.[2] On this basis, and in expounding the doctrine of God the Savior, we will speak: 1) about God as our Savior in general, insofar as all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity participated in the work of our salvation, and—2) about our Lord Jesus Christ in particular, as the very Author and Finisher of our faith and salvation (Heb. 2:10, 12:2).

Chapter I.
On God as Our Savior in General

§124. The Necessity of Divine Help for the Restoration of Man, Given Man’s Own Capacity Therefor

1) Man committed three great evils by failing to keep the original covenant with God: a) he infinitely offended his infinitely good, yet also boundlessly great and boundlessly just Creator through sin, and thereby incurred eternal condemnation [(Gen. 3:17–19); cf. (Gen. 27:26)]; b) defiled with sin his entire being, which had been created good: he clouded his mind, corrupted his will, and distorted the image of God within himself; c) brought about, through sin, consequences that were ruinous for himself in his own nature and in the external world.[3] Consequently, in order to save man from all these evils, to reunite him with God, and to make him blessed once again, it was necessary: a) to satisfy God’s infinite justice—which had been offended by man’s fall—on behalf of the sinner—not because God sought vengeance, but because no attribute of God can be deprived of its proper action: without fulfilling this condition, man would forever remain, before God’s justice, a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), a child of the curse (Gal. 3:10), and reconciliation—the reunion of God with man—could not even begin; b) to eradicate sin from the whole being of man, to enlighten his mind, to correct his will, and to restore the image of God within him: for, even after God’s justice had been satisfied, if man’s nature remained sinful and impure, if his mind remained in darkness and the image of God distorted, communion between God and man could not take place, just as there can be no communion between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14); c) to eradicate the ruinous consequences produced by human sin in human nature and in the external world: for even if the reunion of God with man were to begin and take place, the latter could not become blessed again as long as he either felt within himself or experienced from without these calamitous consequences.

Who, then, could fulfill all these conditions? No one but the one true God.

To fulfill the first condition—that is, to satisfy God’s justice for human sin—an atoning sacrifice was required that was as infinitely great as the offense committed by man against God, and as infinite as eternal justice itself. But no human being could offer such a sacrifice: for all people, without exception, are entirely tainted by sin, and consequently are all and entirely under God’s curse. And therefore, no matter what each of them might offer—whether for themselves or for others—no matter what deeds they might perform, no matter what hardships and sufferings they might endure—none of this could be pleasing to God, nor could it appease Him: “No man can atone for his brother or give God a ransom for him” (Ps. 48:8).[4] Not even the highest of the created spirits could have offered such an infinitely great sacrifice to God on behalf of a human being, even if they had wished to: on the one hand, because the sacrifice of a created spirit—or even of all of them together, whatever it might consist of—cannot, by virtue of their very limitations, have infinite value; and on the other hand, because created spirits do not perform any good deeds of their own accord, but through the grace of God ([5] , et seq.); thus, all their self-sacrifices for the benefit of humanity would not belong to them alone and could not merit credit in the eyes of God’s justice. Only the most wise and almighty God could provide and offer such an atoning sacrifice for human sins, one fully sufficient to satisfy infinite justice.[6]

In order to fulfill the second condition—namely, to consume sin in the whole being of man, to enlighten his mind, to correct his will, and to restore the image of God in him— — it required nothing less than the recreation of man: for sin is not something external to us; on the contrary, it has permeated our entire nature, infected all our powers with its poison, and corrupted our faculties; it damages each of us at the very seed and root—because in sin we are all conceived, and in sin we are born. But to recreate man, without a doubt, was never possible either for man himself—sick, weak, and deprived of God’s grace—or for any of the angels, whose power is limited. Only He who created man in the beginning, and who said of Himself, “I, even I, am the one who blots out your transgressions for My own sake” [(Isa. 43:25); cf. (Ps. 102:3)], could recreate and purify man from his sins.[7]

Finally, in order to destroy the very consequences produced by human sin in human nature and in the external world—to destroy sickness, suffering, and death, and to destroy that disorder and vanity to which creation was subjected not willingly but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope (Rom. 8:20)— it is necessary to recreate not only man, but all of nature, as is evident from the very nature of the aforementioned consequences. All the more so, therefore, neither man nor any angel could fulfill this last condition, but only God alone could fulfill it.[8]

2) But while unable to rise up by his own power and fulfill all the conditions necessary for this purpose, fallen man nevertheless retained within himself the possibility of being restored by divine power. Through the Fall, he distorted within himself the image of God, which constitutes the foundation of religion within us; but he did not erase or destroy it within himself, and consequently did not lose the capacity for reunion with God. He clouded his mind; but not to such an extent that he became incapable of recognizing and accepting even the ready-made truth communicated from above. He corrupted his will, and inclined it toward evil; but not to the point where it became utterly evil and no longer desired or loved the good.[9] On the other hand, having become, through the Fall, decisively unaccountable before the judgment of God’s righteousness, fallen man nevertheless proved not to be unworthy of God’s mercy. He willfully violated the commandment of his Creator—a commandment that was easy to keep, even though he had every incentive and every means to fulfill it—but he violated it because of the devil’s temptation, not out of any stubbornness, nor out of deliberate and fierce opposition to God’s will, as the devil himself fell. Our forefather sinned; but afterward he meekly bore the punishment decreed for him by God, and spent his entire life—spanning many centuries—in repentance. The subsequent history of the human race shows that, no matter how far people gradually strayed from truth and righteousness, the sense of religion was never entirely extinguished within them: they sought God, though, in their blindness, they were for the most part unable to find Him; they strove to serve and please Him, though, for the same reason, not in the proper manner; they sought to appease Him for their transgressions and to be reconciled with Him through various sacrifices, ablutions, and other means, though they were unable to achieve their goal. St. Macarius of Egypt beautifully compares fallen man—powerless to rise by his own strength, yet longing and capable, with help from above, to rise—to an infant seeking its mother. “It is unjust,” says the great ascetic, “to hold the view, as some do, that a person is completely dead and incapable of anything good. An infant, though unable to do anything or come to its mother on its own, still moves, cries out, and weeps, seeking its mother. The mother takes pity on it and rejoices that it seeks her with such effort and weeping. And although the child cannot reach her, she herself comes to him, moved by her love for the child; she takes him in her arms, presses him to her breast, and nurses him with great tenderness: so does the philanthropic God act toward the soul that turns to Him and seeks Him.”[10] Thus, we might say, God acted toward the entire human race—fallen, yet seeking Him and possessing the capacity for redemption.

§125. The Means Chosen by God for the Restoration or Redemption of Man and the Significance of This Means

God found a means for the restoration of humanity in which mercy and truth met, and righteousness and peace kissed one another (Ps. 84:11), and in which His perfections were manifested to the highest degree and in complete harmony. This means consists of the following:

The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the only-begotten Son of God, voluntarily chose to become man, to take upon Himself all human sins, to endure for them all that the righteous will of God had decreed, and in this way to satisfy eternal justice on our behalf, to atone for our sins, to destroy their very consequences within us and in the external world—that is, to restore peace. In the Word of God, this great work is depicted as a covenant between God the Father and God the Son, who, as He went out into the world, said to the Father: “Burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin are not pleasing to You.” Then I said, ‘Here I am—as it is written about Me at the beginning of the book—to do Your will, O God’ [(Heb. 10:6–7); cf. Ps. 39:7–9)].

A means most worthy of God and His perfections! Here His infinite goodness was revealed: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). His infinite justice was revealed when such an extraordinary, astonishing sacrifice was required to satisfy it: the death of the God-man, whom God offered as a sacrifice of atonement through His blood by faith, to demonstrate His righteousness in the forgiveness of sins committed previously (Rom. 3:25). His infinite wisdom was revealed, which thus found a way to reconcile, in the work of human redemption, eternal righteousness with eternal goodness, to satisfy both, and to save the lost, — a way that no created mind could ever have conceived, and which is therefore called preeminently the wisdom of God, a mystery, a secret (1 Cor. 3:7), a mystery hidden from ages and generations (Col. 1:26). Divine omnipotence was revealed, which was able to unite in the one person of the God-Man two natures—the divine and the human—that are infinitely separated from one another, and to unite them inseparably, immutably, and indivisibly. Or let us hear how St. John of Damascus reflects on this: “Here,” he says, “both God’s goodness and wisdom, and His truth and omnipotence, are revealed together. Goodness is evident in that God did not despise the weaknesses of His own creation, but had mercy on the fallen and stretched out His hand to him. Justice is evident in the fact that, when man was defeated, God did not make anyone else the victor over the tormentor, nor did He forcibly snatch man from death; but the Good and Just One made the one whom death had once enslaved through sin the victor once more, and—though it seemed exceedingly difficult—He saved like with like. Wisdom is evident in the fact that God found the best way to avert a great difficulty. For, by the good pleasure of God the Father, the Only-Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, eternal, without beginning—He who was in the beginning, was with God the Father, God Himself, being the image of God (Phil. 2:6), bends the heavens and descends: that is, He humbles His unassailable height in an unassailable way, and descends to His servants with unspeakable and incomprehensible condescension (for this is what the word “descent” signifies). Being perfect God, He becomes perfect man, and out of all things new, the newest and the only new thing under the sun is brought into being (Eccl. 1:10), in which God’s infinite power is revealed. For what is more important than this—that God became man? And the Word became flesh without change through the Holy Spirit and the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God. The Word becomes the mediator between God and humankind. The one and only Lover of mankind, conceived in the immaculate womb of the Holy Virgin—not by will, or desire, or male union, or by lustful conception, but by the Holy Spirit—and in the image of Adam’s original state, is obedient to the Father; by taking upon Himself our nature, He heals our disobedience and serves as a model of obedience for us, without which salvation is impossible.”[11] St. Gregory the Theologian,[12] St. Basil the Great,[13] St. Gregory of Nyssa,[14] and others also expounded on this theology.[15]

However, while describing the means chosen by God for our redemption as fully consistent with His perfections, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church did not assert that this extraordinary means was absolutely necessary for the end, nor that the Almighty was otherwise unable to save humanity: He could have saved us in other ways; but of all the possible means for that end, He chose the very best. This idea is explained by:

St. Athanasius the Great: “God, without even coming into the world, could have simply spoken a word and thereby fulfilled the oath. But we must consider what is beneficial to people, rather than speculate on what is generally possible for God.”[16]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “For our sake, He (the Son of God) became man and took on the form of a servant; for our transgressions, He was led to death. This is what the Savior did, who, as God, could have saved us by a single act of will. But He did what is more important for us and what most humbles us: He became obedient to us and equal in honor.”[17]

Blessed Augustine: “To refute those who say: ‘Did God really have no other way to deliver people from the calamities of mortality? when He willed that His only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Him, should become man, taking on a human soul and body, and, having become mortal, tasted death—to refute such people, it is not enough merely to say that the way in which God was pleased to save us through the Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, is a good method and one befitting divine dignity; rather, it must be shown that other methods were also possible for God, to Whose authority all things are subject, but that there was not—and could not have been—any other method more suitable (convenientiorem) for healing our infirmity.”[18]

Blessed Theodoret: “It would have been very easy for Him, even without the Incarnation, to bring about the salvation of mankind, to destroy the dominion of death by a single act of will, and to completely eliminate the source of death—wickedness… But He desired to show not His power, but the righteousness (τό δίκαιον) of His providence.”[19]

St. Leo: “The Lord’s mercy is righteous: for although He had an innumerable multitude of means for the redemption of the human race, He chose this means above all others.”[20]

St. John of Damascus: “He became man so that the vanquished might triumph, and the Almighty might deliver man from the power of the tormentor by His almighty power and might; but then the tormentor would have had a pretext to complain that, though he had defeated man, he had suffered violence at the hands of God. Therefore, the merciful and philanthropic God, desiring to make the fallen one himself the victor, became man in order to restore like to like.”[21]

If, however, some of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church said that the Incarnation and death of the Son of God were necessary for the redemption of man, and that otherwise it would have been impossible to save him; they were speaking not of an unconditional necessity, but only of a conditional one, expressing the idea that since God Himself chose this means—He therefore deemed it necessary and the best of all possible means, so that any other means, in comparison with it, would already be insufficient for the purpose.[22]

§126. The participation of all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the work of redemption, and why was it specifically the Son who became incarnate for this purpose?

I. However, although the Incarnation of the Son of God was chosen as the best means for our redemption, both the Father and the Holy Spirit participated in this great work. This idea—a) follows naturally from the dogma that all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are consubstantial, share a single Divinity, a single will, and are inseparable in everything except their personal attributes; and therefore it is impossible for any one of Them to act solely on His own, without any participation of the other two;[23] b) is evident from those passages of Scripture where God is generally referred to as our Savior, accomplishing our salvation through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, such as, for example, the words of the Apostle: “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous deeds we had done, but because of His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:4–6). In particular, Holy Scripture presents the following relationship of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit to the work of the Incarnation and Redemption accomplished by the Son of God.

1) The Son of God came into the world and was incarnated of the Most Holy Virgin: and it is said of the Father that He sent His Son into the world (John 10:36) in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3), born of a woman (Gal. 4:4); and concerning the Holy Spirit, it was foretold to the Most Holy Virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35).[24]

2) The Son of God was baptized as He began His public ministry: “And behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. And behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (Matt. 3:16–17).

3) The Son of God preached throughout His public ministry—and at the same time testified: “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16); “For I did not speak on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me—He has commanded Me what to say and how to speak” (John 12:49); and concerning the Holy Spirit, He said even before the beginning of His ministry: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:18–19).

4) The Son of God performed miracles to prove the divinity of His teaching and His mission—and He said: “The Father who dwells in Me—He is the one who does the works” (John 14:10; note 25), and also: “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has certainly come upon you” (Matt. 12:28).[25]

5) The Son of God, for our redemption, died on the cross in His flesh; and the Apostle teaches that the Father “did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32), and, in another passage, that Christ “through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb. 9:14).

6) The Son of God rose from the dead in the flesh on the third day, according to the testimony of St. Paul (Rom. 14:9)—and the same Apostle writes: “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you” [(Rom. 8:11); cf. (1 Cor. 15:15); (1 Thess. 1:10); (Eph. 1:20)].

II. Why, then, did the Son of God alone become incarnate to accomplish our salvation, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, even though They also participated in this work? This is a mystery of the Godhead. However, based on what has been revealed to us about the divine Persons and the work of our redemption, the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church found the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity to be most consistent with His attributes—

1) As the Son. “The Father is the Father, not the Son,” says St. John of Damascus, “and the Son is the Son, not the Father; the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, not the Father nor the Son; for the personal nature is unchangeable. How else could it remain a personal nature if it were to change and be communicated? Therefore, the Son of God becomes the Son of Man so that the personal nature may remain unchangeable. Being the Son of God, He became the Son of Man by being incarnated from the Holy Virgin, without abandoning the attribute that constitutes the distinguishing mark of the Son.”[26] St. Gregory the Theologian,[27] Gennadius of Massilia [28] , and others reasoned in the same way.[29]

2) As the Person through whom (δία) all things were created, and in particular, man was created (John 1:3). St. Athanasius, citing the Apostle’s words: “For it was fitting that He, for whom and through whom all things exist, and who brings many sons to glory, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10), remarks: “These words mean that it was fitting for no one other than God the Word—the very One who created them in the beginning—to deliver people from the corruption that had come upon them.”[30] Or consider the words of St. Leo, Pope of Rome: “In the incomprehensible unity of the Trinity, in which all works and counsels are perfectly shared, the restoration of the human race was undertaken by the Son Himself, so that the very One through whom all things came to be, and without whom ‘nothing that has come to be had come to be’ (John 1:3)—who breathed the breath of rational life into man, created from the dust of the earth—that very same One restored our fallen nature to its former dignity, and became the re-creator of that which He had created.”[31] These ideas are also found in the writings of St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Blessed Augustine.[32]

3) As the eternal Word, who alone could reveal God to us (John 1:1–18). “Otherwise,” writes St. Irenaeus, “we could not have learned what is proper to God if our Teacher, the hypostatic Word, had not become man: no one else could have revealed the Father to us except His own Word.”[33]

4) As the image of God (Heb. 1:3), in whose image man was created. “What was God to do,” asks St. Athanasius, “or what was necessary, if not to restore in man that which is in the image, so that through this people might once again come to know Him? And how could this have been accomplished if the very image of God, our Savior Jesus Christ, had not come to earth? Human beings could not do this, for they are all created only in the image. Nor could the angels, for they, too, are not the image. Therefore, the Word of God Himself appeared so that, being the image of the Father, He might recreate man, who was created in the image.”[34]

All of this clearly reveals the wise harmony of all God’s actions. Just as the Father created all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit, and just as He providentially governs all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit—[35] —so too did He deign to recreate us through that same Son in the Holy Spirit. This harmony is evidently based on the very order of the Persons of the consubstantial Trinity.

§127. The Motivation for the Work of Redemption and the Purpose of the Son of God’s Coming to Earth

I. Why did the Triune God deign to redeem us? There is only one reason: His infinite love for us sinners. “God demonstrates His love for us,” says the Holy Apostle, “in that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.” (Rom. 5:8), and elsewhere: “God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— — and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might display the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:4–5, 7). In particular, the infinite love of the following was manifested here: a) God the Father: “God’s love for us was revealed in this: that God sent His only Son into the world so that we might have life through Him” (1 John 4:9; cf. John 3:16); b) God the Son, who Himself testified: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), and “showed by His deeds that, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the very end” (John 13:1), and laid down His life for them; c) God the Holy Spirit: “for through Him we both have access to the Father in one Spirit” (Eph. 2:18), and: “by His mercy, through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). Therefore, the entire work of our redemption is called a work of mercy and grace: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8); “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people” (Titus 2:11). The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously recognized God’s infinite love for humanity as the reason for the Redeemer’s coming into the world.[36] “The Son of God, seated at the right hand of the Father,” says St. Chrysostom, for example, “desired and resolved to be our brother in every way. For this reason, having left the angels and the higher powers, He came to us and took us upon Himself…; He took on our flesh solely out of love for humanity, in order to have mercy on us: there is no other reason for such a union except this one.”[37] “O wondrous union! O wondrous dissolution!” exclaims St. Gregory the Theologian, “The Full begins to exist; the Uncreated is created; the Incomprehensible is comprehended through the rational soul, mediating between the Godhead and coarse flesh; The One who is rich becomes poor—becomes poor even to the point of my flesh, so that I might be enriched by His Divinity; The One who is full is emptied—is emptied, if only for a time, of His glory, so that I might share in His fullness. What a wealth of goodness!”[38]

II. As for the purpose of the Embassy and the coming of the Son of God into the world, the Holy Church clearly states this when she teaches us to confess: “He came down from heaven for our sake and for our salvation.” And Holy Scripture confirms that the Son of God came to earth, indeed, for no other purpose than precisely to save us (Luke 19:10), that is, a) to satisfy eternal justice on our behalf: “whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement through His blood, by faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25); b) to cleanse us from our sins: “Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness” (Titus 2:14); c) to deliver us from death and the power of the devil: “Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and deliver those who, through fear of death, were subject to slavery all their lives” (Heb. 2:14–15); d) to reunite us with God: “May they all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You, so also may they be one in Us” (John 17:21); e) to enlighten our minds, which have been darkened by sin: “I was born for this, and for this I came into the world—to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice” (John 18:37); “I have come into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness” (John 12:46); e) to correct our will, which is prone to sin, and to train it in good deeds: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:11–12); “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10), and so on; — g) to teach us once again to glorify God worthily: “having predestined us to be adopted as His children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved … so that we, who had previously hoped in Christ, might serve to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:5–6, 12); and h) to grant us eternal life: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously professed this same purpose of the Son of God’s coming to earth: a) St. Irenaeus: “If it had not been necessary to save the flesh, the Word of God would never have become flesh;”[39] b) St. Athanasius: “We were the cause of His coming; our sin so stirred the love of the Word for humanity that He descended to us and the Lord appeared among men; we were the cause of His Incarnation, and for our salvation He became incarnate and was born in human flesh;[40] c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “What is the reason that God accepts humanity for our sake? So that we might all be saved. For what other reason could there be?”[41] d) St. John Chrysostom: “Being God, He did not assume our flesh and become man for any other reason than for the salvation of the human race;”[42] e) St. Basil the Great: “The work of God and our Savior concerning man is a calling out of the state of the Fall and a return to communion with God from the state of alienation caused by disobedience; for this purpose came Christ in the flesh, establishing the Gospel precepts of life; for this purpose came the sufferings, the cross, the burial, and the resurrection, so that man, saved through imitation of Christ, might regain that ancient sonship;”[43] e) Blessed Augustine: “There was no reason for the coming of Christ the Lord except to save sinners; if you eradicate diseases and destroy sores, medicine is unnecessary;”[44] g) St. Gregory the Great: “If Adam had not sinned, it would not have been necessary for the Redeemer to take on our flesh.”[45] The same was asserted by: Didymus of Alexandria,[46] ; Ambrose,[47] ; Macarius the Great,[48] ; Leo the Great; and others.[49]

Thus, the false teaching of the Pelagians and other heretics—that the Son of God would have come to earth and become incarnate even if man had not fallen—is completely refuted.[50]

§128. The eternal predestination of redemption, and why did the Redeemer not come to earth sooner?

I. Given that God was pleased to save us solely out of His goodness—which is eternal and infinite—and, on the other hand, given that, as the All-Knowing One, He foresaw our fall and the extent of that fall from all eternity, we may conclude that our redemption was predestined from all eternity. And the Word of God confirms this truth with complete clarity. Taking in the whole work of our redemption, the holy Apostles testify: “But we preach the wisdom of God, mysterious and hidden, which God ordained before the ages for our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7); or: “so that now, through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose that He has fulfilled in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10–11). Speaking specifically of the Redeemer, the Lord Jesus, He is called the spotless Lamb, “chosen before the foundation of the world, but revealed in these last times for our sake” (1 Pet. 1:19–20), the Lamb “delivered up to death according to the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God” (τή ωρισμένη βουλη καί προρώσει τού Θεού έκδοτον) [(Acts 2:23); cf. (Acts 4:27–28)]; a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Finally, speaking of us— —for whom the Redeemer suffered, it is stated that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4), “God chose you for salvation from the beginning, through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13), and that He saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our own works, but according to His own good pleasure and grace given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim. 1:9).

II. If this is so, if the All-Good One had already determined from eternity—and consequently before our fall—to redeem us, then why did He not immediately choose to fulfill His predestination as soon as we fell? Why did He send His Son to earth only “in these last days” (Heb. 1:2)?

The answer to this question lies in the entire divine economy that preceded the coming of the Redeemer. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, delving into the plans of this economy, presented the following specific reasons for the late appearance of the Son of God in the world:

1) It was necessary for people, over the course of the centuries, to learn through experience and, as much as possible, to feel more deeply the full extent of their fall and their moral helplessness, so that they might desire divine help all the more eagerly and accept it all the more fervently when it was offered (Rom. 8:3): for God could not save people against their will and desire. “Throughout the ages,” writes St. Gregory the Theologian, “there were two notable transformations of human life, called the two covenants. One led from idols to the Law, and the other—from the Law to the Gospel… But the same thing happened with both covenants. What exactly? They were not introduced suddenly, nor at the first attempt. Why was this so? We needed to know that we were not being coerced, but persuaded. For what is involuntary is also impermanent, just as a stream or a plant is held in place by force only for a short time. What is voluntary, however, is both stronger and more reliable. The former is the work of one who uses force, while the latter is our own. The former is characteristic of coercive authority, while the latter is characteristic of God’s justice. Therefore, God has decreed that good should not be done to those who are unwilling, but that we should do good to those who desire it.”[51]

2) It was necessary for the contagion of sin, which had deeply penetrated human nature, to gradually come to the surface, so that this moral disease of humanity might fully mature and reach the final stage of its development; and only then did the heavenly Physician of souls and bodies appear for its complete and perfect healing: “Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more,” says the Apostle (Rom. 5:20). “He who desired to take on human life in order to destroy evil,” reasons St. Gregory of Nyssa, “waited (as was necessary) until the sin sown by the enemy had borne all its offspring, and only then, as the Gospel says, did He lay the ax to the very root (Matt. 3:10). And just as the most skilled physicians, at a time when the fever is still burning within the body and gradually intensifying due to the causes of the illness, yield to the disease, not allowing the patient to fortify himself with any food, until the illness reaches its extreme stage, and they begin to apply their art only when the illness, having fully manifested itself, will no longer spread: so too does the Physician of ailing souls delay until the sinful disease that has infected human nature has been revealed in its entirety, so that nothing is concealed and nothing remains unhealed.”[52]

3) It was necessary to forewarn people of the coming to earth of such an extraordinary Messenger of God as the Redeemer, and to gradually impart to them knowledge of all the circumstances of His miraculous appearance, life, and death, so that when He appeared, they might recognize Him more certainly; it was also necessary to gradually prepare them to assimilate the lofty teaching that the Redeemer was to bring, which they would not have been able to grasp without this preliminary preparation. “The Lord knew,” says Blessed Augustine, “when it was fitting for Him to appear. First, through a long succession of times and years, it was necessary to foreshadow Him: for something of no small importance was about to appear. It was necessary to foreshadow Him for a long time, always awaiting Him. The greater the Judge was, the more numerous the line of forerunners who preceded Him.”[53] And St. Basil the Great reasons as follows: “The Architect of our salvation, like the eye of a person who has grown up in darkness, leads us into the great light of truth after gradually accustoming us to it; for He has compassion on our weakness. In the depths of the riches of His wisdom and in the unfathomable counsels of His understanding, He has ordained for us this gentle and accessible guidance, teaching us first to see the shadows of objects and to gaze at the sun reflected in water, so that, when we suddenly come to behold the pure light, we may not be blinded. On the same basis were devised the Law, which is a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1), and the foreshadowings of the Prophets—these glimpses of truth for training the eyes of the heart—so that the transition from them to wisdom, in its hidden mystery, might be made easy for us.”[54]

4) Sinful humanity first had to undergo a long series of purification and sanctification through the host of patriarchs and all the holy men of the Old Testament, so that it might finally appear in the spotless Mary at that degree of purity and holiness at which it could become the vessel of the Holy of Holies, the Word of God. “Long ago,” says one ancient teacher of the Church, “even before the creation of the world, the Incarnation of God was predestined; but even before the Most Holy Mary, no worthy vessel (εργαστήριον) for the Incarnation had been found. And when it was found, then the Lord became incarnate.”[55] “Who can be surprised,” writes one of the later teachers of Orthodoxy, “that after Adam’s sin, the Word of God did not come quickly to earth to become incarnate and save the fallen human race—not until nearly six thousand years had passed. Not a single virgin on earth was found who was pure not only in body but also in spirit. But one such virgin was found—the first and the last—who, by reason of her exceptional purity—both bodily, I say, and spiritual—was made worthy to be the Church and the temple of the Holy Spirit.”[56]

In short: it was necessary first to prepare the human race in various ways and in various respects to receive the Redeemer, who had been predestined from eternity, and only then for the Redeemer to appear.

The Infinitely Wise One indeed acted in this way.

§129. God’s Preparation of the Human Race to Receive the Redeemer and Faith in Him Throughout the Ages

This preparation by God of the human race for the acceptance of the Redeemer comprises two great periods: the first period—from Adam to the father of the faithful, Abraham (approx. 3,448 years); the second period—from Abraham to the very coming of the Redeemer (approx. 2,060 years).

During the first, and longest, period, God prepared all mankind in the same way.

1) As soon as our first parents fell, deceived by the serpent, God—a) made a promise to them that the seed of the woman would crush the head of this serpent (Gen. 3:15), that is, that the Redeemer to be born of the woman (Gal. 4:4) would destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and would deliver the human race from all the ruinous consequences of the Fall (Heb. 2:14); and at the same time b) instituted sacrifices, as a foreshadowing of that great sacrifice which the Messiah was to offer on Calvary for the sins of the whole world [(Heb. 9:26); (Heb. 10:11–12)].[57] From the time of this “first gospel” about the Messiah, proclaimed even in the Garden of Eden, and the establishment of the sacrifices pointing to His suffering and death, saving faith in the Lord Jesus has already existed unceasingly among the human race. By this faith, Adam named his wife “Life” (Gen. 3:20), even though he had heard the Judge’s verdict: “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19); by this faith, Eve named her firstborn son Cain: “I have obtained a man from the Lord” (Gen. 4:1); by this faith, without a doubt, the hypostatic Wisdom of God, as the wise one testifies and as the Holy Church confesses, “preserved the first-created father of the world, who was created alone, and saved him from his own fall” (Wis. 10:1):[58] “For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), except the name of Jesus Christ. By this faith “Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain; through it he received the testimony that he was righteous” (Heb. 11:4). By this faith “Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. For before he was taken up, he had received testimony that he had pleased God” (Heb. 11:5). By this same faith, without a doubt, Enos, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and all the other patriarchs and righteous men, of whom it is said that they took care to call upon the name of the Lord God (Gen. 4:26), that they pleased God and found favor in the Lord’s sight (Gen. 6:8–9): for without faith in the Redeemer, it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).

2) The means God used at that time to preserve and spread among people both the true faith and piety in general, and—in particular—the early gospel about the Messiah and the correct understanding of the significance of sacrifices, were primarily the following: a) revelations; for this purpose, He sometimes appeared in person and spoke with people [(Gen. 4:6–15); (Gen. 6:13–22); (Gen. 8:16–17); (Gen. 9:9–17)], and at other times He bestowed the gift of prophecy upon people, for example, upon Enoch (Jude 1:14) and Noah (Gen. 9:25–27); b) miracles, such as: the translation of Enoch, who served as a model of repentance for his people (Sirach 45:15), the confusion of tongues (Gen. 11:1–9), and the universal flood (Gen. 7); and c) the long life with which God blessed the patriarchs: they typically lived for more than seven, eight, and nine centuries, so that, despite the more than two millennia that elapsed from Adam to the Great Flood, the proto-gospel heard by Adam in Paradise could be transmitted to the post-Flood world in all its original freshness and integrity. For Noah, who lived about 600 years before the Flood, could have conversed with Enoch, the son of Seth, and Noah’s father, Lamech, could have conversed with Seth himself. Thus, everyone at that time could receive instruction in the true faith and traditions about the Messiah from the most reliable sources, and through faith in the Messiah, attain salvation.

But when, despite all these means provided by God, despite the universal Flood with which God punished humanity for their extreme wickedness, and despite His repeated promises—made through Noah—to the entire human race, people gradually strayed from their Creator, and idolatry spread across nearly the entire earth: then God, in order to preserve true faith in Him and in the promised Messiah, chose Abraham from among all people, raised him to be the father of the faithful, and entered into a special covenant with him and all his descendants (Gen. 17:7–9), and a new period began in which the human race was prepared to receive the Redeemer.

During this second period, God prepared His chosen people, the Jews, in one way, and the Gentiles in another: the former—primarily through supernatural means, the latter—primarily through natural means.

I. To prepare the Jews, God used:

1) Promises and prophecies concerning the Messiah. And the Most Wise One revealed them to His people with wise gradualness, in accordance with the circumstances of the time, so that the light of knowledge concerning the coming Savior might be more accessible to the eyes of faith. Thus, the Messiah is first foretold as the seed or descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, through whom (the seed) all the nations of the earth will be blessed [(Gen. 12:3); (Gen. 18:18); (Gen. 22:16–18); (Gen. 26:4); (Gen. 28:14)], as the Reconciler and the hope of the nations (Gen. 49:10); He is then portrayed as a great Prophet, like Moses (Deut. 18:15–18), the Anointed One and King (Ps. 2), the eternal King and priest according to the order of Melchizedek (Ps. 109); further still—as Immanuel, who will be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), a Mighty God (Isa. 9:6), the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (Isa. 53), and the establisher of the new covenant [(Ezek. 34:23–31); (Dan. 9:24–27)]. At the same time, the timing of the Messiah’s future coming was gradually revealed [(Gen. 49:9–10); (Dan. 9:24–27); (Hag. 2:6–10); (Mal. 3:1)]; the tribe from which He was to come [(2 Kings 7:12); (Isa. 11:1–3); (Jer. 23:5–6)]; the place where He was to be b (Mic. 5:2); and even the smallest details of His birth [(Ps. 71:10–11); (Isa. 11:1–3)], life [(Isa. 9:1–2); (Isa. 26:19); (Isa. 35:3–6); (Zech. 9:9)], death [(Ps. 84:11–12); (Ps. 40:10); (Ps. 93:21); 68:22); (Zech. 11:12–13); (Zech. 12:10); (Isa. 53:7)] and resurrection [(Ps. 70:20); (Hos. 6:3)],[59] so that when the Messiah actually came to earth, attentive Jews could not fail to recognize Him by these signs.

2) Types. Here, infinite Goodness, descending to the frailty of humanity, clothed its lofty promises and prophecies about the Messiah in sensory images, so as to imprint them more deeply in the memory of the people and always present them, as it were, before their very eyes. Among such types were:

a) Certain events and circumstances from the lives of individuals, for example: the offering of Isaac as a sacrifice, pointing to the Messiah’s death on the cross and resurrection (John 8:56); the priesthood of Melchizedek, foreshadowing Christ’s eternal priesthood (Heb. 5:6–7); the power and grandeur of the reigns of David and Solomon, which foreshadowed the power and glory of Christ’s kingdom [(2 Sam. 7:13–14); (Jer. 33:14–18)]; the prophet Jonah’s stay in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, which foreshadowed the Messiah’s three-day stay in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:40).

b) Events and circumstances from the history of the entire Jewish people, especially in the days of Moses [(1 Cor. 10:11); (Rom. 10:4)], such as: the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, the Passover lamb, which was a type of the Messiah in many respects [(Exod. 12:46); cf. (John 19:36); (1 Cor. 5:7)], the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the water from the rock, and the bronze serpent, which foreshadowed the Messiah, crucified on the cross and saving those who believe in Him from eternal death (John 3:14).

c) The entire ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, which, through its numerous sacrifices, purifications, sprinklings, feasts, and the priesthood, foreshadowed the events of the New Testament: for that law was a shadow of the good things to come, as the Holy Apostle testifies, and not the reality itself [(Heb. 10:1); cf. (Col. 2:17)]. Among the most instructive provisions of this law were: a) the circumcision of all male children, signifying inner circumcision and justification by faith in the coming Messiah, who was to be born of a virgin (Rom. 2:28–29; 4:11), and b) the high priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies once a year to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat: this sacred rite served as a foreshadowing of the one cleansing sacrifice for the sins of the world, which the Messiah was to offer, and, along with it, His ascension into heaven [(Heb. 9:11); (Heb. 12:24)].

3) The law is not only ceremonial, but also moral and civil. The Apostle generally refers to the law as a “tutor leading us to Christ” (Gal. 3:24). And indeed, the ceremonial law led to Christ, as already noted, by foreshadowing the events of the New Testament and, through its sacrifices, pointing the Jews to the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 10:1). The moral law—by its lofty and detailed prescriptions, which the Jews, as a result of original sin, were unable to fulfill—clearly revealed their sinfulness to them: “for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20)—it made them aware of their powerlessness and stirred within them a most intense longing for a Redeemer—a longing that St. Paul confessed with such force. A Jew of Jewish descent who became a Christian; “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For I do not understand what I do: for I do not do what I want, but what I hate, that I do. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good; and so it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me … What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord” [(Rom. 7:14–17); (Rom. 24–25)].[60] Finally, civil law led to Christ in that, by threatening death for the violation of nearly every moral commandment [(Exod. 21); (Exod. 22:18–20); (Deut. 13), (Deut. 17:2–12)] and others, And thus, by keeping the Jews constantly in fear under the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1), it made them desire even more ardently that the Deliverer would come to earth as soon as possible, and that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus would set them free “from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).

With the help of all these means, the Jews—both from the time of Abraham and before him—believed in the coming Messiah, and through this faith they were justified and saved: a notion that the Apostle Paul indisputably confirms when speaking of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Samuel, and many others, “who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and received what had been promised” [(Heb. 11:8–40); cf. (Acts 15:11); (Rom. 4:10–25); (Gal. 2:15–16)]. By these means, the Jews were indeed prepared to receive the Messiah, as experience has shown. No sooner had Christ’s forerunner, John the Baptist, appeared at the Jordan with his preaching than the Jews sent messengers to ask him if he was the Christ (John 1:19–27). When John replied that he was only the forerunner of the Messiah and began to proclaim, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2); “One who is mightier than I is coming after me” (Mark 1:7)—all believed these words, “and the whole region of Judea and the people of Jerusalem went out to him, and they were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). When Jesus, still an infant, was brought to the temple according to the Law of Moses to be presented before the Lord, He was met there by the elderly Simeon, “who was waiting for the consolation of Israel” (Luke 2:25), and the prophetess Anna proclaimed Him to all “who were waiting for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).

When Christ began His ministry as a public teacher, extraordinary crowds gathered around Him everywhere, and many recognized Him as the promised Messiah [(John 6:14); (Matt. 14:38)], “And many of the people believed in Him” (John 7:31). When Christ entered Jerusalem for the last time, the people “who went ahead of Him and those who followed Him shouted, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!’” (Matt. 21:9). “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David in the name of the Lord!” (Mark 11:10). And even though the Jewish elders and scribes, out of envy and hatred, and even though many of the people, out of delusion and blindness, did not believe in Christ and even handed Him over to be put to death: the best part of all Israel—all those who were truly children of Abraham, the father of the faithful—joyfully accepted the promised Messiah and believed in Him when, through the preaching of the Apostles, they turned to Him by the thousands [(Acts 2:41); (Acts 4:4)],—and the first Church of Christ on earth was composed of Jews.

II. The Gentiles, because of their wickedness and apostasy, were not, according to the laws of justice, granted by God the same protection and special guidance that He granted to His chosen people, Israel; yet, out of His infinite goodness, He “did not cease to bear witness to them by His good deeds” (Acts 14:17), and He gradually prepared them to know and accept the great mystery of salvation. The means to this end were:

1) Natural law. The book of nature has always been open to the pagans, revealing to them everything a person can know about God: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:19–20). The requirements of the law were always written on the hearts of the pagans, as attested by their conscience, which proclaimed their moral obligations to them (Rom. 2:15). But since the Gentiles, “having known God, did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful, but became futile in their thinking” (Rom. 1:21); “they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23), and “they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:25): “Therefore God gave them over to a depraved mind—to commit indecent acts—so that their bodies, which they themselves had given over to impurity, were filled with every kind of unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, greed, malice; they were full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice” (Rom. 1:28–29), and “their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21–22). No matter how hard the human mind has striven, over the centuries, to find divine truth and reform human morals, it has failed to achieve its goal. All the religious teachings it has devised were soon exposed as inadequate and collapsed. Numerous philosophical systems quickly crushed one another, lost more and more credibility, and ultimately turned into the science of doubt or unbelief. The moral precepts of philosophy and civil legislation did not reform human morals; on the contrary, wickedness seemed to be on the rise in the world: it reached the point where the most enlightened of the ancient peoples —the Greeks and Romans—personified and deified nearly all human passions and vices, and believed they were serving their gods through various atrocities and debauchery. All of this naturally had to lead the pagans to realize their intellectual and moral powerlessness, and subsequently to stir up and gradually strengthen in them a desire for help from above, predisposing them to accept this help. And experience has shown that the finest of the pagan sages recognized the powerlessness of the human mind in the pursuit of the knowledge of God and the powerlessness of the human will in the pursuit of piety, and taught that help should be sought only from God.[61] It is in this very sense that the ancient teachers of the Church called philosophy a guide to Christ, preparing the pagans to receive Him.[62]

2) Remnants of Primitive Revelation and Religion. The truths of the faith, especially the promises concerning the Redeemer, given at the beginning to all humanity and passed down from fathers to children, from ancestors to descendants through oral instruction, were bound to spread among all nations, no matter how far they subsequently strayed into wickedness and idolatry. And although these truths, having become mingled with the new beliefs of the pagan peoples, could not help but gradually lose their original purity and integrity and become distorted; even in their distorted form, they nevertheless sustained and preserved among the pagans the traditions concerning the origin and primordial state of man, or the Golden Age,[63] the fall of the first parents in Paradise,[64] and, most importantly, the tradition of the Redeemer of the human race and the expectation of His coming.[65]

3) The intermingling of the Gentiles with God’s chosen people, to whom the Word of God and all the promises and prophecies concerning the Messiah have been entrusted (Rom. 3:2). Such interactions began as far back as the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who, as they moved from place to place and, due to various circumstances, came into contact with different tribes, were able to exert a beneficial influence on them both through the example of their lives and through their profession of the truths of the faith (Gen. 23–36). Later, the Jews’ sojourn in Egypt among a numerous people, their glorious exodus from Egypt, the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, their triumphant entry into the Promised Land, and the extermination or subjugation of its wicked inhabitants, followed by their repeated victories over pagan nations during the time of the Judges, as well as their periods of subjugation by those same nations—all of these could not fail to influence the pagans, as can be seen from the examples [(Josh. 2:9–11); (Josh. 5:1); (Ruth 1:16)]. In later times, during the period of the kings, the Jews, on various occasions—such as during travels, voyages, wars, captivity, and trade—came into contact with almost all the peoples of the ancient world: the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Syrians, Medes, Persians, Greeks, and Romans [(3 Kings 9:26–28); (3 Kings 10:22); (2 Chr. 8:17–18); (2 Chr. 9:10–11)] and others. After the division of the Jewish kingdom into Judah and Israel, the closer the time of the Messiah’s coming drew, the more favorable circumstances arose that facilitated such interactions between the chosen people and the Gentile nations. By this we mean: the Assyrian captivity and the dispersion of the Israelites to distant lands of the East among the Gentiles; then the seventy-year sojourn of the Judeans in the Babylonian captivity; and finally, after the return of the Judeans from the Babylonian captivity, their subsequent enslavements and dispersals throughout various lands across the three parts of the Old World.[66] In this way, the light of the true faith from the chosen people could spread by various means to other nations and, little by little, prepare them to accept the Redeemer. That is why St. Athanasius said: “The Law was not given for the Jews alone, nor were the Prophets sent for the Jews alone; but although they were sent to the Jews and suffered at the hands of the Jews, they nevertheless served as a sacred school for the entire universe, leading to the knowledge of God and the ordering of the spiritual life.”[67]

4) The translation of the sacred Jewish books into Greek, completed more than two centuries before the coming of the Messiah, and which has since become accessible to learned Gentiles. And the ancient teachers of the Church, in accordance with the testimonies of the pagans themselves,[68] firmly asserted that many of the pagan sages and philosophers “made use of the books of Moses and drew from the source of the prophetic writings.”[69] And by familiarizing themselves with the religious beliefs and hopes of the Jews, these sages were able to acquaint others with those same beliefs and hopes, thereby preparing them to understand the mystery of salvation that was soon to be revealed.

It should be added that the measures taken to prepare the pagans for the coming of the Redeemer were not in vain for them. First, it is known from Holy Scripture that salvation was not inaccessible to people outside God’s chosen people through faith in the coming Messiah, as confirmed by: the accounts in the Book of Genesis concerning Melchizedek (Gen. 15:18 ff.), the story of Jethro, the Midianite priest and Moses’ father-in-law [(Ex. 2–4); (Ex. 18)], and the story of Job of Uz, as recounted in his book. Let us also recall the story of Balaam, who prophesied about the Messiah (Num. 22–24); the words of Solomon’s prayer upon the consecration of the temple (1 Kings 8:41–42), from which we may infer that even in Solomon’s time there were worshippers of the true God of Israel outside the borders of Israel; the story of Naaman, the Syrian commander, who, out of reverence for the God of Israel, sought help from His prophet (2 Kings 5), and the story of the prophet Jonah, who was sent by God Himself to the wicked city of Nineveh, and through his preaching led its inhabitants to repentance (Jonah 1–4). Second, it is known that when the time for the coming of the Messiah arrived, He was awaited not only by the Jews but also by the Gentile nations, and this expectation had been widespread throughout the East since ancient times.[70] Finally, it is known that Christ the Savior, during His public ministry, sometimes encountered among the Gentiles a faith that He did not find even among the Jews themselves (Matt. 8:10), and that through the preaching of the Apostles, the Church of Christ was quickly established in all the lands of the Gentile world [(1 Pet. 1:1); (Rom. 10:18); (Rom. 15:19)].

§130. The Moral Implications of the Dogma

1) By carefully reflecting on the necessity of divine help for the restoration of fallen humanity—on the fact that sinful man, by himself, is powerless to satisfy God’s justice, to erase sin from himself, or to destroy the ruinous consequences of sin—we learn humility: for we are all by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3); we are all conceived in iniquity; we are born in sin; we are all poor, wretched, and weak, and we are equally in need of divine help for our regeneration and sanctification, just as we need it to restore us after each of our personal falls into sin, which are so frequent.

2) Then, as we contemplate how the Lord God truly manifested His sublime help for the redemption of fallen humanity—how this redemption was predestined from eternity, how all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, and participated solely out of their infinite goodness and love for us sinners, let us learn to repay our Lord’s great love with mutual love: “Let us love Him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19), and together we will learn to remember the Apostle’s other instruction: “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:19).

3) Finally, as we reflect with reverence on what an extraordinary means God chose for our redemption—why the Son of God Himself became incarnate for this very purpose, why He came to earth “ ” in the last days (Heb. 1:2), and how the Triune God prepared the Jews and the Gentiles to receive Him over the course of the ages, let us learn to revere His infinite wisdom and, from the depths of our souls, exclaim with the Apostle: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33).

Chapter II.
Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ in Particular

§131. Connection to the Previous Section and the Structure of the Doctrine

From all eternity, and therefore before we came into being and fell, the All-Knowing and All-Good One had already determined to save us through His only-begotten Son. Then, as soon as the fall of our first parents took place, He began to prepare the human race to receive the Savior by every means, both natural and supernatural. Finally, when the predetermined time was fulfilled, “when the fullness of time had come, God sent His [Only-Begotten] Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5), our Lord Jesus Christ appeared and truly accomplished our salvation.

This last, briefly expressed thought about our Lord Jesus Christ—the exposition of which we shall now undertake—apparently consists of two parts: I) the idea of the Person of the Lord Jesus Himself, that is, the mystery of the Incarnation, and II) the idea of His accomplishment of our salvation, that is, the mystery of redemption.

Section I.
On the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, or on the Mystery of the Incarnation

§132. The Importance and Incomprehensibility of the Dogma, a Brief History of It, the Church’s Teaching on It, and the Structure of the Teaching

The doctrine concerning the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ constitutes one of the most important and incomprehensible dogmas of Christianity. The importance of this dogma is evident from the fact that the Lord Jesus is the very Author of our faith (Heb. 12:2), the High Priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1), and “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The Holy Apostle testified to its incomprehensibility when he said, “This is the great mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16).

Given the great importance of this dogma, it is only natural that, from the earliest days of the Church of Christ, reflective Christians have devoted special attention to it; and because of its incomprehensibility, it is only natural that all who presumed to be wiser about it than is proper (Rom. 12:3) and who attempted to comprehend and explain it according to their own concepts fell into error and heresy. With the exception of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, no Christian dogma has been subjected to so many disputes and distortions by heretics, nor has any been so vigorously defended by the pastors of the Church, as the dogma concerning the Person of the God-Man. To more conveniently encompass all these numerous errors, from which the Orthodox Church has sought to protect the truth since ancient times, St. Augustine himself divided them into three main categories: errors—a) concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ; b) concerning His humanity; and c) concerning the union of both in Him.[71]

a) Errors concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ are, in turn, divided into three distinct categories.

The first and most ancient of these belongs to those who completely rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ and considered Him to be merely a human being: this was taught—during the apostolic age—by Cerinthus and Ebion, who were denounced even by St. John the Theologian, who wrote his Gospel against them;[72] in the second century—Carpocrates, Theodotus, and Artemon with their followers, who were denounced by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others;[73] in the third century—Paul of Samosata, who was denounced by the two Councils of Antioch (in 264 and 270).[74] This same heresy, repeatedly condemned by the ancient Church, is held in modern times by the Socinians and rationalists.

The second error is that of those who, although they did not consider Jesus Christ to be a mere man and acknowledged that the Son of God was incarnate in Him, nevertheless asserted that this Son of God was not begotten by God but created—the most perfect of all created spirits, yet lacking the divine nature: the heresy of the Arians, Semi-Arians, and other Arian sects, solemnly condemned at the First Ecumenical Council (in 326) and refuted in every detail by the most eminent teachers of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries.[75]

Third, finally, this error held that God Himself was indeed incarnated in Christ Jesus, but not God the Word, the only-begotten Son of God, but rather God the Father or the entire Holy Trinity, understood as a single Divine Person under three names and in a threefold manifestation: the heresy of the Patripassians and Antitrinitarians, repeatedly condemned in the second and third centuries.[76]

b) Errors concerning the humanity of Jesus Christ can also be divided into three types.

Some heretics erred regarding the flesh of Jesus Christ. Many, considering it unworthy of the Godhead to be clothed in any material form, taught that the Lord Jesus had no flesh at all, that His body was merely imaginary and illusory, from which they themselves received the name Docetists:[77] This heresy arose as early as the days of the Apostles and was denounced by St. John the Theologian in his first two epistles [(1 John 4:2–3); (2 John 7)], then gained strength and spread among numerous Gnostic sects.[78] Some, namely the Apellians, Valentinians, and Manichaeans, even if they admitted that Christ had a real body—not a phantom—did not acknowledge however, that this body was like ours, a human body, but regarded it either as some kind of heavenly, spiritual body, with which the Lord merely passed through the Virgin’s womb without taking anything from her;[79] or, even if they regarded it as a material body, one that was nevertheless far more subtle than ours and composed of the essence of the world, and consequently also not taken from the Virgin.[80] Following St. John the Theologian, the following wrote against these heretical views: Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Melito, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and many other teachers of the early Church;[81] yet even to this day, the Quakers and Anabaptists speculate on something similar regarding the flesh of Jesus Christ.[82]

Other heretics erred concerning the soul of Jesus Christ, asserting that Christ either had no human soul at all—which was replaced in Him by His Divinity—[83] or, if He did have a soul, it was only a lower, sensual one, and He lacked human reason (νοϋς) or spirit (πνεύμα).[84] Against this heresy in both its forms—which Apollinaris and his followers strove most to spread—[85] the Church pronounced its judgment at the councils: the Council of Alexandria (in 362), the Council of Rome (in 373), and the Council of Constantinople—the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (in 381)—not to mention individual teachers who refuted the same heresy.[86]

Others erred regarding the birth of Jesus Christ in His humanity, preaching that He was not born supernaturally of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, but was born, like an ordinary man, of Joseph and Mary: the heresy of Cerinthus, Carpocrates, and other Gnostics who had turned to Judaism,[87] which was denounced from the very moment of its emergence by the teachers of the Church: Ignatius the God-Bearer, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others,[88] and later solemnly condemned in the very creed of the Second Ecumenical Council, where the Son of God is confessed to have been incarnated “by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.” In more recent times, this heresy has been resurrected by rationalists.

c) Finally, there are four known errors concerning the union in Jesus Christ of the two natures, the divine and the human: the errors of the Nestorians, the Eutychians, the Monophysites, and the Adoptionists.

Nestorius, the former Patriarch of Constantinople (in the 5th century), along with his followers, completely separated the two natures in Jesus Christ—to the point of positing two persons in Him—and taught:

“God the Word was not hypostatically united with human nature and was not born of the Virgin Mary; rather, a mere human being—Christ—was born of her, with whom God the Word was united only in an external, morally—in whom He dwelt, as in a temple, just as He had previously dwelt in Moses and the other prophets, and who, consequently, was only a God-bearer (θεοφόρος), not a God-man, just as the Most Holy Virgin is only the Mother of Christ (χριστοτόκοζ), not the Mother of God.”[89] This heresy, first denounced by St. Cyril of Alexandria, then by the Council of Rome under the presidency of Pope Celestine, and later by the Council of Alexandria under the presidency of the same St. Cyril, was finally solemnly condemned in 431 by the Third Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus.[90]

Eutyches, the archimandrite of one of the monasteries in Constantinople (in the 5th century), in his opposition to the Nestorian heresy, fell into the opposite extreme and completely merged the two natures in Christ, so that he recognized in Him not only one Person but also one nature; hence the followers of this heretic were called Monophysites (from μόνος, “one,” and φυσις, “nature”): for, he taught, humanity in Christ is absorbed by the Divinity through the hypostatic union and has lost everything proper to the human nature except for the visible form; and therefore, in Christ, the Word Himself appeared and lived on earth, merely under the guise of flesh, and the Divinity of the Word suffered, was buried, and rose again.[91] This false teaching, which had arisen more than once even before Eutyches,[92] but was only intensified and spread by Eutyches, who defended it with particular obstinacy and audacity, was solemnly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council.[93]

The essence of the Monothelite heresy (μόνος—“one” and θέλημα—“will,” “desire”), which arose around 630 and can rightly be considered a further development of Monophysitism, consisted in the claim that in Jesus Christ, although there are two natures, there is only one will and one action. This heresy, which caused great turmoil in the Church and swept up the patriarchs—Sergius and Pyrrhus of Constantinople, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, and many others—was solemnly condemned (in 680) at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Third Council of Constantinople.[94]

Finally, the heresy of the Adoptionists, which had degenerated from the tenets of Nestorianism by the end of the 8th century, asserted that Jesus Christ, in His human nature, is not the true Son of God the Father, but rather a son by grace, an adopted son (adoptivus), obviously implying a division within Jesus Christ of the two natures into two persons. The instigators of this heresy were two Spanish bishops—Felix and Elipand (c. 783); but from Spain it soon spread throughout the entire Western Church and was condemned by many local councils in Gaul, Germany, and Italy.[95]

Amid all these numerous heresies concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus, the Orthodox Church, from the days of the Apostles, has consistently defended and expounded the same doctrine, which it expressed with particular force at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the following words:

“Following the Holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that we must confess the one and same Son of our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in His divinity and perfect in His humanity, truly God and truly man, the same in rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in His divinity, and the same consubstantial with us in His humanity, in all things like us except sin, begotten before all ages from the Father in His divinity, and in these last days for our sake and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God—in His humanity; the one and same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-Begotten, known in two natures without mixture, without change, without division, and without separation—so that the distinction of the two natures is in no way impaired by their union, but rather the properties of each nature are preserved and united in one Person and one Hypostasis,— not divided or separated into two Persons, but the one and same Son and Only-Begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old taught about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.”[96]

From this it is evident that the entire teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus consists of two main propositions:

I) that in Christ Jesus there are two natures, divine and human, and

II) that these two natures in Him constitute a single Hypostasis.

I. On the Two Natures in Jesus Christ

§133. The Lord Jesus possesses a divine nature and is indeed the Son of God

We find confirmation of this truth:

from the Old Testament writings about the Messiah,
from the teachings of Christ the Savior about Himself,
from the teachings of the Holy Apostles about Him,
from the teachings and faith of the Apostolic Fathers and the entire Church.

I. In the Old Testament, the Messiah is called:

1. The Son of God, begotten from eternity from the essence of the Father. In (Ps. 2), whom all the holy Apostles [(Acts 4:24–28); (Acts 13); (Acts 32–34); (Heb. 1:5); (Heb. 5:5)] and the ancient Jews themselves [97] identify as the Messiah—the Messiah testifies about Himself: “The Lord said to Me, ‘You are My Son; I have begotten You this day” (Ps. 2:7), that is, I have begotten You or am begetting You eternally. In (Ps. 109), which is also attributed to the Holy Apostles [(Acts 2:34–36); (Heb. 1:13); (Heb. 7:17–25)] and by the ancient Jews to the Messiah,[98] God Himself speaks to Him: “From the womb, that is, from My being, before the dawn, that is, before all time, I have begotten you” (Ps. 109:3). The prophet Micah, foretelling that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, added that He also has another origin—an eternal one: “Whose origin is from of old, from ancient days” (Micah 5:2)—and this prophecy was also understood by the entire Jewish church to refer to the Messiah [(Matt. 2:4–6); (John 7:42)].

2. The Lord, God (Adonai, Elohim), and even Jehovah—a name reserved exclusively for God alone. Examples include: a) the words (Ps. 44): “Your throne, O God, endures forever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom; You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your companions” (Ps. 44:8)—which are applied to the Messiah by the Apostles (Heb. 1:7–9) and by the ancient Jews;[99] b) the words (Ps. 109): “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand’” (Ps. 109:1), which Christ the Savior Himself applies to the Messiah (Matt. 22:41–46); c) the prophecy of Malachi: “Behold, I am sending My Angel, and he will prepare the way before Me; and suddenly the Lord whom you seek will come to His temple, and the Angel of the Covenant whom you desire; Behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of Hosts” (Mal. 3:1), which the Savior Himself also applies to the Messiah (Matt. 11:10–11); d) the prophecy repeated twice by Jeremiah: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and a King will reign; He will act wisely and will execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called: The Lord (Jehovah) Our Righteousness” [(Jer. 23:5–6); cf. (Jer. 33:15–16)]—a prophecy that the ancient Jews unanimously applied to the Messiah.[100]

II. In accordance with the Old Testament prophecies, Christ the Savior Himself, having appeared on earth, taught about Himself as the true Son of God, as God. Of the numerous examples of this teaching, we will point out a few.

1) While speaking with Nicodemus, a Jewish ruler, about spiritual rebirth, the Savior said, among other things: “No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven and is in heaven … For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life … “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s only-begotten Son” (John 3:13–18). Here—a) in the opening words, the Savior clearly attributes to Himself omnipresence, a property that cannot belong to any created being; b) then He calls Himself the only-begotten Son of God (μονογενής), undoubtedly in the proper sense, that is, born of the essence of God, possessing a divine essence: for this Son possesses omnipresence—a divine attribute; c) finally, He testifies that without faith in Him—specifically as the only-begotten Son of God, who is omnipresent—salvation is impossible for people.

2) Speaking before the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders of the Jews (Mark 11:27), He told a parable about a vineyard that a man planted, fenced in, and entrusted to vine-growers (Mark 12:1–2)—and by this referring to the Heavenly Father, who planted His Church among the Jewish people and entrusted it to them, the leaders of the people—the Savior said that at first the owner of the vineyard, at a certain time, sent his servants to the vineyard workers, one after another, to receive a share of the vineyard’s fruit. But when the vineyard workers beat some of those who were sent and drove them away in disgrace, and even killed others, the owner then decided to send his own son to them: “Having still one son, whom he loved, he sent him to them last, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But the vineyard workers said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ And they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard” (Mark 12:6–8). Through this contrast between the servants—that is, the prophets whom God had previously sent to the Jews—and Himself, as the only Son of God, the Beloved, and the heir of the Father, our Lord made it abundantly clear that He called Himself the Son of God not in a figurative sense, but in the literal sense.

3) When the Savior healed the paralytic, and the Jews “sought to kill Him because He was doing such things on the Sabbath” (John 5:16), He replied to them, as it were in His own defense: “My Father is working until now, and I am working” (John 5:17). The Jews understood this response—in which the Lord Jesus asserts His equality with God the Father in right and authority—exactly in this sense, “And the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was also calling God His own (ίδιον) Father, thereby making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18). Then Jesus not only failed to point out to the Jews that they were misunderstanding Him; on the contrary, He continued: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of His own accord, unless He sees the Father doing it; for whatever the Father does, that the Son also does” (John 5:19). For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:21–23). “For just as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself” (John 5:26). Here the Savior claims for Himself the very same independent power to perform miracles, the very same divine honor, and the very same self-existence as God the Father. Not only that: to further convince the Jews of the truth of His words and the authenticity of His miracles, the truth of His divinity, He further points them to external testimonies about Him: a) the testimony of John the Baptist, who called Him the Son of God, who came from heaven and is above all [(John 5:32–33); (John 3:31–36)]; b) the testimony of His miraculous works, which no one else has done [(John 5:36); (John 15:24)]; c) the testimony of the heavenly Father, who said of Him: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” [(John 5:37); (Matt. 3:17)], and d) the testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures: “Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and they bear witness to Me” (John 5:39).

4) Another similar incident occurred shortly thereafter. When the Savior once came to the temple in Jerusalem, the Jews surrounded Him and pressed Him, asking, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly” (John 10:24); then, in response, He said, among other things: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:29). These words so enraged those who were questioning Him that they “picked up stones to stone Him,” adding: “We are not stoning You for any good work, but for blasphemy—because, though You are a man, You make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:30–33). However, even on this occasion, the Savior not only failed to point out to the Jews that He was not at all calling Himself God, as they thought—on the contrary, He went on to prove this very point by directly calling Himself the Son of God, inseparable from the Father: “Is it the One whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world that you accuse of blasphemy, because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I am in Him” (John 10:36–38). “Then they again sought to arrest Him,” the Evangelist continues, “but He eluded their grasp” (John 10:39).

5) A third, similar but even more striking incident occurred before the Savior’s death. He was brought, bound, to Pilate’s judgment seat. There, after hearing many false witnesses testify against Jesus, the high priest finally stood up and solemnly asked Him: “I adjure You by the living God: Tell us, are You the Christ, the Son of God?” [(Matt. 26:63); (Mark 14:61)],—and Jesus, without the slightest hesitation, replied: “I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). “Then the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard His blasphemy! What do you think?’ They replied, ‘He deserves death’” (Matt. 26:65–66). And when they had brought Jesus before Pilate, the Jews said to him, “We have a law, and according to our law He must die, because He has made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). Thus, the Savior did not hesitate to confirm the truth of His divinity by His very death.

6) Let us add to this that He attributed to Himself, in addition to omnipresence [(John 3:13); (Matt. 18:20); (Matt. 28:20)] and self-existence (John 5:26)—which we have already discussed—He also ascribed to Himself other divine attributes: a) eternity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58); “And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began” (John 17:5); b) omnipotence: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one” (John 10:27–30); c) knowledge equal to that of God the Father: “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him” [(Matt. 11:27); (John 10:15)].

III. Just as Christ the Savior taught about Himself, so too did His disciples later teach about Him, inspired by the Holy Spirit. For example:

1) St. Matthew the Evangelist, describing the miraculous conception of the Savior, applies to Him the prophecy of Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel” [(Matt. 1:23); (Isa. 7:14)].

2) St. Mark the Evangelist begins his Gospel with the words: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), and then, recounting the Savior’s baptism, says: “And as He came up out of the water, John saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending on Him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10–11).

3) St. Luke the Evangelist quotes the angel’s prophetic words to Zechariah concerning his son John, who was to be born, the Forerunner of the Savior: “…and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God; and he will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:16–17).

4) St. John the Theologian begins his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (John 1:1–3). That is, he directly calls the Word God, presenting Him as existing from the beginning or from eternity, distinct from the Father and the Creator of all that exists. It goes on to say: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father … for the law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:14–17). That is, it testifies that this Word is precisely the only-begotten Son of God the Father, that He became incarnate and is none other than Jesus Christ. Furthermore: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (John 1:18). That is, it shows that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son in the proper sense, as existing in the very bosom of the Father. And in concluding his Gospel, he notes that the very purpose of his writing was to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The same Apostle, at the beginning of his first epistle, calls Christ the Savior the Word of life (1 John 1:1) and eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us (1 John 1:2), and at the conclusion of the epistle he says: “We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20), here calling the One whom he had previously called eternal life the true Son of God and the true God. Finally, in the Book of Revelation, the words of the Savior who appeared to him are repeatedly quoted: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last” [(Rev. 1:8–10); (Rev. 21:6), (Rev. 22:13)], and it is stated that Christ is the ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5), the King of kings and Lord of lords [(Rev. 17:14); (Rev. 19:16)].

5) St. Jude the Apostle, describing heretics, says: “For certain people have crept in unnoticed, who were long ago marked out for this condemnation, ungodly people who turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality and who deny our only Sovereign and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4).

6) In his epistles, St. Paul the Apostle refers to the Savior as: God manifested in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), the great God (Titus 2:11–13), the blessed God (Rom. 9:4–5), God’s own (ίδιον) Son (Rom. 8:32), “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at ” (Phil. 2:6); attributes to Him divine attributes: eternity (Heb. 13:8), immutability (Heb. 1:10–12), omnipotence [(Heb. 1:3); (Phil. 3:21)], and says: “For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible—whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers—all things were created through Him and for Him” (Col. 1:16–17); “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” [(Col. 1:17); (Heb. 1:3)].[101]

IV. Following Christ the Savior and the Holy Apostles, all the teachers of the Church from the very beginning of Christianity unanimously taught about His Divinity. Here are a few [102] testimonies:

1) The Apostolic Fathers.

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer writes in his Epistle to the Trallians: “Beware of such people (heretics). And you will be safe from them if you do not become arrogant and separate yourselves from God—Jesus Christ—and from the bishop, and from the apostolic commandments.”[103] In his Epistle to the Christians of Ephesus: “Every bond of unrighteousness has been broken; ignorance has been overthrown; the ancient kingdom has been destroyed by the manifestation of God in human form (Θεού άνθρωπίνως) for a new, eternal life” … “All of you, without exception, through the assistance of grace, are united in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the house of David according to the flesh, the Son of Man and the Son of God.”[104] In the Epistle to the Church of Rome: “Ignatius, also called the God-bearer, graced by the benevolence of the Most High God and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son, To the beloved Church, enlightened by the will of Him in whom all things are pleasing that are done out of love for Jesus Christ, our God—I wish you to rejoice with the highest and most pure joy in Jesus Christ, our God.”[105]

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St. Polycarp greets them with the words: “Polycarp, and with him the presbyters of the Church of God in Philippi: may grace and peace from Jesus Christ—the Almighty God, our Lord and Savior—be multiplied to you.”[106]

An apostolic man, known as the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, says: “God Himself delivered up His Son for our redemption—the Holy One for the lawless, the innocent for the guilty, the righteous for the unrighteous, the imperishable for the perishable, the immortal for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins but His righteousness? Who else could justify you, the lawless and the ungodly, except the one Son of God?”[107]

2) Fathers and teachers of the second and third centuries:

St. Justin the Martyr says: “With the words, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness… and God created man in the image of God, He created him’ (Gen. 1:26–27), the Word of God points to the Son of God, teaching us that He must be called God.”[108]

St. Irenaeus testifies that in his time the entire Church believed: “in the one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who foretold through the prophets both the birth from the Virgin, the passion, the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of our beloved Jesus Christ, our Lord, as well as His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to rule over all things (Eph. 1:10), so that before Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, Savior and King, by the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee in heaven, on earth, and under the earth may bow.[109]

St. Hippolytus, disciple of St. Irenaeus: “For our sake, the God of all became man, so that, having suffered in a flesh capable of suffering, He might redeem our entire race, which was subject to death, and, working miracles through His impassible Divinity by means of the flesh, might raise us up to immortal and blessed life.”[110]

St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “There was never a time when God was not the Father—and I confess that Christ has eternal existence as the Word, and as Wisdom, and as Power. God the Father is the eternal light, never having had a beginning, never ceasing to be: therefore, there is an eternal radiance before Him and with Him, without beginning and ever-begotten from Him, revealing Him … since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, as light from light.”[111]

St. Methodius of Patara—a) in his homily on Simeon and Anna: “The Virgin, without a husband, gave birth to the Firstborn, the only-begotten Son of the Father; she gave birth, I say, to Him who in the heavens shone forth without a mother from the essence of the one Father;”[112] b) in his homily for the Sunday of Va’i: “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord—the true God in the name of the true God, the Almighty from the Almighty, the Son in the name of the Father, the true King from the true King, possessing a kingdom, like that of His Father, eternal and pre-eternal … Therefore, heretic, fear to destroy the kingdom of Christ, lest you bring reproach upon Him who begot Him. And you, believer, approach Christ, our true God, with faith.”[113]

Let us recall, finally, that in the third century there was the Council of Antioch, which defended the dogma concerning Christ Jesus as the true Son of God and true God against the false teachings of Paul of Samosata (269 A.D.), and in the fourth century—the Council of Nicaea, the first Ecumenical Council, which defended and affirmed the dogma of the true Divinity and consubstantiality of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with God the Father, against Arius (A.D. 325).

§134. The Lord Jesus has a human nature and is indeed the Son of the Virgin Mary

Being fully God, Christ the Savior is at the same time fully human, consubstantial with the Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity, as the Son of the Most Holy Virgin Mary (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 38).

I. This truth is revealed in Holy Scripture in great detail and is evident:

1) From the promises and prophecies about the Messiah found in the Old Testament. Here, the Messiah is referred to as the “seed of the woman” (Gen. 3:16), the “seed of Abraham” [(Gen. 12:2–3); (Gen. 22:18)], Isaac (Gen. 26:4), and Jacob (Gen. 28:14); a shoot and a branch from the stump of Jesse (Isa. 11:1–3); and a descendant of David (Jer. 23:5–6); are foretold—the manner of His birth from a virgin (Isa. 7:14), His place of birth (Mic. 5:2), the circumstances of His life [(Ps. 71:10–11); (Ps. 77:2); (Isa. 35:3–6); (Zech. 9:9)] and His death [(Isa. 53:3–10); (Ps. 21:8–9)], among others.

2) From the genealogies of Christ the Savior, as presented in the books of the New Testament by the evangelists Matthew and Luke. The evangelist Matthew sets forth this genealogy in the line descending from Abraham, and begins with the words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac…” and so on; and he concludes with the words: “Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:1–2, 16). The evangelist Luke traces the lineage back to Adam and begins: “Jesus, when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old, and was thought to be the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat…” and so on; and he concludes: “…the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:23–38).

3) From the Gospel accounts of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ. The Gospel writers relate:

a) How the angel brought the good news to the Most Holy Virgin: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Luke 1:30–31).

b) How the angel instructed Joseph, the betrothed of the Virgin Mary: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit; she will give birth to a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Matt. 1:20–21).

c) How the Most Holy Virgin then indeed gave birth, after the usual period of pregnancy had passed: “While they were there (in Bethlehem), the time came for her to give birth; and she gave birth to her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn” (Luke 2:7).[114]

d) How the shepherds of Bethlehem, guided by an angel, came to the City of David (Bethlehem), “and found Mary and Joseph, and the Infant lying in a manger” (Luke 2:16), and likewise the Magi from the East, guided by an extraordinary star, “entered the house and saw the Child with Mary, His mother, and falling down, they worshiped Him” (Matthew 2:11).

e) How, eight days after His birth, He was circumcised, and “they named Him Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb” (Luke 2:21).

f) How, “when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord,” and how there the elderly Simeon took the Divine Infant into his arms and blessed God (Luke 2:22, 28).

4) From the entire subsequent Gospel account of the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Here we read that the Lord Jesus, as a human being, even in His infancy, was compelled by the providence of God to flee from Bethlehem to Egypt, together with His mother and Joseph, to escape the death that threatened Him (Matt. 2:13–14); as a human being, He gradually grew and was strengthened in spirit (Luke 2:40); as the son of Mary, He was obedient to Mary and her betrothed (Luke 2:51); as a man, He was baptized by John in the Jordan (Mark 1:9), and John recognized Him among the other people who had come to be baptized only because he saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove and resting upon Him (John 1:32–33). We see, then, that the Lord Jesus, having begun His ministry, went about the towns and villages preaching the gospel of salvation, and was recognized everywhere as a true man; He never once found it necessary to prove to anyone the truth of His humanity; that He sometimes took part in social gatherings (Luke 5:29), attended the wedding at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–11), and dined at the house of Lazarus (John 12:2) and at the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 16:5–8); that He went to Jerusalem every year for the Passover feast and celebrated the Passover Himself with His disciples, in accordance with the prescribed rites (Matt. 26:17), etc. Finally, the evangelists describe in great detail the sufferings of our Lord; they speak of His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven—all events that would have been absolutely impossible had He not possessed a human nature.

5) From the titles of Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture. He Himself referred to Himself as: a) a man: “And now,” He once said to the Jews, “you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God” (John 8:40), and b) very often—the Son of Man, for example: “Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” [(Matt. 8:20); (Matt. 11:19); (Matt. 18:11); (Matt. 20:28); (Mark 8:31); (Matt. 9:12); (Luke 22:48); (John 3:13); (Matt. 5:27)] and elsewhere. The Holy Apostles also refer to Him as: a man [(1 Tim. 2:5); (1 Cor. 15:21–47); (Acts 17:31)], a man (Acts 17:31), and the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45–49).

6) In particular, from the fact that the true Word of God—not a phantom—assumes a human body, with all its parts, properties, and functions, in Jesus Christ.

a) The body is taken up. It is said that a certain devout woman “prepared to anoint His body for burial” (Mark 14:8), that “He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24), that, according to after His death, Joseph of Arimathea “went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered that the body be given to him; and, taking the body, Joseph wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out of the rock” (Matt. 27:58–60); that even after His resurrection, when His body was already in its glorified form, the Lord, appearing to the disciples, said: “Touch Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39), and then said to Thomas: “Put your finger here and see My hands; reach out your hand and place it in My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believe” (John 20:27).[115]

b) He takes on the parts of the body: the head (Matt. 27:29–30), the hands and feet [(John 12:3); (Luke 24:39)], the fingers (John 8:6), the shins (John 19:33), and the side [(John 19:34); (John 20:27)], flesh and blood [(Acts 20:28); (Heb. 2:14)].

c) He assumes the characteristics and functions of the human body. Jesus’ body: was circumcised (Luke 2:21), needed food and drink [(Matt. 4:2); (Matt. 21:18); (Luke 4:2); (John 19:28)], was subject to fatigue (John 4:6), and required rest and sleep [(Mark 4:38); (Matt. 8:24)], was capable of feeling pain and suffering [(Luke 22:41–44); (John 19:34–35)], tasted death, was buried, and rose again (Matt. 27:40–61), etc.

7) Finally, it follows from the fact that the other half of the human being—the soul or spirit, with its powers, properties, and manifestations—is also ascribed to Jesus Christ in Holy Scripture.

a) The soul or spirit is attributed to Him. “My soul is deeply grieved” (Matt. 26:38), the Lord Himself said to His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane. Likewise, the evangelists, in recounting His death on the cross, note, among other things: “And Jesus, crying out again with a loud voice, gave up His spirit” (Matt. 27:50); or: “Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father! into Your hands I commit My spirit.” And having said this, He breathed His last” (Luke 23:46); or: “When Jesus had tasted the vinegar, He said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30; 1 Cor. 16:45).[116]

b) The powers of the soul are assimilated, namely: aa) the human mind, as is evident from the words of the evangelist: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52), and earlier: “And the child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom” (Luke 2:40). bb) the human will, as shown by Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will” [(Matt. 26:39); (Luke 22:42)].

c) The qualities and manifestations of the soul are acquired. It is recounted, for example, that Jesus was sometimes filled with joy [(Luke 10:21); (John 11:15)], and at other times was deeply troubled [(John 11:33); (John 12:27); (John 13:21)], that He showed special love for children and indignation toward those who forbade them from coming to Him (Mark 10:13–16), and that He was zealous for God’s glory, sometimes accompanied by righteous anger [(John 2:14–17); (Matt. 21:12–13)], that He grieved and was sorrowful at the thought of His suffering and death [(Matt. 26:37–38); (Luke 22:42–45)], and “during the days of His flesh, He offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the One who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence” (Heb. 5:7).

II. Prompted by the numerous and varied errors of heretics concerning the human nature of Jesus Christ, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in defense of Orthodox dogma, very often discussed this subject. They—

1) They demonstrated the reality of the fully human nature in Jesus Christ. To this end, they drew not only on the clear testimonies of Holy Scripture but also on sound reasoning in the light of God’s Word, emphasizing above all the idea that our Savior must necessarily have been a true human being. He must have been:

a) As our Advocate or Mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5). “A mediator must be of the same nature as both parties,” says one of the universal teachers, “in order to be a mediator. If He were of the same nature as only One, but not the others, He could not be a mediator. If He did not share the same nature as the Father, He would not be a mediator but a stranger. Just as He had to possess human nature because He came to people, so too did He have to possess divine nature because He came from God. If He were merely human, He would not be a mediator, for a mediator must be in the closest relationship with God. Likewise, if He were only God, He would not be a mediator; for those on whose behalf He mediates could not draw near to Him.”[117]

b) As our Teacher and Enlightener [(Luke 4:18–19); (John 8:11)]. “We could not have come to know God in any other way,” St. Irenaeus reasons, “except through the incarnate Word of God, and no one else could have revealed the Father to us except His hypostatic Word (Rom. 11:34–35). “We could not, I say, have been taught in any other way than by seeing our Enlightener with our own eyes and receiving His word with our own ears, so that, by striving to imitate His deeds and carry out His instructions, we might become capable of entering into communion with Him and deriving progress from the Perfect One, who is above all conditions and limitations.”[118] St. Cyril of Jerusalem reasoned in a similar way: “Since a person could hear only from one like himself, the Savior took upon Himself a nature like his own, so that He might more easily teach people.”[119]

c) As our Redeemer and Restorer [(Gal. 3:13); (Heb. 7:22)]. “We could not have attained incorruptibility and immortality unless we had been united with the incorruptible and immortal. But how could we have been united with the incorruptible and immortal unless the incorruptible and immortal had first become what we are, so that our corruption might be swallowed up by incorruptibility and our mortality by immortality?”[120] “The Lord became the Son of Man so that, just as our race was subjected to death through the man who was defeated, so too might we receive life again through the man who is the Victor; and just as death gained the victory over us through a man, so through a man we too have gained the victory over death.”[121] “Reunification could not have taken place unless death and corruption had been destroyed. Therefore, the Lord did not take on a mortal body without reason, but in order to completely destroy death within Himself and to renew human beings created in His image.”[122]

2) They argued, in particular, that Christ took upon Himself a true, real human body, not a phantom. To deny the authenticity of Christ’s body, despite all the testimony about it from the Savior Himself and the Apostles, said the defenders of Orthodox doctrine, and to assert that the Son of God only appeared to have our flesh but did not actually possess it—a) means to suspect Him of lying and deceit—He who is the very Truth;[123] b) means to regard His entire earthly life and deeds as an illusion and a deception;[124] c) means to consider strange and meaningless all His teachings to us, that we might follow in His footsteps along the path of the cross and suffering;[125] d) means, in general, to overturn the very foundations of historical faith, and to sow doubt and distrust regarding what is presented to the senses;[126] e) means, finally, to reject the truth of Christ’s death and our salvation: “He (the Son of God) did not truly redeem us with His blood if He did not truly become man.”[127] “A phantom could not have suffered—therefore, the whole work of God is destroyed.”[128] “If everything the Gospel recounts—namely, hunger, thirst, nails, the piercing of the side, and death—was not real but merely imaginary, then the mystery of the economy of salvation is a phantom and a deception, and Christ was an imaginary, not a real, human being, and we are saved imaginarily, not truly.”[129]

3) They argued that Christ assumed, along with the body, a true human soul—rational and free—contrary to the heretics’ error that the entire soul, or at least the mind, in Christ was replaced by His Divinity. The most important of these proofs were as follows:

a) Man fell entirely—both in body and soul; therefore, it was necessary for the Savior to assume not only the body but also the soul of man in order to save him entirely. “Christ finds what was perishing and takes the lost sheep upon His shoulders, not merely the skin of a sheep. In order to reunite the whole human being—perfect in soul and body—with the Godhead, He left nothing in our nature that He did not take upon Himself: for it is said that He “was tempted in every way, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). And the soul in and of itself is not sin, but became complicit in sin through lack of discernment. Therefore, in order to sanctify it, Christ takes it upon Himself, and through the principle He has taken upon Himself, He bestows sanctification upon all humanity.”[130]

b) The soul and the mind are primarily to blame for the fall of man: it was these, above all, that the Savior had to take upon Himself in order to save. “He needed,” says Gregory the Theologian, “not only the flesh for the sake of the condemned flesh, and the soul for the sake of the soul, but also the mind for the sake of the mind, which in Adam not only fell but, as physicians say of diseases, was the first to be afflicted. For that which received the commandment failed to keep it; and that which failed to keep it ventured into transgression; and that which transgressed was most in need of salvation; and that which was in need of salvation was taken upon Himself. Consequently, the mind was redeemed.”[131] St. Cyril of Alexandria expresses a similar thought: “Since man was entirely deceived and fell entirely into sin; but before the body, the mind accepted the deception (for first the consent of the mind predetermines sin, and only then does the body carry it out in action): it is therefore fitting that the Lord Christ, desiring to restore fallen nature, extends His hand to all (its parts) and raises up what lies fallen—that is, both the flesh and the mind, which was created in the image of the Creator.”[132]

c) The rational soul serves as the mediating principle through which God, the purest Spirit, united Himself in man with coarse flesh. “The Incomprehensible is comprehended through the rational soul, which mediates between the Godhead and coarse flesh.”[133] “The mind unites with the mind, as with that which is closest and most akin, and only then with the flesh, through the mediation of the mind between the Divinity and the corporeality.”[134]

d) If Christ had not taken on a human soul—or its reason—but had taken on only the body or an irrational soul, He would not have been a human being, but something lower than a human. “But they say: the Divinity alone is sufficient in place of the mind… The Divinity with flesh alone is not yet a human being, nor is it one with a soul alone, or with flesh and a soul, but without the mind, which is what primarily distinguishes a human being.”[135] “We affirm that the entire essence of the Divinity was united with the entire human nature. God the Word, who created us in the beginning, did not reject anything He had bestowed upon our nature, but took upon Himself everything: the body, the rational and verbal soul, and their properties. For a living being that lacks one of these parts or one of these properties is no longer a human being.”[136]

e) “If the nature that was assumed did not possess a human mind, then the one who entered into battle with the devil was God Himself; and it was God who emerged victorious. But if God was the one who triumphed, then I, having contributed nothing to this victory, derive no benefit from it; I cannot even rejoice in it, like one who takes pride in another’s trophies.”[137]

4) It was argued that Christ assumed human nature precisely from the Most Holy Virgin Mary, and is therefore consubstantial with us, rather than having brought it from above. Here is what is said about this, for example:

St. Irenaeus: “Why did God not take from the dust of the earth, but instead take His nature from Mary? So that His nature would not be different from ours, nor would the nature He was to save be different, but that He might appear exactly the same, preserving the likeness.”[138]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Believe that the only-begotten Son of God, for the sake of our sins, descended from heaven to earth, taking upon Himself a humanity like ours, and being born of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit. His Incarnation was not a mere appearance or illusion, but truly took place; He did not pass through the Virgin as through a conduit, but was truly incarnated from her; He truly ate as we do and truly drank as we do. For if the Incarnation is an illusion, then salvation too will be a dream.”[139]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “If anyone says that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a tube, and was not formed in her both divinely and humanly—divinely, as one born without a husband; humanly, as one born according to the law of gestation—then he is godless… If anyone says that the flesh came down from heaven, and not from the earth nor from us, let him be anathema.”[140]

St. John Chrysostom: “That (Christ) was indeed born of the Virgin according to the flesh is clearly shown by the Evangelist with the words: ‘born of her’ (Matt. 1:20–21), and by Paul with the words: ‘born of a woman’ (Gal. 4:4). ‘From a woman,’ he says, silencing those who claim that Christ passed through Mary as if through some kind of tube. And if this is true, was the Virgin’s womb even necessary? If this is true, then Christ has nothing in common with us; on the contrary, His flesh is different from ours, not of the same composition. How, then, can we call Him “the Branch from the root of Jesse”? “The Rod”? “The Son of Man”? “The Flower”? And how can we call Mary “the Mother”? How can we say that Christ descended from the seed of David, took on the form of a servant, and that the Word became flesh? Why, then, did Paul say to the Romans: “From them, according to the flesh, came Christ, who is God over all” (Rom. 9:5)? From these words and from many other passages of Scripture, it is evident that Christ came from us, from our substance, from a virgin’s womb.”[141]

§135. The Lord Jesus was born in a supernatural manner according to His humanity, and His Most Holy Mother is the Ever-Virgin

However, although Christ the Savior descended from us according to the flesh and assumed a human nature consubstantial with ours, He did not come into being in the same way that all people do, but in a supernatural manner: He was incarnated and became man “by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,” so that His Most Holy Mother remained a Virgin before His birth, at His birth, and even after His birth, and is the Ever-Virgin (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 39).

I. The Lord Jesus was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and His Most Holy Mother remained a Virgin before, during, and after His birth. This truth is known:

1) From Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the birth of the Messiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14). The authenticity of the prophecy and its reference to the Messiah—apart from what is evident from the very content of the prophecy and the circumstances under which it was uttered—is clearly attested to by the Evangelist (Matt. 1:23). Meanwhile, it is foretold here that it is precisely the Virgin (alma)—the pure, spotless Virgin—who will conceive and give birth to Immanuel (God with us).[142]

2) From the Angel’s announcement of the birth of the Messiah, who had been promised and foretold from time immemorial (Luke 1:26–38). Sent by God to the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the heavenly messenger announced to her that she would conceive and give birth to the Son of the Most High: “And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus.’ When the Virgin expressed her confusion: “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” the angel replied that her virginity would be preserved, that she would conceive and give birth without a husband in a supernatural way: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.” And as proof that such a miracle is possible for God, he pointed to the example of her relative, Elizabeth, who, despite her old age and barrenness, had nevertheless conceived in her womb by His will, and he added in general: “No word of God will fail.” After this, the Most Holy Virgin said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

3) From the Evangelist’s account of the actual conception and birth of the Messiah (Matt. 1:18–25). The Evangelist begins this account as follows: “When His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, it was found that she was with child by the Holy Spirit.” He then continues that when Joseph, not yet understanding the mystery, wanted to send her away quietly, an angel appeared to him in a dream and said: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit; and she will give birth to a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Noting afterward that all this had come to pass so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet—who speaks of the birth of Immanuel from a virgin—might be fulfilled, he concludes: When Joseph awoke from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife, yet he did not know her. [When] she finally gave birth to her firstborn Son, he named Him Jesus.

4) From the unchanging faith of the entire Church of Christ. She expressed this faith, first, in the ancient Creeds used within her from the beginning, which explicitly speak of the virgin conception and birth of the Lord Jesus from the Virgin Mary, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon her;[143] and then solemnly attested to it at the Ecumenical Councils. Thus, the Second Ecumenical Council included in its very creed the words: “I believe in the Son of God, incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”—in a creed that has since become the unchanging standard of faith for all ages. At the Third Ecumenical Council, at its conclusion, a solemn declaration was issued which, among other things, contains this hymn of praise to the Mother of God: “You are the crown of virginity! You are Mother and Virgin!… And who among men is able to worthily praise the all-praised Mary? O wonder! She is both Mother and Virgin!”[144] We have already examined the dogma of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which teaches us to confess the Son of God, begotten of the Father in divinity, who was born for our sake “of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in humanity.”

5) From the unanimous teaching of the individual pastors and teachers of the Church: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “The virginity of Mary, her birth, and also the Lord’s death—three resounding mysteries that were accomplished in the silence of God—were hidden from the prince of this world;”[145] b) St. Justin: “The power of God, having come upon the Virgin, overshadowed her and made the Virgin fruitful;”[146] c) St. Irenaeus: “He (the Son of God) was born of a Virgin;”[147] “He was born of the Virgin of David;”[148] d) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “She is both Mother and Virgin: neither did her virginity prevent her from giving birth, nor did the birth violate her virginity;”[149] e) St. Ambrose: who spoke the words: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,” and who remained a Virgin after conceiving in her womb, and remained a Virgin after giving birth: for the Prophet (Isa. 7:14) foretold not only that a Virgin would conceive, but also th that a Virgin would give birth.”[150] The following also taught this: St. Methodius,[151] Eusebius,[152] Amphilochius,[153] Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom,[154] Ephrem the Syrian,[155] Leo the Great,[156] Augustine,[157] Cyril of Alexandria,[158] and others.[159]

And not only did they teach this, but they often sought to demonstrate that such a miraculous manner of the Messiah’s birth is not only possible but also entirely fitting: as proof or explanation of this possibility, they pointed to God’s omnipotence [160] and to certain other miraculous events of a similar nature, such as the bush that burned but was not consumed [161] and the fact that the Savior, after His resurrection, was able to enter among His disciples through closed doors.[162] And, in expounding on the appropriateness of this manner of the Messiah’s birth, they said: “Just as the first Adam had his bodily composition from uncultivated and virgin soil (Gen. 2:5), and was created by the hand of God—namely, by the Word of God, through whom all things were made (John 1:3): so too, in order to restore Adam in Himself, God the Word was Himself born of the Virgin Mary. And in truth, He chose for Himself the kind of birth that was necessary for the restoration of Adam.”[163] Or: “Through the maiden Eve came death; through the Virgin—or rather, from the Virgin—life was to appear, so that just as the serpent had deceived her, so Gabriel might bring the good news to Him.”[164] Or again: “It was fitting for Him who entered human life to bring all to purity to be born of the Immaculate One who served as the instrument of His birth; for the one who has never been married is usually called immaculate.”[165]

II. The Most Holy Mother of the Lord Jesus remained a Virgin forever, even after His birth. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church found evidence of this truth:

1) In the words of the prophet Ezekiel concerning the eastern gate of the temple, which God showed him in a vision: “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faced east, and it was shut. And the Lord said to me, ‘These gates shall remain shut; they shall not be opened, and no one shall enter through them, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through them, and they shall remain shut’” (Ezek. 44:1–2). In a mystical sense, according to the understanding of the Fathers, these gates symbolized the Immaculate Virgin Mary, who remained enclosed—that is, who remained in pure and unbroken virginity forever, not only until the birth and at the birth of the Savior, but also after His birth—through whom He alone, the Lord our God, entered this world, and no one else has entered since.[166]

2) This is made even clearer in the words of the Most Blessed Virgin herself to the angel who brought her the good news: “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34). We must remember that the Most Holy Virgin asked this question at a time when she was already betrothed to Joseph. What, then, would her words have meant if she had not, even before her betrothal, made a vow to God to preserve her virginity forever, and if she had not been betrothed to Joseph solely so that he might be the guardian of her virginity? Otherwise, having been betrothed to Joseph as her future husband, she could not have said, “I do not know a man.” And if it is beyond doubt that the Most Holy Virgin made a vow before God of perpetual virginity, then it is impossible that She would not have kept Her vow forever, especially after She was deemed worthy to become the Mother of the Son of God.[167]

3) Sacred tradition indeed confirms that the Immaculate Mother of God kept her vow of virginity until the end. On the basis of this tradition, the Holy Church, from the time of the Apostles themselves, has consistently professed her as a Virgin in its Creeds; all the individual pastors of the Church and all the faithful have likewise consistently professed her as a Virgin, so that, according to the testimony of St. Epiphanius, the name “Virgin” has, as it were, become Mary’s proper name.[168] Based on this tradition, she was very often called the Ever-Virgin (άειπαρθένος, semper virgo) and the Ever-Maiden (άείπαις), as is evident from the writings of St. Hippolytus,[169] St. Athanasius the Great, St. Epiphanius, St. Caesarius, and many others;[170] as is evident from the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils themselves. Thus, in the second canon of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, we read: “If anyone does not confess the two births of the Word of God—the first, the pre-eternal, timeless, and incorporeal birth from the Father, and the second birth in the last days of this same Word of God, who descended from heaven and was incarnated by the Holy, Most Glorious Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary—let him be anathema.”[171] And the first canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council states, among other things, the following: “We seal with our consent, as an unshakable bulwark of piety, the doctrine set forth by the two hundred God-bearing Fathers (at the Council of Ephesus), proclaiming the one Christ, the Son of God and the Incarnate One, and confessing the immaculate Ever-Virgin, who bore Him without seed, as truly and properly the Mother of God.”[172]

4) Furthermore, the Church’s belief in the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God was revealed primarily in response to the emergence of heretics who dared to teach that the Most Holy Virgin, after giving birth to the Savior, had other children by Joseph.[173] As soon as such a teaching arose, the pastors of the Church called it madness,[174] sacrilege,[175] blasphemy,[176] heresy,[177] and solemnly condemned it on more than one occasion at local councils.[178] In refuting him, however, they noted, among other things: a) it is impossible that the Son of God would have chosen as His Mother one who, having given birth to Him in a supernatural manner, without marital relations, subsequently desired to forfeit her virginity;[179] b) it is impossible that “she who gave birth to God and, having subsequently experienced the miracle firsthand, would have decided to have relations with a man;”[180] c) this is also impossible on the part of Joseph, the righteous man (Matt. 1:19), especially after he was deemed worthy to be a keeper of the secret and a witness to the supernatural birth of the Savior of the world from the immaculate Virgin betrothed to him;[181] d) That is why the Savior, as He was dying on the cross, entrusted Her to one of His disciples, saying to him, “Behold your mother,” and to Her, “Behold your son” (John 19:26–27)—which, of course, He would not have done if She had had a husband or other biological children.[182] Turning to the very foundations of the false teachings that heretics thought they found in the Word of God, the defenders of Orthodox dogma said:

a) From the words of the Evangelist: “before they came together” (Matt. 1:18), and later: “and he did not know her. [How] finally she gave birth to her Son” (Matt. 1:25)—it does not follow at all that Joseph subsequently ceased to be the guardian of her virginity. The Evangelist speaks only of what happened before the birth of the Savior from the Most Holy Virgin, and not of what happened afterward. It does not follow—just as it does not follow from the words of the Lord of Hosts to the Jews: “I will be the same to you even to your old age” (Isa. 46:4); nor should it be inferred that He ceased to be so afterward; just as from the words of the sacred Chronicler regarding the ark—that the raven “flew away and returned until the earth was dry” (Gen. 8:7)—it should not be inferred that it returned afterward.[183]

b) From the designation of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the Most Holy Virgin [(Matt. 1:25); (Luke 2:7)], one cannot conclude that others were born to her after Him: the title “firstborn” in Holy Scripture refers not only to the one after whom other children were born, but also to the one before whom no one was born; and the law required that every firstborn be consecrated to God shortly after his birth, when it could not yet be known whether the parents would have other children after him or not [(Ex. 13:34); (Lev. 28; Num. 8)].[184]

c) Although the Holy Scriptures mention the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ [(Matt. 12:46–48); (Mark 6:3); (John 2:17); (John 7:3), etc.]: this does not necessarily mean that they were the children of the Most Holy Virgin Mary. For in Holy Scripture, the term “brothers” is sometimes used simply to refer to relatives by marriage; for example, Abraham and Lot are called brothers (Gen. 13:8), whereas Lot was actually the son of Abraham’s brother, Arran [cf. (Gen. 12:4–5); (Gen. 14:14–16)]—and Jacob and Laban are called brothers, even though Jacob was the son of Laban’s sister, Rebekah, the wife of Isaac [cf. (Gen. 28) and (Gen. 29) with (Gen. 36–37)]. In the same sense, the term “brothers of the Lord” ( ) must be understood—that is, in the sense of close relatives only, and not full brothers: these were the children of Joseph, the putative husband of the Most Holy Virgin, from his first wife.[185]

§136. The Lord Jesus Is a Sinless Man

Distinguished from us in His humanity by the supernatural manner of His birth from the Virgin, Christ the Savior is further distinguished from us, in His humanity, by the fact that He is completely free from any sin (Catechism of the Orthodox Church, Part 1, Answer to Question 38).

1) The Word of God teaches, first, that the Lord is free from original sin:

a) When it recounts the words of the angel who announced the Good News to the Most Holy Virgin: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). From this it is evident that although the Lord Jesus was conceived of the Virgin, a daughter of man, He was conceived of the Virgin in whom, as the church hymn expresses it, both soul and body were purified by the Holy Spirit;[186] He was conceived of the Virgin by the power and working of that same Holy Spirit, and therefore was born completely pure and holy: a teaching clearly proclaimed by the Holy Fathers of the Church, for example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “This very Holy Spirit descended upon the holy Virgin Mary. For when the only-begotten Christ was to be born, the power of the Most High overshadowed her, and the Holy Spirit, coming upon her, sanctified her, so that she might receive Him through whom all things came to be. I need not say much about this to teach you that this birth is undefiled and pure.”[187]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Although the Virgin is with child, in her the soul and body have been purified by the Spirit (for it was fitting both to honor the birth and to give preference to virginity); yet the One who was born is God, and with the human nature He assumed—one of the two opposites, flesh and Spirit, of which one has been deified and the other has been made divine… Such is my teaching on the new birth of Christ! There is nothing shameful here; for sin alone is shameful. And in Christ there is no place for shame; for His humanity was created by the Word, and He did not become human from human seed. But from the most pure, unwedded Mother, whom the Spirit had previously purified, the self-created Man came forth, and He Himself accepted purification for my sake.”[188]

St. Ephrem the Syrian. “Christ was born of a nature subject to impurity and in need of purification through God’s visitation. Just as lightning penetrates all things, so does God. And just as lightning illuminates what is hidden, so does Christ purify even the hidden nature. He purified the Virgin, and then was born, to show that wherever Christ is, purity is manifested in all its power. He purified the Virgin, having prepared her by the Holy Spirit; and then the womb, having become pure, conceived Him. He purified the Virgin in her immaculate state; therefore, even after she gave birth, He left her a virgin.”[189]

St. John of Damascus: “With the consent of the Holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit, according to the word of the Lord proclaimed to her by the angel, descended upon her, purified her, and granted her the ability both to receive within herself the Divinity of the Word and to give birth. Then He overshadowed her, as it were, with the divine seed, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, the hypostatic wisdom and power of the Most High God, and from her most pure and virginal blood formed for Himself the beginning of our nature, flesh enlivened by a rational and intelligent soul—but He formed it not from seed, but creatively, by the Holy Spirit.”[190]

b) When he testifies that God sent His Son only in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3), and subsequently expresses the idea that the Son of God, although He took upon Himself flesh essentially similar to that which all people enslaved to sin possess , did not take upon Himself the sinful flesh in which they are born, live, and die—He took upon Himself human flesh, but one pure from sin and corruption.[191]

2) The Word of God teaches, secondly, that the Lord Jesus is completely free from any personal sin. He Himself asked His enemies, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46). And to His disciples, before His sufferings began, He said, “The ruler of this world is coming, and he has no hold on Me” (John 14:30). The Holy Apostles also unanimously testify that “He appeared to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5); that “He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth” (1 Peter 2:22); that He, “who knew no sin, God made to be a sin offering for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21); that we have been redeemed “by the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet. 1:18–19); or they say: “We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15); “Such a High Priest is fitting for us: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens” (Heb. 7:26); “we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).

3) Following this clear teaching of the Word of God, the Holy Church has always believed that the Lord Jesus, consubstantial with us in His humanity, is in every way like us except for sin, as expressed in the dogma of the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, and as all her pastors and teachers had previously confessed with one voice: Justin,[192] Irenaeus,[193] Clement of Alexandria,[194] Hippolytus,[195] Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius the Great, James of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa,[196] Augustine,[197] and others.[198] And from time immemorial, the Church has understood this sinlessness of Christ the Savior not only in the sense that He is completely free from original sin and every voluntary sin, but also in the sense that He cannot even sin,[199] that He is free from all sensual desires or inclinations toward sin, free from every internal temptation.[200] Therefore, when Theodore of Mopsuestia dared, among other things, to assert that the Lord Jesus was not exempt from internal temptations and the struggle of the passions,[201] the Fifth Ecumenical Council (in 553) condemned this heresy as one of the most serious.[202] To explain this complete and unconditional sinlessness of Christ the Savior, the teachers of the Church pointed out that the human nature in Him does not exist separately but is hypostatically united with the divine nature.[203]

II. On the Unity of the Hypostasis in Jesus Christ

§137. The Reality of the Union of the Two Natures in Christ into a Single Hypostasis

In confessing two natures—divine and human—in Christ Jesus, our Lord, we also confess that in Him there is one Person, that the two natures are united in Him into a single hypostasis of God the Word: for “we believe that the Son of God… assumed in His own hypostasis human flesh, conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, and became incarnate” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox , Article 7), and that, consequently, His humanity does not possess a distinct personhood in Him, does not constitute a separate hypostasis, but is assumed by His Divinity into the unity of His divine hypostasis. Or, to put it in the words of St. John of Damascus: “The Hypostasis of God the Word became incarnate, having received from the Virgin the beginning of our composition—flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul”; so that It Itself became the Hypostasis of the flesh… The one and same Hypostasis of the Word, having become the Hypostasis of two natures, does not allow either of them to be without a Hypostasis, nor does it permit them to be of different Hypostases from one another; nor does it become the Hypostasis of one nature at one time and of the other at another, but always remains the Hypostasis of both natures, indivisibly and inseparably… The flesh of God the Word did not receive an independent hypostasis, nor did it become a hypostasis distinct from the Hypostasis of God the Word, but having received a hypostasis within it, it became—to put it better—incorporated into the Hypostasis of God the Word, rather than an independent hypostasis.”[204] This means that our Lord Jesus Christ is a single Divine Person, who is uniquely self-aware in the duality of His natures—divine and human—and is the true Emmanuel, the God-man.

I. Holy Scripture provides the most solid foundations for this truth. It teaches: 1) that in Christ Jesus, with two natures, divine and human, there is a single Hypostasis, a single Person, and—2) that this Hypostasis is precisely the Hypostasis of the Word or the Son of God, who, having assumed and united within Himself the human nature with the divine, remains indivisibly the single Hypostasis of both natures.

1) Holy Scripture teaches the first point as follows:

a) When it refers to the same Jesus Christ, as a specific Person, as both God and man, and as the Son of God and the Son of Man, and presents Him with the attributes of the divine nature and the attributes of the human nature: we have already seen this.

b) Even more clearly—when the same Jesus Christ is sometimes attributed human attributes as God, and sometimes divine attributes as a human being, saying, for example, that the Jews, “if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8)—that they killed the Author (άρχηγόν, the chief culprit) of life (Acts 3:15)—that the Lord God purchased the Church with His own blood—διά τού αίματος τού ΐδίον [(Acts 20:28); cf. (Rom. 5:10); (Heb. 5:8)]; or testifying that “no one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven and is in heaven” (John 3:13)—that this Son of Man, born during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, nevertheless existed before Abraham was (John 8:58). Passages of this kind necessarily imply that the two natures in Jesus Christ are not separated from one another, but are truly united in a single Hypostasis: otherwise it would not be possible for what belongs to His humanity to be appropriated by His Divinity, and conversely, it would not be possible to call His blood, as a human being, His own blood as God, nor, on the other hand, to ascribe His divine attributes—omnipresence and eternity—to Him as the Son of Man.[205]

c) Finally—with perfect clarity—when he says that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is one, a single Person, a single Hypostasis, just as God the Father is one, the first Person, the first Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (1 Cor. 8:6). “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:5–6). Therefore—there are not two Christs, nor are there two Hypostases in Christ!

2) The second idea—that in Jesus Christ the Hypostasis of the Word or the Son of God, having assumed human nature and united it within Himself with the divine nature, remains indivisibly as a single Hypostasis of both natures—is expressed in those specific passages of Scripture that speak of the Incarnation of the Son of God, His birth, and His coming to earth. Thus: –

a) St. John the Evangelist proclaims: “The Word was God … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father … the Law was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:1–17). Here, the Person or Hypostasis of God the Word is apparently depicted, and it is stated that this very Hypostasis became flesh or was incarnated,[206] that She dwelt in the flesh among people under the name of Jesus Christ, and that She, after the Incarnation, remained in Jesus Christ, the God-Man, as the very same, one and unchanging Hypostasis of the Only-Begotten of the Father. See a similar thought: [(1 John 1:1–9); (1 John 5:20)]. “The expression ‘The Word became flesh’ means that the very Hypostasis of the Word, without any transformation, became the Hypostasis of the flesh,” notes St. John of Damascus.[207]

b) St. Paul the Apostle writes about Jesus Christ: “Who, being in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and appearing in human form” (Phil. 2:6–7). These words clearly teach, first, the idea of the perfect unity of the Hypostasis in Jesus Christ: for if there were two separate hypostases in Christ, the Apostle could not have said that the very One who is in the form of God, or who possesses the divine nature, took on the form of a servant; the very One who, not regarding equality with God as something to be grasped, was found in the form of a man, and that He humbled Himself, becoming a man. And secondly, it is proclaimed that through this single Hypostasis of both natures in Christ, His Divine Hypostasis remained unchanged: for, according to the words of the Apostle, it was precisely in the form of God that He took upon Himself the likeness of a servant—that is, He incorporated the human nature into the unity of His Person—and it was He who emptied Himself, being in the likeness of man, and it was He who was found in the likeness of man.[208]

c) In another epistle, the Apostle Paul says: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent His [only-begotten] Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal. 4:4–5). “He did not say, ‘through a woman’—let us repeat after St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John of Damascus—but ‘of a woman.’ By this, the divine Apostle made it clear that this very Man born of the Virgin is the only-begotten Son of God and God, and that this very Son of God and God is the One who was born of the Virgin—and He was born according to the flesh, inasmuch as He became man; He did not dwell within a pre-existing human being as He did within a prophet—but He Himself essentially and truly became human: that is, in His Hypostasis He assumed the hypostasis of flesh, animated by a rational and intelligent soul, and He Himself became the Hypostasis for it.”[209]

d) In his third epistle, the same Apostle, enumerating the advantages of the Jews, states, among other things: “Their fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever, amen” (Rom. 9:5), “[210] ” and even earlier calls the same Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3). It is clear that humanity in Jesus Christ did not receive a distinct hypostasis, does not constitute an independent person, but was taken up by the Godhead into the unity of His divine hypostasis, so that He, even after the Incarnation, remains the very same Son of God, the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, as He was before the Incarnation. See similar passages [(1 Tim. 3:16); (Col. 2:9)] and others.

II. The belief of the entire Church that in Christ the Savior, with two natures, there is a single hypostasis—the divine hypostasis—can be seen first and foremost in all of its ancient Creeds, beginning with the so-called Apostles’ Creed: Here, our one and same Lord Jesus Christ is confessed as the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, who for our sake came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, was crucified and buried, rose again, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.[211] And later, the Church set forth this belief with particular clarity at two Ecumenical Councils, those of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in response to the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. The Council of Ephesus, among other things, approved and adopted as the foundation of its teaching on the hypostasis of Christ the epistles of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, one of which states: “We teach that the Word, having hypostatically united with Himself the flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and came to be called the Son of Man…; we say that although the natures, united in a true union, are distinct, Christ is one, the Son is one from both natures, and not as though the distinction between the natures had disappeared because of this union; on the contrary, we affirm that the Divinity and the humanity constitute a single hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the ineffable and inexpressible union of these distinct natures into one.”[212] In particular, the Council of Ephesus accepted and approved the twelve dogmatic chapters or anathemas of the same Saint of Alexandria, written against the heretic Nestorius. Here, in the second chapter, we read: “Whoever does not confess that the Word, who is of God the Father, was hypostatically united with the flesh, and that there is one Christ together with the flesh—that is, that God and man are one and the same—let him be anathema.” In the third chapter: “Whoever, in the one Christ, divides the hypostases after the union, uniting them by a union (συναφεία) only in dignity, importance, and power, rather than by a union of natural union (κατ ένωσιν φυσικήν): let him be anathema.” In the fourth: “Whoever distinguishes the expressions found in the Gospel and Apostolic writings—those spoken of Christ either by the sacred writers or by Him Himself concerning Himself—in such a way that he attributes some of them to man, understood apart from the Word of God, and others, as divine, to the Word alone, who exists from God the Father: let him be anathema.” In the fifth: “Whoever dares to call Christ a God-bearing man, rather than the true God, as the only-begotten and natural Son—since the Word became flesh and, like us, partake of blood and flesh—let him be anathema.”[213] The Council of Chalcedon, as we have seen, in its creed teaches us to confess “one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-begotten, in two natures… known… not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten Word of God.”

III. Among the individual teachers, it suffices to cite the testimonies of those concerning the doctrine under discussion who lived and taught before the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Such are the testimonies: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “One Physician of the body and the spirit, born and unborn, God who appeared in the flesh, true life in death, and from Mary and from God. First partaking of suffering, and then not partaking of suffering, Jesus Christ, our Lord;”[214] b) Tertullian: “We behold a dual nature, not mixed but united in the single person of Jesus, who is both God and man;”[215] c) St. Athanasius the Great: “(Christ) is perfect God and perfect man, one in a single Hypostasis, and from two and in two natures;”[216] d) St. Ephrem the Syrian: “I confess the same One to be perfect God and perfect man, in two natures, hypostatically or personally united, known indivisibly, unconfused, and unchangeably, having taken on flesh, animated by a rational and intelligent soul, and having become like us in every way except for sin; the same is… God and man, perfect in both, One in two natures, and in two, One”[217] d) St. Gregory the Theologian: “We do not separate in Him (in Christ) the man from the Godhead, but we teach that the same One was not first a man, but God and the only-begotten Son, pre-eternal, having neither body nor anything corporeal, and finally man, assumed for our salvation, subject to suffering in the flesh, impassible in His Divinity, limited in body, unlimited in spirit; the same One—earthly and heavenly, visible and intelligible, containable and inconceivable—so that, as a whole man and God, He might restore the whole man who had fallen into sin;”[218] e) Blessed Augustine: “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man; God: because He is the Word of God, and the Word was God (John 1:1); man: because the rational soul and the flesh were taken up by the Word into the unity of His person,” and further: “one Son of God and the same Son of Man; one Son of Man and the same Son of God; not two Sons of God, God and man, but one Son of God; God without beginning, man with a known beginning, our Lord Jesus Christ.”[219]

IV. And sound reason, based on theological principles, cannot fail to observe that the heresy of Nestorius, which divided Jesus Christ into two persons, completely overturns the mystery of the Incarnation and the mystery of redemption. If the Divinity and humanity in Christ are not united in a single hypostasis but constitute two separate Persons; if the Son of God was united with Christ the man only morally, not physically, and dwelt in Him as He had previously dwelt in Moses and the Prophets: then there was no Incarnation at all, and one cannot say: “The Word became flesh”; or: “God sent His Son, born of a woman.” For it follows that the Son of God was not born of a woman, did not assume human flesh, but merely became present in the man Christ, who was born of a woman. On the other hand, if it was not the Son of God, in His own flesh—which He had assumed into the unity of His Hypostasis—who suffered and died on the cross for us, but rather a mere man, Christ, who had only a moral communion with the Son of God: then our redemption could not have been accomplished, — because a human being, no matter how holy he may be, by virtue of his very limitations, is incapable of offering sufficient satisfaction to God’s infinite justice for the sins of the entire human race. And by undermining the mystery of the Incarnation and the mystery of redemption, the Nestorian heresy thereby undermined the entire edifice of the Christian faith.

§138. The Nature of the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ

How did the two natures in Jesus Christ—the divine and the human—despite all their differences, unite into a single hypostasis; how He, being fully God and fully man, is a single Person: this, according to the word of God, is the great mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16), and therefore beyond the reach of our understanding. But to the extent that this mystery is accessible to our faith, based on that same Word of God, the Holy Church teaches us that the two natures in our Savior are united: I) on the one hand—without confusion (άσυγχύτως) and without change, or immutably (άτρεπτως)—contrary to the false teaching of the Monophysites, who merged the two natures in Christ into one, or who allowed for the transformation of the Divinity into flesh in Him; II) and on the other hand—indivisibly (αδιαιρετως) and inseparably (άχωρίστως), contrary to the error of the Nestorians, who separated the natures in Christ, and of other heretics who denied that they were united permanently and continuously (see the Dogmas of the Council of Chalcedon).

I. The two natures in Christ are united—a) without fusion, that is, they have not merged or mixed with one another to form some new—third—nature, but both remain in the Person of the Savior as two distinct natures; b) immutably or unalterably, that is, neither has the divine nature been changed into the human, nor has the human been transformed into the divine, but both remain intact in the Person of the Savior (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 38). This truth concerning the perfect integrity and distinction of the two natures in Jesus Christ, and their hypostatic union, is evident:

1) From all the testimonies of Holy Scripture that we have already examined, in which the divine nature, divine attributes, and divine actions are ascribed to Jesus Christ, and He is called the perfect God; and, on the other hand, the human nature, human attributes, and human actions are ascribed to Him, and He is presented as the perfect man. But if the Divinity and humanity in Christ had merged or been mixed together, then He would be neither perfect God nor perfect man, and neither a divine nature nor a human nature could be ascribed to Him; rather, some new nature would have to be ascribed to Him—one composed of the merger or mixture of both, with new attributes and distinctions.[220] Likewise, if in the Hypostasis of Christ either the Divinity were to be transformed into humanity, or humanity were to be changed into Divinity by being absorbed by the latter: then one could attribute to Jesus Christ only one of these two natures—the one that remained intact—and by no means the other, which had been abolished and lost its qualities.

2) From the definitions and testimonies—a) of all those Councils, both ecumenical and local, and teachers of the Church who defended and demonstrated, against numerous heretics, the true Divinity of Jesus Christ;[221] b) of all those Councils and teachers of the Church who defended and demonstrated, against heretics, the true humanity of Jesus Christ;[222] c) finally, from the clear definition of faith by the Council of Chalcedon—directly against the Monophysites—regarding the inseparable and unalterable union of both natures in Jesus Christ, as well as from the testimonies of all those teachers of the Church who wrote about this dogma during or after the Council of Chalcedon.[223] However, even before the Council of Chalcedon, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church confessed just as clearly the two whole and distinct natures in Christ, without any mixture or transformation. For example:

St. Hippolytus: “God the Word became a true man for our sake, except for sin…; for our sake, He took upon Himself the limitations of natural flesh, but without undergoing any transformation. And being of the same nature as the Father, He did not, through emptying Himself, become identical with the flesh; but He remained just as completely unlimited as He was before assuming the flesh, and through the flesh He accomplished what is proper to the Godhead. Through a dual operation—divine and human—He revealed Himself as both the infinite God and the limited man, fully preserving within Himself both natures, with the operation proper to each nature, or, which amounts to the same thing, with the essential attribute proper to each.”[224]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Christ must be acknowledged as perfect God and perfect man, not, however, as though divine perfection (or the perfect nature) were transformed into human perfection—which is impious; nor as though the two perfections (perfect natures) were to be confessed as separate, which is foreign to piety…; but in the sense of a complete being, so that the One and the Same might be both—perfect in every respect, God and man.”[225]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “The Godhead and the flesh dwell in one Hypostasis and in one Person, indivisibly and without fusion… Whoever separates the natures in Him will be separated from His kingdom; and whoever fuses them will be deprived of His life.”[226]

St. Basil the Great: “I implore you… to abandon the absurd notion… that God Himself became flesh and did not receive the union with the Virgin Mary from Adam, but transformed His own Divinity into a material nature. This absurd teaching is very easy to refute. But since the blasphemy is self-evident, I think that for one who fears the Lord, a single reminder is sufficient. For if He were transformed, then He would have changed. But let us not dare even to say or think this; for God has said: ‘I am the Lord; I do not change’ (Mal. 3:6). Moreover, what benefit is there in the Incarnation for us, unless our body, united with the Godhead, has overcome the power of death? It was not by transforming Himself that He formed His own body, which arose in Him, as it were, from the condensation of the divine nature. And how could the immeasurable Divinity be contained within the confines of a small body, unless the entire nature of the Only-Begotten had been transformed?”[227]

St. Isidore of Pelusium: “Take care that no one leads you astray, but stand firm as an unshakable foundation. For God, having become incarnate, did not change, did not merge, did not divide, but is the one, beginningless, and eternal Son, equally worshiped by us both before and after the Incarnation.”[228]

3) Finally, for reasons of sound reason. Based on its natural principles, sound reason cannot in any way admit: a) that the divine and human natures merged or mixed in Christ to form a new, third nature, having lost their properties:[229] b) nor that the Divine nature was transformed into the human, or the human into the Divine: the former is contrary to God’s immutability and infinity, the latter to human finitude.[230] And on the basis of the principles of revealed or Christian theology, reason must conclude that only through the unconfused and indissoluble union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, only through their perfect integrity, could the great work of our redemption be accomplished: for the Savior could suffer for us on the cross only through His humanity, and only His Divinity could impart infinite value to His sufferings. Consequently, to acknowledge in Christ a fusion or transformation of the two natures into one is to overturn the mystery of our redemption.[231]

II. The two natures were united in Christ inseparably and indivisibly. Indivisibly in the sense that, although they remain in Christ completely whole and distinct, with all their properties, they do not exist separately; they do not constitute two distinct persons united only morally, as Nestorius taught, but are united in a single hypostasis of the God-Man: we have already expounded this truth. Indivisible—in the sense that, having been united into a single Hypostasis of the Savior from the moment of His conception in the womb of the Most Holy Virgin, these natures have never been separated and will never be separated: their union is unbroken. As the teachers of the early Church, in particular, elucidated this truth in refuting the heretical views that arose—

1) It began at the very moment of the Savior’s conception in the womb of the Most Holy Virgin (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 38). For the prophet foretold that the Virgin would conceive and give birth to Emmanuel, that is, the God-Man (Isa. 7:14); and the Angel announced to Her that She would conceive in her womb and give birth to the One who would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31–35). The following also taught this: a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “If anyone says that a human being was first formed in the Virgin, and then God was joined to Him: let him be condemned; for this means not acknowledging the birth of God, but avoiding birth;”[232] b) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “One must not think that first an ordinary human being was born of the Holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him; but we say that the Word united with human nature in the very womb and was born in the flesh;”[233] c) Blessed Theodoret: “The union of natures in Jesus Christ took place at the very moment of conception,” and further: “if the union took place at the time of conception, it is evident that humanity did not lose its nature after the union;”[234] d) St. Proclus: “The Evangelist does not say that the Word dwelt in a man who was already perfect, but that It became flesh, descending to the very conception of nature and to the very beginning of birth: for just as a naturally born human being is not immediately fully ready for action, but first the very embryo of nature becomes flesh, and then, over time, gradually acquires the powers that form the organs of the senses and of action: so too God the Word, having descended to the very beginning and root of human birth, first became flesh, without, however, being transformed into flesh—far be it from Him; for the Godhead is above all transformation;”[235] d) St. John of Damascus: “The Word of God did not unite with flesh that already existed of its own accord; but, having entered the womb of the Holy Virgin, without limiting His own Hypostasis, He formed flesh from the pure blood of the Ever-Virgin, animated by a rational and intelligent soul, and having taken on the elements of human nature, the Word Himself became the Hypostasis of the flesh, so that it became at once flesh, the flesh of God the Word, and flesh that is animated, rational, and intelligent;”[236]

2) It was not severed even during the Savior’s moments of suffering on the cross (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 46). For if His Divinity, as some heretics claimed, had been separated from His humanity during those moments and had forsaken Him, then it would not be possible to say, along with the Apostle, that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8); that “while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom. 5:10); that the Lord God “purchased for Himself with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). And this heretical notion was unanimously rejected by the Holy Fathers of the Church, for example, Athanasius the Great,[237] Gregory of Nyssa, and Blessed Theodoret,[238] and John of Damascus. The latter specifically states: “Although Christ died as a man, and His holy soul was separated from His most pure body, nevertheless the Divinity remained inseparably united with both, that is, with the soul and the body. And thus, the one Hypostasis was not divided into two Hypostases: for both the soul and the body from the very beginning equally shared in the existence of the Hypostasis of the Word. Although at the time of death they were separated from one an , nevertheless each of them did not cease to share in the one Hypostasis of the Word; so that the one Hypostasis of the Word was the Hypostasis of both the Word and the soul and the body. For neither the soul nor the body ever possessed a hypostasis of their own, apart from the Hypostasis of the Word; and the Hypostasis of the Word is always one, not two. Thus, the Hypostasis of Christ is always one. And although the soul was separated from the body in place, it was nevertheless united to it hypostatically through the Word.”[239]

3) It was not broken after the Savior’s Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, nor will it ever be broken (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 56). For the Word of God testifies that He rose again in His flesh, in which He also appeared to His disciples (John 20:26–27); that in the flesh He ascended into heaven as the Son of Man [(John 6:62); (Luke 24:50–51)]; and that He, the Son of Man, will appear again in the flesh to judge the living and the dead (Matthew 25:31). “If anyone says,” we read in St. Gregory the Theologian, “that He (the Savior) has now laid aside the flesh, and that the Divinity remains stripped of the body, and does not acknowledge that He now abides with the humanity He assumed, and will come again; then let such a one not behold the glory of His coming! For where is the body now, if not with the One who assumed it? It is not placed in the sun, as the Manicheans foolishly claim, to be glorified through disgrace; nor has it dispersed or decayed in the air, like the nature of a voice, the emanation of a scent, or the flight of unceasing lightning. Otherwise, how can we explain that He was tangible after the Resurrection (John 20:27), and that He will one day appear to those who pierced Him (John 19:37)? Divinity, in and of itself, is invisible.”[240]

§139. Consequences of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ: a) with regard to Himself

The following consequences flow from the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ: a) with regard to Himself, b) with regard to the Most Holy Virgin—His Mother, and c) with regard to the Most Holy Trinity.

The consequences of the first kind are:

I. The Communication in Jesus Christ of the Attributes of His Two Natures.[241] This consists in the fact that, in the person of Jesus Christ, each of His natures imparts its attributes to the other; specifically, what is proper to Him in His humanity is appropriated by Him as God, and what is proper to Him in His divinity is appropriated by Him as a human being. For example, Holy Scripture states that the Lord God “purchased for Himself with His own blood” (Acts 20:28), that “although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered” (Heb. 5:8), and that “we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son” [(Rom. 5:10); (Rom. 8:32); (1 Pet. 3:18); (1 Cor. 2:8); (Gal. 2:20)], or: “the second man—the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47); “No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven and is in heaven” (John 3:13), etc. Likewise, in the writings of the Fathers and in church hymns, expressions about Christ are very common: “God suffered; the Creator and King of the ages tasted death,” or: “the pre-eternal Infant,” and the like.[242] This is because the Divinity and the humanity do not constitute two distinct persons in Christ, but are united inseparably and indivisibly into a single Hypostasis; because the one and same Hypostasis of God the Word dwells in Christ wholly and indivisibly as both His divine Hypostasis and nature, and His human nature. “Through the close union,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, “of the assumed flesh and the assuming Divinity, the names are mutually exchanged in Christ, so that the human is called divine and the divine is called human.”[243] As for the Hypostasis (of Jesus Christ), St. John of Damascus also says that when we give it a name borrowed either from both natures or from only one nature, in both cases we ascribe to Him the properties of both natures For Christ, since this name expresses both natures, is called both God and man, both created and uncreated, both subject to suffering and not subject to suffering. Likewise, when He is called the Son of God and God in relation to only one of the natures, He then assumes the properties of the nature united with the Godhead, or of the flesh, and is called the suffering God and the crucified Lord of glory (Acts 26:23), not insofar as He is God, but insofar as He is both God and man. Likewise, when He is called a man and the Son of Man, He assumes the attributes and glory of the divine nature, and is called the pre-eternal infant, the beginningless man—not insofar as He is an infant and a man, but insofar as, being the pre-eternal God, He ultimately became an infant. Such is the mutual communication of attributes, by which each nature imparts its attributes to the other, due to the identity of the Hypostasis and the mutual interpenetration of the natures. Therefore, we can say of Christ: “This is our God, and no one else can compare to Him … He appeared on earth and walked among men” (Baruch 3:36–38); and also: “This man was not created, is not subject to suffering, and is infinite.”[244]

It must be remembered, however, that such a mutual interplay of the properties of the divine and human natures in Christ takes place only when both natures are considered as inseparably united in the single Hypostasis of Christ. But it does not occur, nor can it be permitted, when they are considered separately, outside the unity of the Hypostasis. That is to say, one cannot in any way ascribe to the Divinity of the Savior the attributes of His human nature, nor to His humanity the attributes of the divine nature: because both natures remain in Christ completely whole and distinct, having been united in Him—as the Ecumenical Council put it—without confusion and without loss of substance; and, consequently, neither has the Divinity been transformed into humanity nor has it acquired its attributes, but retains its own attributes; nor has humanity been transformed into the Divinity, nor has it acquired the attributes of the Divinity, but retains its own attributes. “Therefore, when speaking of His (the Lord Jesus’) Divinity, we do not ascribe to Him the attributes of humanity; for we do not say that the Divinity is subject to suffering or that it is created. Likewise, we do not ascribe the attributes of the Divinity to the flesh or to humanity; for we do not say that the flesh or humanity is uncreated… We affirm, however, that the two natures, even after their union, are preserved in a single composite Hypostasis, that is, in one Christ; that they are truly the same, and retain their natural properties; and that, just as they are united without fusion, so they are distinguished from one another and are counted without division.”[245] In short, we must remember, on the one hand, that in Christ Jesus there is one Hypostasis and two natures united inseparably and indivisibly—and in this sense acknowledge the communion of properties in Him; and, on the other hand, that in Him there are two natures, united without fusion and immutably—and in this sense, not to admit a communion of properties between the natures.[246]

II. The deification of the human nature in Jesus Christ. Deification does not mean that humanity in Christ was transformed into the Godhead, lost its limitations, and received divine attributes in place of human ones; but in that, having been assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His Hypostasis, it was united to His Divinity, became one with God the Word, and through this union with the Divinity was exalted in its perfections to the very highest degree possible for humanity, without, however, ceasing to be human. Or, let us draw upon the words of the godly teacher of the Church, who expounded the entire dogma concerning the Person of our Savior with the greatest clarity: “It must be understood that the Lord’s flesh is said to have been deified, to have become one with God, and to have become God—not through a transformation, or conversion, or alteration, or fusion of natures. One of the natures,” says Gregory the Theologian, “deified the other, and the other was deified—and I dare say, became one with God; and the one who anointed became human, while the one anointed became God. And this is not by a change in nature, but by a providential union for salvation—that is, a hypostatic union—by which the flesh was inseparably united with God the Word, and by the mutual interpenetration of the natures, something similar to which we see in the heating of iron by fire. For just as we confess the Incarnation without change or transformation, so too do we affirm that the flesh was deified in the same manner. Just as the Word, by becoming flesh, did not abandon His Divinity nor lose the divine perfections proper to Him ; so too the flesh, having been deified, did not change in its nature or in its natural properties. For just as their natures remained unmixed after the union, so too did their properties remain intact. The Lord’s flesh was enriched with divine powers by virtue of its closest, or hypostatic, union with the Word, without losing any of its natural properties; for the flesh did not perform divine works by its own power, but by the power of the Word united with it; for the Word manifested His own actions through the flesh. Just as red-hot iron burns not because it possesses the power to burn by nature, but because it acquires this property through its union with fire. Therefore, the same flesh, in and of itself, was mortal, but through its hypostatic union with the Word, it became life-giving. In a similar way, we say that the will was deified, not because its natural inclination was altered, but because it was united with His divine and almighty will and became the will of God incarnate.”[247] Consequently, the deification of human nature in Christ should not be understood as though it had been stripped of its limitations and had, in fact, acquired any infinite divine perfections—becoming, for example, omnipotent, infinitely wise, omnipresent [248] , and self-existent: this would mean that humanity in Christ had changed in its nature and in its natural properties; it would mean that it had either merged with the Godhead or been transformed into the Godhead, rather than merely having been deified. If the human mind in Christ also became infinitely wise and omniscient, then it is in no way different from His divine mind, and in Christ there are not two minds—divine and human—but one. If the human will in Christ is omnipotent and has received all the attributes of God’s will, then the former is in no way different from the latter, and in Christ there are not two wills, but one. If, in general, the human nature in Christ is omnipresent and possesses all the other perfections of God, then it is in no way distinct from the divine nature, and in Christ there are not two natures, but one. It is another matter to say that Christ, as a single Person, as the God-man, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and possesses all divine attributes: this is entirely true, by virtue of the unity of the Hypostasis.[249] It is also another matter to say that the human nature in Jesus Christ was exalted in all its perfections to the very highest degree possible for it, received from the Divinity everything it was capable of receiving, without ceasing to be human, and was enriched with all wisdom, grace,[250] holiness [251] , and life-giving power:[252] and this is entirely true by virtue of the closest hypostatic union of the natures, and by virtue of humanity’s capacity to receive the aforementioned attributes from the Godhead to a certain degree. But it is quite another matter to assert that the very humanity of Jesus Christ, considered apart from the unity of His Hypostasis, has in fact been enriched and possesses divine attributes proper to God: this is contrary to the doctrine of the non-confusion and indissolubility of the two natures in Christ, and contrary to the limitations of human nature. “How,” asks St. Justin the Martyr, “did the flesh, upon union with the Godhead, become deified?” And he answers: “Undoubtedly in such a way that, even though it was assumed into the Hypostasis of the divine nature, it remained human flesh, having become incorruptible and immortal by virtue of its union with the Word. Thus, the flesh remains flesh, and by no means is the flesh God, but it has become a partaker of the divine dignity (and not of the divine nature), by the good pleasure of the Word Himself.”[253] And the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in their exposition of this dogma, state, among other things: “Just as His (Jesus Christ’s) all-holy and immaculate flesh, through deification, was not destroyed but remained within its own limits and as what it is in itself, so too His human will, through deification, was not destroyed but remained intact.”[254]

III. Jesus Christ, as a single Person, as God-man, is due a single, undivided divine worship both in His divinity and in His humanity—precisely because His divinity and humanity are indissolubly united in Him; because His humanity, though it remains humanity, has been assumed by Him into the unity of His Divine Hypostasis and is the very humanity of God the Word. Such undivided divine worship of Jesus Christ, the God-Man—

1) The Holy Scriptures clearly teach this. These include: a) the words of the Savior Himself: “For the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:22–23); b) the words of St. Paul the Apostle about the Savior: “Therefore God exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow—in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil. 2:9–10); c) the testimony of St. John the Theologian: “And I saw and heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and their number was myriads of myriads, who said with a loud voice: ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and wealth, and wisdom and strength, and honor and glory and blessing. And every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, I heard saying: ‘To the One seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor, and glory and power forever and ever’” [(Rev. 5:11–13). See also (Matt. 28:17); (Acts 7:13–14); (Heb. 1:6; 2:6–9); (1 Cor. 15:27); (Eph. 2:6)].

2) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously taught this. For example: a) St. Athanasius: “Although the flesh in and of itself is part of creation, it has become the flesh of God, and when we worship this flesh, we do not separate it from the Word, just as, when we worship the Word, we do not separate Him from the flesh;”[255] b) St. Epiphanius: “Therefore, let no one say to the Only-Begotten: ‘Lay aside the flesh so that I may worship You,’ but let him worship the Only-Begotten together with His flesh, the Uncreated One together with the holy temple which He assumed when He came into the world;”[256] c) St. John Chrysostom: “Truly, it is great, wondrous, and marvelous that our flesh sits in heaven and receives worship from angels, archangels, seraphim, and cherubim;”[257] d) Blessed Theodoret: “By confessing two natures, we worship the one Christ and offer Him a single act of worship,”[258] and in another place: “even after the Incarnation, we worship the one Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we regard those who reason otherwise as ungodly;”[259] e) St. Cyril of Alexandria, and with him all the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, who approved his anathemas against Nestorius: “Whoever dares to say that the incarnate Man (i.e., the human nature in the person of Christ) is to be worshiped, together with God the Word, glorify Him together with Him, and call Him God together with Him, as one distinct from another (because the added preposition σύν—“with”—always leads one to think this way, that is, to distinguish one from another), but rather honors Emmanuel with a single act of worship and offers Him a single doxology; since the Word became flesh: let him be anathema;”[260] e) St. John of Damascus: “There is one Christ, perfect God and perfect man. We worship Him, just as we worship the Father and the Spirit, with a single act of worship together with His most pure flesh. We do not reject the worship of the flesh; for worship is rendered to it in the single Hypostasis of the Word, which became a Hypostasis for the flesh; but we do not serve a creature—for we worship the flesh, not as mere flesh, but as flesh united with the Godhead; because the two natures are united in one Person and one Hypostasis of God the Word. I am afraid to touch a burning coal: for fire is united with the wood. I worship both of Christ’s natures together: for the Divinity is united with the flesh.”[261]

IV. In Jesus Christ—there are two wills and two actions: a dogma that naturally follows from the doctrine of the unconfused and indissoluble union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, but which was specifically examined, on the occasion of the Monothelite heresy, at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and solemnly expressed in the following words: “And two natural wills or desires in Him, and two natural actions, inseparable, unchangeable, undivided, and unconfused—in accordance with the teaching of our holy Fathers, we likewise proclaim: “The two natural wills are not opposed to one another—far be it from us to say so, as the impious heretics have claimed—but His human will follows and does not oppose or contend with, but rather submits to, His divine and almighty will.”[262] Here—1) the reality of two wills and two actions in Jesus Christ is attested, and—2) their mutual relationship is demonstrated.

1) The reality of two wills and two actions in Christ, or the reality that in Him—contrary to the false teaching of the Monothelites—there is not only the divine will, but the human will also remains intact:

a) It is evident from Holy Scripture. Thus, the Savior Himself said of Himself: “I have come down from heaven not to do My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 6:38), and in the Garden of Gethsemane He prayed to the Father: “My Father! if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (Matt. 26:39), “not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). By distinguishing His own will from the Father’s in both of these instances, and by subordinating the former to the latter, the Lord Jesus was undoubtedly referring to His human will: for His divine will is indistinguishable from the Father’s will, but is one and the same with it.[263] The Apostle Paul testifies of the Savior that He “humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross” [(Phil. 2:8); (Heb. 5:8)]—this humility and obedience can also be attributed to His human will alone.[264] The evangelists repeatedly mention manifestations of His purely human will, for example: “They gave Him wine mixed with gall to drink; and when He had tasted it, He would not drink it” [(Matt. 27:34); (Matt. 26:17); (Mark 6:48); (Mark 7:24); (Mark 9:30); (John 1:43; 7:1)].[265]

b) It was consistently attributed to and professed by the Church even before the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This truth was preached by:

a) St. Hippolytus: “Through a dual action—divine and human—He (the Lord Jesus) revealed Himself as both the infinite God and a finite human being, fully preserving within Himself both natures, with the action proper to each nature;”[266] b) St. Athanasius, in explaining the Savior’s words (Matt. 26:39): “Here the Lord reveals two wills: the human will, proper to the flesh, and the divine will, proper to God; the human will, due to the weakness of the flesh, prays to avert suffering, while the divine will desires suffering;”[267] c) St. Gregory of Nyssa, in explaining the same words: “Thus, there is a human will in Him and a divine will;”[268] d) Severian, in explaining the same words: “He shows two wills, one divine and the other human.”[269] Similar remarks in explaining this passage are found in St. Ambrose [270] and St. John Chrysostom.[271]

c) It must also be acknowledged by sound reason based on the following considerations, already expressed by the holy defenders of the Orthodox dogma against the Monothelites:

“Since Christ has two natures—capable of willing, because they are rational—for everything endowed with reason is capable of willing and is free—we say that Christ has two wills, or two natural wills… since there are two natures in Christ; it is necessary to acknowledge in Him two modes of action as well. For in one in whom the natures are distinct, the actions are also distinct; and in one in whom the actions are distinct, the natures are also distinct. Conversely, in one in whom there is one nature, there is also one action; and in one in whom there is one action, there is also one essence, according to the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers. Therefore, one of two things is necessary: either, by acknowledging one mode of action in Christ, to acknowledge in Him one essence as well; or, by holding fast to the truth and confessing in Him—according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Fathers—two essences, to confess, by the same teaching, two modes of action as well. Christ, being consubstantial with God the Father in His divinity, must be equal to Him in His action; and likewise, being consubstantial with us in His humanity, He must be equal to us in His action.”[272]

“If we say that there is only one mode of action in the Lord, then it will be either divine or human, or neither. If it is divine, then we will be compelled to acknowledge Him as God alone, without our human nature. If it is human, then we will acknowledge Him as merely human, which is blasphemous. If, however, His activity is neither divine nor human, then He is neither God nor man, and is not consubstantial with either the Father or us.”[273]

“If the action of the Lord Christ is one, then it will be either created or uncreated. There is no action that lies between them, just as there is no nature that lies between them. If it is created, then it will indicate a single created nature in Christ. If it is uncreated, then it will be a sign of a single uncreated essence. For everything natural must be in every respect consistent with its nature. An action consistent with nature is not something imposed from without; and it is evident that nature cannot exist or be known without an action consistent with it. Every being, by acting, expresses its nature; and this is an inescapable law.”[274]

“If there is one action in Christ, then both divine and human works will be produced by that same action. But nothing that exists in its natural state can produce contradictory actions. For example, fire cannot both warm and cool; water cannot both moisten and dry. How, then, did He who is God by nature and became man by nature perform miracles and endure sufferings through a single action?”[275]

It must be added that, without a human will, Christ could not have become, for our sake, obedient to God “even unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8), could not have voluntarily endured suffering for us through His human nature, and consequently could not have satisfied God’s justice on our behalf or earned salvation for us.[276] Consequently, the Monothelite heresy undermined the very possibility of our redemption.

2) The relationship between the two wills and the two actions in Jesus Christ is explained by the general teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the manner in which the two natures are united in Him into a single Hypostasis—on the one hand, without mixture and without change, and on the other, indivisible and inseparable. To present this truth more clearly and unambiguously, here are some of the most important propositions concerning it, expressed by the Holy Fathers of the Church and set forth by St. John of Damascus in his *Theology*:

First: “Just as His (Jesus Christ’s) two natures constitute a single Hypostasis, so we say that He is the same One who wills and acts naturally—according to both natures, of which, in which, and which are Christ our God.”[277]

Second: “Since Christ is one, and the one who wills is the same in both natures, we must say that the object of His will (θελητον) is one—not because He willed only what He willed naturally, as God (for it is not proper to the Godhead to will—to eat and drink, and so on); but because He also willed what is essential to human nature, without any contradiction of His free will and in accordance with the properties of both natures.”[278]

Third: “Just as we acknowledge in Him two natures united and interpenetrating one another, and while we do not deny their distinction, we nevertheless distinguish them and acknowledge them as inseparable; so too do we acknowledge the union and distinction of wills and actions, and we distinguish them without introducing a division. Just as the flesh is deified yet has not undergone a change in its nature, so too the will and action are deified yet have not gone beyond their proper limits… In Christ, divine and almighty action is proper to His divinity; and human action is proper to His humanity. An example of human action was that He took the girl by the hand and raised her up, while an example of divine action was that He restored her to life.”[279]

Fourth: “We do not say that in Christ the actions are separate, and that the natures act independently of one another; but we affirm that each of them, in conjunction with the other and with the participation of the other, produces what is proper to it. For Jesus Christ performed human deeds not merely as a man, because He was not merely a man; and He performed divine deeds not merely as God, because He was not merely God, but as both God and man… The divine signs were wrought by the Godhead, but not without the flesh; and the acts of humility were performed by the flesh, but not apart from the Godhead. For the Divinity was united with the suffering flesh— —which itself did not suffer, but made the sufferings salvific; and the holy mind was united with the active Divinity of the Word, which understood and knew what was being accomplished.”[280]

Fifth: “He naturally had a will both as God and as man; nevertheless, His human will followed and was subject to His divine will, not acting according to its own inclination, but desiring only what His divine will desired. When, however, His divine will permitted it, then His human will naturally yielded to what was proper to it. Thus, when it shrank from death, and His divine will consented to this and permitted it, then it naturally shrank from death and found itself in struggle and fear. But when His divine will desired that His human will should choose death, then His suffering became voluntary: for He willingly gave Himself up to death, not only as God but also as a man.”[281]

Sixth: “He, being both God and man, willed with both His divine and human wills. Therefore, the Lord’s two wills differed from one another not by a voluntary disposition, but by natural powers. For His divine will was eternal and omnipotent, always accompanied by power and free from passion. But His human will had a beginning in time and was subject to natural and blameless weaknesses.”[282]

Seventh: “It makes no difference whether one says: ‘Christ acts through each of His natures,’ or whether one says: ‘Each nature in Christ acts with the participation of the other.’ Thus, the divine nature participates in the actions of the flesh, because, by the gracious consent of the divine will, it allows the flesh to suffer and act as is proper to it; and also because the action of the flesh is undoubtedly salvific, and this does not come from human action, but from the divine. The flesh, in turn, participates in the actions of the Divinity of the Word: because divine actions are accomplished through the body as through an instrument; and also because the One who acts divinely and at the same time humanly is one and the same.”[283]

Eighth: “Divine-human (or theandric—θεανδρική) action means that, upon God’s incarnation, His human action was divine—that is, deified and not separate from His divine action—and His divine action was not separate from His human action, but each was accomplished with the participation of the other.”[284]

§140. b) With regard to the Most Holy Virgin, Mother of the Lord Jesus

The consequence of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, as it pertains to the Most Holy Virgin, His Mother, is that She is, in truth, the Mother of God (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 40; Extended Christian Catechism, Article III). For She gave birth to Him who, being true God, at the very moment of His conception in Her womb, assumed the human nature into the unity of His Hypostasis, so that even in the Incarnation He was from Her, and, after the Incarnation, He remains unchanged as the one Divine Person, as He existed from all eternity before the Incarnation. In other words: She gave birth to the Lord Jesus, not according to His Divinity, but according to His humanity, which, however, from the very moment of His Incarnation, became inseparably and hypostatically united in Him with His Divinity; from the very moment of His Incarnation, it was deified by Him,[285] and became part of His Divine Person, so that both the conception and the time spent in the Virgin’s womb during the course of her pregnancy, as well as the birth from her, belonged properly to His Divine Person. To put it another way: She “gave birth not to a mere human being, but to the true God, and not merely to God, but to God in the flesh—not one who brought a body from heaven and passed through her as through a channel, but one who received from her flesh consubstantial with ours, which in Him itself received the Hypostasis.”[286] Therefore, Holy Scripture teaches us to confess Her as the Mother of God, and the Holy Church has always named and confessed Her as the Mother of God.

1) The Prophet also foretold that a virgin would conceive and give birth to God with us—Emmanuel, that is, God who has united our human nature with His own Hypostasis [(Isa. 7:14); (Matt. 1:23)]. And the Archangel announced to her that she would conceive in her womb and give birth to a Son who would be called the Son of God (Luke 31:35). If, then, the Most Holy Virgin, as these heralds said, does indeed conceive and give birth to God in the flesh or to the Son of God, then she will rightly be called the Mother of God.

2) Indeed, as soon as “it became known that she was with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 1:18), and while she was still carrying the pre-eternal Infant in her womb, the pious Elizabeth, upon meeting her, solemnly acknowledged her as the Mother of the Lord, or, in other words, the Mother of God. “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed in a loud voice, saying, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:41–43). What is particularly important here is that the righteous Elizabeth did not call the Most Blessed Virgin the Mother of the Lord of her own accord, but, being filled with the Holy Spirit and acting under His inspiration, she called the Divine Infant “Mother of the Lord” even before He was born of her (Orthodox Catechism, Part 1, Answer to Question 41).

3) St. Paul the Apostle writes: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His [only-begotten] Son, born of a woman” (Gal. 4:4); and in another passage: “And without a doubt, this is a great mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). And in this way, he directly expresses the idea that it was precisely the only-begotten Son of God, or God in the flesh, who was born of the Most Holy Virgin Mary; and consequently, she is truly the Mother of God.

) Following the Holy Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers and the subsequent teachers of the Church in the second and third centuries professed this truth, often referring to the Most Holy Virgin literally as the Mother of God. Among them are: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Our God Jesus Christ was in the womb of Mary, by God’s design, of the seed of David, but also of the Holy Spirit; He was born and baptized in order to sanctify the water”;[287] b) St. Irenaeus: “in order to restore Adam in Himself, God the Word Himself was born of the Virgin Mary, and truly assumed for Himself the kind of birth that was necessary for the restoration of Adam”;[288] c) Origen, about whom the historian Socrates (5th century) remarks: “In the first volume of his commentary on the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Origen addressed the question of why the Holy Virgin is called the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), and wrote an extensive commentary on the subject;”[289] d) St. Dionysius, together with a council of other Alexandrian pastors, wrote to Paul of Samosata: “Tell us, why do you call Christ an exceptional man, rather than the true God—worshiped by all creation on a par with the Father and the Holy Spirit—who was incarnated from the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God?”[290] e) St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived toward the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth century: “We know the resurrection from the dead, which our Lord Jesus Christ first manifested in Himself, having truly—and not merely in appearance—received a body from the Theotokos Mary, and having come to the human race at the fullness of time to destroy sin.”[291]

5) The Fathers and teachers of the Church in the fourth century unanimously and repeatedly professed the Most Holy Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God. For example: a) St. Athanasius the Great: “The purpose and nature of Holy Scripture are to teach us two truths about the Savior: that He has always been and is the Son of God, being the Son, the radiance, and the wisdom of the Father; and that He, in these last days (Heb. 1:1), for our sake, having taken flesh from the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, became man;”[292] b) St. Ephrem the Syrian: “Whoever denies that Mary gave birth to God will not see the glory of His Divinity;”[293] c) St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his homily on the Presentation of the Lord: “Now the heavenly Bridegroom, with the Mother of God, His bridal chamber, comes into the temple;”[294] d) St. Gregory the Theologian: “If anyone does not acknowledge Mary as the Mother of God, he is cut off from the Godhead;”[295] e) St. Gregory of Nyssa, lamenting certain Christians who had strayed from the Church, says: “Why do they hate us, and what do these new altars, erected in opposition to ours, signify? Or do we proclaim another Jesus?… Or does any of us dare to call the Holy Virgin Mother of God the “Mother of Man” (άνθρωποτόκον), as some of them call her, having lost all reverence?”[296] One cannot help but recall here that Julian the Apostate, in his time, rebuked the Christians, among other things, for their persistent practice of calling Mary the Mother of God:[297] Thus, this custom was already deeply rooted and widespread in the fourth century.

6) In the fifth century, the entire Church solemnly confessed the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God at the Third Ecumenical Council, on the occasion of the Nestorian heresy, accepting and affirming, among other things, the following words of St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Whoever does not confess that Emmanuel is the true God, and therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God—for she gave birth in the flesh to the Word of God, who became flesh—let him be anathema.”[298] At the same time, Blessed Theodoret, despite his former friendly relations with Nestorius, openly testified: “The first stage of Nestorius’s innovations was the opinion that the Holy Virgin, from whom the Word of God took flesh and was born according to the flesh, should not be recognized as the Mother of God, but only as the Mother of Christ, — whereas the ancient and most ancient heralds of the true faith, according to apostolic tradition, taught that the Mother of the Lord should be named and confessed as the Mother of God.”[299] Likewise, John, Bishop of Antioch—who was even more devoted to Nestorius—in a friendly letter to him, urging him to cease the debate that had begun regarding the title “Mother of God,” admitted: “None of the Church Fathers rejected this title; on the contrary, many—and indeed, highly respected ones—have used it, and those who have not used it have not reproached those who have”… And further: “If, because of this birth (Gal. 4:4), the Virgin is called the Mother of God by the Fathers—as she indeed is called—then I see no need to enter into disputes and disturb the peace of the Church. We are not in any danger when we speak and reason as the godly teachers in the Church of God have spoken and reasoned from time immemorial.”[300] One could not wish for better witnesses to the truth, or more impartial ones in this case. And it would be superfluous to point out that even after the Council of Ephesus, the Orthodox Church has confessed and continues to confess the Most Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God.

As for the name “Christ-bearer,” which St. Nestorius gave to the Virgin: it is, to put it in the words of the Church’s teachers, first of all, vague and insufficient: for the name of Christ the Anointed One belongs not only to Emmanuel, born of the Virgin, but also to those who have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit [(Ps. 104:15); (1 Sam. 10:10); (1 Sam. 16:13)] and others), and even to all Christians [(1 John 2:20–27); (Acts 10:44–46)]. Consequently, one would not err in saying that the mothers of those anointed in their mothers’ wombs are also Christ-bearers. Meanwhile, the Most Holy Virgin Mary gave birth not only to Christ, a man anointed by the Holy Spirit, but to Christ—our God. Consequently, the title “Christ-bearer” ( ) alone is insufficient for her: she is, in truth, also the Mother of God ([301] ). Secondly, despite the ambiguity of the title “Christ-bearer,” it could be accepted and applied to the Most Holy Virgin if understood in the Orthodox sense—namely, that the Most Holy Virgin gave birth to Christ, God incarnate: in which case “Christ-bearer” would mean the same as “Mother of God,” just as “Christ” means “God in the flesh.” But ever since the impious Nestorius ascribed a heretical meaning to the name “Christ-bearer” and began to teach that the Most Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God, but only the Christ-bearer, because she gave birth to Christ—a mere human being with whom God later united in a moral sense, — ever since then, this title has, quite rightly, been rejected by the Orthodox Church as offensive to the Mother of God.[302]

§141. c) Regarding the Most Holy Trinity

Finally, the following truths concerning the Holy Trinity, directed against heretical views, flow from the dogma of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ:

I. Not the entire Holy Trinity became incarnate, but only the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:1). For although the divine nature is one and indivisible in all three Divine Persons, They are distinct from one another as Persons, and the divine nature does not exist apart from Their Hypostases, but “remains entirely (though indivisibly) in each of the Hypostases of the Godhead: all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit—therefore the Father is the perfect God, the Son is the perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is the perfect God.”[303] Consequently, when the Son became incarnate and united the two natures in His Hypostasis, — the divine and the human—this does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit were also incarnated together: for it was not the divine nature itself, common to all of Them, that was directly incarnated, but rather the second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, possessing the divine nature, that was incarnated. We do not say that the Godhead, understood impersonally, was united with humanity, but “we affirm that the Godhead was united with humanity in one of its Hypostases…; that, with the incarnation of one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the divine nature in one of its Hypostases was wholly and completely united with the entire human nature…; and that the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the incarnation of the Word of God in any other way, except by their good will and desire.”[304] Here, without a doubt, lies the greatest mystery for us (1 Tim. 3:16): we are unable to comprehend how the one Son of God became incarnate, uniting in His Person the divine nature entirely with the human nature, when the former is one and indivisible among all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. But we are taught to believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, despite the unity and indivisibility of their nature, are three distinct and independent Persons, and that each of Them is fully God, though not three Gods, but one God. Therefore, it is entirely possible—though completely incomprehensible to us—for one Divine Person to become incarnate without the other two.

II. The relationship of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity to the other Persons has not changed in the least through His Incarnation: even after the Incarnation, God the Word remains the very same Son of God as He was before; and after the Incarnation, He is precisely the natural Son of God the Father, not an adopted son. For although He became man, His humanity does not have a separate existence and does not constitute a distinct person who could be adopted; on the contrary, His humanity has been assumed by the Godhead into the perfect and indivisible unity of His Divine Hypostasis, so that He now remains the same, unaltered Divine Person that He has been from all eternity. Consequently, if from all eternity He was and was called the Son of God the Father, specifically as a Person and not by nature—a nature common to all three Persons of the Godhead—then even now, with the two natures hypostatically united in Him, He remains the Son of God, and, consequently, the true, natural Son, not an adopted one. A well-known truth:

1) From Holy Scripture. Here, God the Word, even after the Incarnation, is called: a) the only-begotten Son of God: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten from the Father.” (John 1:14); “For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16); b) The true Son of God: “We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 5:20); c) God’s own Son, not an adopted son: “God,” says the Apostle, “did not spare His own (τού ίδίου, i.e., His own) Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32). All these passages, as their very content shows, refer to Jesus Christ—the God-Man.

2) From the teaching of the universal Church. Thus, in the dogma of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, she teaches us to confess “the one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only-Begotten… not divided or split into two persons, but the one and the same Son and Only-Begotten, the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old spoke of Him, as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as the creed handed down to us by our Fathers.” And even before the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council, the following confession, taken from the writings of St. Athanasius the Great, was affirmed: “We confess Him (Jesus Christ) to be the Son of God and God by divine nature (κατά πνεύμα), and the Son of Man by the flesh…; not two Sons—one true and worship-worthy Son of God, and another, born of Mary, a man not worthy of worship, and only by grace, like us, adopted as a son of God—but one Son, existing from God, as it is said, the only Son of God and God, the very One who, at the end of the ages, was born of Mary according to the flesh… for He who was born of Mary is the true Son of God and God by nature.”[305]

3) From the testimonies of individual teachers of the Church, for example:

a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “In the beginning it was, it was with God, and it was God: three times it was, confirmed by the number itself; He who was, emptied Himself, and that which He was not, He took upon Himself, not thereby forming two, but deigning to become one out of the two: for God is both the One who received and the One who was received, two natures fused into one, but not two Sons (may this fusion not be dishonored by a false interpretation!)”;[306] b) Hilary: “Many of us are sons of God; but this Son is not like that, who said: ‘Father, glorify Your Son’ (John 17:1); for He is the true and proper Son by birth, not by adoption (non adoptione), in truth, not merely in name, by divine birth, not by creation;”[307] c) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The Apollinarians proclaim that some, following the teaching of the Catholic Church, honor two Sons: one Son by nature, and another who subsequently became a Son through adoption (κατά θέσιν); I do not know from whom they heard this…”[308] d) St. Proclus of Constantinople: “There is one Son: for, in worshiping the consubstantial Trinity, we do not introduce a fourth into It by number…; Christ is none other, and God the Word is none other: for the divine nature knows no two Sons…; we confess the one and same Son, both eternal and incarnate in the last days, without introducing anything foreign into His nature: for there is nothing superfluous on the divine throne;”[309] e) St. John of Damascus: “I do not introduce a fourth person into the Trinity, far be it from me; but I confess the one Person of God the Word and His flesh. The Trinity remained the Trinity even after the Incarnation of the Word… The flesh of God the Word did not receive an independent Hypostasis, nor did it become a Hypostasis distinct from the Hypostasis of God the Word; but, having received the Hypostasis within it, it became—to put it better—incorporated into the Hypostasis of God the Word, rather than an independent Hypostasis. Therefore, it does not remain without a Hypostasis, nor does it introduce another Hypostasis into the Trinity.”[310]

In these final words of the Fathers, not only is the idea clearly expressed, but also an explanation of how, even after the Incarnation of the Son of God, the Trinity remained the Trinity, and the Son’s relationship to the other two Divine Persons did not change.

§142. The Moral Implications of the Dogma of the Mystery of the Incarnation

The dogma of the mystery of the Incarnation—

1) Strengthens our faith. For it tells us that the Author of our faith is not merely a man, but also God; and consequently, whatever He has revealed to us, whatever He has commanded us to believe—no matter how incomprehensible it may seem—is undoubtedly true and unchangeable.

2) It revives and strengthens our hope. “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all—how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32). If the Son of God Himself became our Redeemer and spoke the sweetest promises to us, will He not fulfill them?

3) It kindles in us love for God, revealing to us the infinite love He showed toward us sinners in the Incarnation, and especially the love shown by the Son of God, who deigned to take upon Himself our human nature for our sake.

4) He teaches and inspires us to glorify with all the powers of our being the most holy, most pure, most blessed, and glorious Lady, our Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, who was deemed worthy to serve the awesome mystery of the Incarnation of the Word of God, and thus became, as it were, the cause of our salvation.

5) It teaches and inspires us to respect the dignity of human nature within ourselves and not to degrade it through sin, since the Son of God Himself deigned to take it into the unity of His Divine Hypostasis; to respect both ourselves and other people, since the God-Man Himself deemed us worthy to be called His brothers [(Ps. 21:23); (Matt. 12:49)].

6) Finally, He presents to us, in the incarnate Son of God, the most perfect example to follow, in accordance with His own words: “I have given you an example, that just as I have done for you, you also should do” (John 13:15).

Article II.
On the Accomplishment of Our Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ, or on the Mystery of Redemption

§143. How did the Lord Jesus Christ accomplish our salvation?

Having come to earth to save us (Matt. 18:11), the Lord Jesus Himself chose to call His great feat—through which He truly saved us—a service to the human race: “The Son of Man,” He said, “did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” [(Matt. 20:28); (Mark 10:45)]. The very nature of His ministry is revealed by His name—Messiah or Christ, the Anointed One—a name that, from ancient times in the Church of God, was given only to those anointed by the Holy Spirit: prophets (3 Kings 19:16), high priests (Exod. 30:30), kings (1 Kings 10:1); (1 Kings 16:13), and which, in a preeminent sense, has been bestowed upon Him, our Lord, as the One anointed by God with the oil of gladness—more than a mere participant in His people’s joy [(Isa. 61:1); (Ps. 44:8); (Luke 4:18–20); (Acts 10:38)],[311] and as the One who united in His single Person, in the highest degree, all three of the aforementioned types of anointing—prophetic, high-priestly, and kingly.[312] He saved us: a) as a prophet, giving us light and understanding so that we might know the true God and remain in His true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20); b) as a high priest, offering Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and thereby satisfying God’s righteousness on our behalf; c) as a King, having destroyed the power of death and hell, and having received from the Father all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), so that He might give us eternal life (John 17:2). That is, the Lord Jesus accomplished our salvation through His threefold ministry to the human race: prophetic, high priestly, and kingly.

I. On the Prophetic Ministry of Jesus Christ

§144. The Concept of the Prophetic Ministry of Jesus Christ and the Truth of That Ministry

The ministry of the Old Testament prophets consisted, in general, of proclaiming God’s will to the people through inspiration from above (Haggai 1:13) and instructing them, admonishing them, and strengthening them in true faith and piety [(2 Kings 17:13); (Jer. 25:4)]. Accordingly, the ministry of the Lord Jesus, as the greatest of the prophets—of whom the Old Testament prophets were merely forerunners and types—was expressed in His proclaiming to people, with all possible fullness and clarity, God’s will concerning the salvation of the world [(John 1:18); (9:16–18)], and taught them a new and most perfect law of faith and piety, which brings salvation to the entire human race (Luke 4:18–21).

1) This ministry of Jesus Christ was clearly foretold in the Old Testament. Even to Moses, through whom the ancient law was given to the Israelites, God Himself spoke of the new, future Lawgiver, the Messiah: “I will raise up for them a Prophet from among their brothers, like you; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him; and whoever does not listen to My words that [the Prophet] speaks in My name, I will hold him accountable” (Deut. 18:18–19).[313] Then the psalmist cried out to God on behalf of the Messiah: “I will declare Your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise You” (Ps. 21:23). Your law is within my heart. I have proclaimed Your righteousness to the great congregation; I have not held back with my lips: “I have proclaimed Your righteousness in the great assembly; I have not held back my lips—You, O Lord, know. I have not hidden Your righteousness in my heart; I have proclaimed Your faithfulness and Your salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the great assembly” (Ps. 39:10–11). Some time later, the prophet Isaiah also testified on behalf of the Messiah: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, for the Lord has anointed Me to bring good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and release from prison to those who are bound, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord ” [(Isa. 61:1–2); (Luke 4:18)].

2) Christ the Savior Himself recognized this ministry as an essential part of His work. “I was born for this, and for this I came into the world—to bear witness to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to My voice” (John 18:37). And therefore: a) He called Himself the light of the world: “I have come into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness” [(John 12:46); (John 8:12); (John 9:5)]; b) the only Teacher and Guide: “You call Me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, for that is exactly what I am” (John 13:13); “But do not be called ‘teachers,’ for you have one Teacher—Christ … nor be called ‘leaders,’ for you have one Leader—Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10); c) while preaching in one place, He testified: “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to other towns also, for that is why I was sent— ” (Luke 4:43); and—d) having finished His preaching, He said to the Father: “I have glorified You on earth; I have finished the work You gave Me to do … I have made Your name known to mankind … the words You gave Me I have given to them, and they have received them and truly understood that I came from You, and they have believed that You sent Me” (John 17:4–8).

3) The Holy Apostles also called the Lord Jesus a teacher and mentor [(Luke 9:49); (John 13:13)]; a prophet who was mighty in deed and word before God and all the people (Luke 24:19); the true light, “which enlightens every person coming into the world” (John 1:9), and they testified: “We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 5:20); or: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (John 1:18).

4) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in addition to following the Word of God and unanimously confessing the Lord Jesus as a great prophet and teacher,[314] — they also argued together that the prophetic ministry was essential to His purpose, that otherwise He could not have saved people sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, who, consequently, first and foremost expected Him to be the Enlightener. This idea was expounded, for example, by:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Was it in vain,” he asks, describing the state of pagan worship, “was it in vain that the Son of God came down from heaven to heal such a deep wound? Did the Son come in vain, having come so that the Father might be known? Do you see what moved the Only-Begotten to descend from the throne, where He sits at the right hand of the Father? The Father was being despised; it was incumbent upon the Son to avert this error: for it was necessary that He who created all things should bring all things to the Lord of all; it was necessary to heal the wound. For what could be worse than that sickness—worshiping a stone instead of God?”[315]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Since idolatry and godlessness reigned throughout the universe, and the knowledge of God was obscured in all, who could teach the universe to know the Father? A man, you might say? But people could neither traverse the entire world, nor accomplish such an undertaking by their own strength, nor earn the trust of all in such a matter, nor stand firm against the deception and trickery of demons on their own. When the souls of all were struck and troubled by demonic deception and idolatrous vanity, how could any single person win over the hearts and minds of those whom he cannot even see? How can you instruct someone in the truth whom you cannot see? Might someone say that nature can instruct people? But if nature could do this, there would not be such great evils in the human race. Nature existed, and yet people had no true knowledge of God. Who, then, was necessary for this, if not God the Word, who sees both the soul and the mind of man, governs all things in nature, and through it reveals the Father? Truly, He who, through His providence and governance of the universe, teaches about His Father—it was to Him alone that it belonged to renew this teaching.”[316]

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Truly, those who had gone astray were in need of wisdom and enlightenment—those who, in their utter folly, worshiped the created instead of the Creator, calling trees and stones gods. That is why the Word became flesh and inspired them, saying: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and sight to the blind’ (Luke 4:18). For such were the afflictions of the nations. But through Him they were healed: for they were enriched by Him with wisdom and received enlightenment.”[317]

§145. How the Lord Jesus Carried Out His Prophetic Ministry, and the Essence of His Preaching

The Lord carried out His prophetic ministry to the human race in two ways. First—directly, when, having reached the age of thirty (Luke 3:23), He assumed the role of a public Teacher, and for about three and a half years until His very death, He traveled through the cities and towns of the land of Judea, preaching the gospel of the kingdom everywhere (Matt. 9:35). Later—through His disciples, whom He Himself had previously chosen (Luke 6:13) and specifically prepared for the work of teaching; whom, moreover, after His ascension into heaven, He endowed with power from on high (Luke 24:49), and who, in accordance with His command (Mark 16:15), carried His teaching throughout the whole earth, proclaimed it to all nations (Rom. 10:18), and handed it down to the Church for all time, both orally and in writing (2 Thess. 2:15).

This teaching encompasses the entire essence of the restored religion and, consisting of two parts—the law of faith and the law of action—[318] is entirely directed toward one great goal: the salvation of humanity.

Christ Himself expressed the essence of the law of faith in the following words: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), or: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3). And in accordance with this, He taught, in particular:

1) Concerning God, the Most High and Most Perfect Spirit [(Matt. 5:45); (John 4:24)], one in essence (Mark 12:29) but triune in Persons (Matt. 28:19), self-existent (John 5:26), omnipresent (John 4:21–23), all-good (Matt. 19:17), almighty (Matt. 19:26), the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (Matt. 6:26–29), who cares for all His creatures as a father does, and especially for the human race (Luke 12:7).

2) About Himself, as the only-begotten Son of God, who came into the world for the reconciliation and reunification of humanity with God [(John 3:16); (John 17:21)], about His saving sufferings, death, and resurrection [(Matt. 12:40); (Matt. 16:21)].

3) Finally, about fallen, corrupted humanity (John 3:7), and about the means by which a person can rise up and receive salvation, be born again (John 3:5), be sanctified (John 17:11–17), be reunited with God through his Redeemer (John 14:6–20), and thus attain eternal and blessed life beyond the grave (John 3:16).

Christ expressed the essence of the law of action, in accordance with the law of faith, in two main commandments:

1) In the commandment regarding self-denial. “Whoever wants to follow Me must deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Me” (Mark 8:34). This commandment is clearly intended to root out within us the very beginning of all sin—pride or self-love (Sirach 10:15)— thereby purifying us from every defilement of flesh and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), and leading us to put off “the old way of life of the old man, which is corrupted by deceitful desires” (Eph. 4:22), which will never enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).[319] And this self-denial, according to the Lord’s word, must be manifested in the following: a) that we abandon our former, sinful way of life and repent of all our sins (Matt. 3:2); b) that we willingly renounce all worldly possessions, even if they are as dear to us as our own eye, hand, or foot, as long as we realize that they tempt us and lead us into sin (Matt. 5:29–31); c) that we may even leave our home, father, mother, and family if we see that there is no other way for us to turn away from wickedness and attain salvation [(Mark 10:29); (Luke 14:26)]; d) that we strive not to sin not only in deed, but even in thought and word [(Matt. 5:28); (Matt. 12:36)].

2) In the commandment to love God and our neighbors (Matt. 22:37–39)—a commandment whose purpose is to plant within us, in place of our former, sinful nature, the seed of a new life, one that is holy and pleasing to God (John 13:84); to instill in us a bond of moral perfection (Col. 8:14), and to truly reunite us with God, purified and renewed (John 17:21). In describing the characteristics of love for God, the Lord taught that it—a) must be the most sincere, complete, and perfect (Luke 10:27); b) must be expressed in obedience to God’s will and in keeping His commandments (John 14:15–21); c) always keep God’s glory in mind (Matt. 5:16); and d) extend to the point where we are willing, for the sake of God’s name, to lose even our own soul (Mark 8:35). Likewise, in describing the characteristics of love for one’s neighbor, He taught that we should: a) love all people—not only friends, but even our very enemies (Matt. 5:44–48); b) not wrong our neighbors—not only in deed, but even in word and thought [(Matt. 5:22); (Matt. 7:1–12)]; c) generously endure all insults ourselves and forgive all offenses not only “up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven” [(Matt. 5:38–39); (Matt. 6:14); (Matt. 18:22)]; d) were always merciful toward their neighbors and helped them in their needs [(Matt. 5:36–42); (Luke 6:35)], and e) were ready, when necessary, to lay down their very lives for their brothers (John 15:13).

And to inspire people to accept and fulfill both laws—the law of faith and the law of works—the Lord Jesus pointed out to them: a) on the one hand, the greatest calamities and eternal torments from which the all-good God had predestined to deliver the human race through His only-begotten Son, and to which all sinners will inevitably be subjected if they do not follow His teaching [(Matt. 25:41); (Luke 13:28)]; b) on the other hand—to the greatest and eternal blessings that the Heavenly Father has prepared, also because of the merits of His beloved Son, for all the righteous who follow His teaching [(Matt. 19:28–29); (Matt. 25:34)];[320] c) finally—toward that boundless and, in the highest degree, touching love of God for us sinners, which was manifested in the work of our redemption from eternal calamities and the bestowal upon us of eternal bliss [(John 3:16–17); (John 15:9–15)].

§146. Jesus Christ taught a new and most perfect law in place of the Law of Moses

This law of faith and works, taught by Christ the Savior and entirely directed toward the salvation of humankind, is a new law, more perfect than the Law of Moses or the Old Testament law, and has replaced it.

1) There is a new law. We are convinced of this:

a) from the prophecy of Jeremiah: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (Jer. 31:31–32), that is, not according to the Sinai Covenant of the Old Testament. St. Paul the Apostle testifies that this refers to the new law given by God through Christ the Savior (Heb. 8:6–13), and the teachers of the Church have consistently affirmed this.[321]

b) From the words of the Lord Jesus Himself: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just as I have loved you” (John 13:34)—new in terms of the height and abundance of that love which is commanded (“just as I have loved you”), even though the commandment to love one’s neighbor was already known in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:18).

c) Finally—from the fact that in Christ’s teaching we do indeed find new laws that were not present in the Old Testament. Thus (the most important article of faith!) Christ taught us that He Himself is the Messiah promised from of old [(John 5:39); (Luke 24:27)], the only-begotten Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation (John 3:16)—and consequently: a) He commanded everyone to believe in Him: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29); “Believe in God; believe also in Me” (John 14:1); “Whoever believes in Me has eternal life” (John 6:47); b) commanded us to love Him and keep His commandments: “Abide in My love” (John 15:9); “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15); c) required us to offer Him divine worship: “so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). Such are also His laws: a) regarding the administration and necessity for all people of the sacrament of baptism (Mark 16:16; John 3:5), which He instituted in place of Old Testament circumcision (Col. 2:11–12); b) regarding the celebration and necessity for all of the sacrament of the Eucharist (John 6:53–58), which He instituted in place of the Old Testament sacrifices and offerings (Matt. 16:28; 1 Cor. 11:25); c) the indissolubility of marriage, regardless of fault, except in special cases, whereas in the Old Testament, due to the hardness of heart of the Jews, they were permitted to do so [(Matt. 19:3–9); (Mark 10:2–9)]; d) the establishment of the New Testament hierarchy [(Luke 6:13); (Eph. 4:11)], in place of the Old Testament priests, who were from the tribe of Levi according to the order of Aaron. And, as the Apostle affirms, changes occur in the proposed priesthood according to necessity and the law (Heb. 7:12).

2) There is a law that is more perfect than the Law of Moses, the Old Testament law. For:

a) The Law of Moses served only as a preparation for the Gospel; it was a tutor leading us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). The former is merely a shadow of the good things to come, while the Gospel law presents the very reality of those things (Heb. 10:1); the former contains only promises concerning the Messiah, prophecies, and types; the latter reveals the very fulfillment of those promises, prophecies, and types.[322]

b) In the Gospel law, the most important truths of the faith are revealed incomparably more fully and clearly: the mystery of the Holy Trinity, the mystery of the Incarnation, redemption, regeneration, our sanctification by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the life after death—all of which were only hinted at in the Old Testament.

c) In the Gospel, and especially in the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount, moral truths and virtues are portrayed much more fully and sublimely than in the Old Testament, such as: graciously bearing and forgiving offenses, love for one’s enemies, self-denial and humility, filial devotion to God as the all-good Father, chastity not only of the body but also of the spirit [(Matt. 5–7); (Matt. 11:29)], mutual love among Christians according to the highest model of the Savior’s own love for them (John 13:34), and others.

“The Law forbids,” writes St. Gregory the Theologian, “the commission of sins, yet we are held accountable even for the motives, almost as if they were actions themselves. The Law says, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Matt. 5:27). But you must not even harbor lust; do not kindle passion with a curious and attentive gaze. The Law says, ‘You shall not murder’ (Matt. 5:21). But you must not only refrain from retaliating for a blow, but even surrender yourself to the will of the one who strikes you. How much wiser is the latter than the former! The Law says: “Do not add house to house, or field to field” (Isa. 5:8), oppressing the poor and the needy (Ezek. 22:29). But you, willingly give even what you have acquired righteously; lay yourself bare before the poor, so that you may easily take up your cross and be enriched with the invisible.”[323]

d) Finally, the Gospel law offers far higher and purer motivations for a person to fulfill God’s will than the Law of Moses. The latter, at least when understood literally, was limited in this regard to the promise of temporal blessings [(Ex. 20:12); (Lev. 26:3); (Deut. 28:2)], whereas the Gospel law points primarily, and even exclusively, to eternal, spiritual blessings and to life after death [(Matt. 5:1–12), (Matt. 19–20); (Matt. 19:28–29); (Matt. 25:34)].

“Here,” says St. John Chrysostom, “what is promised is not a land flowing with milk and honey, not a comfortable old age, not many children, not bread and wine, nor flocks of sheep and herds of cattle; but heaven and heavenly blessings, adoption as sons and brotherhood with the Only-Begotten, a share in the inheritance, in glory and reign, and other countless rewards.”[324] On the other hand, the moral Law of Moses, being inseparably linked to the civil law , threatened death or other punishment for the violation of nearly every one of the Ten Commandments, and thus incited people to do good more through fear, so that the Jews, in the words of the Apostle, were under the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1), and were led by a spirit of slavery. In contrast, the Gospel law, which is purely moral and religious, motivates people to do good primarily through love [(John 3:16–17); (John 15:9–15)]: “You did not receive,” says the Apostle to the Christians, comparing them to the Jews, “the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’” (Rom. 8:15); “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ” (Gal. 4:7).

3) He replaced the Law of Moses. Regarding this replacement of the Law of Moses—which was essentially ceremonial and civil—with a new, more perfect, Gospel law—

a) It was foretold even in the Old Testament. For example, in the following words of God to the Jews: “It would be better if one of you would shut the doors, so that the fire on My altar would not be kept burning in vain. I take no pleasure in you, says the Lord of Hosts, and the offering from your hands is not acceptable to Me. For from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, a pure offering” (Mal. 1:10–11). Here, as the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have noted, the abolition of the Old Testament sacrifices is clearly depicted, along with the consequent abolition of the law under which they were offered only in the Temple in Jerusalem, and the establishment, in their place, another, pure sacrifice, and consequently another law, according to which it will be offered in all the lands of the world.[325] See also [(Jer. 31:31–35); (Dan. 9:27)] and consequently

b) Christ the Savior clearly testified to this in word and deed. Although He Himself was subject to the Law of Moses (Luke 2:21–23),[326] and was under the Law so that He might redeem those under the Law (Gal. 4:5), He at the same time wisely prepared for the abolition of this Law: a) when He called Himself the Lord of the Sabbath [(Matt. 12:8; John 5:17)];[327] b) when He said to the Samaritan woman: “Believe Me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem … but the time is coming—and is already here—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such worshipers the Father seeks” (John 4:21–23); c) when, finally, at the Last Supper, instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist, He said: “This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you” [(Luke 22:20); (Exodus 24:8)].

c) The Holy Apostles also bore witness to this, although they, following the Savior’s example, acted with wise gradualness in abolishing the Law of Moses until, finally, they solemnly accomplished this at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28). A detailed exposition of the idea that Christ’s law replaces the Law of Moses is presented in St. Paul’s epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, where the Apostle clearly affirms: “You are not under the law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14); “In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).

It should be added that the abolition of Moses’ ceremonial and civil law by Christ the Savior was inevitable. The ceremonial law, having served only as a foreshadowing, naturally lost its significance when, with the coming of the Messiah, it was fulfilled: why keep a shadow of the good things to come when the reality itself has appeared? (Heb. 10:1).[328] Furthermore, the ceremonial law was inextricably linked to the Temple in Jerusalem, just as the civil law applied exclusively to the Jewish people and to Palestine; consequently, neither could be applied outside of Jerusalem and Palestine, nor could they become universal and binding upon all nations.[329] Meanwhile, Christ came to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom to all people and for all time. The moral law of Moses alone, being based on human nature itself and being, in its essence, entirely similar to—and even identical with—the law of Christ [(Deut. 6:5); (Mark 12:30)], could be united with the latter and retain its significance within it. “Just as mothers,” says Blessed Theodoret, “nurses their newborn infants, then feed them light food, and finally, when they become adolescents or young men, give them solid food—so too has the God of all, from time to time, given people the most perfect teaching. Nevertheless, we honor the Old Testament as a mother’s breasts, though we no longer draw milk from it; for those who are mature have no need of the wet nurse’s milk, even though they must honor her, since they received their upbringing from her. So too, although we no longer observe circumcision, the Sabbath, sacrifices, or sprinklings; we nevertheless derive another benefit from the Old Testament: for it perfectly instructs us in piety, faith in God, love for our neighbor, self-control, justice, and courage, and, moreover, presents the examples of the ancient saints for us to imitate.”[330]

§147. Jesus Christ taught the law for all people and for all times

1) He taught the law for all people, not just for the Jews. This truth was foretold in the Old Testament. Thus, in the prophet Isaiah, God Himself says to His Son, the Messiah: “I will make you a light to the nations, so that My salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6); “I will make you a covenant for the people, a light for the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out the prisoners from confinement, and those who sit in darkness from the dungeon” (Isa. 42:6–7). As soon as Christ was born and, after the days of purification for the Most Holy Virgin had been fulfilled, was brought to the temple, the righteous Simeon, taking the Divine Infant into his arms, called Him a light to enlighten the Gentiles (Luke 2:32). Upon beginning His public ministry, Christ the Savior testified about Himself: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12); “I have come into the world as a light, so that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness” (John 12:46), and at the same time called His own disciples, whom He had just chosen, the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13) and the light of the world (Matt. 5:14). As He traveled through the towns and villages of Judea, He said: “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd” (John 10:16). Finally, having completed His great work on earth, He said to His disciples after His resurrection: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:18–19); “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). And the Apostles, indeed, “went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it” (Mark 16:20).

2) He taught the law for all time. For Christ—a) when sending His disciples to teach all nations, added: “And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20), and thus had in mind not only the nations of His own time, but also all future generations of people on earth; b) when He gave His disciples the promise of the Holy Spirit in the same passage, He said: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever” (John 14:16); c) among the signs of the world’s imminent end, He included the fact that “this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Matt. 24:14), and—d) He linked the completion of His work of building His kingdom and sowing the good seed on earth with the very end of the world, when He will appear in glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward each person according to their deeds (Matt. 13:24–43). The Holy Apostles also preached that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), that His covenant is an eternal covenant (Heb. 13:20), and that “He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church therefore called the law of Christ (in contrast to the law of Moses, which was given only for a time and to the Jewish people alone) the universal law, the catholic faith—[331] —as a law intended for all people and for all times, and as a faith that from the very beginning spread across the face of the whole earth.[332] We are easily convinced of this purpose of the Gospel law simply by reflecting on the goodness of the Creator, who undoubtedly desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). And the law of Christ is the one and only saving law, through which it is possible to attain eternal life.

§148. Jesus Christ taught the one and only law of salvation, which is necessary for attaining eternal life

This most important truth—

1) Christ the Savior Himself testified to this with all clarity—a) when He says: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6); “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3); “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” [(John 3:36); (John 16–18)]; “I am the gate; whoever enters through Me will be saved” (John 10:9); “I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me—He has commanded Me what to say and how to speak. And I know that His commandment is eternal life” (12:49–50), and b) when, commanding the Apostles, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,” He added: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15–16).

2) The holy Apostles later bore witness to this when—a) they taught about Christ: “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11), and “there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11–12); or: “We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and be in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20); b) referred to Christ’s teaching as the gospel of our salvation (Eph. 1:13), the word that can save our souls (James 1:21), and the power of God, which is “for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16), and—c) commanded Christians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8); “Anyone who goes beyond the teaching of Christ and does not abide in it does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or even greet him” (2 John 1:10).

3) All the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously professed this, calling the law of the Gospel the saving teaching, the saving dogma, “[333] ,” and affirming that without faith in Jesus Christ, without faith in all the teaching He imparted, it is impossible for anyone, anywhere, or at any time to be saved.[334]

II. On the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus Christ

§149. Connection to the Previous Section; the Concept of the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus Christ; the Truth of This Ministry and Its Superiority

As a Prophet, Christ the Savior only proclaimed salvation to us, but had not yet accomplished salvation itself: He enlightened our minds with the light of true knowledge of God, testified about Himself that He is the true Messiah, who came to earth to seek and save the lost (Matt. 18:11); He also explained how He would save us, how we might appropriate His merits for ourselves, and showed us the direct path to eternal life. But in fact, He saved us from sin and from all the consequences of sin; in fact, He earned eternal life for us through His high priestly ministry. This ministry of our Savior consisted in the fact that He, in accordance with the ministry of the Old Testament high priests—whose primary duty was “to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Heb. 5:1), offered Himself as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world, and in this way reconciled us to God, delivered us from sin and its consequences, and secured for us eternal blessings.

The truth of our Savior’s high priestly ministry—

a) was proclaimed even in the Old Testament by God Himself through the mouth of the prophet David, speaking to the Messiah: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 109:4); b) was attested to by Christ the Savior, who applied this prophetic Psalm to Himself, in which He is called an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek [(Matt. 22:44); (Mark 12:36); (Luke 20:42)]; c) finally, St. Paul the Apostle revealed this in detail in his Epistle to the Hebrews. Here he—

1) clearly and repeatedly calls Jesus Christ the High Priest, the Sanctifier, and the Priest. For example: “Christ did not take upon Himself the honor of being High Priest, but the One who said to Him, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You’; as He also says in another place, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (Heb. 5:5–6); “Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus Christ” (Heb. 3:1); “Since we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession” (4:14–16).

2) It explains why He is called a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. This is a) because Melchizedek was not only a priest of the Most High God but also the king of Salem—the king of righteousness and peace—and through this extraordinary combination of two exalted offices, he foreshadowed Christ, the extraordinary High Priest-King (Heb. 7:2); b) because Melchizedek (since Holy Scripture mentions neither his lineage nor the beginning or end of his life, nor his predecessor or successor) represented a type of Christ, the Son of God, who remains a priest forever (Heb. 7:3); c) finally, — because, having received a tithe from Abraham himself and having blessed him, Melchizedek the priest, in the person of Abraham, also blessed all those in his loins—the sons of Levi, the Old Testament priests—and received a tithe from all of them, — and since, without any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater, he thus foreshadowed the priesthood of Christ, which is superior to the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament (Heb. 7:4–10).[335]

3) It demonstrates the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, which was according to the order of Aaron. This superiority lies in the fact that: a) the Old Testament priesthood, having been established for a limited time, was not confirmed by an oath; whereas Christ’s priesthood, being irrevocable and eternal, is confirmed by God’s oath (Heb. 7:20–21); b) Old Testament priests, being human, died, and therefore their priesthood passed from one person to another; but Christ, “as He remains forever, holds an unchanging priesthood” (Heb. 7:23–24); c) Old Testament priests, being sinful human beings, offered sacrifices both for their own sins and for the sins of the people; Christ, being completely sinless, offered a sacrifice only for the sins of the world (Heb. 7:26–27); d) Priests of the order of Aaron offered sacrifices day after day—sacrifices that merely foreshadowed the cleansing sacrifice, but did not in themselves take away sins (Heb. 10:1–11): Christ offered Himself only once as the true, purifying sacrifice for the sins of the world, and by a single offering He made those being sanctified perfect forever [(Heb. 10:12–14); (Heb. 7:27); (Heb. 9:12–26)].

Following this clear teaching of the Word of God, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously confessed the truth of Christ’s priesthood. For example:

a) — St. Polycarp: “May God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest Himself, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, establish you in faith and truth, in all gentleness and without malice, in patience and generosity, in humility and purity;”[336] b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “He was a sacrifice, yet also a High Priest; a priest, yet also God; He offered His blood as a gift to God, yet He purified the whole world; He was lifted up on the cross, yet He nailed sin to the cross;”[337] “He is Melchizedek (Heb. 7:3), born without a mother by a nature higher than ours, and without a Father—by our nature—having no genealogy by his heavenly birth, for it is said: ‘Who can describe His lineage?’ (Isa. 53:8); as the King of Salem, that is, of peace, as the King of righteousness, and as the One who receives tithes from the patriarchs, who valiantly fought against the forces of evil;”[338] c) St. Epiphanius: “He is called High Priest—because in His own body He offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father for the human race; He Himself is the priest, He Himself is the sacrifice; He offered Himself, performing the sacred rite for the whole world;”[339] and elsewhere: “He offered Himself as a sacrifice so that, by offering the most perfect and living sacrifice for the whole world, He might abolish the Old Testament sacrifices; He Himself is the sacrifice, the offering, the altar, God Himself, man Himself, King Himself, High Priest Himself, the sheep Himself, the Lamb Himself, who became all things for our sake.”[340] Other teachers of the Church reasoned in a similar manner.[341]

§150. How did the Lord Jesus perform His high priestly ministry? The state of His exhaustion

In order to truly serve as a propitiatory sacrifice to God for the sins of humanity and to deliver us from all the ruinous consequences of sin, Christ the Savior deigned to fulfill, on our behalf, two conditions: to bear a twofold cross.

I. Since human beings, in the person of their first parents, did not fulfill God’s will, did not obey the commandment of their Creator, and consequently fell through self-will and pride; since each of their subsequent sins was a new transgression against God’s will, a new disobedience, a new expression of self-will: therefore Christ, the God-Man, in order to make satisfaction to the eternal Truth for all these human sins, was pleased, in their stead, to fulfill God’s will Himself on behalf of humanity, in its entirety and fullness, to manifest in Himself the most perfect model of obedience to it, and to humble and abase Himself for our sake to the utmost degree. “You did not desire sacrifices and offerings,” He said to His Father as He entered the world, “but You prepared a body for Me. Burnt offerings and sin offerings are not pleasing to You. Then I said, ‘Here I am—as it is written about Me at the beginning of the book—to do Your will, O God’” (Heb. 10:5–7). And subsequently, “Who, being in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in human form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient even to death—even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6–8). This is the first cross borne for us by our Savior—the cross of His voluntary self-sacrifice for our sake, His deepest humility, and His unconditional obedience and submission to God’s will.

II. Since human beings, by their first transgression in Paradise and by all their subsequent sins, justly incurred God’s wrath and were subjected to the curse and to numerous other calamities and sufferings—the inevitable consequences of sin— Christ, the God-Man, in order to deliver people from all these calamities and sufferings, was pleased to take upon Himself all of God’s wrath from humanity, to become a curse for us (Gal. 3:13), and to endure for us all that we deserved for our transgressions. “He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our sicknesses; yet we thought He was stricken, punished, and humbled by God. But He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray; each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:4–6). This is the second cross of our Savior—the cross of His voluntary sufferings, His indescribable illnesses, torments, and sorrows, which He endured for our sake, we sinners.

Thus, the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ encompasses His entire earthly life, from the moment of His conception in His Mother’s womb to His death on the cross, from His first words to the Father—“Behold, I come … to do Your will, O God”—to His final words: “It is finished! … Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” (John 19:30; Luke 23:46). Throughout this entire period, which is commonly referred to as our Savior’s state of humiliation or exhaustion, He constantly bore His own special cross—the cross of self-sacrifice, humility, obedience, and the cross of suffering and sorrow. Throughout this time, He was constantly a propitiatory sacrifice to God for our sins. In particular, our Savior’s high priestly ministry:

1) Began with His very coming into the world and His incarnation: — a) His coming into the world was already an act of obedience, of submission to the will of the Father, to whom He said: “You did not desire sacrifice and offering; You have prepared a body for Me … Behold, I come—as it is written of Me in the scroll of the book—to do Your will, O God” (Heb. 10:5–7); b) in the Incarnation, He emptied Himself completely—or humbled Himself, as the Apostle puts it—when, though He was God, “He took the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and found in human form” (Phil. 2:7); and c) as soon as He became incarnate, He took upon Himself the sins of the world, became a curse for us, and bore our infirmities (Isa. 53:3).[342]

2) It continued throughout His entire earthly life, from birth to death. His entire life was a single, unbroken act of humility, obedience to God’s will, suffering, and sorrow. He was born of a mother, the most pure and holy Virgin, yet poor and unknown; moreover, He was born in a stable and laid in a manger. A few days later, in accordance with the Law of Moses, He underwent the rite of circumcision, and even then was counted among the wicked (Isa. 53:12). Soon afterward, He faced persecution from Herod, fled to Egypt, and became the innocent cause of the deaths of many thousands of infants. Upon returning from Egypt, He settled in the most insignificant of towns—Nazareth—and for about thirty years remained completely unknown to the world, living in the home of His foster father, a carpenter, and sharing in his labors. Before beginning His public ministry, He—the Lord and Ruler of the world—went to be baptized by one of His servants, John, in order to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), and was again counted among the lawless; He willingly endured a forty-day fast and even temptation from the devil. After His ministry began, for about three and a half years, He carried out His work, not according to His own will, but according to the will of the Father, testifying: “I have come down from heaven not to do My own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (John 6:38); “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to complete His work” (John 4:34); “so that the world may know that I love the Father and do exactly as the Father has commanded Me” (John 14:31). He preaches, but He preaches what the Father has commanded Him: “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me” (John 7:16); “I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me—He has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak” (John 12:49). He Himself fulfills the Law of Moses, which He came to replace with a new and more perfect one for others. He cares for the enlightenment of His fellow countrymen, traveling through their towns and villages to preach—yet He Himself has nowhere to lay His head (Matt. 8:20). He does good through all His teaching and miracles (Acts 10:38)—yet He Himself suffers only evil from others: they do not believe His teaching; they attribute His miracles to the power of Beelzebub; they persecute Him with secret envy, hatred, slander, and reproaches, and more than once even attempt to take His life. Even among His own twelve disciples, with whom He was closest, He constantly sees and endures His future betrayer. And this entire arduous struggle of our Savior’s life was precisely the struggle of His high priestly ministry; all this self-sacrifice was aimed entirely at our eternal salvation. “During the days of His flesh, He offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death; and He was heard because of His reverence; though He was a Son, yet through suffering He learned obedience; and having been perfected, He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him, having been designated by God as High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:7–10).[343]

3) Finally, it was fully accomplished in His death on the cross, with the circumstances that preceded and accompanied it. For here the humility of our Savior, His obedience to God’s will, and His sufferings and sorrows all reached their highest degree. Here He truly appeared as one despised and abased more than any other man (Isa. 53:3); here He drank for us the full cup of God’s wrath (John 18:11) and endured the very pangs of hell (Isa. 53:12). Here, as High Priest, He truly offered Himself on the cross as a propitiatory sacrifice to God for the sins of the world, and redeemed us with His precious blood (1 Pet. 1:19), so that His Incarnation and His entire earthly life served only as a preparation and, as it were, a gradual ascent toward this great sacrifice. And that is why both in the Word of God and in the teaching of the Church (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 47) it is presented—

§151. In particular, the death of Jesus Christ as a sacrificial offering for our redemption

1) This most important truth was foreshadowed in the types and prophecies of the Old Testament. Thus, the bronze serpent, which Moses hung up in the wilderness by God’s command and which saved from death all those who, having been bitten by deadly serpents, looked upon it, — foreshadowed that “just as the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life” [(John 3:14–15); (Num. 21:8–9)]. The blood of all the sacrificial animals that were slaughtered to cleanse people of their sins, and, in particular, the blood of the Passover lamb, which protected the firstborn of Israel from the sword of the angel of death in Egypt; the blood of goats or calves, with which the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year to sprinkle the mercy seat for the sins of the entire people—all of this clearly indicated to God’s people that for the true cleansing of the whole human race from sin, the blood of the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world, would be used [(Heb. 9:11–12, 24); (Heb. 10:11–12); (1 Cor. 5:7); (Rev. 5:12)]. And from the Old Testament prophecies, it suffices here to recall the most important and clearest one, spoken by the prophet Isaiah concerning the Messiah: “But He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. We all went astray like sheep; each of us turned to his own way; and the Lord laid on Him the iniquities of us all. He was oppressed, yet He submitted; He did not open His mouth; like a lamb led to the slaughter … He bore the punishment for the transgressions of My people … His soul was delivered up to death, and He was numbered with the transgressors; yet He bore the sins of many, and for their transgressions He was delivered up [(Isa. 53:5–12); (Dan. 9:24); (Ps. 21:17–18)].

2) St. John the Baptist proclaimed this truth when, seeing Jesus coming toward him to be baptized, he said aloud to everyone: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). By calling Him the Lamb, he expresses the idea of His innocence and readiness to die; by calling Him the Lamb of God, he signifies that He is consecrated and pleasing to God; by calling Him the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world, he points to the lambs that were sacrificed for human sins in the Old Testament, and confesses that the New Testament Lamb will be sacrificed for the sins of all humanity.

3) Christ the Savior Himself bore witness to this truth on numerous occasions. Speaking of the purpose of His coming to earth, He said: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Calling Himself the one true shepherd of the sheep of His flock, He said: “The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep … I am the good shepherd … and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11–15). Foretelling to the Jews the institution of the sacrament of His body and blood, He remarked, among other things: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). And at the very institution of this saving sacrament, as He gave the bread to His disciples, He said: “This is My body, which is broken for you” (Luke 22:19), and then, as He gave them the cup, He said, “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). Finally, having truly tasted death for the sins of the world, He opened the minds of His disciples to understand the Scriptures after His resurrection. And He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and for repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached in His name to all nations” (Luke 24:46–47).

4) The Holy Apostles preached this truth. The Apostle John, referring to the advice Caiaphas gave to the Jews concerning Jesus Christ—“It is better for us that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50)—adds: “He did not say this on his own, but, being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the people—and not only for the people, but also to gather into one the scattered children of God” (John 11:51–52). And in his epistle he says: “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7); and in Revelation, it is recounted how the twenty-four elders, falling down before the Lamb, “sing a new song, saying: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and with Your blood You have redeemed us for God from every tribe and language and people and nation’” (Rev. 5:9; 1:5). The Apostle Peter exhorts Christians: “Conduct yourselves with reverence during your time as strangers, knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable silver or gold from the empty way of life handed down to you from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a spotless and blameless Lamb” (1 Pet. 1:17–19). “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, so that we might follow in His footsteps… He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having been freed from sin, we might live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed” (1 Pet. 2:21–24). “Christ suffered once for our sins to bring us to God—the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet. 3:18). But the Apostle Paul repeats this truth more often than anyone else in his epistles: “I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3); “Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God, a fragrant aroma” (Eph. 5:2); “Christ, having offered Himself once for all to take away the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28); “Who was delivered up for our sins and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25); “whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement through His blood, by faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25).

5) The Holy Catholic Church has always held to this truth, as is evident: a) from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, where it teaches us to believe: “and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God…, who for our sake became man and for our salvation came down from heaven…, and was crucified for us…; b) from the Athanasian Creed, which states: “There is one Christ who suffered for our salvation,” and—c) from the testimonies of her teachers, such as:

The Apostolic Fathers: a) St. Barnabas: “Let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered except for us…; for our sins He willed to offer up the vessel of the Spirit as a sacrifice;”[344]

b) St. Clement of Rome: “Let us look upon the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was shed for us…; let us look intently upon the blood of Christ and reflect on how precious His blood is before God, for when it was shed for our salvation, it brought the grace of repentance to the whole world;”[345] c) Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Christ died for you so that, by believing in His death, you might be saved from death;”[346] d) St. Polycarp: “He endured death itself for our sins…; He endured everything for us so that we might live in Him;”[347]

Teachers of the Second and Third Centuries: a) St. Justin the Martyr: “(Christ), by the will of the Father, became man for the salvation of those who believe in Him, and subjected Himself to humiliation and suffering, so that through His death and resurrection He might conquer death;”[348] b) St. Irenaeus: “Christ redeemed us with His blood, and gave up His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh;”[349] c) Tertullian: “Christ was pleased to be born of the flesh in the flesh, so that by His birth He might transform our birth, and by His death destroy our death;”[350] d) St. Cyprian: “Christ has bestowed this grace upon you, imparting to us the gift of His mercy, conquering death by His cross, redeeming the believer with the price of His blood, reconciling man with God the Father, and giving life through heavenly rebirth;”[351]

Teachers of the Fourth Century: a) Eusebius of Caesarea: “His work extended even to death, for which anyone wishing to investigate will find not one but many reasons: the first—that He might obtain dominion over the dead and the living; the second—that, having suffered for us and having become an oath for us, He might cleanse our sins; third, to perform the divine sacrifice and offer a great sacrifice on behalf of the whole world to God, who is above all;”[352] b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Christ is called our salvation (1 Cor. 1:30), as He who frees us from the bondage of sin, as He who gave Himself for us as a ransom, as a purifying sacrifice for the universe;”[353] c) Hilary: “He redeemed us when He gave Himself up for our sins; He redeemed us by His blood, His suffering, His death, and His resurrection;”[354] d) St. Ambrose: “The blood of the prophets could not redeem us; neither Peter nor Paul redeemed us; only He who is both God and man could redeem us by His death, something a mere man would never have been able to do;”[355] e) St. Ephrem the Syrian: “The impassible Lord suffered for us, the one and only sinless One was crucified for us…; Christ our Savior was put to death for us, the ungodly;”[356] e) Basil the Great: “What can a person find that is so valuable as to offer it as a ransom for his soul? But there was found one thing equal in value to all people combined, which was given as the price for the redemption of our souls: this is the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He shed for all of us.”[357]

In setting forth their thoughts in this way on Christ’s atoning death for us, the ancient teachers of the Church often sought, as far as possible, to explain why our Savior died for us on the cross rather than by some other means. The most important of these explanations can be found in the following words of St. Athanasius. “If anyone among us—not out of a love of controversy, but out of a desire to know the truth—asks, ‘Why did the Lord endure the death on the cross rather than any other kind of death?’ let him know that it was precisely this death, and no other, that could be salvific for us, and it was this death that the Lord endured for our salvation. For if He came to bear upon Himself the curse that was upon us, how else could He have become a curse unless He had suffered the death that was under the curse? And such a death is the death on the cross: ‘For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”’ (Gal. 3:13). Second, if the Lord’s death is the redemption of all, if by it the dividing wall is torn down and the calling of the nations is fulfilled (Eph. 2:14), then how would He have called us to the Father if He had not been crucified on the cross? For only on the cross can one die with outstretched arms. Thus, this is why it was necessary for the Lord to endure death on the cross and to stretch out His arms on the cross, so that with one arm He might draw the ancient people to Himself, and with the other—the Gentiles—and in this way unite both of them in Himself. He Himself foretold this when He wished to make clear by what kind of death He would redeem all: “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to Myself” (John 12:32). And furthermore: the enemy of our race—the devil—having fallen from heaven, roams here in the realm of the air, reigns over demons like himself in their disobedience, and through them, at times deceives with illusions those who fall prey to his deception, and at other times strives in every way to create some obstacle for those who strive upward; so says the Apostle Paul, calling him the prince who reigns in the air, who is now at work in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). Therefore, the Lord came to cast down the devil, purify the air of him, and open for us a free path to heaven, as the Apostle said, through the veil, that is, His own flesh (Heb. 10:21); and He could do this only through death. But by what other death, if not one that would take place in the air, that is, on the cross? For only one who is crucified on the cross dies in the air. Thus, it was not without reason that the Lord endured death on the cross: having been lifted up on the cross, He cleansed the air of the devil’s wiles.”[358]

§152. A Detailed Depiction in the Word of God of Our Redemption Through the Death of Jesus Christ

To present more clearly the great work of our redemption accomplished by Christ’s death, the Word of God depicts it in various parts, pointing out, on the one hand, from what evils the Lord has delivered us, and on the other, what blessings He has secured for us.

1) We were sinners and therefore unclean before God: Christ cleansed us from our sins by His blood. “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7); “If the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, when sprinkled, sanctify those who are defiled so that their bodies may be cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living and true God” [(Heb. 9:13–14); (Luke 24:47); (Titus 2:11–14); (Heb. 1:2); (Rev. 1:5)].

2) We were guilty before God and were under His oath, suffering punishment: Christ redeemed us from our guilt for our sins, and from the oath or punishments, by offering His blood to God’s righteousness as the price of our redemption. “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom (λύτρον—price, ransom) for many” (Matt. 20:28). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” [(Col. 1:14); (Eph. 1:7)]. “Conduct your time as strangers here with reverence, knowing that you were not redeemed (έλυτρώθητε—redeemed) from a futile way of life handed down to you from your fathers with perishable silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Pet. 1:17–19). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” [(Gal. 3:13). (1 Cor. 6:20); (1 Cor. 7:28); (Gal. 1:4); (1 Tim. 2:5–6); (Titus 2:14)].

3) We were enemies of God because of our sins: Christ reconciled us to Him through His death. “It pleased the Father that in Him (Christ) all fullness should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through Him by the blood of His cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your wicked deeds, He has now reconciled in the body of His flesh through His death, to present you holy and blameless and beyond reproach before Him” (Col. 1:19–22). “If, while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved through His life” [(Rom. 5:10); (2 Cor. 5:19); (Eph. 2:16)].

4) We were slaves to sin (Rom. 6:20), captives of the devil [(2 Tim. 2:26); (John 12:31)], condemned to death (Gen. 3:19): Christ freed us from the slavery of sin, delivered us from the devil’s power, and saved us from death by His own death. “Who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). “Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death” (Heb. 2:14–15). “…having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross” (Col. 2:14–15). “Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22).

Having thus saved us from sin and all the destructive consequences of sin through His death, the Lord Jesus at the same time secured for us the greatest blessings.

5) He established a new covenant with His own blood and reconciled us to God. “And so He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that, through His death—which was for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant—those who have been called may receive the promised eternal inheritance” [(Heb. 9:15); (12:24)]. And now, in Christ Jesus, you (the Gentiles), who were once far off, have been brought near by the blood of Christ… for through Him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit (Eph. 2:13–18).

6) He has adopted us as God’s children and made us His own. “When the fullness of time had come, God sent His [only-begotten] Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5). “So then you are no longer strangers or aliens, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household” [(Eph. 2:19); cf. 2 Pet. 1:4)].

7) Through His death, He has granted us the means to be righteous and holy. “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that we, having been freed from sins, might live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24). “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25–27). “And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind of wickedness, He has now reconciled in the body of His flesh through His death, to present you holy and blameless and beyond reproach before Him” (Col. 1:21–22; Titus 2:14).

8) Through His death, He has secured for us eternal life and eternal glory. “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:14–15). “For if, while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved through His life” (Rom. 5:10). “For it was fitting that He, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10).

In accordance with all these acts accomplished for us through the death of our Lord, He Himself is called in Holy Scripture: Jesus, that is, Savior (σωτήρ), because He saved us and delivered us from sin and from all the consequences of sin [(Matt. 1:21); (Luke 2:11); (Titus 2:13–14); (Acts 5:31)]; an Advocate or Mediator (Μεσίτης), because He reconciled and reunited us with God [(1 Tim. 2:5); (Heb. 8:6); (Heb. 9:15); (Heb. 12:24)]; High Priest (Aρχιερεύς), because He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us on the cross and, through this propitiatory sacrifice, earned for us deliverance from all evil and eternal blessings [(Heb. 2:17); (Heb. 4:14); (Heb. 5:9–10, etc.]; Guarantor (Ἐγγυος) of the New Covenant (Heb. 7:22), because by His death He paid our debt to God for our sins, “having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14).

§153. The Revelation of the Very Means of Our Redemption Through the Death of Jesus Christ

The whole mystery of our redemption through the death of Jesus Christ lies in the fact that He, in our place, paid the debt with His own blood and fully satisfied God’s justice for our sins—a debt we ourselves were unable to pay; in other words, He, in our place, fulfilled and endured everything that was required for the forgiveness of our sins. The very possibility of such a substitution of one person for another before the judgment seat of God’s justice—such payment of a moral debt by one person in place of another or others—must necessarily be acknowledged by common sense: a) when this substitution is in accordance with God’s will and the consent of the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge Himself; b) when the person who has taken it upon himself to pay the debt in place of other insolvent debtors does not himself owe the same debt to God; c) when he voluntarily resolves to fulfill all the requirements of the debt, whatever the Judge may impose; and—d) when, finally, he actually makes such a payment as would fully satisfy the debt. All these conditions, which we have drawn from the example of our Savior and merely summarized, are fully fulfilled in His great act of sacrifice on our behalf. And—

1) The Lord Jesus endured suffering and death for us according to the will and consent of His Father, our supreme Judge. For this reason, He, the Son of God, came to earth—not to do His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him (John 6:38); throughout His entire earthly life, He was concerned only with fulfilling the Father’s will (John 4:34). Finally, as He approached death, in the midst of His greatest sufferings, He prayed to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane: “My Father! If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me,” and immediately added: “yet not as I will, but as You will” (Matt. 26:39), “Nevertheless, not My will, but Yours be done” (Luke 22:42). And shortly thereafter, He indeed drank the entire cup of God’s wrath for us on the cross. On the other hand, the Word of God clearly teaches that the Father Himself “did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32); “whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25), “for it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through Him by the blood of His cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col. 1:19–20).

2) The Lord Jesus endured suffering and death for our sins, though He Himself was completely sinless and innocent, and was therefore entirely free before God from this moral obligation. “God made Him who knew no sin,” says the Apostle, “to be a sin offering for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). “Such a High Priest we need: holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens—who has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, since He did this once for all by offering Himself” (Heb. 7:26–27). He “through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb. 9:14), “so that He might bring us to God, having suffered once for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Pet. 3:18), and that is why “He redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13).

3) The Lord Jesus endured suffering and death for us entirely of His own free will—which is why they could be pleasing to the heavenly Judge. “The Father loves Me,” says Christ the Savior, “because I lay down My life, only to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it up again” (John 10:17–18). And then, when the time had indeed come to lay down His life for the sheep, He willingly went to Jerusalem, even though He knew in advance that He would be betrayed, mocked, and crucified there (Matt. 20:18); He willingly went to the Garden of Gethsemane, even though He foresaw that Judas the traitor and his accomplices would come there after Him (Matt. 26:30–31); He willingly gave Himself up into the hands of the high priest’s servants, even though He was able, with a single word—“I am He”—to cast them all to the ground (John 18:6), and even though He could have, if He had wished, called upon more than twelve legions of angels to defend Himself (Matt. 26:53). The Holy Apostles likewise taught that Christ “bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24), that “Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as an offering and a sacrifice to God, a fragrant aroma … He loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:2).

4) Through His sufferings and death, the Lord Jesus paid to God’s righteousness a price for us—not only one that was completely full and sufficient for our debt, but also one that was in abundance—and thus not only redeemed us from sin but also secured for us eternal blessings.

a) The Lord Jesus paid a full and completely satisfactory price for our debt. This debt of ours before God consisted in our failure to fulfill His will, which we were bound to fulfill; through our disobedience, we infinitely offended our Creator, and as a result were condemned by Him to suffering and death—which is the inevitable consequence of sin and the just retribution for sin—according to the word of Scripture: “Sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (James 1:15); “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23; Gen. 2:17). But the Lord Jesus fully and perfectly fulfilled God’s will on our behalf throughout His entire earthly life and especially in His crucifixion and death, when His self-sacrifice, humility, and obedience to the Father’s will reached their highest degree (Phil. 2:8); He fully and perfectly pleased our Creator on our behalf; He fully and perfectly endured on our behalf all the sufferings and death that we deserved for all our sins. For although He suffered and died for us in His humanity, this humanity was inseparably united with His Divinity even during His sufferings, and is the very humanity of God the Word. Although He suffered and died alone for the entire human race, which comprises millions of people, He is a Divine Person with whom not only all people, but also all creatures taken together, cannot compare in dignity. Although He fulfilled God’s will on our behalf and was obedient for only thirty-three and a half years, and although He suffered and died for us once; yet both His obedience to God’s will and His sufferings and death, as a Divine Person, are undoubtedly capable of atoning for all our innumerable acts of disobedience to God’s will, and for all the countless forms of our sufferings and deaths, both temporal and eternal. God could not remain unsatisfied with such a sacrifice for our sins: for it was God Himself who made the atonement [(Heb. 5:8–10); (Heb. 9:27–28); (Heb. 10:12–14)]. These thoughts were expressed and expounded upon by many of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, for example:

An apostolic man who wrote the Epistle to Diognetus; “God gave up His own Son as a ransom (λοτρον) for us—the Holy One for the lawless, the Righteous One for the unrighteous, the Innocent One for the guilty, the Imperishable One for the perishable, the Immortal One for the mortal. For what else could cover our sins but His righteousness?

Who else could justify us lawless ones, except the one Son of God?”[359]

St. Irenaeus: “In the first Adam, we provoked (God’s) wrath by failing to keep His commandment; but in the second Adam, we were reconciled to Him again, having been obedient even unto death. For we were indebted to no one else but Him whose commandment we had transgressed in the beginning.”[360]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “We were enemies because of sin; and God decreed death for the sinner. Which of the two, then, was to prevail: was it justice that required putting the sinner to death, or was it love for humanity that required setting aside the decree? But consider the wisdom of God: He preserved both the truth of the decree and the power of His love for humanity. “He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, so that, having been freed from sins, we might live for righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24).[361] “Do not be surprised that the whole world has been redeemed: for He who died for the world was not a mere man, but the Only-Begotten Son of God. The sin of one man, Adam, could bring death to the world. If, through the transgression of one (Rom. 5:17), death reigned in the world—will not life reign all the more through the righteousness of the One? And if, then, they were cast out of paradise for eating from the tree, is it not all the more fitting that believers should now enter paradise through the tree of Jesus? If the first man, formed from the earth, brought universal death, can not He who formed him from the earth bring eternal life, being Life Himself? If Phinehas, by killing a man who was committing an act of wickedness out of zeal, put an end to God’s wrath (Num. 25:8), then can Jesus—who did not kill another but gave Himself as a ransom—not put an end to God’s wrath against humanity? (2 Tim. 2:6).[362]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Since it was ultimately necessary for all people to pay their debt (and the debt consisted in the fact that all people were subject to death, which was the primary reason for the coming of Jesus Christ to earth): therefore, having proven His divinity through His works, He finally offered a sacrifice for all people, delivering the temple of His body to death, so that through this, on the one hand, He might make all people blameless and free from the ancient transgression, and on the other hand, reveal Himself as the conqueror of death, and make the incorruptibility of His own body the beginning of the universal resurrection… Death was necessary; there had to be a death for all people, because the common debt that weighed upon all people had to be paid. To this end, the Word, who is immortal by nature, took on mortal flesh, so that He might offer it—as His own flesh—as a sacrifice for all people, and so that, in the flesh, He might endure death for all.”[363]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “For each of our debts, a separate recompense was given by the One who is above us; and a new mystery was revealed—God’s loving regard for the fallen through disobedience. For this reason, the Virgin’s birth; for this reason, the manger and Bethlehem; birth instead of creation, the Virgin instead of a wife, Bethlehem instead of Eden, the manger instead of paradise, the small and visible instead of the great and hidden… For this, Jesus accepts baptism and the testimony from above; for this, He fasts, is tempted, and overcomes the one who overcame. For this, demons are cast out, diseases are healed, and the great work of preaching is entrusted to the little ones and accomplished by them… For this, a tree for a tree and a hand for a hand; hands, bravely outstretched, for a hand, recklessly outstretched; hands nailed to the cross for a wayward hand; hands uniting the ends of the earth into one for the hand that cast out Adam. For this reason, the crucifixion for the fall, gall for the taste, the crown of thorns for the meager dominion, death for death.”[364]

The following also reasoned in this way: Clement of Alexandria,[365] Ambrose,[366] Gregory of Nyssa,[367] John Chrysostom,[368] Augustine,[369] and others.[370]

b) The Lord Jesus paid a price that far exceeds what we deserve. For no matter how great and numerous the sins of the entire human race may be, they are nevertheless limited both in nature and in number; whereas the self-sacrifice, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ, the Divine and infinite Person, must have infinite value in every respect before the judgment of eternal Justice. Consequently, no matter how great or immeasurable the offense caused by our sins against the majesty of the Most High Being, the atonement offered for them by Jesus Christ is incomparably greater. Therefore, He not only fully paid our debt with His priceless blood, but also purchased and secured for us eternal blessings through it. The Holy Apostle clearly proclaims this truth, saying: “If, through the transgression of one, many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to many… For if, through the transgression of the one, death reigned through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus Christ” [(Rom. 5:15–17); (Rom. 8:32)]. The Holy Fathers also preached:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “He who died for us was no ordinary man; the Lamb was not a mere mortal; He was not just a man; He was not merely an angel, but God made man. The iniquity of sinners was not as significant as the righteousness of Him who died for them. We did not sin so much as He who laid down His soul for us did in righteousness; He who laid it down when He willed, and received it again when He willed.”[371]

St. John Chrysostom: “Imagine that someone owes a creditor ten obols (a small coin), and the creditor throws into prison not only the debtor himself, but even his wife, children, and servants; but then another comes along, and not only pays the ten obols, but also gives ten thousand talents of gold, leads the prisoner to the royal palace, seats him in the place of greatest honor, and showers him with honors and distinctions; then the one who lent the ten obols will forget all about them. This is exactly what happened to us! Christ paid far more than we owed; His payment, compared to our debt, is like an immeasurable sea compared to a tiny drop. So do not doubt, O man, when you see such a wealth of blessings; do not wonder how the spark of death and sin has been extinguished when a whole sea of gracious gifts has been poured out upon it.”[372]

That is why we believe that the sufferings and death of our Savior have significance not only as a ransom for us and the payment of our debt,[373] but also as the greatest merits before the judgment of eternal Justice, for the sake of which God grants us everything (Rom. 8:32). Or, to put it in the words of the Orthodox Catechism: “His (that is, Jesus Christ’s) voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and worth as the sinless God-man, constitute both a perfect satisfaction to God’s justice, which condemned us to death for sin, and an immeasurable merit that has earned Him the right, without offending justice, to grant us sinners forgiveness of sins and the grace to triumph over sin and death” (on Art. IV, p. 54, Moscow, 1840).

§154. The Extent of the Redemptive Work of Christ’s Death

The sacrifice offered for us by Christ the Savior on the cross is a universal sacrifice. Its power and effects extend:

1) To all people. So taught the Savior Himself, saying that He “came to seek and to save the lost” [(Matt. 18:11); (Matt. 9:13)],—and such were all people; that He would give His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51), and that “God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). This is what the Holy Apostles also taught, calling Jesus Christ:

a) An intercessor for all. “For this is good and pleasing to our Savior God, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” [(1 Tim. 2:3–6); (Rom. 3:28–30)].

b) The Savior of the world. “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). “And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).

c) One who died for all people. “If one died for all, then all died. But Christ died for all, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again” [(2 Cor. 5:14–15); (Heb. 9:9)]. “Just as through the offense of one man condemnation came to all people, so through the righteousness of one man justification leading to life came to all people” [(Rom. 5:18); (Col. 1:20); (Eph. 1:10); (Eph. 3:13–22)].

The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church taught the same: Clement of Rome, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius,[374] Chrysostom,[375] Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Ambrose, Isidore of Pelusium,[376] Theodoret,[377] Augustine, and others.[378] Here are the words of some of them: a) St. Macarius the Great: “The Lord was pleased, in His coming, to suffer for all;”[379] b) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The High Priest and Messenger of our confession, the reverend, the meek, the spotless, the one untouched by impurity or any evil thought, offered Himself bodily to God the Father for all people…; as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, He offered Himself to the Father as a ransom—not for Israel alone, but for all nations—and became the High Priest of the confession of all people;”[380] c) St. Athanasius the Great: “He voluntarily gave up His body for the whole world, so that through the death of His body He might put to death the devil, who holds the power of death.”[381]

If, however, Holy Scripture sometimes states that the Lord gave His life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28), or bore the sins of many on the cross [(Heb. 9:28); bore them (Matt. 26:28); (Luke 22:20)]: we must remember, first of all, that when this truth is expressed in sacred language, the word “many” is used to mean “all,” as a part standing in for the whole, for example, in the words of the Apostle: “Just as through the transgression of one man condemnation came upon all men, so through the righteousness of one man justification leading to life came upon all men. For just as through the disobedience of one man many became sinners, so also through the obedience of one many will be made righteous” [(Rom. 5:18–19); (Rom. 5:12–15); (Heb. 2:9–10); (Isa. 53:6–12)]. Second, it is known that although Christ died for all, and “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), not everyone believes in Him, not everyone accepts the salvation He has accomplished, and, in fact, only many are saved (Matt. 20:16). St. John Chrysostom, in explaining the Apostle’s words: “Christ, having offered Himself once to take away the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28), remarks: “Why, then, did He say ‘many’ and not ‘all’? Because not all believed. He (Christ), for His part, died for all in order to save all: this death fully corresponded to the perdition of all; but it did not destroy the sins of all, because they themselves did not will it.”[382]

2) From all sins. This is confirmed by the Word of God, which says that Christ has delivered us:

a) in general, from every sin: “who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness” (Titus 2:14); “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7)—and in particular:

b) from original sin: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man many will be made righteous” [(Rom. 5:19); (1 Cor. 15:45)].

c) from all past sins: “whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement through His blood, by faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins previously committed” [(Rom. 3:25); (Acts 13:38–39); (Heb. 9:15)].

d) from all future sins: “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1–2). “If we confess our sins, He, being faithful and righteous, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

This truth was also unanimously preached by the teachers of the Church, for example: a) St. John Chrysostom: “That the blessings bestowed (by Jesus Christ) are more numerous than the evils that have been eradicated, and that not only original sin but all other sins have been eradicated—this the Apostle expressed in the words: ‘the gift of grace is for justification from many transgressions’ (Rom. 5:16),”—and further: “By grace, not only the original sin has been eradicated, but all other sins as well; not only have sins been eradicated, but righteousness has also been granted to us; and Christ not only corrected all that was corrupted by Adam, but restored all this to a greater extent and to a higher degree;”[383] b) Hilary: “He (Christ) redeemed all people from all their iniquities.”[384]

3) For all time, that is, from the very beginning of the fall of humanity until the end of the world. For this reason—a) Christ is called, on the one hand, the Lamb slain from the creation of the world (Rev. 13:8); and on the other hand, the eternal High Priest (Heb. 7:21), who did not need “to suffer many times from the foundation of the world, but once, at the end of the ages, appeared to put away sin by His sacrifice” (Heb. 9:26), and “by a single sacrifice He has made those who are being sanctified perfect forever” (Heb. 10:14). Likewise—b)—the atonement He accomplished is called eternal: “Christ, the High Priest of the good things to come, having come through a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands—that is, not of this creation—and not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, entered the Most Holy Place once for all and obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11–12); c) and His priesthood is eternal: “Since He remains forever, He holds an unchanging priesthood; therefore, He is able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to intercede for them” (Heb. 7:24–25; Rom. 8:34).

How are we to understand this intercession for us by Christ the Savior in heaven? St. Gregory the Theologian explains:

St. Gregory the Theologian: “To intercede here (Heb. 7:25) means to act as an advocate (πρεσβέβειν) for us as a mediator, just as it is said of the Spirit that He intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26)… ‘We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ’ (1 John 2:1), not in the sense that He humbles Himself before the Father and prostrates Himself like a slave: may such a truly servile and unworthy thought be far from us! It is unbecoming for the Father to demand this, and for the Son to endure it; indeed, it is unjust to think of God in this way.”[385]

Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria: “Some, interpreting the phrase ‘to intercede for us,’ understood it to mean that Jesus Christ possesses a body (and has not cast it aside, as the Manicheans foolishly claim): this very fact is His intercession and advocacy before the Father. For, in view of this, the Father recalls that love for mankind for which His Son took on the body, and is moved to mercy and grace.”[386]

4) For the whole world in general. Although Christ the Savior died specifically for the fallen human race—which is why He is called the mediator between God and mankind (1 Tim. 2:5); since the purpose of His atoning sacrifice was to eradicate not only sin but also all the consequences of sin, and since the consequences of the Fall extended to the whole world, the effects of redemption have also extended to the whole world, both spiritual and material.

With regard to the spiritual world, the consequence of our first parents’ fall was that sin, having severed our union with God, the most holy Being, inevitably severed our union with the holy angels as well (Matt. 25:31), and erected an impenetrable barrier between heaven and earth, so that the pure and luminous inhabitants of the heavenly realm could no longer have fellowship with those sitting in the darkness of sin and the shadow of death (Matt. 4:16): “For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? What does light have in common with darkness?” (2 Cor. 1:14). Christ, by His cross, tore down this dividing wall, reconciled heaven and earth, and reunited angels and humans under His one Head into the one Church of God. “It pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell, and that through Him He might reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through Him by the blood of His cross, both things on earth and things in he ” (Col 1:19–20); “He predestined Him to be the head over all things at the fullness of time, to unite all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” (Eph 1:10), and, upon His completion of the work of redemption, “He subjected all things under His feet and appointed Him as head over all things, as head of the Church,

23 which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 22:23). And to those who have believed in Christ, it is said: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:22–24).

With regard to the material world—or, at least, to earthly nature—human sin has caused the earth to be cursed because of human activity (Gen. 3:17), “creation was subjected to futility not of its own will … and together it groans and suffers to this day” (Rom. 8:20–22). As a result of the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, the curse will be lifted from the earth, and all creation will be set free from futility and from groaning: this is bound to take place once the renewal of humanity is finally accomplished and the glory of the sons of God is revealed. That is why, as the Apostle testifies, creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God, for creation was not subjected to futility of its own will, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in the hope that creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:19–21).

Then the last enemy of all who are born of the earth—death—will be abolished; the work of decay will inevitably come to an end; then the earth and everything on it will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10), and a new heaven and a new earth will appear, in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet. 3:13).

The redemptive power of Christ’s death does not extend—and will never extend—to the realm of the spirits of malice, who have fallen so deeply, become so deeply entrenched in evil, and are so stubbornly hostile toward God and so embittered against Him that they can no longer repent, are incapable of restoration, and are unworthy of mercy.[387] They are being reserved for the day of judgment and the revelation of God’s wrath (Jude 1:6); for them, eternal fire is prepared (Matt. 25:47). The view of the ancient Gnostics, Marcionites, and Origenists, who extended the effects of atonement to the fallen angels themselves, was refuted by the teachers of the Church,[388] , and solemnly condemned by the entire Church at the Fifth Ecumenical Council.[389]

§155. The Consequences of the Merits of the Cross of Jesus Christ in Relation to Himself: The State of His Glorification

The great work of our redemption, which the Lord Jesus accomplished through His sufferings and death—as a work of His own free will, as a work of the Divine Person—has, before the judgment of eternal Justice, the significance of the greatest merit, not only in relation to Himself, our Redeemer. He voluntarily submitted Himself to the will of the Father, who had determined to save the world through the blood of His incarnate Son; He voluntarily walked the entire path of exhaustion; voluntarily, “for the joy set before Him, He endured the cross, despising the shame” (Heb. 12:2): for all this, following His state of humiliation, there came for Him a state of glorification or glory [(John 7:39); (John 12:16)], — a glorification not based on His Divinity, which had always been glorious and only during the days of His incarnation (Heb. 5:7) concealed its glory under the veil of the flesh, but based on His very humanity, which He had taken into the unity of His Divine Hypostasis, and which, until death, was truly humbled (disgraced), and had neither form nor majesty (Isa. 53:2–3). Concerning this complete glorification of our Savior, as God-man, as a result of His merits—

1) He Himself clearly proclaimed it when, as He approached death, He cried out to the Father, among other things: “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son … I have glorified You on earth; I have finished the work You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began” (John 17:1–5); and when, after His resurrection, He appeared to two of His disciples who were walking to Emmaus and were perplexed by the Teacher’s death, He exclaimed: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory?” [(Luke 24:25–26); (John 10:17)]

2) The Holy Apostles also bore clear witness to this. The Apostle Peter said to the Jews: “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Son Jesus, whom you handed over” (Acts 3:13); and in his epistle he writes that the prophets foretold our salvation, first testifying to Christ’s sufferings and the glory that would follow them (1 Pet. 1:11). The Apostle Paul, after describing how Christ, being true God, “humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men and appearing as a man; He humbled Himself, being obedient even to death—even death on a cross,” immediately adds: “Therefore (διό) God exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow—in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil. 2:7–10). And in another epistle, he says that we see Jesus, precisely “crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death” (Heb. 2:9).

The nature of this glorification of our Savior is evident in part from the testimonies cited. It consists in the fact that He, now as the God-man, entered into the very same glory that He, as God, possessed with the Father before the world began [(Luke 24:26); (John 17:5)]; in that, even in His humanity, the Father “raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in heaven, far above every principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come, and subjected all things under His feet ” [(Eph. 1:20–22); (1 Cor. 15:27)]; in that He, “having ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God, to whom the angels, authorities, and powers have submitted” (1 Pet. 3:22), and in human form receives from all—heavenly, earthly, and those in the underworld—exactly the same worship that He had from eternity according to His divinity (Phil. 2:10; Rev. 5:11–14).

This complete and total glorification of Jesus Christ began with His resurrection from the dead, when His very body was transformed and became a body of glory (Phil. 3:21), and when He said to the Apostles, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matt. 28:18). This was followed by His ascension into heaven in the flesh, where all the angels of God submitted to Him [(1 Pet. 3:22); (Heb. 1:6)]. Then came His seating at the right hand of the Father in all divine glory [(Eph. 1:21–22); (1 Cor. 15:27)], in which He will one day appear to the whole world to judge the living and the dead [(Matt. 16:27); (Matt. 19:28); (Matt. 24:30)], and in which He will abide forever and ever together with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:33).

§156. The Relationship Between the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus Christ and His Prophetic Ministry

Although the primary purpose of Jesus Christ’s high priestly ministry—that is, of all His suffering and, in particular, His death on the cross—was to accomplish our redemption, He nevertheless endured all this suffering for other purposes as well, which are hidden in His prophetic ministry. Namely:

1) He “humbled Himself, becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8)—among other things, in order to teach us, through the example of His own life, the highest Gospel virtues that He preached in word. He Himself repeatedly pointed to this goal: “Learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29); “I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (John 13:15); “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24); “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you” (John 15:12). The holy apostles also taught: a) St. John: “By this we know what love is, that He laid down His life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16); b) St. Peter: “Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, so that we might follow in His footsteps” (1 Pet. 2:21); c) St. Paul: “I urge you: imitate me, just as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor. 4:16).

2) He also died so that, through His sufferings and death, He might definitively overturn the false notions held by the Jews—not unfamiliar even to His own disciples—regarding the Messiah as an earthly king and a glorious conqueror, and to reveal the true meaning of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Him. And so, when He appeared after His resurrection to two of His disciples who still held these views, He exclaimed: “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said about Him in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:25–27). Likewise, when He appeared to all the disciples, “He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. And He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead’” (Luke 24:45–46).

3) He also died in order to abolish once and for all the Law of Moses, which served as a dividing wall between the Jews and the Gentiles, and to seal with His blood the new law or covenant, which He brought down from heaven for the whole human race. “He is our peace,” says the Apostle, “who has made the two (Jews and Gentiles) one and has torn down the dividing wall of hostility, having abolished the law of commandments through His flesh, so that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and to reconcile both to God in one body through the cross, having put to death the hostility on it” (Eph. 2:14–16). “And so He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that, through His death—which was for the redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant—those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. For where there is a will, the death of the testator must follow” (Heb. 9:15–16). And the Savior Himself said, “This is My Blood of the New Covenant” (Matt. 26:28).

4) He died, finally, to solemnly bear witness before all, through His very death, to the truth of the teaching He had preached; He died as a confessor, as a martyr for God’s truth. “So, are You the Son of God?” asked the high priests, the scribes, and the elders of the Jews as they put Him on trial before His death, and He, without hesitation, answered them: “You say that I am” [(Luke 22:70); (Matthew 26:63)]. “Are you the King of the Jews?” Pilate then asked Him, and Jesus answered him just as boldly: “You say that I am a king,” adding: “I was born for this, and for this I came into the world—to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:33– 37). It was for these two supposed crimes—of which our Redeemer was accused by the blind Jews, and which He refused to deny—that He was condemned to death. This is why St. Paul the Apostle calls Him “the one who gave the good confession before Pontius Pilate” (1 Tim. 6:13), and why St. John the Apostle, in the Book of Revelation, calls Him “the faithful and true witness” (Rev. 1:5; 3:14).

III. On the Royal Ministry of Jesus Christ

§157. Connection to the Previous Section; the Concept of the Royal Ministry of Jesus Christ and the Truth of This Ministry

As a prophet, the Lord Jesus revealed to us the mystery of salvation; as a high priest, He accomplished our salvation by redeeming us from sin, from the power of Satan (Acts 26:18), and from eternal death, and by earning for us the kingdom of heaven and eternal bliss. But in both of these ministries, He still needed to possess the power of a king so that, on the one hand, He might perform a series of signs and wonders as proof of the divinity of His gospel—without which people could not have believed in Him—and, on the other hand, so that He might truly destroy the devil’s domain—hell—truly conquer death, and open the way for us into the kingdom of heaven. That is why our Redeemer was predestined, along with the prophetic and high-priestly ministries, to fulfill a third ministry—the kingly ministry. This office consists in the fact that the Lord Jesus, the eternal King by His divinity, having been anointed by the Holy Spirit as King in His humanity at the very moment of His incarnation (Luke 1:32–35; Acts 10:37–38), exercised and continues to exercise His kingly power and authority for the great work of our salvation.

The truth of our Savior’s kingly ministry is very clearly attested to in the Word of God.

1) He was born a king and endowed with authority. For a child has been born to us—a Son has been given to us; the government will rest upon His shoulders, and His name will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. (Isa. 9:6–7; Luke 1:32–33; Matt. 2:2).

2) He was a king and possessed kingly authority during the days of His humiliation. For He Himself assumed the title of king at that time, as is evident from the charge brought against Him by the Jews [(Matt. 27:11–37); (Mark 15:1–31)], and as He indeed confirmed before Pilate (John 18:37). He also claimed for Himself the authority of a king, as shown by the words of His prayer to the Father: “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You, since You have given Him authority over all flesh, so that He may give eternal life to all whom You have given Him” (John 17:1–2). He demonstrated Himself to be King by His very actions when He entered Jerusalem, in accordance with the ancient prophecy: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King is coming to you, righteous and bringing salvation, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” [(Zech. 9:9); (John 12:15); (Matt. 21:5)], and when He received the solemn acclamations from the people: “Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” [(Matt. 21:9); (John 12:13)].

3) Finally, in all His glory and power, He appeared as King in the state of His glorification, when He had already told His disciples: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matt. 28:18), and when God had indeed “seated Him at His right hand in heaven, far above every principality, power, might, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come, and has put all things under His feet” (Eph. 1:20–22).

The Holy Church has always confessed the kingly dignity and ministry of Jesus Christ in her very Creed—with the words: “and His kingdom will have no end.” The teachers of the Church have also confessed this, in particular:

St. Irenaeus: “(The Holy Spirit) foretold through the prophets both the birth from the Virgin, the passion, the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of our beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, as well as His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father, to rule over all (Eph. 1:10) and to raise all flesh of all humanity, so that before Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, Savior and King, by the will of the invisible Father, every knee in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld may bow” (Phil. 2:10).[390]

St. Methodius of Patara: “Scripture ascribes royal honor to the Son, not as if it were given to Him from without, or had a beginning, or could be increased—God forbid such a thought! — but in the sense that this honor belongs to Him both by nature and because He has truly acquired it (ίδιόκτητον).”[391]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The name of Christ signifies, first and foremost, His dominion (κράτος).”[392] “The name of Christ, if rendered into a clearer and more easily understood word, means ‘King’: for Holy Scripture designates by this name, in a certain special sense, kingly dignity.”[393]

St. Zeno of Verona: “This King is the very One whose coming was foretold by the prophets, who was born in the flesh in time, who is exalted above all and humble on earth—the Creator of the ages and the Son of the Virgin, who is immortal in Himself but deigned to die as a human being… He is the One to whom, after the resurrection, God gave authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18); yet this authority is new only in relation to His new name (Phil. 2:9); for He Himself said even before the resurrection: ‘I have glorified You on earth; I have finished the work You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your presence with the glory I had with You before the world began” (John 17:4–5).”[394]

Blessed Augustine: “Christ was anointed to be both King and High Priest. As King, He waged war for us; as High Priest, He offered Himself as a sacrifice for us.”[395]

Blessed Theodoret: “The words, ‘I have been made a king by Him’ (Ps. 2:6), refer to the humanity of Jesus Christ: for as God, He reigns over all creation; but as a man, He assumes a specific kingdom.”[396]

§158. In what actions was the kingly ministry of Jesus Christ expressed? His miracles

The principal acts in which the kingly ministry of Jesus Christ was manifested are: first, all the miracles He performed as proof of His divine mission and the truth of His teaching, and in which He displayed His kingly authority both over all of nature and, in particular, over hell and death; second, His descent into hell and His victory over hell; third, His resurrection and His victory over death; and fourth, His ascension into heaven, by which He opened the way for us into the kingdom of heaven.

1) The Lord Jesus performed His miracles as proof of His divine mission and the truth of His teaching. He Himself says: “If I am not doing the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works” (John 10:37–38); “The works that the Father has given Me to do—these very works that I do—bear witness about Me that the Father has sent Me” [(John 5:36); (John 14:11); (John 15:24)]. The holy Apostles also spoke in this way; for example, the Apostle Peter in his address to the Jews: “Listen to these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested to you by God through the powers, wonders, and signs that God performed through Him among you, as you yourselves know, this Man, delivered up according to the definite counsel and foreknowledge of God, you took and, by the hands of lawless men, crucified and killed” (Acts 2:22–23)—and the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, with God’s testimony through signs and wonders and various miracles and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit according to His will?” (Acts 2:3–4).

2) Through His miracles, the Lord Jesus demonstrated His power over all of nature. For example, He turned water into wine (John 2:1–11), walked on water (Matt. 14:26), calmed a storm at sea with a single word [(Luke 8:24); (Matt. 8:23–27)]; and with a single word or a single touch, He healed all kinds of diseases [(Matt. 9:20–23), (Matt. 14:35–36)], gave sight to the blind (Mark 10:46–52), hearing to the deaf, and speech to the mute [(Matt. 9:32–35); (Matt. 12:22); (Luke 11:14)], and healed lepers (Matthew 8:1–5); with just a few loaves of bread and fish, He once fed five thousand people and another time four thousand, not counting women and children [(Matthew 14:15–21); (Matthew 15:32–38)].

3) — exercised His authority over the forces of hell. This is evident in all those numerous instances when, with a single command, He cast out unclean spirits from people [(Mark 1:25); (Mark 5:8); (Mark 9:25); (Luke 8:32–33)], and when the demons themselves, recognizing Him as the Son of God, trembled at His might and authority over them and cried out: “What do You have to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? Have You come here before the time to torment us?” [(Matt. 8:29); (Mark 3:11); (Mark 5:7)]. As a result of all these actions, apparently aimed at destroying the devil’s works among humankind, Christ the Savior, even during the days of His ministry on earth, when the seventy disciples, having returned from preaching, joyfully said to Him, “Lord! and even the demons are subject to us in Your name,” He replied to them: “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning” (Luke 10:17–18). The Apostle Peter also testified to this kingly authority and power of our Lord over the spirits of wickedness even during His earthly life, speaking before the newly converted Gentiles: “You know what happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee, after the baptism that John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him” (Acts 10:37–38).

4) — He exercised His authority over death. For — a) He raised the son of the widow of Nain by a single touch of the bier and the command: “Young man, I say to you, arise!” (Luke 7:14); b) He raised the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue ruler, by touching her and saying, “Little girl, arise!” (Luke 8:54); c) He raised Lazarus, who had been dead for four days, with a loud cry: “Lazarus, come out!” (John 11:43).

Thus, even during the days of our Savior’s humiliation, when He was primarily carrying out His prophetic and high priestly ministries, His miracles already demonstrated that He is at once the King of the universe and the Conqueror of hell and death.

§159. The Descent of Jesus Christ into Hades and the Victory over Hades

But all the deeds in which the Lord Jesus manifested His authority over the spirits of wickedness while still on earth can be called only the forerunners of His victory over hell. He truly conquered and destroyed hell when, by His death, He abolished the one who holds the power of death—that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14)— descended into hell with His soul, as God, to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the captives of hell, and brought all the Old Testament righteous ones from there into the bright abodes of the Heavenly Father (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 49; Expanded Christian Catechism, Article 5).

I. The teaching that the Lord Jesus truly descended into Hades with His soul and Divinity while His body lay in the tomb, and that He descended specifically for the purpose of preaching salvation there—

1) Is an apostolic teaching. St. Peter, in his address to the Jews, quoting the words of the Psalmist: “You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will You let Your Holy One see corruption,” noted that David, as a prophet, foretold in these words the resurrection of Christ, “that His soul was not abandoned to Hades, and His flesh did not see corruption” (Acts 2:27–31). And in one of his epistles, he expresses this thought even more clearly, saying: “Christ, in order to bring us to God, suffered once for our sins—the righteous for the unrighteous—being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, through whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet. 3:18–19). Here, the Church’s doctrine is clearly set forth: while the Savior’s body lay dead, He descended in His living Spirit into the prison to the spirits, to preach to them: this contrast between the Savior’s dead body and His living spirit, and the purpose of His descent to the spirits in prison (έν φυλακή), completely refute the conjecture that “prison” should be understood to mean the tomb and that the Savior’s descent into it refers to His burial in the tomb.[397] St. Paul also writes in his Epistle to the Romans: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’—that is, to bring Christ down. Or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (είς τήν άβυσσον)—that is, to bring Christ up from the dead” (Rom. 10:6–7). Here, the abyss in which Christ was after His death is contrasted with heaven, and it is stated that just as no human being could descend into this abyss to bring Christ up from it, so too no one could ascend into heaven to bring Christ down from there. Consequently, the abyss cannot be understood as Christ’s tomb, into which many could descend, and which it would be strange to contrast—as some kind of unfathomable depth—with the unfathomable height of heaven; rather, it must be understood, in accordance with the clearer testimony of the Apostle Peter, as a prison or hell, into which, after His death, Christ did indeed descend in His Spirit (cf. Eph. 4:9–10). It is worth recalling, by the way, the ancient testimony concerning one of the seventy apostles, Thaddeus, who, having been sent by the Lord’s will to Avgar, the ruler of Edessa, said to him, among other things: “Gather all your citizens for me, and I will proclaim the word of God to them … I will tell them about the coming of Jesus, as it took place … and about how He humbled Himself and died, how He was crucified and descended into Hades, broke down the wall that had been indestructible since time immemorial, then rose again and raised the dead who had been resting since the beginning of the world, how He descended alone but ascended to His Father with a great multitude of people.” Eusebius attributes this testimony, which he drew from the archives of Edessa, to the time of Abgar himself.[398]

2) It has always been held by the Church. Evidence of this can be found in part in some of her ancient creeds—for example, the Aquileian Creed and others—which contain a clause regarding the descent of Jesus Christ into hell;[399] but even more so in the writings of her ancient teachers.[400] In the second century, this truth was expressed by: a) St. Irenaeus: “The Lord descends into the depths of the earth, proclaiming to them both His coming and the forgiveness of sins for those who believe in Him—and all who awaited Him believed in Him, that is, all who foretold His coming and served His will: the righteous, the prophets, and the patriarchs;”[401] or: “For three days He remained where the dead were, and He descended to them to deliver and save them;”[402] b) Tertullian: “Christ God, having died as a man and been buried, according to the Scriptures, fulfilled the law that, like all men who had died, He descended into hell; and He did not ascend to the heights of heaven until He had already descended into the depths of the earth, so that He might make the patriarchs and prophets His companions.”[403] In the third century: c) Clement of Alexandria: “The Lord descended into hell for no other reason than to preach the Gospel;”[404] d) Origen: “The Son of God even descended into hell for the salvation of the world, and called the first-born out from there;”[405] e) Lactantius: “After (the Lord Jesus), fulfilling the will of God, revealed the truth to people, He also underwent death in order to conquer and destroy hell.”[406] In the fourth century—e) St. Epiphanius: “He is crucified on the cross, buried, descends into hell with His Divinity and His soul, and takes captivity captive;”[407] g) St. Basil the Great: “David clearly prophesies (Ps. 48:16) about the Lord’s descent into hell, who, together with other souls, delivered even the prophet’s own soul so that it would not remain in hell;”[408] g) St. Gregory the Theologian: “He is buried, but rises again; He descends into Hades, but raises souls from it;”[409] i) St. Chrysostom: “Imagine what it is like to hear how God, having risen from heaven and the royal thrones, descended to earth and into Hades itself, to wage war.”[410] In general, in the fourth century, on the occasion of the Apollinarian heresy, the Church’s belief regarding the descent of Jesus Christ into hell was revealed in all its strength and unwavering firmness. Apollinaris denied the existence of a human soul in Christ; the teachers of the Church, in refuting the heretic, unanimously asked him: “Why then did Christ descend into hell when His body was in the tomb, and He is omnipresent in His Divinity?,” — clearly assuming that this descent was well-known among Christians and beyond doubt.[411] Even the Arians themselves, in order to free themselves from suspicion of Apollinarian heresy, sometimes included the dogma of Jesus Christ’s descent into hell in their creeds.[412]

I. That the Lord Jesus, by His descent into hell, destroyed hell and brought out of it all the Old Testament righteous: and this is what the Holy Church has always believed.

The Holy Apostle preaches this first thought, saying: “Having ascended on high, He led captives in His train and gave gifts to men. And what does ‘ascended’ mean, if not that He had previously descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the very same who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things” (Eph. 4:8–10). And later, following the Holy Apostle, the teachers of the Church also preached, for example: — a) St. John Chrysostom: “Hell has been captured by the Lord who descended into it; it has been abolished, defiled, put to death, overthrown, and bound;”[413]

b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “He blunted the sting of death, shattered the gloomy gates of desolate hell, and granted freedom to souls;”[414] c) Eusebius of Caesarea: “He came for the salvation of the souls who were in hell and had been awaiting His coming for many ages, and, having descended, He shattered the bronze gates, broke the iron chains, and led those who had previously been bound in hell to freedom.”[415]

The latter idea—that Christ the Savior delivered from Hades specifically those who believed in Him and the Old Testament righteous (Zech. 9:11)—was clearly preached, following St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, whose testimonies we have already examined ([416] ), by St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “He was truly laid in a stone tomb, as a man; but because of Him, the stones parted out of fear; He descended into the underworld to deliver the righteous from there as well. For tell me, would you want the living to enjoy grace when the majority of them are unrighteous; while those who had long been imprisoned since the time of Adam did not receive their freedom? The prophet Isaiah proclaimed so much about Him with a loud voice; would you not have wanted the King, having descended, to set the forerunner free? There were David and Samuel, and all the prophets, and John himself, who speaks through those sent; “Are you the One who is to come, or should we expect another?” (Matt. 11:3)? Would you not wish for Him, having descended, to set them free?”[417]

St. Epiphanius: “The Divinity of Christ, together with His soul, descended into hell to bring salvation to those who had died before Him, namely, the holy patriarchs.”[418]

St. Cassian: “Having entered hell, Christ, with the radiance of His glory, dispelled the impenetrable darkness of Tartarus, shattered the bronze gates, broke the iron chains, and raised the holy captives, who were held in the impenetrable darkness of hell, from captivity to heaven with Him.”[419]

St. Gregory the Great: “God’s wrath toward the souls of the righteous passed away with the coming of our Redeemer: for the Mediator of God and man freed them from the dungeons of hell when He Himself descended there, and raised them up to the joys of paradise.”[420]

It should be added that while some of the ancient writers occasionally expressed the idea that Christ delivered from hell not only the Old Testament righteous, but many others or even all of hell’s captives, they expressed it only in the form of conjecture, supposition, or a private opinion.[421]

§160. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Victory over Death

Just as Christ destroyed hell through His descent into hell, even though He had previously demonstrated His kingly authority over the powers of hell, so too did He conquer death through His resurrection from the dead, even though He had repeatedly shown His power over it before. The Holy Apostle reveals this when he says: “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For just as death came through a man, so also the resurrection of the dead comes through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ, at His coming” (1 Cor. 16:20–23).[422] To understand how, as a result of Christ’s resurrection, we too will one day be raised and the complete victory over death will be accomplished—we must take into account that, according to the teaching of the Word of God, through faith in Christ and through participation in His holy sacraments, we become partakers of Christ (Heb. 3:14), one with Christ (John 15:4–5), and in Him, partakers of His life. That is why He Himself taught: “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in Me, even if he dies, will live” (John 11:25). “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world … Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day … Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:51–56). Likewise, St. Paul taught concerning the sacrament of baptism: “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal. 3:27), and in another passage: “Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? So we were buried with Him through baptism into death… But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him (Rom. 6:3–9). Because of this union with Christ, in a sense, we have already been raised with Him (Col. 3:1), just as once, in our forefather Adam, we all sinned and were subjected to death (Rom. 5:12–19).

As for the reality of Christ’s resurrection, it is beyond all doubt. It was foretold by the Psalmist [(Ps. 15:10); (Acts 2:29–31)], foreshadowed by Jonah’s three-day stay in the belly of the whale (Matt. 12:39–40), and repeatedly foretold by Christ Himself the Savior [(Matt. 16:4–21), (Matt. 17:9, 23), (Matt. 20:19), (Matt. 26:32); (John 2:19), (John 10:17)], this event was attested to by all the Apostles, who were eyewitnesses: the risen Giver of Life appeared to them over the course of forty days; He had lengthy conversations with them, explaining the Scriptures to them and revealing the mysteries of His kingdom; He ate and drank in their presence; He allowed them to touch His hands, feet, and side; and before their very eyes, He ascended into heaven [(Matt. 28); (Mark 16); (Luke 24); (John 20–21); (1 Cor. 15:1–8)]. What lends particular weight to this testimony of the Apostles is: a) that marvelous moral transformation which suddenly took place in them after the Savior’s resurrection—that astonishing courage with which they set out to preach to the whole world about their Teacher and appeared before multitudes of Jews and Gentiles; that extraordinary self-sacrifice with which they endured every kind of hardship, suffered every kind of persecution, and even faced death itself for the sake of Christ’s name; b) the remarkable success of their preaching among both Jews and Gentiles, who turned to Christ by the thousands and were also willing to endure every kind of torment and death for His name’s sake; c) finally, the countless miracles that the Apostles performed everywhere in the name of Christ, thereby most clearly confirming the truth of their preaching before all (Acts, chapters 3–5, etc.).

The Church professes the dogma of Christ’s Resurrection in its very Creed (See the Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 52); the teachers of the Church have always preached it as well.[423]

§161. The Ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven and the opening of the Kingdom of Heaven to all who believe in Him

Before the coming of the Son of God to earth, heaven was, as it were, closed to those born of the earth, and although there are many dwelling places in the house of the heavenly Father (John 14:2–3), there was, nevertheless, no place in them for the sinful descendants of Adam; even the most righteous of the Old Testament, upon their death, descended with their souls into Hades (Gen. 37:35). But after our Lord appeared in the flesh and reconciled God with mankind, heaven with earth; after He, by His descent into Hades, delivered the Old Testament righteous from there, and, having risen from the dead, became “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20), — He, at last, was solemnly ascended into heaven with the human nature He had assumed and, in this way, opened up free access to the kingdom of heaven for all people.

He Himself expressed this truth when, speaking to His disciples about His departure to the Father, He said: “I am going to prepare a place for you. And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to Myself, so that where I am, you may be also” (John 14:2–3). And further: “It is better for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you” (John 16:7). St. Paul the Apostle then revealed this with complete clarity in various passages of his epistles. In one passage he says, “Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands—a mere copy of the true one—but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf” (Heb. 9:24); in another, he directly calls Him our forerunner into heaven (Heb. 6:20); in a third, he states that just as God raised us up with Christ, so He has seated us in the heavens in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6), following His ascension into heaven; in a fourth, that we are “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17); the fifth offers this instruction: “If you have been raised with Christ, seek the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God; set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:1–3). The reality of Jesus Christ’s ascension into heaven:

1) Was foretold even in the Old Testament, for example, in the words of the Psalmist: “You ascended on high, leading captives in Your train; You received gifts for men” [(Ps. 67:19); cf. (Eph. 4:8–10)].

2) It was then foretold by the Savior Himself: “You will see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before” (John 6:62). “I came from the Father and entered the world; and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father” (John 16:28).

3) Attested by the Apostles: “The Lord, after speaking with them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God” [(Mark 16:19); cf. (Luke 24:50–51); (Acts 1:9)].

4) It has always been upheld and professed by the Orthodox Church in the words of the Creed: “(I believe in Jesus Christ) who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.”

§162. Will the kingly ministry of Jesus Christ come to an end?

As the only-begotten Son of God, who assumed human nature into the unity of His divine Hypostasis, the Lord Jesus, having entered into His glory, “which He had with the Father before the world began” (John 17:5), will abide forever in this eternal glory; He will remain forever the King of heaven and earth, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, worshiped and glorified by all creation: and in this sense, “His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:33). But His kingly ministry, as our Redeemer, for the salvation of the human race—begun by Him on earth and continued in heaven—will come to an end when, that is, it is fully accomplished by bringing all true believers to salvation: and in this respect, “He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). And this will follow when “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26), all the dead are raised (John 5:25), and the heavens and the earth are renewed (2 Pet. 3:6–7, 13)—and He, appearing in all His glory, will carry out the universal judgment, saying to those “on His right hand: ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world’” (Matt. 25:34), and “will hand over the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24), “so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

This is precisely how the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church viewed the kingly dignity and ministry of Jesus Christ. For example:

St. Gregory the Theologian: “The Son is called ‘reigning’—in one sense, as the Almighty and King of both the willing and the unwilling; and in another, as the One who leads us to submission and has brought under His kingdom those who voluntarily acknowledge Him as King. And His kingdom, if understood in the first sense, will have no end; but if understood in the second, will there be any end to it?—That He will take us, the saved, under His wing (for is it necessary to bring those who have already submitted to submission?); and then He will arise as the Judge of the earth (Ps. 93:3) and separate the saved from the lost; then God will stand in the midst of the saved, to judge and determine who has attained what degree of glory and dwelling place.”[424]

St. John Chrysostom: “What does it mean: ‘when He hands over the kingdom’ (1 Cor. 15:24)? Scripture recognizes two kingdoms of God: one by adoption, and the other by creation. Christ reigns over all—over the Gentiles and the Jews, the demons and His adversaries—by the right of creation; He reigns over the faithful and those who willingly obey Him by the right of adoption. It is said of this kingdom that it has its beginning… It is this very kingdom that He will hand over to the Father.”[425]

St. Zeno of Verona: “The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:24) speaks of the temporary kingdom of God incarnate, at the end of which He will come and judge the living and the dead; this is confirmed by the very context of the passage, which states that Christ must reign with His saints until He puts an end to every rule, every authority and power, until He has put all enemies under His feet, until the last enemy—death—is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:24–26). But the evangelist Luke (Luke 1:34) and Solomon (Wisdom 3:4–8) understood the original authority, in which, having unceasing participation from everlasting to everlasting, the Son never received the kingdom from the Father, nor will He ever hand it over to the Father.”[426]

§163. The Moral Implications of the Dogma of the Mystery of Redemption

1. Our Lord and Savior, as a Prophet—

a) Bestowed upon us the law of faith and piety: we must accept this law, submit to it, and put it into practice in our lives—otherwise it will bear no fruit for us and will remain alien to us.

b) Bestowed upon us a new law, more perfect than that of the Old Testament: having accepted it, we must take care to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4), and to ensure that our righteousness surpasses not only that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20), but also that of the righteous men of the Old Testament themselves.[427] “Be perfect,” our Lawgiver commanded us, explaining the spirit of His law, “just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

c) He gave us the law, the one and only means of salvation for all people: we must cherish this priceless treasure above all else and guard it with all our zeal until the very end of our lives.

2. Our Lord and Savior, as High Priest—

a) Offered Himself as a sacrificial offering for us—sinners: at the thought of this, let us first and foremost learn to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, who is infinitely merciful toward us, in feelings of the most perfect gratitude and love.

b) He accomplished our salvation through the cross and on the cross: hence our unshakable duty to reverently honor this sacred instrument of our salvation, for the sake of the God-Man who suffered upon it; to venerate it in every way that, according to the tradition handed down from the Holy Apostles, the Orthodox Church has observed and commanded us to observe to this day, and, with faith in our hearts, to make the sign of the cross always and everywhere for our spiritual benefit, to sanctify all our undertakings and deeds with it, and to protect ourselves from all temptations and trials with it (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 50).

c) Through His death on the cross, He delivered us from sin with all its ruinous consequences and obtained for us sanctification and eternal life: let not sin reign in our mortal bodies, so that we may not obey it in its lusts; and let us not present our members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but let us present ourselves to God; so that, having been set free from sin and having become slaves to God, our fruit may be holiness, and the end—eternal life” (Rom. 6:12–13, 22).

d) Through suffering and the cross, He entered into His glory: and “leaving us an example, that we should follow in His steps” (1 Pet. 2:21), He commanded us: “For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35).

e) Having ascended into heaven, He intercedes for us unceasingly: “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1), and with sincere repentance for our sins, let us run to Him in the unshakable hope that He “is able to save completely those who come to God through Him” (Heb. 7:25); let us run to Him in prayer and in all our needs, remembering His words: “And if you ask the Father anything in My name, I will do it, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it” (John 14:13–14).

3. Our Lord and Savior, as King:

a) He conquered hell and bound the strong one, that is, the devil with all his demons [(Matt. 12:29); (2 Pet. 2:4)]: therefore, let us not fear the attacks of our ancient enemy, but, strengthened by the Lord and the power of His might, let us boldly enter into battle against the principalities, the powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:10–12), and boldly repeating in our hearts the words of St. Paul: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13).

b) He conquered death and destroyed its power: let us not fear death, for we are inspired by the sweetest hope that “the hour is coming—and is now here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live” (John 5:25), that He “will transform our lowly body so that it may be like His glorious body” (Phil. 3:21); that “this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53).

c) By His ascension into heaven, He has opened the way for us into the kingdom of heaven: therefore, with faith, hope, and love, “let us run the race set before us, looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith ” (Heb. 12:1–2), so that we too may be where He is (John 14:3).

Section II.
On God the Savior in
His special relationship
to the human race

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18–20).

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

§164. Connection to the Previous Section and the Subject of This Section

The Son of God, having become man, accomplished our salvation. As a Prophet, He revealed to us the mystery of salvation and showed us the straight path from death to life; as High Priest, He redeemed us from sin and all the punishments for sin and earned for us eternal blessings; as King, He confirmed the truth of His Gospel through a series of miracles, destroyed the power of death and hell, and opened the way for us into the kingdom of heaven. But it is also necessary that this great work, accomplished for us and on our behalf by the Son of God, be assimilated by us and become, so to speak, our own: otherwise, it will remain alien to us, and the Lord Jesus will not yet be our Savior. In particular, it is necessary: a) that we be truly cleansed from the sins from which He redeemed us, and that we be transformed from sinners into the righteous, or be sanctified; and b) that, as a result, we be truly delivered from all the ruinous consequences of sin, both temporal and eternal, and receive eternal bliss. It is toward these two goals—toward our receiving of salvation—that all the activity of our Savior is now directed, expressing His special concern for the fallen human race (§51). And:

1. The Lord Jesus employs every means to ensure that we are sanctified, transformed from sinners into the righteous, from children of wrath into sons of God, so that we may put off the former way of life of the old man, which is corrupted by deceitful desires … and put on the new man, created after God in righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:22–24): this is accomplished for individuals throughout their entire earthly life, and for the whole human race it will be accomplished until the very end of the world.

2. The Lord Jesus, immediately upon the death of each person—judging by whether or not the deceased made use of the means previously granted to him for his own sanctification—either frees him or does not free him from just punishment for his sins, and either grants him or does not grant him eternal bliss, and at the end of the world, He will hold a universal judgment and finally reward everyone according to their deeds.

Thus, God the Savior’s special relationship with us—distinct from the one He has with all His other creatures as Creator and Provider—is expressed in two of His principal actions: I) He is our Sanctifier; II) He is our Judge and Rewarder.

Chapter I.
On God as Sanctifier

§165. The Concept of Sanctification, the Participation of All Persons of the Holy Trinity in the Work of Sanctification, and the Determination of the Means or Conditions for Sanctification

The term sanctification (άγιασμός, δικαιοσίνη, sanctificatio, justificatio) refers to the actual appropriation of Christ’s merits by us, or to that act by which the All-Holy God, under certain conditions on our part, truly cleanses us from sin, justifies us, and makes us sanctified and holy [(1 Cor. 1:1); (2 Cor. 1:2)]. “And such were some of you,” wrote St. Paul the Apostle to the Christians in Corinth, after listing various kinds of sinners, “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). This sanctification, according to the ancient teachers of the faith, constitutes, as it were, the crown of our salvation, bringing it to completion, so that the latter would remain unfinished without the former.[428]

II. All three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity participate in the work of our sanctification: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father, to whom the Son prayed even during the days of His ministry on earth for those who believe in Him: “Holy Father! … Sanctify them by Your truth (John 17:11, 17), and about whom the Apostle later wrote to the Christians: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely” (1 Thess. 5:23). The Son, who gave Himself up for the Church “to sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:26–27)—and, indeed, “has become for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). The Holy Spirit, who is therefore called, in the primary sense, holy [(1 Cor. 8:6); (1 Cor. 12:3) and elsewhere], as the One who sanctifies all;[429] is also called the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4), who enlightens us [(1 Pet. 1:2); (2 Thess. 2:13)]. In general, the idea of the participation of all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the work of our sanctification is expressed by the Holy Apostle when he says: “There are different gifts, but the same Spirit; there are different ministries, but the same Lord; there are different activities, but the same God, who works all things in all” (1 Cor. 12:4–6); or: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Cor. 13:13). And again: “But when the grace and love of our Savior God appeared, He saved us—not because of righteous deeds that we had done, but according to His mercy—through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs of eternal life through hope” (Titus 3:4–7). The same idea was expressed by the Holy Fathers of the Church, for example:

St. Basil the Great: “Blessed Paul, writing to the faithful, said in one place: ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Cor. 13:13). For when everything is accomplished by God through Jesus Christ in the Spirit, I see the working of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as inseparable. That is why all the saints are temples of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in them dwells the one Divinity, the one Lordship, and the one Holiness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, through the one sanctity of baptism.”[430] And in another passage: “The Spirit is united and indivisible with the Father and the Son in every action; together with God, who brings about the division of actions, and with the Lord, who brings about the division of ministries, the Holy Spirit also coexists, who, with full authority , governs the distribution of gifts according to each person’s worthiness. For it is said: ‘the division of gifts…’ and so on.[431]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Blessed Paul does not divide the Trinity; on the contrary, he teaches about its unity when, speaking to the Corinthians about spiritual gifts, he traces everything back to the one God the Father as the head, as follows: ‘There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord; there are different kinds of working, but the same God who works all things in all’ (1 Cor. 12:4–6). For what the Spirit distributes to each one is given to each one by the Father through the Word: everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son; therefore, the gifts bestowed by the Son in the Spirit are also the gifts of the Father. Likewise, when the Spirit dwells in us, then the Word, who gave us the Spirit, also dwells in us, and in the Word is the Father, and the words are fulfilled: “We (I and the Father) will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23). For where there is light, there is also radiance; and where there is radiance, there are also its action and its beneficence. This is what Paul himself teaches in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians with the words: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Cor. 13:13). Grace and the gift bestowed by the Trinity are given from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. For just as grace is bestowed upon us from (έκ) the Father through (διά) the Son, so too is the bestowal of the gift upon us possible only in (έν) the Holy Spirit. Having received Him, we have both the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Spirit Himself.”[432]

In particular, both in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Church Fathers—

1. The Father is the source of our sanctification. It was from Him that the Savior originally sent the Holy Spirit to earth: “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16); “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things” (John 14:26); “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). It is from Him, the Father, first and foremost, that the Apostles and all subsequent bestowals of spiritual gifts to believers originate: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” [(Rom. 1:7); (1 Cor. 1:3); (2 Cor. 1:2); (Gal. 1:3); (Eph. 1:2); (Col. 1:3), etc.]; or: “Grace, mercy, and peace from God our Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” [(1 Tim. 1:2); (2 Tim. 1:2); (Titus 1:4)],—this is how the Apostles usually expressed their good wishes to Christians.[433] It is in this sense that we must also understand Christ’s words: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44).

2. The Holy Spirit is presented as the agent of our sanctification. Having come to earth shortly after the Savior’s ascension into heaven to bring about our salvation, the Holy Spirit has abided in the Church from that time onward (John 14:16), regenerates sinners in the sacrament of baptism (John 3:5), and is imparted to believers in the gifts of grace as “the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and holiness, the Spirit of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2–3), dwells in us as in His temples (1 Cor. 6:19), helps us in our weakness (Rom. 8:26), and produces spiritual fruits in us: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23) and all others, so that “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).[434]

3. The Son is the source of our sanctification. He earned for us all the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit through His death on the cross. Therefore, if the Spirit is sent by the Father to earth, it is only through the intercession of the Son (John 14:16), in the name of the Son (John 14:26), and would never have been sent— —if the Son had not accomplished our redemption on the cross and, by virtue of His merits, had not been glorified (John 7:39). For this reason, the Son is portrayed as the giver of the Holy Spirit to all believers and those who thirst for living water (John 7:37–38), and the grace of the Spirit is commonly referred to as the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [(Rom. 16:24); (1 Cor. 16:23); (2 Cor. 13:13); (Gal. 6:18); (Phil. 4:23); (2 Thess. 3:18)], or the grace of Christ [(Gal. 1:6); (2 Cor. 12:9)], the grace given to us in Christ Jesus [(1 Cor. 1:4); (2 Tim. 1:9)], and the Holy Spirit Himself—the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6). That is why it is said that it is Christ Himself who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16), that Christ, as the eternal High Priest, “by a single sacrifice has made those who are being sanctified perfect forever” (Heb. 10:14), intercedes ceaselessly for us in heaven, and bestows upon us everything necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us is the indwelling of Christ Himself [(Rom. 8:9–10); (2 Cor. 13:5); (Gal. 2:20)],[435] that without Christ we can do nothing (John 15:5), and that He is the One who sanctifies us by the Holy Spirit,[436] while we are the ones being sanctified [(Heb. 2:11); (Heb. 10:29); (Heb. 13:12)], or those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:2).

4. So that we may appropriate the merits of our Savior and truly be sanctified, He—1) established His kingdom of grace on earth, the Church, as a living instrument through which He accomplishes our sanctification; 2) bestows upon us, in the Church and through the Church, the grace of the Holy Spirit as the power that sanctifies us; and 3) instituted the sacraments in the Church as the means through which the grace of the Holy Spirit is communicated to us.

Article I.
On the Holy Church as the instrument through which the Lord accomplishes our sanctification

§166. The various meanings of the word “church”; the sense in which the doctrine concerning it will be expounded here, and perspectives on the subject

The name “Church of Christ” ([437] ) is used in various senses, some broader and some narrower.

The broadest of these is the sense in which the Church of Christ is understood to be the community of all rational and free beings—that is, both angels and humans—who believe in Christ the Savior and are united in Him as their one Head. This is how the Holy Apostle understands the word “Church” when he says that God, in the fullness of time, in order to unite all things in heaven and on earth under the headship of Christ, has seated Him at His right hand in heaven, far above every principality, and every authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come, and has put all things under His feet, and has appointed Him above all things, as head of the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all [(Eph. 1:10, 20–23); see also (Heb. 12:22–23); (Col. 1:18–20)].

The same usage of this word is sometimes found among the ancient teachers of the Church,[438] and even in church hymns, for example, in the following: “You, who have ineffably united the earthly with the heavenly, O Christ, and have established the one Church of angels and men, we ceaselessly magnify You.”[439] And if we take into account that all the heavenly powers, without a doubt, believe in Jesus Christ as the true God-man who reconciled the world to God, and, moreover, serve as His instruments for the establishment of the earthly Church, “sent to minister to those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14): then the meaning of the concept of Christ’s Church will become even clearer to us. However, it should be noted that in this sense the term is used very rarely.

According to the second, narrower, and more commonly used sense, the Church of Christ encompasses, strictly speaking, all those who have professed and continue to profess the faith of Christ, every single one of them, whenever they may have lived and wherever they may now be—whether still living on earth or already in the realm of the dead.

In the first sense—that is, with regard to time—all who have believed and believe in Jesus Christ are recognized as members of the Church of Christ, both those who lived before the Savior’s coming and those who lived and live after His coming. The beginning of the Christian Church is traced back to Paradise, when the righteous and most merciful Judge made a sweet promise to our unfortunate forefather that the Seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent, and when, subsequently, faith in this future Savior began (Extensive Christian Catechism, Art. IX). The continuity of the Church extends throughout the ages until the end of the world. It is usually divided into the Old Testament Church (Acts 7:38), consisting of the patriarchal and pre-law churches, and the New Testament Church. The validity of this concept of the Christian Church is indisputable, since it is known that faith in Christ did not, in fact, begin only at the time of His coming, but from the time of the first promise concerning Him; for this very purpose, the Lord gave people promises, prophecies, and foreshadowings even in ancient times, and for this purpose He also gave the Law, “to be our tutor until Christ came” (Gal. 3:24), and that those who believe in Him have never been lacking on earth. St. Paul the Apostle, having enumerated all the ancients from the beginning of the world who were commended for their faith (Heb. 11:2) and who, through faith, received the promises, worked righteousness, and so on (Heb. 11:33), finally concludes that the Author and Perfecter of their faith was none other than our Lord Jesus Himself (Heb. 12:2). That is why the Holy Fathers very often noted in their writings that the name “Christian Church” should be understood to include not only believers born after the Savior’s birth, but also those who lived before. Thus, St. Chrysostom, explaining the Apostle’s words: “one body, one Spirit…” (Eph. 4:4), asks: “And what is this ‘one body’? All believers who have ever existed, exist now, and will exist in the universe. Likewise, those who pleased God before Christ’s coming are part of this one body. Why? Because they, too, knew Christ.”[440] Blessed Augustine says: “Do not understand the Church to mean only those who began to be saints after the coming and birth of the Lord; all the saints who have ever lived also belong to the Church.”[441] Other ancient teachers affirm the same thing.[442] “Place its (the Church’s) beginning in Paradise,” we also read in one of the liturgical services.[443]

When considering the state of those who believe in Jesus Christ—whether they are still on earth or have already passed into the next world—the members of Christ’s Church recognize both the former and the latter as equal: for this change in their state is evident to our eyes, and “the Lord God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive” (Luke 20:37–38). However, among those who have passed away, only those belong to the Church of Christ who, first, having kept the faith on earth, have already received in heaven the crown of righteousness that God has prepared for all who love His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8)—and it is evident that these people are the very living members of the Body of Christ.[444] And secondly—those who have departed in faith and repentance, who, although they did not have time to bear fruits worthy of repentance themselves, and have not yet received heavenly rewards, nevertheless have the hope of attaining eternal bliss through the prayers of the Church: for these people also have faith in Christ and have been reconciled to Him through repentance; and are therefore by no means cut off from the body of the Church, which prays for them.[445] But those among the dead who cut themselves off from the Church while still alive—having completely lost or distorted their faith in Christ—and who, having died unrepentant, have deprived themselves even of the Church’s prayers (1 John 5:16), do not belong to the Church.[446] In the context under consideration, it is well known that the Church of Christ is divided into the militant or pilgrim Church and the triumphant Church.[447] The first name refers to the earthly Church, which has no permanent city here (Heb. 13:14), and, guiding its spiritual children in this land of pilgrimage toward their heavenly homeland, wages a ceaseless battle against the enemies of their salvation [(1 Pet. 5:8–9); (Eph. 6:11–12)]. The latter name is usually given to the Church in heaven, which comprises those Christians who have already completed their earthly journey, finished their battle against the enemies of their salvation, and now celebrate victory over them together with Christ—the conqueror of death and hell—and together with the holy angels [(2 Tim. 4:7); (Heb. 12:22–23); (Rev. 3:21); (Rev. 12:11–12)]. It is evident that the Church Triumphant is, so to speak, the fruit of the Church Militant: the latter gave birth to, nurtured, and finally brought to their destination all those who now serve as members of the former. For this reason, these two Churches must by no means be confused (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10). The Church Militant is also called the kingdom of grace or the gracious kingdom of Christ, while the Church Triumphant is called the kingdom of glory.

Finally, in an even narrower sense—though the most commonly used and ordinary one—the Church of Christ refers specifically to the New Testament Church alone, that is, the Church Militant or the Kingdom of Christ’s Grace. “We believe, as we have been taught to believe,” say the Holy Fathers of the East in their epistle on the Orthodox faith, “in the so-called, and in the reality itself, that is, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which embraces all believers in Christ everywhere, whoever they may be, who, now being on their earthly pilgrimage, have not yet taken up residence in the heavenly homeland” (Art. 10). It is in this sense that we, too, will understand the Church in the present exposition of the doctrine concerning it.[448]

To make this exposition as clear as possible, let us consider the Church: 1) from a more external perspective, namely, in terms of its origin, scope, and purpose; 2) from a more internal perspective (more: since the external and internal aspects of the Church cannot be completely separated), and we will discuss the composition and internal structure of the Church; 3) finally, as a consequence of all that has preceded, we will present a precise concept of the very essence of the Church and its essential properties.

I. On the Origin, Scope, and Purpose of the Church

§167. The Founding of the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ

Having come to earth for the salvation of humankind and having brought with Him the saving doctrine for them, the Lord Jesus desired that people, having embraced the new faith, should not practice it in isolation from one another, but should form a specific religious community for this purpose; He Himself directly established this community, and then, through His disciples and apostles, spread and established it throughout the entire earth . Therefore, we believe and confess that “there is no other foundation of the Church except Christ alone, according to the words of the Apostle: ‘For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 3:11)” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 85).

1) The Savior repeatedly expressed His desire to establish a united community from among His followers; for example: a) after the Apostle Peter, speaking on behalf of all the apostles, confessed Him to be the Son of God: upon this rock (i.e., this confession), our Lord then said, ‘I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matt. 16:18); b) in the parable of the Good Shepherd—with the words: ‘I am the Good Shepherd; I know My own, and My own know Me … I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must bring them also; and they will hear My voice, and there will be one flock and one Shepherd” (John 10:14–16); c) in His prayer to the heavenly Father: “May they all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You, so may they also be one in Us” (John 17:21). With the thought of establishing His kingdom of grace on earth, He began His first sermon to the people, as the evangelist Matthew recounts: “From that time on, Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 4:17). With precisely this same message, the Lord sent His disciples throughout Judea: “Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; as you go, preach that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 10:6–7). And how often did He speak to people about this Kingdom of God, both in parables and without parables [(Matt. 13:24); (Matt. 13:44–47); (Matt. 22:2); (Matt. 25:1); (Luke 9:11); (Luke 10:11); (Luke 17:21); (Luke 21:31), etc.]

2) But whatever Christ desired, He accomplished. He Himself laid the beginning and foundation for His Church when He chose for Himself the first twelve disciples, who, believing in Him and being under His authority, formed a single community under a single head *(John 17:13), and constituted His first Church; while, on the other hand, He Himself established everything necessary for the formation of a distinct community from among His followers. Namely: a) He established the office of teachers to spread His faith among the nations (Eph. 4:11–12); b) He instituted the sacrament of baptism for the admission into this community of all who believe in Him [(Matt. 28:19); (John 3:3; 4:1); (Mark 16:15–16)]; c) the sacrament of the Eucharist for the closest union of the members of the community with one another and with Him as their Head [(Matt. 26:26–28); (Mark 14:22–24); (Luke 22:19–20); (1 Cor. 12:23–26)]; d) the sacrament of repentance for the reconciliation and renewed union with Him and the Church of those members who violate His laws and statutes [(Matt. 18:18); (John 20:21–23)] as well as all other sacraments [(Matt. 19:4–6); (Mark 6:13) and others]. That is why, even during His public ministry, the Lord spoke of His Church as already existing (Matt. 18:17). But it was only on the cross that Christ actually founded, or established, His Church—[449] —where He purchased it, in the words of the Apostle, with His own blood (Acts 20:28). For it was only on the cross that the Lord actually redeemed us and reconciled us to God—without which Christianity would have no meaning; only after His sufferings on the cross did He enter into His glory (Luke 24:26), and only after entering into His glory was He able to send the Holy Spirit to His disciples (John 7:39), the Guide into all truth; and only then did He solemnly declare to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” (Matt. 28:18–20). And if Christ had not reconciled us to God through His death, and had not entered into His glory through the cross and bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, the Church of Christ could not have been established on earth, and all its earlier beginnings would have faded away unnoticed.

3) Empowered from on high (Luke 24:49), the holy apostles, in accordance with their divine mission, “went out and preached everywhere, with the Lord’s help and the confirmation of the word by the accompanying signs” (Mark 16:20). And—a) they sought to form communities of believers in various places, which they called churches (1 Cor. 1:2; 16:19); b) they commanded these believers to hold gatherings for listening to the Word of God and offering communal prayers (Acts 2:42–46; 20:7); c) exhorted them to maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace—reminding them that they all form the one body of the Lord Jesus, of which they are merely different members, having one Lord, one faith, and one baptism [(Eph. 4:3–4); (1 Cor. 12:27)], “ ” and “all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17)—that is, they possess everything necessary for both internal and external unity; d) finally, they were commanded not to forsake their assembly, on pain of excommunication from the Church and eternal perdition (Heb. 10:24–25). Thus, by the will and with the assistance of the Savior, who Himself directly laid the foundation for His Church, it was subsequently established in all corners of the universe.

It would be superfluous to cite here further testimony from the Christian Church itself, which, from the time of its origin to the present day, has always believed and affirmed that it was founded by Jesus Christ Himself: this is a truth that is perfectly well known; this is an event that is undoubtedly confirmed not only by Christian history but also by the universal history of the human race.

§168. The Scope of Christ’s Church: Who Belongs to It and Who Does Not

In establishing His Church, Christ the Savior predetermined its scope or extent. This scope of the Church can be considered in two respects: a) in terms of its purpose, and b) in terms of its reality.

I. In the first sense, the Church of Christ is not meant to encompass just one particular people, as was the case with the Old Testament Church, but all peoples, the entire human race. The truth that the Lord revealed to the entire human race long ago in His promises to the patriarchs (Gen. 22:17, 28:14); and later to the entire Jewish people in numerous prophecies and types [(Ps. 2:7–8), (Ps. 71:8–11); (Isa. 2:2–3), (Isa. 9:6–7); (Isa. 42:4–7), (Isa. 49:6); (Mic. 4:1); (Zech. 9:10); (Mal. 1:11), etc.]; finally, He Himself declared this with complete clarity when, having appeared on earth to fulfill the ancient promises, types, and prophecies, He commanded His disciples: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15); “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Consequently, all people to whom the Gospel message ever reaches must be members of Christ’s Church. All are obligated: for all are equally called, by their very nature, into a religious union with God.[450] And so, when this union is broken by them, and when, to restore it, the Lord Himself offers people the only means in the Christian faith (§§147–148), they are bound—both by their very nature and by the authority of God—to accept the means offered and to make use of it. This is why the Savior added the following words to His command to the Apostles regarding the preaching of the Gospel to all creation: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16); “And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, as you leave that house or that town, shake the dust off your feet; truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (Matt. 10:14–15).

II. All people are obligated to be members of the Church of Christ; but not all are actually members of it. “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit,” said the Savior, “he cannot enter the Kingdom of God or the Church” (John 3:5). Consequently, only those who, in the words of the Apostle, have already been baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks [(1 Cor. 12:13); cf. Acts 2:41)]—truly belong to the Church of Christ. On the contrary, the following do not belong to it: a) neither Jews, nor Muslims, nor pagans who have not yet accepted the Gospel and the baptism of Christ. Nor do the following belong: b) those who, having already been catechized with the Gospel and having accepted it, have not yet been deemed worthy of baptism. “The catechumen is still a stranger to the believer,” notes St. John Chrysostom.[451] “As long as you are a catechumen,” St. Gregory the Theologian also says to one who was delaying his baptism, “you remain at the threshold of piety; but you must enter within, pass through the courtyard, see the Holy Place, gaze into the Holy of Holies, and be with the Trinity.”[452] Furthermore, Tertullian rebuked heretics for failing to distinguish between catechumens and the baptized.[453]

As for those who have already entered the Church through the door of baptism, we “believe that the members of the Catholic Church are all, and moreover, the faithful alone—that is, those who undoubtedly profess the pure faith of Christ the Savior (which we have received from Christ Himself, from the apostles, and from the Ecumenical Councils), even though at least some of them have been subject to various sins. For if the faithful who have sinned were not members of the Church, they would not be subject to its judgment. But she judges them, calls them to repentance, and leads them onto the path of the saving commandments: and therefore, despite the fact that they are prone to sin, they remain and are recognized as members of the Catholic Church, provided they do not become apostates and hold fast to the Catholic and Orthodox faith” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarch on the Orthodox Faith, Art. II). That is to say, all those who hold the Orthodox faith belong to the Church of Christ—not only the righteous, but sinners as well.[454] This is what the Head of our faith and our Savior Himself taught, likening His Church to a wedding feast in which both the good and the wicked take part (Matt. 22:2–13); or to a field in which, by the will of the householder, both wheat and weeds grow together until the harvest (Matt. 13:24–30); or to a flock in which there are both sheep and goats (Matt. 25:33); the net cast into the sea, which brings up both good and bad fish (Matt. 13:47); and the ten virgins, five of whom were wise and five foolish (Matt. 25:1–13). It was for this very purpose that He established in the Church the sacrament of repentance, through which sinners are cleansed of their sins (John 20:22–23), and taught us to pray to the Father who is in heaven: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12).[455]

The Holy Apostles taught and acted in exactly the same way. In a large house, St. Paul writes, there are vessels not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay (2 Tim. 2:20). If we say that we have no sin, as another Apostle testifies before the entire Christian Church, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8),[456] and he continues: “My little children! I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). The Apostle James gives this command to Christians: “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16). Even the apostolic churches themselves were not free from shortcomings, or from some members who fell into sin, as is evident from the apostolic writings [(1 Cor. 1:10), (1 Cor. 4:18–21), (1 Cor. 6:6); (Phil. 2:21), (Phil. 3:18–19); (1 Thess. 2:14), (2 Thess. 3:6); (1 John 1:8–10); (1 John 2:1–12)].

In particular, it is known that even a person guilty of incest belonged to the church in Corinth until the Apostle commanded that he be expelled. That he belonged to the church is evident from the Apostle’s rebuke to the Corinthians: “It is a true report that there is sexual immorality among you… And you are proud, when you ought rather to mourn, so that the one who has done this might be removed from among you” (1 Cor. 5:1–2). This is also necessarily implied by the command to excommunicate him (1 Cor. 5:3–5): otherwise, why would one excommunicate from the Church someone who does not belong to it?

This is precisely what the teachers of the ancient Church consistently taught, very often debating this subject with heretics; for example: a) St. Cyprian: “Our faith and love must not be shaken when we see tares in the Church, and this does not give us the right to depart from the Church ourselves;”[457] b) St. Ambrose: “The All-Good One (Christ) enlightens everyone, and desires not to cast aside the one who sins lightly, but to correct him; not to exclude the obstinate from the Church, but to soften him;”[458] c) Blessed Theodoret: “The whole Church of God does not consist solely of the perfect, but also includes those who give themselves over to carelessness, lead an immoderate life, and indulge in vice;”[459] d) Blessed Jerome: “Noah’s ark was a type of the Church; just as there were animals of every kind in the ark, so too in the Church there are people of every tribe and every moral character; just as there were—a leopard and young goats, a wolf and lambs—so here there are the righteous and there are sinners, that is, vessels of gold and silver are used together with those of wood and clay;”[460] e) Blessed Augustine: “If the Ark foreshadowed the Church, then you yourselves can see from this how necessary it is for her to contain within herself, in the midst of this deluge of the present age, both kinds of animals—the raven and the dove. Who, then, are the ravens? Those who seek their own interests. And the doves? Those who seek what is pleasing to Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:21). Both the wicked and the righteous are found in the Catholic Church.”[461] This teaching was expounded by: Origen, Tatian, Theodore of Heraclea, Gregory the Great, and others.[462]

2) But there is a limit; if sinners transgress it, then “either by the visible action of ecclesiastical authority or by the invisible action of God’s judgment, they are cut off from the body of the Church like dead members” (Prostr. Chr. Catechism on Article IX, p. 74, Moscow, 1840). Thus, the following no longer belong to the Church of Christ:

a) Apostates from the Christian faith who, having completely renounced it, have once again become pagans or adherents of other faiths, and, in the words of the Apostle, “trample underfoot the Son of God, and treat as unholy the Blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and insult the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29).[463]

b) Heretics, who, though they have not completely renounced the Christian faith, nevertheless reject and distort it in its fundamental dogmas. “But even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:7–8). Regarding such a heretic, the same Apostle instructs his disciple, Bishop Titus: “After a first and second warning, have nothing to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned” (Titus 3:10–11): the Apostle would not have commanded a shepherd to treat in this way those who still belong to his flock. “They went out from us, but they were not of us,” writes the Apostle John about heretics, whom he calls antichrists, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us (1 John 2:19). For this reason, from the very time of the Apostles, the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, and other heretics were excommunicated from the Church;[464] and later, at the Ecumenical Councils, all other heretics who appeared in subsequent times were also excommunicated. This is undoubtedly implied by those canons of the Councils which commanded that repentant heretics be readmitted into the bosom of the Church.[465] This is confirmed by the unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, who, following the Holy Apostle, called heretics “antichrists,”[466] those who have turned away from Christ,[467] unworthy of the very name “Christian,”[468] and akin to pagans.[469]

c) Apostates or schismatics who, although they do not distort the dogmas of the Faith, do not submit to ecclesiastical authority and thereby arbitrarily separate themselves from the Church. The validity of this view is evident from the words of the Savior: “If he will not listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17); from the canons of the First Ecumenical Council, which commanded the reception into the Church of the Cathars or Novatians returning to its fold—and the Cathars were merely schismatics;[470] from the 33rd canon of the Council of Laodicea, which forbade even praying with schismatics;[471] and from the teachings of the Holy Fathers, for example:

St. Cyprian: “You must know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop, and those who are not in communion with the bishop are not in the Church either, and that those who, having no peace with the priests of God, think to find for themselves dishonorable fellowship with certain people, when the Catholic Church is one, indivisible, and unbreakable, but everywhere united and bound together by the bonds of pastors who are in harmony with one another.”[472] And in another place: “Can one who opposes the Church and separates himself from her hope to be a member of the Church, when Blessed Paul, discussing this subject and revealing the mystery of unity, says: ‘One body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all of us’ (Eph. 4:4)?”[473]

St. John Chrysostom: “I say and testify that tearing the Church apart is no less an evil than falling into heresy.”[474]

St. Basil the Great: “In her (the Church), the one and truly only Head, who is Christ, holds and unites every member in harmony with one another. But if there is no unity of mind among the members, if the bond of peace is not preserved, if meekness of spirit is not observed, and if there is division, strife, and envy—then it would be very presumptuous to call such people members of Christ, or to say that they are under Christ’s rule.”[475]

Blessed Augustine: “Whether someone has been baptized with the baptism of Christ outside the Church—by heretics or schismatics—one must not reject the sacrament of truth that sanctified him when he enters the bosom of the Church.”[476]

d) And, in general, all those whom the Church, by virtue of the authority given to her by the Lord to bind and loose, deems it necessary to excommunicate from the community of believers (Matt. 18:17–18), as she has done until now,[477] and as is evident from her ancient rules [478] and the testimonies of her ancient teachers. For example: a) St. Cyprian: “The proud and obstinate are put to death by the spiritual sword when they are cast out of the Church: for outside of it they cannot live—since there is but one house of the Lord, and salvation is impossible for anyone except within the Church;”[479] b) St. Basil the Great: “The Church’s canons excommunicate those convicted of grave sins from the rest of the body, lest a little leaven leaven the whole lump (1 Cor. 5:6). Therefore, in accordance with the will of the good God, the lawless are to be removed from the people. For the lawless will not enter the Holy Place with the saints, because the shovel is in the Lord’s hand (Matt. 3:12). But those who are now, as lawless, excommunicated from the people, calmly endure what has befallen them , not realizing that this is a foreshadowing of what will befall them at God’s dreadful judgment. And just how harmful it is not to separate the lawless from fellowship with the holy members of Christ—this was expressed by the Apostle when he rebuked the Corinthians for not weeping so that the one who had committed such a deed might be removed from their midst (1 Cor. 5:2);”[480] c) Blessed Jerome: “Adulterers, sodomites, murderers, and other lawless persons are excommunicated from the Church by the pastors—but heretics pass judgment on themselves, voluntarily withdrawing from the Church.”[481]

To judge more correctly the positions we have outlined regarding heretics and schismatics, one must know what heresy and schism are, and what is meant by “heretics” in this context. The ancient teachers of the Church provide us with the following definitions of heresy and schism:

a) St. Basil the Great: “The ancients called some things heresy, others schism, and still others unauthorized assemblies—they called those who had completely broken away and estranged themselves from the faith itself ‘heretics’; schismatics—those who have divided over opinions regarding certain ecclesiastical matters and issues that can be resolved; and unauthorized assemblies—gatherings formed by disobedient presbyters or bishops and the uninstructed people.”[482]

b) Blessed Jerome: “The difference between heresy and schism, in my opinion, is that heresy consists in the perversion of dogma, while schism also leads to excommunication from the Church due to disagreement with the bishop (propter episcopalem dissensionem). Consequently, these two things may seem different in origin in certain respects; but fundamentally, there is no schism that does not have something in common with some heresy in its rebellion against the Church.”[483]

c) Blessed Augustine: “Heretics, by reasoning falsely about the faith, the creed, and God, violate the very faith itself, while schismatics, through their unrighteous interpretations, separate themselves from brotherly love, even though they believe in the same things we do.”[484]

When we say that heretics and schismatics do not belong to the Church, we do not mean those among them who keep their heresy or schism secret, striving to appear as members of the Church and outwardly observing its statutes; or who are led astray by heretical and schismatic errors out of ignorance and without any malice or obstinacy: for it is evident that they have not yet visibly excommunicated themselves from the community of believers, nor have they been excommunicated by the authority of the Church—though they may already have been excommunicated by God’s judgment, which is hidden from us and from them:[485] It is best to leave such people to the judgment of Him who knows the very thoughts of men and searches hearts and minds. But we are referring to overt heretics and schismatics who have already separated themselves from the Church or have been excommunicated by it, and consequently to heretics and schismatics who are deliberate, obstinate, and therefore guilty to the highest degree. It is against them, in fact, that the sayings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, which we have cited above, were directed.

§169. The Purpose of Christ’s Church and the Means Given to It for That Purpose

I. The purpose for which the Lord established His Church is the sanctification of sinful people and, subsequently, their reunion with God. St. Paul clearly stated this purpose when he spoke of the Savior: “He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the Body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, into a mature man, into the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph. 4:11–13). But this purpose is just as evident—a) from the Church’s relationship to faith: if the Christian Church is a community of people who hold the Christian faith, and the Christian faith is given to us precisely so that we may become holy and attain eternal life and bliss in God [(Eph. 1:4); (Mark 16:16); (John 3:15–16)]; then the Church can have no other purpose; b) from the fact that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself: and the sole purpose of His coming to earth was our salvation (John 3:16); therefore, everything He did on earth could only have been directed toward seeking out and saving the lost (Matt. 18:11, etc.); c) finally, from the fact that, before His ascension into heaven, when sending the Apostles to establish the Church throughout the world, He entrusted to them and to all their successors His divine mission, which He had received from the Father: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you” (John 20:21), and thus entrusted them, as it were, to continue, with His assistance, the very same work (John 4:34) for which He Himself had come—and that work consisted precisely in the sanctification of the sinful human race [(Eph. 5:26–27); (Titus 2:14)], and in delivering it from the calamities to which it had been subjected through the first fall and all subsequent ones [(Matt. 20:28); (Heb. 2:11–15); etc.].

II. It is now not difficult to identify the means that the Lord has granted to His Church to achieve this goal. First, they must correspond to the goal—that is, the liberation of people from the aforementioned afflictions, the sanctification of sinners, and their leading to eternal bliss; second, they must be the very same means that our Redeemer employed.

The first affliction of fallen humanity is the blindness of the mind, the forgetting of the truths of the original faith, love, and hope, and, consequently, ignorance of the path leading back to God. Therefore, having come into the world, the Redeemer appears first and foremost as a prophet (Matt. 13:57), or a teacher [(Mark 4:38); (Matt. 19:16)], traveling through towns and villages, teaching in assemblies, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom [(Matt. 9:35); (Mark 6:6); (Luke 13:22)], affirming that He was sent for this very purpose (Luke 4:43) and that this is why He came (Mark 1:38). Therefore, for His Church, “He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11), and He commanded them to teach people the doctrine—namely, the very doctrine that He Himself preached (Matt. 28:19–20)—the very teaching that the holy Apostles subsequently carried throughout the whole earth, and which, by inspiration from the Holy Spirit, they set down in writing and orally handed down to the Church for all time.[486]

The second affliction of sinful man is his guilt before God, because of which, even if he knew the way to return to the heavenly Father, the sinner would not dare to walk it, or would be unable to reach the desired goal by that path. In response to this need, our Redeemer deigned to become a high priest (Heb. 4:15; 5:1), to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sinful humanity (Heb. 7:26–28), and thus to reconcile us to God through His cross, putting to death the enmity on it (Eph. 2:16). And in His Church, He established the holy sacraments [(Matt. 28:19); (Luke 22:19); (John 20:21–23); (1 Cor. 11:24); (Matt. 16:19) and others] and, more generally, sacred rites, through which the Church might impart to people the merits of His cross, communicate to them saving grace, sanctify them, and build them up as a dwelling place of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:22). He also established the order of ministers, or builders of God’s mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1), when He conferred upon the holy Apostles the authority and power [(Luke 22:19); (John 20:22)] to administer the sacraments [(Matt. 28:19); (Luke 22:12); (John 20:22)] and other sacred rites [(Matt. 9:38); (Mark 6:13); cf. (James 5:14)]; and the Apostles passed on this authority and power to their successors [(1 Cor. 2:12–16); (1 Tim. 2:1–2)].

Finally, the ultimate misfortune of fallen humanity is its moral weakness, by which a person—even having learned the path to reunion with God and having received the boldness and all the means of grace to walk this path—may falter along the way, quenching within themselves the spirit of grace (1 Thess. 5:19), may veer to the right or to the left, or even turn back (Luke 9:62). In this regard, sinful people need faithful guides who would precisely define their path through laws and rules, constantly watch over them, and motivate them with rewards and punishments. The Lord Jesus, as the Redeemer of mankind, fully met this need of theirs, in part, by teaching them various laws to guide them toward salvation [(Matt. 6:5–6; 16–17); (John 14:1; 15:9–12)], pointed out the motives for their actions (Matt. 5:2–12), subjected sinners to His spiritual judgment, and forgave sins [(Luke 5:23–24); (Luke 7:48–49)]. But above all—by establishing His Church on earth as the most well-ordered community, to guide people toward eternal life. Within this community, He established spiritual governance and leaders, who in the beginning were the holy apostles, endowed by Him with the authority to shepherd the Church (John 21:15–17) and, consequently, to bind and loose [(Matt. 16:19); (Matt. 18:18); (John 20:22–23)], to show mercy to the obedient, and to excommunicate the disobedient from the Church (Matt. 18:17); and later, the successors of the apostles, who received from them the same God-given authority to shepherd the Church [(Acts 20:28); (1 Pet. 5:2–3)], and to govern it [(1 Tim. 5:19–22); (Titus 1:5; 2:1–3)]. For this reason, the Lord is rightly called the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) and the King of His kingdom of grace (John 18:36–37).

If, then, in order to achieve the Church’s highest goal, Jesus Christ has granted her three essential and necessary means, it follows naturally that her immediate goal is precisely the preservation and proper use of all these means. That is to say, the Church is destined and therefore obligated: a) to preserve the precious deposit of the saving doctrine of the faith [(1 Tim. 6:20); (2 Tim. 1:12–14)], and to spread this teaching among the nations; b) to preserve and administer the divine sacraments and liturgical rites for the good of humanity; c) to preserve the governance established by God within it, and to exercise it in accordance with the Lord’s intention.

§170. The Necessity of Belonging to the Church of Christ for Salvation

A necessary consequence of the doctrine concerning the primary and mediating purpose of the Church of Christ is the teaching that there is no salvation outside this Church. For salvation requires the following on the part of a person:

1) Faith in Jesus Christ, who has reconciled us to God: “For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); and even earlier, the Savior Himself said: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). But the true teaching of Christ and about Christ is preserved and preached only in His Church and through the Church, without which there can be no true faith (Rom. 10:17).

2) Participation in the holy sacraments, through which all the divine powers necessary for life and godliness are bestowed upon us (2 Pet. 1:3). For it is said: “Unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3); “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53), and so on. But the sacraments instituted by God and their proper administration can be found only in the Church of Christ.

3) Finally, a good and godly life: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21); “If you wish to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 19:17). But to succeed in such a life, a weak person needs reliable guidance, and—since he often falls into sin—he needs to be cleansed of his sins and reconciled to God, without which neither a good life nor salvation is possible. And this reliable guidance, together with the divine authority to forgive people’s sins, exists only in the Church of Christ.

The Savior’s sayings affirming the truth we are considering should now be perfectly clear: “Whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16); whoever does not believe in the Son is already condemned (John 3:18); “If anyone will not listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17). Likewise, the sayings of the Holy Apostles, who call heretics false teachers who introduce pernicious heresies and bring swift destruction upon themselves (2 Pet. 2:1), deceivers upon whom the darkness of darkness is reserved forever (Jude 1:13), and self-condemned people (Titus 3:11). Finally—the sayings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient teachers of the Church:

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Do not be deceived, my brothers—whoever follows a schismatic will not inherit the kingdom of God.”[487] St. Irenaeus: “In the Church, as Scripture says, God has appointed apostles, prophets, teachers (1 Cor. 12:28), and every other spiritual office, of which all those are deprived who do not come to the Church but separate themselves from true life by their evil thoughts and even worse deeds. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every grace: for the Spirit is truth. Therefore, those who are not partakers of Him do not feed at the mother’s breasts to receive life, nor do they find for themselves the most abundant source in the body of Jesus Christ, but dig for themselves broken cisterns on earth and drink putrid water from a puddle, turning away from the faith of the Church so as not to be brought into it, and rejecting the Spirit so as not to be enlightened by Him.”[488] “In her (the Church), the one path to salvation is shown to the whole world. For to her has been entrusted the light of God and the wisdom of God, through which she saves all people.”[489] Theophilus of Antioch: “To the world, tossed and buffeted by sins, God has granted assemblies—that is, the holy churches—in which, like safe harbors on islands, the teaching of the truth is preserved, and to which those who desire salvation take refuge.”[490] St. Cyprian: “Anyone who separates himself from the Church joins an adulterous wife and becomes alien to the promises of the Church; whoever leaves the Church of Christ deprives himself of the rewards predestined by Christ. He is alien to her, he is unnecessary to her, he is her enemy. He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father. If anyone had been saved from among those outside Noah’s ark, then those outside the Church could also be saved. The Lord says for our instruction: ‘Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matt. 12:30).” Furthermore: “What kind of sacrifices do those who harbor hatred toward priests intend to offer? Do they really think they are with Christ by gathering outside the Church of Christ? Even if these people were to give themselves up to death for confessing the name of Christ, their sin would not be washed away even by their own blood. The indelible and grave guilt of schism is not cleansed even by suffering. One who is outside the Church cannot be a martyr; one who leaves the Church, which is to reign, cannot be made worthy of the kingdom.”[491] And further: “There is no salvation outside the Church.”[492] Blessed Jerome: “We say that everyone who is saved is saved within the Church,”[493] “Whoever departs from the Church immediately dies of a sore.”[494] Blessed Augustine: “No one attains salvation and eternal life except the one who has Christ as his head; and only the one who is in His body, which is the Church, can have Christ as his head.”[495] “Whoever is not among the members of Christ cannot have Christian salvation.”[496] “Anyone who has separated himself from communion with the Church, even if his life were worthy of praise, will not have life because of that single transgression—that he has severed himself from union with Christ—but the wrath of God remains upon him.”[497] Blessed Theodoret: “Salvation comes to us through the Church; but those who are outside the Church do not receive eternal life.”[498] In general, according to the teaching of the ancient Christian pastors:

1) Outside the Church, there is neither hearing,[499] nor understanding of the Word of God;[500] there is no true worship of God;[501] Christ is not found,[502] the Holy Spirit is not imparted;[503] the Savior’s death does not bring salvation;[504] there is no feast of the Body of Christ;[505] there is no fruitful prayer;[506] there can be neither saving deeds,[507] nor true martyrdom,[508] nor sublime virginity [509] and purity,[510] nor soul-saving fasting,[511] nor God’s blessing.[512]

2) But in the Church, on the contrary, there is God’s favor and grace;[513] the Triune God dwells in the Church;[514] in the Church there is knowledge of the truth,[515] knowledge of God and Christ,[516] an abundance of spiritual blessings;[517] in the Church there are true, salvific dogmas,[518] true faith, handed down from the apostles,[519] true love,[520] and the straight path to eternal life.[521]

II. On the Composition and Structure of the Church

§171. A General Overview of This Organization

Having defined the scope of His Church, indicated its purpose, and provided the necessary means to achieve that purpose, the Lord Jesus also gave it a specific structure that fully ensures and facilitates the attainment of this purpose. The structure of the Church consists in the following: a) it is divided, in terms of its composition, into two essential parts: the flock and the divinely established hierarchy, placed in a specific relationship to one another; b) the hierarchy is subdivided into three essential degrees, distinct from one another yet interconnected; c) the flock and the hierarchy are subject to the supreme court of the Councils; and—d) finally, the entire organized body of the Church, formed of such diverse and wisely arranged members, has a single Head in the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who quickens it with His Holy Spirit.

§172. The Flock and the God-Established Hierarchy and Their Mutual Relationship

I. It is not difficult to demonstrate, contrary to the opinion of certain heretics,[522] that the division of the members of the Church into the two aforementioned classes has its origin in the Savior Himself. It is indisputable that the Lord Himself established within His Church a distinct class of people constituting a hierarchy, and that it is precisely these people, and they alone, whom He authorized to administer the means He bestowed upon the Church for its purpose: that is, He authorized them to serve as teachers, clergy, and spiritual leaders within the Church, and by no means granted this authority indiscriminately to all believers; on the contrary, He commanded them only to obey their pastors (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 109; the Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10; the Expanded Christian Catechism, Article IX).

Reading the Holy Gospel, which contains the history of the life and deeds of our Savior, we see:

a) That He Himself directly chose, from among all His disciples, precisely twelve, whom He called His apostles. “When the time came,” St. Luke recounts, “Jesus called His disciples and chose twelve of them, whom He also named Apostles” (Luke 6:13), and therefore said to them: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16).

b) To them alone He gave the command and authority to teach all nations, to administer the holy sacraments to them, and to guide the faithful to salvation [(Matt. 28:19); (Luke 22:19); (Matt. 18:18)].

c) That He bestowed this authority upon the holy apostles just as He Himself had received it from the Father: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18–19); “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” Having said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

d) That to these twelve He Himself directly added another seventy specific disciples, whom He sent out for the same great mission (Luke 10).

e) That, in entrusting His heavenly mission to His twelve disciples, He desired that it be passed on directly from them to their successors, and from these latter, passing from generation to generation, be preserved in the world until the very end of the world. For when He said to the apostles, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), He immediately added, “And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Consequently, through the apostles, He sent them out for this very work, and by His presence He gave hope to all their future successors; and in the strictest sense, He Himself gave the Church not only apostles, prophets, and evangelists, but also pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

e) Finally, having thus endowed His holy apostles with divine authority, He, on the other hand, very clearly and with dire warnings obliged all people and future Christians to receive the teaching and sacraments from the apostles and to obey their voice. “Whoever listens to you listens to Me, and whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” [(Mark 16:15–16); cf. (Matt. 10:14), (Matt. 18:15–19)].

That is why, even after the Lord ascended into heaven, it was only by His command that Matthew was numbered among the eleven Apostles in place of the apostate Judas (Acts 1:26); and only by the voice of the Holy Spirit Himself were Barnabas and Saul set apart for the work to which our Redeemer had called them [(Acts 13:2); cf. (Acts 9:15)].

2. The Lord’s intention is revealed even more clearly through the actions of the apostles, who were guided by His Spirit. These actions fall into two categories, both of which serve to confirm the truth we are considering.

The actions of the first kind are as follows:

a) The holy apostles themselves consistently upheld the right and fulfilled the duties that the Lord had specifically entrusted to them [(Acts 5:42); (Acts 6:1–5); (1 Cor. 4:1); (1 Cor. 5:4–5); (1 Cor. 9:16)], despite any obstacles posed by enemies who sought to deprive them of this divine right [(Acts 4:19); (Acts 5:28–29)].

b) As they spread the Gospel and established numerous churches in various places, the apostles ordained elders for all these churches, and where they deemed it necessary, bishops as well (Acts 14:23; 20:28).[523] And to these specifically chosen individuals, as their deputies and successors (Titus 1:5), they transmitted through the sacrament of ordination that divine authority which they themselves had received from Jesus Christ, assuring them that it is the Holy Spirit Himself who appoints them in the Church (Acts 20:28). In particular, they entrusted to these consecrated individuals their own right and duty to teach Christians [(1 Tim. 6:20; (2 Tim. 1:16; 4:2); (Titus 2:1–13)], to celebrate the sacraments (1 Tim. 2:1–2), and to shepherd Christ’s flock [(Acts 20:28); (1 Pet. 5:1–4)].

c) Finally, the holy apostles commanded the bishops whom they had directly chosen and ordained to pass on, through the sacrament of ordination, their divine authority to other people who had been specifically chosen and prepared [(2 Tim. 2:2); (Titus 1:16)]; they described in detail the specific qualities by which these people, called to such a high ministry, should be distinguished [(1 Tim. 3:1–10); (Titus 1:6) and so on]; they established specific rules for judging them (1 Tim. 6:19), and commanded that those who proved diligent in their duties be rewarded [(1 Tim. 5:22); (1 Tim. 6:17); (Titus 1:5)].

From the apostles’ other actions, it is evident that—

a) They strictly forbade people who were not vested with lawful authority to perform sacred duties from usurping that authority for themselves. “How can they preach unless they are sent?” asks the great teacher of the nations (Rom. 10:15), “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are they all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29). And he answers in another epistle: “No one takes this honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. So also Christ did not take upon Himself the honor of being High Priest, but the One who said to Him, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You’” (Heb. 5:4–5).

b) And all believers in general were exhorted and urged: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls” (Heb. 13:17); “We urge you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you, and your leaders in the Lord, and those who admonish you, and to hold them in the highest regard with love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:12–13).

3. Looking back to the times immediately following the apostolic age, we observe:

a) That within the Church of Christ there has always existed a distinct class of pastors to whom all other believers were bound to obey. This idea is clearly expressed by the men and disciples of the apostles, who undoubtedly knew well the will of their mentors, such as: St. Clement of Rome,[524] St. Ignatius,[525] and later by the pastors who followed them: St. Irenaeus,[526] St. Cyprian,[527] Eusebius,[528] Gregory the Theologian,[529] Chrysostom,[530] Ambrose,[531] Jerome,[532] Augustine,[533] and others.

b) And that the pastors who constituted this special class always derived their authority from Jesus Christ Himself, calling themselves successors of the apostles and representatives of the Savior Himself in the Church. Here, for example, are the words of St. Clement of Rome: “Having received perfect foreknowledge, the apostles appointed the aforementioned (i.e., bishops and deacons), and together they established the rule that, when some pass away, their ministry should be taken up by others, men who have been tested.”[534] St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Bishops are appointed in all corners of the earth, by the will of Jesus Christ.”[535] St. Irenaeus: “We can name those whom the apostles appointed as bishops to the churches, and their successors right up to our own time, who taught nothing of the sort and knew nothing of what the heretics invent. For if the apostles knew hidden mysteries, which they revealed only to the perfect and not to everyone else; then all the more would they have communicated these mysteries to those to whom the churches themselves were entrusted: for the apostles wanted those whom they left as their successors, to whom they entrusted their own ministry of teaching, to be thoroughly perfect and blameless in every respect.”[536] St. Cyprian: “We are the successors of the apostles, governing the Church of God with the same authority.”[537] St. Ambrose: “The bishop represents the Person of Christ and is the Lord’s vicar.”[538] Blessed Jerome: “Among us, the bishops take the place of the apostles.”[539]

II. From this, it is already evident what the mutual relationship between the constituent parts of Christ’s Church should be. Pastors are obligated to teach their flock [(1 Tim. 6:20); (Titus 2:1–13)]; to perform sacred rites for them (1 Tim. 2:1–2); and to spiritually shepherd the flock of the Word [(Acts 20:28); (1 Pet. 5:1–2)]. The flock is obligated to heed the teachings of their pastors [(Luke 10:16); (1 Thess. 5:12–13)]; to partake of their sacraments (Mark 16:15–16); and to submit to their spiritual authority (Heb. 13:17). Therefore, although in the Word of God the church is sometimes referred to specifically as the flock, distinct from the shepherds entrusted with its care [(Acts 20:28); (1 Tim. 3:5)], and sometimes this name is applied solely to the shepherds, for example, in the following words of the Savior: “If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him between you and him alone; if he listens to you, you have won your brother; but if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses; but if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he does not listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:15–19):[540] However, strictly speaking, the Church of Christ is formed only by the union of these two churches, the first of which is called the subordinate church, and the latter the church with ecclesiastical authority; and where there is a single flock or believers in general, but no God-established hierarchy, and it is rejected, there is no Church (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10). For just as the Lord Himself willed that those who believe in Him should form the Church, so the Lord Himself established a hierarchy within His Church; and, by His will, only pastors have the right to teach people the faith, sanctify them through the holy sacraments, and lead them to salvation. Consequently, without legitimate pastors, Christians are without sanctification… The ancient teachers sought to impress this idea upon the faithful with particular force; for example, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Without them (i.e., the bishop, presbyters, and deacons), the Church is not called such—a point on which, I am convinced, you agree;”[541] Tertullian: “Without a bishop, there is no Church;”[542] St. Hippolytus: “Neither should a bishop exalt himself above deacons or presbyters, nor should presbyters exalt themselves above the people: for the body of the Church consists of both;”[543] St. Cyprian: “The Church consists of the people united with the priest and the flock obedient to its shepherd; therefore, you must know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and thus, whoever is not in unity with the bishop is not in the Church;”[544] St. Gregory the Theologian: “Just as in the body one part rules and, as it were, presides, while another is subject to authority and governance: so it is in the Churches… God has ordained that some, for whom this is more beneficial, guided in word and deed toward their duty, should remain the flock and be subject to authority; while others, standing above the rest in virtue and closeness to God, should be shepherds and teachers for the perfection of the Church, and have toward others the same relationship that the soul has to the body and the mind to the soul, so that both—the deficient and the abundant—being, like the members of the body, joined and united into a single whole, gathered together and bound by the bond of the Spirit, might constitute one body, perfect and truly worthy of Christ Himself—our Head.”[545] For this reason, the ancient teachers considered Christian communities that arbitrarily withdrew from obedience to the bishop and presbyters and conducted their own divine services without them to be unworthy of the name “Church,” and called them heretical, gatherings of schismatics, malicious, harmful, and the like.[546]

§173. The Three God-Established Ranks of the Church Hierarchy and Their Distinctions from One Another

These three degrees of the divinely established hierarchy are: the first and highest—the degree of bishop; the second and subordinate—the degree of presbyter or priest; the third and lowest—the degree of deacon (Extended Christian Catechism on the Priesthood, p. 96, Moscow, 1840).

I. The divine institution of the episcopal rank in the Church and its superiority not only over the diaconate (which no one disputes) but also over the presbyterate—a point contested by some freethinkers—[547] , we discern:

1) From Holy Scripture. Although it is beyond doubt that the titles “presbyter” and “bishop,” in accordance with the literal meaning of these words,[548] the Apostles could naturally have used—and indeed did use [549] —sometimes interchangeably, applying both terms at times to bishops as well as to presbyters [550] and even to themselves [(1 Peter 5:1); (2 John 1:1); (3 John 1:1)]: however, they granted certain individuals among them a special privilege and authority to ordain other presbyters [(Titus 1:5); (1 Tim. 5:22)], to judge them (1 Tim. 5:19), to reward them (1 Tim. 5:17), — privileges and authority that clearly elevated those to whom they were granted by the apostles above ordinary priests, who, as history attests, never possessed the first of the aforementioned rights in particular. “It is impossible,” notes St. Epiphanius, “for a bishop and a presbyter to be one and the same: Divine Scripture teaches who is a bishop and who is a presbyter, saying to Timothy: ‘Do not rebuke an elder (presbyter)….’ Why would there be a need for instruction that a bishop should not rebuke a presbyter if the former did not have precedence over the latter? Therefore, it also says: ‘Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses’ ([551] , 1 Tim. 5:19).” However, since the mutual interchangeability of the titles “bishop” and “presbyter” found in Holy Scripture does not allow us to determine directly from it, strictly and indisputably, in what sense the Apostles understood these words ( ), it is only natural to turn here to the Apostolic Fathers. They lived and even labored alongside the Apostles themselves, were their closest disciples, and, of course, knew their way of thinking.

2) The Apostolic Fathers leave us in no doubt whatsoever regarding the divine institution and the great importance of the episcopal office. St. Clement of Rome says of them: “Preaching in villages and cities, the apostles appointed the first believers—after spiritual testing—as bishops and deacons for those who would embrace the faith,” and, applying the titles of the Old Testament hierarchy to the New Testament hierarchy, he observes: “To the high priest (i.e., the bishop) his ministry is given; to the priests (presbyters) their place is assigned; and to the Levites (as he calls the deacons) their duties are entrusted.”[552] And St. Ignatius the God-Bearer expresses himself even more clearly: a) in his Epistle to the Ephesians: “Bishops are appointed in all corners of the earth by the will of Jesus Christ;”[553] b) in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: “Obey the bishop as you would Jesus Christ, the elders as you would the apostles, and honor the deacons as a commandment of God (ώς Θεού έντολήν);”[554] c) in the Epistle to the Magnesians: “I beg you, do everything in the peace of God, under the leadership of the bishop, in place of God Himself, the presbyters, in place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, who are most dear to me, to whom the ministry (διακονία) of Jesus Christ;”[555] d) in the Epistle to the Trallians: “It is fitting for each of you, and especially for the presbyters, to bring sweet comfort to the bishop for the glory of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the apostles.”[556]

3) We find this same teaching later among the pastors of the second and third centuries, such as: a) St. Irenaeus: “All opponents of church doctrine appeared incomparably later than those bishops to whom the apostles entrusted the churches;”[557] b) Tertullian: “The high priest (summus sacerdos), who is the bishop, has the right to administer baptism; next (dehinc) come the presbyters and deacons, but not without authorization (auctoritate) from the bishop;”[558] c) Origen: “More is required of me (the presbyter) than of a deacon, and more of a deacon than of a layperson; but incomparably more is required of the one who holds in his hands ecclesiastical authority over all of us;”[559] and others.[560]

4) Finally, we find this same teaching consistently not only among individual pastors of all subsequent centuries, but also in the decrees of entire Councils, for example, the Council of Nicaea and the First Ecumenical Council (see Canons 18) and the Council of Laodicea (Canons 56 and 57), so that when Arius appeared in the fourth century and began to teach that a bishop has no advantage over a presbyter, he was, according to the testimony of Epiphanius and Augustine, recognized as a heretic by the entire Church.[561]

5) The most tangible proof of the divine origin and superiority of episcopal authority is provided by the most ancient lists of the first bishops of various apostolic Churches, which even for the early defenders of orthodoxy served as a weapon against heretics. “We can,” says St. Irenaeus, “enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and their successors right up to our own time,” and, indeed, he lists the Roman bishops in order of succession from the very beginning of the Roman Church almost to the end of the second century.[562] “Let them show,” says another Church Father, addressing the heretics, “the origins of their churches, and let them declare the line of their bishops, which would continue with such succession that their first bishop would have as his founder or predecessor one of the apostles, or one of the Apostolic Fathers who associated with the apostles for a long time. For the apostolic churches trace their lists (of bishops) in precisely this way: the church of Smyrna, for example, presents Polycarp, appointed by John; the church of Rome—Clement, ordained by Peter; likewise, the other churches name those men whom, having been ordained to the episcopate by the apostles themselves, they regarded as branches of the apostolic seed.”[563] Eusebius preserved the ancient lists of Egesippus, which present the succession of bishops of the churches of Corinth, Rome, and Jerusalem, and he himself, based on other sources, provides similar lists of bishops for all the most prominent churches.[564] From this it is evident that the ancients not only distinguished bishops from presbyters, but also regarded only the former as successors of the apostles, thus giving them complete precedence over the latter.

I. The divine institution of the presbyterial office in the Church is evident, first, from the fact that the apostles themselves ordained presbyters for the churches (Acts 14:23) and commanded the bishops to appoint presbyters in every city (Titus 1:5). Second, it is evident from the testimonies of the ancient teachers, for example: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, who says that “presbyters are established by the will of Jesus;”[565] b) St. Irenaeus, according to whom “presbyters, by the Father’s good pleasure through the succession of the episcopate, have received the unshakable gift of truth”;[566] c) Blessed Jerome: “the apostles, appointing presbyters and bishops throughout all the provinces”;[567] and others.

As for the distinction between the presbyterate and the episcopate, we have already seen it from many testimonies demonstrating the superiority of the latter over the former.[568] To these we may add: a) the Apostolic Canons, — 15; “If any presbyter, or deacon, or anyone else on the clergy roster, leaves his assigned district, departs to another, and relocates entirely to live in another place without the consent of his bishop: we command that such a person no longer serve, and especially if he has disobeyed his bishop, who has called him to return;” 31: “If any presbyter, disregarding his own bishop, holds separate gatherings and sets up another altar, without having brought a charge before the bishop’s court for anything contrary to piety and truth, let him be expelled as a schismatic;” 39: “Elders and deacons shall do nothing without the bishop’s consent; for the Lord’s people are entrusted to him, and he will give an account for their souls;” b) likewise—the rules of the Council of Laodicea—66: “It is not fitting for presbyters to enter and sit at the altar before the bishop enters, but they are to enter with the bishop, except in cases where the bishop is infirm or absent;” 57: “Presbyters are not to do anything without the bishop’s consent” (cf. Canons 13 and 14 of the Second Ecumenical Council).

III. The divine institution of the diaconate in the Church is clearly implied in the epistles of St. Paul the Apostle. Greeting the church in Philippi, together with its ministers, he writes: “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, together with the bishops and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:1–2), and thus includes bishops and deacons among the ministers of the Church. Similarly, in his First Epistle to Timothy, when describing the qualities of those entering church offices, he speaks of bishops and deacons (1 Tim. 3:2–8).[569] This is confirmed by the Apostolic Fathers: a) St. Clement of Rome: “The aforementioned ministers (i.e., bishops and deacons) were appointed by the apostles;”[570] b) St. Ignatius: “Deacons, these ministers of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should be treated with every possible courtesy—for they are not ministers of food and drink, but ministers of the Church of God;”[571] c) St. Polycarp: “Deacons must be blameless before His righteousness, since they are ministers of God in Christ, not of men,” — and further: “One must obey the presbyters and deacons as one would obey God and Christ.”[572] And following in the footsteps of the Apostolic Fathers — the subsequent teachers: Justin the Martyr,[573] Tertullian,[574] Clement of Alexandria,[575] Cyprian,[576] Ambrose [577] and others.[578] Similarly, the idea that the diaconate is distinct from the episcopate and the presbyterate, and is the lowest among them, is evident, first of all, from the words of St. Paul the Apostle, who clearly distinguishes deacons from bishops in his epistles (and, as noted above, the term “bishop” was often used at that time to refer to priests as well), and lists deacons immediately after bishops [(1 Tim. 3:2–8); (Phil. 1:1–2)]. Second, it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers and the entire early Church. For example, St. Ignatius states that “a deacon is subject to the bishop and the presbyters by the grace and law of Jesus Christ.”[579] Optatus places deacons in the third rank of the priesthood and presbyters in the second.[580] Canon 18 of the First Ecumenical Council clearly states that “deacons are ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters, and that deacons are permitted to sit below the presbyters”; similarly, in Canon 20 of the Council of Laodicea, we read: “It is not fitting for a deacon to sit in the presence of a presbyter, but only at the presbyter’s command.”

IV. From all that has been said thus far regarding the divine institution and the distinction of degrees within the church hierarchy, it follows that there are no fewer than three: the episcopal, the presbyteral, and the diaconal; but it must be noted that there are no more than these. For not only are only these three ranks mentioned in Holy Scripture—excluding extraordinary ministries that existed only temporarily—[581] but ancient Christian writers also clearly list no more than these three ranks of the hierarchy. Let us point to the words of

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Strive, beloved, to obey the bishop, the presbyter, and the deacon; for whoever obeys them listens to Christ, who established them; but whoever opposes them opposes Christ Jesus; and whoever opposes the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.”[582]

Clement of Alexandria: “The ranks of bishops, presbyters, and deacons that exist in the Church, in my opinion, are likened to the angelic order.”[583]

Origen: “Paul speaks to the rulers and leaders of the churches, that is, to those who judge those within the Church—namely, the bishops, presbyters, and deacons.”[584]

Eusebius of Caesarea: “Three orders: the first order of presbyters, the second of elders, and the third of deacons.”[585]

We find similar statements in the works of Tertullian,[586] Hippolytus,[587] Optatus,[588] Origen,[589] Jerome,[590] and others.

§174. The Relationship of the Ranks of the Church Hierarchy to One Another and to the Flock

The relationship of these ranks of the hierarchy to one another and to the flock is such that the bishop, in his particular church or diocese, is the vicar of Christ (Orthodox Confession, Part I, answer to question 85),[591] and consequently the chief authority both over the entire hierarchy under his jurisdiction and over the flock (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10).[592] For he alone, as we shall see below, received from the apostles the exclusive right to ordain all lower-ranking pastors for his church, so that the latter derive their rights and spiritual authority over the flock from him, and the entire flock, under the care of these pastors, is sanctified through their mediation and thus also by him. Specifically,

First, the bishop is the chief teacher in his church, both for the laity and for the pastors themselves (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10). This is demonstrated by: a) the epistles of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy the bishop, to whom the Apostle commanded with particular force: “Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching” [(1 Tim. 4:16); cf. (1 Tim. 6:12)]; “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2–5); he also commanded him to prepare and instruct future teachers in the faith (2 Tim. 2:2); to observe how the elders carry out their teaching ministry, and to bestow special honor upon those who labor zealously in the Word (1 Tim. 6:17); b) the Apostolic Canons, the 58th of which states: “A bishop who does not care for the clergy or the people, and who does not teach them piety, shall be deposed; and if he persists in this neglect and sloth, let him be deposed;” c) the Apostolic Decrees, which command the bishop to ensure that purity and truth are preserved in the Church;[593] d) the canons of subsequent Councils, which command that “the presiders of the churches, at all times, but especially on Sundays, instruct the entire clergy and the people in the words of piety” (Canon 19 of Trullus). This is why the ancient apologists of Christianity argued against heretics that the true tradition and teaching of Christ had been preserved in the Church from the apostles themselves, and specifically through the unbroken succession of bishops.[594]

Presbyters, receiving all their authority from the bishop through the sacrament of ordination, also receive from the bishop the authority to teach (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10) with regard to their flock, which they are obligated to exercise with all care and diligence (1 Tim. 5:17); Rule 58 of the Holy Apostles). However, even after this, as shown by the same words of the Holy Apostle (1 Tim. 5:17) and the 39th Apostolic Canon, presbyters—in all matters, including the teaching of doctrine—are constantly subject to the supervision and judgment of their archpastor.[595] The bishop has the right, if necessary, to completely forbid a presbyter from preaching, as, according to the testimony of Socrates and Sozomen, the Bishop of Alexandria did among his flock during the Arian heresy.[596]

And deacons may, at the bishop’s discretion, be permitted to preach, just as they were permitted in the early Church, following the example of the holy first deacons—Stephen (Acts 6:8) and Philip (Acts 8:5–35)—especially for the instruction of catechumens.[597] However, this duty, just as it was not considered an essential and permanent duty of deacons then, is not considered so now either.

Second, by the power of the Spirit, the bishop is the chief minister and celebrant of the holy sacraments in his particular church (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10). Certain liturgical functions, both in antiquity and today, are reserved exclusively for him. Thus, he alone has the right to ordain priests and other church offices, based on the Word of God [(Titus 1:5); (1 Tim. 5:22)], the rules of St. Paul the Apostle [598] and the Holy Councils,[599] and according to the unanimous teaching of the holy teachers of the Church, who called this right the most important privilege of the bishop over priests [600] and said: “The order of bishops is primarily appointed for the birth of fathers: for it is his duty to multiply (spiritual) fathers in the Church; the other order (that of presbyters), which cannot give birth to fathers, gives birth to the Church through the baptism of children, but not to fathers or teachers. How, then, is it possible for a presbyter to ordain a presbyter when he has no right of consecration to do so? Or how can a presbyter be called the equal of a bishop?”[601] Likewise, only a bishop has the right to consecrate chrism and the altar or antimension, as is also evident from the canons of the Councils,[602] and, in general, from the teaching of the Orthodox Church.[603] As for the other sacraments, although they were no longer exclusively reserved for the bishop to administer, they could nevertheless be performed in a church under his jurisdiction only with his consent and permission (which, given the small number of private churches or dioceses at that time, was entirely practical).[604]

A priest also has the authority to administer the sacraments and perform liturgical rites in general (except those reserved exclusively to the bishop) [(James 5:14); Apostolic Canons 31, 47, 49; Nicene Council 18]; but he receives this authority from his archpastor at his ordination (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the True Faith, Art. 10). Furthermore, in the performance of this duty, he is subject to the constant supervision, authority, and judgment of his archpastor (Apostolic Canons 39, etc.). In particular, in the actual celebration of certain sacraments, he is entirely dependent on the bishop; for example, he cannot administer the sacrament of Chrismation without Holy Chrism, which is consecrated only by a bishop; nor can he celebrate the Eucharist without an altar or an antimension, which are also consecrated only by a bishop.

A deacon is not granted the right to administer the holy sacraments or to perform liturgical acts in general.[605] Consequently, here too, his ministry, in the words of Dionysius the Areopagite, is merely auxiliary and does not constitute the actual performance of the sacrament itself.[606] Deacons are merely ministers of the mysteries of Christ,[607] servants of the episcopate,[608] and, in general, merely assistants and co-ministers to the presbyters.[609]

The bishop, after all, is the supreme ruler of his particular church [(Acts 20:28); cf. the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10]. First and foremost, he has authority over the hierarchy and clergy subordinate to him. All priests and church ministers are obliged to obey his decrees and not to perform any acts in the church without his permission;[610] they are subject to his supervision and judgment (1 Tim. 5:19), as a result of which he may subject them to various punishments.[611] In addition to the clergy, the entire flock entrusted to him is also subject to the bishop’s spiritual authority. He is obligated to oversee the observance of divine laws and church commandments in his diocese.[612] He also “has, in a special and preeminent way, the authority to bind and loose” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10), according to the rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Councils,[613] , and the unanimous testimony of the ancient teachers of the Church.[614] That is why the men of the Apostles so strongly exhorted all believers to obey the bishop.[615]

Presbyters also have the authority to decide and bind, and, in general, to shepherd the flock of God entrusted to them (1 Peter 5:1–2); but they receive this authority from their archpastor through the sacrament of ordination (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10). And some chosen ones are permitted, at the bishop’s discretion, to share with him the burden of church administration;[616] they even form a permanent council under him for this purpose.[617] But, according to an ancient expression, they serve in this capacity only as the bishop’s eyes,[618] and cannot do anything on their own without his consent.

Deacons, however, have not received from the Lord the right to bind or to loose, and consequently have no spiritual authority over the faithful on their own. But deacons can serve as the eyes and ears of bishops and presbyters,[619] as well as the hands of the presbyters, with their consent, for the performance of church affairs.[620]

In light of all that has been said, the lofty titles and expressions commonly applied to bishops become perfectly clear, such as: that they alone, in the strict sense, are the successors of the apostles;[621] that the Church rests upon the bishops as upon its pillars;[622] that the bishop is “the living image of God on earth, and, by the sacramental power of the Holy Spirit, the abundant source of all the sacraments of the universal Church, through which salvation is attained; and therefore he is as necessary to the Church as breath is to man, and the sun to the world” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10); that the bishop is the focal point of the faithful in his diocese;[623] that he is even the head of his own spiritual domain (Orthodox Confession Art. 1, answer to Q. 85); that, finally, as Cyprian says, “the bishop is in the Church, and the Church (subordinate to him) is in the bishop, and whoever is not in communion with the bishop is not in the Church.”[624]

§175. The Center of Ecclesiastical Authority

Having thus learned that the center of spiritual authority over each particular church lies in its bishop, from whom both doctrine, sacred rites, and governance flow to it, we can now easily determine, on the basis of what has been said, where to look for the center of spiritual authority over several local churches together, and subsequently over the entire Church of Christ.

If, first of all, there is no rank higher than that of a bishop in the ecclesiastical hierarchy; if bishops are all successors of the apostles, and just as the apostles received from the Lord and possessed equal honor and authority,[625] so too do their successors possess equal dignity, wherever they may reside, whether in Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, or elsewhere:[626] it follows of course that only a council of bishops can exercise authority over a bishop. For this reason, according to the rules of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, a bishop receives ordination only from a council of bishops;[627] and only a council of bishops has the authority to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction over him.[628]

If, secondly, every particular church is subject only to its own bishop, then it follows that several particular churches can be subject only to the decisions of all their bishops collectively or to a local council. It was for this very purpose that the holy apostles decreed: “Twice a year, a council of bishops shall be held, and they shall discuss with one another the dogmas of piety and resolve any ecclesiastical disputes that may arise” (Apostolic Canon 37). Subsequently, both Ecumenical and Local Councils also issued rules stipulating that matters concerning several particular churches should be decided only by a council of their bishops.[629]

Finally, to reiterate, since each church is entrusted in particular to its own bishop: then the Church of Christ as a whole, which unites all the particular churches within itself as the universal Church, is indisputably entrusted to all the bishops collectively, as St. John of Damascus states in his fourth letter to the Africans (see Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10). Consequently, the focal point of spiritual authority for the universal Church lies in the Ecumenical Councils (Extended Christian Catechism on Article VIII, p. 79, Moscow, 1840). This great truth was clearly expressed by the Holy Apostles themselves when, in response to the confusion that had arisen among the new Christians regarding circumcision and certain rites, and desiring to establish rules for the entire Church of Christ at that time, they resolved the matter conciliarly (Acts 15:5–29). From that time on, as soon as it became possible to convene Ecumenical Councils, all matters concerning the entire Church were definitively resolved at them, as the history of these Councils attests; no authority other than that of the Ecumenical Councils was recognized in matters of faith, and unconditional obedience to the decisions and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils was regarded as an indispensable duty for all believers and for the pastors themselves.[630]

As a result of this structure of Christ’s universal Church, its perfect unity naturally ensues, when all local flocks, obeying their pastors, so to speak, are centered, each in its own bishop; and the bishops unconditionally submit to the same decrees of the Ecumenical Councils in their teaching, in their sacred rites, and in their administration.

From this, without any further proof, it is evident that the right to sit in councils, both local and ecumenical, and the right to decide church matters therein belongs exclusively to the bishops, as the heads of the particular churches;[631] while presbyters, who are entirely dependent on their local archpastors, may be admitted to councils only with the latter’s consent, and even then only as counselors, assistants, or their representatives,[632] and may occupy only secondary positions.[633] In the same way, even deacons may be admitted,[634] who must stand before the bishops.[635] That is why the Holy Fathers usually referred to councils as assemblies of bishops. The Second Ecumenical Council refers to the creed composed at the First Ecumenical Council as the faith of the 318 Holy Fathers (for that was precisely the number present at the Council of Bishops); the Council of Trullo refers to the doctrinal definitions of all previous Ecumenical Councils as the confession or faith of the Holy Fathers-Bishops, according to their number, who sat at those councils (Canon 1).

§176. The Head of the Church Is the Lord Jesus

But having entrusted the visible governance of His Church to the bishops, who, by the authority granted to them, unite all believers into a single external union, the Lord Jesus Himself invisibly holds the helm of the Church’s governance as its true Head, and, enlivening it with the one and same saving grace of the Holy Spirit, unites all members of the Church in an internal union (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 85; The Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 10).

The first argument affirming that the Lord Himself invisibly governs the Church and is its Head is revealed:

1) From the fact that, when He transferred His divine authority in the Church to the holy apostles before His Ascension—and, through them, to all their future successors—He promised to remain with them all the days until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20), — to remain, without a doubt, in order to guide them in their lofty mission, to assist them, and to govern them. Consequently, He chose them only as visible instruments of His grace-filled action upon the faithful.

2) In particular, although He entrusted the authority to teach to the apostles and their successors, He commanded that He Himself be called the supreme Teacher, invisibly instructing the faithful through them (Matt. 23:8), and therefore said: “Whoever listens to you listens to Me, and whoever rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16). Likewise, although He entrusted to church pastors the authority to perform sacred rites for the sanctification of believers, He Himself remains the supreme High Priest, who lives forever … and therefore is able to save forever those who come to God through Him (Heb. 7:24–25), and He Himself invisibly performs the holy sacraments through the pastors: He Himself invisibly stands before and accepts the repentance of the sinner who confesses his sins before the priest; He Himself is both the One who offers and the One who is offered in the sacrament of the Eucharist.[636] The same must be said regarding church governance, which, although visibly entrusted to pastors, is invisibly centered in the Lord, as the King of the kingdom of grace (John 18:36) and the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).

3) Finally, from the clear passages of Holy Scripture where Jesus Christ is explicitly called the Head of the Church, and the Church His body. For example: “He is the head of the body, the Church” (Col. 1:18); “He placed Him above all things, as head of the Church, which is His body” (Eph. 1:22–23); “The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body” [(Eph. 5:23); see also (Eph. 4:11–16); (Col. 2:19); (1 Cor. 10:17); (1 Cor. 12:12); (Rom. 12:4–5)]. The ancient renowned pastors also taught this: a) St. Basil the Great: “In her (the Church), every member is held together and united in harmony with the others by the one and truly only Head, who is Christ;”[637] b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “One Christ—one Head of the Church;”[638] c) Blessed Theodoret: “Christ the Lord occupies the place of the head, and those who believe in Him occupy the place of the body,”[639] and others.[640]

The validity of the second argument—namely, that the Lord vivifies the Church through His divine grace—is already evident from the first: for if Christ is indeed the Head of the Church, and she is His Body, how is it possible that He does not permeate her with His power? This is confirmed by the Holy Apostle when he speaks of the Savior: “and placed Him above all things, as the Head of the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Eph. 1:23); and further: “with true love, bringing everyone to unity with Him— —who is the Head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, as each part does its work, grows into a body that builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4:15–16). Furthermore, this teaching is grounded in the Savior’s promise to send the Holy Spirit to the earth, who would abide in the Church forever (John 14:16–17)—a promise that was indeed fulfilled in due time (Acts 2). Since then, this Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, descends, first, upon all Christian pastors in the sacrament of the priesthood, and endows them with power and authority that dwells in them continually (2 Tim. 1:14)—to teach, to celebrate the sacraments, and to shepherd the spiritual flock. Second, He descends upon all believers in the sacrament of baptism, where He regenerates them and makes them living members of the mystical Body of Christ; in the sacrament of confirmation, where He imparts to them the strength for strengthening and gradual growth in the spiritual life; and then—in all other sacraments as well. Thirdly, He descends upon all believers—pastors and the flock alike—or, more accurately, He constantly rests upon them (as long as they remain worthy) with His spiritual gifts, as “the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and holiness, the Spirit of the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2–3); He constantly produces in them (if they do not resist) His spiritual fruits—“love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23)—and all other virtues. Finally, He descends upon some believers with His special, extraordinary gifts, and “to one is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the ability to distinguish between spirits; to another, various kinds of tongues; and to another, the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:7–11). Most clearly and tangibly of all, we perceive the union of Christ with the Church and with all her members in the sacrament of the Eucharist: here every Christian sincerely partakes of the body and blood of Christ, and with them receives the whole Christ into himself, and each one, thereafter, can say, following the example of the Apostle: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). From this arises the perfect unity of the faithful both with Christ—the Head of the Church, “from whom the whole body, being joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Col. 2:19)—and among themselves: for they are all enlivened by the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), live in the same Christ, and, though many, constitute one body (1 Cor. 12:12).

III. On the Essence and Essential Attributes of the Church

§177. The Concept of the Church’s Essence and the Enumeration of Its Essential Attributes

As a consequence of all that has been set forth thus far regarding the doctrine of the Church—its origin, scope, and purpose, as well as its composition and internal structure—a complete concept of the very essence of the Church and a doctrine of its essential properties follow.

The concept of the Church’s entire essence can be expressed as follows: The Church is a community of Orthodox believers who have been baptized into Jesus Christ (§168), founded by Him directly and through the holy apostles (§167), and by Him Himself enlivened and led to eternal life (§§176, 169)—visibly, through spiritual shepherds: by teaching, sacred rites, and governance (§§172, 169); and invisibly, through the all-acting grace of the All-Holy Spirit (§176).

The essential attributes of the Church are enumerated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, where it is called: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

§178. The Church Is One

I. The Church is one:

1) By its origin and foundation. The Lord Jesus desired to establish only one Church (Matt. 16:18), and, depicting it in parables, spoke only of one flock, one sheepfold (John 10:16), one vine (John 15:1–7), and one kingdom of heaven on earth (Matt. 13:24–47). And He Himself, according to the teaching of the apostles, became the sole foundation of the Church (1 Cor. 3:11) and the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20).

2) By its structure, both external and internal. The external structure divides the faithful into pastors and the flock. The former are obligated to teach the same divine doctrine, administer the same divine sacraments, and govern themselves according to the same divine laws; the latter are obligated to receive instruction from their shepherds, to partake of their sanctification, and to submit to their spiritual guidance: from this must inevitably flow, both among the shepherds and among all the flock, unity of faith, hope, and love (Eph. 4:3–4). The internal bond, by which the Lord Jesus, permeating and enlivening every single believer in Him with the same grace, unites them in Himself as the true Head of the Church (Eph. 5:23), — so that believers, through this twofold bond, are truly one body and one Spirit (Eph. 4:4). But even if, due to the weakness and misconduct of some members of the Church, we do not experience in practice such perfect unity as ought to result from its very structure, the Church nevertheless remains one—

3) By its purpose. Christ the Savior expressed this purpose in His prayer to the heavenly Father: “May they all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You, so may they also be one in Us … I in them and You in Me; may they be made perfect in unity” (John 17:21–23). And accordingly, He gave the Church pastors and teachers “for the building up of the Body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:12–13). It is toward this very purpose—toward this complete unity of believers, both among themselves and with the Lord Jesus—that the Church leads all its members.

II. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously taught about the unity of the Church as its essential characteristic. Here, for example, are some sayings:

St. Clement of Rome: “Why do you have strife, indignation, discord, divisions, and quarrels? Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit of grace poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ? Why do we tear apart and break the members of Christ, rebel against our own body, and reach such a state of madness that we even forget that we are members of one another?”[641]

St. Irenaeus: “Although the Church is scattered throughout the universe to the ends of the earth, she has received from the apostles and their disciples the faith in the one God, the Father Almighty…, and in the one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the plan of salvation… Having received this preaching and this faith, the Church, as we have said, though scattered throughout the world, carefully preserves it, as if dwelling in one house; she believes in it uniformly, as if possessing one soul and one heart, and in harmony she proclaims it, teaches it, and transmits it, as if speaking with one voice. Although there are countless languages in the world, the power of the tradition is one and the same. The churches founded in Germany, in Iberia, among the Celts, believe and preach no differently than those founded in the East—in Egypt, Libya, and at the very center of the world (that is, the Jerusalem church and others located in Palestine, according to the Christians’ understanding at that time). But just as the sun, this creation of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so too does the one and same preaching of the truth shine everywhere and enlighten all people who desire to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[642]

Tertullian: “Every kind of thing must be judged by its origin. Thus, so many and such a multitude of churches constitute the one original Church, founded by the apostles, from which all others derive. All of them are the first and all are apostolic when they all demonstrate the same unity, and when there is among them a communion of peace, the bond of brotherhood, and mutual hospitality.”[643]

Clement of Alexandria: “The true Church, the one that is truly ancient, is one… For just as there is one God and one Lord, so too is true dignity expressed through unity in the image of the one Beginning. Thus, the one Church, which heresies strive to divide into many, is likened (in its unity) to the nature of the One. We call the ancient Catholic Church one in its essence, in the concept of it, in its origin, and in its preeminence.”[644]

St. Cyprian: “There is one episcopate, and every clergyman may become a part of it. The Church is also one, although its members have become very numerous with the spread of the faith: just as there are many rays of the sun, yet there is one sun; there are many branches on a tree, yet there is one tree, rooted in its foundation; or, although many streams flow from a single spring, forming an abundant flood of water, unity is preserved at the source. Take a ray of sunlight away from its source, and the ray cannot exist on its own; break a branch off a tree, and the broken branch can no longer grow; cut off a stream flowing from a spring, and the cut-off stream will dry up. Likewise, the Church, shining with the light of the Lord, though it spreads its rays throughout the entire world, has but one luminary that pours out its light everywhere, and the unity of the body is not thereby disrupted. Burdened with fruit, she extends her branches across the entire earth; her streams flow to distant places; yet there remains constantly one source, one origin, one mother, abounding in the flourishing of spiritual fruitfulness.”[645]

The following also taught this: Ignatius the God-Bearer,[646] Justin,[647] Eusebius,[648] Hilary,[649] Epiphanius,[650] Jerome,[651] Augustine,[652] Theodoret.[653]

III. It is unjust to think of dividing the one Church of Christ into two halves—the visible and the invisible Church—when this Church, by its very nature, is both visible and invisible, being both body and spirit (Exposition of the Christian Catechism, Article IX). Visible: for—a) it consists of visible members—people—and includes not only the righteous, who are unknown to us, but also sinners; b) it has a visible hierarchy with its visible structure; c) it preaches and professes the faith of Christ in a manner perceptible to the external senses, performs sacred rites, and guides the faithful toward piety and salvation. Invisible: for — a) it has an invisible Head—the Lord Jesus Himself; b) it is invisibly enlivened and sanctifies all through the grace of the Holy Spirit; c) it has within its bosom God’s holy people, whom the Lord alone sees and knows as His own (2 Tim. 2:19). Such an unjust division of the indivisible Church of Christ has been devised by those of erroneous thinking [654] for their own reassurance, as if it were sufficient to belong to the invisible Church—that is, to the number of God’s saints or elect—in order to obtain salvation, even if we do not belong to the visible Church. But it is impossible for one who does not belong to the latter to belong to the former: for it is only in the latter that one can be reborn and sanctified in the sacrament of baptism; it is only there that one can receive divine powers for life and piety in the sacrament of chrismation; it is only there that one can truly unite with Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Only here—in the visible Church—is the true teaching of Christ preserved and preached by lawfully ordained pastors, and, consequently, only here is true faith possible (see §170).

§179. The Church—Holy

The Church is holy:

1) By its origin and foundation: “You are no longer strangers or foreigners,” wrote the Holy Apostle to the Ephesians, “but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone, on which the whole structure, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:19–21).

2) By His purpose. Having come to earth to establish the Church, “Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word; that He might present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless” (Eph. 5:25–27); or, as it is said elsewhere: “He gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14), so that He might present us holy, blameless, and beyond reproach before Himself (Col. 1:22).

3) By its structure. Its Head is the all-holy Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:26); the all-holy Spirit always dwells within it, along with all the grace-filled gifts that sanctify us (Rom. 8:14–17); it has a hierarchy sanctified by the Lord—pastors and teachers who have received from Him the power to make people holy (Eph. 4:12); it teaches the holy Word of God, which sanctifies people (John 17:17–19); it administers the holy sacraments that sanctify us (Eph. 5:26, etc.); it guides us toward holiness and godliness through its governance [(Gal. 1:6–9); (1 Cor. 11:20–22)]; consists of members washed by the bath of water and sanctified [(1 Cor. 6:11); (Heb. 10:10); (Acts 20:32)], some of whom are holy in their daily lives and serve as a permanent temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), while others, though prone to sin and leading a dissolute life, are nonetheless called and obligated to be holy [(Rom. 1:7); (1 Pet. 1:15–16)], are constantly called to this by their pastors and truly attain sanctification for themselves in the sacrament of penance and then in the sacrament of the Eucharist.

From the ancient teachers, who also unanimously recognized this characteristic of the Church,[655] we will quote the sayings of some: St. Hermas: “With His mighty power, God created His holy Church, which He also blessed.[656] From nothing He created all that exists and multiplied it for the sake of His holy Church.”[657]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Since the term ‘Church’ is used in various contexts—as, for example, regarding the crowd at the spectacle in Ephesus, where it is written: ‘And he said, “Dismiss the assembled crowd (Church)”’ (Acts 19:40), and since, by right and in truth, the gatherings of deceitful heretics—that is, the Marcionites, Manichaeans, and others—can be called a ‘church’: the Symbol of Faith now instructs you in caution as follows: “and in the one, holy, catholic Church,” so that you may flee from those wicked gatherings and remain in the holy, universal Church, in which you were reborn… Do not simply ask, “Where is the Church?” but rather, “Where is the universal Church?” For this is the very name of this holy and universal Mother Church of ours, who is the bride of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”[658]

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “The prophet calls the Church the ‘holy city’: for she was sanctified not by the ministry of the Law—‘for the Law brought nothing to perfection’ (Heb. 7:19)—but by becoming conformed to Christ and a partaker of the divine nature through the communion of the Holy Spirit, by whom we are sealed on the day of redemption (Eph. 4:30), having been washed from every defilement and freed from every impurity.”[659]

In accordance with this characteristic of the Church, the ancient pastors called her: paradise,[660] the house of God,[661] the daughter of God,[662] the honorable body,[663] the bride of Christ,[664] the crown of Christ,[665] the holy divine enclosure,[666] the fullness of grace,[667] and the like.

§180. The Church—the Cathedral

I. The Catholic, Universal, or Ecumenical Church is defined as follows:

1) By its scope. It is intended to embrace all people, wherever they may dwell on earth. The Old Testament Church was limited to the Jewish people, and its worship was tied to a single place [(Ps. 75:2–3); (Ps. 147:8–9)]: Christ the Savior tore down the dividing wall that stood between the Jews and the Gentiles, reconciled both to God through the cross (Eph. 2:14–16), commanded the holy apostles to preach His Gospel to all creation (Mark 16:15), to teach all nations the saving faith (Matt. 28:19), and to spread it even to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Consequently, for the Church to be called “universal” in this regard, it is not necessary for her to actually encompass the entire world and every single person. It could spread only gradually, and indeed it has been spreading more and more throughout the 21st century; it could also, and at times does, contract in its boundaries due to heresies and persecution by enemies; but, despite all this, it has always been and will always be the universal Church, by its very nature.[668] That is why the Church was called “catholic” even in the time of the apostles and throughout the first three centuries, although at that time it was not as extensive as it became in the 4th, 5th, and subsequent centuries, when the Holy Fathers, calling it “catholic,” were already pointing to its universality. Thus, it is called “Catholic”: a) by St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church;”[669] b) in the circular letter to the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of St. Polycarp: The Church of God in Smyrna to the Church of God in Philadelphia and to all the holy and catholic Churches throughout the world: May God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ multiply for you grace, peace, and love…” or: “He (Polycarp), having overcome the lawless ruler through patience and thus received the crown of incorruption, now rejoices with the apostles and all the righteous, glorifies God the Father, and blesses our Lord, the leader of our souls and bodies and the shepherd of the universal, Catholic Church;”[670] c) in the ancient liturgy included in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Let us pray for the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church;”[671] d) in St. Irenaeus: “The Church, scattered throughout the universe to the ends of the earth, received this faith from the apostles and their disciples;”[672] e) in St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called catholic because it is found throughout the universe, from one end of the earth to the other;”[673] f) in Blessed Theodoret: “There is one Church throughout the land and the sea—which is why we say in prayer: ‘for the holy and one, catholic, and apostolic Church, existing from one end of the universe to the other’;”[674] g) According to Blessed Augustine: “In Greek, the Church is called ‘catholic’ because it extends throughout the whole world.”[675]

2) In terms of time. The Church is destined to lead all people to faith in Christ and to exist until the end of the age. This follows from the fact that the Lord, in sending the apostles and their successors to preach the Gospel to all creation, promised to remain with them for this purpose until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20), and also promised to send them the Holy Spirit, who would be with them forever (John 14:16); and further from the words of St. Paul, that the sacrament of the Eucharist is to be celebrated in the Church until the Lord comes again to earth (1 Cor. 11:26). In this sense, the Church is commonly called “indestructible,” based on the Savior’s words: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18)—a quality that has always been attributed to her by the ancient Christian teachers. For example: a) St. John Chrysostom: “Do not forsake the Church, for there is nothing more powerful than the Church … she never grows old and always flourishes—which is why Scripture, in showing her firmness and steadfastness, calls her a mountain;”[676] b) St. Ambrose: “The kingdom of the Church will endure forever, because the faith is indivisible, one body;”[677] c) Blessed Augustine: “The Church will remain on this earth not for a short time, but until the end of the age … The Church will not be defeated, will not be eradicated, will not yield to any temptations, until the end of the world comes.”[678]

3) In terms of its structure. The Church’s teaching can be accepted by all people, educated and uneducated alike, wherever and whenever they may live—since it is not bound, as are pagan religions and even Judaism itself, to any civil structure (John 18:36) and, consequently, to any specific place or time. The Church’s worship, too, may be celebrated—as the Lord foretold—not only in Jerusalem but everywhere (John 4:21), and be intelligible and edifying to all. Hierarchical authority within the Church is by no means confined, as it was in the Jewish church, to a single specific tribe of a specific people, but may be transmitted from one city—or rather, from one particular church—to another, from one set of hierarchs to another, from generation to generation until the end of time. The saving grace of the Holy Spirit, imparted by the Church to people, has the power to sanctify and save even the most hardened sinners. Describing this, St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “The Church is called catholic because it is found throughout the entire universe, from one end of the earth to the other; because it universally and fully teaches all the doctrine that people must know—the doctrine concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; because it leads the entire human race to the true faith—rulers and subjects, scholars and common people alike, and that it universally heals and cures all kinds of sins, committed by both soul and body, and possesses within itself every kind of perfection, manifested in deeds, words, and all spiritual gifts.”[679]

II. The universal Church, which embraces all true Christians and is visibly entrusted to the bishops in general, is usually divided into particular churches, comprising the believers of one country or another and subject to the authority of several bishops or a single one. It is in this sense that we speak of the Greek, Russian, Wallachian, and other churches, or more specifically: the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which are under the authority of one patriarch or another, with bishops subject to him; or even more specifically: the Church of Kyiv, Moscow, St. Petersburg, and so on, governed by a single archpastor. A particular church may even be divided into parishes entrusted to one or more priests who have received lawful authority over them from their bishop.

III. The special privilege of the Catholic or Universal Church lies in the fact that, in matters of faith, “it can in no way err, deceive, or be deceived; but, like Divine Scripture, is infallible and of eternal importance” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 2.12)—a privilege about which we have already spoken at length in the appropriate section.[680]

§181. The Church Is Apostolic

The Church is apostolic:

1. By its origin. The first apostles received the authority to spread the Christian faith, and, preaching it everywhere (Mark 16:20), founded many local churches: the Church of Jerusalem (Acts 2:22; 4:4), the Church of Antioch (Acts 28:16), the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1), the church in Ephesus (Acts 19:1), the church in Rome (Acts 28:16), the church in Constantinople, the church in Alexandria, and others, which later became the mother churches for all subsequent local churches that still exist today. That is why, as the Word of God states, although the cornerstone of the Church is the Lord Himself, it is also built upon the foundation of the Apostles (Eph. 2:21), and the wall of this mystical city of God “has twelve foundations, and on them are the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).

2) In terms of its structure. The hierarchy of the Church traces its origins back to the Apostles themselves through an unbroken succession of bishops, the true successors of the Apostles; it derives its doctrine from the Scriptures and the Apostolic traditions, which it preserves in their entirety and integrity; it celebrates the divine liturgy, following in all things these very same Scriptures and Apostolic traditions; it governs the faithful according to the rules of the holy apostles and their other traditions preserved within it. This succession of the hierarchs of the true Church from the Apostles themselves, and consequently the preservation within it of the true doctrine of the faith, the true sacraments, and the true governance, was what the ancient Christian teachers particularly loved to emphasize against the heretics of their time as an indisputable sign of truth. For example:

St. Irenaeus: “Whoever wishes to know the truth can discern in every church the apostolic tradition proclaimed throughout the world; and we can name those whom the apostles appointed as bishops to the churches, and their successors right down to our own time, who taught nothing of the sort and knew nothing of the sort that the heretics invent.”[681] “All opponents of church doctrine appeared incomparably later than those bishops to whom the apostles entrusted the churches; and therefore, being blind to the truth, they are compelled to wander along various paths; and consequently, the seeds of their doctrine are scattered without any harmony or order. On the contrary, the leaders of the Church, traversing the entire universe, steadfastly uphold the apostolic tradition and show us that all share the same faith, all confess the same Father, and acknowledge the same purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God; the same spiritual gifts, are guided by the same rules and the same law in church governance and order, await the same coming of the Lord, and hope for the salvation of the whole person—that is, the salvation of both soul and body. And thus the teaching of the Church is true and unchanging, because in it the one path to salvation is shown to the whole world.”[682]

Tertullian: “We and they (the apostolic churches) share the same faith, the same God, the same Christ, the same hope, and the same sacrament of baptism; in short, we are one Church.”[683] “Let them (the heretics) show the origins of their churches and announce the line of their bishops, which would continue with such succession that their first bishop would have as his founder or predecessor one of the apostles, or one of the men of the apostles who associated with the apostles for a long time. For the apostolic churches trace their lists (of bishops) in precisely this way: the Church of Smyrna, for example, names Polycarp, appointed by John; the Church of Rome, Clement, ordained by Peter; and likewise the other churches name those men whom they regarded as branches of the apostolic seed, having been raised to the episcopate by the apostles themselves.”[684]

Blessed Augustine: “From the time of the apostles themselves, through the most renowned succession of bishops—which continues even to this day and is to continue for all time to come—the Church preserves and offers to God a sacrifice of praise in the mystery of the Body of Christ.”[685]

Blessed Jerome: “One must remain in that Church which, having been founded by the apostles, continues to exist even to this day.”[686]

§182. The Moral Implications of the Dogma

1. The Lord Jesus founded His Church so that it might regenerate people and educate them for eternal life. Therefore, our relationship to it must be that of children to their mother: we are obliged to love the Church of Christ as our spiritual mother; we are obliged to obey her in everything, as our spiritual mother. In particular, the Lord Jesus:

2. Entrusted the Church with the task of preserving and teaching His heavenly doctrine to people: it is our duty to receive this saving doctrine from the lips of our God-appointed teacher and to understand it exactly as she understands it, constantly guided by the Holy Spirit.

3. Entrusted the Church with the task of administering the sacraments and performing sacred rites for the sanctification of people: it is our duty to reverently partake of the saving sacraments and all other sacred rites administered by her.

4. He entrusted the Church with the task of guiding and strengthening people in a godly life: it is our duty to obey unquestioningly the guidance of such a leader and to faithfully fulfill all the Church’s commandments (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answers to questions 87–95).

5. He Himself established the hierarchy, or sacred order, in the Church; He established a distinction between the flock and the shepherds; and He assigned to each a specific place and ministry: it is the duty of all members of the Church, both shepherds and the flock, to be precisely what they are called to be, and to firmly remember that, by the grace given to us, we have different gifts (Rom. 12:6), and that to each of us grace has been given according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:7).

6. The Church of Christ, to which we belong, is one: let us therefore take care to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and to truly represent one body and one Spirit (Eph. 4:3–4).

7. The Church of Christ is holy: may this serve as a constant incentive for us to guard ourselves against all sinful defilement and to keep our hearts blameless in holiness (1 Thess. 3:13), so that we may be living members of the holy body, whose head is the Holy of Holies Himself, Christ.

8. The Church of Christ is catholic, destined to embrace the whole world, to enlighten and sanctify all nations: in accordance with this attribute of our spiritual Mother, let us learn to embrace all people with our Christian love and be ready to serve everyone, to do good to both those near and far.

9. The Church of Christ is apostolic: let us therefore stand firm in faith, hope, and Christian love, under the guidance of such a teacher, having been “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).

Article II.
On the Grace of God, as the Power by Which the Lord Sanctifies Us

§183. The General Concept of God’s Grace and Its Types; the Concept of Grace That Sanctifies the Sinful Human Being and Its Subdivisions

I. The term “God’s grace” generally refers to everything that the Lord bestows upon His creatures without any merit on their part [(Rom. 11:6); (1 Pet. 5:10)]. Therefore, God’s grace is divided into natural and supernatural grace. Natural grace includes all of God’s natural gifts to His creatures, such as life, health, reason, freedom, external well-being, and the like. Supernatural grace includes all the gifts bestowed by God upon creatures in a supernatural manner, in addition to the gifts of nature—such as when, for example, He Himself directly enlightens the minds of rational beings with the light of His truth, and strengthens their wills with His power and assistance in works of piety. This latter grace—that is, supernatural grace—is further subdivided into two kinds: the grace of God the Creator, which He bestows upon His moral creatures dwelling in a state of innocence—as He bestowed upon man before his fall, and as He continues to bestow upon the good angels; and the grace of God the Savior, which He has bestowed and continues to bestow upon fallen humanity itself through Jesus and in Jesus Christ (Titus 3:4–7).

However, even in the latter sense, the word “grace” has different meanings. First, “grace” refers to the very coming of the Son of God to earth, His incarnation, and the entire great work of our redemption, accomplished by Him without any merit on our part: “For you know,” says the apostle, “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9), and in another passage: “But when the grace and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of righteous deeds that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit” [(Titus 3:4–5); cf. (Titus 2:11)]. Second, there are extraordinary gifts, which God bestows upon various members of the Church—also without any merit on their part—for the benefit of the Church, for its spread, edification, and improvement. These include: the gift of preaching the Word of God in various languages, the gift of working miracles, the gift of prophecy, and so on. [(1 Cor. 12:4–11); (Matt. 7:22–23)]: to each of us, as the same holy apostle notes, grace is given according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:7). Finally, grace refers to a special power, or a special work of God, communicated to us because of the merits of our Redeemer, and which accomplishes our sanctification—that is, on the one hand, cleansing us from sin, renewing us, and justifying us before God, and on the other hand, strengthening us and restoring us to virtue for eternal life. It is in this latter sense that grace constitutes the very subject of the dogmatic teaching concerning it.

II. The concept of the grace that sanctifies us, as set forth above, encompasses three specific aspects. It is—a) a special power, a special work of God within a person, as is evident from the Lord’s own words to the Apostle Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness,” and subsequently from the words of St. Paul: “Therefore I will all the more gladly boast in my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:9), and in other passages: “…“of whom I have become a minister by the gift of God’s grace, given to me by the working of His power” (Eph. 3:7); “…for this I labor and strive with His power, which works mightily within me” (Col. 1:29). Or: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord; and there are different kinds of working, but the same God, who works all things in all” (1 Cor. 12:4–6). “Does He who gives you the Spirit and works miracles among you do this through the works of the law, or through the teaching of faith” (Gal. 3:5)? “Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:20–21). It is b) freely given to us because of the merits of Jesus Christ, as the same apostle teaches: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” [(Rom. 3:23–24; cf. (Rom. 6:16)]. “Not because of any righteous deeds we might have done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior” (Titus 3:5–6). Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more: “But where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 5:20–21). “so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:7). “May God make you complete in every good work, that you may do His will, working in you what is pleasing to Him through Jesus Christ” (Heb. 13:21). “We are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:11).

This sanctifying grace, for greater clarity in the doctrine concerning it, is further subdivided into specific types. It is called external insofar as it acts upon a person from the outside, through external means such as the Word of God, the preaching of the Gospel, miracles, and the like; and internal insofar as it acts directly within the person himself, eradicating sin within him, enlightening his mind, and stirring up and directing his will toward the good. It is called transient (temporary) when it produces specific impressions on a person’s soul and assists them in specific good deeds; and permanent when it dwells constantly in a person’s soul and makes them righteous and pleasing to God. It is called “preceding” or “preliminary” insofar as it precedes every good deed, calling and prompting a person toward it; and “accompanying” or “assisting” insofar as it accompanies every good deed. It is called “sufficient” in that it always imparts to a person sufficient strength and readiness to act for his own salvation, even though it is not accompanied by the person’s own action; and “effective” when it is accompanied by the person’s own action and produces salvific fruits in him.

§184. A Brief Overview of False Opinions Regarding the Dogma, the Teaching of the Orthodox Church, and the Content of This Teaching

The dogma concerning the grace that sanctifies the sinful human being has been subjected to numerous distortions by heretics and those of erroneous thinking.

I. Some of them have erred and continue to err, to a greater or lesser extent, regarding the necessity of grace for man. These include: Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Socinians, and rationalists.

The Pelagians, who appeared in the Western Church at the beginning of the 5th century, taught: “Since Adam, through his fall, did not in the least corrupt his nature, and consequently his descendants are born without any natural corruption or original sin, they can attain moral perfection by their own natural powers alone and do not need God’s supernatural help and power for this.”[687] Thus, while completely rejecting the necessity of divine grace for the sanctification of sinful man and his progress in piety, the Pelagians—with the cunning characteristic of heretics—did not wish to appear as overt opponents of church dogma and therefore softened their views. They acknowledged grace and spoke of it; but by that term they meant: a) man’s natural powers, reason, and free will, bestowed upon him as a gift (gratia naturalis); b) the law given by God through Moses (gratia legis); c) the teaching and example of Jesus Christ (gratia Christi); d) the forgiveness of sins and a certain inner enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, which merely facilitates the fulfillment of the moral law—a law which, according to them, a person can fulfill by his own efforts alone, albeit with less ease (gratia Spiritus Sancti).[688] Blessed Augustine was the first to rise up against Pelagius and his followers, and he wrote a great many works to refute them. Other pastors of the Church also rose up against them, and in both the East and the West, within a very short time, there were more than twenty councils that unanimously condemned this heresy.[689] The defenders of the truth unanimously affirmed: a) that a fallen human being, born with original sin, cannot produce spiritual good on his own without the help of God’s grace; b) that by “God’s grace” one must understand not merely man’s natural powers, the Law of Moses, or the teaching and example of Jesus Christ—which are external aids—but the supernatural power of God, imparted inwardly to the human soul; c) that this grace does not consist solely in the forgiveness of past sins, but provides effective help in refraining from committing new sins; d) it not only enlightens the mind and imparts knowledge of what one ought to do and what to avoid, but also provides the strength to carry out what has been learned and instills love in the heart; e) it does not merely make it easier for us to fulfill the divine commandments—which we might supposedly fulfill on our own, albeit with difficulty—but serves as an aid without which we are utterly incapable of fulfilling God’s law and doing the good that contributes to our salvation.[690] At present, the teaching of the Orthodox Church, directed against the false doctrine of the Pelagians, can be seen in the following three canons accepted by it, among the nine local canons of the Council of Carthage, which was held against Pelagius: “If anyone says that the grace of God, by which we are justified in Jesus Christ our Lord, is effective solely for the remission of sins already committed, and does not provide any further help so that other sins may not be committed: let such a person be anathema. For the grace of God not only imparts the knowledge of what ought to be done, but also instills love within us, so that we may be able to carry out what we know” (Canon 125). “If anyone says that the same grace of God, which is in Jesus Christ our Lord, helps us only to the extent of not sinning—since through it the knowledge of sins is revealed and made known to us , so that we may know what to seek and what to avoid, but that it does not grant us the love and strength to do what we have come to know we ought to do—let such a person be anathema. For… both are gifts from God: the knowledge of what ought to be done, and the love for the good that ought to be done” (Canon 126). “If anyone says that the grace of justification is given to us so that we may more easily fulfill what is possible through our free will by means of grace—as if, even without receiving God’s grace, we could still fulfill the divine commandments, albeit with difficulty—let such a person be anathema. For concerning the fruits of the commandments, the Lord did not say, ‘Without Me you can do them with difficulty,’ but He said, ‘Without Me you can do nothing’ (John 15:5)” (Canon 127).

The Semi-Pelagians, who appeared in Gaul around the year 427, acknowledged the existence of original sin in human beings; but, asserting that this sin had done very little harm to man’s spiritual powers, they taught that man is capable, by himself, of advancing to a certain degree in virtue, so that—a) the beginning of faith depends strictly on him, b) while grace is responsible only for the establishment and growth of that faith and good works, and—c) the subsequent perseverance in faith until the end of life also depends on the person himself, and not on grace.[691] Thus, the Semi-Pelagians accepted, as it were, half of the Pelagians’ heresy: they disagreed with them in that they recognized the necessity of grace, at least for a person’s confirmation and growth in faith and for the performance of salvific works of faith; but they agreed with them in rejecting the necessity of grace for the inception of faith in a person and for that person’s perseverance in the faith until the end of life. The critics of the Semi-Pelagians were: Blessed Augustine, Prosper, Fulgentius, Celestine, the Pope of Rome, and several local councils in Gaul held in the fifth century.[692] The main idea they put forward against the error they were refuting was the concept of grace—so-called “prevenient” or “preceding” grace—upon which the very beginning of our faith depends, and without which a person can neither undertake nor accomplish anything truly good.[693] Today, a distinct expression of this idea, directed against the Semi-Pelagians, can be found in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, where we read: “(Holy Scripture) teaches that the believer is saved by faith and by his works, while at the same time presenting God as the sole cause of our salvation: for, that is to say, He first bestows enlightening grace, which imparts to man the knowledge of divine truth and teaches him to conform to it (if he does not resist), and to do good, pleasing to God, in order to obtain salvation, without destroying man’s free will, but allowing it to obey or disobey its influence” (Art. 3). And further: “so that, having been regenerated, a person may do spiritual good (for the works of faith, being the cause of salvation and accomplished by supernatural grace, are commonly called spiritual), for this it is necessary that grace precede and guide, as is said of the predestined, so that he cannot of his own accord perform deeds worthy of life in Christ, but can only desire or not desire to act in accordance with grace” (Art. 14).

The Socinians and rationalists revived the ancient error of the Pelagians and carried it to its extreme. By rejecting the existence of original sin or any corruption in man, and consequently acknowledging that man is capable, by his own natural powers, of avoiding evil and doing good, they reject the need for any supernatural assistance whatsoever in man’s spiritual life, and do not even accept the Pelagian idea that grace, at the very least, makes it easier for us to fulfill the moral law, which we cannot fulfill without its assistance with such ease. Therefore, the condemnation of the early Church against the Pelagians applies all the more to their modern followers.

II. Others have erred and continue to err regarding the universality of grace and its relationship to human freedom.

The universality of grace is rejected by all so-called predestinarians, that is, those who believe that God has from eternity predestined (praedestinavit), by His unconditional will, some people to eternal salvation and glory, and others to eternal condemnation, and therefore bestows His saving grace not on everyone, but only on those predestined for salvation. This false doctrine arose as early as the second century among the Gnostics;[694] it gained strength in the fifth century in Africa and Gaul, and was denounced by Prosper, Hilary, Augustine, and Pope Celestine;[695] it was preached in the Middle Ages under the name of the Augustinian doctrine;[696] finally, it reached its final development in modern times among the Calvinists, who even incorporated it into their confessions,[697] and the Jansenists.[698]

The same Calvinists and Jansenists teach a false doctrine regarding the relationship between grace and human freedom. By asserting that, according to God’s unconditional predestination, grace is bestowed upon those predestined for salvation, and consequently is bestowed in order to infallibly sanctify them and lead them to salvation, these sectarians naturally already admit the idea that grace possesses an irresistible power and efficacy in the predestined, so that they inevitably fulfill moral laws.[699] True, wishing to preserve the concept of human freedom, the Jansenists note that irresistible grace does not forcibly compel a person to do good, but rather draws them through a conquering delight (delectatio victrix), which it pours into the human soul, before which all earthly desires and attachments are powerless;[700] but in this way, human freedom is neither safeguarded nor saved in the least.

Against both of these Calvinist errors, the Orthodox Church spoke out at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 in a confession that later became known to us as the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith. It states: “We believe that the all-good God has predestined to glory those whom He has chosen from eternity; and those whom He has rejected, He has consigned to condemnation—not, however, because He desired in this way to justify some and to abandon and condemn others without cause; for this is unbecoming of God, the common Father of all and the Father who shows no partiality, “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4); but since He foresaw that some would make good use of their free will and others would make bad use of it, He therefore predestined some to glory and condemned others. As for the exercise of freedom, we reason as follows: since God’s goodness has bestowed divine and enlightening grace—which we also call “prevenient grace”—which, like light illuminating those walking in darkness, guides everyone; therefore, those who freely choose to submit to it (for it assists those who seek it, not those who resist it), and to fulfill its commands—which are necessary for salvation—therefore receive a special grace which, by assisting, strengthening, and continually perfecting them in God’s love—that is, in those good works which God requires of us (and which the preparatory grace also required)—justifies them and makes them predestined; those, on the other hand, who do not wish to obey and follow grace, and therefore do not keep God’s commandments, but, following Satan’s promptings, abuse the freedom given to them by God so that they might freely do good, are condemned to eternal damnation. But what the blasphemous heretics say—that God predestines or condemns without regard whatsoever to the deeds of those who are predestined or condemned—we regard as madness and impiety” (Art. 3).

III. A third group, finally, errs in their reasoning regarding the effects produced by grace in a person, that is, in their reasoning concerning the very sanctification of a person by grace. These errors are held by Protestants and concern, first, the nature of sanctification wrought by grace in a person, and second, the conditions for sanctification on the part of the person.

Regarding the nature of sanctification (sanctificatio) or justification (justificatio), understood in a broad sense, Protestants assert that it consists—a) not in the fact that God’s grace acts internally within a person, truly, on the one hand, cleansing him of all sins, and on the other, making him renewed, righteous, and holy; b) but in the fact that, by God’s grace, sins are forgiven and not imputed to a person only in an external sense, although in reality they remain within him, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him only in an external sense. Such is the teaching of the Lutherans,[701] and the Reformed.[702]

The teaching of the Orthodox Church is of an entirely different nature. Speaking of the fruits of the sacrament of baptism—in which, in fact, our justification and sanctification are accomplished by grace—the Church proclaims: “First, this sacrament destroys all sins: original sin in infants, and both original and voluntary sins in adults. Second, it regenerates a person and restores to him the righteousness he possessed in a state of innocence and sinlessness” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 103). And elsewhere: “One cannot say that baptism does not absolve one from all previous sins, but that, although they remain, they no longer have any power. To teach in this way is extreme impiety; it is a denial of the faith, not a confession of it. On the contrary, every sin—whether existing or having existed before baptism—is destroyed and is regarded, as it were, as nonexistent or as having never existed. For all the symbols by which baptism is represented demonstrate its purifying power, and the passages of Holy Scripture concerning baptism imply that through it perfect purification is attained, as is evident from the very names of baptism. If it is baptism by the Spirit and by fire, then it is clear that it brings about perfect purification, for the Spirit purifies completely. If it is light, then all darkness is driven away by it. If it is rebirth, then all that is old passes away—and this “old” is nothing other than sin. If the person being baptized casts off the old self, he also casts off sin. If he is clothed in Christ, he truly becomes sinless through baptism” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 16).

As for the conditions of justification or sanctification on the part of man, Protestants teach: as soon as a sinner, having come to the realization of his sinfulness and his utter powerlessness to fulfill the moral law of the Gospel, and terrified by the weight of his guilt, firmly believes that he is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ—immediately, by virtue of his faith—which alone justifies—the merits of Christ are imputed to him, and he is declared righteous and innocent, though in reality he does not become so. From that time on, God performs all good works in the person as a testimony to his faith, but without the person’s own participation, for which such participation is impossible due to his utter powerlessness.[703]

Contrary to this false teaching, the Orthodox Church confesses: “We believe that a person is justified not by faith alone, but by faith accompanied by love, that is, through faith and works.” We recognize as utterly ungodly the notion that faith, by replacing works, brings about justification in Christ: for faith in this sense could be attributed to everyone, and there would be no one who is not saved—which is obviously false. On the contrary, we believe that it is not the mere shadow of faith, but the faith that dwells within us through works that justifies us in Christ. We regard works not merely as a testimony confirming our calling, but also as fruits that make our faith active and, according to the divine promise, can bring to each person the deserved reward—good or bad—depending on what he has done with his body.” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 13; cf. Art. 9).

IV. In accordance with the three types of errors regarding grace that we have identified—against which the teaching of the Orthodox Church is so clearly directed—we will set forth this teaching in three distinct sections, namely: I) against the Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, and their like-minded followers—on the necessity of grace for the sanctification of man; II) against the Calvinists and Jansenists—on the universality of grace and its relationship to human freedom; III) against Protestants in general—on the nature and conditions of the sanctification of man by God’s grace.

I. On the Necessity of God’s Grace for the Sanctification of Man

§185. Parts of the Doctrine

Given the nature and number of heretical errors refuted by the Orthodox Church’s teaching on the necessity of grace, and consequently for the clearest possible understanding of this teaching itself, it must be set forth in the following parts: 1) grace, as a supernatural power and direct assistance from God, is necessary in general for the sanctification and salvation of the sinful human being (against the Pelagians); 2) it is necessary, in particular, for his faith and the very beginning of faith, that is, for the sinner’s very conversion to the faith of Christ (against the Semi-Pelagians); 3) it is necessary for his virtue after conversion (against the Pelagians); 4) is necessary for his perseverance in the Christian faith and virtue until the end of his life (against the semi-Pelagians).

§186. The Necessity of Grace for the Sanctification of Man in General

God’s grace is necessary for the sanctification of the sinful human being in general, that is, so that the sinner may emerge from his sinful state, become a true Christian, and thus appropriate the merits of the Redeemer; otherwise, he could not be converted, purified, justified, renewed, and then strive in piety to attain eternal salvation. This truth—

I. was proclaimed with complete clarity by Christ the Savior Himself when He spoke: a) of the Father: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him” (John 6:44); b) of the Holy Spirit: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5); and c) about Himself: “Just as a branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, neither can you unless you remain in Me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever remains in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:4–5). From the first set of words, it is clear that, without the direct assistance of God the Father, a person’s very conversion to Christianity is impossible; from the second, that without direct regeneration by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible for the converting person to enter the Kingdom of God or the Church of Christ; finally—from the third, that even after a person has entered the Church of Christ, he cannot bear any Christian fruit, cannot do anything, unless he abides in the vine—Jesus Christ—and is nourished, strengthened, and made to grow by His direct life-giving power (cf. John 6:53).

II. The Holy Apostles also preached this with complete clarity. Thus, St. Paul the Apostle, speaking in various passages about people’s conversion to the saving faith in Christ, their cleansing from sins, and their justification, states: “He saved us, not because of righteous deeds that we might have done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to hope of eternal life” [(Titus 3:5–7); cf. (2 Tim. 1:9)]. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23–24)—“in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7). “Even when we were dead in our trespasses, He made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved” (Eph. 2:5); “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Elsewhere, speaking of the effects of the gospel message on people and the fruit it bears, he writes, for example, to the Philippians: “I thank my God … for your partnership in the gospel from the very first day until now, being confident that the one who began a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:5–6); or to the Corinthians: “Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? They are merely servants through whom you came to believe, and that only as the Lord has assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth; so neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who gives the growth” (1 Cor. 3:5–7). Here the Apostle clearly distinguishes between God’s external grace—that is, the teaching of the Gospel—and internal grace, or God’s direct action in people, and presents the latter as absolutely necessary for the success of evangelism (cf. 1 Thess. 1:5). Finally, in a third set of passages, he offers such instructions—or words of encouragement—to those who have already accepted the Gospel message and become Christians: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13). “Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good to do His will, working in you what is pleasing to Him through Jesus Christ” (Heb. 13:20–21). And the following testifies that, without God’s inner supernatural assistance, we can neither desire nor accomplish anything good.

III. The Holy Church has always held and professed this, as shown by:

1) The testimonies of her ancient teachers. For example: a) St. Irenaeus: “Just as a wild olive tree, if it is not grafted, remains barren to its owner by its wild nature, and just as a barren tree is cut down and thrown into the fire, so too a person, until he receives through faith the grafting of the Spirit, continues to be what he was before; being flesh and blood, he cannot inherit the kingdom of God, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:50);[704] b) St. Cyprian: “Day and night we pray that the sanctification and revitalization, which is received (sumitur) from the grace of God, may be preserved in us under His protection.”[705] c) St. Hippolytus: “That through which the saints were made pure was granted to them by God the Son—which is why they say that ‘from His fullness we have all received, grace upon grace’ (John 1:16);”[706] d) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The great Intercessor and Bestower of gifts throughout the world grants purity to one, perpetual virginity to another, a disposition toward almsgiving to yet another, love for poverty to another, and the power to cast out evil spirits to yet another; and just as light illuminates everything with a single ray, so too does the Holy Spirit enlighten those who have eyes… People need Him—Elijah, Elisha, and Isaiah; angels need Him—Michael and Gabriel;”[707] e) St. John Chrysostom: “The Apostle knew that grace saves us;”[708] f) St. Macarius the Great: “Just as a body without a soul is dead and can do nothing, so too is the soul, without the heavenly soul, without the Divine Spirit, dead to the kingdom, and without the Holy Spirit it cannot accomplish anything pleasing to God;”[709] and in another place: “If the soul does not receive spiritual sanctification in this world through firm faith and prayer; if it does not become a partaker of the divine nature and does not receive grace, by the aid of which it might fulfill all the commandments holy and blamelessly: then it will remain unfit for the kingdom of heaven;”[710] g) Blessed Augustine: “The grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ (which true faith and the Catholic Church have always held) transfers children and adults from the death of the first man to the life of the second man, not only by removing sins but also by assisting those who are already able to exercise their free will, so that they may not sin and may live righteously, — so that, without its help, we could have no piety or righteousness either in our deeds or in our very desires.”[711] And elsewhere: “Whoever wishes to make a confession of faith in accordance with the truth must confess, without the slightest hesitation, that without grace a person is utterly incapable of doing anything good pertaining to piety and true justification.”[712]

2) The decrees of the councils against Pelagius. Thus, the Council of Diospolis (in 415) condemned the following tenet of Pelagian heresy: “God’s grace and help are not granted for every (good) action, but consist in free will, or in the law and teaching (of the Gospel).”[713] And the Second Council of Arras (in 529) decreed: “If anyone asserts that, in order to cleanse us from our sins, God awaits our will, and does not confess that the very will to be cleansed arises within us through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and His assistance—such a person is opposing the Holy Spirit” (Canon IV). And further: “If anyone asserts that a person can, by the powers of his own nature, think rightly or choose something good pertaining to eternal salvation, and consent to accept the saving, that is, the Gospel message, without enlightenment and inspiration from the Holy Spirit—such a person is deluded by a heretical spirit” (Canon VII).[714] We will not mention here the decrees of the Council of Carthage, which we cited above.

3) Its prayers and hymns. Here the Church so often implores for us the gracious help from above for the works of faith and piety, so often glorifies the Holy Spirit, who enlightens, renews, and strengthens us with His manifold gifts, and so loudly confesses before God our weaknesses and our inability to do anything good without His direct assistance, “[715] ”—that these hymns and prayers alone, resounding in the Church since ancient times, constitute in and of themselves the most convincing proof of her unwavering belief in the necessity of Divine assistance for us.[716]

IV. Common sense, for its part, can say, on the basis of theological principles, that if man, as a limited being without life within himself, needed God’s grace even before his fall—just as all pure created spirits still need it today—[717] is it not all the more necessary for man now, in his fallen state? And since he could not live spiritually without it then—just as he could not live without spiritual food and air—how can this be considered possible now? Back then, while still pure and unblemished, he had only to do good; but now, being weak and utterly corrupted, he must first purify himself of sins, heal his moral infirmities, and then fight ceaselessly against the enemies of salvation—and, in the midst of such a struggle, do good. “Human nature,” as the Fathers of the Second Council of Arras noted, “even if it remained in the state of purity in which it was created, could in no way preserve itself without the help of its Creator. And therefore, if it could not, without God’s grace, preserve the health it had received, how can it, without God’s grace, restore what it has lost?”[718]

§187. The Necessity of Grace for Faith and for the Very Beginning of Faith, or for a Person’s Conversion to Christianity

God’s grace, which is necessary in general for the sanctification and salvation of a person, is necessary, in particular, for his faith and for the very beginning of faith in the Lord Jesus.

I. This is what Christ the Savior taught. When the Jews, listening to His discourse about how He is the bread that came down from heaven (John 6:40–41), began to murmur and say, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:42), and so on—and they did not believe either in His divine origin or in His teaching—He said to them: “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard from the Father and has been taught comes to Me” (John 6:43–45). When, shortly thereafter, as He continued His discourse, He heard that many—even among His own disciples—were saying, “What strange words!” and had begun to grumble and be led astray (John 6:60–61), He remarked to them as well : “There are some of you who do not believe… That is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted to him by My Father” (John 6:64–65). Finally, when one of His closest disciples—Peter, speaking on behalf of all twelve—confessed Him: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). If, then, in order to come to Jesus and believe in Him, it is not enough to hear His teaching alone, but an inner, direct drawing to Him from the Father is also necessary; if the living faith and confession of the Apostle Peter himself—who constantly heeded his Lord’s teaching—is called the result of an inner enlightenment from the Father, then this means that without God’s grace we can neither begin nor continue our faith in our Redeemer.

II. This is what the Apostles taught as well. St. Paul expresses this in various epistles. In his Epistle to the Romans, he gave the following instruction: “By the grace given to me, I say to each of you: Do not think of yourselves more highly than you ought to think, but think with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith that God has assigned to each of you” (Rom. 12:3). To the Corinthians he wrote: “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3), and explained to them that it is “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). To the Ephesians, he expresses his good wishes: “May the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation to know Him, and may enlighten the eyes of your hearts so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, and what are the riches of His glorious inheritance for the saints, and how immeasurably great is the power of His might toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power” (Eph. 1:17–19), adding: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). To the Philippians He testified: “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil. 1:29); “God works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). That is, in the words of the Teacher of the Gentiles: a) God grants us both faith and the measure of faith (Rom. 12:3), so that it is entirely a gift of God [(Eph. 2:8); (Phil. 1:29)]; b) without the grace of the Holy Spirit, we cannot even call Jesus “Lord,” and consequently, cannot even begin to believe in Him (1 Cor. 12:3), all the more so because “God works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); c) He works in us the beginning of faith, granting us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation to know Him, enlightening the eyes of our hearts, the eyes of your hearts, so that we may know what is the hope of His calling (Eph. 1:17–18), or, in other words, “has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6); — and d) consequently, if we cooperate and remain believers, this is also by the working of His mighty power within us (Eph. 1:19). In the Book of Acts, St. Luke recounts the story of a certain woman—Lydia, a seller of purple—whose heart the Lord opened to heed the words spoken by Paul, as a result of which she accepted the Apostle’s preaching, believed in Christ, and was baptized (Acts 16:15). Consequently, in addition to the external preaching of the Gospel—without which it is impossible to believe in the Lord Jesus—there must also be God’s internal assistance, which would first open the unbeliever’s heart to receive and understand the preaching, and thus serve as the very beginning and origin of faith within him.

III. This is what the Holy Fathers and teachers of the early Church taught. For example:

St. Barnabas: “He (God) has circumcised our ears so that, upon hearing the word, we might believe.”[719]

St. Justin: “To many people who had not received the grace of understanding, these (Christian) dogmas seemed unreasonable and unworthy of God.”[720] “Thus He revealed to us everything that we have come to understand from the Scriptures solely through His grace.”[721] “Have you ever considered that we would be unable to comprehend what is contained in Scripture if we had not received the grace of understanding according to the will of God, who desires this?”[722]

St. Gregory the Wonderworker: “Whether anyone wishes to know God through creation or to understand Him through the divine Scriptures—without His wisdom, he can know nothing about Him or hear anything from Him. And whoever calls upon God rightly calls upon Him through the Son, and whoever comes to Him truly comes through Christ; and it is impossible to come to the Son without the Spirit: for the Spirit both quickens and sanctifies all things.[723]

St. Basil the Great: “As soon as, with the assistance of the enlightening power, we turn our gaze to the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through it are raised to the contemplation of the archetype, which surpasses all beauty; the Spirit of knowledge is inseparably present in this, who grants to those who love to behold the truth within Himself the power of mystical vision to contemplate the image, and does not reveal it outside of Himself, but leads them into knowledge within Himself. For as “no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt. 11:27); so “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). For it does not say: “by the Spirit” (διά πνεύματος), but: “in the Spirit” (έν πνεύματι). And: “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24); as it is written: “In Your light, that is, in the enlightenment of the Spirit, we shall see light” (Ps. 35:10)—“the true Light, which enlightens every person coming into the world” (John 1:9). Therefore, the Spirit reveals in Himself the glory of the Only-Begotten, and in Himself imparts the knowledge of God to true worshipers. Hence, the path to the knowledge of God leads from the one Spirit, through the Only-Begotten Son, to the one Father.”[724]

St. John Chrysostom: “‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven’ (Matt. 16:17). Here the Lord seems to be suggesting the following: faith in Me is no small matter, but it requires a drawing from above.”[725] “You have nothing of your own, but you have received everything from God… You have it because you have received it—not this or that, but everything you have. All good deeds are not your own, but come from God’s grace. Can you even point to faith? Even that depended on calling.”[726] “Lest the greatness of your good deeds make you proud, see how he (the Apostle) humbles you: ‘By grace,’ he says, ‘you are saved through faith.’ Then, so that free will would not be restricted, he also mentioned what belongs to us here. And then he set even that aside and said: ‘Nor is this from us.’ ‘And faith,’ he says, ‘is not from us.’ For if He (Christ) had not come, if He had not called us—how could we have believed?.. “Thus, faith is not ours, but a gift of God.”[727] “He has planted faith within us; He has granted its beginning.”[728] “The guidance of the Spirit is necessary to ascend to the heights of faith,”[729] — “the one who confesses (Christ) does so not by his own strength, but by being aided by grace from above.”[730]

Since the emergence of the Pelagian heresy, and later the Semi-Pelagian heresy, the teachers of the Church have begun to expound this doctrine with even greater precision. Here is how, for example, they expound it:

The Fathers of the Second Council of Arras: “If anyone says that both the growth and the beginning of faith, and the very disposition toward it, by which we believe in the One who justifies the ungodly and approach rebirth in the sacrament of baptism, are not in us by the gift of grace—that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who directs our will from unbelief to faith, from wickedness to piety—but occur naturally: such a person reveals himself to be an opponent of the apostolic dogmas” (Canon V).

Cassian on (Phil. 1:29): “And here [the apostle] testified that both the beginning of our conversion and faith, and the endurance of suffering, are granted to us by God… It is not diligent reading, but God who enlightens the blind.”[731]

Blessed Augustine: “On this subject, which we now intend to defend against the new heretics, the Church has never been silent in her prayers, although she previously did not deem it necessary to discuss it in her discourses until one of her adversaries compelled her to do so. For when has the Church not prayed for the unbelievers and her enemies, that they might come to faith? When has any believer had a friend, relative, or spouse who was an unbeliever and not asked the Lord to grant them the wisdom to obey the faith of Christ? … Just as with these prayers, so too with this faith, the Church was born, has grown, and continues to grow. The Church would not pray that faith be granted to unbelievers if it did not believe that God turns to Himself the hearts of people who have turned away from Him and oppose Him.”[732] And in another place: “Who gave to Him first, so that He might have to repay? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:35–36). Consequently, from whom, if not from Him, does the very beginning of our faith come?… The Apostle says: “It has been granted to you for Christ’s sake not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him” (Phil. 1:29). He calls both a gift from God: for both, he says, have been granted to you. He did not say: “It has been granted to you so that you might believe in Him more fully and perfectly,” but simply—so that you might believe in Him. And regarding himself, he did not say that he had received God’s grace to be more faithful, but to be faithful (1 Cor. 7:25): for he knew that it was not he who had first given God the beginning of his faith, but that God had already granted him its growth; rather, the One who made him an apostle also made him faithful.”[733]

Prosper: “We must not deny that the good will by which a person turns to God is a human attribute, but we must confess that it originated through God’s inspiration. For if no one is good except God alone, what good can there be that does not have a good Author?”[734]

Fulgentius: “If, according to their (the Semi-Pelagians’) view, the desire to believe belongs to us before God’s grace begins to assist us, then it is unjustly called grace, because it is not given to man freely, but is bestowed in response to his good will.”[735]

IV. Reflecting on the condition of fallen humanity—as it exists outside of Christianity, in paganism, Judaism, and Islam—we cannot help but acknowledge, based solely on the considerations of natural reason, that such a person necessarily requires special divine assistance in order to develop a sincere desire to convert to the Christian faith. The vast majority of people—such as all infants and nearly entire nations steeped in extreme ignorance—are entirely incapable of reasoning and, consequently, are unable on their own to either understand the shortcomings of their own faith or to appreciate the merits of the Christian faith, so as to resolve to accept it. Others, though capable of reasoning to a greater or lesser extent, but having been raised in the tenets of another faith—pagan, Jewish, or Muslim—are naturally prejudiced against Christianity, so that the preaching of Christ crucified, extraordinary and astonishing in and of itself, must inevitably seem to them a stumbling block or folly (1 Cor. 1:23). At the same time, being carnal, still burdened by original sin, and having further dulled their hearts and minds with new, willful sins, they are incapable of understanding even the lofty preaching of the Gospel, which comes from the Spirit of God: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, in addition to the external preaching of the Gospel, it is necessary that the hearts of such people be stirred and disposed to understand and assimilate it through a special, inner divine action; preliminary grace is required, of which God Himself speaks: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him” (Rev. 3:20), and which would open the minds of these people to receive the heavenly light of faith.

V. As for certain passages of Scripture that the Semi-Pelagians have long cited to support their views, these passages do not in the least favor them. They cite, for example:

1) The words: “Turn to Me, says the Lord of Hosts, and I will turn to you” (Zech. 1:3). But here, not only is God’s prevenient grace—or the supernatural action of the Most High, by which He Himself calls us: “Turn to Me”—not rejected; on the contrary, it is presupposed. It is this very grace that the prophet Jeremiah invoked before Him on behalf of Israel: “Turn me, and I will be turned, for You are the Lord my God” (Jer. 31:18).

2) Regarding the words: “Ask, and it will be given to you” (Luke 11:9). Here, too, the work of prevenient grace is not rejected; rather, it is simply stated that we ourselves, in obedience to that grace, should ask the Lord for our needs. For it is said elsewhere: “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom. 8:26).

Regarding the words: “A man’s heart plans his course, but the Lord directs his steps” (Prov. 16:1). But from this we cannot conclude that this very intention of the heart, which depends on man, is carried out within him without the influence of preceding grace, especially when in other passages of Scripture the Savior Himself clearly tells us: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44); or: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

4) Take, for example, the centurion, of whom the Lord testified: “Truly, I say to you, I have not found such faith even in Israel” (Matt. 8:10); the repentant thief on the cross; and so on. But there is no way to prove that all these conversions to Christ took place without the working of prevenient grace. On the contrary, based on the clear teaching of God’s Word regarding the impossibility of such a conversion, we are fully justified in affirming, together with the Fathers of the Second Council of Arras: “it must be believed without a doubt that such remarkable faith—whether that of the thief whom the Lord called to Paradise with Him, or of Cornelius the centurion to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, or of Zacchaeus, who was deemed worthy to receive the Lord Himself into his home—did not depend on their nature, but on the abundance of Divine grace bestowed upon them.”[736]

§188. The Necessity of Grace for Human Virtue Following Conversion to Christianity

Being necessary for a person’s very conversion to Christianity, for his faith and the beginning of his faith, God’s grace remains necessary for a person even after his conversion, so that he may fulfill the law of the Gospel and perform deeds worthy of life in Christ.

I. This truth is revealed in full detail in Holy Scripture. Let us recall, first, three sayings, equally addressed to the regenerate, which we have already cited: a) the Savior’s saying: “I am the vine, and you are the branches; whoever abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5); b) the Apostle’s saying to the Philippians: “God works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); and c) the words of the same apostle to the Hebrews: “Now may the God of peace … perfect you in every good work, that you may fulfill His will, working in you what is pleasing to Him through Jesus Christ” (Heb. 13:21). On the other hand, let us consider—

a) that, according to Scripture, the Spirit of God dwells in those who have turned to Christianity, who are born again and justified—that they are led by Him; He helps them. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you” [(1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19); (Rom. 8:9)]? “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness” (Rom. 8:26).

b) that the virtues of the regenerate are called the fruits of the Spirit in Scripture: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Gal. 5:22–23). In particular, the following are produced by the Spirit: aa) Christian hope: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13); bb) love: “The love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5); cc) prayer itself: “We do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words” (Rom. 8:26). [737]

II. The truth we are considering was unanimously preached by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, such as:

St. Irenaeus: “Just as dry ground, without receiving moisture, bears no fruit, so too we, who were once withered trees, could never bear the fruits of life without the gracious rain from above… Therefore, we need the dew of God, lest we wither and become barren.”[738]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Since there are people who think so highly of their own merits that they attribute everything to themselves rather than to the One who created and endowed them with wisdom—not to the Giver of all good things—the Word of God teaches such people that God’s help is needed even to desire what is good; all the more so, the very choice of what is right is something divine, a gift of God’s love for humanity. For it is necessary that the work of salvation depend both on us and on God. Therefore it is said: “not of him who wills,” that is, not of any who wills, nor of him who strives alone, but of God who shows mercy. Furthermore, since even the very desire comes from God, the Apostle rightly attributed everything to God.”[739]

St. John Chrysostom: “Let us convince ourselves that, even if we exert ourselves a thousand times, we will never be able to perform good deeds unless we make use of the impulse from above.”[740] “For our soul is insufficient for virtues if we do not make use of this (divine) help. And so that you may know that the soul is insufficient for virtues—and what do I mean by ‘virtues’?—it is insufficient even to comprehend the teaching that is imparted, the Apostle says: ‘The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor. 2:14).”[741]

Blessed Augustine: “Just as the physical eye, even if perfectly healthy, cannot see without the aid of light, so too a person, even if perfectly justified, cannot live righteously unless he is strengthened from above by the eternal light of truth.”[742]

We find the same teaching in Hilary, Ephrem the Syrian,[743] Cyril of Alexandria,[744] Leo the Great [745] , and others.[746]

III. However, when we say that a person who has converted to Christianity cannot perform good deeds on his own, without the help of God’s grace, we mean specifically spiritual good—that which is commanded by the law of the Gospel, makes a person spiritual, and serves his eternal salvation—we mean the works of the Christian faith, worthy of life in Christ. But we do not deny that a person, both before and after turning to the law of the Gospel, can, to some extent, fulfill the requirements of the natural law—which has not been erased from his conscience—and consequently perform natural good deeds (Rom. 2:14–15), by making use of what remains of their intellectual and moral faculties, which were damaged by the Fall but not destroyed,[747] —to do good which, however weak and insignificant it may be, must under no circumstances be called evil, and, consequently, although it is not capable of contributing to our salvation, it cannot serve as grounds for our condemnation either. Contrary to Protestant errors, these ideas are thoroughly expounded by the Holy Fathers of the East in the 14th article of their Epistle on the Orthodox Faith: “We believe,” they say, “that man, having fallen through sin, has become like dumb beasts—that is, he has been darkened and deprived of perfection and dispassion—but he has not been deprived of that nature and power which he received from the Most Blessed God. For, otherwise, he would have become irrational and, consequently, no longer human; but he possesses the nature with which he was created, and a natural power that is free, alive, and active, so that by nature he is able to choose and do good, and to flee from and reject evil. And that man is by nature capable of doing good is also pointed out by the Lord when He says that the Gentiles love those who love them, and is taught very clearly by the Apostle Paul (Rom. 1:19) and in other passages, where he says that the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do what is lawful by nature. From this it is evident that the good done by a person cannot be sin: for good cannot be evil. Being natural, it makes a person merely natural, not spiritual, and on its own, without faith, it does not contribute to salvation; yet neither does it lead to condemnation: for good, as good, cannot be the cause of evil. In those who have been regenerated by grace, however, it—being strengthened by grace—becomes perfect and renders a person worthy of salvation. Although a person, before regeneration, may by nature be inclined toward good, choose to do so, and perform moral good deeds—yet in order that, having been regenerated, he may perform spiritual good (for the works of faith, being the cause of salvation and accomplished by supernatural grace, are commonly called spiritual), —for this, grace must precede and guide them, so that they cannot, of their own accord, perform deeds worthy of life in Christ, but can only choose to act in accordance with grace or not.”

§189. The Necessity of Grace for a Person to Persevere in the Faith and Christian Virtue Until the End of Life

If, without God’s grace, a person can neither believe nor have faith in Christ, nor perform deeds worthy of a life in Christ, then it follows of course that a person cannot, without the assistance of God’s grace, remain in the Christian faith and piety until the end of life. That is why—

1. The Lord Jesus prayed to His heavenly Father for His own apostles: “Holy Father, keep them in Your name” (John 17:11)—“Sanctify them by Your truth” (John 17:17)—and in particular prayed for Peter: “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:32), and He taught all of us to pray: “Our Father… lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” [(Matt. 6:13); cf. (Matt. 26:41)].

2. The Holy Apostles—a) testified that even those who have been reborn can fall and, in fact, often sin without God’s grace: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8); “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10); “We all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2). And therefore—b) they very often expressed the hope that God Himself would preserve and strengthen believers in their faith and godliness until the end. For example: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). “Now may the God of all grace, who has called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, Himself—after your brief suffering—perfect you, establish you, strengthen you, and make you unshakable” (1 Peter 5:10)—“…may He perfect you in every good work, that you may do His will, working in you what is pleasing to Him through Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 13:21). Or: “May our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father … comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and deed” (2 Thess. 2:16). And again: “May he, according to the riches of his glory, grant you to be strongly established by his Spirit in your inner being” [(Eph. 3:16); cf. (Rom. 15:13); (Col. 1:9–11)]. What would all such prayerful blessings from the Apostles mean if the regenerate could remain steadfast in the Christian life on their own, without help from above? Finally, the Apostles—c)—also explicitly taught that if Christians are preserved and can be preserved in godliness until the end of their lives, it is precisely by the power of God. Thus, St. Peter wrote to the believers: “preserved by the power of God through faith for salvation, which is ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:5); St. Jude: “To the only wise God and our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be glory and majesty, power and authority, before all ages, now and forevermore, to Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you blameless before His glory with great joy” (Jude 1:24–25); St. Paul: “(God) who began a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6), and elsewhere: “The testimony of Christ has been confirmed among you—so that you lack no spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:6–8).

3. The Holy Church has always prayed and continues to pray to the Lord that He Himself may preserve the faithful in faith and piety until the end of their lives. “Preserve the good in goodness,” the celebrant says, for example, in one of the prayers during the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (during the Proskomedia). “Intercede for us, save us, have mercy on us, and preserve us, O God, by Your grace,” or: “We ask that we may complete the remainder of our life in peace and repentance before the Lord”—these words are heard daily in the deacon’s ektenia. St. Augustine, in his argument against the Semi-Pelagians, pointed to this prayer of the Church and observed: “The Church prays that the faithful may remain steadfast—which means that God grants them steadfastness even to the end.”[748]

4. The Church Fathers clearly articulated this belief:

St. Basil the Great: “Every soul is conquered by the unalterable dogmas, being established by grace in an unshakable faith in Christ.”[749] “And prayer is necessary even for the righteous, so that their deliberate righteousness and steadfastness of will may be corrected under God’s guidance, so that even in weakness they may never stray from the rule of truth, and so that the enemy of truth may not corrupt them with his perverse teachings.”[750]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Whether you run or strive, you need the One who grants the crown. ‘Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain’ (Ps. 126:1). “I know,” he says, “that running does not depend on the swift, war on the strong, victory on the warriors, nor is reaching the harbor within the power of skilled swimmers; but it is up to God both to secure victory and to bring the ship safely into harbor.”[751]

St. John Chrysostom: “It is entirely God’s work to establish and strengthen us so that we do not fall or stray onto the wrong path.”[752]

St. Celestine: “No one, not even those renewed by the grace of baptism, is capable of warding off the devil’s attacks and overcoming the lusts of the flesh unless, through daily help from God, they receive steadfastness (perseverantiam) in virtue.”[753]

5. We are also convinced of this truth through our own reflection. It suffices to note, first of all, that even the regenerate, as long as they are on earth, are not free from internal and external temptations; on the contrary, they must wage a constant battle against the enemies of salvation—the world, the flesh, and the devil [(1 John 2:16-16); (Gal. 5:16–17); (Eph. 6:12)]; and, being constantly surrounded by numerous temptations and pursued, in particular, by the invisible, most cunning, and strongest adversary—who, like a roaring lion, roams about seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:8)—they may sometimes fall if left to their own strength. And, secondly, there are the numerous examples found in church history of how, indeed, even the most righteous sometimes fell—and fell very deeply—deceived by their own righteousness. That is why the Apostle commanded none other than the regenerate themselves to put on the full armor of God, so that they might be able to stand against the devil’s schemes, and at the beginning of this commandment he said: “Finally, my brothers, be strengthened in the Lord and in the power of His might” (Eph. 6:10); and in conclusion, he added: “Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all kinds of prayers and requests” (Eph. 6:18). That is, he expressed the idea that even the regenerate, even when they are clothed in the full armor of God to fight against the enemies of salvation, must constantly pray to God for help, and that they can prevail in the struggle only through the Lord and by the power of His strength.

II. On the Universality of Grace and Its Relationship to Human Freedom

§190. Parts of the Doctrine

Contrary to the errors of the Calvinists and Jansenists, who claim that God bestows His grace only upon certain people whom He has unconditionally predestined to righteousness and eternal bliss, and therefore bestows irresistible grace, the Orthodox Church teaches: a) that God’s grace extends to all people, not merely to those predestined to righteousness and eternal bliss; b) that God’s predestination of some to eternal bliss and of others to eternal condemnation is not unconditional but conditional, and is based on the foreknowledge of whether or not they will make use of grace; c) that God’s grace does not restrict human freedom, nor does it act upon it irresistibly; and — d) that, on the contrary, human beings actively participate in what God’s grace accomplishes in them and through them (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 3).

§191. God’s grace extends to all people, not merely to those predestined for righteousness and eternal bliss

This truth is evident:

1) From those passages of Holy Scripture where it is stated that God is equally the Father of all people, Jews and Gentiles alike [(Matt. 6:9, 7–11); (1 Cor. 8:6); (Eph. 4:6); (Rom. 3:29–30)], that He is good to all (Ps. 144:9), and “who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). If, then, He—as the All-Good One—fatherly desires that all people be saved, then, without a doubt, He bestows upon them all—or is ready to bestow upon them all—His divine grace, without which no sinner can be saved.

2) From the passages of Scripture that affirm that Christ the Savior gave His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51), gave Himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:6), died for all [(2 Cor. 5:15); (Heb. 2:9)], and “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). If, then, Christ died for all people, He undoubtedly obtained saving grace for all of them through His death. If He is the atonement for the sins of the whole world, then He truly bestows saving grace upon the whole world—without which the sinner’s cleansing is impossible.

3) From the testimony of Scripture, which states that the Lord established His kingdom of grace on earth for all people, He commanded that all nations be taught, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit [(Matt. 28:19); (Mark 16:15); cf. (Rom. 10:18); (1 Cor. 9:22); (1 Cor. 10:32–33)], and at the same time He Himself inwardly calls every person to Himself: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me. To the one who conquers, I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, just as I also conquered and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:20–21). Why, then, should we preach the Gospel to all creation, teach all nations, and call all people into the kingdom of grace, if not all are predestined for it, and God’s grace is not given to everyone?

4) From the testimony of Scripture, that God, who grants His grace to the righteous so that they may do good [(John 15:5); (Gal. 5:22)], also grants it to sinners so that they may turn to what is good, and does not desire anyone’s destruction. “As surely as I live,” said the Lord God even in the Old Testament, “I take no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but rather that the sinner turn from his ways and live” [(Ezek. 33:11); cf. (Ezek. 18:23)]. “Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28), “I have come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9:13; 18:11); “For it is not the will of your Father in heaven that even one of these little ones should perish” (Matt. 18:14). The Lord is patient with us, as the Holy Apostles taught, not wishing that anyone should perish, but that all should come to repentance [(2 Pet. 3:9); cf. Rom. 2:4)]. What, then, would all these sayings mean if the Lord did not truly offer His grace-filled help to sinners, since without grace it is impossible for anyone to be converted [(1 Cor. 12:3); (Phil. 2:13)], to come to Christ (John 6:44), or to have life (John 15:4–8)?

5) From the consistent belief and practice of the Orthodox Church, which has always called sinners to repentance, has always administered the sacrament of repentance to them, and has always taught that in this sacrament God’s grace is bestowed upon them, cleansing them of their sins and making them capable of being reunited, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, with Christ—the source of all grace.

6) Finally, from the teaching of the Church Fathers:

St. Clement of Rome: “Let us look upon the blood of Christ, and see how precious His blood is before God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has brought the grace of repentance to the whole world. Let us survey all the ages, and we will see that the Lord has always granted time for repentance to those who wished to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heeded him were saved. Jonah foretold the destruction of the Ninevites, but those who repented of their sins appeased God through prayer and received salvation, even though they were far from God. The ministers of God’s grace, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke of repentance; and the Lord of all the world Himself spoke of repentance with an oath: ‘As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but that the sinner should turn from his way and live’ (Ezek. 33:11).”[754]

St. John Chrysostom: “If (Christ) enlightens every person who comes into the world (John 1:9), how is it that people remain without sanctification? He truly enlightens everyone. But if some, voluntarily closing the eyes of their minds, do not wish to receive the rays of this light, then their abiding in darkness depends not on the nature of the light, but on the misfortune of those who, of their own free will, deprive themselves of the gift. For grace has been poured out upon all… and those who are unwilling to make use of such a gift must, in all fairness, blame themselves for their own blindness.”[755]

St. Ambrose: “He, like the mysterious Sun of Righteousness, rose for all, came for all, suffered for all, and rose again for all… But whoever does not believe in Christ deprives himself of this universal blessing.”[756]

Blessed Augustine: “‘God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him’ (John 3:17). Now, as for the Physician: He came to heal the sick; and whoever refuses to obey the Physician’s commands brings destruction upon himself. The Savior came into the world: why is He called the Savior of the world, if not because His purpose is to save the world, not to judge the world? Do you not wish to be healed by Him? You yourself will be your own judge.”[757]

It goes without saying that even sound reason, at the very thought of God—who is infinitely good and just—cannot but agree that He equally desires the salvation of all sinners, and that, if grace is necessary for this, He grants it—or is always ready to grant it—to all alike.

§192. God’s predestination of some to eternal bliss and others to eternal condemnation is conditional and based on the foreknowledge of whether or not they will make use of grace.

If, however, the Word of God states that God has predestined some to eternal glory (Rom. 8:29) and others to eternal condemnation (Jude 1:4): this does not mean that He does not wish all people to be saved, that He does not grant His grace to all, or that He has predestined one thing or the other without any reason, by His own unconditional will alone. It simply means that God, who desires everyone to be saved and offers grace to all, having foreseen from eternity who would and who would not wish to make use of His grace, accordingly predestined some to salvation and others to perdition. For—

1. The Word of God itself very often teaches that the eternal destiny of each of us after death—eternal glory or eternal torment—will be the reward for our deeds in this life, that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due him according to what he has done while living in the body, whether good or evil” [(2 Cor. 5:10); St. (1 Cor. 3:8)], that God “will repay each person according to their deeds: to those who, by persevering in good deeds, seek glory, honor, and immortality—eternal life; but to those who are stubborn and do not obey the truth, but give themselves over to unrighteousness—wrath and fury” [(Rom. 2:6–8); cf. (Matt. 16:27)], that it is precisely those who believe in Christ who will be saved (John 3:36; 6:47), become partakers of His grace through the sacraments (John 3:5; 6:54), and, with its help, do the will of the Father who is in heaven (Matt. 7:21); but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16); unless one is born of water and the Spirit and does the will of the heavenly Father, he will not enter the kingdom of God [(John 3:5); (Matt. 7:21)]. How, then, can we reconcile all these passages of Holy Scripture with his teaching on God’s eternal predestination, unless we agree that God has predestined some to eternal bliss and others to condemnation—not by His unconditional will, but on the condition of their own deeds, whether good or evil, which He, being all-knowing, has undoubtedly foreseen from eternity?

2. There are other passages in Scripture that explicitly state that God’s predestination is conditional. Thus, the Savior Himself describes His future judgment at the Last Judgment as follows: “Then the King will say to those on His right hand: ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave Me food; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you welcomed Me; I was naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me” (Matt. 25:34–36). Then “He will say to those on His left: ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you did not give Me food; I was thirsty, and you did not give Me drink; I was a stranger, and you did not welcome Me; I was naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick and in prison, and you did not visit Me” (Matt. 25:41–43). Is it not clear from this that if God has prepared the kingdom for some from the foundation of the world, and eternal fire for others, it is not because He loved some and hated others without any reason, but because some proved worthy of the kingdom, and others of eternal fire, according to their own deeds, which God has seen and known from the foundation of the world as already accomplished, not being limited by time? [See also (2 Pet. 1:10); (2 Tim. 2:20); (Rom. 8:17); (1 Cor. 9:27)].

3. St. Paul the Apostle clearly teaches that God’s predestination is based on foreknowledge, testifying: those whom He (God) foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son … and those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified (Rom. 8:29–30). “Not merely predestined,” says the Apostle, “but predestined because He foreknew”—those whose merits He foreknew, He predestined; or, as Blessed Jerome puts it, “those whom God knew would be conformed to His Son in life, He predestined to be conformed to Him in glory itself.”[758]

4. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, especially those of the East, rightly understood that God’s predestination is accomplished on the condition of human merits, known to God in advance. For example: a) St. Irenaeus: “God, who foresees all things, has prepared worthy dwellings for everyone; to those who seek the pure light and strive toward it, He bestows this light abundantly; but to others, who turn away from it and flee from it—and thus, as it were, blind themselves—He has prepared darkness commensurate with their aversion to the light, and in this way subjects them to a fitting punishment;”[759] b) Hilary: “Whom God foreknew, He also predestined;”[760] “Thus, election is not a matter of indifferent judgment, but a distinction made based on an assessment of merit;”[761] c) St. John Chrysostom—speaking on behalf of the heavenly Judge (Matt. 25:34–44); “Before you even came into existence, this had already been prepared and arranged for you by Me; for I knew that you would be such (good or evil);”[762] and in another passage: “God predestined us not only because of His love, but also because of our virtue; for if it depended solely on love, then everyone would be saved (because God loves everyone); but if it depended solely on our virtue, then the coming of Jesus Christ and all that He has arranged for our salvation would be superfluous;”[763] d) St. Ambrose: “God did not predestine before He foreknew; whose merits He foresaw, to those He predestined the reward;”[764] e) Blessed Augustine: “We must steadfastly hold to that rule, known from the divine Scriptures, that sinners, before they came into the world, were foreknown in their iniquities, but were not predestined to them (i.e., to iniquities); but their punishment was predestined because they were foreknown;”[765] e) Blessed Theodoret: “Whose disposition He foresaw, those He predestined from above, and, having predestined them, He also called them;”[766] f) Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople: “Sinners are rejected by God before they are born—not because God from eternity willed to reject them, but because He knew from eternity that they themselves would reject Him and render all His care for them useless.”[767] Justin the Martyr, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, and others taught similarly.[768]

5. It is true that there are passages in Holy Scripture that, on the surface, seem to support the doctrine of God’s unconditional predestination. These include:

a) The words of the Apostle: “(God) chose us in Him (in Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4)—and consequently, He chose us not because He foresaw our holiness and good deeds, but so that we might become holy; He chose us not because of our merits, but by His own will alone. But here and in other similar passages [(2 Thess. 2:13); (1 Cor. 2:7)], it is clearly not election or predestination to glory (Matt. 25:34) that is meant—which, as we have seen, undoubtedly occurs according to the foreknowledge of each person’s merits— but rather the election, predestination, and calling to grace in Christ Jesus, which truly does not depend on human merit, but is for the conversion of people to faith and good works, and depends solely on God’s infinite goodness and mercy (2 Tim. 1:9). And this calling to grace in Christ Jesus does not apply only to certain people who will certainly be saved, but extends to the entire human race. The Apostle says: God chose us (Eph. 1:4), called us (2 Tim. 1:9), or chose you (2 Thess. 2:13)—and by this he means all Christians to whom he wrote, and among whom, without a doubt, not every single one was chosen or holy in the strict sense. And in other passages, the same Apostle testifies: “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, teaching us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:11–12); or: “There is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5–6).

b) The words of the Holy Apostle concerning Esau and Jacob: even before they were born and had done anything good or evil, God had already said to their mother, “The older will serve the younger … I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” And the words that follow: “He says to Moses, ‘Whom I will have mercy on, I will have mercy on; whom I will have compassion on, I will have compassion on’… So then, He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills” (Rom. 9:11–18). But, first of all, throughout the entire ninth chapter, as well as throughout the entire dogmatic section of the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle speaks specifically about the calling of people to grace or justification in Christ Jesus (Rom. 9:30–32), and he argues against the Jews, proving that calling and justification do not depend on their works of the Law—by which the Jews claimed for themselves the right to be sons of the Messiah’s kingdom, excluding all Gentiles from it—but depend on the mercy of the Most High, who, being entirely free in bestowing His gifts and distributing various destinies to people (as He demonstrated through the examples of Esau, Jacob, the Jews in the time of Moses, and Pharaoh), has indeed called both Jews and Gentiles to justification in Christ by His mercy alone (Rom. 9:24)—so that without this mercy, people could do nothing on their own.[769] Second, while saying that God bestows His gifts upon people solely by His grace and assigns one fate to some and another to others, entirely freely and even before their birth, the Apostle nevertheless not only does not reject the idea that God acts in this case on the basis of His foreknowledge of human actions, but rather necessarily presupposes it: for he teaches that even in this case God acts justly (Rom. 9:14), and that if He hardens and punishes certain people, it is precisely those who, like Pharaoh, have made themselves vessels of wrath, and He punishes them only after much long-suffering (Rom. 9:22). “Why,” asks St. Chrysostom in his exposition of the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, “is one (Jacob) loved, while the other (Esau) is hated? Why does one serve, while the other is served? Because one was wicked, and the other was good; but even before they were born, one was honored, and the other was condemned. Even before their birth, God said: ‘The older will serve the younger.’ Why, then, did God say this? Because He does not wait, as a human being does, for the outcome of events to see who is good and who is not; but, on the contrary, He knows beforehand who is wicked and who is not.” And a little further on: “The main intention of the blessed Paul was, through all that he said, to teach that God alone knows who is worthy, and no human being does; and although many imagine that they know, they are often mistaken in their judgment. But He who knows the secrets of the heart knows perfectly well who is worthy of crowns, and who of punishment and torment. Therefore, He has exposed and punished many who, in the opinion of men, are good, and has crowned many who were considered wicked, testifying that they are not such. He passes judgment not based on the testimony of servants, but according to His own strict and impartial judgment; He does not wait for the conclusion of a case to declare one worthy and another unworthy… Therefore He said: “I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau.” You know from the outcome that this is just; but God knew it perfectly even before it came to pass; He demands not only the manifestation of deeds, but also free will and blameless intentions.” And further still: “Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath—that is, a man who, through his own hard-heartedness, provoked God’s wrath. Having repeatedly experienced God’s long-suffering, he did not become better, but remained incorrigible. Therefore, the Apostle called him not only a vessel of wrath, but also one destined for destruction—that is, prepared for destruction, though of his own accord and by his own will. Just as God left nothing undone that might lead to his correction, so Pharaoh himself left nothing undone that might lead to his destruction and render him inexcusable. Nevertheless, God, foreseeing this, showed great patience, for He desired to bring him to repentance. And if He had not desired this, He would not have been patient for so long. Since, however, Pharaoh did not wish to take advantage of God’s patience and repent, but prepared himself for wrath, God used him for the correction of others, so that through his punishment He might make others more careful, and thereby demonstrate His power.”[770]

6. The doctrine of God’s unconditional predestination is contrary to sound reason. He is convinced that God is just and, therefore, cannot, without any reason, predestine some to eternal bliss and others to eternal condemnation. He is convinced that God is infinitely good and, therefore, cannot, without any reason, condemn anyone to eternal perdition. He is convinced that God is infinitely wise and, therefore, cannot—having granted man freedom—restrict it through His unconditional predestination and thereby deprive his actions of all moral value.

§193. God’s grace does not restrict human freedom; it does not act upon it in an irresistible manner

Although “God works in you both to will and to act according to His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13), and without His grace we can neither undertake nor accomplish anything truly good, yet this power of God, acting in us and through us, in no way restricts our freedom or compels it irresistibly toward the good. That is why—

1. People are commanded in Holy Scripture to open their hearts to receive grace and not to harden them against its workings. “Behold,” says the Savior, “I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me” (Rev. 3:20). “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts,” the sacred writers repeated in the Old and New Testaments [(Ps. 94:7–8); (Isa. 55:3); (Heb. 3:7–8, 4:7)]. What, then, would all these sayings mean if a person could not resist grace, if it acted upon him irresistibly?

2. The Word of God does indeed testify that people can resist grace—and resist it stubbornly—despite all its provisions. “What more could I have done for My vineyard that I have not done for it?” God Himself said in the Old Testament concerning the people of Israel (Isa. 5:4); “Day after day I held out My hands to a disobedient people, who walked in a way that was not good, following their own thoughts” (Isa. 65:2). “So I will use their own deceit against them and bring upon them what is dreadful to them: for I called, and no one answered; I spoke, and they did not listen, but did what was evil in My sight and chose what is displeasing to Me [(Isa. 66:4); cf. (Isa. 65:12); (Prov. 1:24); Jer. 7:13)]. “You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears!” exclaimed the holy martyr Stephen in the New Testament regarding the Jews, “You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51). Therefore, St. Paul the Apostle urges Christians, pointing to this pitiful example of the Jews, to strive to enter into God’s rest, lest anyone fall into the same pattern of disobedience (Heb. 4:11).

3. In general, as everyone knows, the sacred books contain countless exhortations, promises, and warnings intended to inspire people toward virtue. What, then, is the purpose of all these exhortations, promises, and warnings, if grace acts upon a person in such a way that he cannot help but practice virtue when drawn to it by the power of God?

4. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously taught that a person acts freely in choosing and performing good deeds and is not constrained by God’s grace. Let us cite, for example, the words: a) St. Justin: “That we came into being in the beginning was not of our own doing; but so that we might follow Him (God), through the rational faculties with which He has endowed us, choosing what is pleasing to Him, to this end He persuades us and leads us to faith;”[771] b) St. John Chrysostom: “God does not compel anyone; but if He wills and we do not, then our salvation is impossible—not because His will is powerless, but because He does not wish to compel anyone;”[772] c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “The human will does not always conform, but very often contradicts and opposes the will of God;”[773] d) St. Basil the Great: “The Spirit dwells in each of those who are receptive to Him, as is proper to Him alone, and pours out His full grace upon all, which those who partake of the Eucharist enjoy according to their own receptivity, and not according to what is possible for the Spirit;”[774] e) St. Macarius of Egypt: “Human nature is capable of receiving both good and evil, divine grace and opposing forces, but it cannot be compelled to do so.”[775] “Without the consent of the human will, God Himself produces nothing in man, even though He could, because of the freedom with which man is endowed.”[776] “Even the Apostles themselves, who were perfect in grace, would not have been prevented by grace from doing anything of their own volition, even if they had wished to do something contrary to grace, although they could not have sinned, because they were not puffed up, being enlightened by such light and graced with such grace.”[777] “And from those who are perfect, the Lord requires the soul’s will to serve the Spirit, so that the will and grace may be in harmony with one another; for the Apostle says: ‘Do not quench the Spirit’ (1 Thess. 5:19).”[778]

5. Sound reason, for its part, cannot fail to notice that if God’s grace restricts human freedom and forcibly draws it toward the good, then in such a case every incentive toward virtue is taken away from the person, every merit of his good deeds is taken away, and his entire morality is undermined—and God Himself is to blame for all of this! Can such thoughts be tolerated? It is true that reason is unable to explain how God’s mighty power, while acting upon a person, leaves their freedom intact, nor can it precisely determine their mutual relationship;[779] nevertheless, this mystery must stand above all doubt for us, since we have so many reasons to believe that a person not only is not deprived of freedom under the influence of grace, but actively participates in its actions, which are accomplished in him and through him.

§194. Man actively participates in what the grace of God accomplishes in him and through him

1. The Holy Scriptures clearly show that the entire process of a person’s sanctification, from beginning to end, is the work of God’s grace and, at the same time, of the person himself. It says, for example: a) regarding a person’s conversion: “Turn me, and I will be turned” (Jer. 31:18), and on the other hand: “Turn to Me,” says the Lord of Hosts, “and I will turn to you” (Zech. 1:3); or: “Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8); be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20); b) regarding following Christ: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), and on the other hand: “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me” [(Matt. 10:38); cf. (Matt. 19:21)]; c) on rebirth: Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:5), and also: Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38); d) on renewal: “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them; I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, so that they may walk in My commandments and keep My statutes” (Ezek. 11:19–20), and together: “Cast away from yourselves all the sins you have committed, and create for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and keep all My commandments” [(Ezek. 18:31); cf. (James 4:8)]; d) on union with Christ: “Abide in Me, and I in you” (John 15:4), and further: “Whoever abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit” (John 15:5).

2. Holy Scripture expresses the same truth when it testifies that it depends on human freedom to: a) be good or evil: “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you” (Isa. 1:19–20); b) to follow Christ: “If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matt. 16:24); c) to strive for the highest perfection: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Matt. 19:21).

3. Finally, the same truth is expressed in passages of Scripture where a person’s good deeds: a) are called his own: “Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good deeds” (Matt. 5:16); be steadfast, unshakable, always excelling in the Lord’s work, knowing that your labor is not in vain before the Lord [(1 Cor. 15:58); cf. (2 Thess. 1:3); (Heb. 6:10)]; b) are credited to him as merit: “Watch yourselves, so that we may not lose what we have worked for, but may receive the full reward” (2 John 1:8); each will receive his reward according to his labor (1 Cor. 3:8). Whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, truly I tell you, will not lose his reward (Matt. 10:42). I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; and now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that Day—and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing [(2 Tim. 4:7–8); cf. (Matt. 5:12); (1 Cor. 4:5), (1 Cor. 15:58); (Rev. 22:15)].

4. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church taught:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “It is God’s work to plant and water, and yours to bear fruit; it is God’s work to bestow grace, and yours to receive and preserve it. Do not despise grace simply because it is given freely, but, having received it, preserve it reverently.”[780]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Virtue is not merely a gift from the great God, who has honored His own image; for your own striving is also necessary. It is not the work of your heart alone; for the most excellent power is required. Although my vision is very keen, it does not see visible objects by itself, nor without the great light that illuminates my eyes and is itself visible to the eyes. And for my success, two parts are needed from the great God—namely, the first and the last—as well as one part from me. God created me receptive to goodness; God gives me strength, both in the midst of the race and as I run the course. I am not very light on my feet, but I strain my muscles in the race without losing hope of the reward; for Christ is my breath, my strength, my wondrous wealth.”[781]

St. John Chrysostom: “It is within our power, having received grace from above, to do good or evil.”[782] “God opens the hearts of those who desire (to know the truth)… Regarding the woman who sold purple cloth, it is said: The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying (Acts 16:14). Consequently, opening her heart was God’s work, and paying attention was the woman’s own work, so that it was both God’s work and human work.”[783]

St. Basil the Great: “Human intentions regarding what is good will not be fulfilled without help from above, and help from above will not come to one who has not made an effort toward this end. On the contrary, the fulfillment of virtue requires a combination of both—human diligence and the help that comes from above through faith.”[784]

St. Macarius of Egypt: “God commands that a person first recognize the good with the mind; having recognized it, love it, and perform good deeds by the will. But the power for the mind to act, to endure hardship, and to accomplish the work—this is granted by grace to those who desire it and believe.”[785]

Blessed Theodoret: “The Apostle called it a gift of God through Christ not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him (Phil. 1:29), without denying the role of free will (human), but teaching that will alone, deprived of grace, cannot accomplish anything good. For both are necessary: our readiness or desire to act and God’s assistance. And just as grace alone is not enough for those who lack this desire, so, on the other hand, desire alone, unsupported by grace, cannot amass the riches of virtue.”[786]

St. Gregory the Great: “Supreme Holiness first does something in us without us, so that, when our free will follows, it may accomplish together with us the good that we have desired.”[787] “Thus, with grace preceding and good will following, that which is a gift of the almighty God becomes our merit.”[788]

5. Let us turn to our own experience and history: we will find further confirmation of the truth being expounded. Our immediate consciousness and close self-observation assure us: a) that we, having been reborn of water and the Spirit, feel no compulsion from grace within ourselves when we decide to perform and do a good deed; on the contrary, we freely choose and perform a particular good deed from among many, and often, before even finishing it, we abandon it of our own will; b) that good deeds are not accomplished by us without effort, without special exertion and participation on our part, and for this we must sometimes even strive to the point of shedding blood (Heb. 12:4), waging a ceaseless battle, with God’s gracious help, against the enemies of our salvation; c) that, finally, it is not uncommon that after many feats of virtue and prolonged practice in piety, we return once more to our former path of wickedness and vice, contrary to the voice of divine grace. And the history of the holy Christian ascetics presents us with striking examples both of the great effort it took for them to gradually progress in virtue, and of how, at times, even after reaching the highest degrees of moral perfection, a person can fall into sin.

III. On the Nature and Conditions of the Sanctification of Man by the Grace of God

§195. Parts of the Doctrine

Rejecting the error of the Protestants, who, under the name of justification or sanctification by grace, mean merely the forgiveness of a person’s sins—even though in reality they remain within him—and merely the external imputation of Christ’s righteousness to him—even though in reality he does not become righteous—and who recognize faith on the part of man alone as the condition for justification and sanctification, the Orthodox Church teaches: a) that the sanctification of a person consists in his being truly cleansed of sins by God’s grace and, through its help, being made righteous and holy; b) that faith is only the first condition on the part of man for his sanctification, and consequently for his salvation, but—c) that, in addition to faith, good works are also required of man for this purpose (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 103; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Articles 9, 13, 16).

§196. The sanctification of a person consists in his being truly cleansed from sins by the grace of God and made righteous and holy

I. The validity of this idea—and, at the same time, the invalidity of the notion that, in a person’s justification and sanctification, their sins are merely forgiven and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to them only outwardly, while in reality they remain in sin—is very clearly set forth in Holy Scripture—

1) When speaking—a) of the purpose of the sufferings of Christ the Savior: Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless (Eph. 5:26–27); b) the fruits of His death on the cross: The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7); He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2); c) concerning our predestination in Christ: for He (God) chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love (Eph. 1:4). How, then, are we to understand these statements if the entire purpose of God’s plan in Christ is limited to our sins being merely forgiven for the sake of the Redeemer’s merits, rather than being eradicated within us?

2) When speaking of Christians who have truly appropriated the atonement accomplished by the Savior, it is said that they: a) have been cleansed from their sins through repentance and turning to Christ: “Repent and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped away” (Acts 3:19); if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, when sprinkled, sanctify those who are defiled so that their bodies may be cleansed, how much more will the Blood of Christ—who through the Holy Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God—cleanse our consciences from dead works to serve the living and true God [(Heb. 9:13–14); cf. (Isa. 1:18); (Acts 15:9); (1 Thess. 5:23)]; b) have been born again of the Holy Spirit and constitute a new creation in Christ: He saved us not because of works of righteousness that we might do, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs of eternal life through hope [(Titus 3:5–7); cf. (John 3:5–7)]; having willed it, He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures (James 1:18); whoever is in Christ is a new creation [(2 Cor. 5:17); cf. (Gal. 6:15); (Eph. 2:10)]; c) have been washed, sanctified, and justified: and such were some of you; but you have been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11); d) have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in righteousness and holiness of the truth [(Col. 3:9–10); (Eph. 4:22–24)]; e) have become children of God, free from sin: “But to all who did receive Him—who believed in His name—He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12–13); Everyone born of God does not commit sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (1 John 3:9); f) partakers of the divine nature: His divine power has granted to us everything necessary for life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness, through which He has granted to us His great and precious promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire (2 Pet. 1:3–4). These passages of Scripture could not be accurately explained if one were to assume that a person’s sanctification consists solely in the forgiveness of sins or in the mere external imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

3) Finally, it testifies that in those who have been reborn, cleansed from sin, and made partakers of the divine nature, there dwells—a) God the Father: We know that we abide in Him and He in us by the fact that He has given us of His Spirit [(1 John 4:13); cf. (1 John 3:24)]; b) God the Son: “I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you” [(John 14:20); cited in (Rom. 8:10)]; c) God the Holy Spirit: Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit dwells in you [(1 Cor. 3:16); cf. (1 Cor. 6:19)]. It is impossible for the Most Holy One to dwell in people in whom sins remain, even if they have been forgiven: for what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? What does light have in common with darkness (2 Cor. 6:14–15)?

II. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church understood the justification and sanctification of a person to consist in his actual purification from sins and the imparting of righteousness and holiness to him. Thus, for example, they say:

St. Barnabas the Apostle: “He who renewed us by the forgiveness of our sins has imparted to us another image (τύπον), so that we have the soul of an infant, and He has, as it were, created us anew…”[789]

St. Basil the Great: “The Spirit is not a creature, but the image of God’s holiness and the source of holiness for all. We are called through the sanctification of the Spirit, as the Apostle teaches (2 Thess. 2:13). He renews us and recreates us in the image of God; through the baptism of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, we are adopted as children of God. A creature that partakes of the Spirit is made new once more.”[790] “The union of the Spirit with the soul is not a spatial drawing near (for can the incorporeal draw near in a corporeal manner?), but the removal of the passions that subsequently penetrated the soul due to its attachment to the body and distanced it from the likeness of God. Therefore, only he who has cleansed himself of the shame he brought upon himself through sin, returned to his natural beauty, and—through purification—has, as it were, restored the ancient likeness to the royal image, can draw near to the Comforter.”[791]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “He (the Holy Spirit) creates in spiritual rebirth; as is confirmed by the words that no one can see or enter the kingdom unless he is born from above by the Spirit (John 3:3–5), and unless he is cleansed from his first birth—which is the mystery of the night—through a daytime and luminous rebirth (Ps. 138:16), by which each person is individually reborn.”[792] “The grace and power of baptism do not submerge the world, as in ancient times, but purify sin in every person and completely wash away every impurity and defilement brought about by corruption.”[793]

St. John Chrysostom: “The Jewish priests had the authority to purify bodily leprosy—or, more precisely, not to purify it at all, but only to certify those who had been purified… These (Christian priests), however, have received the authority not over bodily leprosy, but over the impurity of the soul—not merely to bear witness when it is cleansed, but to cleanse it completely (απαλλάττειν παντελώς).”[794]

St. Macarius of Egypt: “The soul, which the Spirit—preparing it for Himself as a throne and dwelling place—deems worthy to partake of His light, and illuminates with the ineffable beauty of His glory, becomes all light, all face, all eye; not a single part of it remains that is not filled with spiritual eyes; that is, nothing dark remains in it, but it becomes entirely light and spirit…”[795] “People who are wholly united with the Spirit of God become like Christ Himself, constantly preserving within themselves the powers of the Spirit and manifesting all the spiritual fruits to : for when they are made pure and blameless within by the Spirit, it is impossible for them to bear evil fruits outwardly; but in everything and always, the fruits of the Spirit are evident in them.”[796]

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Christ will be formed in us (Gal. 4:19) when the Holy Spirit imparts to us a certain divine image through sanctification unto justification. Thus, in this very way, the image of the hypostasis of God the Father (Heb. 1:3) is imprinted upon your souls—that is, when the Holy Spirit transforms you through sanctification.”[797]

III. The teaching that the justification and sanctification of a person consist solely in the remission of his sins, rather than their purification, and solely in the external imputation of Christ’s righteousness to a person, is inconsistent with:

1) With the concept of God. To think that God, in the work of justifying a person, merely forgives their sins rather than truly cleansing them is to assume that God is either unable or unwilling to cleanse the sinful person by His almighty grace. But both of these are equally unworthy of God. And if the All-Seeing One were to acknowledge the justified and sanctified as saints, when in reality they are not saints; if He did not consider them sinners when they remain in sin—it would follow that He is not true.

2) The concept of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, as the new Adam and as the Head of the Church. The Word of God teaches us that Christ is the new Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), and that just as sin and death spread to all his descendants through the first Adam, so too righteousness and life (Rom. 5:15–19) spread to all who are born of Him (1 John 2:29) through the second Adam. But sin and death were truly imparted to all the descendants of the first Adam and infected our very nature; consequently, righteousness and life are just as truly imparted to us from the second Adam and purify our very nature. Likewise, the Word of God teaches that God has placed Him (Jesus Christ) above all things, as the head of the Church, which is His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:22–23), and that all of us who believe in Him are living members of His body (Eph. 5:30). But life naturally and truly flows from the head to all the members of the body; therefore, it is impossible that the Lord Jesus’ life, righteousness, and holiness should not be imparted just as naturally and truly to all who truly believe in Him.

3) Regarding the concept of redemption or restoration. The restoration of a person is nothing other than the restoration of that person to the original state in which he was before the Fall. But before the Fall, a person was truly innocent, righteous, and holy. Consequently, he must return to exactly the same state through restoration. Otherwise, if those who are restored and justified continue to remain in sin, without righteousness and holiness, but merely receive forgiveness of sins and are merely cloaked in Christ’s righteousness: in such a case, there is no restoration proper, and it is but a phantom or an apparent restoration.[798]

§197. Faith is the first condition on the part of man for his sanctification and, consequently, for his salvation

God’s grace, which accomplishes our sanctification, though it extends to all people, does not act upon them against their will—and in fact sanctifies the sinful person and subsequently saves him only under certain conditions on his part. The first of these conditions is faith.

1. By the term “faith” in general, we mean here a person’s free acceptance and internalization, with all the powers of the soul, of those truths that God has been pleased to reveal to us in Christ for our sanctification and salvation.[799] This acceptance and assimilation is called “faith”—because the revealed truths are, for the most part, incomprehensible to our reason and inaccessible to knowledge, and can be assimilated only through faith. This understanding of faith follows: a) from the words of the Savior, who, sending His disciples out to preach to the whole world, said to them: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,” and immediately added: “Whoever believes (that is, whoever accepts and embraces all that is preached) and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16); b) from the words of St. John the Theologian, who, concluding his Gospel, remarked: Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30–31); c) from the words of the other apostles, who refer to God’s very Revelation or the entire Christian doctrine as “faith” [(Gal. 1:23); (Rom. 1:5); (Acts 6:7; 24:24)], the law of faith (Rom. 3:27), and the followers of this teaching—the faithful [(Eph. 1:1); (1 Cor. 7:14); (1 Tim. 4:12–16)], and believers [(Rom. 3:22); (1 Cor. 1:21)]. And since revelation, corresponding to the three principal faculties of the human soul— the intellect, the will, and the emotions—through which revelation must be received and assimilated—there are three kinds of truths: dogmatic, moral, and promises; therefore, the Christian’s faith manifests itself in three specific forms: a) as faith in the strictest sense, through which dogmatic truths are received and assimilated; b) as love, through which moral truths are accepted and assimilated; and c) as hope, through which the promises are accepted and assimilated. That is why the Holy Apostle, defining the essence of the faith by which Christians are guided in their earthly journey, said: “And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love” (1 Cor. 13:13).[800]

2. Faith, understood in a general sense, is essentially necessary for our sanctification and salvation, according to the testimony of the Word of God. It is the first condition on the part of man:

a) For his entry into the kingdom of Christ’s grace: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16).

b) For a person to receive the Holy Spirit: “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” (Gal. 3:2). Does the One who gives you the Spirit and works miracles among you do so through the works of the law, or through faith? Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Know, then, that those who believe are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3:5–7), so that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14).

c) For the justification and cleansing of man from sins by the grace of the Holy Spirit: For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28). For there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith [(Rom. 3:30); cf. (Gal. 2:16)]. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom, by faith, we have also gained access to this grace in which we stand (Rom. 5:1–2). receiving justification as a gift, by His grace, through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement through His blood by faith (Rom. 3:24–25). God, who searches the hearts, bore witness to them (the Old Testament believers) by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9).

d) For perseverance and growth in the spiritual life and in godliness: God’s righteousness is revealed in him (the believer) from faith to faith, as it is written: “The righteous shall live by faith” [(Rom. 1:17); cf. (Gal. 3:11); (Heb. 10:38)]. We share in your joy, for you stand firm in faith (2 Cor. 1:24). They have fallen away through unbelief, but you remain firm in faith (Rom. 11:20).

e) To please God: without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Whatever is not done in faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).

f) To attain eternal salvation: “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8).

3. Likewise, the Word of God teaches that the following are specifically necessary for the sanctification and salvation of sinful human beings:

a) Faith in the strictest sense, by which we accept the dogmatic truths of Revelation, such as: the truth about the existence of God, about His unity in essence and Trinity in Persons, about Jesus Christ as our Redeemer, and others. Without faith it is impossible to please God; for whoever comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6). And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent (John 17:3). Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19); Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him [(John 3:36); cf. (John 6:29); (John 8:24); (1 Peter 1:8)]. We have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ [(Gal. 2:16); cf. (Rom. 10:9); (John 3:16)].

b) Love, through which we internalize the moral truths of Revelation—namely, love for God in general, for the Lord Jesus, and for our neighbors. If I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, but only faith working through love (Gal. 5:6). God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him [(1 John 4:16); cf. (Matt. 22:37); (Luke 7:47)]. Whoever does not love the Lord Jesus Christ is accursed; “Maranatha” [(1 Cor. 16:22); cf. (Matt. 10:37); (John 13:34)]. We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers; whoever does not love his brother remains in death (1 John 3:14).

c) The hope by which we receive the divine promises. Beloved, we are now children of God; but what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know only that when it is revealed, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure (1 John 3:2–3). We are saved in hope (Rom. 8:24). Christ is like a Son in His house; and His house is us, provided that we hold fast to the confidence and hope of which we boast until the end [(Heb. 3:6); cf. (Heb. 6:11–12)]. Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb. 10:23).

4. The Holy Fathers, the teachers of the Church, unanimously recognized both faith in general and, in particular, faith, hope, and love as essentially necessary for the sanctification and salvation of man. For example:

St. Clement of Rome: “We, who have been called by the will of God in Christ Jesus, are justified not by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, nor by our reason, nor by our piety, nor by the works of purity of heart that we perform, but by the faith through which Almighty God has justified all people from the beginning of time.”[801] “The heights to which love elevates us are beyond words. Love unites us with God; love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8); … through love, all of God’s elect have attained perfection; without love, there is nothing pleasing to God.”[802]

St. Polycarp: “By meditating on them (the epistles of St. Paul), you can be edified in the faith that has been given to you, which is a mother to all of you, accompanied by hope and guided by love for God, for Christ, and for your neighbor. Whoever abides in these has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness. For whoever has love is far from all sin.”[803]

St. Basil the Great: “This is perfect and complete praise of God, when a person does not boast of his own righteousness, but knows that he possesses no true righteousness and is justified by faith alone in Christ.”[804] “No deed can be performed properly without godly faith in Christ.”[805] “It (love) embraces and brings into effect every commandment by its power.”[806]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Confess Jesus Christ, and believe that He was raised from the dead; and you will be saved. For justification comes from faith alone, but perfect salvation comes from confessing and adding boldness to knowledge.”[807]

St. John Chrysostom: “Having stated that the world has become guilty before God, that all have sinned, and that it is impossible to be saved except through faith, the Apostle seeks to prove that being saved in this way is by no means shameful, but on the contrary, most glorious.”[808] “The Apostle proves that faith is not only not superfluous, but so necessary that without it it is impossible to be saved.”[809] “So that you may know what kind of heart a believer should have, the Apostle said; and we boast in the hope of God’s glory. He must not only be unquestionably certain of the blessings already granted to him, but also regard future blessings as if they had already been granted. For one can boast of what one already holds in one’s hands. Since, however, the hope for future blessings is just as firm and certain as the hope for the blessings already bestowed, the Apostle says that we also boast in the hope for the future.”[810]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The forgiveness of sins is granted equally to all, but the communion of the Holy Spirit is granted according to the measure of each person’s faith.”[811] “If we preserve such faith, we will be blameless before God, and we will adorn ourselves with every kind of virtue… Such faith has the power that not only the believer is saved, but others are also saved through the faith of others.”[812] “The root of every good deed is the hope of the resurrection. For the expectation of a reward strengthens the soul to do good.”[813]

The following also taught this: St. Ignatius the God-Bearer,[814] St. Irenaeus,[815] St. Ambrose,[816] St. Macarius of Egypt,[817] St. Cyril of Alexandria,[818] Blessed Theodoret,[819] Blessed Augustine,[820] and others.[821]

5. The necessity of faith for our sanctification and salvation is also evident from rational considerations. Without faith, we cannot assimilate the truths of divine Revelation; consequently, we will know neither what God has done for our salvation nor what we are obliged to do. And thus, Revelation, together with the entire economy of salvation, will remain alien to us, and we will be alien to Revelation and salvation. By believing in Christ the Savior and His revealed Word, we, so to speak, open our souls to all of God’s saving actions within us; but by not believing, we shut ourselves off from these actions and reject divine help. That is why, although faith is stirred up in us by prevenient grace and is, in its origin, a gift of God, as soon as it is born in us—with our free consent— —it becomes, on our part, the very first instrument for the effective reception into our souls of saving grace or all the divine powers “for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3); the very first condition for our regeneration, sanctification, and salvation by grace.

6. The dignity of faith and its accountability are evident from the fact that, although faith is initiated in us by God’s prevenient grace, it subsequently depends on us as well—as a free obedience to the voice of grace calling us to Christ, a free submission of our mind and all the powers of our soul to revealed truths and to all that God has established, the order of our sanctification, and the free surrender of ourselves to Christ’s guidance. “Natural birth,” says Blessed Theodoret, “does not require the cooperation of the one being born; but the birth of faith requires the consent of both the one who begets and the one who is begotten. For even if the preacher truly believes, but the listener accepts his preaching without faith, in that case there will be no correspondence with the preacher.”[822] And St. John Chrysostom says the following about the very merit of faith in the matter of our salvation: “(St. Paul the Apostle) proved that salvation through faith possesses, to a far greater extent, all that salvation through works could boast of and take comfort in. He who boasts of his works will put forward his own labors; but he who takes pride in believing in God presents a far better reason for praise, for he glorifies and exalts the Lord. By believing in God and acknowledging as true what the nature of visible things had not revealed, he thereby demonstrated sincere love for God and solemnly proclaimed His power; and this signifies the most grateful heart, a wise way of thinking, and a lofty mind. Not stealing or killing is the most ordinary of deeds, but to believe that God is powerful enough to accomplish the impossible requires a great spirit, firmly devoted to God—and this serves as a sign of true love. Although the one who keeps the commandments thereby honors God, the one who excels through faith honors Him far more. The former is submissive to God, while the latter has gained a proper understanding of God, glorifying and honoring Him more than can be achieved through deeds alone. The former praise belongs to the ascetic himself; the latter glorifies God and belongs entirely to Him… Just as deeds require strength, so does faith. In deeds, the body often shares in the labor, but faith is the work of the soul alone; and since no one shares in its feats, its labor is all the more significant… Just as faith is characteristic of a noble and great soul, so unbelief is a sign of an unwise, coarse soul that has debased itself to the senselessness of beasts of burden.”[823]

§198. In addition to faith, good deeds are also required of a person for sanctification and salvation

However, no matter how great the merit of faith—which, in the broadest sense, encompasses both hope and love—and although this faith is the very first condition for a person to partake of Christ’s merits, faith alone is still insufficient for the purpose. Through faith alone, a person can be justified and cleansed of sins in the sacrament of baptism, when he first enters the kingdom of Christ’s grace; he can then receive the gifts of grace through the other sacraments of the Church. But in order for him, upon entering the kingdom of grace, to preserve the righteousness and purity he acquired in baptism; in order for him to make use of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he will receive through the other sacraments; in order for him to be strengthened in the Christian life and gradually to grow in Christian holiness; and finally, upon completing his earthly journey, appear justified and sanctified at the Last Judgment of Christ—for this, in addition to faith, good works are also required, that is, works in which faith, hope, and love, dwelling in the Christian’s soul, are expressed outwardly as their fruits, and which serve as the faithful fulfillment of God’s will, as taught to us in the law of the Gospel.

1. The Word of God clearly proclaims:

a) That faith alone, without works, is insufficient for a person’s salvation. This was attested to by—aa) Christ the Savior Himself: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven” [(Matt. 7:21; cf. (Matt. 7:26–27)]; bb) the Apostle James: a person is justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24); cc) the Apostle John: Whoever says, “I have come to know Him,” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him (1 John 2:4); dd) the Apostle Paul: it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be justified (Rom. 2:13).

b) That a Christian is obligated to demonstrate his faith, hope, and love through good works. Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead… show me your faith by your works… just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead (James 2:17–26). Everyone who has this hope in Him (in the Lord Jesus) purifies himself, just as He is pure (1 John 3:3). Whoever has My commandments and keeps them loves Me (John 14:21). My children, let us love not in word or speech, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18).

c) That people are called into the kingdom of Christ’s grace precisely to do good works. We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand for us to walk in (Eph. 2:10). The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, teaching us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, as we wait for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us to rescue us from all lawlessness and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good works (Titus 2:11–14).

d) Finally, the Lord will reward people in the life to come not by faith alone, but by their deeds. For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds [(Matt. 16:27); cf. (Matt. 25:34–36)]. Everyone will receive from the Lord according to the good they have done (Eph. 6:8), and (God) will repay each person according to their deeds (Rom. 2:6). We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive what is due for what he has done while living in the body, whether good or evil [(2 Cor. 5:10); cited (2 Cor. 9:6)]. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God [(1 Cor. 6:9); cf. (Gal. 5:19–20); (Heb. 12:14)].

2. In the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, the same truth is set forth with no less clarity. Let us point to the words of

St. Clement of Rome: “So,” he asks, having said that we are justified by faith, “what should we do, brothers? Should we neglect virtue and love? By no means; may the Lord forbid that we should do so; on the contrary, with all our strength and readiness, let us hasten to perform every good deed… A good worker boldly receives his wages for his labor; but the negligent and careless one does not even dare to look at the one who hired him. And we must be zealous in virtue, for everything comes from Him. Thus the Prophet tells us: Behold, the Lord God comes with power, and His arm with might. Behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense stands before Him (Isa. 40:10). With this He urges us to turn to Him with all our hearts and not to be careless or negligent in any good deed.”[824] And in another epistle: “He Himself says: ‘Everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess before My Father in heaven’ (Matt. 10:32). Behold, this is our reward for confessing Him through whom we are saved. But how do we confess Him? By keeping His commandments and not disobeying them, honoring Him not only with our lips but with all our heart and all our mind… We must not be content merely to call Him Lord: this will not save us, for He Himself says: ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord! Lord!” will be saved, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven (Matt. 7:21). Therefore, brothers, let us confess Him through our deeds, by preserving mutual love—not through adultery, not through slander against one another, not through envy—but through self-control, mercy, and kindness of heart; we must be compassionate toward one another, not lovers of money. It is by these very deeds that we must confess God, and not by deeds contrary to them.”[825]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The essence of godliness consists in these two elements: a precise knowledge of the dogmas of piety and good deeds; dogmas without good deeds are not pleasing to God, nor does He accept deeds if they are not based on the dogmas of piety. For what good is it to know the doctrine of God well, yet to commit shameful acts of immorality? On the other hand, what good is it to be properly abstinent, yet to blaspheme God wickedly?”[826]

St. Basil the Great: “We have often observed that a person’s deeds and the fruits of the soul are called ‘children.’ For it is said: ‘She will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness with modesty’ (1 Tim. 2:15). For the soul, too, will be saved, like the wife of a bridegroom who has not been deceived, when, with the help of the Word, she bears fruit—good deeds—provided she remains in good habit and is not tarnished by any subsequent sins.”[827]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Just as a deed without faith is not acceptable—because many do good for the sake of glory and out of natural inclination—so too is faith without deeds dead (James 2:26)… Therefore, show your faith through your deeds; show the fruitfulness of your land: have I sown in vain?”[828]

St. John Chrysostom: “I implore you, let us make every effort to remain steadfast in the true faith and to lead a virtuous life. For if we do not combine faith with a worthy life, we will be subjected to the most severe punishment… And Christ Himself confirmed this in the Gospel when He said that some people who cast out demons and prophesied will be condemned to execution. Indeed, all His parables—such as the parable of the virgins, the net, the tares, and the barren tree—require that we be virtuous in our actions. The Lord rarely speaks of dogmas (for it is not difficult to believe in them), but He speaks very often—or rather, always—about a virtuous life: for in this arena there is constant strife, and therefore toil. And what am I to say about the complete neglect of virtue? Even negligence regarding the smallest part of it exposes one to great calamities. Thus, neglecting to give alms casts the negligent one into Gehenna… I will say even more: not only does the neglect of any single virtue bar us from heaven; but even if we fulfill it, yet not with due care and zeal, this produces the same consequences.”[829] “Neither baptism, nor the forgiveness of sins, nor a title, nor participation in the sacraments, nor the Holy Supper, nor partaking of the Body (of the Lord), nor partaking of the Blood, nor anything else of this sort can be of any benefit to us if we do not lead a righteous, wonderful life, pure from every sin.”[830] “Faith without works is, so to speak, a lifeless specter.”[831]

Blessed Theodoret: “Faith alone is not sufficient for salvation; works are also necessary for perfection.”[832] “We need not merely faith, but good works.”[833] “The essence and true foundation of good works is the knowledge of God and faith in Him: for just as the eye is to the body, so is faith in God and knowledge of Him to the soul. But faith, too, needs active virtue, just as the eye needs the hands, feet, and other members of the body.”[834]

It would be superfluous to cite the testimonies of many other teachers of the Church who unanimously repeat the same truth, such as: St. Ignatius the God-bearer, St. Barnabas, St. Irenaeus, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa,[835] St. Isidore of Pelusium,[836] St. Ambrose, Blessed Jerome, Blessed Augustine, and St. John of Damascus.[837]

3. Those who hold erroneous views unjustly cite certain passages of Scripture that seem to say the opposite, for example: Having learned that a person is justified not by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ alone, we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh will be justified (Gal. 2:16). We acknowledge that a person is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28). To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom. 4:5). For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). It is important to remember that St. Paul, in his teaching on justification:

a) Refers to those who thought they could be justified before God by works of the law, without faith in Christ the Savior—that is, the Gentiles who boasted of their good deeds performed in accordance with the natural law, and especially the Jews who relied on their good deeds in accordance with the Law of Moses. And, consequently, by asserting the opposite—that a sinful person, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified only by faith in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world, and is justified by God’s free gift of grace, not by his own works or merits— the Holy Apostle refers specifically to the works performed by a person while still a pagan or a Jew, without faith in Christ the Savior and prior to conversion to that faith—and by no means to those works performed by a person after conversion to Christianity, which are based on faith, sanctified by faith, and are, as it were, its natural fruits and manifestations.

b) In particular, when speaking against the Jews, he refers not to the works of the moral law, but primarily to those of the ceremonial law, in the observance of which pagans could not participate, and by virtue of which the Jews claimed the right to justification for themselves alone, excluding the pagans. Thus, after saying against the Jews, “We acknowledge that a person is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law,” the Apostle immediately continues: “Is God the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles?” Of course, He is also the God of the Gentiles, for there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (Rom. 3:28–30).

c) By the term “justification,” he means the justification that every sinner—both Gentile and Jew—receives upon conversion to Christianity through the sacrament of baptism, which is truly granted to us only through faith in Christ, not yet manifested in the works of the law; but not that justification which every Christian desires to receive, after having completed his earthly course, before the face of the heavenly Judge, who, according to the testimony of the same Apostle, will render to each one according to his deeds (Rom. 2:6).

d) By the term “faith that justifies apart from the works of the law” performed by a person in paganism or Judaism, he means not a cold assent of the intellect, but a living faith accompanied by love. In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any power, but only faith working through love (Gal. 5:6).

e) Finally, let us say in general that St. Paul does not reject good deeds that follow from faith in Christ and spring from it; on the contrary, he considers them essential for Christians—as evidenced by all his epistles, in which he so often urges believers to practice godliness (1 Tim. 4:7), to be rich in good deeds (1 Tim. 6:18), and to be rich in every good work [(2 Cor. 9:8); (Col. 1:10); cf. (Gal. 6:10); (2 Thess. 2:17); (Titus 3:1); (Heb. 13:21)], adding: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done while living in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10).

4. We cannot perform good deeds except through the assistance of divine grace, which is why they are called the fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). But since the performance of good deeds requires the participation of our free will; since through this free participation in good deeds we express our faith, love, and hope in God; since this participation often requires great efforts and toil on our part [(Luke 13:24); (2 Cor. 6:4–6); (2 Tim. 3:12)] in the struggle against the enemies of our salvation—the world, the flesh, and the devil—the Lord God is pleased to count our good deeds as merit. And, first, as we grow in piety with the help of grace, He deems it good to multiply spiritual gifts within us (Matt. 25:21–29),[838] so that with their help we may advance from strength to strength, from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18). And secondly, He promised the righteous: “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great” (Matt. 5:12). “Each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8).

§199. The Moral Application of the Doctrine

1. Grace is absolutely necessary for our salvation, so that, without its help, we can neither turn to God, nor believe in Christ the Savior, nor perform truly good, spiritual deeds: let us therefore learn, in the awareness of our own weakness and powerlessness, to humble ourselves before God and people; let us learn to humbly pray to the Lord to grant us this saving power, to humbly preserve it within ourselves, and to humbly make use of it, remembering the words of the Apostle: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (1 Peter 5:5).

2. Grace is given to us as a gift, because of the merits of our Redeemer: therefore, let thanksgiving to God, our Benefactor, always be in our hearts, on our lips, and throughout our entire lives, for His ineffable gift (2 Cor. 9:15)! Thanks be to God the Father, who gives us His all-holy Spirit (Luke 11:13); thanks be to the Lord Jesus, who has obtained for us through His blood such great and priceless gifts; thanks be to the Holy Spirit, who pours Himself out abundantly into our hearts and bears fruit in us for eternal life!

3. Grace extends to all people, not only to those predestined for eternal glory, nor only to the righteous. Therefore, no matter how deeply we have fallen, no matter how grave and numerous our sins may be, let us never despair of our salvation; on the contrary, let us hasten to turn to our heavenly Father, who is patient with us, not wishing that anyone should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9); let us cry out for gracious help to the Lord Jesus, who came into the world not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13), and let us not cease to pray from the depths of our souls to the Holy Spirit: “O Treasure of all that is good and Giver of life, come and dwell within us, and cleanse us from every defilement, and save, O Blessed One, our souls.”

4. Grace, however powerful and effective it may be, does not restrict our freedom, does not irresistibly draw us toward the good, but only calls us to repentance and conversion to God, inspires us to a godly life, assists us in every good work, sanctifies and saves us when we do not resist it, obey it, and actively participate in what it accomplishes in us and through us. Let us therefore learn to heed the voice of grace, to follow its promptings, to make use of the powers it imparts to us, to do the good to which it inspires us, in the performance of which it helps us, and which it even brings about in us.

5. The sanctification of a person by grace consists in the fact that it truly cleanses the sinner from sins and makes him completely pure and innocent, just as our first father Adam was when he came forth from the hands of the Creator: What a great duty and motivation, then, for all the sanctified—that is, for all Christians—to guard themselves against every defilement of the flesh and spirit, and to preserve the innocence granted to them amid all temptations!

6. For the sanctification and, subsequently, the salvation of a person by God’s grace, two essential conditions are required on the part of the person himself: faith and good works. Let us approach the throne of grace with a sincere heart and with full faith; let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering; and let us be attentive to one another, encouraging one another to love and good deeds (Heb. 10:22–24), firmly remembering that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6), and that faith without works is dead (James 2:26).

Article III.
On the sacraments of the Church as the means through which God’s grace is communicated to us

§200. The Orthodox Church’s Teaching on the Sacraments, a Brief Overview of False Views on the Dogma, and the Composition of a Member

I. The main features of the Orthodox teaching on the sacraments are as follows:

1) “A sacrament is a sacred act which, under a visible form, imparts to the soul of the believer the invisible grace of God, having been instituted by our Lord, through whom every believer receives divine grace” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 99).[839] Consequently, the Church holds that the essence of the sacraments lies in the fact that they are sacred rites that truly impart God’s grace to the believer, and that they “are not merely signs of God’s promises, but are instruments that necessarily act through grace upon those who partake of them” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15). And it considers the essential elements of each sacrament to be: a) the divine institution of the sacrament, b) some visible or sensible form, and c) the impartation of invisible grace to the believer’s soul through the sacrament.

2) “There are seven sacraments: Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Communion, Penance, Holy Orders, Marriage, and Anointing of the Sick. In Baptism, a person is mysteriously born into spiritual life; in Chrismation, he receives grace that spiritually nurtures and strengthens him; in Holy Communion, he is spiritually nourished; in Penance, he is healed of spiritual illnesses, that is, of sins; in Holy Orders, he receives the grace to spiritually regenerate and nurture others through teaching and the sacraments; in Matrimony, he receives the grace that sanctifies marriage and the natural birth and upbringing of children; in the Anointing of the Sick, he is healed of bodily illnesses as well, through healing from spiritual ones” (Extended Christian Catechism, Art. 10). “We have neither more nor fewer of these sacraments in the Church” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15).

3) “Three things (πράγματα) are required for the celebration of a sacrament: the appropriate matter, such as water for Baptism, bread and wine for the Eucharist, oil, and other elements appropriate to the sacrament; second, a priest who has been lawfully ordained, or a bishop; and third, the invocation of the Holy Spirit and the prescribed form of words, through which the priest sanctifies the sacrament by the power of the Holy Spirit, expressing the intention to sanctify it” (Orthodox Confession, Part I, Answer to Question 100). “But we reject, as foreign to Christian doctrine, the view that the perfection of the sacrament takes place during the actual use (e.g., eating, etc.) of the earthly object (i.e., that which is consecrated in the sacrament): as if, outside of use, the object consecrated in the sacrament remains a mere object even after consecration… In the same way, we consider the teaching that the integrity and perfection of the sacrament are violated by an imperfection of faith to be utterly false and impure” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15).

I. In contrast to this teaching of the Orthodox Church, some of those who hold erroneous views—both in ancient times and especially in modern times—have falsely taught and continue to teach:

1) On the nature of the sacraments. According to Luther, they are merely signs of divine promises intended to stir up faith in Christ, who forgives sins.[840] According to Calvin and Zwingli, they are signs of divine grace, by which the elect are confirmed in the faith they have received and in the divine promises, or, even more so, the entire Church is confirmed in its faith rather than the individual himself.[841] Socinians and Arminians view the sacraments as merely external rites that distinguish Christians from people of other faiths.[842] Anabaptists regard the sacraments as allegorical signs of spiritual life.[843] Swedenborgians view them as symbols of the mutual union between God and man.[844] Quakers and our Dukhobors, while completely rejecting the visible aspect of the sacraments, recognize them solely as internal, spiritual actions of heavenly light.[845] All these and other similar conceptions of the sacraments held by various Protestant sects, despite their differences, are similar in that they equally reject the true conception of the sacraments as external sacred rites that truly impart God’s grace to the faithful and, through it, regenerate, renew, and sanctify man.

2) On the number of sacraments. As if not content with merely distorting the true concept of the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, Protestantism has extended its sacrilegious hand to reduce the number of sacraments; and although at first the Protestants showed considerable disagreement on this matter,[846] they finally agreed to recognize as sacraments—each sect, of course, in its own sense—only two: Baptism and the Eucharist.[847] Among our schismatics, the so-called “priestless” do not deny that seven sacraments have been established, but they are content with only two, saying, “Two are sufficient for our needs—Baptism and Penance; we can do without the others.”[848]

3) On the conditions for the celebration and validity of the sacraments. According to Luther’s teaching, a lawfully ordained priest or bishop is not at all required for the administration of a sacrament; sacraments may be administered by any cleric or layperson, man or woman, and retain their meaning and power no matter how they are administered—even without any intention (intentione) to administer them, or even with mockery or in a mimetic manner.[849] A full half of our schismatics, who make up the “priestless” faction, also allow ordinary laypeople to administer the sacraments; while the other half, known as the “priest-followers,” permit this not to just any priests, but to priests who are either excommunicated or even defrocked, and in any case have fled the Orthodox Church and renounced it to join a schismatic sect.[850] On the other hand, the ancient Donatists, and later in the 12th century the Waldensians and Albigensians, and from the 14th century onward, the followers of Wycliffe, went to the opposite extreme, asserting that for the valid celebration and efficacy of the sacraments, not only a lawfully ordained minister is required, but specifically a pious minister, and that sacraments celebrated by corrupt ministers of the altar have no validity whatsoever.[851] Finally, the Reformers and Lutherans devised the doctrine that the validity and efficacy of the sacraments depend not on the worthiness and inner disposition of the minister administering the sacraments, but on the disposition and faith of those receiving them, so that a sacrament is a sacrament and possesses its power only at the very moment of its reception and use with faith, but outside of that reception—or in the case of receiving it without faith—it is not a sacrament and remains fruitless.[852]

I. In order to see, as clearly and completely as possible, the full validity of the Orthodox teaching on the sacraments and the invalidity of the false opinions listed here, we will first examine the teaching on each sacrament separately, drawing attention, where necessary, to specific errors concerning one sacrament or another that are not listed here; and then, on the basis of these particulars, we will make general observations about the sacraments to refute the general errors concerning them that are indicated here.

1. On the Sacrament of Baptism

§201. The Place of the Sacrament of Baptism Among the Other Sacraments, the Concept of Baptism, and Its Various Names

1. Baptism occupies the first place among the seven sacraments of the Orthodox Church: for it serves as, so to speak, the gateway to the Church itself, according to the words of the Savior: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5), — and, consequently, serves as the gateway to all the other sacraments, which are preserved and lawfully administered only within the Church. Therefore, this sacrament has always been taught to people and is still taught before all others; and whoever has not yet been deemed worthy of baptism has never been able to, nor can they ever become, a participant in any other of the Church’s sacraments.[853]

2. The term “Baptism” refers to the sacrament in which a sinful person, born with the corruption inherited from the first parents, is born anew of water and the Spirit (John 3:5); or, more specifically, a sacrament in which a sinner, having been instructed in the faith of Christ, is cleansed by God’s grace from every sin and made a new person, justified and sanctified, through threefold immersion in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Canon of the Confession Part 1, Answer to Question 102). Thus, God’s grace, which until now had only called the sinner to faith in Christ and stirred up faith within us, is here for the first time mysteriously poured out upon the very being of the person, completely cleansing, sanctifying, and recreating him.

3. Accordingly, the sacrament of Baptism has been called by various names since ancient times. Thus—a) in terms of its visible aspect, it was called: a bath or font,[854] a sacred spring,[855] sometimes simply “water”;[856] b) in terms of its invisible actions and significance: — enlightenment,[857] a gift of grace,[858] rebirth,[859] sanctification,[860] the seal in Christ,[861] the seal of Christianity,[862] the seal of faith;[863] c) by both together: — the mystical baptismal font,[864] the saving baptismal font,[865] the baptismal font of repentance and knowledge,[866] the baptismal font or bath of purification (Titus 3:5) and rebirth,[867] the baptismal font of life,[868] the water of eternal life,[869] the divine spring,[870] the mystery of water,[871] the mystery of new birth,[872] and so on.

§202. The Divine Institution of the Sacrament of Baptism

The divine institution of the sacrament of Baptism is beyond doubt. To confirm this truth, we will not point to John’s baptism, even though it too came from heaven (Mark 11:30): for John’s baptism served only as a foreshadowing of Christ’s baptism [(Matt. 3:11); (Mark 1:8); (Luke 3:16)], but merely prepared—and only the Jews—to receive the Messiah and His kingdom [(Matt. 3:1–2); (Luke 1:16; 3:3)]; it was merely a baptism of repentance [(Mark 1:4); (Acts 19:4)], and did not bring about rebirth through the grace of the Holy Spirit, so that those baptized by John’s baptism had to be baptized again later with the baptism of Christ (Acts 19:2–6).[873] We will not dwell on the baptism of Christ the Savior Himself by John, although the Lord here, as St. Chrysostom says, “having fulfilled the Jewish baptism, opened the doors to the baptism of the New Testament Church,”[874] although by His descent into the waters of the Jordan He sanctified the nature of the waters so that they might sanctify all of humanity,[875] and although we already see here that the Holy Spirit descended upon the baptized Jesus, just as His regenerating grace descends upon every believer in the Christian sacrament.[876] Finally, we will not dwell on the baptism that the disciples of the Lord Jesus performed even during the days of His earthly life; because, as St. Chrysostom observes, it was in no way different from John’s baptism,[877] was performed at the same time as John’s baptism, not in place of it (John 4:1–2), and was intended for the Jews alone (John 3:22–23); and consequently, like John’s baptism, it merely prepared them through repentance to receive the Messiah who had appeared and to enter His kingdom of grace (Matt. 10:7). All of these were merely foreshadowings of the Christian sacrament of Baptism, its prototypes and, as it were, its precursors.

In fact, the Lord established the sacrament of Baptism after His Resurrection, when, having redeemed us with His priceless blood and thereby earned the right to bestow the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon believers [(John 7:39); (2 Pet. 1:3); (1 Cor. 1:4)], He solemnly said to His disciples: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:18–20); Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned [(Mark 16:16); cited in Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article XV)]. Here, Baptism is already presented as a sacrament for all people, not just for the Jews; as established forever until the end of the age, not merely for a time; and as a necessary condition for eternal salvation, not merely as a preparation for the Messianic Kingdom of Grace. From that time on, as soon as the holy apostles themselves were clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49), they began to constantly administer the sacrament of Baptism and to purify and regenerate believers through it by the grace of the Holy Spirit: “Repent,” said St. Peter the Apostle on that very day to the Jews who were listening to his sermon, “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). And indeed, at that very time, about three thousand were baptized and joined the Church of Christ (Acts 2:41). Soon after, St. Philip baptized the eunuch (Acts 8:38), St. Peter baptized Cornelius the centurion along with his household and others (Acts 10:47–48), St. Paul baptized Lydia (Acts 16:15), the jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), Crispus with his entire household and many of the Corinthians (Acts 18:8), certain disciples in Ephesus who had previously been baptized with the baptism of John (Acts 19:1–5), and so on. The Holy Church received the sacrament of Baptism from the holy apostles, and from that time onward has consistently administered this sacrament to anyone who desires to become a child of the Church and attain eternal salvation within it.

This is how the ancient teachers and the Holy Fathers of the Church viewed the institution of the Christian sacrament of Baptism and the relationship between it and John’s baptism. For example:

Tertullian: “In the Acts of the Apostles we find that those baptized by John did not receive the Holy Spirit, nor had they even heard of Him (Acts 19)… This was a baptism of repentance, as it were a preliminary (quasi candidatus) to the remission and sanctification in Christ that was to follow. For if John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, it was, of course, the future forgiveness—since repentance precedes and forgiveness follows—and this is what it meant to prepare the way… Jesus’ disciples baptized as ministers, just as John the Forerunner had done, and with the same baptism of John, not another. For there is no other “ ” except that which was later established by Christ, which could not have been taught by the disciples at that time: because the glory of the Lord had not yet been fulfilled, and the power of the baptismal font (efficatia lavacri) had not yet been established through His passion and resurrection… Before the Lord’s passion and resurrection, there was only (nuda) faith for salvation. But when this faith was augmented by faith in His birth, passion, and resurrection, then the fullness of the sacrament was bestowed—the seal of Baptism, as it were, the garment of faith, which had previously been naked and lacked power without its law. And now the law of baptism (immersion) has been given, and the form has been prescribed: “Go,” said the Lord, “and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). The stipulation made regarding this law—“Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5)—made Baptism a necessity for faith. Since then, all believers have been baptized.”[878]

St. Basil the Great: “John preached the baptism of repentance; and all of Judea went out to him. The Lord preaches the baptism of adoption as sons; and who among those who have placed their hope in Him will not obey? That baptism is preparatory, while this one is consummating; that is a turning away from sin, while this is an incorporation into God.”[879]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Moses baptized, but in water; and before that, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2); and this had a typological meaning, as Paul also understands. The sea foreshadowed water, the cloud—the Spirit, manna—the bread of life, and the drink—the divine drink. John also baptized, though no longer in the Jewish manner, for he baptized not only with water but also for repentance (Matt. 3:11); yet not entirely spiritually, for he did not add: ‘and with the Spirit.’ Jesus also baptizes, but with the Spirit: in this lies perfection.”[880]

St. John Chrysostom: “Why, you may ask, did the Lord not baptize Himself? John had already said: ‘He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire’ (Matt. 3:11). But He had not yet given the Spirit—that is why He did not baptize. Only the disciples baptized, desiring to draw many to the saving teaching… If anyone asks, what was greater about the baptism performed by Christ’s disciples than that of John? We will say: nothing. For both baptisms were equal without the grace of the Spirit, and the reason for baptizing was the same in both cases—to bring those being baptized to Christ.”[881] “What happened with the Passover is also happening with baptism. For just as Jesus Christ, having performed both Passovers, abolished one and established the other—so here, having fulfilled the Jewish baptism, He opened the doors to the baptism of the New Testament Church. Just as it was at that one supper, so it is here in that one river—He cast a shadow and revealed the truth. For only this baptism possesses the grace of the Holy Spirit; John’s baptism, however, did not have this gift. That is why nothing of the sort happened at the baptism of other people; this occurred only with the One who was to bestow this gift, so that you might know, in addition to what has been said above, that it was not the purity of the one being baptized, but the power of the One who baptized who brought this about. Then the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended.”[882]

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Just as the Law of Moses served as a kind of preparation for future blessings and spiritual worship, containing within itself a hidden truth, so too does the baptism of John, in relation to the baptism of Christ, contain a preparatory power.”[883]

The same teaching is expounded by: St. Cyril of Jerusalem,[884] ; St. Athanasius,[885] ; Blessed Augustine,[886] ; Blessed Jerome,[887] ; St. John of Damascus; and others.[888]

§203. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Baptism

The visible aspect of the Sacrament of Baptism itself (which is described in full detail in the liturgical order of this sacrament) consists of the threefold immersion of the person being baptized into water, accompanied by the words: “The servant of God is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Extensive Christian Catechism on Baptism). Here, in particular, the following are distinguished: a) the substance of the sacrament—water; b) the action performed during the celebration of the sacrament—the threefold immersion of the person being baptized in water; and c) the words spoken during this action.

1) The element for the sacrament of Baptism must be water—pure and natural (Rules of Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 103). For the Savior Himself designated this element for Baptism with the words: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The Holy Apostles performed baptism in water: as they were traveling along the road, the Book of Acts testifies concerning St. Philip and the eunuch, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Here is water; what prevents me from being baptized?” … And he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him (Acts 8:36–38). Likewise, when the Holy Spirit suddenly came upon the Gentiles who were listening to St. Peter’s message, he said: “Who can forbid these people from being baptized with water, since they have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47–48). The Holy Church has always performed baptism in water, as is evident from the countless testimonies of her pastors and teachers, for example: a) St. Justin: “Whoever is convinced and believes that our teaching and words are true, and whoever promises to live in this way, is instructed to ask God, through prayer and fasting, for the forgiveness of past sins, and we pray and fast with them; then we lead them to a place where there is water, and there they are reborn in the same way that we ourselves were reborn, that is, they are washed with water in the name of the Father of all and Lord God, and our Savior Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit;”[889] b) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Since man consists of two parts, the soul and the body; therefore purification is twofold: incorporeal for the incorporeal, and corporeal for the body: water, that is, purifies the body, while the Spirit seals the soul, so that we may approach God with a heart sprinkled and a body washed with pure water;”[890] c) St. Gregory the Theologian: “Since we consist of two natures—that is, of soul and body, of the visible and the invisible—therefore purification is twofold, namely, by water and by the Spirit; and one is received visibly and bodily, while the other, at the same time, is accomplished incorporeally and invisibly; one is symbolic, while the other is true and purifies the very depths;”[891] d) St. Basil the Great: “Since baptism has two purposes: to destroy the sinful body so that it no longer bears the fruits of death, and to be revived by the Spirit and bear fruit in holiness; water thus symbolizes death, receiving the body as it were into a coffin, while the Spirit imparts life-giving power, renewing our souls from sinful death to their original life;”[892] e) Blessed Augustine: “What is the baptism of Christ? A font of water with the utterance of words (in verbo); take away the water—there is no baptism; take away the words—there is no baptism;”[893] e) St. John of Damascus: “He (the Lord) commanded us to be reborn by water and the Spirit through the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the water, by prayer and invocation. For just as a person consists of two parts, soul and body, so the Lord has given us a twofold purification, that is, by water and by the Spirit. By the Spirit, to renew in us the image and likeness (of God); by water, to cleanse the body from sin through the grace of the Spirit and to deliver it from corruption. And water here represents the image of death, while the Spirit provides the pledge of life.”[894] Therefore, those who have rejected any material element in the sacrament of Baptism are utterly unjust,[895] as are those who, following Luther, recognize not only water but any liquid as a suitable material for baptism.[896]

2) Baptism must be performed by immersing the person being baptized three times in water. Three times: according to the rule of the holy apostles [897] and the teaching of the early Church Fathers—in the name of the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity,[898] as well as in remembrance of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ,[899] —and the Church did not recognize as valid the baptism of the Eunomians and other heretics who baptized by a single immersion.[900] — By immersion: because — a) Christ Himself was baptized by John through immersion [(Matt. 3:16); cf. (Mark 1:5); (John 3:23)]; b) the Holy Apostles baptized by immersion (Acts 8:37–38); c) baptism is presented in Scripture as an exact likeness of the universal flood, the antitype of which, according to St. Peter, now saves us through baptism (1 Pet. 3:19–21); a bath of water in which the Lord cleanses us [(Eph. 5:26); (Titus 3:5)], and as it were a coffin, in which we are buried with Christ in His death [(Rom. 6:4); cf. Col. 2:12)]: all such designations, to which this sacrament will correspond only when it is performed by immersion. Finally—d)—by immersion, as even those of differing opinions acknowledge ([901] ), this sacrament was administered in the early Church, as is undoubtedly attested by St. Dionysius the Areopagite ([902] ), Tertullian ([903] ), St. Basil the Great ([904] ), St. Gregory of Nyssa, and others.[905]

As for sprinkling and pouring, which is how baptism is usually performed today in the Western Church: in ancient times, this form of administering the sacrament was permitted only as an exception to the rule, in extreme cases, primarily for the gravely ill who were bedridden (the so-called “clinics,” from the Greek κλίνη, meaning “bed”), who could not be baptized by immersion.[906] And—remarkably—even in the third century, this form of baptism was still subject to controversy on the part of some, so much so that St. Cyprian, to dispel doubts, specifically wrote that the sacrament of Baptism does not lose its validity when administered in this manner.[907] For this reason, the Orthodox Church to this day, although also permits pouring or sprinkling during the administration of baptism, as these do not nullify the power of the sacrament,[908] permits them only in extreme cases—as an exception to the general rule.

3) Baptism must be performed in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, with the words: “The servant of God … is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” For it was the Lord and Savior Himself who commanded that all nations be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). And because of this clear and definite command, the Holy Church has always performed baptism in this manner—and no other—from its very beginning. This is attested to by: a) the Apostolic Canons: “If anyone, whether bishop or presbyter, baptizes not according to the Lord’s institution, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let him be excommunicated” (Canon 49); b) St. Justin the Martyr and Tertullian, whose words we have already cited above;[909] c) Origen: “Salvific baptism must be performed in no other way than in the name (auctoritate) of the entire Most High Trinity, that is, by invoking (cognominatione) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit;”[910] d) St. Cyprian: “Christ Himself commanded that we be baptized in the name of the entire Trinity together;”[911] e) St. Athanasius: “Whoever separates anything from the Trinity, and is baptized in the single name of the Father, or in the single name of the Son, or in the Father and the Son without the Spirit—that person receives nothing…, for perfection (τελείωσις) is found in the Trinity;”[912] f) St. Basil the Great: “Faith and baptism are two means of salvation, kindred and inseparable. For faith is perfected through baptism, and baptism is founded upon faith, and both are accomplished by the same names. Just as we believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, so we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And just as confession, which leads to salvation, precedes baptism, so baptism follows, sealing our assent to that confession.”[913] St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria,[914] Blessed Jerome,[915] Blessed Augustine,[916] and others also bear witness to this.

As for those passages of Holy Scripture that mention baptism into Christ (1 Cor. 1:2–13) or in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5), it should be noted that, according to the interpretation of the Church Fathers, these passages do not at all indicate that baptism was ever performed or should be performed other than in the name of the Holy Trinity. For:

a) The expression “to be baptized into Christ” means only to be baptized according to the baptism established by Jesus Christ—not the baptism of John or any other, but the Christian baptism, in the name of the Holy Trinity. “To be baptized into Jesus Christ,” says St. Eulogius of Alexandria himself, “means to be baptized according to the commandment and tradition of Jesus Christ, that is, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”[917] Indeed, the Book of Acts notes that some who had previously been baptized under John’s baptism and had not received the gifts of the Holy Spirit were later baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus in order to be made worthy of these gifts (Acts 19:4–5)—which, obviously, can be understood to mean that they were baptized with the Christian baptism.

b) The expression “to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” not only does not contradict this; on the contrary, it implies the name of both the Father and the Holy Spirit, which, in all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, with regard to Their essence and Divinity, is one and indivisible. “Let no one,” writes St. Basil the Great, “be misled by the Apostle’s frequent omission of the names of the Father and the Holy Spirit when he speaks of Baptism, and no one should conclude from this that it is unnecessary to invoke these names. It is said: ‘All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ’ (Gal. 3:27); and again: ‘All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death’ (Rom. 6:3). This is because the name of Christ is the confession of the whole; it points to God the Anointer, to the Anointed Son, and to the Anointing—the Spirit—as Peter teaches us in Acts : “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38).[918] Or, as another ancient teacher of the Church explains: “By preserving the truth of the Christian faith and knowing that the Trinity has but one name, he (St. Peter the Apostle) acted rightly both when he said that there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we ought to be saved (Acts 4:12), and when, teaching baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, he baptized in the one name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For in the Trinity, where there is complete unity by nature, there is no natural distinction in the name.”[919] The words of St. John of Damascus are also remarkable: “Although the Divine Apostle says that we are baptized into Christ and into His death (Rom. 6:5), he does not mean that this is how the invocation at Baptism should be; rather, he wishes to show that Baptism is a symbol of Christ’s death. For in Baptism, the threefold immersion signifies the Lord’s three-day stay in the tomb. And to be baptized into Christ means to be baptized while believing in Him; but it is impossible to believe in Christ without first learning to confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For Christ is the Son of the living God, anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit… As for what the words of the invocation should be, the Lord Himself taught His disciples, saying: “baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).”[920]

In administering Baptism—in accordance with the Savior’s clear command—in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Church has always condemned those who deviated from this divinely ordained rite, such as: a) nameless heretics who baptized in the name of the three Fathers, or the three Sons, or the three Comforter;[921] b) many Gnostics and Eunomians, who baptized into the death of Christ;[922] c) the Marcosians, who baptized in the name of the unknown Father of all things—the Truth, the Mother of all that exists—Christ, who descended upon Jesus to unite with Him and perform miracles and redemption together with Him;[923] d) the Eunomians, who baptized in the name of the Creator, or in the name of God—the uncreated One—and the Son—the created One—and the Spirit—the Sanctifier, created through the Son [924] and so on.

§204. The Invisible Acts of the Sacrament of Baptism and Its Irrepetibility

I. But at the very moment when the catechumen, having been instructed in the faith, is visibly immersed in the waters of Baptism, with the words: “The servant of God is baptized … in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”—the grace of God invisibly acts upon the entire being of the person being baptized, and:

1) It regenerates him, or recreates him, as Christ the Savior Himself testified in His conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus replied to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:4–6). This is why St. Paul calls baptism the bath of rebirth—παλιγγενεσία (Titus 3:5).

2) It cleanses from every sin, justifies, and sanctifies. This is evident—a) from the Savior’s conversation with Nicodemus, where it is clearly stated that, just as before Baptism we are flesh, having been born of the flesh—that is, we inherit from our very parents a sinful impurity that prevents us from entering the Kingdom of God— just as, in the sacrament of Baptism, having been born of the Spirit, we become spiritual, and thus cleansed of original sin, or carnal impurity—as a result of which we enter the Kingdom of God. This is evident—b) from the words of St. Peter the Apostle: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38); and “baptism saves us—not as a removal of bodily impurity, but as a pledge to God of a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21); c) finally, from the testimony of St. Paul the Apostle: Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word; so that He might present her to Himself as a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and blameless (Eph. 5:25–27), — where the “bath of water” in the verb, that is, the speaking of certain words, refers specifically to the sacrament of Baptism,[925] — and from another testimony: “And such (sinners) were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11). Thus, Baptism destroys all sins: original sin in infants, and both original and voluntary sins in adults—and restores to a person the righteousness that he possessed in a state of innocence and sinlessness (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 103; cited in Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 16).

3) It makes one a child of God and a member of the Body of Christ—the Church. For, as the Holy Apostle says to the Christians, “You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus; all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ… you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26–28). And in another passage: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” [(1 Cor. 12:13); cf. (Acts 2:41); (Rom. 6:3–5)].

4) He saves us from eternal punishment for our sins and makes us heirs of eternal life. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). He saved us not because of righteous deeds that we might have done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration (i.e., baptism) and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs of eternal life through hope [(Titus 3:5–7); cf. (1 Peter 3:21)].

All these acts of grace in the sacrament of Baptism are inseparable from one another. By regenerating a person, it thereby cleanses him of every sin, justifies him, and sanctifies him. By cleansing him of sins, it thereby saves him from eternal punishment for his sins. And by justifying him before God and sanctifying him, it thereby makes him a child of God, a member of the Body of Christ, and an heir to eternal life.

In the same way, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously taught about the invisible effects of the sacrament of Baptism:

St. Barnabas: “Baptism is administered for the remission of sins. We enter the water burdened by sins and impurity, and we emerge from the water bearing in our hearts fear and hope.”[926]

St. Justin: “We must strive to ensure that you come to know the way by which you can attain the forgiveness of sins and receive the hope of inheriting the promised blessings. There is no other way to this except that, having come to know Christ and been washed by baptism for the remission of sins, you then begin to live sinlessly.”[927]

Clement of Alexandria: “As we are immersed (in water), we are enlightened; as we are enlightened, we are adopted as children of God; as we are adopted, we become perfect and thereby immortal: ‘I said, “You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High”’ (Ps. 81:6). Likewise, this act is called: grace, enlightenment, and baptism—baptism, through which we are washed clean of sins; grace, by which the punishments for our sins are forgiven; enlightenment, by which we gaze upon the holy and saving light, that is, clearly contemplate the Divine…”[928]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Baptism is a great thing. It is the redemption of captives, the remission of sins, the death of sin, the rebirth of the soul, a radiant garment, a holy and unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, heavenly consolation, intercession for the kingdom, and the gift of adoption.”[929]

St. Basil the Great: “Baptism is the redemption of captives, the forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, the rebirth of the soul, a radiant garment, an inviolable seal, a chariot to heaven, the preparation for the kingdom, and the gift of sonship.”[930]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “The grace and power of Baptism do not flood the world, as in ancient times, but purify sin in every person and completely wash away every impurity and defilement brought about by original sin… By aiding the first birth (Baptism by the Spirit), it makes us new from what is old, transforms us from what we are now—fleshly beings—into godlike beings, purifying us without fire and rebuilding us without destruction.”[931] “The baptismal font grants forgiveness for sins already committed, not for those yet to be committed… Baptism, while erasing sins, does not destroy merits… So let us be baptized in order to triumph; let us partake of the purifying waters, which wash better than hyssop, cleanse more thoroughly than the blood of the law, and are holier than the ashes of a heifer, which, through sprinkling, sanctify the defiled (Heb. 9:13), having the power only to cleanse the body temporarily, but not to eradicate sin completely.”[932]

St. John Chrysostom: “Grace-filled Baptism purifies everyone: whether a effeminate man, a fornicator, an idolater, or any other great sinner—even if he embodies every human evil—when he is immersed in the font of water, he emerges from the divine waters purer than the rays of the sun. Upon emerging from this font, he becomes not only pure, but holy and righteous. For the Apostle said not only that we have been washed, but also that we have been sanctified and justified (1 Cor. 6:11)… Baptism does not merely forgive our sins, nor does it merely cleanse us of our iniquities, but it is as if we were born anew: for it recreates and reshapes us.”[933]

Similar statements can be found in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch,[934] Ambrose,[935] Gregory of Nyssa,[936] Augustine,[937] Theodoret,[938] and many others.[939]

II. As a result of these effects wrought by the sacrament of Baptism in the souls of believers, the Orthodox Church, following the Word of God (Eph. 4:6), teaches us to profess “one Baptism,” — “one” in the sense that Baptism is administered to each person only once, and if performed correctly, cannot be repeated for anyone (Explanation of the Christian Catechism on Baptism). For this sacrament, in the proper sense, gives us new birth into spiritual life (John 3:5). But just as every person can be born only once into natural life, so it is with spiritual life; just as at natural birth each of us receives from nature a certain form and appearance that remains with us forever, — so too, at our spiritual birth, the sacrament of Baptism imprints upon each person an indelible seal that remains with the baptized person forever, even if after Baptism he commits a thousand sins or even renounces the faith itself (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 16).

The ancient teachers of the Church, in accordance with the Apostolic Canons,[940] speak unanimously of this indelible seal imposed by Baptism upon every person: Hermas,[941] Clement of Alexandria,[942] all those present at the First Council of Carthage,[943] St. Cyril of Jerusalem,[944] St. John Chrysostom,[945] Blessed Jerome,[946] Blessed Augustine,[947] and others.[948] Subsequently, the teachers of the early Church also preached on the irrepeatability of Baptism.[949] For example, let us cite the words: a) Tertullian: “One should not be baptized a second time;”[950] b) St. John Chrysostom: “We were buried with Him (Christ) in death through Baptism—therefore, just as it is impossible for Christ to be crucified a second time, so it is impossible to be baptized a second time;”[951] c) St. Ephrem the Syrian: “The Lord commanded His disciples to purify the sins of human nature with water only once;”[952] d) Blessed Theodoret: “Just as He suffered once, so too can we be united with Him in His suffering only once—and we are buried with Him and rise with Him through Baptism; therefore, we must not be baptized a second time;”[953] d) St. John of Damascus: “We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins and for eternal life. For Baptism signifies the Lord’s death, and through Baptism we are buried with the Lord, as the Divine Apostle says [(Rom. 6:4); (Col. 2:12)]. Therefore, just as the Lord died once, so one must be baptized once; and one must be baptized, according to the Lord’s word, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), learning thereby to confess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, all who, having been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and taught to confess the one divine nature in three Persons, are rebaptized, all such people crucify Christ anew, according to the words of the Divine Apostle (Heb. 6:4–6).”[954]

For this reason, everyone—even those baptized by heretics—provided they were baptized correctly in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, according to the ancient rules of the Church,[955] were not rebaptized when they came to the Orthodox Church, and are not rebaptized now, — but were and are received into it through the laying on of hands,[956] or through the sacrament of Chrismation.[957] Baptism, however, was and is administered anew only to those who were previously baptized incorrectly—not in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, but according to the Lord’s ordinance—and who, consequently, did not at all partake of the grace of this sacrament.[958]

§205. The Necessity of Baptism for All; Infant Baptism; Baptism by Blood

I. Judging by the grace-filled effects of the sacrament of Baptism, it is natural to conclude that it is necessary for everyone who desires to be cleansed of sins, to become a child of God, and to attain eternal salvation. And this necessity:

1) Was attested to by Christ the Savior Himself when He said: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5). “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). These words are so clear and definite that they require no interpretation.

2) The Holy Apostles bore witness to this. St. Peter, after many of those who heard his first sermon were moved in their hearts and asked him and the other Apostles, “What shall we do, brothers?” replied: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:37–38). And—in general—he considered Baptism so necessary for everyone that he even taught it to those who, before Baptism, had been deemed worthy to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:45–48). Likewise, St. Paul, speaking of the great work of our salvation accomplished by the Lord, states that Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (Eph. 5:25–26), and that He saved us precisely through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)—that is, he acknowledges the sacrament of Baptism as an essential and necessary condition for our receiving salvation.

3) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously acknowledged and confessed this. From the numerous testimonies [959] , we will cite the words of

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When you go down into the water, do not imagine mere water, but expect salvation through the working of the Holy Spirit. For without both of these, it is impossible for you to attain perfection.” It is not I who say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has authority in this matter. He says: ‘Unless one is born from above,’ and adds the words: ‘from water and the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the Kingdom of God’ (John 3:3–5). Neither does one who is baptized with water but has not received the Spirit possess perfect grace; nor will one who is good in deeds but has not been sealed with water enter the kingdom of heaven. These words are bold, but they are not mine; for Jesus Himself has decreed it. And here is the proof in Divine Scripture: Cornelius was a righteous man who was granted an angelic vision; his prayers and alms were presented before God in heaven as a beautiful pillar. Peter arrived, and the Spirit was poured out upon the believers, and they began to speak in other tongues and to prophesy; however, Scripture says that even after this spiritual grace, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that, having been reborn in the soul through faith, they might receive grace through water for the body as well.”[960]

St. Basil the Great: “Why are we Christians? Everyone will say: by faith. And how are we saved? By being reborn, namely, through the grace bestowed in Baptism. For how else can one be saved?”[961]

St. Ambrose: “No one enters the Kingdom of Heaven except through the sacrament of Baptism.”[962] “Even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which he himself is marked; but unless he is baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins or be made worthy of the gift of spiritual grace.”[963]

Gennadius of Massilia: “We believe that the path to salvation is open only to the baptized.”[964]

II. If, therefore, Baptism is necessary for all people as the only gateway to the kingdom of God, then this sacrament must be administered not only to adults but also to infants, contrary to the false teachings of certain sectarians (Anabaptists and others). For:

1) Even infants are capable of entering the Kingdom of God and of being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. “Let the little children come to Me,” the Savior said to His disciples, “and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven” [(Matt. 19:14); (Matt. 18:3); (Mark 10:15); (Luke 18:15)]. There have been instances when God sanctified and filled infants with the Holy Spirit even from their mother’s womb, for example, Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15–41).

2) Infants are not exempt from original sin, and they can be cleansed of it and enter the Kingdom of God only through Baptism. The Savior’s saying is well known: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” What is born of the flesh is flesh [(John 3:5–6); (Rom. 5:12–18)].[965]

3) In the Old Testament, circumcision—through which the Israelites entered into a covenant with God—was performed, by His command, even on infants (Gen. 17:12). But Old Testament circumcision was a foreshadowing of the sacrament of Baptism, through which we enter into a covenant with God in the New Testament [(Col. 2:11–12); (Gal. 3:26–29)]. Consequently, if in the Old Testament God Himself recognized even infants as capable of entering into a covenant with Him, why then should they be deprived of this blessing in the New Testament?

4) The Holy Apostles sometimes baptized entire families, for example, the household of Lydia (Acts 16:14–15), the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16), and the entire household of a certain jailer (Acts 16:30–39). But no one can claim that these families consisted solely of adults, with no children or infants at all, nor that the children, if there were any, were left unbaptized.

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church have left unquestionable testimony that Baptism has always been and must be administered to infants as well, and some even explicitly called this an apostolic tradition. Here is what they say, for example:

St. Irenaeus: “(Christ) came to save all through Himself—all, that is, those who are reborn through Him for God: infants, children, adolescents, young men, and the elderly.”[966]

Origen: “The Church received the tradition from the Apostles to administer baptism to infants,”[967] “Infants are baptized for the remission of sins… Since the defilements of birth are cleansed through the sacrament of Baptism, infants are also baptized.”[968]

St. Cyprian: “If even great sinners, who have previously sinned greatly against God, are granted forgiveness of sins when they come to faith, and no one is denied Baptism and grace; all the more so should this not be denied to an infant who, having just been born, has sinned in nothing except that, being descended from the flesh of Adam, he has contracted (contraxit) the contagion of ancient death through very birth itself, and who is all the more fit to receive the remission of sins, since it is not his own sins but those of others that are forgiven him. And therefore, beloved brother, our Council has passed the following resolution: we must exclude no one from Baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, good, and forgiving toward all—a principle that must be upheld and observed both in regard to everyone and, we believe, especially in regard to newborn infants, who deserve our special care and God’s mercy.”[969]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Do you have an infant?—Do not give evil time to take hold; let him be sanctified in infancy and consecrated to the Spirit from his earliest days. Are you afraid of the mark, because of the weakness of human nature, like a fainthearted and faithless mother? But Hannah promised Samuel to God even before his birth, and soon after his birth consecrated him, and raised him for the priestly office, not fearing human weakness, but trusting in God.”[970]

The Fathers of the Council of Carthage (in 418): “Whoever rejects the necessity of Baptism for infants—children newly born from their mother’s womb—or says that although they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet they do not inherit anything from Adam’s original sin that would require cleansing by the bath of rebirth (from which it would follow that the rite of Baptism for the remission of sins is applied to them not in its true sense but in a false one), let him be anathema. For what the Apostle said—“Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all have sinned in him” (Rom. 5:12)—must be understood in no other way than as the Catholic Church, spread throughout the world, has always understood it. For, according to this rule of faith, even infants, who are not yet capable of committing any sins of their own, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that through rebirth, that which they have inherited from their former birth may be cleansed within them” (Rule 124).

Blessed Augustine: “This (the baptism of infants) the Church has always had, has always maintained; she received it from the faith of her forefathers; she observes it constantly even to the end.”[971]

Similar testimonies are found in the Apostolic Constitutions, as well as in the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Clement of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and others.[972]

III. However, as necessary as the sacrament of Baptism is for all people, both infants and adults, there are exceptional cases when, according to the belief of the Orthodox Church, it may be replaced by another, extraordinary form of baptism—baptism by blood or martyrdom.[973] This occurs when someone, having not yet been baptized with water and the Spirit, is subjected to persecution for the faith in Christ, sheds his blood for it, and faces death itself, and is thus baptized by the very baptism with which Christ was baptized (Matt. 20:22–23).

1) To understand the power and effectiveness of this extraordinary form of Baptism, let us recall: a) the Savior’s words: “Whoever acknowledges Me before others, I will also acknowledge before My Father in heaven” (Matt. 10:32); b) His other words: “Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the Gospel’s will save it” [(Mark 8:35); cf. (Matt. 10:30); (Matt. 16:25)]; Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:10); c) finally, a third set of words: “Her sins—the sins of the sinful woman—are forgiven, for she has loved much” (Luke 7:47); Whoever loves Me will be loved by My Father (John 14:21); Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you (John 15:13–14). And during the Baptism of Blood, the martyrs truly confess Christ before men, sacrifice their souls or their lives for His sake and for the sake of the Gospel, endure persecution for the sake of righteousness, and bear witness to the fullest and greatest love for Him—a love unto death.

2) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously attributed such power and importance to Baptism by Blood. For example:

St. Cyprian: “Let it be known that catechumens (who are subjected to martyrdom) are not deprived of the sacrament of Baptism: for they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of blood, of which the Lord Himself spoke, saying that He must be baptized with a different baptism (Matt. 20:22). And that those who are baptized with their own blood and sanctified through suffering attain perfection and receive the grace of the divine promise is attested to by the Lord Himself in the Gospel.[974]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Whoever does not receive Baptism has no salvation, except for the martyrs, who receive the kingdom of heaven even without water. For the Savior, redeeming the universe by the cross and having been pierced in the side, brought forth blood and water from it, so that some might be baptized with water in times of peace, and others with their own blood in times of persecution. Indeed, the Savior called martyrdom a baptism, saying: ‘Can you drink the cup that I drink, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?’ (Mark 10:38)”[975]

St. Basil the Great: “Others, in their struggles for piety—truly, not merely in imitation—having accepted death for Christ, no longer had any need for the symbol of water for their salvation, having been baptized with their own blood.”[976]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “I know of a fourth baptism—the baptism of martyrdom and blood, by which Christ Himself was baptized—which is far more honorable than the others, inasmuch as it is not defiled by new impurities.”[977]

We do not cite the testimonies of Origen,[978] Tertullian,[979] Eusebius of Caesarea,[980] Ambrose,[981] John Chrysostom, Didymus of Alexandria, Augustine,[982] John of Damascus,[983] and others.[984]

§206. Who may administer Baptism, and what is required of those to be baptized?

I. The authority to administer the sacrament of Baptism, conferred at the beginning by the Savior upon the Holy Apostles (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16), has from ancient times been and continues to be exercised in the Church only by the successors of the Apostles—the bishops—and, through them, by the presbyters. This is evident: a) from the Apostolic Canons, in which, wherever mention is made of those who administer the sacrament of Baptism, only the bishop and the presbyter are named, for example: “If a bishop or presbyter, having truly received Baptism, baptizes again, let him be deposed” (Canon 47); or: “If anyone, whether a bishop or a presbyter, baptizes contrary to the Lord’s institution… let him be deposed” (Canon 49), and further: “If anyone, whether a bishop or a presbyter, does not perform three immersions… let him be deposed” (Canon 50);[985] b) from the Apostolic Decrees: “We do not grant the authority to baptize to other clergy, such as readers, cantors, doorkeepers, or ministers, but only to bishops and presbyters assisted by deacons;”[986] c) finally, from the testimonies of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, for example: St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Without a bishop (i.e., independently of the bishop, without having received authority from him), it is impermissible to either baptize or celebrate the Lord’s Supper;”[987] Tertullian: “The high priest, who is the bishop, has the right to administer baptism; next comes the presbyter with deacons, but not without the bishop’s permission, for the sake of the Church’s honor,”[988] and others.[989]

Deacons were sometimes permitted to baptize, following the example of St. Philip the deacon (Acts 6:5; 8:12–13, 38); but this was permitted only in cases of extreme necessity, in the absence of a bishop and a presbyter.[990] The deacons themselves never possessed the right to baptize—“a deacon … does not perform Baptism,” as stated in the Apostolic Canons.[991] “Deacons, according to church order, are not authorized to perform any sacrament, but only to assist in its performance,” notes St. Epiphanius as well.[992]

Likewise, in cases of extreme necessity, laypeople were permitted to baptize,[993] just as is permitted today (Canon of the Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 102; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 16), not only men but also women.[994] But in every other case, this was strictly forbidden, especially for women.[995] If women were permitted to baptize, some Church teachers argued, then Jesus Christ would have been baptized by His Most Holy Mother rather than by John the Forerunner.[996] And the custom of allowing women to baptize—even outside of cases of necessity—which persists to this day among some of our schismatics, was called an abuse that first arose among the Marcionite heretics.[997]

II. Of those who approach the sacrament of Baptism, if they are adults, the following are required:

1) Faith. This is evident from the Savior’s command to the Apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” (Matt. 28:19); “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Therefore, the Apostles first and foremost sought to teach people the faith everywhere, and only then did they administer Baptism to those who had believed. Thus, after the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, St. Peter first preached to the gathered crowd, and those who gladly accepted his word were baptized (Acts 2:41). Likewise, in Samaria, when the people believed Philip as he preached about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized (Acts 8:12). Likewise, when the eunuch was converted, St. Philip first opened his mouth and preached to him about Jesus, and then said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized”; and after the eunuch confessed his faith, he indeed baptized him (Acts 8:35–38). The same thing happened when Cornelius the centurion was converted (Acts 10:34–48), when Lydia and her entire household were converted (Acts 16:14–15), when Crispus was converted (Acts 18:8), and in other cases. Therefore, from the very beginning of the Church, its pastors have first and foremost required faith from everyone approaching Baptism—[998] —and for this purpose have sought to first instruct them through the preaching of the Gospel, to teach them the truths of the faith, to test them in these truths, and only then to administer Baptism.[999] For this reason, even to this day in the Church, according to ancient liturgical tradition, everyone approaching this sacrament must recite aloud a confession or creed.

2) Repentance. “Repent,” says St. Peter the Apostle to those who heard his sermon, “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); “Repent and turn back, so that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19). The Church has always demanded repentance through the words of her pastors from those approaching the sacrament of Baptism,[1000] and, just before the sacrament is administered, she commanded them—as she still commands today—to solemnly renounce the devil and all his works, that is, all sins and their entire former sinful life.[1001]

As for infants, who are not yet capable of either possessing or professing their faith and repentance prior to Baptism: they are baptized on the faith of their parents and godparents, who, on their behalf, pronounce the profession of faith and the renunciation of the devil and all his works, committing themselves before the Church to raise the baptized children in faith and piety when they come of age (The Correct Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 103; the Expanded Christian Catechism on Baptism). St. Dionysius the Areopagite traces this custom of the Church directly back to the Apostles: “Our divine teachers,” he says, “deigned (έδοζεν) to admit even infants to Baptism under the sacred condition that the child’s natural parents entrust him to one of the faithful who would instruct him well in divine matters and then care for the child as a father appointed from above (θείος), and as the guardian of its eternal salvation. It is this very person, when he gives his promise to guide the child in a godly life, whom the hierarch compels to pronounce the renunciations and the sacred Confession.”[1002] Tertullian,[1003] Augustine,[1004] , and others also mention godparents in the baptism of infants.[1005]

2. On the Sacrament of Chrismation

§207. Connection to the Previous Section; the Place of the Sacrament of Chrismation Among the Others; the Concept of This Sacrament and Its Names

Through Baptism we are born into spiritual life, and, cleansed of all sin, justified, and sanctified, we enter the grace-filled kingdom of Christ. But just as in natural life a person, as soon as he is born into the world, already needs air, light, and other external aids and forces to sustain his existence, to gradually strengthen himself, and to grow: so too in the spiritual life, immediately upon a person’s rebirth from above, he needs the grace-filled powers of the Holy Spirit, which serve as spiritual air and light for him, and with whose help he may not only sustain his new life but also gradually be strengthened in it and grow. It is precisely these divine powers, for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), that are bestowed upon everyone who has been reborn in Baptism through another sacrament of the Church, namely, the sacrament of Chrismation. This is why the Orthodox Church has from ancient times observed the custom of administering this sacrament immediately after Baptism and even in connection with it,[1006] so that Confirmation, among the other sacraments of the Church, occupies the second place in the order of their celebration.

Confirmation is the sacrament through which the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon the baptized; or, more fully and specifically, through the anointing of parts of the Christian’s body with consecrated chrism, accompanied by the words, “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit,” the grace-filled powers necessary for his strengthening and growth in the spiritual life are imparted to him.

In accordance with this nature, Confirmation has from ancient times been called by various names, expressing either its external aspect, or its internal effects on a person, or both together. In the first sense, it was sometimes called “the laying on of hands,” because it was originally performed by the Apostles through the laying on of hands upon those who had been baptized (Acts 8:14–16); and more often— —as “anointing,”[1007] as “mystical anointing,”[1008] as “the sacrament of anointing,”[1009] as “the anointing of salvation”:[1010] because from the days of the Apostles it began to be performed by anointing the baptized with consecrated chrism. In the second—the gift of the Spirit,[1011] the sacrament of the Spirit,[1012] the symbol of the Spirit,[1013] the confirmation,[1014] the fulfillment:[1015] because it imparts the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which confirm and perfect us in the spiritual life. In the latter—as a seal,[1016] the Lord’s seal,[1017] a spiritual seal,[1018] the seal of eternal life:[1019] because, when the parts of the body are anointed with consecrated oil, it seals together with the oil of joy (Ps. 44:8)—that is, with the Holy Spirit—all the powers of the human soul.

§208. The Divine Institution of the Sacrament of Chrismation, Its Distinction from Baptism, and Its Independence

Although Confirmation has from ancient times been administered in the Orthodox Church in connection with Baptism, immediately following it, Confirmation is nonetheless a distinct, divinely established sacrament, separate from Baptism. We find confirmation of this both in Holy Scripture and in Holy Tradition.

1. The Gospel narrative testifies that Christ the Savior intended and promised to bestow the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Him. On the last and greatest day of the feast, says St. John the Theologian, Jesus stood and proclaimed, saying, “Whoever is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.” “Whoever believes in Me,” He said, “as the Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within him.” He said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Holy Spirit had not yet been given to them, because Jesus had not yet been glorified (John 7:37–39). Here, obviously, the discussion concerns those gifts of the Holy Spirit that are offered—and are therefore necessary in general for all who believe in the Lord Jesus—rather than extraordinary gifts, which are bestowed only upon some believers for specific purposes (1 Cor. 12:29 ff.)—although it is not specified by what visible means the gifts of the Holy Spirit necessary for all believers will be imparted to them.

2. The Book of Acts recounts that the Apostles, after Jesus Christ had already been glorified, did indeed bestow the Holy Spirit upon those who believed in Him, and they did so specifically through the laying on of hands. For example, the following incident occurred: The Apostles, who were in Jerusalem, having heard that the Samaritans had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John to them; and when they arrived, they prayed for them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14–17). From this it is perfectly clear: a) that the apostles imparted the Holy Spirit to the believers not through baptism (in which believers are only instantly regenerated or renewed by the Spirit, without receiving Him into themselves permanently), but through the laying on of hands upon those who had been baptized; b) that through this laying on of hands, the Apostles imparted to the believers the gifts of the Holy Spirit necessary for all who had received Baptism, and not extraordinary gifts bestowed only upon a few; c) that this laying on of hands, combined with prayer to God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the baptized, constituted a special sacrament, distinct from Baptism; and d) finally, that this sacrament, distinct from Baptism, has divine institution: because the Apostles, in all their words and deeds as they spread the Gospel teaching, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who guided them into all truth and reminded them of everything that the Lord Jesus had commanded them [(John 14:26); (John 16:13)]. We read something similar about St. Paul the Apostle: Paul said (to John’s disciples), “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” They replied, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” He asked them, “Into what, then, were you baptized?” They answered, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the One who was to come after him—that is, in Jesus Christ.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them (Acts 19:2–6).

3. Finally, the holy apostles themselves, in their epistles—which were written after the Book of Acts—remind the believers of their reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them in the truths of the faith and strengthens them in godliness, and they state that they received these gifts precisely through anointing. “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things,” wrote St. John the Apostle, “… the anointing you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but just as this very anointing teaches you all things—and it is true and not a lie—so abide in what it has taught you (1 John 2:20–27). Likewise, St. Paul says: “Now it is God who establishes (βεβαίων) us with you in Christ and has anointed (χρίσας) us, who has also sealed (σφοαγισάμενος) us and given the Spirit as a pledge in our hearts” (2 Cor. 1:21–22). It cannot be denied that the Apostles are speaking here primarily of the internal action of the sacrament through which the Holy Spirit is imparted; but on the other hand, it is natural to think that, in order to express this internal action—and wishing to be understood by Christians—they used words borrowed from the well-known external action that served as a visible sign of the former;[1020] and one cannot fail to notice that the Apostles even directly point to this external action: “The anointing which you have received … it is God who has anointed us … …who has also sealed us…—as the ancient teachers of the Church explained both of the cited texts.[1021] If this is so, then one of two conclusions must be drawn: either the Holy Apostles, while imparting the Holy Spirit to the faithful through the laying on of hands, also inseparably used another visible sign—anointing—which is simply omitted in the Book of Acts; or, which is far more likely, while initially performing the sacrament through the laying on of hands, the Holy Apostles themselves soon replaced this visible sign, guided by the Spirit of truth, with another visible sacramental act—the anointing of the baptized with chrism. But in either case, it follows that the use of chrism in this sacrament has a divine origin.

4. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church leave no room for doubt regarding the reality and divine origin of the sacrament under consideration. Among those who lived during the first three centuries were:

St. Dionysius the Areopagite. After describing the sacred rite of the Eucharist, he clearly states: “There is another sacred rite equivalent to this (i.e., the Eucharist), which our teachers (i.e., the Apostles) call the sacrament of chrism,”[1022] and then explains in detail how the consecration of the chrism itself is performed, how Chrismation is administered to the baptized, what effects it has upon them, and observes: “This anointing with holy oil bestows upon those who have been deemed worthy of the most holy sacrament of rebirth the outpouring of the Spirit who proceeds from God.”[1023]

St. Theophilus of Antioch: “The name of Christ means ‘the Anointed One’—a fitting and pleasing name that in no way deserves ridicule… We are called Christians because we are anointed with divine oil.”[1024]

Tertullian: “Having emerged from the baptismal font, we are anointed with the blessed anointing, according to the ancient rite, just as those ordained to the priesthood were customarily anointed with oil from a horn… The anointing is performed physically upon us, but it bears spiritual fruit, just as in Baptism itself the action is physical—when we are immersed in water—but the fruits are spiritual, when we are cleansed of sins. Then a hand is laid upon us, invoking and bestowing the Holy Spirit through blessing.”[1025]

Clement of Alexandria. Speaking of the followers of the heretic Basilides and their false teaching, he states that in this fatalistic system “there is no longer either blessed Baptism or the blessed sealing,”[1026] and thus clearly distinguishes the sacrament of sealing, or Chrismation, from Baptism, and places it on an equal footing with it.

St. Cyprian. In one of his letters, he says: “It is necessary for the baptized to be anointed as well, so that, having received the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be an anointed one of God and possess the grace of Christ within himself.”[1027] In one letter, arguing that it is not enough merely to lay hands on heretics who are converting to the Church, but that they must be baptized, he writes: “For only then can they be fully sanctified and become sons of God, if they are reborn through both sacraments—si utroque sacramento nascantur,”[1028] — that is, he not only distinguishes the laying on of hands or Chrismation from Baptism, but equally refers to both as sacraments. In the third letter, he testifies that just as the apostles Peter and John, after prayer, brought down the Holy Spirit upon the Samaritans through the laying on of hands, so too in the Church from that time onward all those being baptized, after the prayer of the ministers, receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands and are sealed with the divine seal.[1029]

Pope Cornelius. Having stated that the heretic Novatus was baptized during his illness only by sprinkling, he continues: “Having recovered, he did not receive what else, according to the Church’s canon, he was required to receive—namely, he was not sealed by the bishop; and having not received this, how could he have received the Holy Spirit?”[1030] This means that the sealing, or Chrismation, was considered separate from Baptism even then; the performance of Chrismation upon the baptized was required by the Church’s canons, and only this sacrament was endowed with the power to impart the Holy Spirit.[1031]

To these most ancient testimonies regarding the sacrament of Chrismation, we may add further testimonies from the Fathers and teachers of the Church of the fourth century, for example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Then [you will learn] how you received the cleansing of your sins from the Lord through the bath of water by means of the word (Eph. 5:26) … and how you were granted the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and about the mysteries of the New Covenant performed on the altar.”[1032] Likewise, in another passage: “You have been anointed when you received the likeness of the Holy Spirit; and everything was accomplished upon you figuratively, that is, in likeness, because you are the image of Christ. He, having been washed in the Jordan River and having imparted the divine fragrance of His sweat to the waters, rose from them; and the substantial indwelling of the Holy Spirit was upon Him when the like rested upon the like. So too, when you emerged from the font of sacred waters, you received an anointing corresponding to that with which Christ was anointed…” “Behold, do not regard that world as ordinary. For just as the bread in the Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere bread but the Body of Christ: so too this holy myrrh is no longer mere myrrh, nor—if anyone were to say so—ordinary, through the invocation; but it is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit, made effective by the presence of His Divinity. With it, your forehead and other senses are anointed in a significant manner . And when the body is anointed in a visible way, then the soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit.”[1033]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “If you protect yourself with this seal, you will secure your future with the best and most effective safeguard, marking your soul and body with chrism and the Spirit, just as ancient Israel did by the blood and anointing that guarded the firstborn at night (Ex. 12:13): then what can befall you?”[1034]

The Fathers of the Council of Laodicea: “It is fitting for those enlightened by baptism to be anointed with the heavenly anointing and to be partakers of the kingdom of God” (Canon 48). And further: “Those turning away from heresy—that is, Novatians, or Photinians, or the Fourteenists—whether catechumens or those they consider faithful—are not to be received until they have renounced every heresy, especially the one in which they were previously held; and only then shall those whom they call the faithful, after studying the Creed, be anointed with holy chrism and thus partake of the holy mysteries” (Canon 7).

We find the same teaching in St. Ephrem the Syrian, who calls Chrismation the sacrament of salvation,[1035] in St. Ambrose of Milan,[1036] in St. John Chrysostom,[1037] in St. Cyril of Alexandria,[1038] and in Blessed Augustine, who also calls it a sacrament,[1039] Blessed Theodoret,[1040] Vigilius of Tapsia,[1041] Euthymius of Zigaben [1042] and others.

5. It is also particularly noteworthy that Chrismation is considered one of the sacraments instituted by God not only in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Church, which separated from it in the ninth century, but also in communities that departed from Orthodoxy as far back as ancient times, such as: the Armenians,[1043] the Jacobites,[1044] the Nestorians,[1045] and others.[1046]

§209. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Chrismation

The visible aspect of the sacrament of Chrismation consists in the fact that, after a prayer to God for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, the baptized are anointed in the shape of a cross on various parts of the body with consecrated chrism, while the words “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” are spoken. Thus, the following are distinguished here in particular:

I. The prayer to God for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the baptized, which precedes the Chrismation itself. This prayer is still recited in the Church today: a) following the example of the Holy Apostles Peter and John, who, having been sent to Samaria to bring down the Holy Spirit upon the baptized, prayed for them just before performing the sacrament, that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15); and b) subsequently, following the example of the ancient Church, as attested by St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose,[1047] and the Apostolic Constitutions, which even preserve a model of the prayer recited at that time before the celebration of Chrismation.[1048]

II. The substance used for the celebration of this sacrament is consecrated chrism. Regarding this, we note:

1) The use of myrrh in the celebration of the sacrament of Chrismation undoubtedly dates back to the Apostles themselves. For:

a) there are clear indications of this in Holy Scripture, which we have already examined [(1 John 2:20); (2 Cor. 1:21–22)]; b) the successors of the Apostles, having received from them such strict instructions to preserve both their oral and written traditions [(1 Tim. 6:20); (2 Thess. 2:15)], would by no means have dared to arbitrarily introduce a change in such an important matter as the celebration of the sacrament, and to choose a new visible sign in place of the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the faithful; c) even if one of the ancient pastors had dared to make such a significant change, it could not have gone unnoticed by the other guardians of the apostolic tradition, and in any case could not have become universally accepted in the universal Church. Meanwhile, the use of oil in this sacrament has been universal in both the East and the West since the earliest centuries of Christianity—and none of the ancient writers notes that this practice began in the Church only at a specific time or was introduced by a particular individual. Finally—d)—St. Dionysius the Areopagite, as we have seen, states that the Holy Apostles themselves called this sacrament the sacrament of chrism, *[1049] *, and, consequently, they themselves introduced the use of chrism. Why, then, did the Apostles—or, more precisely, the Holy Spirit—choose to replace the laying on of hands, which they had originally practiced, with the act of chrismation? Since nothing has been revealed to us on this matter, we can only speculate. From the Book of Acts, it is clear that only the Apostles could bestow the Holy Spirit upon the baptized (Acts 8:12–18): this was convenient for them at the very beginning of Christianity, when there were not yet very many baptized people. But soon, with the extraordinary spread of the holy faith, as people in all nations of the world began to convert to it, neither the Apostles themselves nor their immediate successors—the bishops—could be present everywhere to bestow the Holy Spirit upon all the baptized immediately after Baptism through the laying on of hands. And so, perhaps, the Holy Spirit, dwelling within the Apostles, deigned to replace the laying on of the Apostles’ hands upon the baptized with another, more convenient act—the anointing with chrism— — so that the consecration of the chrism might be performed by the Apostles themselves and, after them, by their successors—the bishops—while the anointing of the baptized with the consecrated chrism might be entrusted to all presbyters. It was precisely chrism, and not some other substance, that could be chosen in this case because, even in the Old Testament, anointing with chrism was used as a visible means of bestowing the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people [(Ex. 28:41); (1 Sam. 16:13); (3 Kings 1:39); (3 Kings 19:16)].[1050]

2) The use of oil in the celebration of the sacrament of Chrismation has always been considered essential, whereas the laying on of hands, separate from the act of Chrismation, has not. For, first of all, the ancient Councils—both ecumenical and local—when clearly referring to this sacrament, speak only of anointing with myrrh, making no mention whatsoever of the laying on of hands, as did the Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which permitted the reception of certain heretics into the Church through the administration of the sacrament of Chrismation upon them,[1051] and the Local Council of Laodicea, which confirmed the practice of administering this sacrament to all believers immediately after their baptism.[1052] Second, the vast majority of the Church’s teachers, especially those of the East, also mention only a single application of chrism in this sacrament, making no mention whatsoever of the laying on of hands,[1053] for example: St. Cyril of Jerusalem devoted an entire discourse to explaining the sacrament of Chrismation to the newly baptized (Instructions, Mystagogy. 3), and yet he did not say a single word about the laying on of hands. Third, if in some particular churches, primarily Western ones, as is evident from the testimony of their pastors,[1054] the laying on of hands was, until a certain time, combined with Chrismation—just as it is still combined in the Roman Church,[1055] —then one might think that the pastors of the Church maintained this practice in certain places, merely as a rite sanctified by the example of the Apostles, and not as an essential element of the sacrament. For, for example, St. Cyprian, who in one passage mentions both chrismation and the laying on of hands in the celebration of this sacrament, clearly states in another that it is strictly necessary for every baptized person to receive the chrism or anointing so that he may have the grace of Christ within himself.[1056] Finally, the Western primates themselves, Innocent III [1057] and Eugene IV,[1058] as well as the entire local council of Western bishops held in Mainz in 1549,[1059] openly testify that since the time of the Apostles themselves, the laying on of hands has been replaced by anointing with holy chrism, which consequently remains the one and only essential element of the sacrament.[1060]

III. The very act of the sacrament consists in the anointing in the shape of a cross of certain parts of the body with consecrated oil. This act has been performed since ancient times: St. Ambrose [1061] and Blessed Augustine [1062] clearly mention the custom of anointing with holy oil in the shape of a cross. St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks in detail about the anointing of the forehead, ears, nostrils, and breasts with holy chrism.[1063] The Second and Sixth Ecumenical Councils attest to the anointing of the forehead, head, ears, nostrils, and lips.[1064] St. Ephrem the Syrian speaks about the anointing of the senses and the members of the body in general.[1065] In this way, all the principal parts of the human body —as the organs of all the powers and faculties of the soul—are sealed with Holy Chrism, and both parts of the human constitution are collectively strengthened by the powers of grace. It is noteworthy that even in ancient non-Orthodox communities in the East—such as the Jacobites, Copts, and Armenians—Chrismation is performed not only on the forehead, as the Roman Church does today,[1066] but also on other parts of the human body.[1067]

IV. The words spoken during the anointing of specific parts of the body with holy chrism: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. These words appear to be drawn from the well-known saying of the Holy Apostle (2 Cor. 1:21–22) and have been used in the Church since ancient times during the celebration of the sacrament of Chrismation. References to them can be found in the writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,[1068] , and direct evidence of their use is found in the writings of Asterius, Bishop of Amasya, who lived in the fourth century,[1069] , and in the seventh canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, which took place during that same period. Here we read: “Those who join Orthodoxy and are among the heretics who are to be saved shall be received according to the following order and custom… We receive them by sealing them—that is, by anointing them with Holy Chrism—first the forehead, then the eyes, the nostrils, the mouth, and the ears; and as we seal them, we say: ‘The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” And, what is particularly noteworthy, the Fathers do not say: “We prescribe or command that the words ‘the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit’ be spoken during Chrismation,” but merely cite them as well-known and long-established in the celebration of this sacrament, according to the established order and custom. The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council also repeat this (Canon 95).

§210. The Invisible Acts of the Sacrament of Chrismation and Its Irrepetibility

I. The primary, invisible effect of the sacrament of Chrismation is that it imparts the Holy Spirit to the faithful. In Baptism, we are merely cleansed of sins and reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit, but we are not yet deemed worthy to receive Him into ourselves and become His temples: through Confirmation, the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon us along with all His grace-filled gifts necessary for the spiritual life (Ordinances Confessions, Part I, Answer to Question 105). This is perfectly clear from the account of St. Luke: The Apostles in Jerusalem, having heard that the Samaritans had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John to them; and when they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit [(Acts 8:14–17); (Acts 19:6)]. This, as we have seen, was unanimously taught by the ancient teachers of the Church: Dionysius the Areopagite,[1070] Tertullian,[1071] Cyprian;[1072] Pope Cornelius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret [1073] , and others.[1074]

But since there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, as He is imparted to believers through the sacrament of Chrismation [1075] 1075, according to the count of the prophet Isaiah: the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, and, finally, the Spirit of the fear of God (Isa. 11:2–3), of which three pertain primarily to the enlightenment of the mind, and four to the instruction and strengthening of the will in goodness (The Orthodox Confession, Part I, Answers to Questions 73–80): specifically, it is stated that the sacrament of Chrismation:

1) bestows upon us the grace of the Spirit, which enlightens and instructs us in the truths of the faith. “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things,” wrote St. John the Apostle to the Christians. Moreover, the anointing you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but just as this very anointing teaches you about all things—and it is true and not a lie—so abide in what it has taught you (1 John 2:20–27). ““Keep this anointing,” St. Cyril of Jerusalem also instructed the newly enlightened children of the Church, “unblemished; for it itself teaches you all things (1 John 2:27), if it abides in you, as you have now heard the blessed John speaking and expounding at length on this anointing.”[1076]

2) It imparts to us the grace of the Spirit, which confirms and restores us in godliness. St. Paul the Apostle points this out, saying: “Now it is God who confirms (βεβαίων) us with you in Christ and has anointed us” (2 Cor. 1:21–22). St. Cyril of Jerusalem also instructed his listeners: “You have been anointed on your foreheads; so, having put on the armor of righteousness, stand firm against the wiles of the devil” (Eph. 6:14–17). For just as Christ, after His baptism and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, went out and defeated the adversary (Matt. 4), so too have you, through Holy Baptism and the sacrament of Chrismation, put on the full armor of the Holy Spirit, stood against the power of the adversary, and are defeating it, exclaiming: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Phil. 4:13).”[1077]

It should be added that the Apostles, through the laying on of hands—that is, through the sacrament of Chrismation—sometimes imparted to the faithful extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as the gift of tongues and prophecy (Acts 19:8). But these were extraordinary acts of the sacrament of Chrismation, corresponding to the needs of the early Church, and not permanent acts inherent to its very nature: and in the early Church, extraordinary gifts were not bestowed upon everyone, but only upon some (1 Cor. 12:29–30), — whereas the laying on of hands or Chrismation was considered necessary for all the baptized so that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17).

II. Since the sacrament of Chrismation marks or seals us with “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit”[1078] [(Eph. 1:13; 4:30); (2 Cor. 1:22)], and since it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us—He who has also sealed us and, through this sacrament, gives the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts (2 Cor. 1:22), He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13): therefore, the sacrament of Chrismation, like the sacrament of Baptism, has always been considered—[1079] —and is now considered to be non-repeatable (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 105). The only difference is that Baptism, if performed correctly, is not repeated for anyone, even if that person has renounced the name of Christ and later returned to the Orthodox Church; whereas Chrismation is repeated for those who have renounced the name of Christ in the event of their conversion to Orthodoxy (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 105).

As for the sacred rite in which the Orthodox Church anoints the most pious sovereigns with holy chrism during their coronation, this corresponds to the way kings were anointed with holy oil in the Old Testament Church, by the command of God Himself [(Ps. 88:21); (1 Sam. 10:1); (1 Sam. 15:3); (1 Sam. 12:13)],—hence they were called “Christ” or “anointed ones” [(1 Sam. 12:3–5); (1 Sam. 24:7)] and elsewhere): this is not a repetition of the sacrament of Chrismation, through which the grace-filled powers necessary for the spiritual life itself are imparted to all believers. Rather, it is simply a different, higher degree of the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, necessary for a special, exceedingly important, and divinely ordained (Dan. 4:22–29) kingly ministry. And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon David from that day forward (1 Sam. 16:13). It is well known that the sacrament of Holy Orders is not repeated; however, it has its own degrees, and ordination repeatedly consecrates clergy for higher ministries: likewise, the anointing of kings for the kingdom is only a special, higher degree of the sacrament, bestowing a special outpouring of the Spirit upon God’s anointed ones.[1080] The very prayers recited during this great sacred rite point to the special gifts that the Orthodox Church implores for the God-chosen Monarch. “That through the anointing of the Most Holy Chrism, which He receives from heaven,” proclaims the protodeacon, among other things, “He may receive strength and wisdom for governance and justice—let us pray to the Lord.” And the primate, who performs the sacrament, then exclaims: “Lord, our God, King of kings and Lord of lords, who through the prophet Samuel chose Your servant David and anointed him as king over Your people Israel! Hear now the prayer of us, , the unworthy…, and of Your faithful servant, the great Sovereign… anoint him with the oil of gladness, clothe him with Your power from on high…, seat him on the throne of righteousness, surround him with the full armor of Your Holy Spirit, strengthen his strength…, reveal him as the renowned guardian of the dogmas of Your holy Catholic Church...”[1081]

§211. To whom does the right to administer the sacrament of Chrismation belong, upon whom and when should it be administered?

I. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the authority to administer the sacrament of Chrismation belongs not only to bishops but also to presbyters, with the sole difference being that the former have the right to consecrate the chrism itself for the sacrament, while the latter may anoint only with chrism consecrated by a bishop (Orthodox Confessions, Part 1, Answer to Question 105).[1082] This has been the case since ancient times.

1) From ancient times, the right to consecrate the chrism for the sacrament belonged exclusively to bishops. This is evident from the canons of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 318), where we read: “Let no presbyter perform the consecration of the chrism” (Canon 6), and from the canons of other subsequent Councils and the teachers of the Church.[1083]

2) Likewise, from time immemorial, the authority to administer the sacrament of Chrismation itself has been vested in bishops, as successors of the Apostles, who directly administered this sacrament [(Acts 8:14–17); (Acts 18:6)], and to presbyters, who received it through ordination by a bishop, along with the authority to administer all the sacraments in general, except for the priesthood itself. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions state: “Regarding baptism, whether by a bishop or a presbyter, we have said this before and will say it now…—first you shall anoint with holy oil, then baptize with water, and finally seal with myrrh.”[1084] St. Ambrose repeatedly testifies that the anointing with myrrh is performed by a priest, and that the Holy Spirit is poured out through the priest’s prayer.[1085] And St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Jerome unanimously state that a bishop (with regard to sacred rites) differs from a presbyter in nothing other than ordination, that is, the authority to perform the sacrament of the priesthood.[1086] Furthermore, it is known that in all non-Orthodox Christian communities that have existed in the East since ancient times, Confirmation is administered by both bishops and presbyters.[1087]

Therefore, the teaching of the Roman Church—that the right to administer the sacrament of Chrismation belongs solely to bishops and not to presbyters—is unjust.[1088] In support of this teaching, they cite:[1089]

a) The instance mentioned in Scripture where, although St. Philip baptized the Samaritans, the holy apostles Peter and John themselves came specifically to bestow the Holy Spirit upon them through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14–16). But it must be remembered that St. Philip was not a presbyter but a deacon, and therefore, if he did not perform the sacramental ordination on those who had been baptized, this does not mean that presbyters did not perform it or did not have the right to do so;[1090] Likewise, the fact that the Apostles, on one or two occasions as mentioned in Scripture (Acts 8:14–16; 19:4–7), did not imply that they alone administered it or that, at that time, neither bishops nor presbyters administered or could administer it in other places.

b) According to St. Cyprian and St. Chrysostom, even in their time, following the example of the Apostles, the administration of Chrismation was reserved solely for the leaders of the Churches, the praepositis, the κορυφαίοις.[1091] However, the term “presiding ministers” could refer to both bishops and presbyters, each of whom is indeed a presiding minister in his own particular church or parish—all the more so since both Holy Fathers, in the passages cited, contrast the presiding ministers with deacons, who, even in their time, like the deacon Philip, could not administer the sacrament of Chrismation. To clarify St. Chrysostom’s thought, we must recall his other words, namely, that bishops are in no way superior to presbyters except by their ordination, that is, by their authority to administer the sacrament of the priesthood.[1092]

c) The testimony of Blessed Jerome, who states that bishops customarily visit small towns in their diocese to bestow the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon those who have been baptized by presbyters and deacons. But this same teacher immediately adds that this is done more for the honor of the priesthood than out of legal necessity, and that if the Holy Spirit descended only through the bishop’s prayer, then we would have to mourn for those who, having been baptized by presbyters and deacons while in chains, fortresses, or remote places, had died before being visited by bishops.[1093] The question posed by Blessed Jerome is also well known: “What, apart from ordination, does a bishop perform that a presbyter does not?”[1094]

The following observations should also be added:

d) It is not surprising that in the early days of Christianity, the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation was, in some places, reserved primarily for bishops: at that time, the administration of other sacraments—namely, Baptism and even the Eucharist—was also, in some places, reserved primarily for bishops, while presbyters could administer them only with the bishops’ permission.[1095] All of this was quite natural and convenient under the circumstances of that time, when the members of the churches comprising the dioceses were not so numerous, and the boundaries of the dioceses were often limited to a single city or village. However, the Papists themselves do not draw the conclusion from this that in the early centuries presbyters had no right at all to administer the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist: why, then, do they conclude that they did not and should not have the right to administer only the sacrament of Confirmation?

d) The Roman Church itself, while reserving the authority to confer Confirmation to bishops alone, has nevertheless on more than one occasion deemed it necessary to permit ordinary priests to administer this sacrament.[1096] And today, the entire disagreement lies in the fact that the Orthodox Church grants the right to administer Confirmation, as well as other sacraments except for Holy Orders, to all presbyters once and for all at the very moment of their ordination to the priesthood;[1097] whereas the Roman Church permits only certain presbyters to administer Confirmation, and even then not at the time of their ordination but only later, as circumstances require, and designates bishops as the ordinary ministers (ministri ordinarii) of this sacrament, and presbyters as extraordinary ministers (extraordinarii).[1098]

e) Even Roman theologians disagree among themselves as to whether the authority to administer Confirmation belongs to bishops alone by divine law or only by ecclesiastical law, and the most distinguished of these theologians hold to the latter view.[1099] And in this way, they themselves demonstrate the fragility of the institution of their Church, which has assigned this authority exclusively to bishops.

II. The Orthodox Church administers the sacrament of Chrismation to all who have been baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, and does so immediately after their Baptism (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answer to question 105). And this is entirely in accordance with:

1) The example of the Holy Apostles. Thus, St. Paul, having baptized some in Ephesus, immediately imparted the Holy Spirit to them through the sacramental laying on of hands (Acts 19:5–6), and in his epistle to the Ephesians, he commands them not to grieve the Holy Spirit, by whom they were sealed on the day of redemption—that is, on the very day of their Baptism (Eph. 4:30). Likewise, as soon as the other Apostles heard that St. Philip the deacon had baptized the Samaritans—to whom, by virtue of his office, he could not confer the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands—they immediately sent Peter and John to Samaria to perform this sacrament upon those who had been baptized (Acts 8:14–17).

2) Following the example of the entire early Church. This is attested to by: a) Tertullian: “Having come out of the baptismal font, we are anointed with the blessed anointing;”[1100] b) The Council of Laodicea: “It is fitting for those enlightened by baptism to be anointed with the heavenly anointing and to be partakers of the kingdom of God” (Canon 48); c) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When you emerged from the font of holy waters, you were anointed with an anointing corresponding to that with which Christ was anointed,”[1101] and many other teachers of the Church.[1102] Roman writers themselves admit that, for twelve centuries, Chrismation was administered to the baptized immediately after Baptism even in the Roman Church—not only throughout the East.[1103]

Consequently, this Church strayed from the truth when, beginning in the 13th century, it began to separate the administration of Confirmation from Baptism, and now teaches in its Catechism that baptized infants should not be confirmed until they have reached adolescence, that is, between the ages of 7 and 12, so that they may approach this sacrament with full consciousness and sufficient knowledge of the fundamental truths of the faith.[1104] But if one were to follow this line of reasoning, then the baptism of infants would also have to be postponed until that same age of consciousness. And yet, the Roman Church itself baptizes infants on the basis of the faith and vows of their godparents and parents; why, then, does it deprive infants for several years of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are necessary for their spiritual growth?

3. On the Sacrament of the Eucharist or Holy Communion

§212. Connection to the Previous Section: The Concept of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, Its Supremacy, and Its Various Names

Through the sacrament of Baptism, we enter the grace-filled kingdom of Christ, purified, justified, and reborn for spiritual life. In the sacrament of Confirmation, we receive the grace-filled powers necessary for our strengthening and growth in the spiritual life. Finally, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we are deemed worthy, for the same lofty purpose, to partake of the saving food and drink—the most pure flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus—and we are truly united with the very source of life (Ps. 35:10). Therefore, the Orthodox Church has from ancient times observed the custom, following Baptism and Chrismation, of administering the sacrament of the Eucharist to its new children—[1105] —so that in this way, upon their very entry into the kingdom of grace, they may be imparted the fullness of the grace-filled gifts necessary for their new life, while never ceasing, however, and at all times thereafter to call the faithful to this saving sacrament.

The Eucharist is a sacrament in which a Christian, under the appearance of bread and wine, partakes of the true body and true blood of his Savior. This sacrament surpasses all others, as stated in the Orthodox Confession (Part 1, Answer to Question 106). It surpasses them:

1) By its abundance of mystery and incomprehensibility. In the other sacraments, what is incomprehensible is precisely that God’s grace acts invisibly upon a person through a known visible form, while the substance of the sacraments—for example, water in Baptism and holy chrism in Confirmation—remains unchanged. Here, on the contrary, the very substance of the sacrament changes: bread and wine, while retaining their outward appearance, are miraculously transformed into the true body and blood of our Lord, and only then, when received by the faithful, do they invisibly produce their grace-filled effects within them.

2) The Lord’s overflowing love for us and the extraordinary greatness of the gift bestowed in this sacrament. In the other sacraments, the Lord Jesus imparts to those who believe in Him various particular gifts of saving grace, in accordance with the nature of each sacrament—gifts which He acquired for humanity through His death on the cross. Here, however, He offers Himself—His own body and blood—as food to the faithful, and believers, uniting directly with their Lord and Savior, are thus united with the very source of saving grace.

3) Finally, all other sacraments are merely sacraments that have a salvific effect on a person; but the Eucharist is not only the most incomprehensible and most salvific of the sacraments, but also a sacrifice to God—a sacrifice offered to Him for all, both the living and the dead, and which appeases Him (Orthodox Confession, Part I, Answer to Question 107; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 17).

The Sacrament of the Eucharist has been called by various names since ancient times, including: a) the Eucharist (εύχαριστία), that is, thanksgiving: because, when instituting this sacrament, the Lord took the bread and, having given thanks (εύχαριςτήσας), broke it (1 Cor. 11:24), and then, taking the cup, also giving thanks or offering praise (εύχαριστήσας), gave it to His disciples (Matt. 26:27); b) the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 10:17–21), mystical and divine:[1106] because it was instituted during the Lord’s secret supper with His disciples; c) the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), Christ’s, sacred, and mysterious:[1107] because it offers the body and blood of the Lord Jesus as saving food; d) the sacrament of the altar:[1108] because it is performed at the altar on the holy throne; e) the Lord’s bread, God’s bread, heavenly bread, and daily bread:[1109] as well as the cup of awe, the sacrament of the cup:[1110] by virtue of the elements used in this sacrament; f) the cup of blessing (1 Cor. 10:16): by the manner of the consecration of the Holy Gifts;[1111] g) the Body of Christ, the Lord’s, the saving, the holy:[1112] and the Blood of Christ, the precious:[1113] because, under the appearance of bread and wine, it imparts the true Body and Blood of Christ; h) Communion, fellowship:[1114] because, by partaking of this sacrament, we all become one with the Lord Jesus and with one another; i) the cup of life and salvation [1115] through the grace-filled actions within us; k) mysteries—holy, divine, awe-inspiring, and heavenly mysteries:[1116] by their very nature and by their abundance of incomprehensibility to us; l) a holy, mysterious sacrifice:[1117] because it truly serves as a propitiatory sacrifice to God, and so on.

§213. The Divine Promise Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist and Its Institution

Wishing to prepare people to receive such a great and awe-inspiring sacrament as the Eucharist, Christ the Savior, long before its institution, deigned to make a solemn promise concerning it, to reveal its essence, power, and necessity; and only then, when the time had come, did He actually institute this saving sacrament. The story of the promise concerning it is recounted in detail by St. John the Theologian; the story of its institution itself is recounted by the three other Evangelists and St. Paul the Apostle.

1) St. John first recounts the occasion on which the Lord deigned to utter the promise concerning the mystery of His Body and Blood. Once, by the Sea of Tiberias, He performed a great miracle: with five loaves of bread and two fish, He fed about five thousand people (John 6:1–13). Those who witnessed this miracle were so amazed by it that they involuntarily exclaimed: “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14), and, carried away by their false notions about the earthly kingdom of the Messiah, they wanted to come, seize Him by surprise, and make Him king (John 6:15). The God-man, who came to earth not to be served but to serve (Matt. 20:28), immediately withdrew alone to the mountain; and then, at night, joining His disciples who were sailing in a boat to Capernaum, He miraculously crossed with them to the other side of the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:16–23). But the people, whom Jesus had miraculously fed, persistently sought the Miracle-Worker and also followed Him by boat to Capernaum (John 6:23–25). It was then that the Lord, realizing that the Jews were following Him not because they had seen a sign, but because they had eaten the loaves and were satisfied, and having clearly stated this to the Jews (John 6:26), He desired to turn their attention from perishable food to another, higher, imperishable food, and He spoke of the promise of the mystery of the Eucharist.[1118]

“Do not labor for perishable food, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal” (John 6:27)—thus Christ began this promise before the multitude of Jews.

When they said, “What sign will You give us so that we may see and believe in You?”—and reminded Him that Moses had given them bread from heaven, or manna, in the wilderness as proof of his divine mission (John 6:30–31)—[1119] Then Jesus replied: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven” (John 6:32), and in response to their plea: “Lord! Give us this bread always” (John 6:34), He expressed the promise of the Eucharist even more clearly, saying: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to Me will never hunger, and whoever believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35).

Finally, when the Jews, struck by these words, began to murmur because He had said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven”—and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (John 6:41–42)—Jesus had already testified with complete clarity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in Me has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and died; but the bread that comes down from heaven is such that whoever eats it will never die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:47–51). The Jews began to argue among themselves again and said, “How can He give us His Flesh to eat?” (John 6:52)—and Jesus repeated to them once more with perfect clarity: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not like the manna your fathers ate and died; whoever eats this bread will live forever (John 6:53–58).

Many of the disciples who had been following Jesus, upon hearing this wondrous promise concerning the awesome mystery, said, “What a hard saying! Who can accept this?” (John 6:60)—and at that very moment they turned away from Him forever (John 6:66). But His true disciples, the Twelve, accepted this word with faith and, through Peter, confessed: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (John 6:68–69). And experience showed that, when the Lord later instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, none of them expressed any confusion, and none asked Jesus any questions—proving that they were truly prepared to receive such a great sacrament.

2) It pleased the Lord to institute the sacrament of the Eucharist amid the most significant circumstances. The Jewish Passover was approaching—the greatest of the Old Testament feasts, which foreshadowed the atoning Lamb, slain according to God’s predestination from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). At the same time, the hour was finally approaching when He, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29), was to be truly sacrificed on the altar of the cross. At that very time, the day before the Jews were to celebrate the Passover, the Lord sent two of His disciples to Jerusalem to prepare a place and everything necessary for the celebration of the Passover. And on the very night He was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23), He came with all twelve to the upper room in Jerusalem, which had been prepared according to His will. There, having reclined with His disciples, He first celebrated the Old Testament Passover (Luke 22:15); then He washes the disciples’ feet, teaching them humility and mutual love (John 13:3–15), foretells His impending sufferings to them once more, identifies the betrayer [(Matt. 26:21–25); (Luke 22:16–27)], and, finally, institutes the sacrament of the Eucharist.

And while they were eating, St. Matthew the Evangelist recounts, Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and, distributing it to the disciples, said: “Take, eat; this is My Body.” And taking the cup, and giving thanks, He gave it to them and said, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins [(Matt. 26:26–28); cf. (Mark 14:22–24)]. Or, as St. Paul the Apostle writes to the Corinthians: For I received from the Lord Himself what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and having given thanks, broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My Body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after supper, He took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me” [(1 Cor. 11:23–25); cf. (Luke 22:19–20)].

Thus, at the very same time, the Lord both brought to a close the Old Testament typological Passover and instituted the New Testament bloodless sacrifice, the true Passover, which is to be celebrated in remembrance of Him until the end of the world. And He accomplished all this on the very night when He was delivered up to suffer on the cross and to die!

§214. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Turning our attention to the visible or sensory aspect of the sacrament of the Eucharist, we distinguish: 1) the elements used for the sacrament: bread and wine; 2) the liturgical rite during which the sacrament is celebrated; and 3) in particular, that most essential part of the liturgical rite—the words by which the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

I. The elements used for the sacrament of the Eucharist are bread and wine. The bread must be made of wheat, pure, and leavened; and the wine must be grape wine, pure, and diluted with water during the offering (Rules of the Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 107).

1) The bread must be made of wheat, as was customarily used by the Jews in the days of Jesus Christ, who instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist, and as the Church has always used for this sacrament.[1120] It must be pure both in the substance from which it is made and in the manner of its preparation: the very greatness and holiness of the sacrament demand this. Finally, it must be leavened, not unleavened, as is commonly used by the Latins for the sacrament of the Eucharist.[1121] For:

a) Christ the Savior Himself originally celebrated the sacrament of Communion with leavened bread, not unleavened bread.[1122] It is indisputable that He instituted this sacrament before the feast of the Jewish Passover (John 13:1): because on the following day He was put on trial (John 18:28), condemned to death (John 19:14), and even taken down from the cross (John 19:31), just as the Jews were preparing to celebrate the Passover. Consequently, He instituted it at a time when leavened bread, rather than unleavened bread, was still being eaten in Jewish homes. It was Christ Himself who instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist on the 13th day of the month of Nisan in the evening—a fact attested to even by the finest of Roman writers,[1123] while the law prescribed that the Jews begin the celebration of the Passover and the eating of unleavened bread only on the evening of the 14th of Nisan,[1124] so that the first of the seven days of Unleavened Bread,[1125] which began after Passover—and on which the Jews were required to remove all leaven from their homes and eat only unleavened bread—was already the 15th day of Nisan.[1126] From the fact that Christ, before instituting the Eucharist—though earlier than the Jews—nevertheless celebrated the Passover with His disciples [(Matt. 26:17–20); (Mark 14:12–16); (Luke 22:7–8)], it does not strictly follow that He also ate unleavened bread at that time. For, first of all, according to the law, the Passover lamb—or the Passover meal—was to be eaten first, and only then was the eating of unleavened bread to follow, which lasted seven days [(Exodus 12:8); (Lev. 23:5–6)],—and it is quite possible that the Savior, having eaten only the Old Testament Passover or the Passover lamb with His disciples—which was, in fact, a foreshadowing of His atoning sacrifice and, consequently, of the sacrament of the Eucharist—immediately thereafter instituted the New Testament sacrament of His body and blood. Second, since Christ, being the Lord of the Sabbath and of all Old Testament feasts, celebrated the Passover a day earlier th [1127] —when the Jews were prescribed to celebrate it and when the eating of unleavened bread began among them—He could have celebrated it not with unleavened bread, but with leavened bread. However, even if we concede that Christ partook of unleavened bread along with the Passover lamb, it is still unjust to conclude from this that He also celebrated the Eucharist with unleavened bread while leavened bread was still being eaten in people’s homes; on the contrary, it is natural to think that, having celebrated the Old Testament Passover—which was now coming to an end—with unleavened bread, the Lord then instituted the sacrament of the New Covenant (Mark 14:24) with a new substance, leavened bread.[1128] The Evangelists convince us of this when they testify that Christ took bread—άρτος—and, having blessed it, broke it, and, distributing it to the disciples, said: “Take, eat; this is My Body” [(Matt. 26:26); (Mark 14:22); (Luke 22:19)], that is, leavened bread (άρτος from αίρω, “to raise”), as the word was understood according to common usage—[1129] —by the Apostles themselves and the Savior,[1130] —and not unleavened bread, which, unlike leavened bread, was usually called only “unleavened bread,” άζυμον — OR if sometimes it was called bread, άρτος, then it was invariably unleavened bread—άζυμος [(Num. 6:19); (Judg. 6:20)].[1131]

b) The Eucharist was celebrated with leavened bread in the days of the Apostles. For—aa) this bread is consistently called άρτος, not unleavened bread [(Acts 2:42–46); (Acts 20:7); (1 Cor. 10:16; (1 Cor. 11:20)]; bb) all Jews who had recently converted to Christ also participated in the Eucharist at that time (Acts 2:41–46), — and the Jews, whom the Law required to eat unleavened bread only seven days a year and never otherwise, would not have agreed to receive the sacrament with unleavened bread every day (Acts 42:46) until the Apostles had decided how Christians should regard the ceremonial Law of Moses (Acts, chapter 15); (c) The eating of unleavened bread was prescribed by God in the Law of Moses; but the Apostles, having determined at the Council of Jerusalem which parts of that Law should remain binding for Christians and which should cease to be in force, did not command Christians to eat unleavened bread (Acts 15:23–30); consequently, the practice of eating them was not adopted by the Church of Christ and must pass away, like a shadow of the law.

c) The Eucharist was consistently celebrated in the Church of Christ using leavened bread, and this continued throughout the subsequent period. For—aa) the elements for the sacrament, as is well known, were usually taken from the offerings of the people, who undoubtedly brought ordinary leavened bread from their homes to the churches, since it was intended both for love feasts and for helping the poor (1 Cor. 11:21–22); bb) none of the ancient writers explicitly refers to the bread on which the Eucharist was celebrated as unleavened bread; on the contrary, the writers call it bread that was commonly eaten,[1132] or sometimes explicitly leavened bread;[1133] cc) St. Epiphanius even mentions, as a distinctive feature of the Ebionite heretics, who adhered to the Law of Moses, that they celebrated the Eucharist with unleavened bread and water alone,[1134] thereby clearly showing that the Church acted differently; gg) Some of the most impartial Western writers themselves—both Roman Catholic and Protestant—willingly acknowledge and demonstrate that until the tenth or even the eleventh century, unleavened bread was not used at all in the Church,[1135] although others strive to prove the contrary.[1136]

2) The other element for the sacrament of the Eucharist, along with wheat bread and leavened bread, must be wine—contrary to the opinion of certain false teachers—[1137] and specifically grape wine. For Christ the Savior Himself performed the sacrament of the Eucharist with grape wine. After handing the cup to His disciples and saying to them, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant,” He immediately added: “I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink new wine with you in the Kingdom of My Father” (Matt. 26:27–29). Following the Savior’s example, the Holy Church has always celebrated this sacrament with grape wine—as evidenced by the testimonies of Irenaeus,[1138] Cyprian,[1139] Chrysostom,[1140] the Council of Carthage, and others.[1141] And since red grape wine was commonly used in Palestine [(Gen. 49:11); (Deut. 32:14)], and the Lord Jesus certainly celebrated the sacrament with such wine, the Church has from ancient times used red grape wine for the Eucharist, all the more so because its very appearance represents the blood of Christ to the physical eye.

This wine, intended for the Eucharist, like the bread, must be as pure as possible: the grandeur and holiness of the sacrament demand it. It must be mixed with water: because—a) Christ Himself, as tradition testifies,[1142] used wine mixed with water at the institution of the Eucharist, which was commonly used in Judea;[1143] b) and the Holy Church, following the Savior’s example, has always used the same kind of wine, recalling at the same time that, during the Lord’s Passion on the cross, blood and water flowed from His pierced side (John 19:34). The ancient teachers of the Church—Justin,[1144] Irenaeus,[1145] Cyprian,[1146] Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and others,[1147] as well as the ancient Councils—Carthage,[1148] Trullo, and the ancient liturgical rites [1149] —unanimously bear witness to this.

II. The sacred service during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated—and without which it cannot be celebrated—is the Liturgy. It consists of three parts: the first is the Proskomedia, or the Offering, when the elements for the sacrament are prepared; it is so named after the custom of the early Christians of bringing bread and wine to the church for the Eucharist; the second is the Liturgy of the Catechumens, during which Christians prepare for the sacrament and even catechumens were permitted to be present; the third is the Liturgy of the Faithful, during which the sacrament is celebrated and only the faithful may be present. The place and manner of celebrating the Liturgy, in all its parts, are specified in detail in the rules and rites of the Church.

III. The most important acts in the final part of the Liturgy are: a) the recitation of the words spoken by the Savior when instituting the sacrament: “Take, eat; this is My Body… Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood of the New Covenant…” (Matt. 26:26–28), and then—b) the invocation of the Holy Spirit, or the prayer to God the Father for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the holy gifts, and their blessing (Extensive Christian Catechism on the Eucharist). According to the order of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, this action takes place as follows:

When the choir begins to sing the Seraphic Hymn, the celebrant prays;

(Privately) “With these blessed Powers, O Lord, Lover of mankind, we cry out and say: Holy are You and most holy, You and Your Only-Begotten Son, and Your Holy Spirit. Holy and most holy are You, and magnificent is Your glory, You who so loved the world that You gave Your only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish but have eternal life. He who came and fulfilled all that was required of us, surrendering Himself on that night—indeed, surrendering Himself for the sake of worldly life— took the bread in His holy, most pure, and spotless hands; giving thanks and blessing it, consecrating it, and breaking it, He gave it to His holy disciples and Apostles, saying:”

(Proclaiming and pointing with His right hand to the diskos) “Take, eat; this is My Body, which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.”

(Quietly, while the choir sings “Amen”) “Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:”

(Raising his voice and pointing with his hand to the chalice) “Drink from it, all of you; this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

(In secret, when the choir sings: “Amen”) “As we remember this saving commandment and all that has been accomplished for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Seating at Your right hand, and the second and glorious coming,”

(Proclaiming) “We offer these, which are Thine and from Thine, to Thee, for all and for everything.”

(Quietly, while the choir sings: “We sing to You”) “We also offer to You this verbal and bloodless service, and we ask, and we beseech, and we entreat: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set before You.”

(Raising one’s voice and repeating three times): “O Lord, who sent down Your Most Holy Spirit upon Your Apostles at the third hour, do not take Him away from us, O Good One, but renew us who pray to You” (while the deacon reads the verses: “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence, and do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.”)

(Continuing in the same tone, when the deacon points to the holy bread and says: “Bless, O Lord, this holy bread”): “And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.” (When the deacon, having said “Amen,” says: “Bless, O Lord, the holy chalice”): “And may the Precious Blood of Your Christ be in this chalice.” (And finally, when the deacon, having said “Amen” and pointing to both sacred gifts, says: “Bless, Your Grace, both of them”): “Having transformed them by Your Holy Spirit” (deacon: “Amen, Amen, Amen”).

From this it is evident—a) that the Savior’s words: “Take, eat… Drink from it, all of you…,” spoken by the celebrant while pointing to the Holy Gifts, followed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the Holy Gifts and the blessing of the Gifts themselves, constitute a single, uninterrupted, and indivisible act; b) that these words of Christ are recalled specifically in a prayer addressed to God, and are recalled as the Savior’s commandment “ ” to His followers (1 Cor. 11:23–25), and — c) that on the basis of this very commandment (for we do indeed commemorate this saving commandment), the clergyman dares, on behalf of all the faithful, to address a prayer to God the Father for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the holy gifts and for His transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Thus, while attributing to the Lord’s words—spoken by Him at the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist—the full importance of a salvific commandment, by virtue of which the ministers of the altar dare to act and without which they would never dare to proceed with the sacred rite of such a great and awe-inspiring sacrament, the Orthodox-Catholic Church at the same time “believes and holds that [1150] the transubstantiation of the Body and Blood of Christ takes place in the Divine Liturgy through the inspiration and action of the Holy Spirit, by the invocation of the bishop or priest in words of prayer addressed to God the Father: ‘And make this bread the Honorable Body of Your Christ, and that which is in this chalice, the Honorable Blood of Your Christ, by the power of Your Holy Spirit.’[1151] Thus has the Church of Christ always believed, according to the tradition of the Holy Apostles themselves. This is evident:

1) From its ancient liturgies, such as: the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, the Lord’s Brother; the Liturgy set forth in the Apostolic Constitutions; and the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. In all of them, as in the Liturgy of Chrysostom, the Savior’s words spoken at the institution of the Eucharist are recalled in a prayer addressed to God, and moreover with the clear addition of Christ’s command: “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19), immediately followed by the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the offerings before Him for their sanctification and transubstantiation. In the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, this is expressed as follows: “Therefore (that is, according to Christ’s commandment: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’), we sinners, commemorating His (the Savior’s) life-giving sufferings, His saving cross… offer to You, O Lord, this awesome and bloodless sacrifice, praying… Have mercy on us, O God, according to Your great mercy, and send down upon us and upon these gifts set before You Your Holy Spirit, the Life-giving Lord, who is co-enthroned with You, God the Father, and with Your only-begotten Son, who reigns with You, of one essence, co-eternal…, — this all-holy Spirit of Yours, O Lord, send down upon us and upon these offerings set before You, so that, coming with His holy, good, and glorious inspiration, He may sanctify this bread and transform it into the holy Body of Your Christ, and this cup—into the precious Blood of Christ the Savior.”[1152] In the Apostolic Constitutions: “Therefore (that is, according to the same commandment of the Savior), as we commemorate His passion, death, and resurrection from the dead…, we offer to You, King and God, according to His commandment (κατά τήν αύτού διάταξιν), this bread and this cup, giving thanks to You through Him that You have deemed us worthy to stand before You and serve You, and we pray to You, O All-Satisfied God, look with mercy upon these gifts set before You, accept them for the sake of Your Christ, and send down upon this offering Your Holy Spirit, the witness to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, that He may transform this bread into the Body of Your Christ, and this cup into the Blood of Your Christ…”[1153] In the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, however, the bread and wine—even after the Savior’s words have been spoken over them: “Take, eat…,” and “drink from it, all of you…,” are clearly referred to only as types (αντίτυπα) of the Body and Blood of Christ—that is, representing an image of them, but not yet transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord: “Having set forth the types of the Holy Body and Blood of Your Christ, we pray to You and call upon You, Holy of Holies, that by the good pleasure of Your goodness, Your Holy Spirit may descend upon us and upon these Gifts set before us, and bless them, sanctify them, and make them manifest.”[1154] This is followed by the prayer: “Lord, who sent Your Most Holy Spirit…” and the blessing of the Holy Gifts itself, with the recitation of the well-known words.

2) From the testimonies of its ancient teachers, both Eastern and Western. For example:

St. Irenaeus: “Just as earthly bread, through the invocation of God upon it, is no longer ordinary bread but the Eucharist, consisting of the earthly and the heavenly, so too our bodies, by partaking of the Eucharist, are no longer mortal but have the hope of resurrection.”[1155]

Origen: “Pleasing the Creator of all things, we partake of the bread that has been offered with thanksgiving for the blessings received and with prayer; this bread, through prayer, has become holy and sanctifies those who partake of it with a good disposition.”[1156]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the holy invocation of the adored Trinity, were simply bread and wine; but upon the completion of the invocation, the bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ.”[1157] “The bread in the Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere bread, but the Body of Christ.”[1158] “After this (that is, after the Seraphic Hymn), having sanctified ourselves with these spiritual hymns, we pray to God, the Lover of mankind, that He may send down the Holy Spirit upon the gifts before us, so that the bread may become the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ. For it is certain that whatever the Holy Spirit touches is sanctified and transformed.”[1159]

St. Basil the Great: “Who among the saints has left us in writing the words of invocation spoken during the consecration of the Eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing? For we are not content with those words mentioned by the Apostle or the Gospel, but we also utter others before and after them, as having great power in the sacrament, having received them from unwritten teaching.”[1160]

Blessed Augustine: “By the Body and Blood of Christ we mean precisely that which, having been taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by a mystical prayer, we reverently receive for the salvation of our souls in remembrance of the Lord’s suffering for us—which, though in its outward form it is the work of human hands, is sanctified into the great sacrament solely by the invisible action of the Holy Spirit.”[1161] “In these words (1 Tim. 2:1), I prefer to understand what the whole, or nearly the whole, Church repeats: we offer supplications (precationes) during the celebration of the sacraments, before what is on the Lord’s table begins to be blessed; and prayers (orationes) when it is blessed, consecrated, and set apart for distribution.”[1162]

St. Proclus of Constantinople: “After the ascension of our Savior into heaven, the Apostles, before they were scattered throughout the universe, gathered together with one accord, remained in daily prayer, and, finding consolation in the mystical celebration of the Lord’s Body, celebrated the Liturgy with prolonged hymns… Through such prayers they sought the descent of the Holy Spirit, so that by His divine manifestation He might reveal and show the bread and wine offered in the sacrament—mixed with water—to be the very Body and Blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, which is performed in the same way to this day and will be performed until the end of time.”[1163]

St. John of Damascus: “Just as bread, through eating, and wine and water, through drinking, are naturally transformed (μεταβάλλονταί) into the body and blood of the one who eats and drinks, and do not become a different body from his former body: so too the bread of the offering, the wine, and the water, through the invocation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, are supernaturally transformed (ϋπερφυώς μεταποιούνται) into the body and blood of Christ, and constitute not two bodies, but one and the same.”[1164] We find the same teaching in St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1165] ; St. Jerome,[1166] ; St. Ambrose, ; Theodore of Heraclia; Theophylact of Bulgaria,[1167] ; and in all subsequent Orthodox writers of the East.[1168]

§215. The Invisible Reality of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: a) The Reality of the Presence of Jesus Christ in This Sacrament

We believe that at the very moment when the priest, celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist according to the Savior’s command, invokes the Holy Spirit upon the offered gifts and blesses them with a prayer to God the Father: “And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ, and that which is in this chalice, the precious Blood of Your Christ, transforming them by Your Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are truly transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—so that, although even after this we see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisible to the physical eye, these are the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the appearances of bread and wine.” “We believe, say the early Fathers of the East, that our Lord Jesus Christ is present in this sacred rite—not symbolically, not figuratively (τυπικώς, είκονικώς), not by an abundance of grace as in the other sacraments, not merely by inspiration, as some Fathers spoke of baptism, and not through the permeation of the bread (κατ έναρτισμόν, per impanationem), so that the divinity of the Word enters the Bread offered for the Eucharist essentially (ύποστατικώς), as Luther’s followers explain rather clumsily and unworthily: but truly and really, so that, upon the consecration of the bread and wine, the bread is transformed, transubstantiated, and changed into the very true Body of the Lord, who was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, and is to appear on the clouds of heaven; and the wine is transformed and transubstantiated into the very true blood of the Lord, which, during His passion on the cross, was shed for the life of the world. We further believe that, after the consecration of the bread and wine, they are no longer merely bread and wine, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance and form of bread and wine” (Epistle, Art. 17). In these words, the Orthodox Church clearly confesses: a) the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and—b) the very nature of that presence. The reality of His presence—contrary to the errors of freethinkers, both ancient [1169] and modern [1170] , especially the Reformers, who teach that Christ is not present at all in the sacrament of the Eucharist, that the bread and wine, even after consecration, remain mere bread and wine, but serve only as symbols, images, or signs of the body and blood of Christ; to the extent that, when we partake of this bread and wine, we are inwardly and spiritually united through faith with the body and blood of Christ as spiritual food.[1171] The mode of presence, namely through the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord: — this is contrary to the claims of the Lutherans, who assert that Christ, although truly present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, is present only through the permeation of the bread and wine (reg. impanationem), which remain entirely unchanged, and through the invisible co-presence of His body and blood with them (reg. consubstantiationem),[1172] and not through the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into His body and blood.

The teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist has unshakable foundations in both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. — These include:

I. Christ’s words of promise regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist (John 6:27–68), which must necessarily be understood in a literal sense, and not in any figurative sense.[1173] For:

1) The Jews themselves, to whom the Savior’s discourse was addressed, understood them literally. When they heard Him say, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; “The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51), they began to argue among themselves, puzzled by the possibility of such a miracle: “Then the Jews began to argue among themselves, saying, ‘How can He give us His flesh to eat?’” (John 6:52). What, then, would this dispute among the Jews have meant if they had understood the Savior’s words not literally?

2) Christ the Savior did not in any way indicate to the Jews that they were misunderstanding His words, as He had done on other occasions [(John 3:3–5); (John 4:32); (John 5:13); (John 8:21); (John 32:40); (John 11:11); (John 16:18–22); (Matt. 16:6); (Matt. 19:24)]; on the contrary, He continued His discourse with even greater force and clarity in the very same sense: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink (John 6:53–55).[1174] What is particularly noteworthy here is: a) that the Lord begins His reply to the Jews with the words “Amen,” Amen, which He usually used to express the strongest, firmest, and most indisputable assurance of the truth; b) that He offers people the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood as a positive commandment, absolutely necessary for them to receive eternal life: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life within you. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life (John 6:53–54); but the nature of such a great and important commandment required that it be expressed simply and in a way that is easily understood by all people, and therefore, in a literal sense; c) finally, the statement: “My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink” (John 6:55). The addition of the word “truly” (αληθώς) attests, on the one hand, to the perfect identity between the subjects referred to here, and on the other hand, clearly shows that the Jews, who were enticed by the Savior’s promise to give them His flesh to eat, were not mistaken in their understanding of His words, and that He truly promised them to partake of His flesh and blood.

3) Jesus’ disciples, who were among the Jews, understood these words in exactly the same way; as a result, many of them, astonished by the idea of partaking of their Teacher’s flesh and blood, murmured, “What a strange saying! Who can listen to this?” (John 6:60). And the Lord, in order to convince them of the possibility of such a miraculous partaking, pointed to another miracle—His future ascension—which He had mentioned only on rare occasions as the strongest proof of His divine authority in teaching and the truth of His preaching [(John 1:50–51); (Matt. 26:13–64)]. Jesus, knowing within Himself that His disciples were grumbling about this, said to them: “Does this cause you to stumble? What then, if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:61–62)?

4) All the ancient teachers of the Church—Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius of Caesarea,[1175] —understood Christ’s words of promise regarding the mystery of the Eucharist in their literal sense. Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Macarius,[1176] Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Theodoret, Leontius of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, and others,[1177] as well as the entire Ecumenical Councils: Ephesus and Constantinople II.[1178]

5) The expression “to eat the flesh,” when used figuratively in the language of Holy Scripture, always and everywhere means: “to cause great harm to another, to inflict a cruel offense, and especially to slander and defame” [(Ps. 26:2); (Job 19:22); (Micah 3:3); (Galatians 5:15)], and it has no other meaning. Consequently, if Christ’s words of promise regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist are taken figuratively, they will mean the following: “Whoever eats my flesh”—that is, whoever inflicts the greatest harm upon me—“shall have eternal life!” And conversely: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man”—that is, unless you inflict cruel insults upon Him, slander Him, and revile Him—“you have no life within you!”… Who would not recoil from such a train of thought?

6) To take these words of Christ figuratively and to assert, as the Reformers do, that the Lord was speaking to the Jews at that time specifically “about the spiritual partaking of Him and union with Him through faith,” is ultimately unjust, because Christ is speaking here to His listeners about a completely new kind of food, one they had not yet tasted, and promises to give it to them in the future: “The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). And among the Lord’s listeners at that time were His disciples—not only the Twelve, but also many others (John 6:60–67)—who, consequently, already believed in Him and, through faith, had already partaken of spiritual union with Him.

I. The accounts of the three Evangelists—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—regarding the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist. All of them testify that the Lord Jesus, at the Last Supper, took bread, blessed it, broke it, and, distributing it to His disciples, said: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me”—and taking the cup of wine, and giving thanks to God over it, He gave it to His disciples, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins [(Matt. 26:26); (Mark 14:22); (Luke 22:19)]. There is not the slightest reason to depart here from the literal meaning of the Savior’s words—in which He testifies with such clarity that His true body and His true blood are imparted under the appearances of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist; on the contrary, everything compels us to accept them in their literal sense. And—

1) The dignity of the Savior Himself. To concede, along with the freethinkers, that the Lord, when speaking to His disciples: “This is My body…,” and “This is My blood…,” actually intended to express the idea: “This is a symbol or sign of My body, and this is a symbol of My blood,” would that not also imply that, through the imprecision of His expression, He misled both the Apostles and, through them, the entire Church—which, as we shall see, has always understood these words in their direct, literal sense, and therefore has always seen in the Eucharist the true body and true blood of her Lord, and by no means symbols of His body and blood?

2) The circumstances in which Christ spoke these words. He spoke them to a select group of His disciples, whom He had deemed worthy to hear Him say, “You are My friends” (John 15:14–15); He spoke them at a time when, as the disciples themselves acknowledged, He was no longer speaking to them in parables but was speaking plainly (John 16:29); He spoke them in the final hours before His suffering and death. But if it is natural for anyone to open his heart to his friends and speak plainly and clearly before them, this is especially true before one’s death.

3) The Significance of the Eucharist. In instituting it, the Lord established the greatest sacrament of the New Covenant, which He commanded to be celebrated at all times (Luke 22:19–20). But both the importance of the sacrament, which is necessary for our salvation, and the nature of the covenant or testament, and the nature of the commandment equally required that the language used on this occasion be the clearest and most precise possible, so as not to lead to any misunderstandings or deception in such an important matter.

4) The relationship between these words of the Savior and those spoken by Moses when establishing the Old Covenant. In instituting the great sacrament as a sign and confirmation of the New Covenant between God and the new Israel, the Lord Jesus, as He gave the cup to His disciples, said: “This is my blood of the new covenant,” — just as Moses, in ratifying the Old Covenant between God and the people of Israel, took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you” [(Heb. 9:20); (Exod. 24:8)]. But Moses undoubtedly shed real, actual bull’s blood at that time (Ex. 24:5), which foreshadowed the atoning blood of the Lamb, slain for the sins of the world on the altar of the cross. Consequently, Jesus Christ also gave His disciples His true, actual blood in the cup of the covenant.

III. The teaching of St. Paul the Apostle on the Eucharist, which he expresses primarily in two passages of his Epistle to the Corinthians.

In the first passage, warning the Corinthians against participating in the idolatrous feasts of the pagans, he says: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak to you as people of sound judgment; judge for yourselves what I say.” Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Since there is one loaf, we, though many, are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf… When pagans offer sacrifices, they offer them to demons, not to God. But I do not want you to be in fellowship with demons.

You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons [(1 Cor. 10:14–17); (1 Cor. 20–21)]. Here, evidently, the Apostle presents to Christians as an indisputable and well-known fact that, by partaking of the Lord’s cup, they partake of the blood of Christ, and by partaking of the Lord’s bread or meal, they partake of the body of Christ; and in doing so, he calls them themselves to bear witness: “I speak to you as people of sound judgment; judge for yourselves what I say” (1 Cor. 10:15).

Second, the Apostle first recounts the account of the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and he recounts it in the very same words—and, consequently, in the same literal sense—as the Evangelists do. For I received from the Lord Himself what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread, and after giving thanks, broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My Body, broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise, after supper, He took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (1 Cor. 11:23–26). And then He adds: “Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink from this cup. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body (1 Cor. 11:27–29). Could it be stated any more directly or clearly that, under the appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist, Christians partake of the Lord’s Body and Blood?

IV. The teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, beginning in apostolic times. For example:

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “They (the Docetists) turn away from the Eucharist and prayer, not confessing that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father raised from the dead out of His goodness.”[1179]

St. Justin the Martyr: “We receive this (the Eucharist) not as mere bread, nor as mere drink: but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, having become incarnate through the Word of God, possessed both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too we are taught that this food, over which thanksgiving is offered through the prayer of His Word, and which, through transubstantiation, nourishes our blood and flesh, is the flesh and blood of the same incarnate Jesus Christ.”[1180]

St. Irenaeus: “How can they (the heretics) acknowledge that the bread over which thanksgiving has been offered is the body of the Lord, and that this cup is the cup of His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world?”[1181] “If even the mixed cup and the prepared bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, by which our flesh is nourished and sustained, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of His Body, does not partake of God’s gift, which is eternal life?”[1182]

Macarius of Magnesia, a presbyter of Jerusalem (†266): “(In the Eucharist) it is not a figure of the body or a figure of the blood, as some who are blinded have proclaimed, but truly the body and blood of Christ.”[1183]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When Christ Himself declared and said of the bread, ‘This is My body,’ who after that would dare not to believe? And when He Himself assured us and said of the cup, ‘This is My blood,’ who would dare to doubt and say that this is not His blood? He once turned water into wine at Cana in Galilee (John 2:1–10), which is similar to blood: is He not worthy of belief when He turns wine into blood? If, having been invited to a earthly wedding, He performed this glorious miracle, does He not all the more—as the Son of the Bridegroom (Matt. 9:15)—by bestowing His body and His blood for our enjoyment, demand our confession? Therefore, let us accept this with every certainty as the body and blood of Christ. For in the form of bread, the body is given to you, and in the form of wine, the blood is given to you, so that, having partaken of the body and blood of Christ, you may become one with Him in body and blood. For in this way we become bearers of Christ when His body and blood are imparted to our members. Thus, in the words of Blessed Peter, we become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4)… Therefore, do not regard the bread and wine (in the Eucharist) as mere bread and wine: for they are the body and blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s own words. For although your senses may present this to you, let faith confirm you. Do not judge these things by taste, but know without a doubt through faith that you have been made partaker of the body and blood of Christ.”[1184]

St. John Chrysostom: “How many people today say: ‘I wish I could see Christ’s face, His form, His garments, His sandals!’ Yet here you see Him (in the Eucharist), you touch Him, you taste Him. You desire to see His garments; yet He grants you not only to see Him, but also to touch Him, to taste Him, and to receive Him within. Therefore, no one should approach with carelessness, no one with timidity, but all with ardent love, all with fervent zeal and vigor. Why must we always be vigilant? For a severe punishment awaits those who partake unworthily. Consider how much you abhor the traitor and those who crucified Christ. Therefore, take care lest you, too, become guilty against the Body and Blood of Christ. They put the all-holy Body to death; yet you receive it with an unclean soul after so many blessings. For it was not enough for Him that He became man, was scourged, and put to death; but He still gives Himself to us, and not only through faith but also in deed makes us part of His Body. How pure, then, must be the one who partakes of this sacrifice! How much purer than all the rays of the sun must be—the hand that breaks this flesh, the mouth filled with spiritual fire, the tongue stained with the awesome blood! Consider what honor you have been granted; what feast do you partake of? That which the angels gaze upon with awe and dare not look upon without fear, because of the radiance emanating from it—it is this that we partake of, with which we commune, and through which we become one body and one flesh with Christ. Who can recount the mighty deeds of the Lord? Let all who hear them praise Him (Ps. 105:2)? What shepherd nourishes his sheep with his own flesh? But what am I saying—a shepherd? There are often mothers who entrust their newborn infants to another wet nurse. But Christ did not tolerate this. He nourishes us with His own blood and thereby unites us with Himself.”[1185]

St. Ambrose: “And this Body that we celebrate is from the Virgin: why do you ask here about the natural order in the Body of Christ, when the Lord Himself was born of the Virgin, transcending nature? The flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried was true; therefore, this is truly the sacrament of that very flesh.”[1186]

St. Sophronius of Jerusalem: “Therefore, let no one think that these holy elements are mere images (αντίτυπα) of the body and blood of Christ, but let him believe that the bread and wine offered are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.”[1187]

St. John of Damascus: “Can He (God the Word) not make bread His body, and wine and water His blood? He said in the beginning, ‘Let the earth bring forth vegetation’ (Gen. 1:11), and the earth, stirred and strengthened by God’s command, even to this day, when watered by rain, produces its vegetation. So here too God said: “This is my body; this is my blood; do this in remembrance of me”—and by His almighty command it is so, and will remain so until He comes; for it is written: “until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). And for this new work, through the invocation, the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit is poured out like rain. For just as God created everything He made through the working of the Holy Spirit, so now, through the working of the Holy Spirit, that which transcends nature and cannot be comprehended except by faith alone is accomplished. “How will this be,” says the Holy Virgin, “since I do not know a man?” “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:34–35), replies the archangel Gabriel. And now, if you ask: How does bread become the Body of Christ, and water and wine the Blood of Christ? I, too, answer you: The Holy Spirit descends and accomplishes what is beyond words and understanding. Bread and wine are used because God knows human frailty, which often rejects many things with distaste when they are not established by customary use. Thus, God, in His customary condescension, accomplishes the supernatural through what is natural… Since people ordinarily eat bread and drink water and wine, God has united His Divinity with these substances and made them His body and blood, so that through what is ordinary and natural we may partake of what is supernatural.” And further: “Bread and wine are not mere images of the body and blood of Christ—far be it from it!—but the very deified body of the Lord (τεθεωμένον). For the Lord Himself said: ‘This is My body,’ not ‘an image of the body’; ‘This is My blood,’ not ‘an image of the blood’… If, however, some have called the bread and wine “representations” (images—άντίτυπο) of the Lord’s body and blood—as, for example, the God-bearing Basil did in the Liturgy—they referred to this offering (προσφοράν) in this way not after the consecration, but before the consecration.”[1188]

The following also taught this: St. Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa,[1189] Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Isidore of Pelusium, Jerome, Augustine,[1190] Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great,[1191] Theophylact [1192] , and others.[1193]

V. The teaching on the sacrament of the Eucharist as set forth by all the Ecumenical Councils. Thus:

At the First Ecumenical Council, the Fathers present confessed: “At the divine table, we must not merely see the bread and cup that are set before us, but, lifting up our minds, we must understand by faith that upon the sacred table lies the Lamb of God, Who takes upon Himself the sin of the world (John 1:29), offered as a sacrifice by the priests, and, truly receiving His precious Body and Blood, we must believe that these are the signs of our resurrection.”[1194]

At the Third Ecumenical Council, the letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, written on behalf of the entire Local Council of Alexandria, was unanimously accepted and approved; it states, among other things: “Proclaiming the death in the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God, that is, Jesus Christ, and confessing His resurrection and ascension into heaven, we perform a bloodless sacrifice in the churches, and in this way partake of the blessed mysteries and are sanctified by receiving the holy body and precious blood of the Savior of us all — Christ—and receiving it not as ordinary flesh—God forbid—nor as the flesh of a man sanctified and united with the Word by a unity of dignity, but as the truly life-giving and proper body of the Word Himself. For He (Jesus Christ), as God, being life by nature, when He became one with His own flesh, made it life-giving. And therefore, although He says to us: “Amen, “Amen, I say to you: unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood,” we must nevertheless regard it not as the flesh of a human being, in every respect like us (for how could human flesh, by its very nature, be life-giving?), but truly as the own flesh of Him who, for our sake, became and is called the Son of Man.”[1195]

The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in their condemnation of heretics, testified: “None of the trumpets of the Spirit—that is, the holy Apostles and our glorious Fathers—ever referred to our bloodless sacrifice, which is performed in remembrance of the suffering of our God and of His entire plan of salvation, as an image (είκονα) of His body. For they did not receive from the Lord such a way of speaking or teaching, but heard Him proclaim: ‘Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will have no life within you’; and also: ‘Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him’; and further: “Take, eat; this is My body…,” and He did not say, “Take, eat the image of My body…” It is therefore clear that neither the Lord, nor the Apostles, nor the Fathers ever called the bloodless sacrifice offered by priests an “image,” but rather the very body and the very blood (άλλά αΰτό σώμα και αΰτό αίμα). And although, before the consecration takes place, it seemed pious to some of the Holy Fathers to call these “representations” (άντίτυπα), after the consecration they are the body and blood of Christ, and are believed to be so.”[1196]

§216. b) The Nature and Consequences of the Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Based on the doctrine set forth thus far regarding the reality of Jesus Christ’s presence in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the very nature and consequences of His presence are determined. And:

I) If this presence, as we have seen, consists in the fact that after the consecration of the holy gifts in the Eucharist, it is no longer bread and wine that are present and administered to the faithful, but the true Body and true Blood of the Lord: then this means that He is present in this sacrament not merely by permeating (as the Lutherans falsely teach) the bread and wine, which remain intact, and merely coexisting with them, in them, and under them (in, cum, sub pane) with His body and blood, but in such a way that the bread and wine are transformed, transubstantiated, and converted into His very body and very blood (Orthodox Exposition, Part 1, Answer to Question 56; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 17). For otherwise, the bread and wine cannot become the true Body and true Blood of Christ except through the transformation or conversion of the very substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ—that is, through transubstantiation.

1. The very same passages from Holy Scripture that we have just examined serve to confirm this truth. In pronouncing the promise concerning the Eucharist, the Lord said, among other things: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). When instituting the Eucharist, He took the bread and said, “This is My body,” and, taking the cup of wine, He said, “This is My blood.” St. Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a participation in the blood of Christ?” Is not the bread that we break a participation in the Body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16) Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:27).

In all these passages, the bread itself is clearly and directly called the Body of Christ, and the wine itself is called the Blood of Christ; there is no suggestion whatsoever that the Lord’s Body coexists with the bread, or in the bread, or under the bread. No, Christ did not say, “In the bread that I will give, my flesh is,” but rather, “The bread that I will give is my flesh”; He did not say, “In this, or together with this, or under this, is my body; in this is my blood”—but rather, “This is my body; this is my blood.” But bread and wine, we repeat, cannot become the body and blood of the Lord except through transubstantiation, transformation, and metamorphosis.

2. In all ancient liturgies, beginning with the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle, and used not only in the Orthodox Church but also in non-Orthodox communities, such as: among the Nestorians, Eutychians, Armenians, Syriac Jacobites, and in the Roman Church, there is a prayer to God the Father before the consecration of the Holy Gifts, that He may transform, change, and transubstantiate the bread into the precious body of Jesus Christ, and the wine into His precious blood, by the Holy Spirit.[1197] Such complete agreement among all the ancient liturgies on such an important matter of doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist irrefutably testifies that this was precisely the Apostolic tradition on this subject, and that the Holy Catholic Church has always believed this.

3. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also taught that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed, changed, and converted into the body and blood of Christ—[1198] —or are made to become, to be, and to exist as the body and blood of Christ. Here, as proof, are the words of

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “He (Christ) once turned water into wine (John 2:1–10) at Cana in Galilee, which is similar to blood: and is it not worthy of belief when He transforms (μεταβαλός) wine into blood?”[1199] “Upon the completion of the consecration, the bread is transformed or becomes (γίνεται) the Body of Christ, and the wine becomes the Blood of Christ.”[1200]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “I truly think and believe that even now the bread, consecrated by the Word of God, is transformed (μεταποιείσθαι) into the body of God the Word.”[1201]

St. Ambrose: “Every time we receive the mysteries, which through the sacrament of sacred prayer are transformed (transfigurantur) into flesh and blood, we proclaim the Lord’s death.”[1202] “Let us show that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has sanctified, and that the power of the blessing is greater than the power of nature: for by the blessing, nature itself is transformed (mutatur).”[1203]

Theodore of Heraclia. “This,” said Christ, “is my body, and this is my blood, lest you think that they are merely a symbol, but that the bread is the very body of the Lord, and the wine is his blood, transformed (μεταποιούμενοι) into the flesh and blood of our Lord by the ineffable action of the Holy Spirit.”[1204]

St. John of Damascus: “The very bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of God. If you ask how this comes to pass, it is enough for you to hear that this is accomplished by the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord, through the Holy Spirit, formed His own flesh from the Most Holy Theotokos and within Himself. And we know nothing more than this: we know only that the Word of God is true, active, and all-powerful, but the manner of this transformation is inscrutable. In addition, it may be said that just as bread, through eating, and wine and water, through drinking, are naturally transformed (μεταβάλλονται) into the body and blood of the one who eats and drinks, and do not become a different body from his former body: so too the bread of the offering, the wine, and the water, through the invocation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are supernaturally transformed (ύπερφυώς μεταποιούνται) into the body and blood of Christ, and constitute not two bodies, but one and the same.”[1205]

Blessed Theophylact: “Remember that the bread we partake of in the sacrament is not a figure (αντίτυπον) of the Lord’s body, but is the very flesh of the Lord… For the bread, through the mystical words, by the mystical blessing, and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is transformed (μεταποιείται) into the Lord’s flesh.”[1206] “The bread is not a figure of the Lord’s body, but is transformed (μεταβάλλεται) into the very body of Christ.”[1207]

Euphemia Zigabena: “The Lord did not say, ‘These are symbols (σύμβολα) of my body and my blood,’ but rather, ‘These are my body and my blood’… For just as He supernaturally quickened the flesh He assumed, so He ineffably transforms (μεταποει) these (bread and wine) into His very life-giving body and into His most honorable blood.”[1208]

To prove and explain the possibility of such a transubstantiation of bread and wine by the power of God into the body and blood of Christ, the ancient pastors pointed to the omnipotence of the Creator [1209] and to the special works of His omnipotence: the creation of the world out of nothing,[1210] the mystery of the Incarnation,[1211] the miracles mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, in particular—the transformation of water into wine [1212] and the way in which, within us, the bread and wine or water that we consume are, unbeknownst to us, transubstantiated into our own body and blood.[1213]

However, it must be remembered that “the term ‘transubstantiation’ does not explain the manner in which bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of the Lord: for this cannot be comprehended by anyone except God Himself, and the efforts of those who wish to comprehend this can be the result only of madness and impiety; but it is shown only that the bread and wine, after consecration, are transformed into the Lord’s body and blood—not figuratively, not symbolically, not by an abundance of grace, not by a communion or infusion of the divine nature of the Only-Begotten, nor is any accidental property of the bread and wine transformed into an accidental property of the body and blood of Christ through any change or mixture, but, as stated above, truly, really, and substantially, the bread becomes the very true body of the Lord, and the wine the very blood of the Lord” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17).

II) Although the bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist are actually transformed into the body and blood of the Lord; He is present in this sacrament not merely with His body and blood, but with His entire being—that is, with His soul, which is inseparably united to His body, and with His very divinity, which is hypostatically and inseparably united to His humanity: this is why the Savior said: “Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me” (John 6:56–57). Likewise, the Holy Fathers taught that “we partake fully of the Lamb Himself,”[1214] that “He dwells entirely within all of us by His goodness,”[1215] and noted: “This sacrament is called the Eucharist because through it we become partakers of the divinity of Jesus. It is also called communion, and indeed it is communion, because through it we commune with Christ and become partakers of His flesh and divinity.”[1216]

III) Although the body and blood of the Lord are broken and divided in the sacrament of Communion, this actually occurs only with the appearances of bread and wine, in which the body and blood of Christ can be seen and touched; but in themselves they are entirely whole and indivisible. For Christ is always one and indivisible: divinity and humanity are indivisibly united in Him; the human soul and body are indivisibly united in Him; and His body, together with His blood, remains indivisible and always whole—as a living body that, having risen from the dead, will never die again (Rom. 6:9), a glorified body (1 Cor. 15:43), a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44), and an immortal body. Therefore, we believe that in every part—down to the smallest particle—of the bread and wine offered, there is not some separate part of the Lord’s body and blood, but the body of Christ is always whole and one in all its parts, and in every part—down to the smallest particle—the whole Christ is present in His essence, that is, with His soul and divinity, or the perfect God and the perfect man (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17). The Ecumenical Church has from ancient times expressed this faith in the liturgical rites, saying: “The Lamb of God is broken and divided, broken yet undivided, always consumed yet never exhausted, but sanctifying those who partake.”

IV) Likewise, although the sacrament of the Eucharist has been and is celebrated in countless places throughout the universe, the Body of Christ is always and everywhere one, and the Blood of Christ is always and everywhere one, and everywhere in this sacrament the one and same Christ, perfect God and perfect man, is wholly present. The Holy Fathers of the Orthodox East clearly profess this truth in the following words: “Although many liturgical services take place throughout the universe at the same time, there are not many bodies of Christ, but the one and same Christ is truly and really present, His one body and one blood in all the individual churches of the faithful. And this is not because the Lord’s Body, which is in heaven, descends upon the altars, but because the bread of the offering, prepared separately in all churches, and after consecration, transformed and transubstantiated, becomes one and the same with the Body that is in heaven. For the Lord always has one Body, not many in many places; therefore, this sacrament, by common consent, is the most wondrous, comprehensible only by faith and not by the speculations of human wisdom” (Epistle on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17).

V) If bread and wine are transubstantiated into the true body and blood of Christ the Savior through the sacramental consecration, then this means that from the moment of the consecration of the Holy Gifts, He is present in this sacrament continuously—that is, He is present not only at the very moment of the believers’ consumption and reception of the sacrament, as the Lutherans assert, but also before and after consumption: for the bread and wine, having been transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, are no longer restored to their former nature, but remain the Body and Blood of the Lord forever, regardless of whether or not they are consumed by the faithful (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17). That is why the Savior Himself, when instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist, as He gave the mystical bread to His disciples, said, “This is My body”—before the disciples had tasted it—and as He gave them the mystical cup, He said, “This is My blood”—before the disciples had drunk from it. For this reason, on the other hand, the Orthodox Church—a) has from ancient times observed the custom of celebrating the Liturgy on certain days using the Presanctified Gifts, in the unshakable conviction that these gifts, even after the consumption of those consecrated together with them at the previous Liturgy, remain the true Body and Blood of Christ;[1217] b) has also, from ancient times, observed the custom of keeping the consecrated gifts in sacred vessels to administer them to the dying as the true Body and Blood of Christ.[1218] It is also known that in the early Church there was a custom of sending the consecrated gifts through deacons to Christians who were not present in the church during the consecration and celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist,[1219] to confessors imprisoned in dungeons,[1220] and to penitents,[1221] — that believers often brought the Holy Gifts from churches to their homes, took them with them on journeys,[1222] and ascetics carried these gifts with them into the desert, so that in times of need they might partake of the Body and Blood of the Lord.[1223]

VI) If the bread and wine in the Holy and Life-giving Mysteries are the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, then these Mysteries must be accorded the same honor and divine worship that we owe to the Lord Jesus Himself (Orthodox Catechism, Part 1, Answer to Question 56. 107). For His human nature has been wholly assumed by Him into the unity of His divine Hypostasis, is inseparably united with His divine nature, and is the very humanity of God the Word—so that in the person of the God-Man, both of His natures, humanity and divinity, are worthy of a single, undivided divine worship. This truth, which flows directly from the dogma of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ, has always been held and professed by the Holy Church, as is evident from the testimonies of her teachers. For example:

St. John Chrysostom: “The Magi honored this body while it still lay in the manger; men who knew nothing of piety and were foreigners, having left their homeland and homes, undertook a long journey and, upon arriving, worshiped Him with great fear and trembling. So let us imitate them—even though they were foreigners—for we are citizens of heaven! They saw (Christ) in the manger and in the cave, and they saw nothing of what you now see; yet they approached with great awe—and you see Him not in the manger, but on the altar… not only do you see this very body, as they did, but you also know its power and the entire plan of salvation; you know all that has been accomplished through it, having been thoroughly instructed in all the mysteries.”[1224]

St. Ambrose, in explaining the words of the Psalmist: “Worship His footstool; it is holy” (Ps. 98:5), remarks: “By the term ‘footstool’ is meant the earth, and by the term ‘earth’—the flesh of Christ, which we now worship (adoramus) in a godly manner in the sacraments, and which the Apostles worshiped in the Lord Jesus.”[1225]

Blessed Augustine: “No one partakes of this flesh (of Christ) unless he first offers it divine worship.”[1226]

St. John of Damascus: “We do not reject the worship of the flesh, for worship is rendered to it in the single Hypostasis of the Word, which became a Hypostasis for the flesh; but we do not serve a creature—for we worship the flesh, not as mere flesh, but as flesh united with the divinity; because the two natures are united in one Person and one Hypostasis of God the Word. I am afraid to touch a burning coal, because fire is united with the wood. I worship both of Christ’s natures together; for the divinity is united with the flesh.”[1227]

§217. Who may celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist; who may partake of this sacrament; and what should the preparation for it consist of?

1. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the authority to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist belongs solely to bishops, as successors of the Apostles, and is communicated through the bishops to presbyters as well (Canonical Interpretation, Part 1, Answer to Question 107; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on Orthodox Faith, Art. 17). For—a) Christ conferred this authority only upon the Apostles, and consequently, in their person, only upon their successors, when, having instituted the most holy sacrament, He commanded them: “Do this in remembrance of Me” [(Luke 22:19); (1 Cor. 11:24–25)], and—b) only bishops and presbyters, from the days of the Apostles themselves, have consistently exercised this authority in the Church. Witnesses to this are not only individual teachers—St. Dionysius the Areopagite,[1228] St. Justin,[1229] Tertullian,[1230] St. Basil the Great, St. Chrysostom, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others,[1231] — but also entire Councils: the First Council of Nicaea,[1232] the Council of Ancyra (Canon 1), the Council of Neocaesarea (Canon 9), the Council of Gangra (Canon 4), and the Council of Laodicea.[1233]

Deacons were never granted this authority.[1234] They were only to be present and assist the bishops or presbyters as they celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist,[1235] and after the celebration they could distribute the Body of Christ to the faithful [1236] and present them with the chalice for communion.[1237] Laypeople, however, are forbidden not only to celebrate but also to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist to one another in the presence of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.[1238]

. All Orthodox Christians—and they alone—may partake of the Lord’s Supper and receive the Body and Blood of Christ, for they are the ones who have already entered the Church through the door of Baptism, have become and remain its children, and are therefore heirs to all the blessings offered by the Lord in the Church. “There is one bread, one body, though we are many,” wrote the Holy Apostle to the Christians in Corinth, for we all partake of the one bread [(1 Cor. 10:17); cf. (1 Cor. 11:20–33)]. “This food,” testified St. Justin the Martyr, “is called by us the Eucharist (thanksgiving); and no one else is permitted to partake of it except those who believe that our teaching is true, who have been washed by baptism for the remission of sins and for rebirth, and who live as Christ commanded.”[1239] Therefore, the following have never been and are not admitted to the sacrament of the Eucharist: a) all those who have not yet entered the Church through the door of Baptism and have not become its children, namely: pagans, Jews, Muslims, and catechumens; b) those who, although they have entered the Church through Baptism, have fallen away from it through apostasy, heresy, or schism, or have been subjected to ecclesiastical excommunication for any other grave sins. In addition to the numerous rules of the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers,[1240] the very structure of the liturgies during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated serves as proof of this idea. It is well known that all ancient liturgies, following the Proskomedia, consist of two parts: the Liturgy of the Catechumens, at which not only catechumens and penitents under excommunication or penance were permitted to be present to hear the church readings and sermons, but also schismatics, heretics, and even non-believers;[1241] and the Liturgy of the Faithful, which was open only to Orthodox Christians and during which the sacrament of the Eucharist is actually celebrated and administered.

As for the faithful themselves: according to the rule of the Church, not only adults, but “even little infants, for the sake of the faith of those who bring them, should be admitted to the holy mysteries, for the sanctification of their souls and bodies, and for the reception of the Lord’s grace.”[1242] And this rule, which is still observed by the Orthodox Church today but rejected by the Roman Church,[1243] — a) has been observed since ancient times throughout the Catholic Church, as attested by the Book of Apostolic Decrees,[1244] , and by the Church Fathers: Dionysius the Areopagite, Cyprian,[1245] Augustine,[1246] Pope Innocent I,[1247] Basil of Cilicia, Evagrius [1248] , and others;[1249] b) was observed in the Roman Church itself not only in the ninth,[1250] but also in the twelfth century.[1251]

3. However, in calling all her faithful children to the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Church admits them to the most holy sacrament only after their prior preparation, following the Apostle’s command: Let a person examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink from this cup. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body (1 Cor. 11:28–29). This preparation consists in the believers’ sincere self-examination and the cleansing of their consciences from sins through the sacrament of repentance, as well as in fasting and prayer, in accordance with the liturgical rites of the Church.[1252]

§218. The Necessity of Receiving the Eucharist, Specifically Under Both Kinds, and the Fruits of the Sacrament

I. Partaking of the Body and Blood of the Lord is an essential and necessary duty of every Christian. This is evident:

1) From the words of the Savior, which He spoke even when instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:53–54). That is to say, just as it is necessary for a person to be reborn of water and the Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism in order to enter the kingdom of Christ’s grace (John 3:5), so too is it necessary for a Christian to partake of the life-giving food in the sacrament of the Eucharist in order to be strengthened and to grow in the life of grace, which is to be followed by eternal life. And although anyone—whether an infant or an adult—who has been reborn of water and the Spirit but, due to a sudden and unexpected death, has not yet partaken of the Lord’s Body and Blood may, by virtue of their purity and innocence, be deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 11:14),[1253] — nevertheless, whoever, after his baptism, remains alive among the members of Christ’s earthly Church and, whether through negligence or obstinacy, neglects to partake of this saving food, will undoubtedly not inherit eternal life (John 6:53).

2) From the clear commandment of the Savior at the institution of the Eucharist. St. Paul the Apostle recounts this as follows: On the night He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, and having given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My Body, which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way, after supper, He took the cup and said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:23–25). And then He immediately adds: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). In this way, He testifies that the Lord’s command to partake of His body and blood applies not only to the Apostles, but also to all believers.

3) From the example of the holy Apostles and the early Christians, who, faithfully observing this commandment of the Savior, remained in the temple every day with one accord … in fellowship and the breaking of bread and [(Acts 2:42–46); cf. (1 Cor. 10:17); (1 Cor. 11:20)].

4) From the teaching and practice of the Orthodox Church, which exhorts its children to partake of the Lord’s Supper as often as possible, and commands everyone four times a year—during the four well-known fasts—or, at the very least, once a year, to purify their conscience through confession and partake of the Holy Mysteries (Rules of Confession, Part 1. Answer to Question 90).

II. “Both clergy and laypersons must partake of this sacrament under both kinds—bread and wine” (Rules of the Church, Part 1, Answer to Question 107), contrary to the false teaching of the Roman Church, which forbids laypeople from partaking of the Lord’s Cup.[1254] For:

1) Christ the Savior instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist under both kinds inseparably: under the form of bread and under the form of wine; and just as, when giving bread to His disciples, He commanded, “Take, eat; this is My Body,” so too, when He gave them the cup, He commanded: “Drink from it, all of you, for this is My Blood” (Matt. 26:27–28). Consequently, if all Christians, clergy and laity alike, are to partake of the sacrament of the Eucharist (as the Roman Church also teaches), and if, according to the Lord’s institution, both Eucharistic species are equally related to the substance of the Eucharist, and if Christ Himself commanded that one partake of this sacrament under both species together: then to deprive the laity of the Lord’s Cup means to grant them an incomplete participation in the greatest sacrament and to violate God’s commandment. It is in vain—a) that the Latins assert that the sacrament of the Eucharist is fully administered to the laity even under one species: for where the Body of Christ is, there is also the Blood.[1255] Such reasoning is misplaced, since we know for certain that it pleased the Lord to institute the Eucharist not under the single species of bread—so that under this species, together with His Body, He might impart His Blood to the faithful—but under two species, so that under the species of bread His Body might be imparted, and under the species of wine His Blood. Moreover, if it is sufficient for the laity to receive the Eucharist under one species, why is this considered insufficient for pastors? In vain—b) they say that if Christ had intended to establish in the Eucharist only a sacrament for imparting His flesh and blood to the faithful, He would have established it under one species of bread; but the Lord willed to establish the Eucharist both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice, and therefore established it under two distinct species—the species of bread and the species of wine—corresponding to His body, which suffered on the cross, and to the blood that flowed out then, together with water, from His pierced side.[1256] No, it is known from the Gospel account that the Lord instituted the Eucharist as a sacrament under two species: for just as He used the species of bread specifically to impart His body to the faithful, so too did He use the species of wine specifically to impart His blood to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood…” Finally, it is in vain that they—c) defend themselves by claiming that the Lord’s command regarding the cup—“Drink from it, all of you”—applied specifically to the Apostles alone, and consequently to their successors—the pastors—and not to all believers.[1257] Indeed, this command, given at the Last Supper, like the command to partake of the Lord’s body, applied directly only to the Apostles; but the Apostles alone constituted the community of believers at that time, and not everything that Christ said to the Apostles alone always applied to them alone; on the contrary, much of it applied and applies to all Christians (see John, chapters 14–17). Consequently, here too we must determine in what sense the Lord’s commandment to partake of His body in the form of bread and then of His blood in the form of wine applied to the Apostles—whether strictly only to the Apostles, or generally to believers. The Apostles themselves settled this with complete clarity by accepting the commandment in the latter sense. For:

2) The Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, applied to themselves and their successors only the Lord’s command to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist in His remembrance; but they applied the commandment to receive the Eucharist under both kinds to all believers; therefore, they administered this sacrament to all under both kinds and commanded all to partake under both kinds. “Let a person examine himself,” says St. Paul the Apostle, who handed down to us concerning the Eucharist precisely what he received from the Lord, “and in this way let him eat of this bread and drink from this cup.” For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body [(1 Cor. 11:28–29), (1 Cor. 24–27)]. And earlier, when exhorting those same Christians to abstain from eating food sacrificed to idols, he wrote: “I speak to you as people of sound judgment; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation in the Body of Christ? … You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons (1 Cor. 10:15–16, 21). Further evidence for the view that the Apostles applied the Lord’s commandment to partake of the Eucharist under both kinds to all Christians—both clergy and laity—and that they taught everyone and commanded others to teach the Holy Mysteries under both kinds is provided by:

3) The example of the ancient Church of Christ, which, without a doubt, both in all matters and in the teaching of such a great sacrament, could only steadfastly follow the instruction received directly from the Holy Apostles. Reliable witnesses—Justin,[1258] Irenaeus,[1259] Tertullian,[1260] Cyprian,[1261] Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and others,[1262] —unanimously show that from the beginning, throughout the entire Christian world, the Eucharist was taught to all believers not under one form, but under both forms. Moreover, there is evidence—including testimony from the popes themselves—that administering to some Christians only the Body of the Savior and not His Blood was considered a grave desecration of the sacrament, a division of the single sacrament, and was strictly forbidden. For example, Pope Leo the Great (5th century), in one of his sermons during Holy Lent, spoke to his listeners about such Christians: “With unworthy lips they receive the Body of Christ, but they completely turn away from the Blood of our redemption.” We therefore bring this to the attention of Your Holiness so that such people may be identified by the aforementioned signs, and, upon the exposure of their sacrilegious pretense, may be excommunicated by ecclesiastical authority from the community of the saints as having been discovered and identified.”[1263] Likewise, Pope Gelasius wrote in the same century: “We have discovered that some, contenting themselves solely with the holy portion of the Body of Christ, abstain from the cup of the Holy Blood. I do not know by what superstition they are led to limit themselves in this way; but without a doubt, they must either receive the sacraments in their entirety or not be admitted to them at all: for the division of the same sacrament cannot take place without a great desecration of the holy.”[1264]

4) Roman writers themselves admit that throughout the first twelve centuries, both the Eastern and Western Churches administered the Eucharist to all Christians under both species.[1265] They note, merely in their own defense, that at that time there were no reasons that later prompted the Western Church to forbid the laity from partaking of the Lord’s Cup.[1266] Meanwhile, upon examining these reasons, it turns out that they existed in earlier centuries of Christianity as well.[1267] They further add that the Western Church itself “never prohibited the use of the cup by any positive decree until, in the 15th century, restless and rebellious people began to reproach her for this as a grave error and a violation of the divine commandment.”[1268] But such a justification serves rather as a new accusation of error.

As the main arguments in defense of their innovation, the Latins point to:

a) The fact that the Church—both Western and Eastern—has from ancient times celebrated the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on certain days of the year, when the Eucharist is supposedly administered in the form of a single loaf of bread.[1269] But it is well known that even in this liturgy, the Eucharist is administered under both species together: for in the Presanctified Gifts, upon which the liturgy is celebrated according to the rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Body of the Lord is mingled with His Blood.

b) That, as if to the sick and dying, to give them spiritual comfort, the Church has always administered the Eucharist in the form of bread alone; as if in the early centuries of Christianity, believers often took the Holy Gifts with them to their homes, others took them with them on journeys, and hermits took them into the desert, and received Communion also under the single species of bread alone.[1270] But the Orthodox Church has used and continues to use so-called “reserve” gifts for the spiritual care of the sick, in which the Body of Christ is imbued with blood. Other Christians could also receive the Body of Christ in this form from the hands of the Church’s pastors and take it with them for communion at home, on journeys, or in the desert. Consequently, if it is mentioned anywhere that the Body of Christ was administered to these Christians and the sick, it does not follow from this that they received the Eucharist under the single form of bread rather than under both forms together. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the sick, before their death, received Communion in their homes under both Eucharistic species,[1271] and that Christians who took the holy gifts with them on journeys or into the desert also had these gifts under both species.[1272] Even if we were to concede that at times the sick, or other Christians, received Holy Communion—for whatever reason—under only one species, bread or wine, this must be recognized as isolated, exceptional cases, as exceptions to the rule, and by no means as the rule itself.

c) Finally, regarding the Church’s custom of administering the Holy Mysteries to infants only under the species of wine.[1273] But it is well known that the Orthodox Church administers the Holy Mysteries to infants under the species of wine from a chalice in which the species of bread and wine—or, in other words, the Body and Blood of Christ—are already united and, as it were, blended together. Moreover, such communion for infants is permitted out of absolute necessity until they become capable of receiving the Body of Christ under the appearance of bread.

III. The salvific fruits or effects of the sacrament of the Eucharist, provided we partake of it worthily, are as follows:

1) It truly unites us with the Lord: “Whoever eats My Flesh,” He Himself testified, “and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him” (John 6:56), so that, having partaken of the Body and Blood of Christ, we become, in the words of the Holy Fathers, His members, intimate with Him, bearers of Christ, and partakers of the Divine Nature.[1274]

2) It nourishes our body and soul and contributes to our strengthening, exaltation, and growth in the spiritual life: For My Flesh, said the Savior, is true food, and My Blood is true drink; furthermore: “Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me” (John 6:55–57). If even ordinary, wholesome food, taken into the body, nourishes it, naturally restores and heals its weakened strength, imparts new vitality to it, and promotes its further growth or the continuation of its life: all the more should we expect similar saving fruits—not only for the body, but primarily for the soul—from the divine food, which we receive worthily in the sacrament of the Eucharist. By partaking of this wondrous food, we are directly united with Christ, the source of all life and grace, and the giver of all spiritual gifts necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, in particular, taught that the Eucharist, as saving food: a) nourishes and strengthens our body,[1275] and at the same time—b) nourishes,[1276] strengthens,[1277] and revives our soul;[1278] c) contributes to the healing of our spiritual illnesses and the purification of our sins;[1279] d) sanctifies us;[1280] e) makes us steadfast in acts of piety, formidable and invincible to the enemies of our salvation.[1281]

3) Finally, this sacrament, when received worthily, serves as a pledge within us of our future resurrection and eternally blessed life. “Whoever eats My Flesh,” said the Savior, “and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day … whoever eats this bread will live forever” (John 6:54–58). And the Holy Fathers said: “(The Eucharist) is a medicine for immortality, a safeguard against death, so that we may not die but may always live in Jesus Christ.”[1282] “Our bodies, which receive the Eucharist, are no longer mortal, but have the hope of resurrection into eternal life.”[1283] “We partake of the Body of Christ so that we may become partakers of eternal life.”[1284]

It must be remembered, however, that the Most Holy Eucharist brings all these salvific fruits only to those Christians who approach it with proper preparation and partake of it worthily. But for those who presume to partake without proper preparation and receive it unworthily, this unworthy partaking of the Lord’s Body and Blood will only lead to greater condemnation. Thus teaches the Holy Apostle, testifying: whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup unworthily will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord… For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body (1 Cor. 11:27–29). The Holy Orthodox Church teaches the same, and therefore always takes care to prepare her children in advance for a worthy reception of the Body and Blood of Christ, and does not admit those known to her to be unworthy to this sacrament (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17).

§219. The Eucharist as a Sacrifice: a) The Truth or Validity of This Sacrifice

Believing and confessing that the Most Holy Eucharist is a true sacrament, the Orthodox Church also believes and confesses, contrary to the errors of the Protestants,[1285] that the Eucharist is at the same time a true and effective sacrifice, — that is, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of our Savior are, on the one hand, offered as food to people, and, on the other hand, offered as a sacrifice to God on behalf of people (Orthodox Catechism, Part 1, Answer to Question 107).

1) Christ the Savior Himself taught this truth. Even in His prophetic discourse on the institution of the Eucharist, when speaking of it as a sacrament and as food that saves people—“Whoever eats this bread will live forever”—the Lord immediately added: “The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51), thereby clearly expressing that this sacrament would also serve as a propitiatory sacrifice to God. Similarly, at the actual institution of the Eucharist, when He offered the blessed bread to His disciples, He said: “Take, eat; this is My body,” He added: “which is broken for you,” and when He offered the blessed cup, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the new covenant,” He added: “which is poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Furthermore, by the very separation of His blood from His flesh in the sacrament of the Eucharist—pointing to His sufferings on the cross in the flesh and the shedding of the blood that flowed from His side—He made it clear that this sacrament, celebrated in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice on Calvary, is itself a sacrifice.

2) This truth is also evident from the teaching of the Holy Apostles. St. Paul, in warning the Christians of Corinth against participating in pagan idol sacrifices, wrote: “Consider Israel according to the flesh: are not those who eat the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” What am I saying, then? That an idol is anything, or that a sacrifice to an idol means anything? No, but that when pagans offer sacrifices, they offer them to demons, not to God. But I do not want you to be in fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the Lord’s cup and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and the table of demons. (1 Cor. 10:18–21). By contrasting here the Christian meal or altar with the pagan meal or altar—on which the pagans did indeed offer sacrifices, albeit unclean and blasphemous—the teacher of the Gentiles evidently implies that a true and effective sacrifice to God is also performed at the Christian meal in the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood. In another of his epistles, while dissuading believers in Christ from Jewish sacrifices—which had lost their meaning and power with the coming of the Messiah—the same Apostle wrote: “We have an altar (θυσιαστήριον—altar) from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” [(Heb. 13:10); cf. (1 Cor. 10:18)], and by this designation and by contrasting the New Testament altar with the Old Testament one—on which the Jews actually offered their sacrifices and from which they subsequently partook—he again testified that a true sacrifice is offered to God on the Christian altar as well, a sacrifice that is partaken of as food by the faithful alone.

3) This New Testament sacrifice was foretold to the Jews even in the Old Testament through the prophet Malachi: “I take no pleasure in you,” says the Lord of Hosts, “and the offerings from your hands are not acceptable to Me.” For from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, a pure offering; My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of Hosts (Mal. 1:10–11). Here, obviously, the text speaks of a new, pure, God-pleasing, and universal sacrifice. What kind of sacrifice is this? It certainly cannot be understood to refer to Jewish sacrifices, toward which God’s displeasure is clearly expressed here, and which were offered only in a specific place; much less the sacrifices of the pagans, which in no sense, according to the spirit of all Scripture, can be called pure and pleasing to God. Nor can it be understood as the spiritual sacrifice of which the Psalmist speaks (Ps. 60:19): for sacrifices of this kind were always offered to God by good and pious people in the past—whereas the prophecy foretells a new sacrifice, one that, consequently, did not exist before, a visible or external sacrifice that is set in contrast to the Jewish sacrifices and is intended to replace them. Nor can it be understood as that most pure and God-pleasing sacrifice which the Lord and Savior offered on the cross for the sins of the whole world: for this sacrifice was offered in one place, on Golgotha—whereas the Prophet foretells a pure sacrifice that will be offered in every place. It follows, in accordance with the Holy Fathers ([1286] ), that this sacrifice must be understood as the Most Holy Eucharist itself, as a sacrifice that is truly new (1 Cor. 11:25–26), a pure and God-pleasing sacrifice that is offered in every place.

4) This is how the Holy Catholic Church has always viewed the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, according to the tradition handed down from eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. This is evident, first, from all her liturgies, in which, while celebrating the Eucharist, she solemnly confesses before God that she offers to Him on the holy altar a verbal and bloodless sacrifice for all and for everything.[1287] Second, from the testimonies of the Ecumenical Councils, such as: a) the Council of Nicaea: “On the sacred table lies the Lamb of God, Who takes upon Himself the sin of the world (John 1:29), offered by the priests as a bloodless sacrifice;”[1288] b) the Council of Ephesus: “We perform a bloodless sacrifice in the churches, and in this way partake of the mysterious and blessed mysteries, and are sanctified by receiving the holy body and precious blood of Christ, who redeemed all;”[1289] c) the Council of Trullo: “Since we have learned that in various churches, according to a certain established custom, grapes are brought to the altar, and the clergy, combining them with the bloodless sacrifice of the offering, in this way distribute both together to the people: for this reason, we deem it necessary that none of the clergy henceforth do this, but that they teach the people a single offering, for life and the remission of sins;”[1290] d) the Second Council of Nicaea: “Neither the Lord, nor the Apostles, nor the Fathers ever referred to the bloodless sacrifice offered by priests as a ‘figure,’ but as the very Body and the very Blood;”[1291] Finally, it is evident from countless testimonies of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, for example:

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Strive to partake of the one Eucharist: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup by the unity of His blood, one altar (ίν θυσιαστήριον), just as there is one bishop.”[1292]

St. Justin the Martyr: “We offer in His name all the sacrifices that Jesus Christ commanded us to offer, that is, in the Eucharist of bread and cup. God, accepting these very sacrifices offered by Christians in every place, testifies that they are pleasing to Him… (Mal. 1:10).”[1293]

St. Irenaeus: “(Jesus Christ) taught the new offering of the New Covenant, which the Church, having received from the Apostles, offers to God throughout the world… as Malachi, one of the twelve Prophets, foretold: ‘I have no pleasure in you,’ etc. (Mal. 1:10–11), thereby clearly showing that although the first (i.e., Jewish) people would cease to offer sacrifices to God, a sacrifice would be offered to Him in every place—and a pure one at that—and His name would be glorified among the Gentiles.”[1294]

St. Hippolytus: “After His (Jesus Christ’s) Ascension, we, offering a pure and bloodless sacrifice as He had ordained, ordained seven bishops, presbyters, and deacons.”[1295]

St. Cyprian: “The blood of Christ is not offered unless there is wine in the cup, and the consecration of the Lord’s sacrifice is performed improperly unless our offering and sacrifice correspond to His suffering… For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and was the first to offer Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded us to do this in remembrance of Him: then that priest truly performs the work of Christ (via Christi fungitur), who imitates what Christ did, and thus offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father in the Church when he offers it in the same way that Christ Himself did.”[1296]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “He who rules all things by His power… did not await Pilate’s verdict, but in an ineffable manner of sacred action, invisible to men, offered Himself as a sacrifice and offering for us—He Himself, both priest and the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. When did this happen? When He gave His body as food (to the disciples): then He clearly showed that the sacrifice of the Lamb had already been accomplished.”[1297]

St. John Chrysostom: “So, what then? Do we not offer a sacrifice every day? We do, by commemorating His death. And this sacrifice is one, not many. How is it one, not many? Thus … we always offer the same One: not one lamb today and another tomorrow, but always the same—therefore, it is one sacrifice. Does the fact that it is offered in many places mean that there are many Christs? By no means. But there is one Christ, whole here and whole there—one body. Just as He, though offered in many places, is one body and not many bodies, so too is the sacrifice one.”[1298]

Such are the testimonies of: Tertullian,[1299] Eusebius of Caesarea,[1300] Basil the Great,[1301] Didymus of Alexandria,[1302] Ambrose,[1303] Jerome,[1304] Augustine,[1305] Theodoret,[1306] Cyril of Alexandria,[1307] and others.[1308]

§220. b) The Relationship of This Sacrifice to the Sacrifice of the Cross and Its Characteristics

I. The sacrifice offered to God in the sacrament of the Eucharist is, in its very essence, entirely one and the same as the sacrifice of the Cross. For even now, on the altars of the Church, the very same Lamb of God is offered who was offered on the cross for the sins of the world—the very same most pure flesh that suffered on the cross, the very same most pure blood that was shed then. And now this mysterious sacrifice is invisibly performed by the very same eternal High Priest who also performed the sacrifice on the cross. As then, so now, the One who offers and the One who is offered are one and the same—[1309] —both the sacrifice and the High Priest—[1310] —the one and the same Redeemer of the world—Christ. “Our High Priest,” says St. John Chrysostom, “offered the sacrifice that cleanses us; the very same sacrifice that was offered then, we offer now: it is inexhaustible. This is done in remembrance of what took place then: ‘Do this,’ He commanded, ‘in remembrance of Me.’ We do not offer a different sacrifice, but the very same one that the High Priest offered then; rather, we are performing a commemoration of that sacrifice.”[1311] St. Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Theodoret, and others taught the same.[1312]

However, in terms of form and circumstances, the Eucharistic sacrifice differs from the sacrifice of the Cross. On the Cross, the Lord Jesus visibly offered His most pure Body and His most pure Blood as a sacrifice to God; in the Eucharist, He offers them under the species of bread and wine. There, He Himself, as High Priest, directly performed the atoning sacrifice; here, although He Himself also performs it invisibly, He does so visibly through the pastors of the Church. There, the sacrifice was offered through the actual slaughter of the Lamb, a bloody sacrifice—for the Lord Jesus truly suffered, shed His blood, and tasted death in the flesh; now that He, having risen from the dead, no longer dies: death no longer has power over Him (Rom. 6:9); now the sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist through the mystical transubstantiation by the Holy Spirit of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (Luke 22:19–20)—without suffering, without the shedding of blood, without death, and is therefore called a bloodless sacrifice and a passionless one,[1313] even though it is offered in remembrance of the sufferings and death of the divine Lamb. Through the sacrifice of the Cross, the redemption of all humanity was accomplished and God’s justice was satisfied for the sins of the whole world; whereas the bloodless sacrifice appeases God only for the sins of those people for whom it is offered and, in fact, imparts the fruits of the sacrifice of Calvary to those who are capable of receiving and assimilating them. Finally, the sacrifice of the Cross was offered for the human race only once on Calvary; whereas the bloodless sacrifice, from the time of its institution, has been, is, and will continue to be offered for the salvation of people until the second coming of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:25–26), throughout all the nations of the world, on countless altars. In general, when comparing the sacrifice of the Cross with the bloodless sacrifice, we may say that the former serves, as it were, as the seed or root, while the latter is the tree that has grown from this seed, is wholly grounded in this root, is nourished by its life-giving sap, and thus bears the saving fruits of life, — so that both sacrifices are inseparable from one another, constituting, in essence, a single sacrifice, yet at the same time differing from one another. It is the same grace-filled tree of life, planted by God on Calvary, but filling the entire Church of God with its mystical branches and nourishing with its saving fruits all who seek eternal life.

II. Being, in its very essence, a true sacrifice to God, the Most Holy Eucharist, by its very nature, is not only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving but also a sacrifice of atonement, offered for all, both the living and the dead (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 17).

It is a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. The Savior Himself clearly indicated these characteristics of the bloodless sacrifice when He instituted it: having taken the bread, He first offered praise and gave thanks, broke it, and then gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is My body…” [(Luke 22:19–20); (1 Cor. 11:23–24)]. In exactly the same way, to this day in the Orthodox Church, the priest celebrating the bloodless sacrifice, according to the order of the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, before the consecration of the Gifts on the altar, recalls in his secret prayer the great works of God—the creation of man out of nothing, His manifold care for man after the Fall, and the establishment of his salvation through Jesus Christ—and thus glorifies and gives thanks to God the Father, His only-begotten Son, the Savior of the world, and the All-Holy Spirit.[1314] Likewise, all Christians present in the church, when the bloodless sacrifice is offered to God at the Holy Banquet, cry out to Him: “To You we sing, to You we bless, to You we give thanks, O Lord…” With such same praises and thanksgiving, the offering of the bloodless sacrifice has been performed since the very days of the Holy Apostles, as shown by the most ancient liturgies—that of St. James the Apostle and the one included in the Apostolic Constitutions ([1315] )—and as attested by St. Justin the Martyr: “At the conclusion of the prayers,” he says, “we greet one another with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and diluted wine are brought to the presider of the congregation; he, taking these, offers praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives special thanks to Him for having deemed us worthy of this. When he has completed the prayers and thanksgiving, all those present proclaim, ‘Amen.’”[1316]

The Eucharist is, at the same time, a sacrifice of atonement for the living and the dead. For, as we have seen, it is, in its very essence, completely identical to and inseparable from the sacrifice of the Cross; and the sacrifice of the Cross was, without a doubt, offered as an atonement to God for the sins of all people. Furthermore, the Savior Himself clearly indicated this characteristic of the bloodless sacrifice when He instituted it. When He gave His body to His disciples, He said specifically, “This is my body, which is broken for you,” and when He gave His blood, He added, “This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Therefore, from the very beginning of Christianity, the bloodless sacrifice has been offered by the Church for the salvation of all, both the living and the dead. This is evident from the order of service in all liturgies, beginning with the Liturgy of St. James the Apostle,[1317] in which this sacrifice is often explicitly referred to as a sacrifice of propitiation, or a propitiatory offering.[1318] This is also evident from the testimonies of ancient Christian teachers, for example: a) Tertullian, who speaks of offering it for the living [1319] and the dead;[1320] b) St. Cyprian, who mentions offering it for the dead;[1321] c) St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who, in addition to clearly calling it a sacrifice of atonement,[1322] just as clearly professes: “We offer Christ, who was slain for our sins, making atonement for them (the departed) and for us to God, the Lover of mankind;”[1323] d) St. John Chrysostom, in whose writings we read, among other things: “We do not in vain commemorate the departed before the divine Mysteries, and, as we approach, we sacrifice for them the Lamb who lies before us, who took away the sin of the world; but so that they may have some consolation from now on, the one standing before the altar, upon which the awesome Mysteries are performed, does not in vain call out for all who have fallen asleep in Christ and for those who offer remembrance for them. If there had not been remembrance for them from ancient times, from the days of the Apostles, then this would not be said. Our ministry is no mere pastime—far be it from us!—but is performed according to the guidance of the Spirit… Let us not grow weary of helping those who have departed and offering prayers for them: for a purifying sacrifice common to the whole world lies before us. Therefore, we pray boldly for the whole world and pronounce the names of the departed alongside the martyrs, confessors, and priests.”[1324]

Two observations must be made here.

First: when the Orthodox Church, offering a bloodless sacrifice, commemorates—and, moreover, first and foremost—God’s glorified saints, the patriarchs, prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the confessors, and even the Most Blessed Theotokos—it does so not with the aim of appeasing God toward them, but rather to strengthen, through their prayers and intercession, its own supplications before Him for the living and the dead. Therefore, the celebrant, upon concluding the commemoration of the Saints, adds: “Through their prayers, visit us, O God, and remember all the departed who hope for the resurrection to eternal life.”[1325] And St. Cyril of Jerusalem says: “We commemorate those who have departed before us, first of all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, so that through their prayers and intercession God may accept our supplication.”[1326]

Second: since the bloodless sacrifice has the power to appease God and draw Him near to us, it naturally has the power to ask God for various blessings on our behalf; and consequently, being an act of appeasement, it is at the same time a prayer of supplication or intercession. Therefore, the Holy Church, in offering the bloodless sacrifice, not only prays to God for forgiveness of sins and for the salvation of the living and the dead, but also asks Him for various gifts, both spiritual and physical, necessary for human life: “After the celebration of the spiritual sacrifice of the bloodless service,” St. Cyril of Jerusalem testifies, we, through that very same propitiatory sacrifice, pray to God for universal peace among the churches, for the well-being of the world, for kings, for soldiers and their comrades-in-arms, for those who are infirm, for those weary from labor, and in general for all who need help; we all pray and offer this sacrifice.”[1327] It is also known that, under special circumstances—whether public or private—the Holy Church combines the with the sacred rite of the bloodless sacrifice and special prayers, for example, on the occasion of drought, a devastating disease, an invasion by enemies, and the like.

4. On the Sacrament of Penance

§221. Connection to the Previous Section; the Concept of the Sacrament of Penance and Its Various Names

In the three sacraments of salvation of the Church, which we have thus far examined, the full abundance of spiritual gifts necessary for a person to become a Christian—and, having become one, to prosper in Christian piety and attain eternal bliss—is bestowed upon him. Baptism cleanses the sinner of all his sins—original and voluntary—and brings him into the kingdom of Christ’s grace. Confirmation imparts to him divine strength to strengthen and grow in the life of grace. The Eucharist nourishes him with divine food and unites him with the very source of life and grace. But since, having been completely cleansed of all sins in the baptismal font, a person is not freed from the consequences of original sin and hereditary corruption—namely, in the soul, a tendency toward evil, and in the body, sickness and death (§§91, 93); and since even after baptism, as a Christian, he may sin again—even very often (1 John 1:8–10)—and may be afflicted by illnesses, sometimes very severe ones that bring him close to the grave: it pleased the All-Good Lord to establish in His Church two more sacraments, as two salvific remedies for its infirm members: the sacrament of repentance, which heals our spiritual infirmities, and the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which extends its salvific effects to our bodily infirmities as well. Let us first speak of the first of these sacraments, and then of the second.

Penance, understood in the sense of a sacrament,[1328] is a sacred rite in which the pastor of the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, absolves the repentant and confessing Christian from all sins committed after baptism, so that the Christian once again becomes innocent and sanctified, just as he emerged from the waters of baptism. Accordingly, the ancient teachers of the Church referred to the sacrament of repentance as absolution [1329] 1, confession [1330] , reconciliation [1331] , a second baptism [1332] , a second lifeline after a shipwreck [1333] , and so on.

§222. The Divine Institution and Validity of the Sacrament of Penance

I. The Lord instituted the sacrament of penance after His resurrection, when, appearing to His disciples gathered together—all except Thomas—He solemnly said to them, “Peace be with you!” … Having said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained” (John 20:21–23). From these words it is evident that — a) the Lord Himself conferred upon the Apostles—and, consequently, upon their successors—His divine authority to forgive or not to forgive people’s sins; b) this remission or retention is accomplished precisely by the Holy Spirit—that is, by His invisible power and action—and c) this authority is undoubtedly expressed in a visible manner through some act. Therefore, repentance is a valid sacrament with all the characteristics of true sacraments (§200). Furthermore, Christ the Savior had previously twice made a promise concerning this sacrament—the first time when He said to the Apostle Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God on behalf of all the Apostles: “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19); and again when He testified before all the Apostles, as their leaders: “If anyone does not listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” Truly I tell you: “ ” whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:17–18).

II. From the time of the Holy Apostles, the sacrament of repentance has always existed in the Church, and its pastors have always exercised the God-given right to bind and loose. Thus, the Apostolic Canons state: “If anyone, whether a bishop or a presbyter, does not accept one who turns from sin but rejects him, let him be deposed from the priesthood. For he grieves Christ, who said, ‘There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents’” (Canon 52). In the Apostolic Canons, on the one hand, the leaders of the Church are very clearly reminded that it is to them that God has granted the authority to bind and loose,[1334] , and numerous instructions are offered on how to judge various kinds of sins,[1335] , and how to deal with those who repent;[1336] On the other hand, believers are commanded to honor their spiritual fathers: “for they have received from God the power of life and death, the power to judge sinners and condemn them to the death of eternal fire, and to absolve the repentant from their sins and restore them to life.”[1337] The ancient teachers of the Church also testify to this with no less clarity, for example:

St. Cyprian: “And those who, though they have not committed any serious crime but have merely thought of it, are better in faith and in fear; yet they confess this with contrition and simplicity before the priests of God, lay bare their conscience, place the burden of their soul before them, and seek the healing remedy, even for small and harmless wounds… I beg you, most beloved brethren, let us each confess our sins while the sinner is still in this life, when his confession can be accepted, when the satisfaction and absolution performed by the priests are pleasing before the Lord.”[1338]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Just as a person baptized by another person—that is, a priest—is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so too does the one who confesses his sins in repentance receive their remission through the priest by the grace of Jesus Christ.”[1339]

St. Basil the Great: “It is necessary to confess sins before those entrusted with the administration of God’s sacraments.”[1340] “It is far more appropriate (for nuns) and safer to make such a confession before an elder nun in the presence of a presbyter, who is capable of offering a prudent path to repentance and correction.”[1341]

St. John Chrysostom: “They still dwell on earth (priests), yet are permitted to administer heavenly matters; they have received such authority as God has not granted to either the angels or the archangels. For it is not to the angels that it is said: ‘Whatever you bind on earth…’ Those in authority on earth also have the power to bind, but only bodies; whereas this power concerns the soul itself and ascends to heaven, for what priests determine below, God confirms above, and the Lord concurs with the judgment of His servants.”[1342]

The same teaching on the sacrament of penance is expounded by: Tertullian,[1343] Lactantius, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria,[1344] Pope Leo [1345] and others.[1346]

§223. Who may administer the sacrament of penance, and who may receive it?

1. From the evidence presented from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, it is already clear that the authority to administer the sacrament of penance was initially conferred by the Lord upon the Apostles alone [(Matt. 18:18); (John 20:21–23); cf. (1 Cor. 12:28); (2 Cor. 5:18–20)], and from the Apostles it passed to their successors in the Church, the bishops and presbyters (Titus 1:7),[1347] but in such a way that the clergy are merely visible instruments in the administration of the sacrament, which God Himself invisibly performs through them. For it is said: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). In confirmation of this, other testimonies from the ancient teachers may be cited, for example:

Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (233): “The authority to forgive sins was granted to the Apostles and to the Churches they founded, having been sent by Christ, and to the bishops who succeeded them in succession.”[1348]

St. Ambrose: “Who can forgive sins except God alone, who also forgives them through those to whom He has given the authority to forgive?”[1349] And elsewhere: “This authority is granted to priests alone.”[1350] Thirdly: “People merely perform the ministry of the remission of sins, but do not exercise any authority of their own. For they do not forgive in their own name, but in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; they ask, and God grants; here, human obedience is involved, while generosity belongs to the supreme authority.”[1351]

St. John Chrysostom: “The Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22): now I see that the Son has entrusted all this judgment to the priests… The Jewish priests had the authority to cleanse the body of leprosy—or rather, not to cleanse it, but only to certify those who were cleansed (Lev. 14) … but the priests of the New Covenant have received the authority not merely to certify those who are cleansed, but to cleanse—and not the leprosy of the body, but the defilement of the soul.”[1352]

Laciana, Bishop of Spain (c. 370): “You say: Can only God forgive sins? That is true. But what He accomplishes through the priests is also His own authority.”[1353]

St. Leo, Pope of Rome: “The Mediator between God and man, the Lord Jesus Christ, granted the leaders of the Church the authority to teach the sanctifying power of repentance to the penitent and, through the door of reconciliation, to admit them—purified by salvific satisfaction—to the reception of the Holy Sacraments. But the Savior Himself is constantly involved in this work.”[1354]

In general, the ancient teachers of the Church affirmed that it is Christ Himself,[1355] , or the Holy Spirit,[1356] , who forgives sins in the sacrament of penance, and on earth, following the holy Apostles, bishops [1357] and presbyters serve as the visible ministers of this authority.[1358]

2. Only Christians may receive the sacrament of penance—those who, after having been cleansed of all sins in the sacrament of baptism, have sinned again and are in need of a new means of cleansing their conscience. But non-Christians cannot receive this sacrament: they must first partake of the first Christian sacrament, in which all human sins are forgiven, and through it, as through a door, enter the Church of Christ, so that they may have the right to partake of its other sacraments. This teaching, well-known from the Church’s constant practice, was clearly expressed by her ancient teachers, for example: a) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “In my opinion, there are two ways in which people endowed with the Spirit either forgive or retain sins: first, when they admit some to baptism who prove themselves worthy of it by their way of life and by their trial in the faith, while others, who have not yet become worthy, are not admitted and are not partaken of Divine grace; second, when on other occasions they forgive or do not forgive sins, imposing penalties on the sinning children of the Church and forgiving those who repent;”[1359] b) Blessed Augustine: “Sin… if committed by a catechumen, is washed away by baptism; but if committed by a baptized person, it is healed by repentance.”[1360]

§224. What is required of those approaching the sacrament of penance?

But in order for one approaching the sacrament of penance to truly receive the remission of sins, the following conditions are required of him, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answers to questions 112 and 113; Extended Catechism on Penance):

1. Contrition for sins. This is necessary by the very nature of repentance: whoever truly repents cannot fail to recognize the full gravity of their sins and their ruinous consequences; cannot fail to feel their guilt before God and their unworthiness; cannot fail to grieve in their heart and be contrite—and where there is no true contrition for sins, there is no true repentance, but only a superficial one. That is why, even in the Old Testament, God Himself, calling people to repentance, required of them, as an essential condition, contrition for their sins: “Return to Me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning.” Rend your hearts, not your garments, and return to the Lord your God [(Joel 2:12–13); cf. (Ps. 50:19)]. Likewise, in the New Testament, Christ the Savior, desiring to set an example of true repentance in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the tax collector, depicts with what deep self-condemnation and contrition for his sins the former returned to his father and cried out: “Father! I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son; accept me as one of your hired servants” (Luke 15:18–19)—and with what humility and a contrite heart the latter (that is, the tax collector) stood in the temple of God, standing at a distance, not even daring to lift his eyes to heaven; but, beating his breast, he said: “God! have mercy on me, a sinner!” (Luke 18:13). The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church unanimously recognized contrition for sins as the most essential and necessary element of repentance.

“You, most beloved brothers,” wrote St. Cyprian, “…examine your sins with repentance and contrition; acknowledge the gravest guilt of your conscience; open the eyes of your heart to the understanding of your transgression… The more we have sinned, the more we must mourn.”[1361]

“If Peter’s weeping,” St. Chrysostom also urged his listeners, “wiped away such a great sin, how can you fail to atone for your sin if you weep? For to deny one’s Lord was no small offense, but a great and most serious one—and yet tears atoned for the sin. Weep, then, for your own sin—but do not weep superficially or for show, but bitterly, as Peter wept; let streams of tears flow from the very depths of your soul, so that the Lord, moved to mercy, may forgive your transgression.”[1362]

“Who will give,” cried St. Gregory the Theologian, “to my head or my eyelids a flowing spring, so that with streams of tears I may cleanse myself of every defilement, having wept for my sins as much as is necessary? For mortals and for souls that have been defiled, the very best remedy is tears, scorched ashes, and a safe refuge on earth.”[1363]

“Those who repent,” taught St. Basil the Great, “must bitterly lament and express from the heart all that is proper to repentance.”[1364] “Repentance requires that a person first cry out within himself and break his heart, then become a good example to others, and to this end make himself heard and proclaim the example of repentance.”[1365]

As for the nature of contrition for sins: we must ensure that it arises not merely from fear of punishment for sins, nor from mere thoughts of the disastrous consequences they entail for us in this life and the next, but primarily from love for God, whose will we have violated, from the keenest awareness that we have offended our greatest Benefactor and Father through our sins, have shown ourselves ungrateful before Him, and have made ourselves unworthy of Him.[1366] Sorrow of the first kind without the latter would be merely the sorrow of a slave, not that of a son, sorrow for ourselves rather than for God; and although it might, as a consequence of the fear of God, become for us the beginning of wisdom—that is, the beginning of our turning from wickedness to virtue—it would not yet be perfect or ultimately soul-saving.[1367] Only the latter kind of sorrow—sorrow for God’s sake—produces unchanging repentance leading to salvation (2 Cor. 7:10). Only love for God, which animates the sinner who is contrite over his sins, draws upon him God’s full favor and the forgiveness of sins [(Luke 7:48); (1 Peter 4:8)].[1368]

2. A firm resolve to amend one’s life from now on. This is a necessary consequence of contrition for sins, so that it is utterly impossible to be truly contrite—to be contrite not merely out of fear of punishment, but also out of love for God—and at the same time not to feel within oneself a sincere desire and determination to amend one’s way of life. And in the Word of God, this desire and resolve are invariably required of the repentant. John the Baptist, the preacher of repentance, seeing many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who has compelled you to flee from the coming wrath? Bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:7–8). St. Peter the Apostle, in his address to the Jews, said: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away” (Acts 3:19). In the Book of Revelation, the angel of the Church in Ephesus was commanded: “Remember where you have fallen from; repent and do the works you did at first; otherwise, I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev. 2:5). The same truth was proclaimed by the teachers of the Church, for example:

St. Basil the Great: “It is not the one who says, ‘I have sinned,’ and then remains in sin who confesses his sin; but the one who, according to the words of the Psalm, has recognized his sin and come to hate it (Ps. 35:3).” What good is a doctor’s care to a sick person if the one suffering from the illness clings firmly to what is destructive to life? Likewise, there is no benefit in forgiveness for one who continues to do wrong, nor in an apology for debauchery from one who continues to live in debauchery… The All-Wise Architect of our lives desires that those who have lived in sin and then vow to return to a wholesome life put an end to the past and, after their sins, make a fresh start, as if renewed in life through repentance.”[1369] “For those who repent, merely turning away from sin is not enough for salvation; they also need the fruits worthy of repentance.”[1370]

St. Ambrose: “Whoever repents must not only wash away his sin with tears, but also cover his past transgressions with better deeds, so that the sin may not be held against him.”[1371]

3. Faith in Jesus Christ and hope in His mercy. All the prophets bear witness to Him, that everyone who believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins through His name (Acts 10:43), and there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we ought to be saved (Acts 4:12). He alone has reconciled us to God through His death on the cross [(Rom. 5:1–2); (Rom. 8:24–25)], and He alone is our eternal High Priest; therefore, He is always able to save those who come to God through Him, since He lives forever to intercede for them (Heb. 7:25). Consequently, without faith in Christ the Savior and hope in Him, no matter how deep our contrition for our sins or how firm our resolve to amend our lives, we would never be deemed worthy to receive the forgiveness of sins from God (see §§153, 197).

4. The oral confession of sins to a priest.[1372] The necessity of this confession is self-evident from the fact that it is the priest who must absolve sins in the sacrament of penance, and in order to absolve or not absolve any sins, one must first know them. And since the Lord Himself granted the shepherds of the Church divine authority to bind and loose (John 20:22–23)—and, without a doubt, not for the purpose of binding and loosing at their own arbitrary discretion, but rather to forgive sins precisely to those who may be forgiven, judging by the nature of their repentance and the gravity of their sins, and not to forgive those who prove unworthy of forgiveness, whether because of their lack of repentance or the gravity of their offenses: therefore, the confession of sins before the pastors of the Church in the sacrament of penance—which necessarily presupposes the God-given authority to bind and loose—must rightly be considered a divine institution.

This institution has always existed and been observed in the Church. St. Irenaeus recounts how some women, led astray into heresy and impiety by the Gnostics, upon their return to the Church, confessed (εξωμολογήσαντο) both their sins and their errors—while others, unwilling to undergo this trial, fell into despair.[1373] Tertullian takes a stand against those who, out of false shame, refused to confess their sins, and observes that one can hide from people but not from God, that it is better to be acquitted openly than condemned in secret, and that those who do not confess their sins will perish just as a sick person perishes who, out of shame, does not reveal his illness to the doctor who could heal him.[1374] St. Cyprian, in one passage, complains about certain priests who dared to admit to the sacred meal people who had committed grave sins but had not confessed them or repented;[1375] In another passage, he praises the sincerity and candor with which many believers laid bare their consciences before priests, confessed their spiritual wounds to them, and sought healing;[1376] In a third passage, he implores Christians to confess their sins in this life, while it is still possible to receive absolution from a priest.[1377] Origen spoke just as clearly in the third century about this confession of sins. We read in his writings, for example: “There is still forgiveness of sins, though it is arduous and difficult, through repentance, when the sinner washes his bed with tears (Ps. 6:7), and his tears become his bread day and night (Ps. 41:4), and when he is not ashamed to reveal his sin before the Lord’s priest and asks him for healing.”[1378] Or: “If we have sinned, we must say: ‘I have revealed my sin to You and have not hidden my iniquity; I have said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”’ (Ps. 31:5). If we do this and confess our sins not only to God but also to those who can heal our wounds and sins, then He who speaks will blot out our sins: “I will blot out your transgressions like a mist, and your sins like a cloud” (Isa. 44:22).”[1379] In the fourth century, the same was preached by St. Basil and St. Athanasius the Great—whose testimonies we have already seen at ,[1380] —as well as St. Ambrose,[1381] , St. James of Nyssa,[1382] , and St. Gregory of Nyssa. The latter exhorts the penitent: “Shed bitter and abundant tears before me, and I too will join my tears with yours; accept the priest as a father, a partner and sharer in your sorrow… The priest grieves over the sin of the one he regards as a son in the faith just as much as Jacob grieved when he saw Joseph’s garment… Why should you rely more on the one who begot you in God than on those who begot you in the flesh? Feel free to reveal your innermost thoughts to him; open up the secrets of your spirit to him, just as you would reveal hidden wounds to a doctor: he will also care for your well-being.”[1383] Finding it unnecessary to cite the testimonies of other, later writers regarding the truth we are considering,[1384] we note that its unquestionable confirmation is provided by the canons of entire Councils—both local and ecumenical—which define the circumstances of confession, its form, time, place, and so on. Thus, the second canon of the Council of Laodicea states: “Those who have fallen into various sins, and who persevere in prayer, confession, and repentance, and who have completely turned away from evil deeds, after a period of repentance commensurate with the gravity of their sin has been granted to them, are to be readmitted to communion for the sake of God’s mercy and goodness.”[1385] In Rule 102 of the Council of Trullum, we read: “Those who have received from God the authority to judge and bind must consider the nature of the sin and the sinner’s readiness for conversion, and thus apply a remedy appropriate to the ailment, so that, by failing to observe moderation in either case, they may not cause the afflicted one to lose his salvation.”

§225. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Penance, Its Invisible Effects, and Their Extent

When, therefore, a repentant Christian, with sincere contrition for his sins, with a firm resolve to amend his life henceforth, with living faith in Christ the Savior and hope in Him, comes to the pastor of the Church and confesses his transgressions before him: the minister of God listens to the confession and, in the name of the Lord Jesus, absolves, remits, and forgives all the sins of the truly repentant. Consequently:

1. The visible aspect of the sacrament of repentance includes the following essential acts: a) the confession of sins, which the repentant Christian utters before the clergyman, and b) the absolution of sins, pronounced by the clergyman after hearing the confession. According to the rite of the Orthodox Church, the clergyman expresses this absolution with the following words: “May our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, by the grace and bounty of His love for mankind, forgive you, my child [name], all your sins. And I, an unworthy priest, by the authority given to me by Him, forgive and absolve you of all your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.”

2. The invisible, grace-filled effects of the sacrament of repentance are: a) the immediate—the remission of sins and justification [(John 20:23); cf. (Luke 18:13–14); (Ezek. 18:21); (Joel 2:31)], and subsequently—b) reconciliation with God [(Luke 15:17–24); cf. (Rom. 5:1–2); (2 Cor. 5:19)], c) deliverance from eternal punishment for sins and the hope of eternal salvation [(Luke 19:7–9); (Luke 23:42–43)]. The idea of these actions, which we have already encountered more than once in the sayings of the Fathers cited above, is also clearly expressed by:

St. Basil the Great: “One who has been defiled by some sin, though he loses his purity at present, is not deprived in the future of the hope of purification through repentance.”[1386] “If we lay bare our sin in confession, we will turn it into dry brushwood, worthy of being consumed by the purifying fire.”[1387]

St. John Chrysostom: “Flesh-and-blood parents cannot help their children in any way when the latter offend some famous and powerful person; but priests reconcile their spiritual children—not with nobles, not with kings, but with an angry God.”[1388] “Have you sinned? Enter the church and atone for your sin. No matter how many times you fall in the square, you always get back up; so no matter how many times you sin, repent of your sin and do not despair; if you sin again, repent again, lest through negligence you completely lose hope of the promised blessings. Are you in your twilight years, and—have you sinned?—enter (the church) and repent: this is a place of healing, not a court of judgment; here they do not torment, but grant forgiveness of sins.”[1389]

St. Leo, Pope of Rome: “God’s manifold mercy is so condescending toward human failings that hope for eternal life is restored not only through the grace of baptism but also through the healing power of repentance, and even those who have not preserved the gift of rebirth, condemning themselves by their own judgment, attain the remission of sins, although, according to the order of divine grace, they can be deemed worthy of this divine mercy only through the intercession of priests… It is most beneficial and necessary that the guilt of sins be absolved by a priest’s prayer before the Last Day.”[1390]

3. It must be known that the invisible workings of grace in the sacrament of repentance, by their breadth and power, extend to all human transgressions, and there is no sin that cannot be forgiven to people, provided they sincerely repent of it and confess it with living faith in the Lord Jesus and hope in His merits. For He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance [(Matt. 9:13); (Matt. 18:11)]; it is not the will of your Heavenly Father that even one of these little ones should perish (Matt. 18:14),” said the Savior, “and no matter how great the fall of the Apostle Peter was, He forgave him as well when he truly repented. The Lord is patient with us, as the Holy Apostles also taught, not wishing that anyone should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9). If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous One; He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1–2). If we confess our sins, He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). And it is well known that St. Peter called even those Jews who had crucified the true Messiah to repentance (Acts 2:38), and later called Simon the sorcerer, the progenitor of all heretics (Acts 8:22); and St. Paul forgave even a repentant incestuous person, having first subjected him only to temporary excommunication (2 Cor. 2:7). If, however, the Word of God mentions blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven by man (Matt. 12:31), and mortal sin, for the forgiveness of which we are not even commanded to pray (1 John 5:16): then it must be remembered that the former term refers to stubborn opposition to God’s evident truth [1391] , complete unbelief [1392] , and unrepentance [1393] , while the latter term refers to a wicked rebellion against piety and truth, and a stubborn refusal to reform.[1394] Consequently, in both cases, only the moral impossibility of the forgiveness of sins is assumed—an impossibility on the part of the sinners themselves, not on the part of grace. But as soon as sinners sincerely repent even of these sins, they will receive forgiveness from God. “For,” says St. Chrysostom regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, “this sin was forgiven to those who repented. Many of those who spewed blasphemies against the Spirit subsequently came to faith, and all was forgiven them.”[1395] Likewise, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council speak of the possibility of forgiveness for mortal sins: “A sin unto death is when certain people, having sinned, remain unrepentant. Worse still is when they cruelly rebel against piety and truth, preferring Mammon to obedience to God, and failing to adhere to His statutes and rules. The Lord Jesus is not in such people unless they humble themselves and come to their senses regarding their fall into sin. It is fitting for them, above all, to approach God and, with a contrite heart, ask for the remission of this sin and for forgiveness, rather than boasting in unrighteous deeds. For “the Lord is near to the brokenhearted” (Ps. 33:19)” (Rule 5).

The Holy Orthodox Church clearly expressed this belief in the possibility of the remission of all sins through the sacrament of repentance when, first, she condemned the Montanists, who claimed that she had no authority to absolve certain grave sins through repentance, such as idolatry, murder, and sexual impurity; second, by condemning the Novatians, who at first denied the Church this authority with regard to those who had fallen away from the faith during the persecutions, and later with regard to all mortal sins [1396] and even venial sins;[1397] finally, when at the councils it established rules according to which, although sinners are subjected to various, sometimes very severe, penances for their sins, after duly fulfilling these penances, they are invariably granted absolution from their sins, no matter how great they may be.[1398]

§226. Penances, Their Origin, and Their Use in the Church

1. The term penances (επιτίμια) refers to prohibitions or punishments (2 Cor. 2:6) which, according to church rules, a clergyman, as a spiritual physician, prescribes to certain repentant Christians for the healing of their moral infirmities (Ecumenical Council VI, Canon 102). Such are, for example, the most well-known types of epitimia: special fasting beyond what is prescribed for all, daily attendance at the church for all divine services, prayer at home combined with a specific number of prostrations, the giving of alms, pilgrimages to holy sites, and exclusion from Holy Communion for a longer or shorter period of time (Rules of Practice, Part 1, Answer to Question 113). Penances are not imposed on everyone, but only on certain repentant Christians: namely, those for whom, whether due to the gravity or nature of their sins or the nature of their repentance, these spiritual remedies are necessary for their complete healing (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Rule 5).

2. The Church received from the Lord Himself the authority to impose penances on certain penitents and, as it were, to bind them temporarily with its prohibitions, just as it received from Him the authority to forgive sins. For the Lord said to the Holy Apostles—and, consequently, to their successors—not only: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18), but also: “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). The Holy Apostles did, in fact, exercise this authority. Thus, St. Paul, having heard of a man living in sexual immorality among the Corinthians and desiring to heal him, subjected the lawbreaker to the strictest penance, commanded that he be excommunicated from the Church, and that he be handed over to Satan for the weakening of the flesh, so that his spirit might be saved (1 Cor. 5:1–5)—and later, when the penance had produced a salvific effect and the guilty party had repented, he forgave him and commanded the Corinthians to readmit the repentant one into the fellowship of the Church (2 Cor. 2:6–8).

3. The Holy Church, by succession from the Holy Apostles, has also practiced penance from the very beginning of its existence. This is known:

a) From the testimonies of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian [1399] and the Apostolic Canons.[1400]

b) From the rite of communal repentance that existed in the early Church. According to this rite, penitents were divided into four classes, each of which was subject to a specific penance: the class of those who wept, who were not permitted to attend public worship and lay prostrate on the church porch, weeping and begging those entering the church to pray to God for them; the class of “listeners,” who were permitted to enter the church narthex and participate in the reading of the Holy Scriptures and sermons while the Liturgy of the Catechumens was being celebrated; a class of those kneeling, who entered the sanctuary itself and attended the service for a somewhat longer time, but usually remained kneeling at the church doors; and a class of those standing with the congregation, who stood together with the faithful throughout the entire Liturgy but could not partake with them in the Holy Mysteries of Christ.[1401]

c) From the numerous canons, both conciliar and patristic, concerning various kinds of penances, their characteristics, degrees, modifications, and the like.[1402]

§227. The Meaning of Penances

Penances, although by their very nature are punishments, are, in their purpose, only corrective, healing, and fatherly (παιδεία)—exactly the kind of which the Apostle speaks: “The Lord disciplines (παιδεύει) the one He loves” (Heb. 12:6), and in another place: “We are disciplined by the Lord (παιδευόμεθα) so that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Cor. 11:32). And by no means are they punishments in the proper sense (τιμωρία), as the Roman Church teaches, which a repentant sinner is supposedly required to endure temporarily in order to make amends for his sins to God’s offended justice.[1403] In short: penances are remedies for sins, not retribution, nor atonement for sins to eternal justice.[1404]

I. To prove the first point, which defines the true meaning of penances, we call upon the following as witnesses:

1) St. Paul the Apostle. As we have seen, he imposed a severe punishment on the Corinthian incestuous man, which he himself called penance—he commanded that such a person be excommunicated from the Church and handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh… for what purpose? So that the spirit might be saved (1 Cor. 5:1–5). And then, as soon as he noticed that the penance had produced sorrow and repentance in the sinner, he immediately lifted it (2 Cor. 2:7). Consequently, the Apostle did not punish for the sake of punishment itself or to satisfy God’s justice through punishment, but to correct; and when the remedy had a beneficial effect, he removed it—precisely so that its continued use, now superfluous, would not cause harm to the sick person instead of benefit, lest he be consumed by excessive sorrow (2 Cor. 2:7).[1405]

2) The rules of the Holy Councils—both ecumenical and local—and of the Holy Fathers. From these rules it is evident with indisputable clarity: a) that the ancient teachers of the Church, if they regarded penances as punishments, regarded them only as corrective punishments, and directly called them spiritual remedies; b) that, in imposing penances on sinners, their concern was not merely to punish justly—one more, another less, in proportion to each person’s offenses—in order to properly satisfy God’s justice for sins, but rather to adapt penances, as remedies, to the nature and degree of spiritual illnesses; c) that they recognized the sole purpose of penances before God and before the Church not as any kind of satisfaction to God’s justice for sins, but solely as the healing of sinners and their protection from sin in the future; d) that, for this reason, they did not necessarily wait until the sinner had fully endured the punishment assigned to him and thus satisfied God’s justice; on the contrary, if they observed a beneficial effect of these punishments on the sinner, they would reduce them, shorten the duration of the penances, or even lift them entirely; e) that, finally, penances were not imposed for all sins, but only for certain most serious ones, and consequently, they did not at all regard penances as satisfaction to God’s justice: otherwise, such satisfaction, albeit to varying degrees, would have to be demanded for every sin, great or small. Here are some excerpts from the aforementioned rules:

“Those who have received from God the authority to bind and loose must consider the nature of the sin and the sinner’s readiness to repent, and thus apply a remedy appropriate to the affliction, so that, by failing to observe moderation in either regard, they do not cause the afflicted person to lose his salvation. For the disease of sin is not uniform, but varied and manifold, and it produces many branches of harm, from which evil abounds and spreads further until it is stopped by the power of the healer”—(6th Ecumenical Council, Canon 102; cf. I Ecumenical Canon 12; Ancyra Canon 5; Carthage Canon 52).

“Why is it fitting for the spiritual art of healing, first of all, to examine the disposition of the sinner and observe whether he is moving toward health or, on the contrary, is drawing illness upon himself through his own character, and how, in the meantime, he conducts himself: and if he does not resist the physician and heals the wound of the soul through the application of the prescribed remedies: in such a case, mercy should be shown to him as is fitting” (ibid.; cf. Basil the Great, Great Rules 3).

“For it is the concern of God and of the one who has received the pastoral guidance to bring back the lost sheep and to heal the one bitten by the serpent. One must neither drive the sheep down the precipices of despair nor let the reins slacken, leading to a life of laxity and neglect: but one must certainly, in whatever way—whether through harsh and astringent remedies or through gentler and milder therapeutic means—counteract the illness and strive for the healing of the wound; and one must test the fruits of repentance and wisely guide the person called to heavenly enlightenment” (ibid.).

“Just as in physical medicine the goal of the medical art is one—the restoration of health to the sick—yet the methods of treatment vary: for, due to the diversity of ailments, a suitable method of treatment is applied to each disease; so too in other ailments, given the multitude and variety of passions, diverse healing care becomes necessary, which brings about a cure commensurate with the ailment…. Therefore, anyone wishing to apply the appropriate treatment to the ailing part of the soul must, first, examine in which part the illness has arisen; then, apply the treatment to the afflicted part as appropriate, so that, due to ignorance of the method of treatment, treatment is not administered to one part when the illness is located in another” (Gregory of Nyssa, Rule 1).

“In every kind of transgression, one must first of all consider the disposition of the one being healed, and regard not time as sufficient for healing (for what healing can come from time?), but the will of the one who heals himself through repentance” (Gregory of Nyssa, Rule 8). “For those undergoing repentance with greater zeal, and who demonstrate through their way of life a return to goodness, it is permissible for the one organizing the church’s spiritual care to shorten the period of counseling and bring them more quickly to conversion: similarly, to shorten the time for this and admit them more quickly to communion, in accordance with how he discerns the condition of the one being healed through his own assessment” (Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 4). “Depending on the nature of his conversion, the duration of his penance will be shortened for him, so that, instead of nine, for each degree of repentance, either eight, or seven, or six, or just five years will be prescribed, provided that, by the greatness of his repentance, he anticipates the time, and by his zeal in reforming himself, he surpasses those who, over a long period, have been less diligent in purifying themselves from defilement. Thus, if there is a true conversion, even if the prescribed number of years is not observed, the penitent should be led, with a reduction in the time, to return to the Church and to receive the Holy Mysteries” (Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 5; Abrogated Canon 12 of the Ecumenical Council; Basil the Great, Canon 74).

“There are many things that arise from the provocation of sinful deeds and all manner of evils. But it pleased our fathers not to go into great detail regarding some of them, and they did not consider the healing of all sins arising from provocation to require much care. Scripture forbids not only a slight wound, but also every kind of slander or foul language [(Col. 3:8); (Eph. 4:31)], and all similar things arising from anger; but they established penance as a safeguard only against the crime of murder” (Rule 5).

And in order to understand how penances can serve as remedies against spiritual illnesses, one must take the following into account:

a) Penances, as ecclesiastical punishments, naturally humble the sinner’s pride, teach him to recognize more deeply his guilt before God and before the Church, and stir within him a hatred of sin and a desire to amend his ways. Consequently, penances provide repentant Christians with a specific path for further practice and greater strengthening of all those good feelings and intentions that the repentant have during the very act of repentance, and which should serve as the beginning of their reform. Let us recall just the four degrees of repentance that existed in the early Church.

b) Penances, for the most part, consist of certain pious exercises that are directly aimed at the sinner’s known passions and vices and therefore directly contribute to their eradication. Thus, a person who is intemperate or lustful is assigned abstinence and fasting as penance; a miser or extortioner—the giving of alms;[1406] a distracted person or one who pursues worldly pleasures—frequent church attendance, reading of Holy Scripture, prayer at home, and the like. It is evident that the more willingly each of these sinners performs the penance assigned to them, the more they will wean themselves from their former weaknesses and inclinations and acquire the opposite habit.

c) Penances, as ecclesiastical punishments, by striking some sinners, serve to admonish and deter others, thereby protecting them from similar sins, contributing to the reform of morals among the members of the Church, and at the same time safeguarding its canons and decrees against the willfulness and disobedience of wayward children.[1407]

I. The teaching of the Roman Church is unjust, namely, that penances are punishments in the proper sense—albeit temporary—which the penitent must endure in order to offer some satisfaction to God’s justice for his sins. This is:

1) It is contrary to Christian teaching regarding the satisfaction of God’s justice and the justification of the sinner. The Word of God teaches that Christ the Savior once and for all provided full and perfect satisfaction to God’s justice for all the sins of the human race; that He bore the full weight of the suffering that sinners should have endured for their iniquities [(Isa. 53:5); (Rom. 3:25); (Col. 1:20); (1 Pet. 2:24); (1 John 2:2)], and became an eternal High Priest; therefore, He is able to save forever those who come to God through Him, since He lives forever to intercede for them (Heb. 7:25) (§153). It teaches, on the other hand, that for the justification of sinners before God—that is, for their appropriation of the redemptive merits of Christ the Savior—two conditions are required of the sinners themselves: first, repentance and faith: “Repent and believe in the Gospel” [(Mark 1:15); (Acts 2:38)],—and we believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be justified by faith in Christ [(Gal. 2:16); (Rom. 8:24–25); (Rom. 10:9)]; and second, as evidence and fruits of repentance and faith, good works: a person is justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24); in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any power, but faith working through love [(Gal. 5:6); (Matt. 7:21)]; for it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law who will be justified (Rom. 2:13) (§§197, 198). By fulfilling these conditions, through which the merits of Jesus Christ are appropriated, a sinful human being can truly appease God and satisfy Him; not, however, in the sense that a person’s repentance, faith, and good works have the significance of an atoning sacrifice in and of themselves before God, but solely in that through them we receive the ready merits of our Redeemer, who has fully satisfied God’s justice on our behalf. But to assert that repentant sinners themselves, in addition to the living faith and good works necessary for appropriating the Savior’s merits, must undergo any punishments specifically to satisfy God’s justice for their sins is to express one of two things: either that the Savior did not suffer enough for sinners, that the satisfaction He provided for the sins of the whole world is still incomplete and must be supplemented by the sufferings of the repentant sinners themselves; or that a person’s faith and good works are insufficient for him to receive the Savior’s merits…

Otherwise, it means overturning the Christian doctrine of atonement and justification.

If, however, St. John the Baptist demanded from repentant sinners fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8): “[1408] ” then these fruits were by no means intended to be punishments to satisfy God’s justice for past sins, but rather good deeds that would testify to the sincerity of the sinners’ repentance—and which, let us repeat, can indeed appease and, in a certain sense, satisfy God. John the Baptist, as he himself explains his demand, was precisely urging the repentant to change their former sinful way of life, to fulfill their duties henceforth, and to act piously (Luke 3:8–15). Likewise, if Scripture states that the Ninevites, following the preaching of the prophet Jonah, earned God’s forgiveness through universal fasting and bitter tears (Jonah 3:10), that Nebuchadnezzar was commanded to atone for his sins through acts of charity (Dan. 4:24), and that, in general, almsgiving cleanses from sin and delivers from death (Tobit 4:10),[1409] it cannot in any way be asserted that all the aforementioned means had value in the eyes of the heavenly Judge in and of themselves, as a satisfaction of His justice, but rather solely because they served before Him and can serve as living testimonies of sinners’ sincere repentance and as the fruits of their turning to God. How else can a person’s true repentance be expressed, if not in tears, in sighs, in prayer, in fasting, in almsgiving, and in other pious acts? The Lord Himself confirmed this when He said: “Return to Me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning.” “Rend your hearts, not your garments, and return to the Lord your God; for He is good and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and He relents from sending calamity” (Joel 2:12–13). What is truly pleasing to God is the sinner’s genuine repentance, expressed through fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and the like ([1410] ), and in such cases He forgives sins solely because of His infinite goodness toward those who repent, and by no means because of His justice, which is supposedly satisfied by these actions. Could the Ninevites and Nebuchadnezzar have satisfied God’s infinite justice for all their sins with such a paltry price?

2) Contrary to the concept of God’s justice. If, as the Latins believe, a sacrifice that is already fully sufficient—and even in excess—has been offered for all the sins of the world by Christ the Savior (Gal. 3:13, etc.), and yet it is still required that repentant sinners not only believe in the Savior in order to appropriate His merits for themselves (Rom. 3:26), but also bear fruits worthy of repentance and, moreover, undergo at least temporary punishment for their sins to satisfy eternal justice—then this means that it punishes twice for the same sins and accepts double satisfaction. If, secondly, such satisfaction on the part of the repentant sinners themselves is indeed necessary, according to the judgment of eternal justice: then, without a doubt, this applies to all sinners and for all sins, albeit to varying degrees, in accordance with the difference in sins—yet the Latins teach that such temporal punishments are imposed by eternal justice only upon certain sinners, those who are more guilty, whereas others are forgiven both their sins and all punishment through repentance. If, finally—let us say again—such satisfactions to God’s justice are necessary on the part of the repentant sinners themselves: then, without a doubt, they are also necessary when sinners first seek purification from their sins in the sacrament of baptism, and when they wish to be purified a second time in the font of repentance, although in the latter case the satisfaction must be greater, because the repentant are more guilty. Meanwhile, the Latins teach that in Baptism God forgives sinners all their sins and every punishment without requiring any satisfaction from them; He requires satisfaction only in the sacrament of Penance from Christian sinners, as those who are more guilty, and while forgiving them their sins and eternal punishments for their sins, He does not always forgive temporal punishments.[1411] It is another matter to assert that a sinner, having received the remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, must still bear fruits worthy of repentance, must purify himself of every defilement of the flesh and spirit, and must reform his way of life; and that for this purpose God may send and impose various punishments upon the sinner, either directly Himself or through the pastors of the Church. But these would be corrective punishments, intended for the moral benefit of those being punished.

The Latins cite in vain, as evidence for their doctrine, the examples of Adam (Wis. 10:1; Gen. 3:10), Moses, Aaron [(Num. 20:11–12, 24); (Deut. 32:49)], and especially David (2 Sam. 12:13)—whose sins God forgave, yet for whom He also decreed temporary punishments.[1412] Why do we call all these punishments the actions of a stern Judge demanding retribution for the violation of His righteousness, rather than the actions of a merciful Father who, in forgiving His wayward son, punishes him—if at all—solely for his own correction, to protect him from similar transgressions in the future, or, at the very least, to set an example for His other children? We must remember that Holy Scripture makes a strict distinction between the punishments with which God strikes the wicked and the punishments He sends upon those who are faithful to Him and turn to Him with all their hearts: the former are presented as acts of God’s wrath and justice demanding satisfaction [(Jer. 23:19); (Rom. 1:18) and others]; the latter are paternal (παιδεϋματα) and healing punishments, sent solely to correct people, to keep them from evil—even if only through the fear of punishment—to strengthen them in goodness, and for similar purposes [(1 Cor. 11:32); (Heb. 12:6–8); (1 Pet. 1:6–7); (James 1:12)]. “Those whom I love,” says the Lord Himself, “I rebuke and discipline (παιδεύω),” and immediately reveals the purpose of these punishments: “Be zealous and repent” (Rev. 3:19). That is why St. Paul, together with Solomon (Prov. 3:11), exhorts the faithful not to disregard God’s chastisements: “My son, do not despise the Lord’s chastening, nor lose heart when He rebukes you” (Heb. 12:5).

3) It is contrary to the teaching of the entire ancient Church. There are a great many canons and patristic rules concerning penances—and in none of them are they called “satisfactions” for sins, but only “remedies” for sins, as we have already seen.[1413] The Church Fathers also expounded this same teaching in their individual writings. For example, one of the universal teachers, St. John Chrysostom, who spoke so extensively about repentance, preaches with complete clarity:

a) That God forgives the sins of repentant Christians—that is, sins committed after baptism—without any punishment. “The prodigal son represents those who have fallen away after baptism; and the reason he signifies those who have fallen away after baptism is evident from the following: he is called a son, and no one can be called a son without baptism. He lived in his father’s house and received a share in all his father’s estate, but before baptism one cannot make use of one’s father’s estate nor receive an inheritance. Thus, all of this points to the community of the faithful… When the prodigal son, having gone to a foreign land and learned through experience how ruinous it is to leave his father’s house, returned—his father did not hold a grudge, but welcomed him with open arms. Why was that? Because he was a father, not a judge. And now there is rejoicing and feasting, and celebrations—the whole house has become bright and joyful! What do you say? Is this the reward for vice? Not for vice, my friend, but for returning (home); not for sin, but for repentance; not for evil deeds, but for reform. And what is even more remarkable—when the older son was upset by this, the father gently comforted him, saying: “You are always with me… but this brother of yours was dead and has come to life, was lost and has been found” (Luke 15:31–32). When, he says, it is necessary to save one who is perishing, then it is not a time for judgment and strict scrutiny, but only for compassion and forgiveness. No doctor, instead of giving medicine to a patient, subjects him to reprimands and punishment for a disorderly life… Therefore, knowing that (God) not only does not turn away from those who repent, but also accepts them no less than the virtuous; that He not only does not punish them, but also goes Himself to seek out the lost and, having found them, rejoices in them more than in those who were safe, let us neither despair over our sins nor place excessive hope in our good deeds.”

And in another discourse: “Divine Scripture says: ‘Declare your iniquities first, that you may be justified’ (Isa. 43:26): confess your sin in order to be forgiven. This requires neither effort, nor verbosity, nor financial expense, nor anything else of the sort: speak a word, confess your sin, and say, ‘I have sinned.’”[1414]

b) Through repentance and self-condemnation, we can, if we so desire, be freed not only from eternal but also from temporal punishments, and God subjects us to the latter only when we ourselves are unwilling to repent—and even then, with the aim of healing us from our sins. “If we would judge ourselves,” says the Apostle, “we would not be condemned (1 Cor. 11:31). He did not say: ‘if we were to punish ourselves and suffer for our guilt’ (εί έκολάζομεν εαυτούς, εί έτιμαρούμεθα), but only: ‘if we were willing to acknowledge our sins, condemn ourselves, and confess our transgressions—then we would be freed from both the present (καί τής ένταύθα) and the future punishment (τιμωρίας). For the one who condemns himself appeases God in two ways: both by acknowledging his sins and by becoming less inclined to sin in the future, But since we are unwilling to do even this simple thing as we ought, God—not wishing to condemn us outright but sparing us—punishes us here, where the punishment is temporary and the consolation great; for both purification from sins is possible and a sweet hope remains, which eases our present suffering. Therefore, desiring both to comfort the weak and to make others more zealous, (the Apostle) says: “When we are disciplined, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we may not be condemned along with the world.”[1415] He did not say: “We are subjected to punishment” (κολαζομεθα); he did not say: “We are struck down like criminals” (τιμωρούμεθα), but “we are disciplined like children” (παιδευόμεθα). For this is more an admonition than an accusation, more a remedy than a punishment, more a correction than a beating.”[1416]

c) That the entire duty of pastors and spiritual fathers consists in healing sinners of their sins through penance and other measures, and not in punishing them for their sins per se. “Christians, above all others, are forbidden to correct those who fall into sin by force. Secular judges exercise great authority over those who break the law and restrain them from committing crimes against their will. But in the Church, one must lead people to a better way of life not by coercion, but by persuasion. Moreover, the laws have not granted us such authority as to forbid sinners from sinning; but even if they had, we could in no case make use of it: for God rewards only those who abstain from sin of their own free will, and not under compulsion. Therefore, great skill is required to ensure that the weak, yielding to persuasion, willingly agree to accept healing from the priests—and even more so, that they thank them for their healing. For if anyone, having been bound, breaks his bonds and flees (and anyone who has freedom can do so), he will increase his own suffering. If he disregards words that cut like iron, such disregard will inflict a new wound upon him, and the cause for healing will turn into the cause of the most grievous illness. And no one can treat a patient by force or against his will. What, then, is to be done? If one treats leniently the one who ought to undergo harsh treatment, and fails to open the wound more deeply for the one who needs it, then the wound will heal in part, but not entirely… This is why a shepherd must possess great prudence and many eyes, so as to survey the condition of the soul from every angle. For just as many become embittered and lose hope in their salvation because they cannot endure harsh treatment, so, on the contrary, there are those who, not having been duly punished for their sins, become negligent, grow more depraved, and sin with greater boldness. Therefore, it is the priest’s duty to leave nothing untried, but, after a rigorous examination of all options, to choose the means appropriate to the condition of the souls, so that his efforts may not be in vain.”[1417]

d) Finally, prayer, almsgiving, and other pious practices prescribed for sinners as penances are merely different paths to repentance, different healing remedies for curing spiritual wounds. “We have said that there are many and varied paths to repentance, so that salvation may be easy for us… Are you a sinner? Enter the church, say, ‘I have sinned,’ and you will atone for your sin. We also cited the example of David, who sinned and had his sin atoned for. Then we proposed another path—namely, weeping over one’s sin—and said: What effort does this require? You need not spend any money, nor travel a long distance, nor do anything else of the sort; you need only weep over your sin… Then we pointed out a third path to repentance and cited from Scripture the Pharisee and the tax collector—that is, that the Pharisee, having boasted arrogantly, lost his righteousness, while the tax collector, showing humility, attained righteousness and, without any effort, became righteous—he offered words but received deeds. Now let us move on and present the fourth path of repentance. What is this path? It is almsgiving, the queen of virtues, which very quickly lifts people up to heaven itself, the best protector.”[1418] “But there is another path of repentance for you, also very convenient, through which you can be freed from your sins. Pray every hour, do not grow weary in prayer, and implore God’s love for humanity without laziness; for God will not turn away from one who prays constantly, but will forgive your sins and grant your requests.”[1419] “Consider, then, how many healing remedies there are for your spiritual wounds; apply them all, one after another, without ceasing: self-abasement, confession, forgiveness of wrongs, gratitude for the sorrows sent upon you, helping the poor with money and goods, and finally, unceasing prayer… So, will we be worthy of any excuse when, having so many paths leading to heaven and so many remedies for healing the wounds of the soul received after baptism, we remain in these wounds?”[1420]

It is true that some of the ancient teachers in the West, such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, sometimes referred to penances as “satisfactions”;[1421] but not in the sense that penances serve in and of themselves as some kind of expiatory price or sacrifice for sins before Divine justice, but rather that, as paternal punishments, they stir up in sinners true repentance, by which the Heavenly Father is appeased; and as pious exercises, they provide the repentant with an arena and an opportunity to express and testify before God the full truth and depth of their repentance, which alone truly satisfies Him.[1422] Thus, Tertullian, speaking of the necessity of confession— which was practiced publicly in the early Church and prescribed various degrees of penance for sinners—states: “satisfaction is commensurate with confession (in the aforementioned sense); from confession comes repentance; and through repentance, God is appeased.””[1423] St. Cyprian exhorted those who had fallen: “Let us turn to the Lord with all our hearts, and, expressing repentance for sin through genuine sorrow, let us implore God’s mercy. May the soul humble itself before Him, may contrition satisfy Him (illi moestitia satisfaciat), and may all hope be placed in Him. He Himself told us how we should ask Him: ‘Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, weeping, and mourning. Rend your hearts, not your garments’ (Joel 2:12–13). Let us turn to the Lord with all our hearts: let us appease Him for our sin and offense through fasting, weeping, and wailing, as He Himself exhorts… Offer complete repentance; demonstrate the sorrow of your contrite and weeping soul… Such repentance is acceptable; but whoever rejects repentance for sin closes the door to atonement.”[1424] Likewise, Blessed Augustine, following St. Ambrose,[1425] states that the repentant sinner satisfies God for his sins precisely through tears of repentance, the sacrifice of a contrite and humble heart.[1426]

§228. The Injustice of the Roman Church’s Doctrine on Indulgences

With the collapse of the Roman Church’s doctrine on penances—as temporary punishments to satisfy God’s justice—the doctrine of that Church on indulgences (remissions or concessions) inevitably collapses as well. The main features of this doctrine are as follows: I) in the sacrament of penance, God, while forgiving the sins of the penitent and the eternal punishments for those sins, does not always remit the temporal punishments, which—whether imposed by the confessor (as penances) or not imposed at all—must inevitably be endured by the sinner, whether here on earth or after death in Purgatory, to satisfy God’s justice; II) but since man is weak and his strength is insufficient for this purpose, these temporal punishments may be removed from him and replaced, in the eyes of eternal Justice, by the superabundant merits of Christ the Savior and the Saints, which constitute the treasury of the Church; III) the authority to make these substitutions and thus to free sinners—not only the living but also the dead—from temporal punishments, that is, the authority to grant indulgences, belongs to the Church.[1427]

I. We have already seen the injustice of the first argument: it is contrary to the Christian doctrine of satisfaction to God’s justice and the justification of the sinner; it is contrary to the teaching of the entire ancient Church; it is even contrary to a sound understanding of God’s justice and the forgiveness or remission of sins. Here it remains only to say:

1) If penances are not temporary punishments that a repentant sinner is supposedly required to endure to satisfy God’s justice, then there is no need to remit them—or, more precisely, there is no need to replace them before God with the superabundant merits of Christ the Savior and the Saints. Consequently, the doctrine of indulgences is built on sand.

2) If, on the contrary, penances are merely paternal punishments intended to heal spiritual illnesses, then they, like remedies, may be lifted, mitigated, or replaced with other remedies according to the condition of those being healed, as prescribed by the canons of the Holy Councils and as the Orthodox Church has practiced to this day. But to lift penances without regard for the moral state of those being treated, to grant indulgences to sinners indiscriminately—whether they have reformed or not at all—means to abuse authority to the detriment of the sinners themselves.

3) If the effects of penances, as forms of therapeutic punishment, are limited to this life—when sinners can still be healed and reformed—and do not extend into the afterlife:[1428] then granting indulgences on behalf of the deceased, to free them from the supposed Purgatory, is entirely superfluous.

4) One can remove only those punishments that have been imposed on someone; but to remove from a sinner punishments that have not been imposed on him, or that have been imposed—but not by us, but by God Himself—for example, in the supposed Purgatory: this is, on the one hand, strange, and on the other, unlawful.

II. In considering the second point, it should be noted:

1) The Savior’s merits are indeed infinite and constitute an inexhaustible treasure of grace that justifies and saves sinners. But these merits can be appropriated and imputed to people only on the condition of their faith, true repentance for their sins, and good works—the fruits of faith and repentance—or, at the very least, a firm intention to amend their ways and live a holy life henceforth (§§197, 198), just as the pastors of the Orthodox Church do when absolving sinners in the sacrament of repentance (§224). But to impute the Savior’s merits to sinners without their fulfilling the aforementioned conditions, to free them, by virtue of these merits, from the punishments for their sins—even if temporary—to which God Himself subjects sinners according to His justice; in short, to grant people indulgences is a completely unlawful act.

2) The merits of the saints, no matter how great they may be, can never be considered in excess of what is due, superfluous, or unnecessary for themselves, nor can they be attributed to other people—sinners—for their justification in the eyes of God’s justice. For, first of all, all the deeds of the saints do not belong entirely to them, but were accomplished through the help of God’s grace, and their value before the judgment of eternal Justice stems from the merits of Christ. Second, the commandment of the Gospel law, which leads to life, is immeasurably vast (Ps. 118:96), so that no matter how much a person fulfills it, there will always remain much in it that has not yet been fulfilled by them. “Be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48): this is the goal to which Christians are called and must strive! That is why men such as St. Paul the Apostle did not consider themselves fully perfect and said: “I do not consider myself to have attained it; but, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13–14). To accomplish anything beyond what is required would mean attaining a higher perfection than that demanded by the faith of Christ. Thirdly, we must remember that “in My Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). A baby dies shortly after baptism, pure and innocent: for him there is a certain degree of bliss; an adult dies, having succeeded in demonstrating his faith through deeds and bearing good fruit: for him there is another reward; an ascetic who has spent his entire life in the labors of fasting and chastity, voluntary poverty, and the deepest self-abasement departs to God: for such a person, there is yet another, higher degree of bliss. Consequently, whatever good deeds anyone may have performed, whatever merits they may have earned on earth—for all these merits there will be a due and appropriate reward, and they can in no way be called unnecessary, superfluous, or useless for the righteous themselves. Fourth, from the fact that God has spared and is always ready to spare sinners for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:33), one should not conclude [1429] that He has spared and spares the former because of the latter’s excessive merits, being satisfied with these merits and attributing them to the sinners, rather than for any other reason. The righteous are His true, beloved children and friends (John 15:14–15); all their ways are pleasing to Him (Ps. 1:6); all their desires are good in His sight (Prov. 11:23); all their petitions and prayers are pleasing to Him (Prov. 15:29). It is precisely because of this love for His saints—and especially because of their intercession and supplications, which they send up to His throne on behalf of others, often with such power that they themselves, like Moses and Paul, are willing to be deprived of the kingdom of God for the sake of their neighbors (Ex. 32:32); (Rom. 9:3), the Lord also spares sinners—He spares His wayward children through the entreaties of His beloved ones who have truly pleased Him; He spares them, evidently, out of His infinite goodness toward both groups, and not out of justice, which is supposedly satisfied for the sins of the former by the overflowing merits of the latter.

3) In particular—with regard to penances. Even if it were true that the saints possess superabundant merits, and that these merits, together with the merits of the Savior, could be imputed to sinners to free them from the punishments decreed by God’s justice; but since penances are not punishments imposed on sinners to satisfy God’s justice, but rather healing remedies for their spiritual ailments: therefore, penances cannot be replaced by the aforementioned merits; it is unjust to grant indulgences to sinners on account of these merits and to remove spiritual remedies from them before they have produced their beneficial effects.

III. The Latins base their final argument—a) on the words of the Savior spoken to the Apostle Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19), and b) on the example of the early Church.[1430] To this we offer the following response:

1) It is true that the Apostle Peter, like the other Apostles and all the pastors of the Church [(Matt. 18:18); (John 20:22–23)], received divine authority to absolve sinners, to free them from their sins and from the punishments for those sins. But:

a) This is done solely in the name of, or by virtue of the merits of, Jesus Christ alone, from whom they received this authority, and who, in conferring it, said to them: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you … receive the Holy Spirit.” “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained” (John 20:21–23). There is not the slightest hint here of the merits of God’s saints. Consequently, the pastors of the Church have absolutely no authority to absolve sinners on the basis of any merits of the righteous beyond what is required.

b) Only through the sacrament of penance, and consequently, under certain conditions on the part of the penitents themselves. For, first, the sacrament of penance is based precisely on the Savior’s words cited above, according to the Latins’ own admission; and second, the pastors of the Church can absolve sinners of their sins and punishments only by the grace of the Holy Spirit (“Receive the Holy Spirit… Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven…”), which is communicated generally through the sacraments and, in particular, for the absolution of repentant Christians, through the sacrament of penance. Consequently, the pastors of the Church have no authority to absolve from sins or from the punishments for sins those who have not received the sacrament of penance, or who have received it but without the proper conditions and have not truly repented, nor to grant indulgences indiscriminately to all who ask.

c) All the more so, the pastors of the Church have no right to grant indulgences on behalf of the dead or to absolve them of sins and the punishments for those sins in (the supposed) Purgatory by their own authority, since the dead can no longer receive the sacrament of penance or fulfill the conditions required of penitents. Now even the Latins themselves admit that the Church cannot extend its power of absolution to the souls of the dead, and that in the Savior’s commandment—“Whatever you forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven”—the phrase “on earth” must refer to both the one who forgives and those who are forgiven.[1431] Therefore, they base the right of their high priest to grant indulgences on behalf of those in Purgatory solely on the following reasoning: “All prayers for the dead, the offering of the bloodless Sacrifice, almsgiving, and other good deeds are beneficial to the dead: why, then, cannot the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and the Saints, applied to them per modum suffragii—that is, by way of intercession—be beneficial to them, through the Pope’s presentation of these merits to God?”[1432] Thus, the merits of the Savior can have a beneficial effect on the deceased as well, by God’s infinite goodness: by virtue of these merits, the prayers offered for them by the living, almsgiving, and especially the offering of the Bloodless Sacrifice are beneficial to the deceased. But it follows from this only that the Bishop of Rome, like all other pastors of the Church, by virtue of the Savior’s merits, can and must pray for the dead—especially during the celebration of the Liturgy—trusting in God’s mercy and leaving it to God Himself to heed or not heed these prayers, to grant or withhold deliverance from punishment for sinners; it does not follow at all that the Pope has the right to grant, at his own discretion, indulgences for the release of Christian souls from Purgatory.

2) Citing the example of the early Church, Roman teachers assert: “[1433] ”

a) “The Apostle Paul granted an indulgence to a sinner and freed him from temporal punishment.” But St. Paul, as we have already noted, imposed penance on this sinner specifically for his moral healing, so that his spirit might be saved, and not to satisfy God’s justice; and he lifted the penance when it had achieved its purpose and the sinner had truly repented (2 Cor. 2:6–7). Consequently, an indulgence in the Roman sense could not have taken place here at all.

b) “In the days of Tertullian and Cyprian, the Church would often, at the intercession of martyrs and confessors, forgive those who had fallen away from the faith, release them from the penances or punishments they had deserved, and thus demonstrate its authority to grant indulgences.” It is true that the primates of the Churches of that time held the holy martyrs in high esteem, and out of respect for their intercession sometimes accepted those who had fallen away; but by no means because they attributed to the latter the abundant merits of the former: for even through the intercession of the martyrs, a necessary condition for the forgiveness of sinners was their repentance and reform. “Perhaps the Lord,” says St. Cyprian, who discussed this subject at length, “may graciously forgive, through the prayers of the martyrs and by the mediation of priests, but only to the repentant, the diligent, and the supplicant—[1434] — to one who prays with all his heart, weeps with true sorrow and tears of repentance, and moves the Lord to mercy through constant good deeds.”[1435] At the same time, the Holy Father repeatedly exhorts those who have fallen not to rely on the intercession of the martyrs, but to turn to God themselves with all their hearts, to implore Him themselves, and to appease Him through sincere repentance and a reformed life,[1436] for without this condition, the martyrs can do nothing for them; they cannot, as servants, pardon that which has offended the Lord Himself,[1437] nor can they morally, contrary to God’s will and the Gospel, intercede for anyone unworthy,[1438] and that their intercession is accepted when it is just and may be fulfilled by a priest in accordance with God’s will.[1439] On the other hand, it asks the martyrs and confessors themselves to pay attention to the individual merits of each sinner, to carefully weigh his intentions, to assess the nature and quality of his sins,[1440] and to intercede only for those who are truly repentant and who appease God.[1441] Consequently, when the ancient Church forgave sinners through the intercession of martyrs and confessors, it respected the testimony of the latter as people fully worthy of its trust regarding the sincerity of the former’s repentance and conversion, and did not forgive them as if it were attributing the abundant merits of the holy martyrs to the sinners.

c) “The early Church, when imposing penances or temporary punishments on sinners, often mitigated them—that is, granted indulgences—as is evident from the canons of the Council of Ancyra and others.” But why did alleviate them? Solely based on the moral state of the penitents—because, viewing penances as spiritual remedies, it deemed it necessary and beneficial for those being treated to either weaken, alter, increase, or even completely remove the remedy—and by no means by attributing the merits of the righteous to sinners. It suffices to read the rule of the aforementioned Council of Ancyra: “Bishops shall have the authority, after examining the manner of repentance, to show mercy or to grant a longer period of repentance. Above all, the life leading up to the temptation and following it shall be examined, and mercy shall be meted out accordingly” (Canon 5; note 7). The same is confirmed by the First Council of Nicaea,[1442] St. Basil the Great,[1443] St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1444] and others.[1445] And it is remarkable that in ancient times, forgiveness was granted to repentant sinners not immediately upon the imposition of penances (as, on the contrary, was and sometimes still is the case in the Roman Church, especially during jubilee celebrations, when absolution from penalties is granted even before they are imposed), but only after a considerable period of time, during which the sinner had ample opportunity to experience the weight of his guilt and punishment and to repent.[1446] Likewise, it is noteworthy that the ancient Councils and Fathers, when death threatened those under excommunication, released them from ecclesiastical punishment, admitted them to the sacrament of Communion, and, once the danger had passed, again required them to fulfill the penance previously imposed.[1447] This is an unmistakable sign that the ancient Church viewed penances not as a means of satisfying God’s justice—which could conveniently be replaced by the merits of the Savior and the Saints—but as corrective measures, from which the sinner was released on one condition: genuine repentance.

Having, therefore, not the slightest basis either in Holy Scripture or in Holy Tradition, indulgences—as a dogma of the Roman Church—prove harmful to the Christian life: they undermine true repentance for sins, indiscriminately deprive sinners of the healing remedies necessary for the cure of their spiritual illnesses, and, by deceiving the people with the ease of reconciliation with God and the Church, have contributed and may continue to contribute to the general corruption of morals.[1448] We will not even mention the various abuses of the Roman hierarchy that have occurred and are always possible in the granting of indulgences.[1449]

5. On the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick

§229. Connection to the Previous Section; the Concept of the Anointing of the Sick and Its Names

The Sacrament of Penance, as a grace-filled healing, is intended for all Christians, but only to heal their spiritual ailments. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is another salvific healing, intended for Christians who are physically ill, and whose purpose is to heal not only their spiritual ailments but also their physical ones.

This understanding of the Anointing of the Sick is provided by the Orthodox Church when it states: “The Anointing of the Sick is a sacrament in which, through the anointing of the body with holy oil, God’s grace is invoked upon the sick person, healing both spiritual and physical infirmities” (Extended Christian Catechism, Part 1, Article 10).

From time immemorial, this sacrament has been called in the Orthodox Church “the anointing with oil” ([1450] ), “holy oil” ([1451] ), “oil combined with prayer” ([1452] ); and in our homeland—the Anointing of the Sick, the Anointing with Oil, and sometimes, in colloquial speech, “the conciliar anointing,” in accordance with the fact that it is usually performed by a council of pastors. The names given to the Anointing of the Sick specifically in the Roman Church—such as “last anointing,”[1453] “sacrament of the dying,” and [1454] “sacrament of the dying”—are of later origin and, as we shall see, not entirely accurate.

§230. The Divine Institution of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and Its Validity

I. St. James the Apostle speaks with complete clarity about the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick in Holy Scripture when, instructing Christians, he says: “Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray.” Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms.” He immediately continues: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him (James 5:14–15). From these words, both the divine institution of the Anointing of the Sick and its validity as a sacrament are equally revealed.

1. Divine Institution. For, on the one hand, it is evident from the context that the apostle is not speaking of the anointing with oil as something new, previously unknown to Christians, but is merely pointing them to this healing remedy as something that already existed and was well known among them, which he commands them to use in cases of illness. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the holy Apostles did not preach anything of their own accord (Gal. 1:11–12), but taught only what the Lord Jesus had commanded them (Matt. 28:20) and what the Spirit of God had inspired them to teach (John 16:13); it is well known that they called themselves servants of Christ and merely builders, not the founders, of God’s mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1). Consequently, the laying on of hands, commanded here by St. James the Apostle to Christians as a sacramental healing for bodily and spiritual ailments, was commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and by the Spirit of God. Scripture does not specify exactly when the Lord instituted this sacrament, since much of what He taught and did on earth was not recorded in writing (John 21:25). But it is only natural to think that this sacrament, like the other two (baptism and repentance), through which the forgiveness of sins is granted, was instituted by the Lord after His resurrection, when all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him (Matt. 28:18), and when, over the course of forty days, He appeared to the apostles and spoke about the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3)—that is, about the structure of His Holy Church, of which the sacraments constitute the most essential part.

2. Validity, as with the sacraments. For, in addition to divine institution—the first essential feature of every Christian sacrament— the Anointing of the Sick incorporates, as expressed in the Apostle’s words, the other two characteristics: a sensible sign—the anointing of the sick with oil accompanied by prayer—and the supersensible action of grace associated with this sensible sign—the remission of sins and the healing of illnesses. However, to assume, as the heretics do,[1455] that St. James is speaking here of an ordinary medical remedy for illnesses, or of an extraordinary gift of healing, is entirely unjust.

The first idea is unjust: because—a) whatever the healing power of the oil may be, it cannot be called a universal remedy for illnesses, whereas the Holy Apostle speaks in general terms: “If any of you are sick, let…”; b) anointing the sick with oil as a common remedy could most naturally be done by his family, or friends, or any physician whom Scripture does not forbid one to consult (Sir. 38:1–5), whereas the Holy Apostle specifically commands: “let him call for the elders of the church…”; c) Subsequently, the Apostle attributes the healing power not to the oil alone, but primarily to the prayer of the clergy: “Let them offer a prayer over him,[1456] having anointed him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up”; d) finally, the healing of the illness is accompanied by the forgiveness of sins: and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him—something that, without a doubt, no natural medical treatment can grant.

The last point is also unfounded. For—a) the gift of miraculous healing was never tied to a specific physical sign, as is evident from the history of the Savior and the Apostles [(John 5:8–9); (Luke 4:40); (Mark 16:18); (Acts 3:6); (Acts 28:8–9)], while St. James points to one specific sign—oil; b) those who possessed this extraordinary gift could only heal diseases, but did not have the authority to forgive sins—a power granted by the Savior solely to the Apostles and their successors—and St. James here links the forgiveness of sins with the healing of diseases; c) In the apostolic age, believers of every rank and station possessed extraordinary gifts, including the gift of healing (1 Cor. 12:7–12, etc.); therefore, for miraculous healing from sickness, one ought to turn specifically to those who possessed this gift, regardless of their status, whereas St. James commands that only church presbyters be called upon to perform the anointing with oil… Clearly, this is not a matter of miraculous healing, but of one of the sacred rites of the Church, which, according to the teaching of the Apostles, could not be performed by all believers (Heb. 5:4), but only by chosen ministers of the Church (Eph. 4:11–12) and, in particular, by presbyters (Acts 20:17–18).

II. There should be not the slightest doubt that from the days of the Apostles the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was celebrated in the Church: for the Church could not have forgotten, much less violated, a commandment so clearly taught by the Apostle and so salvific for the faithful. But there have also been preserved certain testimonies of the ancient teachers, who either merely mention the anointing with oil, based on the words of St. James the Apostle, or point to the anointing with oil through certain characteristics as a special sacramental rite, or even directly call it a sacrament.

Among the former are the testimonies of:

Origen. After listing various means of the remission of sins—such as baptism, martyrdom, fervent love for God, and the like—he continues: “There is also a seventh, though severe and difficult, means of the remission of sins through repentance, when the sinner washes his bed with tears, and tears are his bread day and night (Ps. 41:4), and when he is not ashamed to confess his sin before the Lord’s priest and ask for healing, according to the words of the one who said: ‘I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and You took away the guilt of my sin.’” And he adds: “In this is also fulfilled what the Apostle James said: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him (James 5:14–15).”[1457] Origen, as it were, does not separate the Anointing of the Sick from repentance here and speaks of one immediately after the other; but this is undoubtedly because, even in ancient times, the Anointing of the Sick was performed—as it is performed to this day—after repentance and immediately following it, as it were, inseparably.

St. Chrysostom. Comparing priests, as spiritual fathers, to earthly parents, he says: “The latter cannot protect their children even from physical death; indeed, they cannot always drive the disease that has invaded their bodies out: the former, on the other hand, have often saved ailing souls that were destined to perish, either by subjecting them to gentle discipline or by preventing them from falling at the very outset—not only through teaching and instruction, but also through the help of prayer. For they have the authority to forgive sins not only when they regenerate us, but also afterward, as it is said: ‘Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him (James 5:14–15). Judging by the context of the discourse and because the Holy Father had previously spoken at some length and in great detail about the sacrament of repentance and the authority of priests to bind and loose— —and had cited the words [(John 20:23); (Matt. 18:18)],—we may conclude that here he is speaking specifically about the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, which is administered only to the sick.[1458]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Arming himself against sorcery, he offers this instruction: “When any part of your body is afflicted with illness, and if you believe in these words: ‘The Lord,’ ‘Sabaoth,’ and other titles attributed to God in Divine Scripture as befitting His nature—then utter these words, offering up prayers for yourself. You will act far better than they (i.e., those who turn to sorcery): for you will give glory not to unclean spirits, but to God. In this regard, I will also remind you of the words of Divine Scripture: “If anyone among you is sick, let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord… and so on.”[1459] It is remarkable that the Holy Father merely mentions anointing with oil as a remedy to which Christians should turn in the event of illness, and consequently implies that this remedy was well-known and actually practiced in the Church.

Among the second type of evidence, which is clearer, are the words of:

Victor, a presbyter of Antioch (5th century), who, explaining the Gospel account of the Apostles—“and they anointed many sick people with oil and healed them” (Mark 6:13)—remarks: “What the Apostle James speaks of in his canonical epistle is no different from this: for he writes, ‘Is anyone among you sick… Oil heals sickness and is a source of light and joy. Therefore, the oil used for anointing signifies both God’s mercy, the healing of sickness, and the enlightenment of the heart. For prayer accomplishes all things, as is well known to everyone, while oil serves only as a symbol of what is being accomplished.”[1460]

Césaire, also a fifth-century writer. In one of his sermons, he instructs Christians as follows: “Whenever any illness strikes, let the sick person receive the Body and Blood of Christ and anoint his body, so that the words of Scripture may be fulfilled in us: ‘Is anyone among you sick…’ See, brothers, whoever turns to the Church in sickness is deemed worthy to receive both bodily healing and the forgiveness of sins.”[1461]

Finally, they explicitly refer to the Anointing of the Sick as a sacrament:

Innocent I, Pope (5th century). In response to the question of how to understand the words of the Apostle James—“Is anyone among you sick…,” etc.—he says: “These words must undoubtedly be understood to refer to believers who are sick, who may be anointed with the Holy Chrism or the oil of anointing.” And then, addressing another question—whether a bishop may perform this anointing—he continues: “There is no reason to doubt that a bishop can do what a presbyter can undoubtedly do. The Apostle speaks of presbyters because bishops, being occupied with their duties, cannot visit all the sick… Those undergoing (ecclesiastical) penance must not receive this anointing, for it is a sacrament. For if other sacraments are forbidden to them, how can one be permitted?”[1462]

St. Gregory the Dialogist. In his book on the sacraments, he sets forth the very rite of the Anointing of the Sick with all the prayers and sacred hymns. Here, when anointing the sick person with holy oil, the priest says, among other things: “I anoint you with holy oil in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that no unclean spirit may dwell within you… but may the power of Christ God and the Holy Spirit dwell within you, so that through the celebration of this sacrament (mysterii)—through the anointing with holy oil and our prayer, healed by the power of the Holy Trinity—you may be deemed worthy to receive your former and perfect health.”[1463]

It should be added that the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is observed, among other sacraments, not only by the Latins, who separated from the Orthodox Church in the ninth century, but also by the Nestorians and Monophysites,[1464] who were excommunicated from it as early as the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils in the fifth century.

§231. To whom and by whom may the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick be administered?

In the very same words with which St. James the Apostle attested to the divine institution of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, along with its validity, he also clearly indicated both the persons to whom this sacrament may be administered and the ministers who perform the sacrament.

1. Regarding the first category of persons, St. James wrote: “Is anyone among you sick (ασθενεί) …,” and further: “The prayer of faith will save the one who is sick (κάμνοντα).” Consequently, the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is intended only for Christians who are sick—and seriously ill, suffering, and exhausted—as the words used by the Apostle indicate.[1465] On the other hand, however, it would be an extreme to interpret this as referring solely to the dying or to those who are already at the very point of death; for the words of the Apostle cited here, both according to their general usage in the Greek language and according to their usage in Holy Scripture [(Matt. 10:8); (Matt. 25:36–39); (Luke 4:40); (Luke 7:10); (Luke 9:2); (John 4:46); (John 5:3); (John 11:1), etc.], refer not only to the dying, but generally to the seriously ill—and thus also to those who have hope of recovery. Therefore, the Roman Church acts unjustly when it administers the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick as a final blessing only to those who are already at the point of death, which is why it calls it the “Last Anointing,” the “Sacrament of the Departing,” or the “Sacrament of the Dying”—a custom that, according to the Latins’ own admission, did not appear until the twelfth century.[1466]

2. The Apostle explicitly names presbyters as the ministers of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick: “Let him call the presbyters of the church…” This, without a doubt, does not mean that bishops—the immediate successors of the Apostles and, par excellence, the dispensers of the gifts of grace—do not have the authority to administer the Anointing of the Sick; but St. James mentions only presbyters because, as Pope Innocent I observed, “bishops, being occupied with other duties, cannot visit all the infirm.”[1467] According to the ancient rite of the Orthodox Church, the number of presbyters required to perform the Anointing of the Sick is usually set at seven.[1468] However, since this number is not specified by the Apostle and does not pertain to the essence of the sacrament, the sacrament was sometimes, depending on circumstances, performed by a larger number of priests, or by a smaller number—as few as three or even one.[1469] Here, too, the Roman Church has departed from the Orthodox Church, granting the right to consecrate the oil for the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick exclusively to bishops,[1470] without any basis, whereas the Apostle generally speaks of church presbyters in connection with the Anointing of the Sick, without even mentioning bishops.

§232. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and Its Invisible, Grace-Filled Effects

I. The visible aspect of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is described by the Holy Apostle with the words: “Let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” That is to say, this includes:

1) The anointing of the sick person with holy oil or vegetable oil. This oil is first consecrated by the clergy immediately before the sacrament is administered. Then, one after another, they anoint the sick person seven times in the shape of a cross on the forehead, nostrils, cheeks, lips, chest, and hands on both sides.

2) The Prayer of Faith, recited by the clergy during the anointing of the sick. According to the rite of the Orthodox Church, it is read as follows: “Holy Father, Healer of souls and bodies, who sent Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who heals every infirmity and delivers from death, heal also Your servant [or Your handmaid] [name], from the bodily and spiritual infirmities that afflict him [or her], and revive him [or her] through the grace of Your Christ,” and so on.

II. The invisible, grace-filled effects of the Anointing of the Sick are:

1) Healing of physical ailments. The sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is intended specifically for those who are physically ill; therefore, the healing of physical illnesses is the very first fruit of grace produced by this sacrament, as the Apostle says: “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call upon…,” and then: “And the prayer of faith will heal (σώσει) the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up (έγερεϊ)” (James 5:14–15). Does this effect always result from the anointing with oil? Not always. But—a) sometimes it does indeed happen, and the sick person gradually recovers completely and rises from his sickbed. Even more often—b) a critically ill person receives, at the very least, temporary relief from their illness or strength and encouragement to endure it—and this is also the purpose of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick: because the verb εγείρω means not only “to raise up,” but also “to encourage,” “to inspire,” and “to strengthen.”[1471] Sometimes, however—c) those who receive the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick do not receive healing from it, perhaps for the same reason that those who receive the sacrament of the Eucharist, instead of its saving fruits, eat and drink to their own condemnation (1 Cor. 11:29), — that is, because of their unworthiness, their lack of living faith in the Lord Jesus, and their hardness of heart. Finally—d) to desire or demand that every time a person receives the Anointing of the Sick, he be healed of his illnesses would be to demand that he not die at all: and this runs counter to the very plan of our restoration, according to which we must cast off this sinful, mortal body so that, in time, beyond the grave, we may be clothed in the immortal. Therefore, when receiving the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, every sick person must surrender themselves entirely to the will of the Lord, who knows better than we do to whom it is more beneficial to grant healing from illness and prolong life, and to whom it is better to bring life to a timely end (Wisdom 4:11).

2) Healing of spiritual infirmities. Having spoken of the first, immediate effect of the Anointing of the Sick on the sick person—the healing of his bodily illnesses—St. James adds: “and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.” With this conditional expression—“if he has committed sins”—the Apostle evidently assumes that the sick person, prior to the Anointing of the Sick, has already availed himself of another means of purification from sins—the sacrament of repentance; otherwise, the Apostle could not have presented the sick person as sinless (1 John 1:8–10). To this day, in the Orthodox Church, everyone who approaches the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick first purifies themselves of sins by confessing them to a spiritual father.[1472] But since during a serious illness—when one usually resorts to the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick—a person, exhausted in body and soul, is not always capable of offering true and perfect repentance for sins or, in general, of fulfilling the conditions required of the penitent to receive absolution from sins; since, due to weakness, they may not be able to confess certain sins fully, and may fail to confess others at all due to forgetfulness; since certain sins—especially grave ones—may continue to weigh heavily on the sick person’s conscience even after confession: therefore, the merciful Lord, specifically for this kind of sick person, has granted a special remedy for the healing of their spiritual infirmities in the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Here, a whole assembly of His ministers stands before the Lord on behalf of the dying patient and, through the prayer of faith on behalf of the entire Church, implores Him, the Most Merciful, to grant the infirm one forgiveness of sins and to cleanse his conscience of every defilement. “We pray to You,” they cry out, among other things, “and we beseech You at this hour: hear our prayer and accept it, as a censer offered to You, and visit Your servant; and if he has sinned in word, or deed, or thought, or by night, or by day, or under a priestly oath, or has fallen under his own curse … We beseech You and all of us pray to You: relax, forgive, and pardon, O God, overlooking his transgressions and sins, whether committed knowingly or unknowingly…” and so on.[1473] Thus, the remission of sins through the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, intended specifically for the gravely ill, is nothing other than a supplement to the remission of sins in the sacrament of Penance, — a completion not because of any insufficiency of Penance itself to absolve all sins, but because of the infirmity of the sick, who are unable to avail themselves of this saving remedy in all its fullness and salvific power.

As for the teaching of the Roman Catholics, who view the Anointing of the Sick primarily as a final blessing for the sick person, strengthening his soul against the horrors of death,[1474] this teaching is entirely arbitrary. Neither in the commandment of St. James the Apostle concerning the Anointing of the Sick, nor in the rite of the Anointing of the Sick used from ancient times in the Orthodox Church, nor in the ancient rite of the Western Church itself, as set forth by Pope Gregory the Great, is there not the slightest hint of a final blessing for the sick; rather, it speaks only of healing them from their illnesses and of the remission of their sins. Moreover, it is well known that the ancient Ecumenical Church considered not the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick to be such a final blessing for the faithful—as the Roman Church came to regard it in later times—but rather the sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, preceded by the sacrament of repentance. The proof lies in the canons of the Holy Councils [1475] and the Holy Fathers.[1476] And even if the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick can ever be called by this name (as it is sometimes called among us), it is only in those cases where it is not the Lord’s will to raise the sick person from his sickbed, and he soon dies. But even in these cases, the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick can be called, as it were, a final blessing for the sick person—not in and of itself or by its very nature, but because it is usually administered to the sick person together with the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist, which, in the proper sense, constitute the final blessing for the afterlife.

6. On the Sacrament of Marriage

§233. Connection to the preceding section; marriage as an institution of God and its purpose; the concept of marriage as a sacrament and its names

1. The three sacraments of the Orthodox Church—Baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion—are intended for all people, so that everyone may become a Christian and then grow in Christian piety and attain eternal salvation. The other two sacraments—Confession and Anointing of the Sick—are intended for all Christians as two salvific remedies: one for spiritual ailments, and the other for physical ailments and, at the same time, spiritual ones. But there are two more sacraments instituted by the Lord which, while not intended for or obligatory upon all people, and though not strictly necessary for each individual member of the Church, are nonetheless necessary for the purposes of the Church as a whole, for its existence and prosperity. These are: a) the sacrament of marriage, which bestows upon certain individuals the grace for the natural birth of children, the future children of the Church; and b) the sacrament of the priesthood, which also bestows upon certain individuals the grace for the supernatural birth of the children of the Church and their upbringing for eternal life.[1477]

2. Marriage can be viewed from two perspectives: as a law of nature or a divine ordinance, and as a sacrament of the New Testament Church, which now—since the Fall of Man—sanctifies this law. With the aim of expounding the doctrine of marriage specifically in the latter sense, we nevertheless find it necessary, for the sake of clarity, to first say a few words about marriage as a divine institution and its purpose.

Marriage is undoubtedly a divine institution; it is a law laid down by the Creator in the very constitution of man, and subsequently confirmed and revealed in supernatural revelation. The sacred chronicler, recounting the story of the origin of the first humans, testifies: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’ (Gen. 1:27–28). Speaking further about the origin— , in particular, of the first wife—and about her being brought to Adam, the text recounts: And the Lord God formed a woman from the rib He had taken from Adam and brought her to the man. And Adam, enlightened by the Spirit of God (Matt. 19:4–6), said: “Behold, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of [her] husband.” “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:22–24). All this took place at the very beginning of the world, in the days of man’s innocence. After the Flood, although the human race was already in a fallen state, God nevertheless reaffirmed the law of marriage with His blessing, just as He had in the beginning: “And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’ [(Gen. 9:1); cf. (Gen. 7)]. In the law given through Moses, we find strict provisions safeguarding the sanctity of the marital union, as established and blessed by God [(Lev. 20:10); (Deut. 7:14); (Deut. 22:22); (Deut. 28:11); cf. (Mal. 2:14–16)]. In the New Testament, Christ the Savior Himself confirmed this truth when, in response to the Pharisees’ question about whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason, He replied: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female? And He said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.’ Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:4–6). And even earlier—when He graced the wedding feast at Cana in Galilee with His presence and even performed His first miracle there (John 2:1). The Holy Apostles also bore witness to this same truth. St. Paul says in one passage: “It was not the man who was created for the woman, but the woman for the man… Yet in the Lord, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man. For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God” (1 Cor. 11:9–12). Elsewhere he remarks: “He who marries his daughter does well” (1 Cor. 7:38). In another passage, he condemns false teachers who, out of contempt for marriage, forbade people from marrying (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Following the Holy Apostles, the divine institution and sanctity of marriage were preached and defended by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and many others,[1478] against the followers of Menander,[1479] Saturninus, Carpocrates, Basilides,[1480] Marcion,[1481] against the Encratites,[1482] the Manichaeans [1483] and other heretics,[1484] who rejected marriage, attributed it to the devil, and called it a state unworthy of a Christian.

The purpose of God’s institution of marriage is twofold. First, the multiplication and preservation of the human race, as is evident from the words of God Himself, who blessed the first couple: “Male and female He created them,” Moses recounts, “and God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’” (Gen. 1:27–28). This purpose of marriage also includes giving birth to and multiplying children for the Church of God,[1485] to which all people—or the entire human race—have been called from the beginning (§168). Second, the mutual support of spouses in the course of this life: “And God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; ‘Let us make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen. 2:18).[1486] And God created the first wife, Eve, from Adam’s rib, so that, through this unity of nature, they might feel mutual love all the more strongly within themselves and strive to live an indivisible life (Gen. 2:22–24). To these two purposes of marriage, after the Fall of man, a third was added, namely, to serve as a restraint on the sinful desires that arose in human nature and as a remedy against the disorderly impulses of sensuality. “It is good for a man,” says the Apostle, “not to touch a woman.” But, “ ” to avoid sexual immorality, “let each man have his own wife” (1 Cor. 7:1–2). And further: “To the unmarried and to widows I say: It is good for them to remain as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). The ancient teachers of the Church also clearly pointed out this purpose.[1487]

3. In order to sanctify, exalt, and strengthen the institution of marriage—which is in itself holy and pure by its divine origin and by its purposes, but which, due to the corruption of human nature, has been subjected to the pernicious influence of sin and to numerous distortions by people who have given themselves over to sensuality— — the Lord Jesus deigned to establish in His Church a special sacrament—the sacrament of marriage. By the name of this sacrament is meant that sacred rite in which, after the betrothed have declared before the Church their vow of mutual marital fidelity, Divine grace is bestowed from above through the blessing of the clergyman, sanctifying their marital union, elevating it to the image of Christ’s spiritual union with the Church, and subsequently assisting them in the blessed fulfillment of all the purposes of marriage. In our tradition, this sacrament is also called the “Wedding Ceremony,” after the crowns that are placed on the heads of the bride and groom during the ceremony; among the Greeks and Latins, it is known by various other names.[1488]

§234. The Divine Institution of the Sacrament of Marriage and Its Validity

When and how did the Lord establish the sacrament of marriage—was it when He was present at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1–11),[1489] or when, in response to the well-known question posed by the Pharisees, He revealed the true meaning of marriage and said, “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:3–12),[1490] or after His resurrection, when, appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the Kingdom of God—that is, about matters pertaining to the establishment of His Church (Acts 1:3)— — the Gospels do not mention: for Jesus did many other things as well, which are not written in this book [(John 20:30); (John 21:25)]. But from some of the apostolic writings, and even more so from Sacred Tradition, we are undoubtedly convinced that the sacrament of marriage has existed in the Church from its very inception, and consequently traces its origin back to Jesus Christ Himself.

I. In the writings of the Apostles, we find clear indications of the existence of the sacrament of marriage in the Apostolic Church. Thus:

1) In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul the Apostle, setting forth the duties of a Christian wife, says: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body.” But just as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:22–24). Then, setting forth the duties of a Christian husband, he continues: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Finally, wishing to explain the very foundation of these marital duties, he points to the nature of the marital union and the significance it has acquired in Christianity: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” “This is a profound mystery—but I am speaking in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5:31–32). That is, the Holy Apostle commands that Christian wives obey their husbands just as and to the same extent that the Church obeys Christ, and that husbands love their wives to the same extent that Christ loved the Church, — precisely because their marital union symbolizes the union of Christ with the Church, and in this regard there is a mystery, and a great mystery. If this is so, then, first of all, the question arises: what could have made the marital union of two people in Christianity a mystery—and a great mystery— what could have given it such profound significance, and what could have elevated marriage to the image of Christ’s union with the Church? Without positing a specific sacrament or liturgical rite in the New Testament Church through which the marital union is sanctified and sealed by the grace of Christ, we will not find a satisfactory answer to this question. On the other hand, if the marital union of two persons in Christianity is indeed, by its very nature, a mystical image of the union of Christ with the Church—and the union of Christ with the Church is, without a doubt, filled with grace and holiness [(John 1:14); (Eph. 5:25)]: then it must be assumed that the marital union in Christianity is also sanctified and filled with the grace of Christ through some sacramental act. Finally, we arrive at the same conclusion when we consider the duties that the Apostle commands Christian spouses in the passage under consideration—to obey one’s husband to the same extent that the Church obeys Christ, and to love one’s wife to the same extent that Christ loved the Church: neither the wife nor the husband could fulfill this if, upon entering the marital union, they did not receive a special grace from above through a certain sacrament.

2) In another of his epistles, St. Paul the Apostle, discussing the state of virginity and the state of marriage, says, among other things: “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, provided it is in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). The expression “in the Lord” naturally leads to the conclusion that Christian marriage, even in the time of the Apostles—unlike other marital unions—was contracted “in the Lord,” or in the name of the Lord; that is, it was a matter of faith and of the Church, and consequently was sanctified and sealed by them through some visible sacramental rite.

II. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, the guardians of the apostolic tradition, leave no doubt regarding this truth. Their testimonies can be divided into two categories: in some, Christian marriage is presented as a matter of faith and the Church, which is performed and sanctified with the participation of clergy, through their blessing; in others, it is even directly called a sacrament that imparts grace.

Testimonies of the first kind are provided by:

St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “It is fitting for those who marry that their union be performed with the blessing of the bishop—let the marriage be in the Lord, and not out of lust.”[1491]

St. Basil the Great: “Husbands, love your wives (Eph. 5:25), even though you were strangers to one another when you entered into the marital union! May this bond of nature, this yoke imposed with a blessing, be a unification for you who were once far apart!”[1492]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “If you have not yet been united in the flesh, do not fear consummation; you are pure even after entering into marriage. I take responsibility upon myself; I am the matchmaker, I am the bride’s guardian.”[1493]

St. Ambrose: “If marriage itself must be sanctified by the veil (velamine) and the priest’s blessing, how can there be marriage where there is no agreement in faith?”[1494]

The Fourth Council of Carthage (398): “When the bride and groom are to be blessed by the priest, they shall be brought by their parents or guardians—and, having received the blessing, they shall remain in virginity that night, out of respect for this blessing.”[1495]

Likewise—Tertullian,[1496] ; Clement of Alexandria,[1497] ; Pope Siricius,[1498] ; and Pope Innocent I.[1499]

We find evidence of the second kind:

Tertullian, who lists marriage alongside the sacraments—baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist—in the following words: “The devil, seeking to pervert the truth, imitates even the divine sacraments themselves in pagan mysteries: he baptizes some as his followers, promising them the cleansing of sins through the font, and then marks his warriors on the forehead, and solemnly performs the offering of bread… and even appoints a high priest at the wedding.”[1500]

St. John Chrysostom, speaking out against the indecent songs and celebrations that commonly take place at weddings, says: “Why do you publicly dishonor the honorable sacrament of marriage? All this must be rejected, and a daughter must be taught modesty from the very beginning; priests must be summoned, and through prayers and blessings the marriage union must be sealed, so that the groom’s love may increase and the bride’s chastity be preserved, and above all, so that the works of virtue may enter that home and all the wiles of the devil may be driven out of it, and so that they (the spouses), united by God’s grace, may lead a pleasant life.”[1501]

St. Ambrose writes: “We acknowledge that God is the Lord and guardian of marriage, who will not tolerate the defilement of another’s bed. And whoever does this sins against God: for he violates His law and betrays His grace. And since he sins against God, he is deprived of participation in the heavenly mystery.”[1502]

St. Zeno of Verona: “The conjugal love of two people, through the venerable sacrament, unites them into one flesh.”[1503]

From Blessed Augustine: “In our (Christian) marriage, the holiness of the sacrament has greater power than the fruitfulness of the mother.”[1504] “The Church offers not only a marital union, but also a sacrament.”[1505]

We might add that, aside from the Orthodox Church, marriage is considered a sacrament not only by Roman Catholics but also by those who have strayed from Orthodoxy since ancient times, such as: Copts, Armenians, Maronites, Abyssinians, Nestorians,[1506] and this clearly testifies that in the ancient universal Church, belief in the sacrament of marriage was universal and widespread.

§235. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Marriage and the Invisible Acts

I. The visible aspect of the sacrament of marriage comprises two essential acts. The first is the solemn declaration by the bride and groom before the Church that they are entering into a marital union by their own free and mutual consent and will remain faithful to one another for the rest of their lives. Second, the solemn blessing of their marital union by the priest, when, placing the wreath on the groom’s head, he proclaims: “The servant of God… is wedded to the servant of God… in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”; then, placing the wreath on the bride’s head, he repeats: “The servant of God is wedded… to the servant of God… in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” and finally, uttering a brief prayer to God: “O Lord our God, crown them with glory and honor,”[1507] , he blesses them both together three times.

II. The invisible effects of grace, imparted to the bride and groom through the sacrament of marriage, consist generally in the fact that it makes, in the words of the Apostle, their very union a great mystery, insofar as it makes it an image of the mystical union of Christ with the Church: “This mystery is profound,” says the Apostle, “and I am speaking re , in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5:32). And, consequently, this grace specifically:

1) Sanctifies and, so to speak, spiritualizes the marital union of two persons: for the union of Christ with the Church is holy and spiritual. Therefore, the Apostle says of Christian marriage: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4), and commands Christian spouses: “For God’s will is your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” (1 Thess. 4:3–4). Likewise, St. Chrysostom, recalling the Apostle’s command that a Christian husband love his wife and a Christian wife revere her husband (Eph. 5:33), adds: “for each of them has received what is his own.” Such is the marriage that is in Christ, a spiritual marriage and a spiritual birth, not of blood, not of the flesh, like the birth of Isaac, of whom Scripture says: ‘And Sarah’s childbearing had ceased’ (Gen. 18:11). And this marriage is not of passion, not of the body, but entirely spiritual, because the soul is united with God through an ineffable bond, known only to Him alone: which is why it is said, “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17). See how the Apostle takes care that the flesh be united with the flesh, and the spirit with the spirit.”[1508]

2) It binds the marital union of two people with unbreakable bonds: for the union of Christ with the Church is unbreakable and eternal (Matt. 28:20). And regarding Christian marriage, one must understand above all: what God has joined together, let no one separate (Matt. 19:6)—a union not merely by the law of marriage, which He bestowed upon people from the very beginning and confirmed in the Old Testament revelation, but primarily through His grace, which He imparts to the bride and groom through a special New Testament sacrament.

3) Finally, it helps Christian spouses to faithfully fulfill their mutual duties toward one another throughout their lives, following the exalted example of Christ’s most holy union with the Church. Only in this way do the commandments of the Holy Apostle become understandable and easy to fulfill: that husbands should love their wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her (Eph. 5:25), and that wives submit to their husbands in everything, just as the Church submits to Christ (Eph. 5:24). It would be beyond human strength to imitate such a lofty example were it not for the special grace of God. By assisting Christian spouses in fulfilling their mutual duties throughout their entire lives, this grace thereby also helps them achieve all the goals of the marital union—that is, the blessed birth of children, the future children of the Church; mutual support in every good work; and protection from unlawful or unblessed relationships (§233).

§236. Who may celebrate the sacrament of marriage, and what is required of those who are to receive this sacrament?

I. From the very beginning of Christianity, the authority to administer the sacrament of marriage—as with all other sacraments—belonged to the pastors of the Church, the bishops and presbyters. As we have seen, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer speaks of this; later, Tertullian,[1509] , and others mention it or even clearly attest to it: St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom,[1510] St. Ambrose,[1511] Popes Siricius and Innocent,[1512] and the entire council of pastors that convened in Carthage.[1513] To these we may add: St. Timothy of Alexandria,[1514] St. Theodore the Studite, Sts. Nikephoros and Photius, Patriarchs of Constantinople,[1515] and so on.

II. Persons entering into the sacrament of marriage, according to the rules of the Orthodox Church:

1) Both must be of the Christian faith. For without faith in Christ, a person is not receptive to God’s grace, which is communicated through the sacraments (§197), and, in general, only those who have already entered this kingdom through the door of baptism (John 3:5) can partake of the spiritual gifts offered in the kingdom of Christ’s grace. Therefore, marriage to non-believers (non-Christians) is forbidden to Christians (Canon 14 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Canon 72 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).

2) At least one of the couple—if not both—must be of the Orthodox faith, that is, either the groom or the bride. Otherwise, how can God’s blessing be received with sincere faith from a minister of the Orthodox Church when there is no faith in the Church itself, the dispenser of the gifts of grace? But if even one of the betrothed is Orthodox, then for the sake of that one person God’s blessing is bestowed upon the union of the betrothed, since both of them, according to the Word of God, then become one flesh (Matt. 19:5). It is bestowed, however, on the condition that the non-Orthodox spouse in no way interfere with the faith of the Orthodox spouse in the future, and that any children born to them be raised in the Orthodox faith (Council of Laodicea, Canon 10.31; Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 14; Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 72).

3) They must be outside the known degrees of blood and spiritual kinship defined by the rules of the Church (6th Ecumenical Council, Canons 63 and 54; Neo-Caesarean Council, Canon 2; Basil the Great, Canons 23, 78, and 87; Timothy, Canon 11).

3) They must have mutual, voluntary consent to enter into marriage. This follows from the very nature of the marital union: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” said the Lord (Matt. 19:5). Such a union of two persons is possible only by the power of free will, moved by love, and by no means by coercion. Therefore, the Church always solemnly asks the bride and groom immediately before their wedding: whether they are entering into marriage of their own free and unforced will. And only after receiving an affirmative answer does the Church bless their union.[1516]

§237. The Characteristics of Christian Marriage Sanctified by the Sacrament

The characteristics of Christian marriage, sanctified by the sacrament, are: a) monogamy, that is, Christian marriage is a union of only one husband and one wife, and b) indissolubility.

1. Christianity strictly forbids polygamy (πολυγαμία) and sanctifies through the sacrament only the union of two persons, one husband and one wife (μονογαμία). For such is the original law of marriage, established by the Creator in human nature itself, and expressed at that very time by the forefather of the human race, by inspiration from above. And God created man, as the sacred chronicler recounts, male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27). And further: And the Lord God formed a woman from the rib He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. And the man said, “Behold, this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of [her] husband.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [(Gen. 2:22–24); cf. (Matt. 19:4–6)]. Christ the Savior Himself confirmed and explained this law when He said: “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” And He said: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ (Matt. 19:4–5). St. Paul the Apostle also clearly pointed out this same law to Christians, saying: ‘Let each man have his own wife … the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor. 7:2–4), and he taught Christian spouses that their union mysteriously represents the union of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:23 ff.). All the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church subsequently taught this law of marriage.[1517]

However, while prohibiting the having of two or more wives—or husbands—at the same time, the holy faith does not forbid spouses from entering into another marriage in the event of the death of one of them, although it gives preference to honorable widowhood over such a marriage. “To the unmarried and to widows,” writes the Holy Apostle, “it is good for them to remain as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). And further: A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, provided it is in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is [(1 Cor. 7:39–40; see also (Rom. 7:2–3); (1 Tim. 5:14)]. Likewise, the Holy Fathers never forbade those who wished to enter into a second marriage;[1518] but, based on the Apostle’s words cited above, they viewed this merely as a concession to human weakness and a lack of Christian perfection.[1519] That is why they stipulated in their rules that those entering into a second marriage should at times undergo ecclesiastical penance, as if they had failed to observe the abstinence proper to Christians,[1520] so that this marriage itself might be celebrated with less ecclesiastical solemnity, with the omission of certain sacred rites used in the first marriage,[1521] and so that those entering a second marriage might not be admitted to the ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy [(1 Tim. 3:3–12); (Titus 1:6)].[1522] As for a third marriage: according to the same patristic rules, although it constitutes impurity within the Church, it is better than fornication, and is therefore permitted, but only with a penance greater than that imposed on those who have been married twice; a fourth marriage, however, as polygamy, is strictly forbidden.[1523]

2. The second characteristic of Christian marriage—indissolubility—is also derived from the original law of marriage, established by the Creator in human nature itself and explained by Christ the Savior. When the Pharisees asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” He replied, “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female? And He said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ When they objected, asking, “Didn’t Moses command that a certificate of divorce be given and that one might divorce her?” (Matt. 19:7), the Lord said: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so” [(Matt. 19:3–8); cf. (Mark 10:2–9)]. When His disciples later asked Him about the same matter, He remarked: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” [(Mark 10:11–12); cited (Luke 16:18)]. The Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage was also preached by the Holy Apostles: “To those who are married, I do not command— but the Lord: a wife must not divorce her husband—but if she does, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Cor. 7:10–11). And in another passage: A married woman is bound by law to her living husband; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. Therefore, if she marries another while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and will not be an adulteress if she marries another man (Rom. 7:2–3). Given such a clear teaching from the Savior Himself and His Apostle regarding the indissolubility of marriage even until the death of one of the spouses, it is only natural that all the teachers of the Church unanimously proclaimed the same truth, for example: St. Justin the Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and many others.[1524]

The Savior indicated only one instance in which divorce is permitted: infidelity, or the betrayal of the marital union by either spouse. “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9): “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, causes her to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32). And the rules of the Holy Councils and the Holy Fathers also point to only this one case permitting the dissolution of marriage, although at the same time they note that even in this case the marital union may remain in force through their reconciliation and remain indissoluble.[1525]

7. On the Sacrament of Holy Orders

§238. Connection to the preceding section; the priesthood as a special, divinely instituted ministry in the Church (hierarchy) and its three degrees; the concept of the priesthood as a sacrament

In expounding the doctrine of the sacraments thus far, we have noted regarding each of them that they can be administered and taught to the faithful only by the pastors of the Church, the bishops and presbyters. But in order for people to become pastors of Christ’s Church and receive the authority to administer the sacraments, the Lord established yet another special sacrament—the sacrament of the priesthood.

The priesthood is understood in two senses: as a distinct class of people, a distinct ministry within the Church known as the hierarchy (sacred leadership), and as a distinct sacred rite through which people are consecrated and ordained to this ministry. We have already examined the priesthood in the first sense and have seen:

a) that the Lord Himself established the hierarchy, or order of pastors,[1526] whom alone He authorized to be teachers in the Church, ministers of the sacraments, and spiritual leaders, and by no means granted this authority to all believers (§172); b) that within this hierarchy there are three essential, divinely established ranks: the first and highest—the rank of bishop; the second and subordinate—the rank of presbyter, priest; the third and lowest—the rank of deacon (§173), and—c) that all three of these ranks of the hierarchy are placed in a specific relationship to one another and to the flock, and have a specific role in their common ministry to the Church (§174). Now let us speak of the priesthood as a sacrament.

The term “priesthood,” as a sacrament, refers, of course, to that sacred rite in which, through the prayerful laying on of the bishop’s hands upon the head of the chosen person, divine grace is bestowed upon that person, sanctifying him and ordaining him to a specific rank within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and subsequently assists them in fulfilling their hierarchical duties. This sacrament is also called ordination,[1527] mystical ordination,[1528] elevation to the (sacred) office,[1529] blessing of the presbyterate,[1530] and the sacrament of holy orders.[1531]

§239. The Divine Institution and Validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders

I. The divine institution of the sacrament of the priesthood is evident from the actions of the Holy Apostles, who themselves, guided by the Holy Spirit—who reminded them of everything that the Lord Jesus had commanded (John 14:26)—administered this sacrament and, through the laying on of hands, ordained ministers to all three degrees of the hierarchy. Thus, St. Paul the Apostle mentions the ordination to the office of bishop when instructing his disciple Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the priesthood” (1 Tim. 4:14), and in another epistle: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through my ordination” (2 Tim. 1:6). We read about ordination to the office of presbyter in the Book of Acts, which recounts that the apostles Paul and Barnabas, as they traveled through the cities of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Asia Minor preaching the Gospel, ordained presbyters for each church (Acts 14:23). We read about ordination to the diaconate in the same sacred book, which speaks of the first seven deacons: “They presented these men to the apostles, and after praying, the apostles laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:6). That is why St. Paul the Apostle testifies that the Lord Himself gave to His Church not only apostles, prophets, and evangelists, but also pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:11–12), and, bidding farewell to the pastors of the church in Ephesus, he said: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God” (Acts 20:28). Taken together, all these passages reveal the truth that the priesthood is a genuine sacrament. For it has not only a divine origin but also a specific outward sign—ordination—and through this sign bestows upon the chosen ones a special gift, a special gift from God, so that they are installed in their office by the Holy Spirit Himself; consequently, it possesses all the essential characteristics of a sacrament.

II. The witnesses to the apostolic tradition—the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church—sometimes describe ordination as a sacrament, speaking of the invisible grace imparted through it to the chosen ones, and sometimes even directly call it a sacrament. Such are, for example:

St. Basil the Great: “Those who had fallen away from the Church no longer possessed the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the transmission of grace had ceased, because the lawful succession had been cut off. For the first to fall away had received ordination from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands, they possessed the spiritual gift.”[1532]

St. John Chrysostom, on Acts 6:6: “See how precise the writer is. He does not say ‘how,’ but simply that the seven deacons were ordained with prayer (εχειροτονήθησαν διά προσευχής): for this is ordination (χειροτονία). A person lays on hands, but God does everything, and His hand touches the head of the one being ordained, if he is ordained as he ought to be” … And further on (Acts 6:8): “See how one of the seven was preeminent and held the highest position. For although the ordination was general, this one received greater grace. Previously he did not perform signs, but only after he became well-known; from which it is evident that grace alone is not sufficient, but ordination is also required for the increase of the Spirit. Although they were already filled with the Spirit beforehand, they had received Him through baptism.”[1533]

St. Leo the Great: “Apart from the importance of the custom, which, as we know, has come down to us through apostolic tradition, Holy Scripture also reveals that when, by the command of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles sent Paul and Barnabas to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, they, having fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, sent them off (Acts 13:3), let us learn with what reverence both those who confer and those who receive must strive, so that this sacrament of such great blessing may not be administered carelessly. Therefore, you will show pious and praiseworthy obedience to the apostolic canons if you preserve this manner of ordaining priests in the churches over which the Lord has appointed you as head.”[1534]

The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon: “If any bishop performs ordination for money, and turns the grace that cannot be sold into a commodity, and for money ordains a bishop, or a chorepiscopus, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or any other member of the clergy, or appoints for money an oikonomos, or an ekdikos, or a paremonarios, or indeed to any ecclesiastical office whatsoever, for the sake of his own vile profit: such a person, having been convicted of attempting this, shall be subject to deprivation of his own rank.”[1535]

Blessed Augustine. Speaking of the irreplaceability of the priesthood, against the Donatists, he argues: “There seems to be no reason why one who cannot lose baptism itself should lose the right to administer (baptism). For both are sacraments: both are conferred upon a person through a certain consecration—the first when he is baptized, the second when he is ordained.”[1536]

It is also worth noting that all Christian sects existing in the East—which long ago deviated from Orthodoxy—unanimously recognize the priesthood as one of the sacraments of the Church.[1537]

§240. The Visible Aspect of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, Its Invisible Effects, and Its Irreplaceability

I. The visible aspect of the sacrament of Holy Orders consists of the laying on of hands, accompanied by prayer.

1) Ordination. This is attested to by Holy Scripture, which states that from the very beginning, ordination was performed both for the office of bishop [(1 Tim. 4:14); (2 Tim. 1:5)] and for the office of presbyter [(1 Tim. 5:22); (Titus 1:5)], and to the office of deacon (Acts 6:6). This is attested to by the rules of St. Apost [1538] , and the so-called Apostolic Constitutions.[1539] This is attested to by the ecumenical and local Councils: the First Council of Nicaea (Canons 4 and 19), the Council of Ancyra (Canon 13), the Council of Antioch (Canon 10), the Council of Chalcedon (Canon 6), the Council of Carthage (Canons 36, 59, 100), and others. Finally, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church bear witness individually, mentioning in particular ordination by the laying on of hands to the episcopal office ([1540] ), to the presbyteral office ([1541] ), and to the diaconal office.[1542]

2) Combined with prayer. This is what the Holy Apostles themselves did: after praying, they ordained the first seven deacons (Acts 6:6); after praying, they ordained presbyters throughout the churches (Acts 14:23). The ancient teachers of the Church mention the prayer recited during ordination, in which the Holy Spirit was invoked upon the one being ordained.[1543] This prayer is still used in the Orthodox Church today and is read as follows: “Divine grace, which always heals the infirm and replenishes the lacking, ordains such-and-such a most reverent subdeacon as a deacon (or a deacon as a presbyter): let us pray, therefore, for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him.”[1544]

I. The invisible effect of the sacrament of Holy Orders consists in the fact that through it, by prayer, divine grace—corresponding to his future ministry, the grace of the priesthood—is truly imparted to the one being ordained. Regarding this, as we have already seen,

a) St. Paul the Apostle clearly speaks to Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands for the priesthood” (1 Tim. 4:14); “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through my ordination” (2 Tim. 1:6);

b) the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon (Canon 2) speak of it as grace that cannot be bought; St. Basil the Great speaks of it as a spiritual gift ([1545] ); and St. John Chrysostom speaks of it as the growth of the Spirit ([1546] ). Now let us hear further testimonies:

St. John Chrysostom: “I remind you to kindle the gift of God, that is, the grace of the Spirit, which you have received for your ministry in the Church, for miracles, and for all your service. For it is up to us to extinguish or kindle it.”[1547] And elsewhere: “If anyone reflects on how important it is, while still a human being of flesh and blood, to be in the presence of the blessed and immortal nature, he will clearly see what honor the grace of the Spirit has bestowed upon priests. Through them the sacrifice is offered, and other exalted ministries pertaining to the dignity and salvation of our people are performed. Though they still live and walk on earth, they have been appointed to govern heavenly matters and have received authority that God has granted neither to the angels nor to the archangels.”[1548]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The power of the word makes the priest important and venerable, setting him apart from the community of many through a new blessing. Having been yesterday and before that one of the common people, he suddenly becomes a guide, a presider, a teacher, and a celebrant of the sacred mysteries—and he does this without changing in the least in body or appearance. But while outwardly remaining the same as he was, he has been transformed for the better in his invisible soul by a certain invisible power and grace.”[1549]

St. Ambrose: “Who grants the grace of the episcopate—God or man? You will answer without a doubt: God. But God grants it through man. A man lays on his hands, and God pours out grace; a priest lays on his humble right hand, and God blesses with His almighty right hand; a bishop ordains, and God confers the dignity.”[1550]

It should be noted that although the grace of the priesthood is one, it is imparted through the sacrament in varying degrees: to a lesser degree to the deacon, to a greater degree to the presbyter, and to an even greater degree to the bishop, in accordance with their respective ministries in the Church, so that, by virtue of the gifts received through ordination, the bishop is both the chief teacher, the chief minister, and the chief ruler or archpastor in his particular church; the presbyter, receiving all his authority through ordination from the bishop, has the authority to teach, celebrate the sacraments, and provide spiritual guidance only within his own parish and under the bishop’s authority; and deacons are merely assistants and co-ministers to bishops and presbyters in their service to the Church; they themselves have no authority to teach, celebrate the sacraments, or govern (see §174).

II. The grace of the priesthood, conferred through ordination—albeit to varying degrees— to deacons, presbyters, and bishops, and endowing them with a certain measure of spiritual authority, dwells unchangeably in the soul of each of them: therefore, neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon is ordained a second time to the same office, and the sacrament of the priesthood is considered irreducible. St. Paul the Apostle points to the first idea when he twice reminds Bishop Timothy of the gift dwelling within him (1 Tim. 4:14) and of the gift of God dwelling within him (2 Tim. 1:6). The latter idea is revealed in:

In Rule 68 of the Holy Apostles: “If anyone—whether a bishop, presbyter, or deacon—receives a second ordination from anyone, both he and the one who ordained him shall be expelled from the sacred order.”

In Rule 36 of the Council of Carthage: “Presbyters or deacons who have been found guilty of some grave sin that inevitably excludes them from the ministry shall not have hands laid upon them as upon penitents or as upon faithful laypeople, nor shall they be permitted to be rebaptized or to ascend to the rank of the clergy.”

Rule 59 of the same Council states: “In accordance with the mandate given to us, we also propose this, as determined at the Council held in Capua, namely, that rebaptism or reordination is not permissible.”

In general, the Church has consistently adhered to the rule: under no circumstances should ordinations—or baptisms—be repeated if both were performed correctly, even if they took place within non-Orthodox communities. Therefore, it did not repeat ordinations even for clergy who had converted to Orthodoxy from certain schismatic sects, such as the Cathars [1551] and the Donatists [1552] , and it does not repeat them today for those converting from the Roman Church. For this very reason, the Council of Rome condemned Donatus for the re-ordination of bishops and presbyters who had fallen away during the persecutions, deeming it inconsistent with the decrees of the universal Church;[1553] St. Basil the Great denounced Eustathius of Sebaste for the same repetition of ordination, noting that not even any of the heretics had yet dared to do so ;[1554] and some denounced the Arians for the same thing.[1555] Only ordinations performed improperly and unlawfully, such as those practiced by heretics, were recognized by the Church as invalid, and she decreed that they be replaced with a new, lawful ordination if any of the clergy converting to Orthodoxy proved worthy of it.[1556] This is what it did in ancient times with the Arians, the Paulicians [1557] , and, in general, with all those ordained by self-proclaimed bishops who themselves had been installed unlawfully;[1558] and now it does the same with those converting from Protestantism. However, even in this case, the sacrament of ordination is not repeated but is actually performed for the first time: because the previous ordination was not genuine but only fictitious.

§241. Who May Administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and What Is Required of Those Seeking It

I. According to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the authority to ordain to the priesthood belongs only to the immediate successors of the Apostles, the bishops (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10). And this teaching:

1) Is based on Holy Scripture. The Holy Scriptures show that the Apostles themselves alone ordained members of the hierarchy and entrusted this authority to the bishops. They themselves ordained to the office of bishop (2 Tim. 1:6), to the office of presbyter (Acts 14:22–23), and to the office of deacon (Acts 6:6). They delegated this authority to the bishops: St. Paul wrote to Titus, the bishop of Crete: “For this reason I left you in Crete, so that you might set in order what remains to be done and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5), and he commanded Timothy, the bishop of Ephesus: “Do not be quick to lay hands on anyone, nor share in the sins of others” (1 Tim. 5:22). As for cases where the sacrament of ordination might have been performed by someone else, there is no mention of this whatsoever in the Word of God.[1559]

2) This is confirmed by the canons of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Councils.

The first and second canons of the Holy Apostles command: “A bishop is to be ordained by two or three bishops. A presbyter, a deacon, and other clergy are to be ordained by a single bishop” (Carthage Council, Canon 60).

Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council states, among other things: “If any (of the Paulicians) previously belonged to the clergy: such persons, being found blameless, after their baptism, shall be ordained by a bishop of the Catholic Church.”

The ninth canon of the Council of Antioch states: “Every bishop has authority in his diocese, and let him govern it with the prudence befitting each one, and let him care for his region, which is under the jurisdiction of his city, and let him ordain presbyters and deacons” (cited in the Chalcedonian Canon 2).

3) This is set forth in the so-called Apostolic Constitutions and the writings of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. The Apostolic Constitutions state: “We decree that a bishop be ordained by three bishops, or at least two…; a presbyter and a deacon by one bishop, as well as other clergy; and that neither a presbyter nor a deacon ordain clergy from among the laity.”[1560] And in other passages: “A presbyter must not perform the ordination of clergy;[1561] a presbyter lays on hands (χειροτιθεί), but he does not perform the sacrament of ordination (ού χειροτονεί).”[1562] The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church express this truth very clearly:

St. Chrysostom: “What the Apostle said about bishops applies equally to presbyters. Bishops are elevated by the single right of ordination (τή χειροτονία μονή), and it seems that this alone gives them precedence over presbyters.”[1563]

St. Epiphanius: “The office of bishops is primarily intended for the production of fathers: for it is their task to multiply fathers in the Church. The other order (that of the presbyters) cannot produce fathers, but rather gives birth to the Church’s flock of children, not fathers or teachers. How, then, is it possible for a presbyter to ordain a presbyter when he has no right of ordination to do so?”[1564]

Blessed Jerome: “What does a bishop do, apart from ordination, that a presbyter does not do?”[1565]

It is also known of St. Athanasius of Alexandria how, in proving that his accuser Ishira was not a priest, he pointed out precisely that Ishira had been ordained not by a bishop, but by a mere priest named Kaluf.[1566]

II. Those who are to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders:

1) Must be Christians and Orthodox Christians: since they are destined to be shepherds of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Council of Nicaea decreed: clergy who had converted to Orthodoxy from the Paulician sect—in which both baptism and ordination were performed improperly—should not be ordained to ecclesiastical ranks until after they had received a new, true baptism, provided they were found worthy (Canon 1). And at the Council of Carthage, it was decreed that those seeking priestly orders should not only be Orthodox themselves, but should also ensure that everyone in their household had become Orthodox Christians before their own ordination.[1567]

2) There must be people who have been tested in the word of faith and in a life in accordance with the true word (Laodicean Collection of Canons 12): as God’s builders (Titus 1:7), who are called to teach others the faith through word and deed [(1 Tim. 3:2); (1 Tim. 4:12)]. Therefore, the Church’s canons stipulate: a) one seeking the priestly office must know Holy Scripture and the canons of the Church, so that he may himself observe them and instruct the flock entrusted to him in them (Canon 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council); b) one who has recently come from a pagan way of life and is generally a new convert (1 Tim. 3:6), or one who has turned away from a dissolute lifestyle, must not be hastily ordained as a bishop or presbyter, but only after due testing (Apostolic Canons 80; Canon 2 of the First Ecumenical Canon 2.9; Laodicean Canon 3); c) a layperson or monk must ascend to the office of bishop only after having been tested in the lower ecclesiastical ranks (2 Kings 17; Sardis 10).

3) If elected to the episcopate, they must be free from the bonds of marriage; if elected to the office of presbyter or deacon, however, they may, if they so desire, remain married.

The Church’s rule regarding the celibacy of bishops has its origin in the apostolic tradition. Although there is no doubt that in the early centuries of Christianity, married men were sometimes ordained to the episcopate [(1 Tim. 3:2–4); Council of Carthage, Can. 3. 4, etc.)]; it is already evident from the rules of the Holy Apostles that bishops, like other members of the clergy, were permitted to abstain from marriage only if they did so for the sake of the virtue of abstinence, and not because of a distaste for marriage (Canon 51)—which was preached at that time by certain false teachers (1 Tim. 4:1–3).[1568] Consequently, a custom arose in the Church whereby those elected to the episcopate were primarily individuals who were not bound by marriage and distinguished by their feats of virginity and abstinence;[1569] and even if married presbyters were elected, they would for the most part sever their marital union with their wives upon ordination as bishops—although this custom did not yet have the force of law in either the fourth or fifth centuries.[1570] In the 6th century, Emperor Justinian, in establishing the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, confirmed by law the custom—which he called ancient and patristic—that those elected as bishops should be monastics, or, if from the lay clergy, should be without wives or at least without children, so that, after ordination, they might more easily leave their former spouses.[1571] Finally, in the 7th century, when it became apparent that this established custom was being violated in some places, the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed the following rule: “It has come to our attention that in Africa, in Libya, and in other places, some of the most God-loving ministers (bishops) there, even after their ordination, do not cease to live together with their spouses, thereby causing stumbling and temptation to others. Having great care, therefore, to arrange all things for the benefit of the flocks entrusted to us, we have deemed it good that from now on nothing of this sort should occur. We say this not to set aside or alter the apostolic law, but out of concern for the salvation and well-being of people, and so that we may not give cause for any reproach against the sacred office. For the divine Apostle says: “Do everything for the glory of God.” Do not give offense to Jews, Greeks, or the church of God, just as I please everyone in everything, seeking not my own benefit but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved. “Be imitators of me, just as I am of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:31–11:1). “But if anyone is found doing this, let him be expelled” (Canon 12). From that time on, it became a permanent rule in the Orthodox Church to elect only those who were not bound by the bonds of marriage to the episcopal office.

As for those elected to the lower ranks of the hierarchy—the offices of presbyter and deacon—the Orthodox Church, in accordance with the Word of God (1 Tim. 3:2–4, 12), has never forbidden them from marrying, provided they do so before their ordination (Apostolic Canons 26; Neo-Caesarean 1; First Ecumenical 3; Sixth Ecumenical 3. 6), and has never required them to remain celibate as a duty of their office or as a vow. On the contrary, on the basis of the Apostolic Canons, it strictly forbade clergy from dissolving their lawful marriage even under the pretext of piety (Canon 5), just as it strictly condemned those laypeople who argued that it was unworthy to receive Communion from a married presbyter (Gangra 4, etc.). And when, at the First Ecumenical Council, some proposed introducing into the Church a new law of celibacy for all clergy in general, one of the most distinguished members of the Council, St. Paphnutius, Bishop of Egypt—himself a virgin and a strict ascetic— convinced all the fathers present not to impose a heavy yoke on the ordained, one not easily borne by all, and that it was sufficient, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, that only those who had already been ordained should not marry, while those who had taken wives before ordination should by no means abandon them afterward.[1572] The Roman Church also adhered to this ancient tradition of the universal Church until the end of the fourth century.[1573] But from the end of the fourth,[1574] and especially in the fifth [1575] and sixth centuries,[1576] there were already rules in place requiring complete celibacy or the abandonment of wives not only from presbyters and deacons, but even from subdeacons—rules which, on the one hand, were arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the ancient statutes of the Church, and on the other hand, by their strictness, gave weak clergy a pretext for a life of temptation. Consequently, the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed: “Since we have learned that in the Roman Church it has been established as a rule that those who are to be ordained as deacons or presbyters are obliged to cease having relations with their wives: we, following the ancient rule of apostolic order and discipline, decree that the lawful cohabitation of clergy shall henceforth remain unbroken, without in any way dissolving their union with their wives or depriving them of mutual union at appropriate times. Thus, if anyone proves worthy of ordination as a subdeacon, a deacon, or a presbyter, his cohabitation with his lawful spouse shall in no way be an obstacle to his elevation to such a rank; nor shall he be required, at the time of his ordination, to make a pledge that he will abstain from lawful relations with his wife: so that we may not be compelled in this way to dishonor marriage, which was established by God and blessed by Him at His coming; for the voice of the Gospel cries out: “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:6); and the Apostle teaches: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4); likewise: “Are you married? Do not seek a divorce” (1 Cor. 7:27). We know, moreover, that those gathered in Carthage, concerned for the purity of the clergy’s lives, decreed that subdeacons who handle the sacred mysteries, as well as deacons and presbyters, should abstain from their wives during their appointed times. Thus, let us also preserve what was handed down by the Apostles and observed from ancient times, knowing the proper time for every thing, and especially for fasting and prayer. For those who stand before the altar, at the time when they approach the holy things, ought to be abstinent in all things, so that they may receive from God what they ask for in simplicity. But if anyone, acting contrary to the apostolic rules, dares to deprive any of the clergy—that is, presbyters, deacons, or subdeacons—of union and communion with their lawful wife, let him be expelled. Likewise, if any presbyter or deacon, under the pretext of piety, drives away his wife, let him be removed from the ministry; and if he remains unyielding, let him be expelled” (Canon 18). The Roman high priests did not heed this; on the contrary, in subsequent centuries they began to enforce their laws regarding the celibacy of the entire clergy with even greater rigor,[1577] extending them in the 12th century even to the lowest-ranking clergy.[1578] But by doing so, they revealed themselves to be blatant violators of the ancient ecumenical church law.

8. General Remarks on the Sacraments

§242. The Subject Matter of These Remarks

Based on the teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding each sacrament individually, as we have expounded, it is now appropriate to make general remarks on the sacraments, in response to the errors of the heretics that pertain to all sacraments, namely: a) on the nature of the sacraments, b) on the number seven of the sacraments, c) the conditions for the celebration and efficacy of the sacraments (§200). To all of this, in accordance with the plan we have adopted, we will add a moral application of the entire dogma concerning the sacraments.

§243. On the Nature of the Sacraments

The sacraments are not merely signs of divine promises intended to inspire faith in people; they are not mere rites distinguishing Christians from non-Christians; nor are they merely symbols of spiritual life and the like , as the heretics claim (§200); but they are sacred rites which, in some visible way, truly impart God’s invisible grace to the faithful—they are “instruments that necessarily act through grace upon those who partake of them” (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15).

1) This is confirmed by all those passages in Holy Scripture, already familiar to us, that speak of the fruits of a particular sacrament. For example, it is said: a) regarding the sacrament of baptism: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5); or: Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, to sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word (Eph. 5:25–26), and also: And such (sinners) were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11); b) regarding the sacrament of Chrismation: Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. But when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power, so that whoever I lay my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17–19); c) on the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Whoever eats this bread will live forever … “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:51–54); d) on the sacrament of the priesthood: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the priesthood [(1 Tim. 4:14); revived (2 Tim. 1:6)], etc. Here, the idea is clearly expressed that the very water of baptism, through the invisible indwelling of the Holy Spirit, regenerates a person, purifies them, and washes away their sins; the very laying on of hands or anointing with oil in the sacrament of confirmation bestows grace-filled gifts upon a person; the very Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist grant a person immortality; the very ordination in the sacrament of the priesthood bestows a special gift upon the one being ordained—that, in general, each of the sacraments, by its very nature, necessarily acts upon a person through grace as soon as it is administered.

2) The same teaching is unanimously expressed by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church in their testimonies regarding the fruits of the sacraments. It suffices here—since we have already set forth these testimonies in their proper place—to cite or recall only a few of them. For example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Approach baptism not as mere water, but as spiritual grace, with the water that is bestowed.”[1579] And again: “Take care not to regard this anointing as mere anointing. For just as the bread in the Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere bread but the Body of Christ, so too this holy chrism is no longer mere water, nor—if anyone were to say so—ordinary water, through the invocation; but it is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit, made effective by the presence of His Divinity. With it, your forehead and the other faculties of the senses are anointed in a significant way. And when the body is anointed in a visible manner, then the soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-giving Spirit.”[1580]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Water is, after all, nothing other than water, yet it renews a person through spiritual rebirth when grace from above blesses it. But if anyone, wavering and doubting, presents me with a dilemma, constantly asking and repeating, ‘How does water regenerate (πώς ύδωρ αναγεννά)…’—I will rightly say to him: ‘Explain to me the nature of birth according to the flesh, and I will explain to you the power of regeneration according to the soul.’”[1581]

St. Athanasius the Great: “Just as a person baptized by another person—that is, a priest—is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Spirit, so too does the one who confesses his sins in repentance receive their forgiveness through the priest by the grace of Jesus Christ.”[1582]

St. John Chrysostom: “In baptism, through a sensible element—water—the gift is imparted, while the spiritual action consists in birth and rebirth, or renewal.”[1583]

St. Basil the Great: “It is good and beneficial to partake of and receive the holy Body and Blood of Christ every day; for Christ Himself clearly says: ‘Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life ’ (John 6:54). For who doubts that to be a constant partaker of life means nothing other than to live in a multifaceted way?”[1584]

3) Let us also recall that from its very beginning, the Orthodox Church has had a custom—one that continues to this day—of administering baptism, chrismation, and communion even to infants. If, however, the sacraments are merely simple signs intended to inspire faith in people—which alone saves—and are not instruments that necessarily act upon people through God’s saving grace, then the question arises: what benefit could and can these three sacraments bring to infants, and for what purpose did and does the Holy Church administer them?

And why do the sacraments possess such power? There is only one answer: it was the Lord’s will. He Himself established these sacred rites as visible instruments for communicating to people the invisible gifts of His grace; He Himself taught how to perform these sacred rites so that, when performed correctly, people might truly receive the gifts of grace—and His will is fulfilled: the sacraments, performed in accordance with the Savior’s institution, necessarily impart saving grace to people.

§244. On the Number Seven of the Sacraments

The sacraments of the Church are neither more nor fewer than seven: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony, and Anointing of the Sick (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15). For:

1. Each of these sacraments, as we have seen, is clearly affirmed in Holy Scripture; each is endowed in Scripture with all the characteristics of a true sacrament, that is, divine institution, a visible or sensory sign, and an invisible, grace-filled effect upon a person. If, however, Scripture does not explicitly state that there are exactly seven sacraments—[1586] —then it likewise does not state that there are two, or three, or one. We know of the number seven sacraments from another divine source, namely, Sacred Tradition, which is preserved in the Church.

2. Not only the Orthodox Church, but also the Roman Church—which separated from it in the 9th–11th centuries—and all the Nestorian and Monophysite communities that have existed in the East since the fifth century unanimously recognize the seven sacraments in their liturgical rites and celebrate them.[1587] How, then, can one explain such remarkable agreement among Christians who differ in their views, if not by the single fact that it is grounded in the apostolic tradition?[1588] The Christians in question could not have borrowed these sacred rites—or some of them—from one another due to their mutual animosity, and indeed they did not borrow them, as evidenced by the many differences in the very liturgical rites of each of the sacraments.[1589]

3. Elaborating, in particular, on this idea of the constant, universal belief of Christians regarding the seven sacraments of the Church, we may say that it undoubtedly existed:

a) in the 16th century, when the Reformation arose, and Protestants were the first to dare to reject five of the sacraments, retaining only baptism and the Eucharist. This belief was clearly expressed at that time by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople in his letters to the theologians of Württemberg,[1590] ; by Metropolitan Gabriel of Philadelphia, , who wrote a special treatise on the seven sacraments,[1591] ; and in the West, in addition to many individual writers, by the entire Council of Trent.[1592]

b) In the 15th century. St. Symeon of Thessaloniki wrote about the seven sacraments at the very beginning of this century,[1593] , and following the Council of Florence (1438–1440), Pope Eugene IV wrote to the Armenians.[1594]

c) In the 14th century: as demonstrated by the Emperor of Constantinople, John Palaiologos (1355), in his confession of faith,[1595] ; by Manuel the Lame, a native of Greece (1360),[1596] ; and by the Armenian Council held in 1342.[1597]

d) In the 13th century. The number seven sacraments was discussed at that time by the Constantinopolitan hieromonk Job (1270),[1598] ; Western scholastics: Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alexander of Halens,[1599] ; and the Council of London, held in 1237.[1600]

e) In the 12th century: as evident from the teachings of Otto, who preached the Christian faith in Pomerania in 1124,[1601] , and from the writings of the scholastics: Hugh of Victor [1602] and Peter Lombard,[1603] , all of whom clearly taught about the seven sacraments.

e) Before the 11th and even before the 9th century. For some Greek and Latin liturgical rites for the seven sacraments have been preserved, which date back much further than the 11th century,[1604] and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Michael Keloularis and Photius, although they rebuked the Latins for certain deviations in the manner of celebrating the sacraments, never once reproached them (the Latins) for increasing or reducing the number of sacraments.

g) Before the 5th century: because, as we have already noted, the Nestorian and Monophysite communities, which separated from the Orthodox Church in the 5th century, still observe, in accordance with it, seven sacraments.

4. Although the Holy Fathers and teachers of the early Church nowhere state explicitly, as Holy Scripture does, that there are seven sacraments, nor do they anywhere deliberately expound the doctrine concerning all seven sacraments; then, to explain this, we must recall the custom that existed in the Church at that time of guarding the sacraments with silence (disciplina arcani), as St. Basil the Great attests. Having stated in his canonical epistle to Amphilochius that, in addition to the written dogmas and sermons, there are also those in the Church that have been received from the apostolic tradition through succession in secret, the holy Father points specifically to certain details in the rites of the sacraments of the Eucharist and Baptism to support his words, and then asks: “From which Scripture is all this taken? Is it not from this unpublished and ineffable teaching, which our Fathers preserved in silence inaccessible to curiosity and prying, having been soundly instructed to guard the sanctity of the sacrament through silence? For what propriety would there be in proclaiming in writing a teaching about that which is forbidden to those not initiated into the sacrament and its contemplation?”[1605] However, without deliberately discussing all the sacraments as a whole in their writings—in accordance with this pious custom—[1606] the Holy Fathers and teachers of the ancient Church often mention, as the occasion arises and in accordance with their intended purpose, now one sacrament, now another, now a third, and, when their testimonies are brought together, it becomes evident that they undoubtedly recognized all seven sacraments that have been preserved in the Church to this day. Thus—a) as we have seen, the Apostle Barnabas, Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and many others (§§202–206); b) regarding the sacrament of Confirmation—Dionysius the Areopagite, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Pope Cornelius, and Ephrem the Syrian. the Council of Laodicea, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others (§§208–211); c) on the sacrament of the Eucharist—Ignatius the God-Bearer, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and very many other teachers of the Church, as well as entire councils, both ecumenical and local (§§214–220); d) on the sacrament of penance—the rules and so-called Apostolic Constitutions, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and entire councils (§§222–225); e) on the sacrament of anointing of the sick—Origen, John Chrysostom, Victor of Antioch, Caesarius, Pope Innocent I, Cyril of Alexandria, and others (§§230–232); f) on the sacrament of marriage—Ignatius the God-Bearer, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Ambrose, Augustine, and others (§§234–236); g) on the sacrament of the priesthood—the Canons of the Holy Apostles, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, Pope Leo the Great, and others (§§239–241).

After this, one should not be misled by the fact that some ancient teachers, out of necessity, or in accordance with their chosen purpose, or for other reasons, speak in their writings sometimes of two,[1607] sometimes of three,[1608] and sometimes of four [1609] sacraments, while remaining silent about the others. To conclude from this, as the Protestants do, that the ancient Church recognized only two sacraments (why not three, or four?)—Baptism and the Eucharist—is entirely unjust, when it is known that other teachers of the Church, at the same time or even earlier, also mention all the other sacraments;[1610] when it is well known that even those very same teachers, while naming Baptism and the Eucharist specifically, sometimes also point to other sacraments of the same kind,[1611] and in various passages of their writings clearly speak of each of the seven sacraments separately.[1612]

We should also note that the word “sacrament” (μυστήριον, sacramentum) was sometimes used by ancient Christian writers—just as it is used by us—in a broader sense. Therefore, it is not surprising that some of them—though very few, indeed—sometimes refer to the rite of monastic tonsure, prayers offered for the dead, and the like as sacraments. But in the strict sense, neither the aforementioned rite nor prayers for the dead have ever been recognized as sacraments by the Church, which has accepted only the seven sacraments.[1613]

5. Why, then, are there seven sacraments—no more, no less? The reason for this lies in the will of the Founder of the sacraments, the Lord Jesus. We can only, following others, find here a correspondence with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Isa. 11:2–3), which are imparted to believers through the seven sacraments of the Church; the seven loaves, which miraculously fed thousands of people (Matt. 15:36–38); the seven golden lampstands, among which the visionary was granted a glimpse of the Son of Man (Rev. 1:12–13); the seven stars, which the Lord Jesus held in His right hand at that time (Rev. 1:16); the seven seals with which the book was sealed, which the Prophet then saw in God’s right hand (Rev. 5:1); the seven trumpets, which, upon the unsealing of the mysterious book, were given to the seven angels standing before God (Rev. 8:1–2), and so on.[1614] On the other hand, it is clear that these seven sacraments, through which the grace of the Holy Spirit is imparted, correspond to all the needs of a person’s Christian life and to the needs of the Church itself. Thus, through Baptism, a person is born into a spiritual, Christian life; through Confirmation, he receives the strength necessary to be strengthened in this new life; and in the Eucharist, he always finds divine food and drink for constant growth in that same life. But since, having become a Christian, a person may sin and be subject to weaknesses, Penance offers him a remedy for spiritual ailments; the Anointing of the Sick offers a remedy for both spiritual and physical ailments. At the same time, the sacrament of marriage sanctifies by grace the union of Christian spouses, for the purpose of sustaining, through the natural birth of children, the constant growth of Christ’s Church; the sacrament of Holy Orders provides the Church with shepherds, teachers, and builders of the mysteries of God, to guide all Christians toward eternal life.[1615]

§245. On the Conditions for the Celebration and Validity of the Sacraments

I. For the valid celebration and efficacy of the sacraments, the following are required:

1) A lawfully ordained priest or bishop. For—a) the Lord has entrusted His divine power to priests and bishops alone, as successors of the Apostles, to confer the gifts of grace upon people through the sacred rites established by Him; b) not only ordinary laypeople and clergy, but also deacons, who occupy the lowest rank in the hierarchy established by God Himself, have not received this authority and have no right to administer any of the sacraments, except in special cases concerning the sacrament of baptism; c) so that even bishops and presbyters may boldly proceed to celebrate such great sacred rites and, through them, impart divine grace to people, they themselves are first consecrated through the special sacrament of Holy Orders and receive special gifts of the Holy Spirit: we have already seen all this when we examined each sacrament separately, and in particular the sacrament of Holy Orders (§§206, 211, 217, 223, 231, 236, 239–241). Consequently, Luther’s followers are equally mistaken when they teach that any Christian—whether belonging to the hierarchy or not—can administer the sacraments, and our schismatics—both the “priestless” faction, who allow ordinary laypeople, even women, to administer the sacraments, and the “priest-dependent” faction, who allow this to be done by priests who are suspended or even defrocked (§200).

2) The lawful, that is, according to the divine order, celebration of the sacraments. For, as we have seen: a) the Lord Himself, the institutor of the sacraments, chose for each sacrament a specific substance or visible sign; b) He Himself prescribed for each sacrament a specific manner of its administration; and c) He Himself decreed that it is precisely through this visible sign, in this manner of administration, that the known gifts of the Holy Spirit are imparted in each sacrament. Consequently, each sacrament will be a sacrament and will have a grace-filled effect on a person only when it is administered according to the will of the Lord Jesus, in accordance with His institution: this is self-evident. And since the celebration of each sacrament in accordance with the will of the Lord Jesus is possible only on the condition that those who celebrate the sacraments—being rational and free beings—pay attention to what and how they are performing the rite, and have the desire to perform the sacred rite in the prescribed manner: it naturally follows that the pastors of the Church—the presbyter and the bishop—must, when celebrating the sacraments, have the intention to celebrate a particular sacrament according to the divinely ordained rite (Rules of Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 100).[1616]

II. But it is unjust, on the other hand, as some heretics have thought and continue to think: a) that for the celebration and efficacy of the sacraments, not only a lawfully ordained minister is necessary, but also a pious minister, so that sacraments celebrated by corrupt ministers of the altar have no significance whatsoever; or b) that the validity and efficacy of each sacrament depend on the faith of those receiving it, so that it is a sacrament and possesses its power only at the very moment of its reception and use with faith, but outside of such use, or in the case of reception without faith, it is not a sacrament and remains fruitless (§200).

1) The first view is incorrect. For the grace-filled power of the sacraments depends, in fact, on the merits and will of Christ the Savior, who Himself invisibly performs them; and the pastors of the Church are merely His ministers and visible instruments through whom He administers the sacraments to people. “He is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33), said John the Forerunner of Jesus Christ, even though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples did, according to the testimony of the Gospel (John 4:2). Therefore, as the Holy Apostle notes, “neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” (1 Cor. 3:7). Christ Himself, as the ancient teachers and defenders of Orthodoxy also taught, by the power of the Holy Spirit invisibly administers baptism to people,[1617] Himself absolves them of their sins,[1618] Himself ordains them to holy orders,[1619] and Himself consecrates the holy gifts on the holy altar.[1620] And subsequently, they unanimously affirmed against the heretics that the grace-filled power of the sacraments does not depend on the moral worthiness or unworthiness of those who administer them. Here, for example, are the words of

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Anyone worthy of faith is qualified to purify you, provided he is among those who have received authority for this, who have not been openly condemned, and who have not been excommunicated from the Church. Do not judge the judges, you who seek healing; do not scrutinize the worthiness of those who purify you; do not make a choice based on their parents. Although one may be better or inferior to another, each is still superior to you. Consider this: two rings, one of gold and one of iron, both engraved with the same royal image, and both used to make impressions on wax. How does one impression differ from the other?—in no way. Distinguish the substance on the wax, if you are wiser than all. Say: which impression is from the iron ring, and which from the gold ring? And why are they the same? For although the material is different, there is no difference in the imprint. So let everyone be a baptizer to you. For even if one surpasses another in life, the power of baptism is equal, and anyone instructed in the same faith can equally lead you to perfection.”[1621]

St. John Chrysostom: “It happens that laypeople live in piety, while priests live in unrighteousness; and therefore, neither baptism nor the offering of the Body of Christ ought to be performed through them if grace sought only the worthy everywhere. But now the Lord usually acts even through the unworthy, and the grace of baptism is not in the least diminished by the priest’s way of life… I say this so that no one, upon scrutinizing a priest’s life, might be led astray in their judgment of what he performs in the sacraments. For a person contributes nothing of his own to what is offered; in all this, it is the work of God’s power, and it is God Himself who sanctifies you in the sacraments.”[1622]

St. Isidore of Pelusium: “The recipient (of the sacraments) loses nothing even if the one administering them were to prove unworthy, and he benefits from the sacraments without fail, even if the priest were to lead all people into wickedness.”[1623]

Blessed Augustine: “Grace always belongs to God; the sacrament belongs to God; and to man belongs only the ministry. If he is good, he is in harmony with God and acts with God; if he is bad, God performs the visible form of the sacrament through him, while God Himself bestows the invisible grace.”[1624] “Do not think that the divine sacraments depend on people’s character or actions: they are holy because of the One to whom they belong.”[1625]

Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria: “Grace acts even through the unworthy, so that we are sanctified even through unworthy priests.”[1626]

To explain these ideas, they pointed out that life-giving moisture can be transmitted even through a dry, lifeless channel; that a good seed will bear fruit whether it is sown into the ground by clean or unclean hands; and that a ray of sunlight, passing through unclean media, does not thereby become unclean.[1627]

2) The second opinion is also unjust, one that holds that the power and validity of the sacraments depend entirely on the faith and disposition of those receiving them. For—a) as we have seen, it pleased the Lord to establish the sacraments in such a way that in each sacrament a certain visible sign is essentially united with a certain gift of the Holy Spirit, and that each sacrament, whenever it is properly administered, necessarily imparts grace to the person (§243). We have also seen—b)—that the Holy Catholic Church has from ancient times administered Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Communion to infants themselves, in the full conviction that these sacraments have a salvific effect on infants, even though they do not yet possess faith (§§205, 211, 217). We have seen—c) that the holy gifts in the sacrament of the Eucharist, after consecration on the altar, remain the true body and true blood of our Lord, both before and after they are received by the faithful, even if they were not administered to the faithful at all (§216). Now let us further note, together with the primates of the East, that if, for example, the sacrament of the Eucharist were actually celebrated at the very moment Christians partake of it with living faith, and not before partaking nor independently of the faith of those partaking, in that case, one who partakes unworthily would not eat or drink to his own condemnation, without discerning the Body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29): for he would be partaking of mere bread and wine (Epistle on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 15).

Those who approach the sacraments are, without a doubt, required to have faith and proper preparation according to the Church’s canons; but not so that the sacraments might become sacraments and be able to act through grace, but so that the reception of the sacraments might be worthy, so that it might not turn into a judgment or condemnation for those who receive them unworthily, and so that the effects of the grace received might be fully salvific and fruitful in the souls of the faithful.

§246. The Moral Application of the Dogma on the Sacraments

The dogma concerning the sacraments of the Church can have the most beneficial influence on the morality of a Christian.

I. As we reflect on the sacraments in general, we can learn the following:

1) In relation to God—faith, hope, and love. Faith, if we consider that it is the first and most essential condition with which we must approach each of the sacraments. Hope, if we reflect carefully on the fact that in each of the sacraments the Lord promises us some grace-filled gift, and we are privileged to witness the actual fulfillment of these promises. Love, when we contemplate with reverence the great blessings the Lord bestows upon us in each of the sacraments, and bestows them solely out of His infinite goodness toward us.

2) In relation to our neighbors—mutual unity and brotherly love. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body… and we were all made to drink of one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13); we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor. 10:17); we are all cleansed from our sins by one grace in the sacrament of repentance; the same gifts of grace are offered to all of us in the other sacraments as well. Therefore, we must truly be one body and one Spirit (Eph. 4:4): should we not strive to be patient with one another in love, making every effort to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3)?

3) With regard to ourselves—humility and holiness. For the sacraments clearly remind us, on the one hand, of our fall into sin and our moral weakness to rise up and amend our ways by our own strength, and on the other hand, of our rebirth, renewal, and sanctification by God’s grace; the former naturally inspire us to humble ourselves, while the latter oblige us to preserve the holiness granted to us by the Lord, to make use of the grace-filled powers communicated to us, and to gradually progress in piety.

II. If we reflect, in particular, on each sacrament separately, we will find the same moral lessons for ourselves.

1) Upon receiving the sacrament of Baptism, we solemnly pronounced before God and the Church great vows to renounce the devil and all his works, to be united with Christ, and to live for Him alone; in Baptism itself, we were cleansed of all sins, clothed in Christ, became children of God, and were called to eternal life: Can our conscience, upon recalling this, fail to recognize and feel the full weight of the duties we then took upon ourselves, and the full extent of our responsibility before God and His eternal justice, if we fail to fulfill the vows we made and prove unworthy of our calling?

2) In the sacrament of Confirmation, we were deemed worthy to receive the Holy Spirit within us, along with His gracious gifts, which are necessary for our strengthening and growth in the spiritual life: does this not mean that we then committed ourselves not to quench the Spirit within us (1 Thess. 5:19), to rekindle His gifts within us (2 Tim. 1:6), be led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14), live not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:1), and bear spiritual fruit, namely: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22)?

3) In the sacrament of the Eucharist, we are offered the most pure Body and the most pure Blood of our Lord, and we are deemed worthy to receive the whole Christ—God and Man—into ourselves: with what attention and reverence, then, must we prepare ourselves for such a great and awe-inspiring sacrament; with what reverence, faith, and love should we approach it, and with what love and care should we then preserve within ourselves this priceless gift, the pledge of our eternal life and salvation!

4) When we come to the sacrament of repentance with contrition for the sins we have committed and receive absolution from our spiritual father, we make a vow to the Lord each time and resolve firmly to amend our ways and live a godly life henceforth: may this vow always be before our eyes and may it inspire us to bear fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8).

5) Through the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick, the sick and the dying are not only cleansed of their sins but are often raised up by the Lord from their sickbeds and the brink of death: to whom, then, should their entire life—as if newly granted—be dedicated, if not to the Lord who healed them, and what should that life be, if not unceasing thanksgiving to Him?

6) When the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, the couple exchange vows of mutual fidelity and love before God and the Church, and receive the grace-filled strength to fulfill their new family responsibilities with dignity; May the remembrance of both serve as a constant lesson for the spouses on how to conduct themselves toward one another and, together, toward the children with whom God has blessed them.

7) Through the sacrament of Holy Orders, those chosen are elevated to a special ministry in the Church and receive the special grace to be teachers of the faith, dispensers of God’s mysteries, and shepherds of Christ’s spiritual flock: what a lofty calling—and at the same time, what a responsibility! How firmly must pastors remember the Savior’s words: “You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:13–14), and then the Apostle’s instruction: “Be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12)! With what care for themselves and for the entire flock must they shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased for Himself with His own blood ( ) (Acts 20:28)! With what tireless zeal must they carry out that great work upon which depends both their own salvation and the salvation of their neighbors, entrusted to their spiritual guidance!

Chapter II.
On God as Judge and Rewarder

§247. Connection to the Previous Section; the Concept of God as Judge and Rewarder; and the Church’s Teaching on This Matter

1. For the complete restoration and salvation of fallen humanity, three great works had to be accomplished: a) to reconcile the sinner with God, whom he had infinitely offended by his fall; b) to cleanse the sinner of sins and make him righteous and holy; c) to free the sinner from the very punishments for his sins and to grant him, in accordance with his holiness, the blessings he has earned (§124). The first work was accomplished by the Lord God Himself—without our participation—when He sent His only-begotten Son to earth, who, having become incarnate and taken upon Himself the sins of the entire human race, offered through His death the most perfect satisfaction to eternal Justice, and in this way not only redeemed us from sins and from the punishments for sins, but also secured for us the gifts of the Holy Spirit and eternal bliss (§153). The Lord God accomplishes the second work with our participation. He established His Holy Church on earth as a living and enduring instrument for our purification from sin and our sanctification; He bestows upon us, in the Church and through the Church, the grace of the Holy Spirit as the active power that purifies us from sin and sanctifies us; He has instituted various sacraments in the Church to impart to us the manifold gifts of this saving grace in accordance with all the needs of our spiritual life: and it is up to us whether or not to make use of the means of sanctification offered to us by God. Having granted them to us, He has at the same time designated a specific period of time during which we may make use of them: for individuals, this period lasts until the very end of their earthly life, and for the entire human race, it will continue until the very end of the world. Finally, the Lord God accomplishes a third work after the completion of the second, which He carries out with our participation: He then appears as the Judge of mankind, justly weighing whether or not they have made use of the means granted to them on earth for their purification from sin and sanctification, and whether they are worthy or unworthy to be freed from punishment for their sins and to receive bliss; He then becomes the righteous Rewarder, assigning to each person a specific fate according to their merits.

2. Just as all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity participated in our redemption—although strictly speaking and directly, our Redeemer was the Son of God, who took upon Himself our nature and tasted death for us (§126)— just as all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity participate in our sanctification, although it is the Holy Spirit who, strictly speaking and directly, accomplishes our sanctification by His grace (§165): so too, in the judgment of us and in the bestowal of our rewards, the entire Most Holy Trinity participates. This idea—a) follows as a consequence from the dogma that the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are consubstantial, share a single Divinity and a single will, and, differing only in their personal attributes, are inseparable in all things—which is why it is impossible for One of Them to act solely on His own, without any participation of the other Two; — b) is confirmed by Holy Scripture, which says, for example, concerning God in general: “Fear God and keep His commandments, for in this lies the whole duty of man; for God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Eccl. 12:13–14), and in another passage: “Without faith it is impossible to please God”; for whoever comes to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him [(Heb. 11:6); cf. (Heb. 12:23)]; and again: Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God now commands all people everywhere to repent, for He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man He has appointed, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:30–31). But in fact and directly, He is the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Judge of the living and the dead, appointed by God (Acts 10:42): The Father has given Him authority to execute judgment (John 5:27); through Him God will judge the secret deeds of men (Rom. 2:16); He Himself, the Son of Man, will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds [(Matt. 16:26). Cf. (Matt. 19:28); (Matt. 24:30); (2 Cor. 5:10); (2 Tim. 4:1); (Jude 1:14); (Rev. 1:7)], as the Holy Church confesses in her very creed,[1628] and as the teachers of the Church have confessed in their writings.[1629] “Christ is the Judge,” says, for example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, ‘For the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son’ (John 5:22). The Father does not deprive Himself of authority; He judges through the Son. And so, by the Father’s will, the Son will judge, for the Father’s will is not one thing and the Son’s another, but one and the same.”[1630]

3. In expounding the doctrine of God as Judge and Rewarder, the Orthodox Church distinguishes between two kinds of divine judgment and two kinds of reward: first, the particular judgment, which the Lord performs over each person individually immediately upon their death, followed by a reward that is as yet incomplete and provisional; and, second, the general judgment, which the Lord will solemnly perform over the entire human race at the end of the world, and which will conclude with a reward that is already complete, definitive, and eternal (Rules of the Confession of Faith, Part 1, Answers to Questions 58–61). Thus, this doctrine is divided into two halves, each of which is subdivided into two parts.

Section I.
On God as Judge and Rewarder of Each Individual

1. On the Particular Judgment

§248. The circumstance preceding the particular judgment: a person’s death

The particular judgment, as the Orthodox Church teaches, occurs for a person immediately upon his or her death, which is thus an essential circumstance preceding this judgment (Catechism of the Orthodox Faith, Part 1, answer to question 61). The doctrine of death itself, which we have already outlined in parts (§§90, 93), can be summarized here in the following main points:

1. The death of a person is the separation of the soul from the body, and it is referred to in Holy Scripture by various names, such as: “departure” [(Luke 9:31); (2 Peter 1:15); (Heb. 13:17)], “the end” [(Matt. 10:22); (Matt. 24:13); (1 Cor. 1:8); (Heb. 13:7)], the deliverance of the soul from its prison (Ps. 141:8), release from the bonds of the body (Phil. 1:23), departure (2 Tim. 4:6), falling asleep (Acts 13:36), and the like. In this separation of the two constituent parts of man, his body, like dust, returns to the earth, as it was, and the spirit returns to God, who gave it (Eccl. 12:7), and remains forever alive and immortal (§81).

2. The cause of human death lies in the Fall [(Gen. 2:17); (Gen. 3:19)]. For God created man for incorruption (Wis. 2:23), and, to constantly renew his bodily strength and sustain his life forever, He granted him the tree of life at the beginning (Gen. 2:9). But since, through disobedience to God’s will, he rendered himself unworthy to partake of the fruits of the tree of grace (Gen. 3:22); since sin, an act contrary to law and nature, introduced into the human body the destructive principle of disease and decay: the inevitable consequence and penalty of sin was therefore human death (Gen. 3:22) (§§92, 93).

3. As the consequence and penalty of the sin of our first parents, which spread from them to all their descendants, death necessarily became the common lot of the entire human race: just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death passed into all men, because in him all have sinned [(Rom. 5:12); (1 Cor. 15:22); (Ps. 88:49)]. The examples of Enoch and Elijah, as well as those of whom the Apostle spoke—that not all of us will die, but all will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet [(1 Cor. 15:51–52); cf. (1 Thess. 4:16)], are merely exceptions to the rule and do not refute the universality of the law of death.

4. Death is the boundary at which the time of good deeds for a person ends and the time of retribution begins, so that, after death, neither repentance nor a change of life is possible for us. Christ the Savior expressed this truth in His parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from which it is evident that both received their reward immediately after death, and the rich man, no matter how much he suffered in Hades, could not, through repentance, free himself from his sufferings (Luke 16:26). St. Paul the Apostle later expressed this when he wrote about himself: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me” (2 Tim. 4:7–8), and when he instructed Christians: “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2); “While we have the opportunity, let us do good to all” (Gal. 6:10). The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church preached this clearly, for example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When it is said, ‘The dead will not praise You, O Lord,’ this shows that the time for repentance and the forgiveness of sins is limited to this life alone, during which those who have received it will praise You; but those who have ended their lives in sin will no longer be able to praise You after their death, as those who have received this blessing do: they will have to weep, for praise is fitting for those who give thanks, and weeping for those who are punished.”[1631]

St. Basil the Great: “The present time is the time of repentance and the forgiveness of sins, while in the age to come there will be a righteous judgment of retribution.” And further: “After departing from this life, there is no longer time for good deeds, because God, in His long-suffering, has designated the time of this present life for doing what is necessary to please God.”[1632]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “It is better to undergo correction and purification here than to endure torment there, when the time of punishment—not purification—will come. For just as you should remember God here before death (as David so beautifully teaches), so for those who have departed from here, there is no confession or correction in Hades (Ps. 6:6); for God has limited the time of active life to our sojourn here, and has reserved the examination of our deeds for the life to come.”[1633]

St. John Chrysostom: “Only this present life is the time for good deeds, while after death there is judgment and punishment. For it is said: ‘In death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave, who will praise You?’ (Ps. 6:6).”[1634] “As long as we are in this present life, it is still possible for us to avoid punishment by correcting ourselves. But when we pass into the next life, it will be in vain to mourn our sins.”[1635]

Theodore of Heraclia: “After death, there is no time for repentance.”[1636]

Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria: “Behold, on earth we can atone for our sins. But after we depart from the earth, we can no longer atone for our sins by ourselves through confession; for the door is shut.”[1637] “In this present age, one can do and accomplish something; but in the age to come all the active powers of the soul are bound; and it is impossible to do anything good to atone for sins.”[1638] “After departing from this life, it is too late to repent and make amends.”[1639]

§249. The Validity of the Particular Judgment

The doctrine that, upon a person’s death, there is a judgment for him or her—called the particular judgment, as opposed to the general judgment to take place at the end of the world—

1) Was already known in the Old Testament Church. The wise son of Sirach says in one passage: “It is easy for the Lord to reward a person according to his deeds on the day of his death. A moment’s suffering causes one to forget one’s joys, and at a person’s death, his deeds are revealed” (Sir. 11:26–27). If, then, it is fitting before God to reward people according to their merits on the very day of their death; if, by His will, a person’s deeds are indeed revealed to him at the very moment of death, and this is not postponed until the Last Judgment—then we must admit that a particular judgment takes place for a person immediately upon his death. Otherwise, for what purpose are all his deeds revealed to him at that time? What does this very revelation mean? And why does the All-Wise One note that on the very day of death it is fitting for God to reward a person according to his deeds?…

2) St. Paul the Apostle expressed this with complete clarity in the New Testament when he said: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). The Apostle clearly does not suppose any interval between death and judgment; consequently, he is referring not to the Last Judgment, but to a particular judgment.

3) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church preached this clearly. For example:

St. Gregory the Theologian, mentioning in one passage the death of King Constantius, observes that he departed from this life, “having, as they say, offered a futile repentance with his last breath, when everyone becomes a sincere judge of himself, because of the judgment awaiting him there.”[1640]

St. John Chrysostom exhorted his listeners: “No one living on earth who has not been forgiven for their sins can, upon passing into the life to come, escape punishment for them. But just as criminals here are brought from their dungeons to trial in chains, so too, upon departing this life, all souls will be brought before the Last Judgment, burdened by the various bonds of sin.”[1641] “Upon departing from this life, we will appear before the Last Judgment and give an account of all our deeds; and—if we have persisted in sin—we will be subjected to torment and punishment; but if we resolve to heed ourselves even a little, we will be granted crowns and unspeakable blessings: knowing this, we will silence those who oppose us, and we ourselves will set out on the path of virtue, so that with the hope befitting a Christian, we may appear before that judgment and receive the blessings promised to us.”[1642] And further: “Prepare your work beforehand, and make ready for the journey” (Prov. 24:27). If you have stolen anything from anyone, return it, and say, like Zacchaeus: ‘I will repay fourfold what I have stolen’ (Luke 19:8). If you have slandered anyone, or if you have become an enemy to anyone, be reconciled before the judgment seat. Settle everything here, so that you may face that judgment seat without sorrow. As long as we are here, we have good hope; but once we depart to that place, we will no longer be able to repent and wash away our sins. Therefore, we must prepare ourselves constantly for our departure from here. For what if the Lord should choose to call us in the evening? What if tomorrow?”[1643]

Blessed Augustine calls “the most just and most salvific belief that souls are judged as soon as they depart from their bodies, before they appear at that judgment where they will be judged while already in their resurrected bodies.”[1644]

St. Dimitri of Rostov: “It is incumbent upon each of us, as Orthodox Christians, to await the unknown hour of our death every day and every night, and to be ready for our departure: for each of us has our own terrible judgment, before the terrible judgment common to all.”[1645] “There are two kinds of judgment: particular and general. Every person faces a particular judgment upon dying; for then they will see all their deeds.”[1646] “We await the Lord’s coming to us day and night and at every hour, but not yet that dreadful coming, by which He will come to judge the living and the dead and to reward each person according to their deeds; nor do we yet await at every hour that time when (according to the words of the Apostle Peter) the heavens will pass away with a roar, the elements will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the earth and everything on it will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10), but we await the hour of our own death, at which time God’s judgment will come to take the soul from the body, and at that hour each person will face their own particular punishment for their deeds; We await that hour at every moment, just as the Lord Himself, watching over us, teaches in the Gospel: ‘Be ready, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come’ (Luke 12:40).”[1647]

4) It is easy to understand and reasonable to sound judgment. Sound judgment cannot accept that the state of souls, from death until the Last Judgment, should remain indifferent and indeterminate.[1648] For how should one conceive of this state? Unconscious? But how is that possible for a soul that is, by nature, self-aware? And even if it were possible, for what purpose could it be permitted by the all-wise Providence? — Or conscious? In that case, how can the soul be conscious of itself without being in a specific state? And what kind of existence would that be? Consequently, we must assume a specific fate for every soul immediately upon a person’s death; we must suppose a particular judgment by which this fate is to be determined.

§250. The Concept of Particular Judgment: The Doctrine of the Purgatory

Holy Scripture does not describe how the particular judgment takes place. But a figurative representation of this judgment, based primarily on Sacred Tradition and in accordance with Holy Scripture, is found in the doctrine of the toll houses (τελώνια), which has existed since ancient times in the Orthodox Church.

I. The essence of the doctrine of the toll houses can be seen in the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the departure of the soul, which are usually printed in one of the church books—the “Psalter with Commentary.”[1649] We will draw on its main features.

“When our soul is separated from our body, we will be confronted, on the one hand, by the heavenly hosts and powers, and on the other, by the powers of darkness—the evil rulers of the world, the principalities of the air, the tormentors and accusers of our deeds… Upon seeing them, the soul will be agitated, will shudder, will tremble, and in confusion and terror will seek protection from the angels of God; but, even after being received by the holy angels and passing through the air under their protection as it ascends to the heights, it will encounter various toll-houses (as if certain checkpoints or customs posts where duties are collected), which will block its path to the kingdom, halting and holding back its striving toward it. At each of these toll-booths, an account will be demanded for specific sins. The first toll-booth is for sins committed through the mouth and tongue… The second toll-booth is for sins of sight… The third toll-booth is for sins of hearing… The fourth toll-booth is for sins of smell… The fifth toll-house is for all iniquities and abominable deeds committed through the hands. The subsequent toll-houses pertain to other sins, such as: malice, hatred, envy, vanity, and pride… In short, every passion of the soul, every sin, will in this way have its own toll-collectors and tormentors… Both divine powers and a host of unclean spirits will be present; and just as the former will represent the virtues of the soul, so the latter will expose its sins, committed by word or deed, thought or intention. Meanwhile, the soul, standing among them, will be tossed about by its thoughts in fear and trembling until, finally, based on its deeds, actions, and words, it is either condemned and bound in chains or justified and set free (for everyone is bound by the chains of their own sins). And if it proves worthy through its pious and God-pleasing life, the angels will receive it, and then it will flow fearlessly toward the kingdom, accompanied by the holy powers… On the contrary, if it turns out that she has lived a life of negligence and intemperance, she will hear that dreadful voice: “Let the wicked be taken away, that they may not see the glory of the Lord” (Isa. 26:10); then God’s angels will abandon her, and dreadful demons will seize her… and the soul, bound by unbreakable chains, will be cast down into a gloomy and dark land, into the depths of the underworld, into subterranean dungeons and the prisons of hell.”[1650]

From this it is evident: a) that the purgatorial stations constitute the inevitable path by which all human souls—both wicked and good—make their passage from temporal life to their eternal destiny; b) that in the Purgatories, during this transition, every soul—in the presence of angels and demons, and undoubtedly before the eye of the all-seeing Judge—is gradually and thoroughly examined regarding all its deeds, both evil and good; c) that as a result of these examinations, this detailed accounting of each soul’s past life, the good souls, vindicated in all the Purgatories, are carried by angels directly to the heavenly abodes, while the sinful souls, detained in one Purgatory or another and accused of wickedness, are dragged—by the verdict of the invisible Judge—by demons to their gloomy abodes.[1651] And, consequently, the Purgatories are nothing other than a private judgment that the Lord Jesus Himself invisibly carries out over human souls through angels, admitting to it even the slanderers of our brothers (Rev. 12:10) and evil spirits—a judgment in which all the soul’s deeds are recalled and impartially assessed before it, and after which its destined fate is determined.[1652]

II. This doctrine of the toll-houses, expounded by St. Cyril of Alexandria, existed in the Church both before St. Cyril and afterward—throughout all subsequent centuries.

1) Before St. Cyril of Alexandria, it is found quite frequently, as a well-known teaching, in the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers, especially those of the fourth century.[1653] For example:

From St. Ephrem the Syrian: “When the sovereign powers draw near, when the fearsome hosts arrive, when the divine extractors (έκσπηλεύται) command the soul to depart from the body, when, carrying us away by force, they lead us to the inevitable judgment; then, upon seeing them, the poor man… is completely shaken, as if by an earthquake, and trembles all over… The divine reapers, having taken the soul, ascend through the air, where the principalities, powers, and rulers of the opposing forces stand. These are our evil accusers, strange tax collectors (τελώναι), record-keepers (λογοθέται), and tax officials (φορολογοι); they meet him on the way, record, examine, and tally the sins and deeds of this person—the sins of youth and old age, voluntary and involuntary, committed in deed, word, and thought. There is great fear there, great trembling for the poor soul, an indescribable distress that it will then suffer from the innumerable multitude of enemies surrounding it in darkness, slandering it so as not to let it ascend to heaven, dwell in the light of the living, or enter the land of life. But the holy angels, taking the soul, lead it away.”[1654]

From St. Athanasius the Great: “One night a voice from above came to him (Anthony), saying: ‘Anthony, arise, go out, and see.’ And he arose and went out; and lifting his eyes to heaven, he saw a certain tall and fearsome figure, its head reaching up to the clouds; He also saw others, as if winged, desiring to ascend to heaven, but that figure, stretching out its hands, prevented them from ascending, and they were cast down by it and thrown to the ground; while those who paid no heed to it flew boldly onward, and that figure grieved over them, gnashing its teeth. And again a voice came to Anthony: “Understand what you see,” and he began to understand with an enlightened heart that this was the ascent of souls, and the devil’s hindrance, which held sinners captive; but he could not snatch away or hold the saints”… And further: “St. Anthony, once finding himself in a state akin to death, seemed to be floating in the air. The demons of the air blocked his path and would not let him pass; but the angels, opposing them, struggled against the bonds of restraint. They, however, had to search out Anthony’s sins from the time of his birth.”[1655]

From St. Macarius the Great: “When the human soul departs from the body, a great mystery takes place. For if it is guilty of sins, then hordes of demons, evil angels, and dark forces come, seize this soul, and drag it over to their side. No one should be surprised by this. For if a person, while still alive and still in this world, submitted to them, surrendered to them, and became their slave, will they not all the more possess him and enslave him when he departs from this world? As for the other, better part of humanity, things happen differently for them. That is, the holy servants of God are accompanied even in this life by angels; holy spirits surround and protect them. And when their souls are separated from their bodies, the angels welcome them into their company, into the life of light, and in this way lead them to the Lord.”[1656]

St. John Chrysostom writes: “If, when setting out for some foreign country or city, we require guides, how much more do we need helpers and leaders to pass unhindered past the elders, the authorities, the rulers of the air, the persecutors, and the chief tax collectors?…” “The holy angels have peacefully separated us from the body (these words the holy Father places on the lips of departed infants), and we, having good guides, have safely passed by the powers of the air. The evil spirits found in us nothing of what they sought; they did not notice what they desired. Beholding a sinless body, they were put to shame; seeing an unblemished soul, they were humiliated; seeing an untainted tongue, they fell silent. We passed by and put them to shame. The net was torn apart, and we were set free. Blessed be God, who did not deliver us into their snare.”[1657] And further: “Those lying on the deathbed shake it with great force and gaze fearfully at those standing by, while the soul struggles to remain in the body and does not wish to be separated from it, terrified by the vision of the approaching angels. For if we tremble at the sight of terrifying men, what will our torment be like when we see the approaching angels of formidable and implacable power, when they drag our soul away and tear it from the body, when it will weep profusely, yet in vain and to no avail?”[1658]

The same is expounded, in greater or lesser detail, by St. Basil the Great,[1659] St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1660] St. Epiphanius,[1661] Eusebius of Caesarea,[1662] Palladius of Helenopolis,[1663] and Macarius of Alexandria.[1664]

2) Following St. Cyril of Alexandria, this teaching was passed down by a number of Church teachers from various places and times. Specifically: Eusebius, Bishop of Gallica: “Once the soul has departed from the body, it will be too late for it to repent of its sins. Alas! What will become of it when the agents of death (evil spirits) begin to drag it through the vast expanse of the air and lead it along dark paths?”[1665]

Blessed John the Merciful: “Souls departing from the body and desiring to ascend to heaven are met by the faces of demons, who first tempt them with lies and slander. But if she does not repent of this, she will be held captive by the demons. And again, higher up, the demons will encounter the soul and tempt her with fornication and pride. If she repents of these as well, she will be delivered from them. And there are many stumbling blocks and torments for the soul from the demons as it journeys toward heaven. Then come rage, envy, slander, anger, defamation, pride, obscenity, disobedience, usury, greed, drunkenness, malice, sorcery, abominations, gluttony, hatred of one’s brother, murder, theft, lack of mercy, fornication, and adultery. And when that wretched soul ascends from earth to heaven, there are no holy angels to assist it; but the soul itself makes its case through repentance and good deeds, and above all through almsgiving. For if it does not repent here of its sins, it will be delivered from the torment of demonic trials through almsgiving.”[1666]

St. Maximus the Confessor: “Who among those like me, defiled by the impurity of sins, will not fear the presence of the holy angels, who, by God’s command, will forcefully and angrily expel the soul from the body—against its will—as it departs from this life? Who, being aware of their own evil deeds, will not fear an encounter with the cruel, merciless, and cunning demons?”[1667]

And furthermore: St. John Climacus,[1668] St. Theodosius of the Caves,[1669] St. Cyril of Turov,[1670] Mark of Ephesus, Gabriel of Philadelphia,[1671] St. Demetrius of Rostov,[1672] and others.

3) It is also known that the doctrine of the toll-houses has found its way into the hagiographies of the saints [1673] and into the most sacred hymns and prayers used by the Orthodox Church. These include:

In the canon to the Lord Jesus and the Most Holy Theotokos, sung at the separation of the soul from the body of every believer:

“From the prince of the air, the violator, the tormentor, the guardian of dreadful paths, and the vain tester of words, grant me to pass unhindered from the earth” (Hymn 4, Stanza 4).

“May the mother of the barbarous incorporeal hosts flee, and the abysses of the air be raised up, and grant that I may ascend to heaven, that I may glorify You forever, O Mother of God” (Stanza 8, Verse 2).

In the Octoechos of St. John of Damascus, in the canon for the departed:

“When my soul desires to be separated from this life through the union of the flesh, then stand before me, O Sovereign Lady, and destroy the plans of the incorporeal enemies, and crush the jaws of those who seek to devour me without mercy: that I may pass unhindered past the princes of darkness standing in the air, O God-betrothed One” (Ch. 2, Sub-Cant. 9, Tr. 16).[1674]

In the canon to the guardian angel:

“My whole life has passed in much vanity; I have drawn near to its end: I beseech you, my guardian, be my defender and invincible champion, as I pass through the trials of the fierce ruler of this world” (St. 9, verse 3).[1675]

In the prayer after the fourth kathisma:

“My Lord, my Lord, grant me tears of contrition… that through them I may implore You to cleanse me of every sin before the end: for I must pass through a dreadful and terrifying place, having parted from my body, and a multitude of dark and inhuman demons awaits me” (Psalm of the Fourth Kathisma).

Such continuous, constant, and widespread use in the Church of the doctrine of the toll-houses, especially among the teachers of the fourth century, indisputably testifies that it was handed down to them from the teachers of preceding centuries and is based on the Apostolic Tradition.

III. This is quite natural, since the doctrine of the toll-houses is entirely consistent with Holy Scripture. In this doctrine:

1) It is stated that when people die, as their souls are separated from their bodies, the angels of God and the spirits of torment appear to them. And the Savior Himself remarked: “The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22); and to another man God said, “You fool! This very night your soul will be taken from you” (Luke 12:20)—and it is only fair to assume that it will be taken by evil spirits.[1676] Furthermore, Holy Scripture teaches that angels are, in general, ministering spirits sent to serve those who are to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14), that they care for us throughout our entire lives (Ps. 90:10–11), and are our constant guardians and guides—especially the guardian angel given to each of us at baptism [(Matt. 18:10); (Ps. 33:8)]: it is only natural that these good spirits should not forsake us with their help even in the difficult moments of death—that they should not refuse to accompany our soul, to guide and sustain it throughout the terrifying, entirely unknown transition from this present life into the realm of eternity. On the other hand, Holy Scripture teaches that all the activity of evil spirits is constantly directed toward our destruction [(Eph. 6:12); (2 Tim. 2:26); (1 Thess. 3:5)], that our adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour (1 Pet. 5:9); would he let a favorable opportunity pass him by to do, if possible, anything to bring about the ruin of our soul at the very moment of its separation from the body?

2) It is said that, upon separation from the body, the human soul, as it makes its way to the higher world through the air, constantly encounters fallen spirits there. And the Word of God testifies that the air is, as it were, filled with the spirits of wickedness in the heavenly realms (Eph. 6:12), — of course, not physically, but spiritually,[1677] — that their prince is the prince who reigns in the air (Eph. 2:2), and that, consequently, the human soul, as soon as it departs from the body, inevitably enters their realm.

3) It seems that these dark spirits, like tormenting tax collectors, stop the soul on its journey to heaven at various stations of torment, gradually remind it of its various sins, and try in every way to condemn it, — while the good angels accompanying the soul simultaneously remind it of its good deeds, which counterbalance its sins, and strive to vindicate it. Such activity on the part of the spirits of malice is quite natural: they cannot help but know and remember all our sins; they cannot help but use every opportunity to condemn us, since, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, they are your constant tempters and participants in all your iniquities [(2 Thess. 3:5); (1 John 3:8)] and strive toward a single goal: to deprive us of eternal salvation [(Luke 8:12); (1 Peter 5:8)]. Equally natural is the aforementioned activity of the good angels, who, being our instructors in every good work and our guides to eternal salvation (Heb. 1:14), undoubtedly know our good deeds and, out of their love, cannot help but contribute to your justification.

4) It appears that God does not directly execute a particular judgment upon a person’s soul after its separation from the body, but rather permits evil spirits—as it were, instruments of His terrible justice—to torment it, while at the same time employing good angels as instruments of His goodness. But at the end of the world, when the Lord appears in all His glory to judge the living and the dead, He Himself will not directly carry out all matters pertaining to the judgment, but will send His angels, who will gather from His Kingdom all the tempters and those who commit lawlessness, and cast them into the fiery furnace [(Matt. 13:41–42); cf. (Matt. 24:31)]: what is so surprising if He does not carry out the particular judgment directly, but through the spirits who serve Him—while, of course, being present invisibly Himself, as He is omnipresent? Likewise, since it is known that before the Last Judgment—when even the fallen spirits will finally receive their punishment (Jude 6)—God permits them to act against humanity in general [(Job 1:12); (1 Peter 5:9)], and sometimes uses them even on earth as instruments of His righteous wrath against sinners, like evil angels [(Ps. 77:49); (1 Cor. 6:5)]: Is it any wonder, then, that He permits them to be the same instruments of His justice during the particular judgment of human souls, while at the same time employing the good angels as instruments of His goodness?

IV. It must be noted, however, that just as, in general, the depiction of objects in the spiritual world for us who are clothed in flesh inevitably includes features that are, to a greater or lesser extent, sensory and anthropomorphic—so, in particular, such features are inevitably permitted in the detailed teaching about the trials that the human soul undergoes after separation from the body. Therefore, we must firmly remember the instruction given by the angel to St. Macarius of Alexandria as soon as he began speaking about the purgatorial stations: “Consider earthly things here as the faintest image of heavenly ones.”[1678] We must conceive of the torments not in a crude, sensory sense, but—as far as possible for us—in a spiritual sense, and not become attached to the details, which, while the basic idea of the torments remains the same, are presented differently by various writers and in various traditions of the Church itself.[1679]

2. On the Reward Following the Particular Judgment

§251. The Teaching of the Orthodox Church and the Content of This Teaching

Regarding the reward given to people, which results from the particular judgment over them, the Orthodox Church teaches: “Although neither the righteous nor the sinful receive full recompense for their deeds before the Last Judgment, nevertheless, not all souls are in the same state, nor are they sent to the same place” (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 61). “We believe that the souls of the departed either enjoy bliss or suffer torment, depending on their deeds. Having been separated from their bodies, they immediately pass either to joy or to sorrow and grief; however, they experience neither perfect bliss nor perfect torment. For each person will receive perfect bliss or perfect torment after the general resurrection, when the soul is reunited with the body in which it lived virtuously or wickedly” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 18). Thus, the Orthodox Church distinguishes between two forms of reward following the particular judgment: one for the righteous, the other for sinners, although it considers both to be imperfect and provisional.

§252. The reward for the righteous: a) their glorification in heaven—in the Church Triumphant

The reward given to the righteous, by the will of the heavenly Judge, also takes two forms: these are—a) their glorification, though still imperfect, in heaven—in the Church Triumphant, and—b) their glorification on earth—in the Church Militant.

I. The reality of the glorification of the righteous in heaven (though not yet complete), immediately following the conclusion of the particular judgment over them and prior to the final general judgment (Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Answer to Question 67), is beyond doubt:

1) From Holy Scripture, which presents to us:

a) The Lord’s clear promise concerning this truth. Christ the Savior—before whose coming even the Old Testament righteous were in Hades—and who, through His cross, opened the way for people to enter the kingdom of heaven—speaks in comfort to the Apostles before His departure to the Father: “In My Father’s house are many mansions.” If it were not so, I would have told you: ‘I am going to prepare a place for you.’ And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to Myself, so that where I am, you may be also” (John 14:2–3). At the same time, He prayed to the Father: “Father! those whom You have given Me, I want them to be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory, which You have given Me (John 17:24). And, hanging on the cross, He said to the repentant thief: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

b) The living confidence of the Holy Apostles in the fulfillment of this promise. Thus, the Apostle Paul spoke of himself: “I am torn between the two: I have a desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; yet to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you” (Phil. 1:23–24). And in another passage: “We know that when our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a dwelling in heaven from God, a house not made with hands, eternal… so we are confident and would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:1–8). That is, the Apostle expresses that, once the earthly temple of the body is destroyed, a temple not made with hands awaits the righteous in heaven; once they are separated from and depart from their bodies, they will be with the Lord and be with Christ.

c) Finally, the actual fulfillment of this promise. The holy seer, John the Theologian, saw twenty-four thrones around the throne of God in heaven; and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white robes and wearing golden crowns on their heads (Rev. 4:4); he saw beneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony they had borne (Rev. 6:9); and I also saw a great multitude that no one could count, from every tribe and clan and nation and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, and crying out: “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9–10).

2) From Holy Tradition and the unchanging faith of the Church. We find evidence of this:

In the first three centuries: a) in St. Clement of Rome: “Peter (the apostle) endured not one, not two, but many torments because of lawless envy, and thus, having become a martyr, departed to the fitting place of glory; Paul endured torment at the hands of the rulers, and thus departed from this world, and passed into the holy place … all generations that have existed until now have passed away, but those who have been perfected in love, by the grace of God, are in the place of the righteous: they will appear at the coming of Christ’s kingdom;”[1680] b) in the Epistle to the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of St. Polycarp: “He, having overcome the lawless ruler through patience and thus received the crown of incorruption, now rejoices with the Apostles and all the righteous, glorifies God the Father, and blesses our Lord, the leader of our souls and bodies and the shepherd of the universal Catholic Church;”[1681] c) In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyon and Vienne to the Churches of Phrygia and Asia concerning the martyrs: “Having triumphed over all things, they departed to God; always loving peace and always offering peace, they departed in peace to the Father;”[1682] d) In the writings of St. Cyprian: “All are alive,” says the Apostle (Rev. 20), “and reign with Christ—not only those who have been put to death, but also those who, remaining steadfast in their faith and the fear of God, did not worship the image of the beast;”[1683] e) St. Hippolytus: “You (the prophets) already have the crown of life and immortality prepared for you in heaven;”[1684] e) St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “These divine martyrs of ours, who now sit with Christ, are partakers of His kingdom, participants in His judgment, pronouncing their verdicts together with Him—these very martyrs received certain fallen brothers, guilty of kneeling before idolatrous altars, upon seeing their conversion and repentance;”[1685] g) also—in the Apostolic Constitutions,[1686] —in the writings of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Dionysius the Areopagite, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and others.[1687]

In the fourth century—a) in St. Gregory the Theologian—in his eulogy for Basil the Great: “And now he is in heaven, where, I believe, he offers sacrifices for us and prays for the people—for though he has left us, he has not left us entirely…,” and further: “Look down upon me from on high, O divine and holy head, and comfort with your prayers the thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7) given to me for my instruction, or teach me to bear it patiently, and direct my whole life toward what is most beneficial”[1688] b) From St. Ephrem the Syrian—in his homily on those who have fallen asleep in Christ: “They turned their gaze toward eternal blessings, they strove for them, and therefore received them; they hastened, and therefore entered the Fatherland, the heavenly bridal chamber; they ran, and so they reached their goal; they fasted, and so they rejoice; they did not remain in idleness, and so they are glad; they became wise because they despised this life, departed from us, and set out on their beautiful and pleasing path; they departed and moved to the holy and eternal land;”[1689] c) From St. Epiphanius: “The saints are honored; their rest is in glory; their departure from here is in perfection; their lot is in bliss; their life is in the holy abodes; their celebration is with the angels; their reward is in Christ Jesus, our Lord;”[1690] d) Similarly—in St. John Chrysostom,[1691] St. Ambrose,[1692] St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1693] St. Basil the Great, and others.[1694]

We will not mention the writers of the fifth and subsequent centuries, such as: Theodoret,[1695] Jerome,[1696] Anastasius of Sinai,[1697] Gregory the Great,[1698] John of Damascus,[1699] and others.

I. The place where the souls of the righteous go after the particular judgment, as well as their condition and bliss there, are depicted in various ways.

This place is called paradise (Luke 23:43), the bosom of Abraham (Luke 16:22), and the kingdom of heaven [(Matt. 5:3, 10); (Matt. 8:11)], the kingdom of God [(Luke 13:28–29); (Matt. 6:33); (1 Cor. 15:50)], the house of the heavenly Father (John 14:2), the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem [(Heb. 12:22); (Gal. 4:26)].[1700] And, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, whoever calls this place by any of the names mentioned will not err, provided they know that the souls of the departed righteous dwell in God’s grace and, as the church hymns say, in heaven (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 67).[1701] The view that there is some distinction between Paradise, the bosom of Abraham, and heaven itself was held by only a few.[1702]

The state of the souls of the righteous in heaven and their bliss, though undoubtedly not identical, corresponding to the merits of each (1 Cor. 3:8), is understood to consist in: a) rest or relief from toil [(Heb. 4:3–11); (Rev. 14:13)]; b) in being free from all sorrow and suffering (Rev. 7:16–17); c) in rest, and consequently, in close fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other saints [(Matt. 8:11); (Luke 8:28–29)]; d) in fellowship with multitudes of angels [(Heb. 12:22–23); (Luke 16:22)]; e) standing before the throne of the Lamb, glorifying Him and serving Him (Rev. 7:9–17); f) in fellowship [(John 14:3); (Phil. 1:26)] and reign with Christ (2 Tim. 2:11–12); g) in the vision of God [(1 Cor. 13:12); (2 Cor. 5:8); (Heb. 12:14)]. “You are the divine and holy head,” St. Gregory the Theologian exclaims in his funeral oration for his brother Caesarius, “enter into heaven, rest in the bosom of Abraham (whatever that may signify), behold the faces of the angels, the glory and splendor of the blessed, or better yet, become one with them and rejoice… And may you stand before the great King, filled with heavenly light, from which we too, having received a small ray—as much as can be reflected in a mirror and in visions—may finally ascend to the Source of all good, to contemplate pure truth with a pure mind, and, for our zeal for the good here on earth, to receive that reward which will allow us to enjoy the most perfect possession and contemplation of the good in the future!” And shortly thereafter, in another eulogy for his sister Gorgonia, he spoke to her: “I am certain that your present state is far better and more excellent than anything visible—the voices of those celebrating, the joy of the angels, the heavenly host, the vision of glory, and above all, the purest and most perfect radiance of the Most High Trinity, no longer hidden from the mind—which is bound and distracted by the senses—but fully contemplated and perceived by the whole mind, and illuminating our souls with the full light of the Godhead. “You enjoy all those blessings whose streams reached you even while you were still on earth, because of your sincere longing for them.”[1703] St. Cyprian, St. John Chrysostom,[1704] St. Ambrose,[1705] St. Hilary, and others likewise described the state of the souls of the righteous after the particular judgment.[1706]

II. However, although the souls of the righteous, after the particular judgment, ascend to heaven and are granted bliss, their bliss is not yet complete and perfect, but only a foretaste of eternal bliss. For:

1) According to the teaching of the Word of God, every person will receive full bliss only after the Last Judgment, when they will appear again as a complete human being in their resurrected body: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive what is due for the things done while in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10); But now, he wrote of himself, a crown of righteousness is reserved for me, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing [(2 Tim. 4:8); cf. (2 Tim. 1:9–10); (Col. 3:4) and others]. And:

2) Those very same Church Fathers who unhesitatingly described the blessed state of the righteous in heaven immediately after their death testified in unison that this bliss is still incomplete. For example:·

St. Gregory the Theologian, after expressing such heartfelt wishes for his departed brother Caesarius—that he might enter heaven, rest in the bosom of Abraham, rejoice in the company of angels and blessed souls, and stand before the King of Heaven—continues: “I am convinced by the words of the wise that every good and God-loving soul, as soon as it is released from this world, having been separated from the body with which it was united, comes to a state where it can feel and contemplate the blessings awaiting it, and after purification—or after the removal (or, I do not know how else to put it) of that which clouded it, is delighted by some wondrous delight, rejoices, and joyfully proceeds toward its Lord; for it has escaped this earthly life, as an unbearable prison, and has cast off the chains that lay upon it, by which the wings of the mind were dragged downward. Then, in a vision, she seems to be already reaping the bliss prepared for her. And then, taking back the flesh that was her own, with which she practiced self-discipline here on earth—from the earth that gave it and then preserved it, in a manner incomprehensible to us, known only to God, who united and separated them—she enters, together with it, into the inheritance of the coming glory.”[1707]

St. John Chrysostom, who depicted the blessed state in heaven of the soul of St. Philogon among the angels and saints in the presence of God Himself,[1708] , clearly teaches in other passages: “God has prepared for those who love Him what no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and what has not entered the human heart; but they have not yet received it, and they await it, having rested through such sorrow. So many years have passed since they triumphed, yet they have not yet received what was prepared for them: should you, then, grieve while you are still fighting? Consider this: who are you, and how long must Abraham and the Apostle Paul wait, hoping that you will attain perfection so that they may then receive their reward? What will Abel do, who was the first to be victorious and yet remains uncrowned? What about Noah?… Do you see God’s providence? Did not the Apostle say, “not that they will be crowned without us,” but “that they may not attain perfection without us” (Heb. 11:40)?[1709] And further: “Although the soul survives after death—and let it be infinitely immortal, as it truly is—without the body it will not receive those ineffable blessings, just as it will not be punished. For everything will be revealed at the judgment of Christ, so that each may receive, according to what he has done while living in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10).”[1710]

Some of the ancient teachers held that the souls of the righteous, prior to the resurrection of the body, are not in heaven but rather in the bosom of Abraham, in paradise, which they considered merely the threshold of heaven:[1711] This is a particular opinion, but one that also expresses the general belief of the Church that there is not yet perfect bliss for the righteous until the Last Judgment.

Further witnesses to this belief include: St. Athanasius the Great, St. Ambrose, Blessed Augustine,[1712] St. Gregory the Dialogist.[1713]

§253. b) The glorification of the righteous on earth—in the Church Militant: aa) the veneration of the saints

Just as the righteous Judge and Rewarder grants the righteous, after their death, glorification in heaven—in the Church Triumphant, though still in a preliminary form—so He also grants them glorification on earth—in the Church Militant.[1714] This glorification is expressed in that the earthly Church: a) venerates the departed righteous as saints and friends of God; b) invokes them in prayer as intercessors before God; c) venerates their relics and other remains; d) venerates their sacred images or icons.

The Church of Christ venerates the righteous not as gods of any kind, but as faithful servants, saints, and friends of God; praises their feats and deeds, accomplished by them through the grace of God for the glory of God, so that all honor rendered to the Saints is attributed to the majesty of God, whom they pleased on earth through their lives; honors the Saints through annual commemorations of them, public feasts, the construction of churches in their names, and the like. (Orthodox Confession, Part III, Answer to Question 52; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Answer to Question 3)[1715] In this sense, the veneration of the Saints:

I. Is entirely in accordance with Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture categorically forbids rendering divine worship and service (λατρεία) to anyone other than the one true God [(Deut. 6:13); (Isa. 42:8); (Matt. 4:10); (1 Tim. 1:17)]; but it by no means forbids rendering due—though, of course, inferior—honor (δουλεία) to His faithful servants, saints, and friends, and in such a way that all glory is ascribed to Him alone, as He is glorious in His saints (Ps. 67:36). On the contrary, in the Old Testament, where the law was given: “You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him [alone]” (Deut. 6:13), the divinely inspired Psalmist cried out: “Your friends, O God, were very dear to me” (Ps. 138:17), and the sons of the prophets solemnly bowed down to the ground before the faithful servant and friend of God—Elisha (2 Kings 2:15). Likewise, in the New Testament, Christ the Savior Himself—who confirmed the law: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” (Matt. 4:10)—said to His faithful disciples: “You are My friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:14), and testified before them: “Whoever receives you receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives the One who sent Me” (Matt. 10:40), showing that the honor given to His faithful servants and friends belongs to Him alone. And the same holy Apostle who declared, “To the only wise God be honor and glory” (1 Tim. 1:17), also declared elsewhere, “Glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good” (Rom. 2:10).

II. It has an indisputable basis in Sacred Tradition. The following serve as proof:

1) The feasts which, from the very beginning, the Church of Christ has been accustomed to celebrate in honor of God’s saints. The Book of Apostolic Decrees, listing the days on which servants are to be exempt from labor, states: “Let them not work on the days of the Apostles, for they were your teachers in Christ and bestowed the Holy Spirit upon you; let them celebrate on the day of the first martyr Stephen and on the days of the other holy martyrs who chose Christ over their own lives.”[1716] The Church of Smyrna (in the 2nd century), in its epistle on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, testifies: “We have gathered his bones—a treasure more precious than precious stones and purer than gold—and laid them where they ought to be. There, as soon as possible, we will gather with joy and gladness—and the Lord will grant us to celebrate the day of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already accomplished their feat and as an instruction and encouragement to future ascetics.”[1717] Likewise, the Christians who witnessed the martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (in the early 2nd century), in their own words, “set aside for themselves the day and hour so that, gathering at the time of his martyrdom, they might have communion with the ascetic and valiant martyr of Christ, who defeated the devil and completed the path of his Christ-loving desire in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[1718] Furthermore, the Holy Fathers [1719] bear witness to the Church’s custom of annually celebrating the days of the martyrs’ deaths and call this custom ancient;[1720] Entire Councils bear witness to this,[1721] , and condemn those who refused to participate in such celebrations: “If anyone, having become arrogant, despises and condemns the gatherings in honor of the martyrs and the services and commemorations performed therein, let him be under oath,” — say the Fathers of the Council of Gangra in their 20th canon, and in the following canon they immediately add: “We write this, setting boundaries not for those who, according to Scripture, desire to lead a life of asceticism in the Church of God, but for those who take asceticism as a pretext for pride, exalt themselves above those who live simply, and, contrary to Scripture and church canons, introduce innovations… and, to put it briefly, we desire that everything accepted from the Divine Scriptures and apostolic traditions be observed in the Church.”

2) The offering of a bloodless sacrifice, or the celebration of the Liturgy on the feast days of the holy martyrs, sacred vigils in their honor, and words of praise. The first point is clearly attested to by Tertullian [1722] and Cyprian [1723] , and later by St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Augustine.[1724] Regarding the latter—St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1725] St. Basil the Great,[1726] and Blessed Theodoret.[1727] As for the eulogies in honor of the martyrs and other saints, they have come down to us from Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem the Syrian, and others.[1728]

3) Churches of God, which from ancient times were built in the name of the saints—and especially the martyrs—at the sites of their suffering and burial, were called “martyria” (from μάρτυρ, “martyr”). Such martyra in ancient Istra, Daphnae, Dripia, Nicomedia, Constantinople, and other places are mentioned by St. Chrysostom,[1729] Eusebius,[1730] and Augustine.[1731] There is a famous church dedicated to St. Thomas the Apostle that once stood in Edessa,[1732] — an even more famous one dedicated to the Twelve Holy Apostles, built in Constantinople by Constantine the Great,[1733] — and a church dedicated to St. John the Apostle near Constantinople.[1734] It is also known that the Council of Ephesus convened in the Church of St. Mary, and the Council of Chalcedon in the Church of St. Euphemia.[1735]

4) The confessions of the early Christians, and especially of the pastors of the Church, which reveal the foundations, the nature, and the purpose of the veneration of the saints. Here, for example, is what they say:

The Christians of the Church of Smyrna, in their epistle on the martyrdom of St. Polycarp: “We can never abandon Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of the saved, nor can we worship (προσκυνείν) anyone else: for we worship Him as the Son of God, while we rightly pray to the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord—and we love them for their unwavering devotion to their King and Teacher.”[1736]

St. Basil the Great: “Will the lover of martyrs ever grow weary of commemorating the martyrs? The honor bestowed upon the good among our fellow servants is proof of our goodwill toward our common Lord.”[1737] “When we recount the lives of those who have become renowned for their piety, we first and foremost glorify the Lord in His servants; we praise the righteous by bearing witness to what we know, and we delight people with the hearing of what is beautiful. Thus, the life of Joseph is an exhortation to chastity, and the story of Samson is an inspiration to courage.”[1738]

“The memory of the martyr (Mammant) stirs the entire country; the whole city takes part in the feast; it is not only relatives who flock to the tombs of their forefathers, but everyone rushes to the place of piety… See how virtue is honored, not wealth. Thus, by honoring those who have gone before, the Church thereby inspires those who are still living. ‘Do not seek,’ she says, ‘neither the wealth nor the wisdom of this passing world (1 Cor. 2:6), nor fading glory—all these things vanish with life: but be a doer of piety; it will lift you up to heaven, and it will prepare for you both immortal life and enduring glory among people.’”[1739]

St. John Chrysostom: “Tell me, where is Alexander’s tomb? Point it out and tell me, on what day did he die? But the tombs of Christ’s servants are glorious, and they are found in the royal city; the days of their passing are known; for they constitute a celebration for the entire universe. Even Alexander’s own people do not know where his tomb is; but even the barbarians know where Christ’s tomb is. And the tombs of the servants of the Crucified One are more resplendent than royal palaces, not only in terms of the size and beauty of the structures—for in this, too, they are superior— — but, what is far more important, in the fervor of those who flock to them. For even he who wears the purple comes to kiss these tombs, stands before them, and prays to the Saints to intercede for him before God. He who is clothed in the diadem has need of the intercession of one who is already dead—a tentmaker and a fisherman.”[1740]

Salvian: “I honor all of them (the Saints) as nothing other than imitators of Christ; I celebrate them as nothing other than members of Christ, and I have mentioned them only so that I may be worthy of their memory.”[1741]

Blessed Augustine: “The Christian people honor the memory of the martyrs with a solemn celebration of faith (religiosa soleranitate)…, but in such a way that we do not offer sacrifices (sacrificemus) to any of the martyrs, but only to the God of the martyrs, even though we set up altars in memory of the martyrs… What is offered is offered to God, who has crowned the martyrs, in memory of those whom He has crowned… We honor the martyrs with that honor of love and fellowship (cultu dilectionis et societatis) with which God’s holy people are honored even in this life… But with that form of veneration (cultu), which in Greek is called worship (λατρεία) and is, in fact, the worship (servitus) proper to the Godhead, we neither honor nor teach anyone to honor anyone other than the one God.”[1742]

The Fathers of the Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “We preserve the words of the Lord, the Apostles, and the prophets, through which we have been taught to honor and exalt (τιμάν καί μεγαλύνειν), first and foremost, the Mother of God herself—and the holy angelic powers, the Apostles, the Prophets, and the glorious martyrs, the holy and God-bearing teachers, and all the holy men—and to seek their intercession: for they can make us acceptable to the King of all—God.”[1743]

St. John of Damascus: “We must honor the saints as friends of Christ, as children and heirs of God… They reigned and prevailed over their passions, and preserved intact the likeness of the image of God, according to which they were created…; they voluntarily united themselves with God, received Him into the dwelling place of their hearts, and, having been united with Him, became by grace what He is by nature. How, then, can we fail to honor those who are both servants, friends, and sons of God? The honor bestowed upon the most zealous co-workers is a testament to love for our common Lord. The saints have become treasuries and pure dwellings of God; “I will dwell in them,” says God, “and walk among them; and I will be their God” (2 Cor. 6:16)… How, then, can we fail to honor these living temples, these living dwellings of God?.. Truly, we must honor them, erect temples to God in their name, offer gifts, observe their feast days, and rejoice spiritually on those days… Let us honor the Mother of God as the true Mother of God, and the prophet John as the Forerunner and Baptist, the apostle and martyr: for, as the Lord said, “Among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). And he was the first preacher of the Kingdom of God. Let us honor the Apostles as brothers of the Lord, as eyewitnesses and ministers of His suffering, whom God the Father foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son [(Rom. 8:29); (1 Cor. 12:28)]; first, the Apostles; second, the Prophets; third, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). Let us honor the Lord’s martyrs, chosen from every walk of life, as soldiers of Christ, baptized into His death, as partakers in His sufferings and glory, and their leader, the archdeacon of Christ, the apostle and first martyr Stephen. Let us honor our reverend Fathers and the God-bearing ascetics, who endured a longer and more difficult martyrdom of conscience, who wandered in rags and goatskins, suffering deprivation, sorrow, and abuse; those whom the whole world was not worthy of (Heb. 11:37–38). Let us honor the prophets, patriarchs, and righteous men who lived before the coming of grace and foreshadowed the Lord’s coming. As we contemplate the way of life of all these saints , let us emulate their faith, love, hope, zeal, way of life, steadfastness in suffering, and patience even unto blood, so that we too may be deemed worthy, along with them, of the crowns of glory.”[1744]

In this sense, the veneration of the saints will, without a doubt, not seem inappropriate to any right-minded person.

§254. bb) Invoking the Saints

Honoring the saints as faithful servants, friends, and beloved of God, the Holy Church at the same time invokes them in prayer—not as gods of any kind who can help us by their own power, but as our intercessors before God, the sole source and bestower of all gifts and graces to His creatures (James 1:17), — as our intercessors and advocates, possessing the power of intercession from Christ, who alone is, in the true sense, the sole mediator between God and mankind, having given Himself for the redemption of all (1 Tim. 2:5).[1745] (Orthodox Confession of Faith, Part III, Answer to Question 52; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Article 8).

Holy Scripture teaches us this dogma when—a) it instructs us to turn to the prayers of the Saints, who are powerful before God; when—b) at the same time, it shows that the Saints, even after their ascension to heaven, can hear our invocations of them, and—c) finally, it testifies that they do not cease to pray for their brothers remaining on earth and to help them.

1) There are many passages of the first kind in the sacred books. Thus, in the Old Testament we read that—a) God Himself commanded Abimelech to ask Abraham to pray for him, saying, “For he is a prophet, and he will pray for you, and you will live” (Gen. 20:7); b) He later commanded Job’s friends, who had sinned, to ask this righteous man to pray for them: “Go to My servant Job … and My servant Job will pray for you, for I will accept only his intercession, so that I may not reject you” (Job 42:8), and —c) that the Jews, convinced by such clear commands from the Lord of the power and effectiveness of the prayers of the righteous, asked Samuel to pray for them, to which he replied: “Far be it from me to turn away from the Lord my God and to cease praying for you” [(1 Sam. 7:8); cf. (1 Sam. 12:23)], and indeed he cried out to the Lord on behalf of Israel, and the Lord heard him (1 Sam. 7:9). In the New Testament, St. Paul the Apostle taught the same truth by his own example when, despite all his holiness, he repeatedly asked his devout disciples to pray for him: “I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join with me in prayer to God (Rom. 15:30); or: “Brethren, pray for us” (1 Thess. 5:25), with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints and for me [(Eph. 6:18–19); cf. (Col. 4:3); (2 Cor. 1:10–11)]. And St. James the Apostle, instructing Christians in general to pray for one another—and consequently to ask one another for prayers—notes in particular: “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful” (James 5:16). If, then, the Word of God commands us to turn to the prayers of the saints while they are still on earth, and calls these prayers powerful before God and salvific for us; if, consequently, such invocation of the Saints, who still live among us, in no way offends the goodness of the heavenly Father nor diminishes the dignity of our Savior, the sole Mediator between God and man:[1746] should we not all the more turn to the prayers of the Saints when they pass into heaven and enter into the closest communion with the Lord? Is not their intercession for us before the throne of the Almighty all the more powerful then, as the intercession of His saints who have already been glorified? Is it not all the less offensive—both to the goodness of the heavenly Father and to the dignity of our Redeemer—to invoke the saints who have already become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17)?

2) To explain how the saints, even after their ascension to heaven and despite the distance separating them from us, can hear our prayers and know our needs, Holy Scripture provides many striking examples. Thus, it testifies that the saints of God, whom we invoke in our prayers, often possessed—even while still in the flesh—the gift of seeing into the depths of the human heart, just as St. Peter saw into the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3), and to know events taking place at a distance, just as Elisha learned of Gehazi’s deed (2 Kings 4:19–27), and—even more astonishingly—revealed to the king of Israel all the secret intentions of the Syrian court (2 Kings 6:12). This testifies that the saints, while still on earth, entered the heavenly realm in spirit; some saw hosts of angels, such as Jacob (Gen. 32:1) and Elisha (2 Kings 6:17), others were granted the privilege of beholding God Himself, such as Isaiah (Isa. 6:1–5) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:1–8), while still others were caught up to the third heaven, where they heard ineffable words, as did St. Paul (2 Cor. 12:2–6). Finally, it testifies that the saints in heaven are equal to the angels (Luke 20:36), who truly know the inner state and the conversion of sinners to God: for there is joy among the angels of God over even one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10)—that Abraham, being in heaven, could hear the cry of the rich man suffering in Hades, despite the great chasm separating them, and that this patriarch said to the rich man, among other things: “Your brothers have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them”—thereby clearly expressing that, while in heaven, the righteous are able to know what is happening on earth after their death; for Moses and the Prophets lived after Abraham (Luke 16:19–31). Without a doubt, all these are examples not of some kind of natural human knowledge, but of knowledge granted by grace, as a result of extraordinary gifts from God; but why should we not admit that the souls of the righteous in heaven are granted the very same supreme enlightenment from God—that, standing directly before His throne, they contemplate what is happening on earth in the light of God’s face?[1747] “Now we see,” writes the Holy Apostle, “as in a mirror, dimly; but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

3) Finally, from the Holy Scriptures we learn that the saints who have departed to heaven, being able to know our needs and hear our prayers, truly intercede for us before the throne of the Almighty. Once God Himself said to Jeremiah: “Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before Me, My heart would not be moved toward this people… Who will mourn for you, Jerusalem? Who will show compassion toward you? Who will come to ask after your welfare?” (Jer. 15:1–5)? With these words, the Lord showed that Moses and Samuel, long since dead, could intercede before Him on behalf of the Jews. Judas Maccabeus saw in a vision Onias, the deceased high priest, who himself was praying for all the Jewish people; and pointing to another man who was with him, he said to Judas: “This is the brotherly-loving one who prays much for the people and the holy city—Jeremiah, the prophet of God” (2 Macc. 15:12–14). From this, we must conclude that the Jewish Church undoubtedly held the belief in the intercession of the departed saints on behalf of the living. In the New Testament, St. Peter the Apostle quite clearly promises his disciples that he will not cease to intercede for them before God even after his death, saying: “I will make every effort to ensure that, even after my departure, you will always remember this” (2 Peter 1:15). And St. John the Theologian was granted a vision in heaven of twenty-four elders falling down before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8), and then how the Angel was given a great amount of incense so that, together with the prayers of all the saints, he might offer it on the golden altar before the throne (Rev. 8:3–4).

I. Based on Holy Scripture and in conjunction with Holy Tradition, the Holy Church has always upheld the doctrine of invoking the saints, with complete confidence in their intercession for us before God in heaven. We find this doctrine and belief of the Church:

1) In all the ancient liturgies. The Liturgy of St. James the Apostle states: “We especially commemorate the holy and glorious Ever-Virgin, the blessed Mother of God. Remember her, O Lord God, and through her pure and holy prayers, spare and have mercy on us…”[1748] This is also found in the liturgies known as those of St. Peter the Apostle and St. Mark the Evangelist,[1749] in the liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom,[1750] in the Roman Rite and the Service Book of St. Gregory the Great.[1751] St. Cyril of Jerusalem, explaining the liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem, notes: “Then we commemorate (by offering a bloodless sacrifice) those who have departed before us—first of all, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs—so that through their prayers and intercession, God may accept our supplication.”[1752]

2) In ancient accounts of the holy martyrs. The account of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (in the early 2nd century) states: “Returning home in tears, we held an all-night vigil…; then, after sleeping a little, some of us suddenly saw him rise and embrace us, while others also saw the blessed Ignatius praying for us.”[1753] The account of the Scyllitan martyrs, who suffered in the year 200, compiled by a contemporary eyewitness, concludes with the following words: “Christ’s martyrs departed on the 17th day of July and intercede for us before the Lord Jesus Christ.”[1754] St. Maximus, who suffered in the year 250, said, among other things, to his torturer: “The grace of Christ, through the prayers of all the Saints, will make me whole for all eternity…”[1755] Eusebius recounts the story of the third-century martyr Potamiena, who, as she was led to her death, promised Basilides—the soldier who had protected her from the pagan mob—that after her departure she would pray to the Lord for him, and that, three days after her martyrdom, she—as Basilides himself testified—appeared to him at night, placed a crown upon his head, and said that she had prayed to the Lord for him and that her prayer had been heard.[1756] St. Gregory the Theologian recounts the story of another third-century martyr, St. Justina, who, wishing to preserve her virginity amid temptations, “prayed to the Virgin Mary to help the maiden in distress.”[1757]

3) In the writings of the ancient teachers of the Church. For example:

St. Dionysius the Areopagite: “That the prayers of the saints, even during their lifetime, and all the more so after their death, bring benefit only to those worthy of the saints’ prayers—this is what the true traditions of the wise teach us…. Thus, those who ask for the prayers of the saints while rejecting the holy deeds characteristic of them, who do not seek divine gifts, and who stray from the clearest and most salvific commandments, are deluded by an unfulfillable and vain hope.”[1758]

St. Cyprian: “Let us remember one another… let us pray for one another everywhere and always… And if any of us should depart there (to heaven) first, by God’s good pleasure: may our mutual love continue before the Lord, and may prayer for our brothers never cease before the Father’s mercy.”[1759]

Eusebius of Caesarea: “It is our custom to visit the tombs (of the saints), to offer prayers there, and to honor their blessed souls—and we acknowledge this to be a righteous act.”[1760]

St. Basil the Great—in his homily on the Forty Martyrs: “How much effort would you expend to find even one intercessor for yourself before the Lord!—And here are forty intercessors, offering a united prayer. Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20); and where there are forty, would anyone doubt God’s presence? The afflicted turn to the Forty Martyrs; the joyful flock to them—one to find deliverance from difficult circumstances, the other to safeguard his well-being. Here you will meet a devout wife praying for her children, imploring her estranged husband to return, and asking for healing for the sick. — May your petitions be worthy of the martyrs. May young men emulate them as peers; may fathers pray to be the parents of such children… Holy faces! Sacred host! Unshakable ranks! Common guardians of the human race! Kind companions in cares, helpers in prayer, the strongest intercessors, luminaries of the universe, the flower of the churches! The earth has not concealed you, but heaven has welcomed you; the gates of paradise have opened to you.”[1761]

St. Gregory the Theologian—in his eulogy for his father: “I am certain that now, through his prayers, he will accomplish more than he did before through his teaching; since he has drawn nearer to God, having cast off the bonds of the flesh, freed himself from the delusions that cloud the mind, and, with an unveiled gaze, beheld the unveiled, first, and purest Mind, having been deemed worthy (if I may so boldly say) of an angelic rank and boldness.”[1762] In the eulogy to St. Cyprian: “Look graciously upon me from on high, guide my words and my life, shepherd this holy flock, or be my co-shepherd, guiding it, as much as possible, toward the best, drive away from it the restless wolves and all who chase after words and phrases; grant us the most perfect and radiant illumination of the Holy Trinity, before whom you now stand, and whom we also worship.”[1763]

St. John Chrysostom: “The prayers of the saints have great power, but only when we ourselves repent (of our sins) and amend our ways… However, I say this not so that we should not invoke the saints in our prayers, but so that we may not be lazy and, giving in to carelessness and slumber, place upon others what we ourselves ought to do.”[1764] “Knowing this, beloved, let us have recourse to the intercession of the Saints and call upon them to pray for us; but let us not rely solely on their prayers, but let us ourselves act according to their example, as we ought.”[1765]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “Victorious martyrs, who willingly endured suffering out of love for God and the Savior, and who have boldness before the Lord Himself, intercede, O Saints, for us who are slack, sinful, and filled with sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon you and enlighten the hearts of all the slothful, so that we may love the Lord.”[1766]

Likewise—St. Ambrose,[1767] St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1768] Didymus of Alexandria,[1769] Theodore of Heraclia,[1770] Jerome,[1771] Theodoret,[1772] Augustine,[1773] and others.[1774]

4) In the Acts of the Councils. Thus, the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, having heard Flavian’s message, unanimously exclaimed: “Eternal memory to Flavian!… Flavian lives on after death: a martyr, may he pray for us.”[1775] At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Fathers, discussing the veneration and invocation of the Saints, decreed, among other things: “If anyone does not confess that all the saints, who have existed from eternity and have pleased God—whether before the Law, under the Law, or under grace—are honorable (τίμιους) before Him in soul and body, or does not ask for the prayers of the saints, as those who have permission to intercede for the world (υπέρ τού κόσμου πρεσβεύειν), According to ecclesiastical tradition: anathema.”[1776]

Nor should we overlook the fact that the doctrine of invoking and intercession by the Saints is held and professed, in accordance with the Orthodox Church, by all dissenting Christians who separated from it in ancient times: not only the Latins, but also the Nestorians,[1777] the Abyssinians,[1778] the Copts,[1779] the Armenians,[1780] with the exception of the Protestants.[1781]

§255. (c) Veneration of the Holy Relics and Other Remains of God’s Saints

In paying due veneration to God’s saints, whose souls have departed to heaven—especially since God Himself, the One Holy One who dwells among the saints, dwelt and continues to dwell in them—the Holy Church naturally also venerates the relics or bodies of the saints that remain on earth, which have likewise been deemed worthy to be temples of the Holy Spirit [(1 Cor. 6:19); cf. (1 Cor. 3:16–17)], as well as other relics of the Saints that have been sanctified by them or through them, such as the robe and belt of the Mother of God, the chains of St. Peter the Apostle, and the like. (Extended Christian Catechism, Article IX).

I. This natural veneration of the holy relics and other remains of God’s saints finds a firm foundation in the fact that God Himself was pleased to honor and glorify both through countless signs and miracles. Thus:

1) In Holy Scripture we read: a) that the body of a dead man, as soon as it touched the bones of the prophet Elisha in his coffin, immediately came to life, and the dead man rose [(2 Kings 13:21); cf. (Sir. 48:14–16)];[1782] b) that the very mantle of Elijah, which he had left to Elisha, parted the waters of the Jordan by its touch so that the latter prophet might cross [(2 Kings 2:14); cited (2 Kings 8)]; c) that even the handkerchiefs and towels of St. Paul the Apostle, when placed in his absence upon the sick and those possessed by demons, healed diseases and cast out unclean spirits (Acts 19:12).

2) Throughout the history of the Church, we find countless such miracles that the Lord performed through the relics and other remains of the saints for all who came to them with faith. Even the ancient Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church bore witness to this with absolute conviction before their contemporaries, often calling upon them themselves to bear witness to the truth. For example:

St. Gregory the Theologian—in his homily on St. Cyprian the Martyr: “You yourselves must recall all the rest, such as: the casting out of demons, the healing of diseases, and the foretelling of the future. All this, with the help of faith, can be performed even by the ashes of Cyprian, as those who have experienced these things know, from whom the memory of the miracle has been passed down to us and will be passed down to future generations.”[1783] And in another passage: “They (the holy martyrs) are honored with great reverence and feasts; they cast out demons, heal the sick, appear, and prophesy; their very bodies, when touched and venerated, work just as powerfully as their holy souls; even drops of blood and everything bearing traces of their suffering are just as potent as their bodies.”[1784]

St. Ambrose—in his homily at the opening of the relics of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius: “You have heard of, and even seen with your own eyes, many who have been freed from demons, and even more who, merely by touching the Saints’ garments with their hands, were immediately healed of their infirmities. The miracles of ancient times have been renewed ever since the most abundant grace was poured out upon the earth through the coming of the Lord Jesus: you see many who have been healed, as it were, by a certain shadow of the Saints. How many handkerchiefs are passed from hand to hand! How many garments, which were laid upon the most sacred relics and became healing by a single touch, are sought after by the faithful from one another! Everyone strives to touch them even slightly, and whoever touches them is healed.”[1785]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “And even after death, they (the martyrs) act as if alive, healing the sick, casting out demons, and by the power of the Lord repelling every evil influence of their tormentors’ dominion. For the miraculous grace of the Holy Spirit is always present in the holy relics.”[1786]

St. John Chrysostom: “Not only the bodies, but even the very tombs of the saints are filled with grace. For if something similar occurred in the time of Elisha, and the dead man, by touching his tomb, was freed from the bonds of death and returned to life—how much more so now, when grace is more abundant and the workings of the Spirit are more fruitful, is it natural for one who touches the tomb (of the saints) with faith to derive great benefit from it. Therefore, God has left us the relics of the Saints, desiring, as it were, to lead us by the hand to the zeal that was in them, and to grant us a certain refuge and reliable healing against the evils that surround us on all sides.”[1787] “The bones of the Saints… subdue and subject demons to torment, and free those bound by their cruel bonds… Dust, bones, and ashes torment invisible beings.”[1788] “Do not look at what lies before you—the naked body of the martyr, devoid of spiritual activity—but at what is present within it: a power greater than the soul itself—the grace of the Holy Spirit, which through its miracles assures us of the truth of the Resurrection. For if God has bestowed upon bodies that are dead and turned to dust a power that none of the living possesses, how much more will He grant them, on the Day of Judgment, a life better and more blessed than the one they had before.”[1789]

Blessed Augustine, in particular, recounts many miracles that took place in his time, in the presence of numerous witnesses, through the relics of St. Stephen the Martyr, and remarks: “Not even two years have passed since these relics arrived in Hippo, and although not all the miracles that have occurred since then have been recorded in writing, the number of those recorded nonetheless amounts to seventy. And in Calama, where the relics of the holy martyr have been kept for a long time, and where greater care is taken to collect information about miracles, their number is incomparably higher.”[1790]

Similar accounts of miracles performed throughout the ages by the relics and, more generally, the remains of God’s saints are found consistently in the writings of subsequent Church Fathers [1791] and historians [1792] as well as in the hagiographies of the Saints [1793] and other traditions that continue to the present day.[1794]

3) A particularly striking miracle by which the Lord glorifies the bodies of many of His saints is their incorruptibility, which fulfills in practice the prophecy of the king-prophet: “You will not let Your holy one see corruption” (Ps. 15:10), which was fulfilled first and foremost in the firstborn from the dead, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:27)—and the blessing of the ancient Israeli sage upon the righteous: “Their bones shall flourish from their place” [(Sir. 46:14); fig. (Sir. 49:12); (Isa. 58:11)].[1795] This incorruptibility of the holy relics—this exemption of them, by the miraculous power of God, from the universal law of decay—serves, as it were, as a living lesson to us about the future resurrection of the body and as the strongest incentive for us to venerate the very bodies of the righteous glorified by God and to imitate their faith,[1796] is beyond the slightest doubt. In Kyiv and Novgorod, Moscow and Vologda, and in many other places of our God-protected fatherland, many incorrupt relics rest openly: those of the holy saints, who, through ceaseless miracles, bear resounding witness to the truth of their incorruptibility for those who come to them in faith.[1797]

II. Just as the Lord God has at all times glorified the very relics of His saints with countless miracles, so too has the Holy Church, following sacred tradition, always shown due reverence to the holy relics.

1) This reverence was expressed: a) in the reverent collection and preservation of the remains of God’s saints, as is known from second-century accounts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer [1798] and St. Polycarp,[1799] , as well as from later testimonies;[1800] b) in the solemn discoveries and transfers of holy relics,[1801] c) in the construction of holy churches or altars over them;[1802] d) in the establishment of feasts in memory of their discovery or transfer;[1803] e) in pilgrimages to holy tombs and their adornment;[1804] f) in the Church’s established rule—to place the relics of the holy martyrs at the foundation of altars and not to consecrate churches in any other way.[1805] And the reverence of Christians extended not only to the bodies or relics of God’s saints, but also to the very instruments of the martyrs’ suffering and death,[1806] and to the very objects the saints used during their lifetimes. Thus Eusebius testifies: “The chair of James, who was the first to receive the episcopate over the Church of Jerusalem from the Savior Himself (there were traditions in the Christian Church that James was ordained a bishop by the Savior Himself) and from the Apostles, and whom divine Scripture (Gal. 1:19) calls the brother of Christ—has been preserved to this day. The local brethren have faithfully guarded it from generation to generation, thereby clearly showing everyone how both ancient and present-day Christians revered and continue to revere the holy men for their love of God.”[1807]

2) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church constantly encouraged and upheld this reverence among Christians for the holy relics of God’s saints, explained its true spirit, and protected it from heretics. For example:

St. John Chrysostom said to his listeners—in his eulogy of Ignatius the God-bearer: “Let us flock daily to this Saint to receive spiritual gifts from him. Everyone who approaches him with faith receives great blessings. For not only the bodies but also the very tombs of the saints are filled with the spiritual gifts of grace… Therefore, I call upon all of you—whether you are in sorrow, in sickness, in distress, in some other worldly misfortune, or in the depths of sin—come here with faith: you will receive help, and you will return from here with great joy, having found relief for your conscience with a single glance… This treasure is beneficial to all; this refuge is reliable—for the unfortunate, for it frees them from calamities; for the fortunate, for it strengthens their happiness; for the sick, for it restores their health; and for the healthy, for it wards off illness.”[1808] In the eulogy to the Holy Martyrs Iuventinus and Maximus: “Let us always come to them, touch their reliquary, and embrace their remains with faith, so that we may receive some blessing from them. For just as soldiers, showing the king the wounds they have received from their enemies, speak boldly to him; so too these martyrs, carrying their severed heads in their hands and stepping forward into the midst, can easily ask the King of Heaven for whatever they desire.”[1809] In a eulogy to the Egyptian martyrs: “If in times past, people who performed miraculous deeds invoked the names of the holy men, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and derived great benefit for themselves from the mere remembrance of these names, thereby appeasing God—then all the more can we appease Him, we who resort not only to the remembrance of names but also to the very bodies of those who struggled for the name of God.”[1810]

Blessed Jerome wrote to the presbyter Ruperius: “I do not say that we honor (colimus et adoramus) the relics of the martyrs so that we may serve the creature more than the Creator. But we honor (honoramus) the relics of the martyrs so that we may divinely worship (ut adoremus) the One for whom they are martyrs. We honor the servants so that our honor may ascend to the Lord, who said: ‘Whoever receives you receives Me’ (Matt. 10:40).”[1811]

The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council decreed: “Our Lord Jesus Christ has granted us the relics of the Saints as saving springs, pouring out manifold blessings upon the infirm. Therefore, those who dare to reject the relics of the martyrs, knowing them to be genuine and true—whether they be bishops or clergy—shall be deposed; and if they are monks or laypeople, they shall be deprived of Holy Communion.”[1812]

§256. (d) The Veneration of Holy Icons

In honoring the saints who have departed to heaven and venerating their holy relics on earth, the Orthodox Church reverently uses and venerates the sacred images of God’s saints, along with the images of the Lord God Himself and the angels. The dogma concerning icons was set forth in full by the Seventh Ecumenical Council as follows: “Following the divine teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we believe that this is the Holy Spirit dwelling within it), with all certainty and careful consideration, we decree: that, just as the image of the honorable and life-giving Cross is to be placed in the holy churches of God, on consecrated vessels and vestments, on walls and on panels, in homes and along the roads, venerable and holy icons, painted with colors and made of small stones, and crafted from other suitable materials—such as the icons of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate Lady, the Holy Theotokos, as well as those of the venerable angels and all the saints and holy men. For as often as they are seen in the images on icons, so those who gaze upon them are moved to remember and love their originals, and to honor them with a kiss and reverent worship—not with true worship, according to our faith, worship of God, which is due to the one divine nature alone, but by veneration in the same manner as honor is rendered to the image of the honorable and life-giving Cross, the Holy Gospel, and other sacred objects—with incense and the lighting of candles—as was the pious custom of the ancients. For the honor rendered to the image passes to the original, and whoever worships the icon worships the being depicted upon it. Thus is affirmed the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is, the tradition of the Catholic Church, which has received the Gospel from one end of the earth to the other” (Book of Canons, pp. 5, 6). From these words it is clear that the Holy Church commands: a) not only to use holy icons in churches, homes, and other places so that they may inspire us to remember God and His Saints and to imitate them, but also—b) to venerate or honor these sacred images—not through divine worship or service (λατρεία), which is due to the one God alone, but only through reverential veneration (τιμητική προσκύνησις),[1813] and to express this veneration by burning incense before the holy icons, lighting candles, and the like, — to venerate not the icons themselves in an abstract sense—not the wood or the paint—but in such a way that the honor rendered to the image is transferred to the original, and the one who venerates the icon venerates the being depicted on it (for more details, see The Orthodox Confession, Part III, answer to question 55; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Answer to Question 3). Consequently, the Orthodox Church equally condemns: a) the ancient iconoclasts, who rejected both the veneration of holy icons and their very use;[1814] b) the modern iconoclasts, i.e., Protestants, who, although they permit the use of holy icons for the decoration of churches or as a reminder of God, do not accept their veneration;[1815] c) and, finally, all those who venerate icons indiscriminately, worship them as idols, or deify them.[1816]

I. The Orthodox Church’s teaching on icons has a firm foundation in Holy Scripture.[1817]

1. The Church uses holy icons (images) in the church and other places for the reverent remembrance of the Lord and His Saints. And, according to Scripture, God Himself commanded Moses to construct the Ark of the Covenant and place it in the most sacred part of the first Old Testament temple—the Holy of Holies [(Ex. 25); (Ex. 26:33); (Deut. 10:1–5)]. And the Ark of the Covenant was nothing other than a visible image of the presence of the invisible God—an image that always reminded the Jews of the Lord and directed their thoughts to the original: “And it came to pass,” it is said of Moses, “when they set up the Ark, that Moses said, ‘Rise up, O Lord’” (Num. 10:34). “I will play and dance before the Lord,” said David in response to the rebuke of Saul’s daughter Michal for his dancing before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. 6:21). God Himself commanded Moses to make two carved figures of cherubim and place them in the Most Holy Place on either side of the mercy seat, which covered the Ark and served, as it were, as the throne of the Lord (Ex. 25:19–22); He also commanded that embroidered images of cherubim be made on the curtain separating the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place (Ex. 26:31–33), just as the iconostasis now separates the altar from the church itself; and to make the same images of cherubim on the fine linen curtains that covered not only the top but also the sides of the tabernacle and served as its walls (Ex. 26:1–37). It is also known that God Himself commanded Moses to raise up a bronze serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21:8); and this serpent was, in fact, a foreshadowing of our Savior, who was lifted up on the cross (John 3:14–15).

When Solomon built another permanent temple for God, modeled after the Tabernacle, he placed in it—right in the center of the Holy of Holies—two gilded cypress wood figures of cherubim, whose wings touched one another on one side and extended to the opposite sides of the temple on the other [(1 Kings 6:27); (2 Chr. 3:10–13)], carved and painted cherubim on all the walls of the temple [(3 Kings 6:29); (2 Chr. 3:7)], and wove similar images of cherubim behind the temple curtain (2 Chr. 3:14). And God not only did not condemn Solomon for this, but also expressed His special favor toward both the builder of the temple and the temple itself: “I have heard your prayer,” said the Lord to Solomon, “and your petition, which you have asked of Me; [I have done all according to your prayer]. “I have consecrated this temple that you have built, so that My Name may dwell there forever; and My eyes and My heart will be there all the days” (1 Kings 9:3).

If God Himself commanded the use of holy images both within and outside the Tabernacle, and approved their use in Solomon’s temple, then why can they not be used in New Testament churches and outside of churches?

2. The Church venerates holy icons and expresses this veneration in various ways. Indeed, by God’s own command, the Old Testament Church also venerated the sacred images found within it. Specifically:

We worship holy icons or images: and the Jews worshiped the Ark of the Covenant, which served as a symbol of God’s presence. “Exalt the Lord our God and worship at His footstool; it is holy,” said the God-inspired prophet David (Ps. 98:5), and by the footstool of God’s feet he meant the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (1 Chr. 28:2). The Jews also worshiped the temple of the Lord in general, which was a symbol and shadow of the heavenly one [(Heb. 8:5); (Ex. 33:10)], in which there were images of cherubim on the veil and on all the walls: “The king of Israel rose from the ground,” it is said of St. David, “and washed himself, anointed himself, changed his clothes, went to the house of the Lord, and prayed (2 Sam. 12:20). “When I enter Your house,” David himself exclaims, “I will worship Your holy temple in reverence for You” (Ps. 5:8).

We honor the holy icons by burning incense before them. And it is known from Holy Scripture that God Himself commanded that incense be burned over the Ark: “Let Aaron burn fragrant incense on it early in the morning…,” a perpetual incense before the Lord throughout their generations” [(Ex. 30:7–8); cf. (Ex. 40:5)]; He also commanded that incense be burned on the altar of incense, which stood opposite the veil on which, as already mentioned, there were sacred images of cherubim [(Ex. 30:7-8); cf. (Ex. 40:5)]; (2 Chr. 26:16-19); (Luke 1:9)].

We honor holy icons by lighting candles before them. And in the very same commandment by which the Lord commanded the Jewish high priest to burn incense before the Ark, there is mention of lighting lamps before it: when he prepares the lamps, he shall burn incense before them; and when Aaron lights the lamps in the evening, he shall burn incense before them (Ex. 30:7–8). Furthermore, the Lord commanded Moses to set up a lampstand with seven lamps before the veil on its south side, which the Jewish priests kept burning continuously from evening until morning [(Ex. 26:34); (Lev. 24:2-4)].

3. The Church, however, by using and venerating holy icons, pays honor not to the icons themselves in and of themselves—not to the wood or the paint—but by relating this honor to the prototypes depicted in the icons; at the same time, it condemns those who venerate icons in and of themselves, worship them as idols, and deify them. In this case as well, the Church acts entirely in accordance with Scripture. For although God Himself commanded Moses to place the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle, to burn incense before it, to light the lamps, and even to worship before it, He also commanded that likenesses or images of cherubim be made, that they adorn all the walls of the tabernacle and the veil, before which the seven-branched lampstand burned constantly and incense was offered—and that a bronze serpent be raised in the wilderness; but at the same time, God commanded Moses, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” You shall not make for yourself an idol or any image of anything in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I am the Lord your God (Ex. 20:2–5). This means that the Israelites were not only to refrain from worshiping any other, pagan gods, and not only to refrain from making for themselves idols or likenesses of any heavenly, earthly, or underworld objects for the purpose of worshiping and serving them, but they were also not to honor those likenesses or images that God Himself had commanded them to make in a way that was unrelated to Him, nor were they to regard them as gods or idols—but rather, so that all the honor bestowed, for example, upon the Ark of the Covenant, would ascend to Jehovah Himself, for whom the Ark serves, as it were, only as a footstool. And that is precisely why, when, over time, the Jews began to worship the bronze serpent in the wilderness as an idol and deify it—King Hezekiah, despite the fact that it had been erected by Moses at God’s own command, destroyed this serpent and thereby earned approval (2 Kings 18:4); The Orthodox Confession, Book III, Answer to Question 56).

II. Having such clear grounds in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, the dogma concerning holy icons has even clearer and more direct grounds in the Sacred Tradition of the New Testament. One of the universal teachers of the faith, Basil the Great, says the following in his confession: “I accept the holy Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, and I call upon them to intercede before God, so that through them—that is, by their intercession—the God who loves mankind may be merciful to me and grant me the remission of my sins. That is why I honor the images of their icons and worship before them, especially because they were handed down by the Holy Apostles and are not forbidden, but are depicted in all our churches.”[1818] The Seventh Ecumenical Council, which subsequently examined—in its own words—with every certainty and thorough scrutiny the dogma concerning icon veneration, likewise designated this dogma—as we have seen—as a tradition of the Ecumenical Church, which has spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The evidence for this tradition consists of:

1) Two ancient traditions. The first is that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself deigned to miraculously imprint His image on a cloth and send this image, not made by human hands, to Abgar, the ruler of Edessa,[1819] —a tradition which the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council did not hesitate to acknowledge as true.[1820] Another account states that one of the four evangelists, Luke—who was skilled in the art of painting—painted and left behind icons of the Mother of God,[1821] which have been reverently passed down from generation to generation within the Orthodox Church.[1822]

2) Written testimonies from antiquity regarding the use and veneration of holy icons during the first three centuries. For example, Tertullian mentions images of the Savior on church chalices in the form of the Good Shepherd.[1823] Tertullian himself, Minucius Felix, and Origen testify that pagans reproached Christians for allegedly deifying crosses—that is, for venerating sacred images of the cross on which the Lord and Savior was crucified.[1824] Eusebius recounts that he saw icons of the apostles—Peter and Paul—and of the Savior Himself, painted in colors and preserved from the early Christians who had converted from paganism.[1825] Clement of Alexandria seems to point to the use in his time of many icons, not only of the Savior but also of the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Angels, when he speaks of a Christian: “Fixing his gaze on these exquisite images, he directs his thoughts to the many who have attained perfection before him—the Patriarchs, the multitude of Prophets, the countless Angels, and the Lord of all Himself, who teaches us that we too can live a life in accordance with these lofty examples.”[1826] St. Methodius of Patara expresses this clearly: “We make icons of His (God’s) angels, principalities, and powers, fashioned from gold, in honor and glory of Him.”[1827]

3) Tangible evidence of the actual use and veneration of holy icons during the first three centuries. By this we mean sacred images found in catacombs, caves, and the burial places of martyrs—where the early Christians would retreat to pray during times of persecution—depicted on walls, tombs, vessels, lamps, paintings, and the like. These images depict, for the most part, the Savior as the Good Shepherd, carrying a lost sheep on his shoulders; the Most Holy Virgin Mary, crowned or surrounded by a halo, holding in her arms the eternal Infant, who is also crowned with a radiant halo; the Twelve Apostles, the Nativity of the Savior and the Adoration of the Magi, the miraculous feeding of the multitude with five loaves of bread, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead; from Old Testament history—Noah’s ark with a dove, the sacrifice of Isaac, Moses with his staff and the tablets, Jonah being spewed out by the fish, Daniel in the den, the three youths in the furnace, and so on.[1828] Some of these images undoubtedly date to the second century,[1829] while the majority most likely date to the period of persecution of the Church, spanning its first three centuries.[1830] And the use of these images in precisely those places where Christians gathered for worship and where they offered a bloodless sacrifice; images of the Savior and the Mother of God in radiant crowns—which from ancient times signified special reverence;[1831] and finally, the direct accusations of the pagans that Christians deified crosses—all testify that during the first three centuries of Christianity, holy icons were accorded the proper veneration. If Christians, as is beyond doubt, venerated images of the Lord’s cross, could they have failed to venerate images of the Lord Himself, which they undoubtedly used?

It should be noted, however, that during the first three centuries of Christianity, due to the difficult circumstances facing the Church, the use of holy icons within it was neither as open nor as widespread as it became in later times. Amid unceasing persecution by pagans, when Christians were forced to hide and frequently change the locations of their worship, and when they constantly had to fear that the objects of their reverent veneration—the holy icons—might be subjected to desecration by their persecutors—and necessity, prudence, and reverence for the icons themselves required that they not be used everywhere and that they be hidden, or even, in some places, not used at all. At the very least, it is known that pagans sometimes reproachfully asked Christians, “Why do they have no known images?”[1832]

4) Testimonies regarding the use and veneration of holy icons in the fourth and fifth centuries, left by contemporaries. From these testimonies, it is evident that:

a) Icons were used in churches at that time. Thus, in addition to St. Basil the Great, who clearly stated that in the fourth century they were depicted in all churches,[1833] St. Gregory the Theologian mentions, in particular, images on the vaults of the church built by his father in Nazianzus;[1834] St. Gregory of Nyssa recounts that the church of St. Theodore the Martyr was entirely adorned with depictions of his sufferings, along with an image of the Savior;[1835] Asterius, Bishop of Amasya, describes an icon of St. Euphemia the Martyr, which also depicted her sufferings and was located in one of the Chalcedonian churches built in her honor.[1836] In the fifth century, Paulinus of Nolan and Sulpicius Severus adorned the churches they built with numerous icons drawn from the New and Old Testaments so that these icons, as the former says, might serve the people in place of books and writings;[1837] St. Nilus, a disciple of Chrysostom, when asked by Prefect Olympiodorus what images he should use to decorate the church he intended to build, advised him to adorn the altar with a cross and the walls of the church with images from the Old and New Testaments.[1838]

b) Icons were also used outside of churches at that time—in homes and other places. Eusebius recounts a painted image that stood at the site where God appeared to Abraham at the Oak of Mamre, together with two angels, depicting that event,[1839] , and the icons of Emperor Constantine, which, after his death, spread among the inhabitants of the capital and even throughout the entire empire.[1840] St. Gregory the Theologian mentions an icon of St. Polemon in the home of a certain young man;[1841] St. Gregory of Nyssa—an icon depicting the sacrifice of Isaac;[1842] St. Ambrose mentions icons of St. Paul the Apostle;[1843] St. John Chrysostom mentions images of the Holy Cross on houses, walls, and doors,[1844] as well as in the desert, at marketplaces, along roads, on mountains, and in other places.[1845] In the fifth century, Blessed Augustine speaks of icons of Christ the Savior together with the apostles Peter and Paul, which were found in many places,[1846] and of icons depicting the sacrifice of Isaac, which were also found in many places;[1847] Blessed Theodoret mentions small images of St. Simeon the Stylite, which were nailed to all the doors of working churches in Rome, in the hope that this would provide protection and safety;[1848] Theodoret the Reader recounts the following about a certain Julian: “Suddenly seized by his servants, in the presence of civil authorities, in the bishop’s residence, when he was forced to renounce the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, he bowed before the icons of the deceased clergymen, Archbishops Flavian and Anatolius, who were depicted in Constantinople and by whom this Council of Chalcedon was ratified, he cried out loudly: ‘If you do not wish to accept the decrees of the aforementioned holy Council, then condemn the icons of the bishops as well, and erase their names from the sacred lists.’”[1849]

c) Icons were given due honor at that time. St. Basil the Great, as we have seen, testified that he honored icons and worshiped before them,[1850] and his disciple and successor recounts about him: “Once the venerable Basil stood before an icon of Our Lady, on which was also depicted the face of the glorious martyr Mercury—he stood there, praying for the downfall of the apostate and godless persecutor Julian, and from this icon he received a revelation concerning this.”[1851] Julian the Apostate rebuked the Christians for venerating images of the cross to the point of idolatry,[1852] — and Asterius of Amasya, describing in detail how the story of the sufferings of St. Euphemia the Martyr was depicted on the icon, says: “Further on, one sees a dungeon in which a venerable maiden, dressed in dark-colored garments, sits alone, stretching out her hands toward heaven and calling upon God to alleviate her misfortunes. During her prayer, that sign appears above her head which Christians worship and which is depicted everywhere (the sign of the cross).”[1853] Blessed Theodoret and Philostorgius testify that Christians showed great reverence for the images of Emperor Constantine, worshiped them, lit candles before them, burned incense, and so on.[1854]

It would be superfluous to cite evidence from later periods regarding the use and veneration of icons in the Church, since, according to the dissenters themselves,[1855] this practice had undoubtedly existed since the fifth century.[1856]

III. The countless signs and miracles that the Lord has deigned to perform through icons for the faithful serve as a new incentive to venerate holy icons. The chronicles of both the Church in general and our Church in particular are filled with accounts of these miracles.[1857] Certain icons of Christ the Savior, His Most Pure Mother, St. Nicholas, and other saints of God, due to the abundance of miracles performed through them, have been known since ancient times as “miraculous,” and, being located in various places throughout the Orthodox Church by the providence of the Lord who blesses us, they continue to this day to serve, as it were, as channels or conduits of His miraculous power, which is salvific for us.[1858]

IV. Common sense, for its part, cannot but acknowledge the complete naturalness and beneficence of the use and veneration of holy icons in the Orthodox Church.

By the natural inclination of our hearts, those whom we truly love and revere, we wish to see as often as possible, and we are always ready to show them signs of our sincere respect. Unable to see the faces of those we love and respect frequently, we, by the same inclination, strive to have, at the very least, their images, — and we adorn our homes with images of our father, mother, brother, and other dear and venerable persons, and in a sense transfer to these images the love and reverence we feel for their original models. Is it not natural, then, for Christians to possess and venerate sacred images of their Lord, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the holy angels, and those who have already been glorified by God? Is it not natural to worship before these images in such a way that the honor we bestow upon the icons ascends to the very originals they represent? Is it possible for anyone to truly revere the person depicted and at the same time revile his image?

By presenting before our eyes the likenesses of our Lord and His Most Pure Mother, the likenesses of the Angels and Saints, and various sacred events from the history of the Old and New Testaments, holy icons vividly remind us of the very originals depicted in them, and at the same time of the countless blessings they have bestowed upon us and continue to bestow, of the relationship we are bound to have with them, of the lofty feats of piety they have bequeathed to us as examples to follow, and in this way they stir up and nourish in our hearts the sentiments of faith, hope, love, and, in general, all Christian virtues. Icons, in this sense, as the ancients put it, are, as it were, books—accessible to all and easily understood by everyone, educated and uneducated alike—written, not with letters, but with faces and objects.[1859] And these “books” can have an even stronger effect on us than ordinary books: for when we read or hear a written account of certain people or things, we usually picture them as if they were at a distance from us, and merely imagine them; but when, on the contrary, we look at the very images of people and things, we see them, as it were, alive right before us and are immediately struck by them. The example of Mary of Egypt, who, having once accidentally seen an icon of the Mother of God radiating purity and innocence, was so deeply moved that she immediately resolved to abandon her former sinful way of life and turn to God—as well as the example of our Grand Prince Vladimir, who was so deeply moved by a depiction of the Last Judgment—serve as clear proof of this.[1860]

V. Those who oppose the veneration of holy icons primarily raise the following objections:

1) “God Himself forbade the veneration of all idols and images when He gave the commandment: ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol or any image of anything in the heavens above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them’ (Ex. 20:4–5).” But to understand these words correctly, one must consider them within the full context of the passage, which reads as follows: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before Me.” You shall not make for yourself an idol or any image of anything in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God (Exodus 20:2–5). It is evident that God forbids here, first, the making of idols and any likenesses of other, false gods, and, second, the worship and service of these likenesses—specifically the divine worship that is due to Him alone. But we create and use sacred images not of false gods, but of the true God and His Saints, in whom He dwells; we worship and honor holy icons, not as gods or idols, but only in a figurative sense—that is, directing our veneration toward the originals depicted in the icons. In this sense, God not only does not forbid the use and veneration of sacred images; on the contrary, as we have seen, He even commanded it, instructing Moses to construct the Ark of the Covenant—which served as a visible sign of Jehovah’s presence for the Jews—to place images of two cherubim in the Holy of Holies, to adorn the veil and the very walls of the tabernacle with similar images, to burn incense before the Ark and the veil, to light the lamps, and so on.

2) “The ancient pagans reproached Christians for not having sacred images—and the defenders of Christianity did not reject this reproach, noting that the image of God is inscribed in the soul of man himself.”[1861] However—a) the pagans reproached Christians specifically for not having idols or statues (simulacra) like those of the pagans—and Christian icons are not the same as idols; — b) they reproached them for the fact that Christians did not have well-known (nota) or visible statues, but rather sought to constantly conceal the objects of their veneration—and this by no means implies that Christians had no images at all; c) At the same time, the pagans also reproached Christians for allegedly having no temples or altars—but since this latter claim is completely false, one can conclude that the first reproach is also unjust; d) When responding to these accusations from the pagans, the defenders of Christianity, if they remained silent about Christian icons, remained just as silent about Christian temples and altars, even though the latter undoubtedly existed;[1862] They remained silent, of course, because they did not want to betray their cause to their enemies or reveal to them the sacred objects that the Church was indeed concealing at that time.

) “The ancient teachers of the Church considered the veneration of icons a crime committed by heretics—the Gnostics and the followers of Carpocrates.”[1863] But it was not the veneration of icons that the ancient teachers charged these heretics with, but rather that these heretics—a) venerated images of Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle—and, moreover, b) bestowed divine honor upon all these images according to pagan rites, and consequently fell into idolatry.[1864]

) “One of the councils in Spain, the Council of Elvira, held in 305, explicitly prohibited the use of icons in churches in its 36th canon.”[1865] However—a) first and foremost, this rule undoubtedly presupposes that icons were in use in churches at that time; b) the rule prohibited depicting on church walls precisely that which Christians worship (quod colitur et adoratur), i.e., as is surmised,[1866] depicting God in His essence, which is invisible and indescribable; c) However, another conjecture is not implausible, namely that this rule was enacted due to the circumstances of the place and time: In Spain at that time, Diocletian’s persecution was raging, and pagans, frequently breaking into Christian churches, desecrated the sacred images of the Lord and His saints—to prevent this, the aforementioned rule was adopted for a time.[1867]

§257. Retribution for Sinners: a) Their Punishment in Hades

Just as the righteous, immediately after the death of the body and their particular judgment, ascend with their souls to heaven and are granted bliss, so sinners depart with their souls to hell—a place of sorrow and grief; yet, just as the former do not yet experience perfect bliss, so the latter do not suffer perfect torment until the Last Judgment.

I. Sinners, immediately after death and the particular judgment, go with their souls to a place of sorrow and grief.

1) Christ the Savior Himself proclaimed this truth. First, when He said: “Do not fear those who kill the body and after that can do no more; but I will tell you whom to fear: fear Him who, after killing, can cast into Gehenna” (Luke 12:4–5). And secondly, and even more clearly—in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus: The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and they buried him. And in Hades, while he was in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off, with Lazarus in his bosom; and crying out, he said, ‘Father Abraham! Have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.” But Abraham said, “My child, remember that you received your good things in your lifetime, and Lazarus received evil; and now he is comforted here, but you are in agony” (Luke 16:22–25).

2) The Holy Orthodox Church has always upheld this truth and preached it through the words of its pastors. Here, for example, are the words of

St. Justin the Martyr: “You will not in the least sin against our forefathers (who died in paganism) if you now agree to take the side opposed to their error. They are now, likely tormented by belated repentance, suffering in Hades; and if it were possible for them to inform you from there what has befallen them after the end of this life—you would truly learn from what evils they wished to protect you.”[1868]

St. Cyprian: “Let him fear death who, upon departing from this world, will be tormented by the unceasing punishments of the eternal flame… The righteous are called to coolness; the sinners are carried off to punishment.”[1869]

Hilary: “It is not capricious wrath when the wicked perish from the path of the righteous (Ps. 2:12); let no one be deceived by the delay of punishment due to the slowness of judgment. Soon the fury flares up (Ps. 2:13): for the avenger of hell immediately receives us, and, departing from the body—if we have lived in this way—we perish immediately from the path of the righteous. The rich man and the beggar in the Gospel serve as witnesses to us: the angels placed one in the abodes of the blessed and in Abraham’s bosom, while the other was immediately taken to the realm of punishment. And punishment befell this deceased so quickly that his brothers were still alive. There is no delay or slowness there…”[1870]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “When the sinner’s life has come to an end, a fearsome angel is sent to claim his soul, saying: ‘Your journey in this life is over; go now to the other world, go to your place.’ And after this, he leaves behind the pleasures of this life, which he thought he would enjoy forever, and, led by the deceitful angels, he will go to the place of torment; and upon seeing it, he will be seized with dread, and will strike his face with his hands, looking this way and that, and intending to flee. But it is impossible to flee, because those leading him away hold him tightly bound. Then the angels holding him will say to him: “Why are you so afraid, wretch? What troubles you, what grieves you? What are you afraid of, poor one? Why do you tremble, wretched one? You yourself have prepared this place for yourself. Reap what you have sown.”[1871]

St. James of Nisibis: “Our faith teaches that when people die, the souls of the righteous go to God, and the souls of the sinful go to Gehenna.”[1872]

St. Basil the Great: “Death is not an evil: for who would call the death of a sinner an evil? Because for him, the passing from this life is the beginning of torments in Hades.”[1873] “Let no one deceive you with empty words (Eph. 5:6). For destruction will come upon them suddenly (1 Thess. 5:3), and a catastrophe will overtake them like a storm. A fearsome angel will come, forcibly leading and dragging your soul—bound by sins, often turning back to what it leaves behind here, and weeping silently, for the instrument of weeping has already fallen silent. — Oh, how you will torment yourself! How will you rise, repenting in vain of your deeds, when you see the radiance of the righteous at the solemn distribution of gifts and the desolation of the sinful in the deepest darkness? What will you say then—in the anguish of your heart? Woe is me, that I did not cast off the heavy burden of sin when it was so easy to lay it down, but instead brought upon myself a heap of these evils! Woe is me, that I did not wash away my filth, but am now branded with sins! Now I would be with the angels; now I would be enjoying the blessings of heaven. Oh, my deceitful reasoning! For the fleeting pleasure of sin, I suffer eternal torment; for the pleasure of the flesh, I am now consigned to the fire.”[1874]

The following also taught this: Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa,[1875] Jerome,[1876] Augustine [1877] , and others).[1878]

II. Very little can be said about the place where the souls of sinners go after the particular judgment, nor about their sufferings there.

This place is referred to in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the ancient teachers of the Church as: hell [(Luke 16:23); (Acts 2:51)], utter darkness [(Matt. 22:13); (Matt. 25:30–46)], the prison of spirits (1 Pet. 3:18), the abyss (Luke 8:31), the underworld (Phil. 2:11), Gehenna (Matt. 5:22; 10:28), the fiery furnace [(Matt. 13:50); (Luke 12:2)][1879] , and other names, all of which, however, express the same idea: that the place for souls who have departed from this world in sin is a place of condemnation and God’s wrath (The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 68). As for the exact location of hell, or Gehenna, there were only opinions on the matter. Some, based on the words of Scripture [(Num. 16:30–34); (Ezek. 26:20); (Ezek. 31:18) and others], imagined hell to be within the earth or in its extreme depths, in the underworld.[1880] Others, such as St. John Chrysostom, believed that Gehenna is located outside the world.[1881] But it is best to recall here the words of Chrysostom himself: “You ask, where and in what place will Gehenna be? But what business is it of yours? You need to know that it exists, not where and in what place it is hidden… Therefore, let us not inquire about where it is, but how to avoid it.”[1882]

The torments of sinners in hell, as far as we can surmise from Scripture, consist in the fact that they are—a) removed from the light of God’s face (Matt. 7:23) and confined in the prison of spirits (1 Pet. 3:18)—and this rejection by God alone is already the greatest punishment;[1883] b) are deprived of a share in the kingdom of heaven and in the bliss of the righteous, and are cast into outer darkness (Matt. 22:13); c) feel the pangs of conscience for their sins, which torment them ceaselessly, like a worm that never dies (Mark 9:44); d) are in the company of evil, cast-out spirits; e) finally, they suffer various forms of torment [(Luke 16:23); (Matt. 22:1, etc.][1884] However, it must be remembered that the torments of sinners in hell are undoubtedly not the same, but, according to God’s righteous (albeit particular) judgment, are commensurate with the crimes of each individual (Luke 12:47–48). Accordingly, one might think that hell has its own distinct abodes, chambers, and repositories for souls (3 Esdras 4:32–41), its own specific compartments, one of which is called hell proper, another Gehenna, a third Tartarus, a fourth the lake of fire, and so on. At the very least, there is a passage in the Book of Revelation where hell and the lake of fire are distinguished from one another (Rev. 20:13–14).

III. These varying torments of sinners in hell after the particular judgment are not, moreover, complete and perfect torments, but only preliminary ones. For, as the Word of God teaches, the full and final retribution for sinners will come at the end of this age, when the Son of Man will send His angels, and they will gather out of His Kingdom all the tempters and those who commit lawlessness, and cast them into the fiery furnace [(Matt. 13:41–42); cf. (2 Cor. 5:10)]. And the teachers of the Church have also said:

St. Justin: “The souls of the righteous are in the best place, while those of the wicked and the evil are in the worst, awaiting the Day of Judgment.”[1885]

St. Athanasius: “The very joy that the souls of the saints now experience is a private delight, just as the sorrow of sinners is a private punishment. And just as when a king summons his friends to share a meal with him, and likewise the condemned to punish them, those invited to the supper remain in joy before the king’s house even until the hour of the supper, and the condemned, having been confined in a dungeon, are given over to sorrow until the king comes: so too should we think of the souls of the righteous and the sinners who have now departed from us.”[1886]

St. Ambrose: “While the fulfillment of time is awaited, the souls (of the dead) await their due recompense. Some await punishment, others a reward—and yet neither the former remain without suffering nor the latter without joy.”[1887]

St. John Chrysostom: “That even the souls of sinners cannot remain here after death—listen to the rich man who pleaded much for this and did not receive what he desired. If this were possible, he himself would have come and reported on what is happening there. From this it is clear that, upon departing from here, souls are taken to a certain realm, and, having no possibility of returning from there, await that dreadful day.”[1888]

Blessed Augustine: “All souls who have departed from this world receive their respective rewards: the good experience joy, the wicked, torment. But when the resurrection comes, then the joy of the good will become more complete, and the torment of the wicked will be more severe, inasmuch as they will begin to suffer together with their bodies.”[1889]

§258. b) The possibility for some sinners to receive relief and even deliverance from the punishments of hell through the prayers of the Church

However, while teaching that all sinners, after their death and their particular judgment, go equally to hell—a place of sorrow and grief—the Orthodox Church at the same time professes that for those among them who repented before parting from this life but did not manage to bear fruits worthy of repentance (such as prayer, contrition, comforting the poor, and expressing love for God and one’s neighbor through deeds), there remains the possibility of receiving relief from their sufferings and even being completely freed from the bonds of hell. Such relief and deliverance may be granted to sinners not by any merit of their own or through repentance (for after death and the particular judgment there is no place for either repentance or merit), but solely through God’s infinite goodness, through the prayers of the Church and the good deeds performed by the living on behalf of the dead, and especially by the power of the bloodless Sacrifice, which is offered in particular by the priest for each Christian on behalf of his departed loved ones, and in general for all, on a daily basis, by the Catholic and Apostolic Church (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answers to Questions 64 and 65; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 18).

I. This doctrine concerns the possibility for sinners who have died in a state of repentance to receive relief and even deliverance from the torments of hell through the prayers of their brothers and sisters who are still alive and their acts of charity (the purpose of which is also to inspire others to pray for the departed), or, in other words, through the prayers of the Church by virtue of the bloodless Sacrifice, — has its basis in Holy Scripture. There:

1) We are commanded in general to pray for one another (James 5:16), to pray for all people [(1 Tim. 2:1); cf. (Eph. 6:18–19)], without specifying a place, time, or other circumstances. Consequently, we must pray for our neighbors both when they are with us and when they are absent; and when they are still living on earth, and when they pass away through death into the world to come: for whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord (Rom. 14:8), and the dead, like the living, are all equally alive before God (Luke 20:38).

2) In particular: to protect us from praying for our neighbors in a way that is displeasing to God and fruitless for them, another commandment is given: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that does not lead to death, let him pray, and God will give him life—that is, to the one who is sinning a sin that does not lead to death. There is a sin leading to death: I am not saying that he should pray (1 John 5:16). But all who have died with true repentance are free from mortal sin for the very reason that they have repented: “For mortal sin,” say the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, “is when certain people, having sinned, remain unrepentant and rise up in defiance against piety and truth… In such people there is no Lord God, unless they humble themselves and come to their senses from their fall into sin” (Canon 5). Consequently, all who have died in true repentance—even if they had previously been in mortal sin, and all the more so if they were not—belong to the number of our neighbors, for whom we are commanded to pray. Those who have died in mortal sin, in unrepentance, and outside the communion of the Church are not worthy of her prayers, according to this apostolic commandment.

3) It is said that our prayers for our neighbors can be beneficial to them in general, even in a moral sense [(2 Thess. 1:11–12); (Eph. 6:18–19)], that the fervent prayer of the righteous for others can be especially powerful (James 5:16), and that, in particular, our prayers for brothers who are not in mortal sin can give them life (1 John 5:16). Consequently, although we do not understand how our prayers affect our neighbors while they are still in this life (nevertheless, prayers are effective and salvific for them). Likewise, even without comprehending how our prayers may affect our departed brothers who have truly repented, we have no right to doubt the effectiveness and salvific power of these prayers for them.

4) It is said that every prayer we offer to God—and, consequently, every prayer for our neighbors, both living and deceased—can be powerful and effective only when it is offered in the name of the Lord Jesus (John 14:14), who alone is the mediator between God and mankind (1 Tim. 2:5); that, in particular, He reconciled us to God and redeemed us from every sin when He offered Himself—His own body and blood—as a propitiatory sacrifice to God on the cross [(Heb. 9:14–26); (Heb. 10:10)], and that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, the very same propitiatory sacrifice is still offered to God, the very same precious body of our Redeemer is broken for the life of the world (John 6:51), and His very same precious blood is shed for the remission of sins [(Matt. 26:26–28); (Luke 22:19–20)]. Consequently, if our prayer—both for our living and for our departed brothers—can be pleasing to God and beneficial to them, it is especially so when it is united with the offering of a bloodless propitiatory sacrifice on their behalf.

5) It is said: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32)—from which it naturally follows that the forgiveness of sins for sinners is possible even after their death.[1890] Likewise, it is said that the Lord Jesus now holds the keys of Hades and of death (Rev. 1:18)—therefore, He can use them to open the gates of Hades and free the captives from there. But since, after death, there remains no room for the sinners themselves—neither for repentance nor for merit—there is no other way to explain this possibility of the forgiveness of sins for sinners and their deliverance from the bonds of hell except that the Lord accomplishes this through the prayers of the Church and by virtue of the bloodless, propitiatory sacrifice offered for the dead. The Church does not pray for those who have died having blasphemed against the Holy Spirit—or, which amounts to the same thing, in mortal sin—and without having repented; and that is precisely why, as the Savior said, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven a person either in this age or in the age to come.

6) It is said that even in the Old Testament Church there was a custom of praying for the dead. Thus, in the days of the pious Jewish leader, Judas Maccabeus, when, upon examining those who had fallen on the battlefield, spoils from idolatrous offerings were found in their clothes (for which, in fact, they had fallen), all the Jews, having blessed the righteous judgment of the Lord, turned to prayer, asking that the sin they had committed might be thoroughly atoned for (2 Maccabees 12:39–42). And Judas Maccabeus himself, having gathered offerings to the true God at that very time, sent them to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice for the sins of the dead, acting most excellently and piously, meditating on the resurrection… and from there he offered a prayer for the dead, that they might be cleansed of sin (43–46).

II. In the New Testament Church, the commemoration of the departed, as an apostolic tradition, has existed from its very beginning. Evidence of this includes:

1) All the ancient liturgies, both those used in the Eastern—Orthodox—Church—known by the names of St. James, the Lord’s brother ([1891] ), St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Gregory the Dialogist; as well as the liturgies of the Western Church: the Roman, Spanish (Mozarabic), Gallican, and others; and finally, the liturgies of various non-Orthodox sects that have existed in the East since ancient times: the Jacobites, Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, Syrians, Nestorians, and others. Of all these liturgies, however numerous and diverse they may be, there is not a single one that does not contain prayers for the departed.[1892] This is a sign that, ever since the days of the Apostles themselves—who handed down the order of the Divine Liturgy to the Church—there has never been a time when Christians did not pray for their departed brothers, and moreover, during the celebration of their most important communal divine service.[1893]

2) The testimonies of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, some of whom explicitly refer to the commemoration of the departed as an apostolic tradition, while others, at the very least, attest to its actual existence in the Church.

Among the former, we point to the testimonies of:

St. Dionysius the Areopagite: “The priest offers a prayer over the departed and, after the prayer, kisses him; then all those present, also in prayer, implore God’s infinite mercy, that He may forgive the departed all sins committed through human weakness and grant him rest in the light and land of the living, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in a place where all sickness, sorrow, and sighing are banished…” And a little further on: “It is necessary to set forth the tradition handed down to us from our God-inspired teachers regarding the aforementioned prayer, which the priest recites over the deceased.”[1894]

St. Athanasius the Great: “The God-speaking Apostles, the sanctified teachers, and the spiritual fathers, in accordance with their dignity—being filled with the Divine Spirit and having received, to the extent of their capacity, His power that filled them with rapture—established, through their God-inspired lips, liturgies, prayers, and psalm-singing, and annual commemorations of the departed, a custom which, by the grace of the philanthropic God, is even to this day being strengthened and spread from the rising of the sun to the west, in the north and south, to the honor and glory of the Lord of lords and King of kings.”[1895]

St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Nothing without reason, nothing useless has been handed down by Christ’s preachers and disciples or accepted by the universal Church of God; rather, it is a work most pleasing to God and beneficial—to commemorate the departed who have fallen asleep in the true faith during the divine and glorious sacrament.”[1896]

St. John Chrysostom: “It was not in vain that the Apostles instituted the commemoration of the departed before the awesome mysteries: they knew that great benefit and great grace come from this for the departed.”[1897] “It is not in vain that offerings are made for the departed, nor is it in vain that prayers are offered, nor is it in vain that alms are given: all this was established by the Holy Spirit, desiring that we may benefit one another.”[1898]

St. John of Damascus: “The mystics and eyewitnesses of the Word, who conquered the earthly realm, the disciples and divine Apostles of the Savior, did not without reason, in vain or without benefit established, in connection with the awesome, most pure, and life-giving mysteries, the commemoration of the faithful departed—which the apostolic and catholic Church of Christ and God, reigning from one end of the earth to the other, has held firmly and unquestioningly from that time until now, and will continue to hold until the end of the world. For the Christian faith, free from error, has accepted nothing useless, nor would it have been preserved inviolably for all ages, but only that which is useful, pleasing to God, and most salvific.”[1899]

They speak plainly and clearly about the existence in the Church of the custom of praying for the dead: a) Tertullian: “We offer prayers for the dead every year on the anniversary of their passing;”[1900] b) Cyprian: “The bishops, our predecessors, reasoning piously and concerned for salvation, decreed that no dying brother should entrust his care and protection to a clergyman after his death; and if anyone were to do so, no offerings would be made for him, nor would a sacrifice for his passing be performed: for he who sought to divert the priests and ministers of the altar from God does not deserve to be named in the priests’ prayers before the altar of God;”[1901] c) Eusebius: “The entire people, together with the clergy, offered prayers to God for the King’s soul, not without tears and deep sighs, thereby fulfilling the desire of the God-loving one;”[1902] d) Cyril of Jerusalem: “We also commemorate those who have departed before us—first of all, the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs—so that through their prayers and intercession, God may accept our supplication; then we pray for the departed holy fathers and bishops, and in general for all of us who have departed before us, believing that there will be great benefit to the souls for whom this prayer is offered, at the time when the holy and awesome sacrifice is being offered;”[1903] e) Ambrose: “Grant, O Lord, rest to Your servant Theodosius (the emperor), that rest which You have prepared for Your servants;”[1904] e) Ephrem the Syrian: “If the priests of the Old Covenant purified the sins of those slain in battle through their sacrificial offerings—since they were defiled by iniquities, as mentioned in Scripture (2 Maccabees 12): how much more can the priests of Christ’s New Covenant truly atone for the sins of those who have departed from this earth through holy offerings and the prayers of their lips.”[1905] We make no mention of Arnobius, Epiphanius, Gregory the Theologian, Augustine, and many others—[1906] —especially since, as even those of differing views acknowledge, all the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, throughout the first thirteen centuries, unanimously taught that we should pray for the dead.[1907]

III. In the writings of the ancient teachers of the Church, we also find explanations, consistent with the Word of God, as to why and how our prayers can be beneficial to those who have departed in faith and repentance.

1. Our prayers for the departed, acts of charity, and especially the offering of a bloodless sacrifice appease God toward them, for He Himself commanded us to pray for our neighbors [(James 5:16); (1 John 5:16)] and has repeatedly been pleased to show His mercy to some through the faith and intercession of others [(Matt. 8:13); (Matt. 9:2); (Matt. 15:28)].

This idea is elaborated upon by:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “I wish to convince you by example—for I know that many say: What benefit is there to a soul, whether departing from this world with sins or without, if it is remembered in prayer? — And what if a king were to send those who had annoyed him into exile, and their loved ones were then to weave a wreath and bring it to him on behalf of those enduring punishment; would he not then lighten their punishment? In the same way, when we offer prayers to God for the departed—even if they are sinners—we do not weave a wreath, but we present Christ, who was slain for our sins, thereby appeasing the God who loves mankind on their behalf and on ours.”[1908]

St. John Chrysostom: “When the entire congregation and the holy assembly stand with their hands outstretched toward heaven, and when the awesome sacrifice is before us: how can we not appease God by praying for them (the departed)? But this applies only to those who died in the faith.”[1909] And in another passage: “There is still, in truth, a possibility, if we so desire, to alleviate the punishment of a departed sinner. If we offer frequent prayers for him and give alms, then even if he is unworthy in himself, God will hear you. If He saved others for the sake of the Apostle Paul and spared others for the sake of some, how will He not do the same for us?”[1910]

Blessed Augustine: “There is no doubt that the prayers of the Holy Church, the saving sacrifice, and alms given for the souls of the departed help them so that the Lord may be more merciful to them than they deserve based on their sins. For the whole Church observes this, as handed down by the Fathers, to pray for those who have departed while in communion with the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in due time during the very offering of the sacrifice, and to express that the sacrifice is offered for them as well. Who, then, would doubt that acts of mercy performed to make atonement for them also benefit those for whom prayers are offered to God in earnest?”[1911]

4. Our prayers can help the dead just as they help our brothers and sisters who are still living on earth but separated from us in the flesh—those who are traveling, in captivity, in exile, or in prison—and just as the prayers of parents help their infirm children [(Phil. 1:4–19); (Col. 1:9); (2 Tim. 1:3); (2 Cor. 1:11); (Acts 12:5–12)]. The following figures have pointed out this similarity:

St. Epiphanius: “Those who are alive and remain (on earth) believe that those who have departed and died are not deprived of existence, but are alive before God. Just as the Holy Church teaches us to pray for our brothers who are on their journey, with faith and hope that the prayers offered for them are beneficial to them, so too must we understand the prayers offered for those who have departed from this world.”[1912]

St. Athanasius the Great: “The one who offers a sacrifice for the departed must also keep in mind that he has a young son, weak and frail, who, when his son falls ill, faithfully brings candles, incense, and oil to the temple of God on his behalf, and burns all of this for the boy, but it is not the boy himself who holds and offers all of this, as is the case with renunciations and vows during public rebirth. Thus one must imagine that the departed himself holds and brings the candles and oil, and all the gifts offered for his salvation; and in this way, by God’s grace, his efforts to attain what he seeks with faith will not be in vain.”[1913]

3. Our prayers can have a direct effect on the souls of the departed, provided they died in the true faith and with genuine repentance—that is, in communion with the Church and with the Lord Jesus: for in this case, despite their apparent separation from us, they continue, together with us, to belong to the one and the same Body of Christ [(Eph. 1:23); (Col. 1:18)], in which sympathy and mutual influence between the members cannot but be preserved, just as it naturally exists among all the members of our body (1 Cor. 12:26), and as it is also evident in the external world among beings of the same kind, who, though living separately, share a single life. “For the departed,” says St. Ephrem the Syrian, “the remembrances offered by the saints during their lifetime are beneficial. Behold, some of God’s creations provide an example of this, such as the grapevine—its ripening clusters in the field and the pressed wine in vessels: when the berries on the vine ripen, the wine, standing still in the house, begins to foam and surge, as if desiring to escape. The same seems to happen with the onion plant: for as soon as an onion planted in the field begins to ripen, at the same time the onion kept in the house also sprouts. So if even plants have such a mutual sensitivity among themselves, are not prayer offerings all the more perceptible to the departed? And when you wisely accept that this occurs in accordance with the nature of creatures, then imagine that you are the first among God’s creatures”[1914] 1914. Similarly, another Holy Father observes: “Just as wine contained in a vessel, when the grapes bloom in the field, perceives the fragrance and blooms along with them, so too should you think of the souls of sinners: they receive some benefit from the bloodless sacrifice and acts of charity offered on their behalf, as the one Lord of the living and the dead, our God, knows and commands.”[1915]

4. Our prayers can be beneficial to those who have departed in the true faith and with genuine repentance because, having passed into the other world in communion with the Church, they have carried within themselves to that world the seed of goodness or the seed of new life, which they simply did not have time to bring to fruition here, and which, under the influence of our fervent prayers and with God’s blessing, may gradually develop and bear fruit, just as a good seed develops in the earth under the life-giving influence of the sun and the favorable conditions of the air. Meanwhile, as for those who have died in wickedness and unrepentance and have completely extinguished the Spirit of Christ within themselves (1 Thess. 5:19), no prayers from the brothers who are still alive will help them, just as neither the influence of the sun, nor the mild air, nor nourishing moisture can do anything to revive rotten seeds that have lost the beginning of plant life. This is how, for example,

Blessed Augustine: “There should be no doubt whatsoever that (the prayers of the Holy Church, the saving sacrifice, and alms) benefit the dead—but only those who, before death, lived in such a way that all this might be of benefit to them after death. For those who have departed without faith accompanied by love, and without participation in the sacraments, the acts of piety performed by their neighbors are in vain, since they lacked the pledge of such piety within themselves while they were here, having either rejected or in vain received God’s grace, and having stored up for themselves not mercy but wrath. Thus, no new merits are acquired for the dead when those known to them perform good deeds on their behalf; rather, the consequences are drawn from the foundations they had previously laid.”[1916]

St. John of Damascus: “Every person who possessed within himself a small leaven of virtue but did not manage to transform it into bread—since, despite his desire, he was unable to do so, whether through laziness, carelessness, or because he put it off from day to day, and was overtaken and reaped by death beyond expectation— —will not be forgotten by the righteous Judge and Lord, but after his death the Lord will stir up his relatives, neighbors, and friends, direct their thoughts, draw their hearts, and incline their souls to offer him aid and assistance. And when God moves them, and the Lord touches their hearts, they will hasten to make up for the deceased’s shortcomings. But he who led a wicked life, one that was entirely strewn with thorns and filled with filth and impurity, who never heeded his conscience but, in carelessness and blindness, plunged into the abomination of lusts, satisfying every desire of the flesh and caring not at all for his soul, —whose every thought was occupied with sensual pleasure, and who was overtaken by death in such a state—no one will extend a hand to him, but it will be so arranged that neither his spouse, nor his children, nor his brothers, nor his relatives, nor his friends will offer him aid: for God will not look upon him with favor.”[1917]

IV. Finally, we deem it necessary, albeit briefly, to resolve certain questions and doubts that either arise naturally in the mind when considering the Church’s teaching on prayers for the dead, or are raised by those of erroneous thinking.

1) “Should we not pray for all those who die without repentance and without having received the Holy Mysteries of Christ?” No, the Holy Church strictly distinguishes between those who die in unrepentance and without partaking of Christ’s sacraments through their own fault and obstinacy, and those who simply do not have time before their death to receive the sacraments of repentance and the Eucharist because they are subjected, for reasons beyond their control, to a sudden or violent death. Consequently, while the Church does not pray for, say, voluntary suicides or unrepentant heretics, for all her children who have died a senseless death, she, with the sorrow of a true Mother, implores the Lord to have mercy on them and cries out: “Those whom the waters have covered, and those reaped in battle, those seized by an earthquake, those slain by murderers, and those consumed by fire—O Merciful One, number the faithful among the righteous” (Canon for the Saturday of Meatfare Week, Ode 1, Verse 4). “Those slain by the sword, and those carried off by horses, by hail, snow, and a gathering cloud; those strangled by a brick, or buried in the dust—Christ our Savior, grant them rest” (Hymn IV, 4). “To those who died in vain from accidents—from the cry of the serpent, from swift currents and drowning, from strangulation by a rope, and from being struck down—O Lord of glory, grant eternal rest to those who have departed in faith” (Hymn VIII, verse 4). “Those who have died by God’s judgment—from all manner of mortal thunderbolts, from the heavens that have been shaken, from the earth that has crumbled, from the sea that has raged—all the faithful, O Christ, grant them rest” — (Hymn IX, verse 3).[1918]

2) “Why should we pray for those who have died after repenting before death and, consequently, have already received forgiveness and absolution for their sins from the Lord through the sacrament of repentance?” But, first of all, do all who repent before death offer proper repentance—sincere, profound, and genuine—sufficient to merit complete absolution from sins from the righteous Judge? Are all even capable of such repentance in the grave and terrifying moments of death? For all these repentant souls, the intercession of the Church is clearly necessary to make up for what they lacked. Second, those approaching the sacrament of penance are required (§224) not only to confess their sins before God, but also to truly turn away from them and bear fruits worthy of repentance [Ezek. 18:21–22]; (Matt. 3:8); (Acts 3:19); (Rev. 2:5)]. But all those who die shortly after their repentance do not have time to justify and complete through their deeds what they have only begun in repentance. This is precisely what is lacking in all who die shortly after repentance, and the Church gradually makes up for it through her prayers (Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 18). Thirdly, in order to be deemed worthy of heavenly bliss after death, it is not enough merely to receive forgiveness of sins from God; one must truly be cleansed of sins and healed: for a sinner—even one who has been forgiven but remains burdened by his sins—would feel out of place among the righteous inhabitants of heaven in the presence of the Holy of Holies, and would even be incapable, due to his spiritual turmoil, of partaking in the bliss of paradise. But the prayers of the Church, the good deeds performed by the living on behalf of the dead, and especially the offering of the bloodless sacrifice—as we have seen—can help all who have departed with the seed of new life, so that this good seed may gradually unfold within them, grow into a tree, bear fruit, and thus be completely renewed and cast off the old man.

) “How can the intercession of the Church and the prayers of the living for the dead be reconciled with the teaching of God’s Word that Christ is the one and only mediator between God and mankind (1 Tim. 2:5), and that He provided perfect atonement for all sinners [(Gal. 3:13); (Heb. 7:27)]?” Just as the intercession of the Church and the prayers of the living for the living, which the very Word of God commands (James 5:17), are reconciled. The Church intercedes before God for the dead, just as for the living, not in its own name, but in the name of the Lord Jesus (John 14:13–14) and by the power of His own bloodless sacrifice, which He ceaselessly offers for the salvation of all the living and the dead. Through its prayers and intercession, the Church seeks only to help its children partake of the infinite merits of the one Mediator, God and man, who gave Himself as a ransom for all.

) “How can the teaching about the beneficial influence of the Church’s prayers for the dead be reconciled with the teaching of God’s Word that it is appointed for people to die once, and then to face judgment (Heb. 9:27), and that at the judgment God will repay each person according to their deeds (Rom. 2:6)?” After death, indeed, there is God’s judgment and reward for everyone, but the judgment is only preliminary, and the reward is not yet final. And in this, once again, the Lord’s infinite goodness and mercy toward us are revealed, for even after death, following the preliminary judgment, He does not punish sinners definitively, but only provisionally, and He allows for a long period of time during which the seed of goodness—with which repentant sinners enter eternity—might grow within them and purify them from all defilement under the beneficial influence of the Church’s prayers. At the end of this period, when the Lord’s infinite goodness has, so to speak, accomplished all that can be accomplished for the good of those redeemed by His precious blood, His infinite justice will bring about the universal and final judgment, at which He will definitively reward each person according to their deeds.[1919]

5) “If, even after death, the sins of some Christians are forgiven as a result of the Church’s prayers, how then will the Apostle’s words be fulfilled, that on the day of the Last Judgment each person will receive what he has done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10)? The Apostle’s word is unchangeable, and it will be fulfilled just as surely for all people as for those Christians who, after death, through the power of the Church’s prayers, are deemed worthy to receive the remission of sins. For these Christians themselves, while still in the body, laid the foundation for this through their own repentance of sins before their death; and in this way, while still in the body, they made themselves worthy of the Church’s prayers and able to benefit from them after death.

6) “If sinners who have died in a state of repentance are in Hades, how then can the Church’s prayers aid in their deliverance, since there is no deliverance from Hades and no one passes from there into heaven (Luke 16:27)?” It is true that in one passage of Holy Scripture it is stated that there is no deliverance from Hades and no passage into Abraham’s bosom; but in another passage we read that Christ the Savior descended, after His death, in His spirit into Hades, as God, to preach deliverance there, and, as the Church believes, brought out from there all the Old Testament righteous or all who believed in Him [1 Peter 3:19); Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 49]. What, then, follows from this? That while for some, such as the rich man in the Gospel (Luke 16:26), there is no deliverance from hell, for others—namely, those who believe in the Lord Jesus—it became possible after He had already destroyed hell and brought many out of it. Just as in heaven, according to the moral state of the righteous, there are many and varied abodes and rewards (John 14:2), so, without a doubt, in hell as well, according to the varying moral states of sinners, there are various abodes, chambers, and repositories for souls (3 Esdras 4:32–41); and while in some of these dreadful abodes, like the rich man in the Gospel, those who died in unrepentance and unbelief suffer in the flames (Luke 16:23), in others—of course, without such suffering—even the Old Testament righteous could dwell until the very coming of Christ to them, and sinners who have died with true repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus may dwell there; just as there is no deliverance from the first kind of hellish abodes or dungeons for the prisoners because of their very moral condition, so from the abodes of the latter kind such deliverance has already been granted to the Old Testament righteous and may be granted to sinners who have died in faith and repentance. And in ordinary prisons there are criminals for whom, according to the law, deliverance is impossible and the death penalty has already been determined, and there are less guilty criminals who, with the help of their neighbors, can and often do obtain their freedom: the same must be understood regarding the prison of the spirits—Hell (1 Peter 3:19). That is why the Orthodox Church prays to the Lord for deliverance specifically from hell, and not from any other place—[1920] —for the souls who have departed from this world in repentance, as is particularly evident from the following prayer on the day of Pentecost: Lord of all, our Savior God, hope of all the ends of the earth and of those far out at sea, who on this last and great salvific day of the feast of Pentecost have revealed to us the mystery of the Holy, Consubstantial, and Co-essential, and indivisible and unconfused Trinity, and the descent and coming of Your Holy and Life-giving Spirit, poured out in the form of tongues of fire upon Your holy apostles, and having appointed them as heralds of our pious faith, and as confessors and preachers of true theology: who, on this all-perfect and salvific feast—a prayerful purification—have made those held in Hades worthy to partake, and who grant us the great hope of relief from the defilements that bind us, and of Your consolation being sent down: Hear us, the humble, and Your servants who pray, and grant rest to the souls of Your servants who have departed before us, in the place of light, in the place of joy, in the place of refreshment: for from there all sickness, sorrow, and sighing shall flee, and place their spirits among the dwellings of the righteous, and grant them peace and relief: for the dead do not praise You, O Lord, nor do those in Hades dare to offer You a confession, but we who are alive bless You and pray, and offer You purifying prayers and sacrifices for their souls” (Final Pentecostal Prayer 5).

7) “Why does the Church command us to pray for the departed and, in general, to commemorate them, especially on the third, ninth, and fortieth days after their passing?” First of all, let us note that this custom has existed in the Church since ancient times: it is clearly mentioned even in the Book of Apostolic Constitutions;[1921] then, more or less clearly, by St. Ephrem the Syrian, Macarius of Alexandria, Ambrose, Palladius, and Isidore of Pelusium—teachers of the fourth or early fifth century;[1922] furthermore, with complete clarity—in the Novels of Emperor Justinian, in the writings of Eustratius, the presbyter of Constantinople (660), in those of St. John of Damascus, Philip the Hermit (1095), and others.[1923] However, we find explanations of this custom in only a few sources, though they vary, they are generally in accordance with the spirit of piety. Thus, in the Book of Apostolic Decrees, we read: “The third day after the passing of the deceased should be spent in psalm singing, readings, and prayers for the sake of Him who rose from the dead on the third day; the ninth—in remembrance of the living and the dead; the fortieth—following the ancient example; for the people mourned Moses for that many days; and finally, the first anniversary—in memory of the deceased himself.”[1924] St. Macarius of Alexandria states that for forty days the soul of the deceased wanders through the purgatorial stations, and the commemoration of the soul on the third, ninth, and fortieth days corresponds to its being presented by the angels on precisely these days for worship before the heavenly Judge, who, finally, on the fortieth day determines the soul’s fate until the Last Judgment.[1925] Eustratius, a presbyter of Constantinople, and Philip the Hermit offer the following explanation: on the third day, the first solemn commemoration of the departed takes place, corresponding to the fact that on the third day Christ rose from the dead and appeared to His disciples for the first time; on the ninth day, a similar commemoration takes place—since on the ninth day, eight days after the Resurrection, the Lord appeared a second time to His disciples; finally, on the fortieth day, the last such commemoration is held because on the fortieth day the Lord appeared to the Apostles for the last time and ascended into heaven.[1926] Writers of later times have offered other pious explanations for this ancient custom of the Church.[1927]

8) “Are our prayers for the dead in vain, when we do not know with certainty what fate awaits them, and perhaps many for whom we pray are already in the kingdom of heaven, while others, according to God’s particular judgment, are among the rejected?” Despite all this, our prayers for the dead are not in vain. The Church teaches us to pray for all who have departed in the Orthodox faith and in repentance, excluding obvious wicked people and the unrepentant; but it is up to the Lord to decide whom to accept and whom to reject—for He knows those who are His own and who are worthy of His mercy (2 Tim. 2:19). Our prayers for those who may already be in heaven or among the rejected, if not beneficial to them, are at least not harmful. But our prayers for all who have departed piously, yet failed to bear fruits worthy of repentance and therefore have not yet been deemed worthy of the kingdom of heaven, are undoubtedly beneficial to them. Moreover, prayers for the dead are in any case beneficial to those who pray, according to the words of the Psalmist: “My prayer returns to my own bosom” (Ps. 34:13), and of the Savior: “Your peace will return to you” (Matt. 10:13). “If anyone,” notes St. John of Damascus, “wishes to anoint a sick person with myrrh or some other sacred oil, he first partakes of the anointing himself —that is, the one who anoints—and then anoints the sick person: so everyone who strives for the salvation of his neighbor first receives benefit himself, and then brings it to his neighbor; for God is not unjust to forget our deeds, according to the words of the divine Apostle.”[1928]

9) “If the Church prays for all who have departed in repentance, and her prayers are powerful before God and beneficial to them: then will all for whom she prays be saved, and will no one be deprived of bliss?” To this we say, together with St. John of Damascus in the same work: “Let it be so, and—oh, if only this were to come to pass! For this is precisely what the most gracious Lord longs for, desires, and wishes; this is what brings Him joy and gladness—that no one may be deprived of His divine gifts. For did He perhaps prepare rewards and crowns for the angels? Did He come to earth for the salvation of souls, take on incorruptible flesh from the Virgin, become man, and endure suffering and death? Will He perhaps say to the angels: ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you’? You cannot say this, adversary; but He has prepared everything for man, for whom He also suffered. For who, having prepared a feast and summoned friends, would not wish for them all to come and be satisfied with his bounty? Otherwise, why would he prepare a feast, if not to entertain his friends? And if we care only about this, what then should be said of the bountiful, one in essence, most blessed, and philanthropic God, who, in giving and bestowing, rejoices and is glad more than the one who receives and attains the greatest salvation?”[1929] We must also not forget that there are many dwellings with the Heavenly Father, and the degrees of eternal bliss will vary greatly, according to the very worthiness of those who are deemed worthy of this bliss.

§259. c) A Note on Purgatory

The teaching of the Roman Church on Purgatory bears some resemblance to the Orthodox Church’s teaching on the possibility for certain sinners to be freed from the bonds of hell through the prayers of the living, although there are also differences between them. To judge both more accurately, it is necessary to examine how Roman theologians themselves expound this teaching.

I. They distinguish two parts in the doctrine of Purgatory: the essential part—that which has been defined by their Church and is taught as dogma—and the non-essential part—that which has not been defined by their Church and is a matter of theological opinion. Only two propositions are included in the first part: a) Purgatory exists, that is, a place or state of purification (status expiationis) in which the souls of the deceased—who have not yet received absolution for any venial sins, or who have received absolution but did not undergo temporal punishment for their sins during their lifetime— endure suffering to satisfy God’s justice—until, through this suffering, they are purified and made worthy of eternal bliss; b) the souls in Purgatory are greatly aided by the Church’s prayers for them, almsgiving, and especially the offering of the bloodless sacrifice. The non-essential part includes the resolution of the following questions: a) whether Purgatory is a specific place or not, and where it is located; b) what torments the souls endure there, and whether the fire of Purgatory is physical or metaphorical; c) how long souls remain in Purgatory; d) how the prayers of the Church assist them, and so on.[1930]

II. When we focus our attention on the essential part of the Roman teaching on Purgatory, we find in it both similarities and differences with the teaching of the Orthodox Church regarding prayers for the dead.

1) The similarity lies in the fundamental idea. For both the Roman and the Orthodox Churches teach: a) that the souls of certain deceased persons—namely, those who died in the faith and in repentance but who, during their lifetime, did not bear fruits worthy of repentance and, consequently, did not merit from God full forgiveness of their sins nor purify themselves of them through their deeds—suffer torments until they are truly granted such forgiveness and are purified;

b) that in this case, the souls of the deceased are aided by the prayers of their brothers in Christ who are still alive, by almsgiving, and especially by the offering of a bloodless sacrifice.

2) The differences lie in the details. For—a) according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the souls of these deceased suffer torments because, although they repented before death, they did not have time to bear fruits worthy of repentance, did not have time to merit full forgiveness of their sins from God, to purify themselves of them through good works, and thereby to be freed from the natural consequences of sin—punishments; whereas, according to the teaching of the Roman Church, the souls of these deceased suffer torments in Purgatory precisely because they did not endure temporal punishment for their sins on earth to satisfy God’s justice, and they suffer specifically in order to satisfy it; b) According to Orthodox teaching, these souls are cleansed of their sins and merit God’s mercy not by their own efforts or through their sufferings, but through the prayers of the Church and by the power of the bloodless sacrifice; and these very prayers not only help the suffering souls and alleviate their plight, but also free them from their torments (Orthodox Confession Part 1, Answer to Question 64); whereas, according to the teaching of the Roman Church, souls are purified in Purgatory and satisfy God’s justice through their very sufferings, whatever form they may take, and the Church’s prayers merely contribute to the alleviation of these sufferings.[1931]

3) However, both of the aforementioned differences between the Roman teaching on Purgatory and the Orthodox teaching on prayers for the dead, although they concern details, are nonetheless significant and cannot be accepted: for both are unjust and distort the very essence of the dogma.

a) As we have already seen in the relevant section,[1932] , the idea that repentant sinners must still offer some satisfaction to God’s justice for their sins by enduring some temporary punishment, and that those who have not endured such punishment here must endure it in Purgatory for the same purpose, is unjust: Christ the Savior, who took upon Himself all the sins of the world and all the punishments for those sins, once and for all provided full and even superabundant satisfaction to God’s justice for all sinners. And sinners, in order to receive perfect forgiveness of sins from God and to be freed from all punishments for their sins, need only appropriate the merits of the Redeemer—that is, believe in Him, truly repent of their sins, and bear fruits worthy of repentance—good deeds. Consequently, if some sinners who repented before their death are subjected to torments after death, it is solely because they had not yet fully appropriated the merits of the Savior—whether due to weakness of faith in Him or to insufficient repentance— and, most importantly, because they did not bear fruits worthy of repentance and did not, in practice, purify themselves of their sins, as the Orthodox Church teaches.

b) Another notion is also unjust—namely, that sinners are purified in Purgatory and satisfy God’s justice through their very sufferings. However one understands the fire of Purgatory’s torments—whether in a literal or metaphorical sense—in neither case can such actions be attributed to it. If this fire is material, then by its very nature it is incapable of purifying the soul—a simple being—from spiritual defilements. If it is metaphorical fire—that is, the inner torments of the soul itself, accompanied by a constant awareness of its past sins and deep contrition over them— none of this can purify the soul in the afterlife, because there is no longer any place there for repentance, for merit, or for any kind of personal self-correction—as Roman Catholics also believe. And as long as a person remains in sin, unpurified and unrenewed—no matter how much torment he endures—he cannot satisfy God’s justice through his sufferings alone, nor can he rid himself of these inevitable consequences of sin (Canonical Confessions, Part 1, Answer to Question 66).

c) If the souls of some of the dead suffer torments in Purgatory precisely because it is necessary for the repentant sinners themselves to endure some temporary punishment for their sins in order to satisfy God’s justice, and if these souls are indeed purified through their very sufferings in Purgatory and thereby satisfy God on their own behalf: then the question arises: what purpose do prayers and, in general, all intercession by the Church serve for them? Those in Purgatory must obviously suffer until they themselves have made the required satisfaction and have been purified through their sufferings; but if the Church’s prayers merely alleviate and ease these torments, then they (the prayers) not only fail to shorten the period of the souls’ stay in Purgatory but, on the contrary, prolong it; consequently, they are not so much beneficial as harmful. Does this not clearly refute the central tenet of the dogma concerning prayer for the dead?

III. Turning our attention to a non-essential part of the Roman teaching on Purgatory—which is the subject of theological opinions—we discern in it even more differences from the Orthodox Church’s teaching on prayers for the dead, although these differences are not significant in terms of their intrinsic meaning. We will point out two of the more notable ones here.

1) The Orthodox Church teaches that after death there is no intermediate category of people between those who are saved and go to heaven and those who are damned and go to hell; there is no special intermediate place where the souls of those who have repented before death—for whom the Church prays—reside; rather, they all go to hell as well, from which they can be delivered only through the Church’s prayers (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 64; Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article XVIII). The majority of Roman teachers regard Purgatory as a distinct—intermediate—place, locating it sometimes in the vicinity of Hell—within the earth—sometimes in the vicinity of Heaven, and sometimes in the air, though others recognize Purgatory only as a distinct state of souls, not a distinct place, and note that souls in this state may endure their temporary punishment and be purified in the very same place where those condemned to eternal torment are found (i.e., in hell), just as a single prison may hold two kinds of people: those condemned to imprisonment only for a certain time, and those condemned forever.[1933]

2) The Orthodox Church categorically rejects the fire of Purgatory—fire in the literal sense—which is said to purify souls (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answer to Question 66). A great many Roman theologians regard this fire as real and material (a belief that is almost universally accepted among the Roman faithful themselves), and therefore, to prove their doctrine, they strive to gather from Holy Scripture and the writings of the ancient teachers of the Church passages in which such a fire is apparently mentioned.[1934] Others, on the contrary, understand the fire of Purgatory not in its literal sense but as spiritual torment, and therefore do not cite such evidence in their treatises on Purgatory—neither from the Word of God nor from the writings of the Fathers—adding that the ancient teachers themselves held only opinions, and varying opinions at that, regarding this fire,[1935] — which is why it would be superfluous to refute the aforementioned proofs. A third group, finally, observes in general that their Church has not defined the nature of the fire of Purgatory—whether it is material or immaterial—and therefore, understanding it one way or another does not pertain to the faith.[1936]

We do not mention other opinions regarding Purgatory, such as: a) how long souls remain there, and whether they all remain for the same amount of time; b) the punishments they endure there—whether they are more severe than those of this life, or milder than those of Hell; c) whether souls there pray for themselves and for us who are still living; d) whether they engage in good deeds, and the like. Roman theologians themselves attach almost no value to these opinions, and very few concern themselves with them.[1937]

§260. The Moral Application of the Dogma Concerning the Particular Judgment and Reward

1) It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Heb. 9:27): let us therefore do the works of Him who called us to life, while it is still day; night is coming, when no one can work (John 9:4)! Let us strive in godliness while there is still time for us to perform good deeds and earn merit; the judgment will come, at which each person will receive the most just reward. Let us hasten to repent of our sins and amend our ways while both are still possible for us: after death and the particular judgment, neither repentance nor amendment can take place.

2) Having parted from their bodies, human souls undergo trials: O, may the Lord grant each of us to pass through this dreadful path unhindered and without fear! Let us pray for this—both for ourselves and for our neighbors who are passing into eternity—as the Holy Church instructs us; and together, let each of us strive to prepare our own souls in advance for these dreadful yet just trials, by purifying them of sins, increasing our virtues, and strengthening them in faith, love, and hope in God.

3) After the particular judgment, the Lord grants the righteous heavenly bliss—though not yet complete or final—and to sinners, the torments of hell—though also not yet complete or perfect: may reflection on both serve as a constant incentive for us to abstain from sin and walk in the path of the righteous!

4) By glorifying the righteous in heaven and granting them there the special grace to pray for us, the Lord thereby teaches us to glorify them on earth as well—as His faithful servants, saints, and friends—to venerate their most holy images and relics, and to invoke them in our prayers as our intercessors and prayerful advocates before Him… Let us therefore not cease, under the guidance of the Orthodox Church, to render due honor to the righteous who are glorified in heaven and to seek their intercession and advocacy before God in all our needs.

5) In determining the preliminary punishments in hell for sinners at the particular judgment, the Lord, in His infinite goodness, provided they have died in faith and repentance, still leaves them the opportunity, right up until the Last Judgment, to be freed from the bonds of hell—if not through their own merits, then through the intercession of the Church, through the prayers and acts of charity of those still living on earth: Who among us, out of a sense of Christian love for our neighbors, does not feel fully obliged to pray for our departed brothers, to perform acts of charity in their memory, and to offer a bloodless sacrifice for their salvation through the pastors of the Church?… Who does not realize how important and necessary it is for us sinners to ensure that we depart into eternity with faith and repentance, and thus not lose the opportunity and hope of obtaining salvation?…

Article II.
On God as Judge and Rewarder of the Entire Human Race

1. On the Last Judgment

§261. Connection to the Previous Section: The Day of Judgment, the Uncertainty of That Day, and Signs of Its Approach, Especially the Appearance of the Antichrist

I. The particular judgment, to which every person is subjected upon death, is not a complete and final judgment; therefore, it naturally leads one to expect another judgment—one that is complete and decisive. In the particular judgment, only the human soul receives its reward, without any participation of the body, even though the body shared in the soul’s deeds, both good and evil. After the particular judgment, both for the righteous in heaven and for the sinners in hell, only the beginning of the bliss or torment they have earned is revealed. Finally, after the particular judgment, some sinners still have the opportunity to alleviate their fate and even be freed from the bonds of hell—if not through their own merits, then through the prayers of the Church.

But a day will come—the last day for the entire human race (John 6:39–40)—just as there is a last day for each person individually, the day of the end of the age and the world (Matt. 13:39), just as there is the day of a person’s death— — the day appointed by God will come, on which He will judge the universe righteously in truth (Acts 17:31), that is, He will carry out a universal and decisive judgment. This day, therefore, is called in Scripture the Day of Judgment [(Matt. 11:22–24; 12:36); (2 Pet. 2:9)], the day of judgment (2 Pet. 3:7), and the day of wrath and the revelation of God’s righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5). It is also called the day of the Son of Man (Luke 17:22–26), the day of the Lord [(2 Pet. 3:10); (1 Thess. 5:2)], the day of Christ [(2 Thess. 2:2); (Phil. 1:10); (Phil. 2:16)], the day of our Lord Jesus Christ [(2 Cor. 1:14); (1 Cor. 1:8; (1 Cor. 5:5)], because He will then appear on earth in His glory to judge the living and the dead—a great day [(Acts 2:10); (Jude 6)] because of the great events that will take place then.

II. The Lord has chosen not to reveal to us when this great, predetermined day will come, for our own moral benefit. “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father alone” (Matt. 24:36), Christ said to His disciples who asked Him about this: “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7). And He added: “Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know at what hour your Lord will come” (Matt. 24:42). “Be ready, for at an hour you do not expect, the Son of Man will come” (Matt. 24:44). “Watch, keep alert, and pray, for you do not know when that time will come” (Mark 13:33); “And what I say to you, I say to everyone: Watch” (Mark 13:37). However, to encourage the righteous and to admonish sinners, the infinitely Good and Wise One, both directly and through the Apostles, was pleased to foretell certain signs of His second coming and the end of the age, certain indications of the approach of the great Day of Judgment. The most important of these signs will be:

1) On the one hand, the extraordinary triumph of goodness on earth—the spread of the Gospel of Christ throughout the world. “And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14), said the Savior Himself. As for the Jews, St. Paul the Apostle testified concerning them when he wrote to the Gentile Christians: For I do not want you, brothers, to be ignorant of this mystery—so that you may not be conceited—that a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:25–26). Thus, there is no doubt that before the Lord returns to earth to judge the living and the dead, His final command—given to the Apostles and their successors before His ascension into heaven—will be fulfilled in every detail: “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19), go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Not a single corner of the earth will remain where the Gospel message has not penetrated; there will be no nation or tribe that will not hear the word of salvation.

2) On the other hand, the extraordinary triumphs of evil and the appearance of the Antichrist on earth. In the last days, says St. Paul the Apostle, difficult times will come. For people will be self-centered, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, slanderers, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unfriendly, irreconcilable, slanderers, intemperate, cruel, haters of what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power (2 Tim. 3:1–5). The spirit of wickedness, as if foreseeing the nearness of its ultimate destruction, will employ all its efforts and schemes to counteract the progress of the Gospel, to turn some believers away from the faith, and to lure others into the snares of wickedness (1 Tim. 4:1–3), and it will come to the point where the Son of Man, when He comes, will wonder if He will find faith on earth (Luke 18:8), and because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold (Matt. 24:12). Not content with his usual methods, the devil will then, by God’s permission (2 Thess. 2:11), raise up [1938] an extraordinary weapon in the person of the Antichrist, in order to wage war against the kingdom of Christ through him.

III. The term “Antichrist” is used in Holy Scripture in two senses: a) in a general sense, referring to any opponent of Christ (άντί-χριστος) who opposes the spread of the Gospel and distorts or rejects its doctrines [(1 John 2:22; 4:3); (2 John 7)]; b) in a specific sense, referring to the actual adversary of Christ, who is to appear before the end of the world to oppose Christianity [(2 Thess. 2:3–12); (1 John 2:18)]. Regarding the person of this Antichrist, his characteristics, and his actions, there is direct and fairly clear teaching in the Word of God; there are also only allusions and mysterious prophecies, the meaning of which is inaccessible to us, and on the basis of which certain private opinions have existed among the teachers of the Church since ancient times.

1) From the clear teaching about the Antichrist, set forth primarily in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (chap. 2), it is evident that he:

a) Will be a specific person, namely a man, but only a man of lawlessness under the special influence of Satan. St. Paul says that the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, will be revealed… the lawless one, whose coming is by the working of Satan (2 Thess. 2:3–9). And the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church—Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and others—unanimously recognized the Antichrist as a specific person and as a human being.[1939] As for the devil’s relationship to him, some believed that the Antichrist would be, as it were, a son or an offshoot of Satan;[1940] others believed that Satan would, as it were, take up residence in him and use him as an instrument, acting through him by his own power;[1941] still others believed that the devil himself would be incarnated directly in the person of the Antichrist.[1942]

b) He will be characterized by extraordinary pride and will present himself as God: an adversary who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he will sit in the temple of God as God, presenting himself as God (2 Thess. 2:4).

c) To achieve his goal, he will preach a false doctrine contrary to the saving faith of Christ—a deceptive teaching with which he will lead many who are weak and unworthy astray: his coming … with every kind of unrighteous deception among those who are perishing, because they did not accept the love of the truth that would have saved them. And for this reason God will send them a powerful delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but took pleasure in falsehood (2 Thess. 2:10–12).

d) To confirm his teaching and to further deceive people, he will perform false signs and wonders: his coming, by the working of Satan, will be with all power and with false signs and wonders (2 Thess. 2:9).[1943]

e) Finally, he will perish by the power of Christ the Savior when He comes to judge the living and the dead: the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of His mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8).

2) Based on certain allusions in the Word of God and mysterious prophecies about the Antichrist, the following ideas about him have existed since ancient times:

a) He will come from the tribe of Dan. This was deduced from the words of the patriarch Jacob: “Dan will be a serpent by the roadside, a viper on the path” (Gen. 49:17); from the words of Jeremiah: “From Dan the snorting of his horses is heard” (Jer. 8:16), and especially from the fact that in Revelation (chap. 7), in the enumeration of all the tribes of Israel—from each of which, as recorded at , the Angel sealed twelve thousand of God’s servants—the tribe of Dan is not mentioned at all.[1944]

b) There will be a powerful ruler who will seize power by force and extend his influence over all nations. For the prophet Daniel says: “That king will act according to his own will; he will exalt himself and magnify himself above every god [(Dan. 11:36); (Dan. 7:24)], and in the Book of Revelation: “And the dragon gave him his power and his throne and great authority” (Rev. 13:2), “and authority was given him over every tribe and people and language and nation” (Rev. 13:7).[1945]

c) He will unleash a fierce persecution against Christians, demand divine worship from everyone, lead many astray, and put to death those who do not follow him. And it was granted to him to make war against the saints and to conquer them [(Rev. 13:7); (Dan. 7:21)]. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb, who was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). And it was granted to him to breathe life into the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might speak and cause all who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed (Rev. 13:15).[1946]

d) To oppose the Antichrist, God will send two witnesses from heaven who, as stated in the Book of Revelation, will proclaim the truth, perform miracles, and, when they have finished their testimony, will be killed by the dragon; then, after three and a half days, they will rise from the dead and ascend to heaven (Rev. 11:3–12). Some have speculated that these two witnesses refer to Enoch [based on (Sir. 44:15)] and Elijah the Tishbite [based on (Mal. 4:6); (Sir. 48:9–10)].[1947]

d) The reign of the Antichrist will last only three and a half years. For in the book of the prophet Daniel it is written: “They will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time” [(Dan. 7:25); (Dan. 12:7)],[1948] and in Revelation: “And authority was given to him to act for forty-two months” (Rev. 13:5)—“and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months” (Rev. 11:2). In the same passage, regarding the two witnesses whom God will send to oppose the Antichrist, it is noted that they will prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days (Rev. 11:3), and regarding the woman clothed with the sun (i.e., the Church), it is recounted that she fled into the wilderness, where a place had been prepared for her by God, so that she might be nourished there for one thousand two hundred sixty days (Rev. 12:6), and indeed she flew into the wilderness to her place, away from the serpent, and was nourished there for a time, times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14).[1949]

It is worth noting that prophecies about the Antichrist have repeatedly been applied to various figures. Some, according to Blessed Augustine, saw the Antichrist in Nero;[1950] others saw him in the Gnostics;[1951] still others in the Roman high priest or in the papacy in general:—an idea that arose and was quite widespread in the Middle Ages in the West among many sectarians,[1952] but which became particularly prevalent with the emergence of Protestant communities,[1953] permeated their theological systems, and was repeatedly expounded in specific writings,[1954] —and so on.

§262. Events to Take Place on the Day of the Last Judgment and Their Order

1. The Antichrist’s activities on earth will continue until the very day of judgment. On that same great day, the following momentous events will take place: the Lord, the Judge of the living and the dead, will come from heaven [(Luke 17:24); (1 Cor. 1:8)], who will abolish the Antichrist by the manifestation of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8); at the voice of the Lord, the dead will be raised for judgment [(John 5:25); (John 6:54)], and the living will be transformed (1 Cor. 15:51–52); the judgment itself will take place over both the living and the dead, and indeed over the whole world [(John 12:48); (Rom. 2:5–6)]; the end of the world will follow (Matt. 13:39) and the end of Christ’s kingdom of grace (1 Cor. 15:24).

2. These great events will take place one after another so rapidly—or even simultaneously—that it is nearly impossible to distinguish them from one another and clearly demonstrate their sequence. However, for the sake of convenience in examining each of them, it would not be unreasonable to arrange them, in accordance with our main theme of the Last Judgment, in the following order: 1) the preliminary circumstances of the Last Judgment: a) the coming of the Lord, the Judge of the living and the dead; b) the resurrection of the dead for judgment, at the voice of the Lord (John 5:25), and the transformation of the living; 2) the judgment itself—its reality, nature, and characteristics; 3) finally, the accompanying circumstances of the Last Judgment: a) the end of the world and its transformation by fire (for it is impossible to imagine that this could take place before the judgment, before the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of the living, who, otherwise, would have to be burned along with the earth (2 Pet. 3:10) and could not remain alive until the very coming of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:51), going about their ordinary business (Matt. 24:37–41); b) the end of Christ’s kingdom of grace and the beginning of the kingdom of glory.

§263. The Preliminary Circumstances of the General Judgment: a) The coming of the Lord as Judge of the living and the dead

The coming of the Lord to earth as the Judge of the living and the dead: this is the first great event that will take place on the last day of the world!

1) The reality of this future event—the Lord’s second coming to earth—is clearly attested to in Holy Scripture. He Himself said: “For the Son of Man is to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds” (Matt. 16:27), and He spoke on several occasions, setting forth the very details of His coming [(Matt. 24:27–30); (Matt. 25:31–42); (Mark 8:38); (Luke 12:40); (Luke 17:24); (John 14:3)]. The angels who appeared to the Apostles at the time of the Lord’s ascension into heaven announced to them: “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). The Apostle Jude cites in his epistle the prophecy of Enoch, the seventh from Adam: “Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy angels—to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly among them of all the deeds their ungodliness has produced, and of all the harsh words that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him” (Jude 1:14–15). The other Apostles often reminded Christians of this second coming of the Lord, sometimes to strengthen them in faith and godliness [(1 John 2:28); (Titus 2:12–13)], sometimes to keep them from judging their neighbors (1 Cor. 4:5), sometimes to urge believers to stay alert and be constantly prepared (1 Thess. 5:2–6), and sometimes to comfort them in their afflictions (1 Pet. 4:13).

2) The Lord described the nature of His second coming with the following characteristics:

a) It will be swift and sudden. Just as lightning flashes from the east and is visible even as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man [(Matt. 24:27); cf. (Luke 17:24)]. As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man (Matt. 24:37).

b) First of all, as if as a forerunner of the heavenly Judge, His cross will appear in the heavens: and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky; and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn (Matt. 24:30).[1955]

c) After that, those on earth will see the Judge Himself, coming on the clouds of heaven, surrounded by countless hosts of angels: and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory (Matt. 24:30), with the holy angels (Mark 8:38).

3) In its nature and purpose, the Lord’s second coming to earth will be entirely different from the first. Then He came in humility, humbling Himself, being obedient even unto death—the death on a cross (Phil. 2:8); He was persecuted, subjected to countless insults and mockery, and crucified as a criminal. Now He will come in His glory, with all the holy angels with Him, and then He will sit on the throne of His glory (Matt. 25:31); Now all who are born of the earth will clearly see how God has exalted Him and given Him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow—in heaven, on earth, and under the earth—and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9–11). At that time, He came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:28), not to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:47). Now He will come—to judge the universe with righteousness (Acts 17:31) and to call all people on earth to account for how they have made use of His merits, how they have appropriated for themselves the salvation purchased by His blood, and to reward each person according to his deeds (Matt. 16:27).

The Orthodox Church, considering the dogma of the Lord’s Second Coming to be one of its fundamental dogmas, has always confessed it in its very creed with the words: “and again coming in glory to judge the living and the dead…” And Orthodox teachers, explaining these words of the Creed to the catechumens, said: “We preach not only one coming of Christ, but also another, which will be far more glorious than the first. For in the first He demonstrated His patience, and in the second He will appear in the crown of God the King…. At His first coming, He lay in a manger, wrapped in swaddling clothes; at His second, He will be clothed in light as with a robe (Ps. 103:2). At His first coming, He endured the cross, disregarding its shame (Heb. 12:2); at His second, He will come, accompanied by the angelic host, in glory… The Savior will not come to be judged again, but to judge those who judged Him. He who once remained silent while being judged will call to account the lawbreakers who displayed their insolence at the cross, and will say: “You did this, and I remained silent” (Ps. 49:21). Just as a housebuilder, He came then, persuading people through His exhortations; but now, out of necessity, even if they do not wish it, they will be subject to His dominion.”[1956]

§264. b) The Resurrection of the Dead and the Transformation of the Living

On that same last day (John 6:40–44) and at the very moment when the Lord’s glorious descent from heaven to earth, surrounded by the heavenly hosts, takes place, He will send His angels before Him with a thunderous trumpet (Matt. 24:31), and the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God (John 5:25): for the Lord Himself, at the command, at the voice of the Archangel, and at the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are still alive… will be transformed [(1 Thess. 4:16–17); (1 Cor. 15:52)].

I. That the resurrection of the dead will indeed take place:

1) This truth was already known in the Old Testament Church [(Acts 23:6); (Acts 24:5)]. In the midst of his severe sufferings, the righteous Job comforted himself with the thought: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and He will raise my decaying body from the dust on the last day” (Job 19:25). The pious Maccabean brothers, who suffered a martyr’s death at the hands of Antiochus, also comforted and strengthened themselves with the words: “The King of the world will raise us, who have died for His laws, to eternal life” [(2 Macc. 7:9); (2 Macc. 11:14)]. Judas Maccabeus sent a rich offering to Jerusalem for the sins of his fellow believers who had fallen in battle; he acted very well and piously, thinking of the resurrection (2 Macc. 12:43). Martha, the sister of Lazarus, when the Lord Jesus told her, “Your brother will rise again,” replied, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection, on the last day” (John 11:23–24).

2) Christ the Savior Himself testified to and confirmed this truth with complete clarity when, in response to Martha, He remarked: “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in Me, even if he dies, will live” (John 11:25), and even earlier, when He proclaimed twice before all the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming—and is now here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will live,” and then: “The hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment [(John 5:25); (John 28–29)].

3) The Holy Apostles preached this truth. Peter and John, shortly after beginning their apostolic ministry, were imprisoned by the Jews, as St. Luke recounts, for teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead (Acts 4:2). The Apostle Paul testified of himself that he had hope in God that there would be a resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the unrighteous [(Acts 24:15); (Acts 17:18–32); (Acts 23:6)]. Elsewhere, the same Apostle counts the truth of the resurrection of the dead among the fundamental truths of Christianity (Heb. 6:2), and in another passage he expresses this even more strongly, pointing out its close connection to the truth of Christ’s resurrection and to the entire Gospel message: If, then, Christ is preached as having been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain. Moreover, we would be found to be false witnesses about God, because we would have testified about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise—if, that is, the dead are not raised; for if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:12–17).

4) The Holy Church has always upheld and taught this truth as one of the most important, even in its very creeds;[1957] the holy martyrs confessed it as they went to their voluntary deaths;[1958] it was defended by the apologists of Christianity against pagans and heretics;[1959] it was expounded by pastors and teachers, often even in treatises written specifically for that purpose,[1960] calling it an essential and fundamental truth of the Christian faith.[1961]

II. The possibility of the resurrection of the dead must also be beyond doubt.

1) Christ the Savior pointed to this possibility both in word and deed. In word, when He said to the Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection of the dead: “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matt. 22:29); and even more explicitly, when, explaining the fruits of the sacrament of the Eucharist, He testified: “Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is true food, and My Blood is true drink. Whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him.” Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats Me will live because of Me (John 6:54–57). Indeed, just as He actually raised the dead even during His ministry on earth [(Luke 7:14, 8:49); (John 11:44)], He raised, at the moment of His death, by an invisible power, the bodies of many saints in Jerusalem (Matt. 27:52–53), and finally rose Himself (1 Cor. 15:20, etc.).

2) The apostles, in explaining this very possibility of the resurrection of the dead, pointed to: a) the omnipotence of God the Father: God raised the Lord; He will also raise us by His power (1 Cor. 6:14);

b) regarding the Son of God’s relationship to us: Christ was raised from the dead, the firstborn from among the dead … Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor. 6:20–22), Who will transform our lowly body so that it may be conformed to His glorious body, by the power with which He works and subdues all things to Himself (Phil. 3:21); c) the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit toward us: But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you (Rom. 8:11); d) the symbols of the resurrection in nature: But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body will they come?” You fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies. And when you sow, you do not sow the body that is to come, but a bare grain, whatever kind it may be—wheat or some other kind; but God gives it a body as He wills, and to each seed its own body (1 Cor. 15:35–38).

3) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, prompted by the objections of pagans and heretics, sought to explain in great detail the possibility of the resurrection of the dead. To this end:

a) They explained the idea that in the world, in general, nothing is destroyed or disappears, but that everything remains intact in the power and right hand of the Almighty;[1962] that our bodies lose their existence through death only for us, but not for God, who knows everything perfectly—even the smallest particles of every dead body—even if they were scattered everywhere and joined with other bodies, and who is always able to reunite these particles into their former organism.[1963]

b) They recalled various miraculous healings of diseases, as recounted in the Bible,[1964] various resurrections of the dead,[1965] and especially the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Himself.[1966]

c) We turned to the natural world and sought in it images and likenesses of the resurrection, such as: the sprouting of plants from a seed cast into the ground and left to rot,[1967] the annual renewal of nature,[1968] the renewal of the day,[1969] awakening from sleep,[1970] and so on.

d) They spoke of the power and efficacy of the Christian sacraments: baptism, in which we are wholly reborn, in soul and body, for eternal life;[1971] Confirmation, in which not only our soul but also our body is marked with the indestructible seal of the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord;[1972] the Eucharist, in which both our soul and our body are nourished by the life-giving body and blood of the Giver of Life Himself and are truly united with Him.[1973]

d) In particular, in response to the objection that the resurrection of the dead is incomprehensible to us, they pointed to other phenomena no less incomprehensible to us, such as: the birth of every human being,[1974] the original formation of the human body from the dust of the earth,[1975] the creation of the world out of nothing,[1976] and so on.

III. Based on the Word of God, following the Holy Fathers of the Church, we can discuss the very necessity of the resurrection of the dead.

1) The Word of God teaches that the Son of God came to earth for the purpose of saving us from sin and from all the consequences of sin [(Matt. 18:11); (Titus 2:14); (Heb. 2:14–15)], and that through His merits He has secured for us even more than we lost in Adam (Rom. 5:15–17). But one of the most disastrous consequences of sin is death; the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23); one of our greatest losses in Adam is the loss of life, even in the body (Gen. 3:17). Thus, by the very nature of Christianity, it is necessary that, just as all die in Adam, so also all will one day be made alive in Christ (1 Cor. 15:22), so that not only our first enemy—the devil—may be defeated, but our last enemy—death—may also be abolished (1 Cor. 15:26). Otherwise, the purpose of Christ’s coming to earth—the purpose of all Christianity—will not be fully achieved: man will not be saved in his entirety, not all his enemies will be defeated, and in Christ we will receive less than what we lost in Adam.

2) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church affirmed that the resurrection of our bodies is required both by God’s justice and by His wisdom. Justice: for the human body participates both in the good deeds of the soul and in its transgressions; consequently, in accordance with justice, it must also share in its eternal rewards or punishments.[1977] Wisdom: for, in His wisdom, God created man as a two-part being, consisting of body and soul, so that in this form he might fulfill his purpose; consequently, God’s wisdom would not be vindicated by His works if, sooner or later, the human body, after being separated from the soul, were not to be reunited with it to form a complete human being.[1978]

IV. The resurrection of the dead will be universal and simultaneous. That is to say: a) all people will be resurrected: Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22); b) not only the righteous, but also the sinners: there will be a resurrection of the dead, both the righteous and the unrighteous (Acts 24:15); c) all will be raised together— , the righteous and the sinners: the time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, while those who have done evil will come forth to the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28–29). This universality and simultaneity of the resurrection of the dead was unanimously acknowledged by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church.[1979]

V. Regarding the nature of the resurrected bodies:

1) They will be essentially the same as those that were united with the respective souls during this present life. This is evident:

a) from the very concept of the resurrection, which signifies the restoration and revival of the very same thing that died, rather than the formation or creation of something new;[1980] b) from the example of Christ the Savior, who rose from the tomb in His own body (John 20:25–27); c) from clear passages of Scripture, which state that it is precisely those in the tombs who will hear the voice of the Son of God and, upon hearing it, will come to life (John 5:28), and that this perishable must be clothed with imperishability, and this mortal must be clothed with immortality (1 Cor. 15:53);[1981] d) from the consistent and unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church [1982] 1982.

2) But, on the other hand, they will also differ from our present bodies: for they will be raised in a transfigured form, in the likeness of the resurrected body of Christ the Savior, who, as the Apostle says, will transform our lowly body so that it may be conformed to His glorious body (Phil. 3:21). In particular, St. Paul describes this difference between our future, resurrected bodies and our present ones with the following words: “It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:42–44). That is, the resurrected bodies will be:

a) Incorruptible and immortal—as the Savior also said: “Those who are deemed worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, and they can no longer die” (Luke 20:35–36); as St. Paul himself explains this same idea further: “This perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53), and as the Holy Fathers of the Church unanimously taught.[1983]

b) Glorious or radiant—like the body of Christ the Savior when He was transfigured on Mount Tabor (Phil. 3:21), and in accordance with His divine promise: “Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:43).[1984]

c) Strong and robust—as they are not subject to weariness,[1985] nor to any of the infirmities of this present life.[1986]

d) Spiritual, which, in contrast to the present soulish, earthly, or coarse-material body, will be very subtle, light,[1987] and heavenly (1 Cor. 15:48–49), will have no need for food or drink (1 Cor. 6:13),[1988] and will be free from other bodily needs, just like incorporeal spirits—the angels [(Luke 20:36); (Matt. 22:30)].

3)[1989] However, it must be noted:

a) Although all the aforementioned properties of the resurrected bodies are revealed to us in the Word of God, we are currently unable to define them with precision, as the renowned early teachers of the Church themselves acknowledged: “It (the resurrected body),” says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “will be spiritual, wondrous—one whose properties we cannot adequately describe.”[1990]

b) That all the aforementioned properties will undoubtedly belong to the bodies of the righteous who have been raised, destined for eternal bliss, but not all of them will belong to the bodies of the sinners who have been raised.[1991] At the very least, it cannot be said that the bodies of the latter will also rise in glory and be illuminated, since this attribute is clearly attributed by the Savior Himself to the righteous alone (Matt. 13:43), and it would be entirely inconsistent both with the merits of the resurrected sinners and with their destination for the torments of hell.[1992] Only one thing can be stated with certainty: that the bodies of sinners, too, will rise incorruptible and immortal; for the Apostle attributes this quality to all resurrected bodies in general when he speaks of all the dead: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible” (1 Cor. 15:52–53). “We will rise,” St. Cyril of Jerusalem also taught, “and we will all have eternal bodies, but not all alike. If anyone is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, in which he may, as is fitting, associate with the angels; but if anyone is sinful, he will receive an eternal body destined to suffer torment for his sins, so that he may burn eternally in the fire and not be destroyed.”[1993]

c) That the bodies of the righteous themselves will not all possess the aforementioned properties to the same degree; at the very least, not all will be equally glorified, but rather according to the merits of each righteous person. For the Holy Apostle clearly says: “There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; and star differs from star in glory.” So it is with the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15:41–42).[1994]

4) There were also some specific opinions or speculations regarding other characteristics of the resurrected bodies, such as their gender, age, and the like; but these are matters about which nothing definitive can be said, due to the lack of direct, explicit teaching. Some, for example, thought that, upon the resurrection of the bodies, the distinction between the sexes would be abolished;[1995] others, on the contrary, believed that it would remain;[1996] still others, finally, held that all the dead would rise as men—an opinion against which Blessed Augustine argued.[1997] Some speculated that all the dead—the elderly, men, youths, and children—would rise at the same age—that is, at the full stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13);[1998] others argued that it would not be at the same age, though they did not admit that infants and youths would rise in infancy or youth rather than in mature years.[1999]

VI. Having revealed, as much as is necessary and beneficial for us, the mystery of the future resurrection of the dead, St. Paul the Apostle also revealed another mystery concerning those who will remain alive until the day of Christ’s second coming. “This mystery,” he wrote to his disciples in Corinth, to whom he had just expounded the doctrine of the resurrection, “I tell you a mystery: not all of us will die, but all of us will be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:51–53). However brief these words may be, they clearly reveal the following three truths:

1) The transformation of the living on the last day will take place just as quickly as the resurrection of the dead: in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

2) The transformation of the living will result from the very same cause—the same almighty voice of Christ—from which the dead will be raised, and it will occur at the very same time, not before: for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be transformed (cf. 1 Thess. 4:15–17).

3) The transformation of the living will consist of the same thing as the resurrection of the dead, namely: our present bodies, which are perishable and subject to death, will be transformed into imperishable and immortal ones: “This perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53).[2000]

We are just as unable to explain to ourselves this future transformation of the living at present as we are unable to explain the future resurrection of the dead.

§265. The Last Judgment Itself: Its Reality, Form, and Characteristics

After the Judge of the living and the dead appears on earth in His glory, and at His voice the dead are raised and the living are transformed, the judgment itself over them will begin—the Last Judgment.

See also Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, ch. 18; *Constitutio Apostolica*, V, 7; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm 51*, n. 10; Cyril of Alexandria, *On the Worship of the Spirit and the Truth*, Book XVII; *Commentary on John*, IV, 51; Theodoret, *Commentary on 1 Corinthians*, VI, 51.

I. The reality of the Last Judgment is indisputably attested in the very same testimonies of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that attest to the reality of the Lord’s Second Coming and the resurrection of the dead; for the one is inextricably linked to the other. Thus:

1) Christ the Savior clearly taught: “The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son … And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” Do not be amazed at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who have done good will come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment [(John 5:22), (John 27–29)]. And at another time: the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds [(Matt. 16:27); cf. (Matt. 7:21–23); (Matt. 11:22–24); (Matt. 12:35–42); (Matt. 13:37–43); (Matt. 19:28–30); (Matt. 24:30); (Matt. 25:31–46)].

2) The Holy Apostles preached with no less clarity: He (God) has set a day on which He will judge the world with justice, through the Man He has appointed, having given proof to all th by raising Him from the dead (Acts 17:31). Behold, the Lord is coming with myriads of His holy angels—to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly among them of all the deeds their ungodliness has produced (Jude 1:14–15). For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done while living in the body, whether good or evil [(2 Cor. 5:10); cf. (Rom. 2:5–7); (Rom. 14:10); (1 Cor. 4:5); (Eph. 6:8); (Col. 3:24–25); (2 Thess. 1:6–10); (2 Tim. 4:1); (Rev. 20:11–15)].

3) The Holy Church has always upheld and professed this truth as one of the most important. The so-called Apostles’ Creed states: “(I believe in Christ) who ascended into heaven, from whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;” and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states: “and who will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead;” in the Athanasian Creed: “He will come to judge the living and the dead; at His coming, all people will rise with their bodies, and they will give an account of their deeds.” The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church repeat the same in their writings: Polycarp,[2001] Justin,[2002] Tertullian,[2003] Cyprian,[2004] Cyril of Jerusalem,[2005] John Chrysostom,[2006] and others.[2007]

II. The image of the Last Judgment, as depicted in the Word of God, presents to us:

1) A Judge seated on the throne of glory: “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory” (Matt. 25:31).

2) Those who carry out His will and, as it were, participate in the judgment. The angels will be the ones who carry out His will: “He will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (Matt. 24:31), and they will gather from His Kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who commit lawlessness (Matt. 13:41), and they will separate the wicked from among the righteous (Matt. 13:49). The saints will be partners in the judgment—at the very least, the most perfect of the saints, such as the holy Apostles: “Truly I tell you,” Christ said to His disciples, “you who have followed Me—in the age to come, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). “Do you not know,” St. Paul asked the Corinthians, “that the saints will judge the world?” (1 Cor. 6:2).[2008]

3) Those to Be Judged. The following will appear for judgment: a) all people, both living and dead: “And all the nations will be gathered before Him” (Matt. 25:32)—before God and our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1): He is the Judge of the living and the dead, appointed by God (Acts 10:42); b) the righteous and the wicked: for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done while in the body, whether good or evil [(2 Cor. 5:10); cf. (John 5:29); (Rom. 2:6–7)];[2009] c) not only all people, but also the fallen spirits, whom, according to the Apostle’s testimony, God will not spare, but having bound them as captives of darkness, will deliver them to the judgment of those who are being tormented [(2 Pet. 2:4); cf. (Jude 6)].

4) The Subject of the Judgment. The subject of the judgment will be—a) not only human deeds: for the Lord will repay each person according to their deeds [(Rom. 2:6); cf. (2 Cor. 5:10); (Jude 15)];[2010] b) but also words: “I tell you that on the day of judgment people will have to give an account for every idle word they have spoken” (Matt. 12:36); c) and even the most secret thoughts: for the Lord will come, who will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and reveal the intentions of the heart, and then each person will receive praise from God [(1 Cor. 4:5); cf. (Rev. 2:23)].[2011]

5) The separation of the righteous from the wicked. …And He will separate one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will place the sheep on His right hand and the goats on His left (Matt. 25:32–33).

6) The Judge’s pronouncement of judgment upon both groups. Then the King will say to those on His right hand: Then the King will say to those on His right hand: “Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34) … Then He will say to those on His left: “Then He will say to those on His left: ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41).

The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church recognized this depiction of the Last Judgment as undoubtedly true and offered their interpretations of it;[2012] but they often noted that it should not be understood literally and anthropomorphically in all its details. “Scripture,” says St. Basil the Great, “presents this in a personified manner, not because the Judge will ask each of us questions or provide answers to the one being judged, but to instill in us a sense of diligence, so that we do not forget to consider our own justification. It is likely, however, that by some inexpressible power, in the twinkling of an eye, all the deeds of our lives will be imprinted in the memory of our soul, as in a picture. And thus we will hear this: ‘Now their deeds surround them; they stand before My face’ (Hos. 7:2). And the books mentioned in Daniel (Dan. 7:10)—what else do they signify but the Lord’s stirring up in human memory the images of all that has been done, so that each person may recall their deeds, and so that we may see for what they are being punished.”[2013] “One should not think that the coming of the Lord will be local and physical, but one must await Him in the glory of the Father, suddenly throughout the entire universe.”[2014] “One should not think that much time will pass before each person sees himself and his deeds; and the mind will, in the blink of an eye, by an ineffable power, present to itself the Judge and the consequences of God’s judgment, vividly depicting all this before itself, and in the soul’s innermost being, as if in a mirror, will see the images of what he has done.”[2015]

III. From this depiction of the judgment to take place at the end of the world, we can draw conclusions about the nature of this judgment. It will obviously be:

1) Universal: because it will extend to all people, living and dead, good and evil, even to the fallen angels themselves; for then the Lord will judge the universe (Acts 17:31).[2016]

2) Solemn and public: because the Judge will appear in all His glory with all the holy angels, and will conduct the judgment before the whole world—heavenly, earthly, and underworld.[2017]

3) Severe and dreadful: for it will be carried out according to all of God’s righteousness, and righteousness alone; that will be the day of wrath and the revelation of God’s righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5).[2018]

4) Decisive and final: because it will irrevocably determine the eternal destiny of each of the accused (Matt. 25:46).

§266. Circumstances Accompanying the General Judgment: a) The End of the World

On that same last day, when God’s final judgment over the whole world will take place, the end of the world will also follow.

I. Holy Scripture clearly demonstrates: a) the reality or certainty of this future event; b) its nature and form; and c) its close connection with the Last Judgment.

1) Reality. That the present world will come to an end was a) foretold even in the Old Testament by the Psalmist, who cried out to God: “In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You will remain; and all of them will wear out like a garment, and You will change them like a robe” (Ps. 101:26–27); b) Christ the Savior Himself testified to this in the New Testament when He said: “Heaven and earth will pass away” (Matt. 24:35; cf. Matt. 5:18), and He gave this promise to His disciples: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20). That the end of the world will come precisely on the day when the Last Judgment takes place is evident: a) from the Savior’s words in the parable of the seed: “The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.” Therefore, just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of this age… the angels will come forth and separate the wicked from among the righteous [(Matt. 13:39–40, 49); cf. (Matt. 24:29)]; b) from the words of St. Peter the Apostle: “The present heavens and earth, kept by the same Word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly” (2 Pet. 3:7).

2) Essence and Form. The end of the world will not consist in its complete destruction and annihilation, but rather in its transformation and renewal through fire. “They will perish,” said the Psalmist of the present heavens and earth; but he went on to explain his meaning: “like a garment, they will wear out and change” (Ps. 101:26–27). And St. Peter, having said that the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire on the day of judgment, continues: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements, ablaze, will be dissolved, and the earth and everything in it will be burned up”; and again: “in which the heavens, set on fire, will be dissolved, and the elements, ablaze, will melt away” [(2 Pet. 3:7), (2 Pet. 10–12)];—but immediately afterward he adds: “But we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). St. John the Theologian did indeed see a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth have passed away (Rev. 21:1).

3) A close connection with the Last Judgment. St. Paul the Apostle points to this connection with the words: “For the creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God, because the creation was subjected to futility not willingly, but because of the one who subjected it, in the hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:19–21). As a result of man’s fall, all creation was involuntarily subjected to the process of decay, and it groans and suffers with us (Rom. 8:22). When the work of man’s restoration is complete, then, by the same law, creation itself must be set free from its toil and, in general, from the destructive consequences of sin. But the restoration of humanity will be completed at the Last Judgment, at which time the revelation of the sons of God will take place. Consequently, at that same time, creation itself must be set free from the bondage of decay into the freedom of the glory of the children of God; the entire material world must be cleansed of the destructive consequences of human sin and renewed. It is this renewal of the world that will take place on the last day through fire, so that in the new heaven and the new earth nothing sinful will remain, but only righteousness will dwell there (2 Pet. 2:13).

II. All the ideas set forth here regarding the end of the world were also preached by the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. For example:

St. Irenaeus: “It is not the essence or substance of creation that is abolished (for He who created it is true and mighty), but the form of this world passes away—that is, that in which corruption has occurred… When this form passes away and man is renewed and rises to incorruption, then the new heaven and the new earth will appear.”[2019]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Our Lord Jesus Christ will come from heaven; He will come in glory at the end of this world on the last day. For there will be an end to this world, and this created world will be renewed. Since debauchery, theft, fornication, and every kind of sin have spread across the earth, and blood has mingled with blood (Hosea 4:2) in the world: so that this wondrous dwelling place of creatures may not remain forever filled with lawlessness, this world will pass away, that it may appear again in a better form… The Lord does not destroy the heavens to annihilate them, but to reveal them again in a better form. Hear the words of the prophet David: “In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands; they will perish, but You will remain” (Ps. 101:26–27). But, someone might ask, why then does he say clearly, “they will perish”? This is evident from what follows: “And all of them will wear out like a garment; like a robe, You will change them, and they will be changed.” For just as it is said of man that he perishes—as it is written: “The righteous man dies, and no one takes it to heart” (Isa. 57:1)—even as he awaits the resurrection, so too do we await a certain resurrection of the heavens.”[2020]

St. Basil the Great: “A foreshadowing of the doctrines concerning the end and transformation of the world is also found in what has been handed down to us briefly at the very beginning of the divinely inspired teaching: ‘In the beginning, God created.’ That which began in time will, by necessity, also end in time. If it has a temporal beginning, do not doubt its end… But they (the pagan scholars) have not found a single way among all possible means to comprehend God, the Creator of the universe and the righteous Judge who rewards each person according to their deeds, nor to grasp in their minds the idea of the end that follows from the concept of judgment; for the world must change, even if the state of souls passes into another kind of life. For just as this present life has qualities inherent to this world, so too will the future existence of our souls receive a lot befitting its condition.”[2021]

Blessed Jerome: “It is clearly shown (Ps. 101:27) that the end and destruction of the world do not mean its reduction to nothing, but a change for the better. Likewise, what is written elsewhere—‘The light of the moon will be like the light of the sun’ (Isa. 30:26)—means not the destruction of the former, but a change for the better. Let us reflect on what has been said: the form passes away, but not the substance. St. Peter expresses the same idea (2 Pet. 3:13)… He did not say, “We will see other heavens and another earth,” but rather that the former and ancient ones will be transformed for the better.”[2022]

The following also taught this: Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Methodius, and others.[2023] The Fifth Ecumenical Council, refuting various errors of the Origenists, solemnly condemned their false teaching that the material world would not merely be transformed but would be completely destroyed.[2024]

§267. b) The end of Christ’s Kingdom of Grace and the beginning of the Kingdom of Glory; a remark on the chiliasm or the Christian millennium

Along with the end of the material world and its transformation into a new and better world, the end of Christ’s Kingdom of Grace will also come, and the eternal Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Glory, will be revealed.

I. The first thought—regarding the end of Christ’s kingdom of grace at that time—was clearly expressed by St. Paul the Apostle when, speaking of the future resurrection of the dead at the Savior’s second coming, he wrote to the Corinthians: Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive, each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then those who belong to Christ, at His coming. And then comes the end, when He will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father, when He will put an end to every rule, authority, and power. For He must reign until has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death [(1 Cor. 15:22–26); cf. (Matt. 13:24–30, 39)]. And this last enemy will be abolished precisely when not only will all people be raised and made incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:52), but creation itself will be set free from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21), and when the written word is fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? (1 Cor. 15:54–55)?

II. The following serve to confirm the idea that, following the end of the kingdom of grace, a new kingdom of God—the kingdom of glory—will be revealed, in which the Lord, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, will reign forever ([2025] ):

1) On the one hand—a) the words of the Savior: then (i.e., immediately after the Last Judgment and, consequently, after the end of the Kingdom of Grace) the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father (Matt. 13:43), and furthermore: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God, but yourselves cast out. And people will come from the east and the west, and from the north and the south, and will take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:28–29); b) the testimony of St. Paul the Apostle that, at the resurrection of the dead, flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), and the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God [(1 Cor. 6:9); cf. (Gal. 5:21); (2 Thess. 1:5)].

2) On the other hand—the words: a) of the angel who announced the coming of Christ the Savior to the Most Holy Virgin: “His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:33); b) The Apostle Peter: “free access will be granted to you into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11); c) The Apostle Paul: “I endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10); “This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2:11); if we are children, then we are also heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (Rom. 8:17); And the Lord will deliver me from every evil deed and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom; to Him be glory forever and ever. Amen (2 Tim. 4:18); d) finally, the Savior Himself in the Revelation of John the Theologian: “To the one who conquers, I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, just as I also conquered and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21).

3) The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, following Holy Scripture, also taught that the kingdom of grace will end with the Last Judgment, and the kingdom of glory will be revealed.[2026] Here, for example, are the words of:

St. Zeno of Verona: “The Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 15:24) speaks of the temporary kingdom of God incarnate, at the end of which He will come and judge the living and the dead, as confirmed by the very context of the passage, which states that Christ must reign with His saints until He puts an end to every rule, every authority and power, until He has put all enemies under His feet, until the last enemy, death, is destroyed (1 Cor. 15:24–26). But the Evangelist Luke (Luke 1:34) and Solomon (Wisdom 3:4–8) understood the original authority, in which, having unceasing participation from everlasting to everlasting, the Son never received the kingdom from the Father, nor will He ever hand it over to the Father. For He has always reigned with His Father, as He Himself says: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The Apostle Paul expressed this more clearly: “Know this, that no fornicator, or impure person, or covetous person—who is an idolater—has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God” (Eph. 5:5), thereby showing that the Kingdom of the Father and the Son is one.”[2027]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “He who will judge the living and the dead—who died for both the living and the dead—will reign forever, as Paul says: ‘Christ died, was raised, and came to life so that He might reign over both the dead and the living’ (Rom. 14:9). Someone dared to say that after the end of the world, Christ will not reign; he dared to assert that the Word, having proceeded from the Father and returned to the Father, will no longer exist. In this way, he blasphemes to his own condemnation: for he has not heeded the words of the Lord, “The Son remains forever” (John 8:35), nor the words of Gabriel: “ , and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:33)… And do you wish to know how those who teach the opposite have come to such madness? They read the Apostle’s good words with evil intent: “He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). And they say that when the enemies are put under His feet, He will no longer reign; but they speak foolishly and senselessly. For He who reigned before He put His enemies under His feet—will He not all the more reign after He has defeated them?”[2028]

III. After all that we have said about the Last Judgment, along with its preliminary and accompanying circumstances, it follows naturally how one should view the doctrine of chiliasm (χιλιασμός—the millennium) or the millennial kingdom of Christ. The essence of this doctrine is as follows: “Long before the end of the world, Christ will return to earth, defeat the Antichrist, raise the righteous to life, and establish a new kingdom on earth, in which the righteous, as a reward for their deeds and sufferings, will reign with Him for a thousand years, enjoying all the blessings of earthly life; then the second general resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, and the universal eternal reward will follow.” However, the teachings of the Chiliasts were known in two forms. Some claimed that when Christ establishes His millennial kingdom on earth, He will restore Jerusalem to its former glory, reintroduce the observance of the ceremonial law of Moses with all its sacrifices, and that the happiness of the righteous will consist of all manner of sensual pleasures. This is how the heretic Cerinthus, imbued with false Jewish and Gnostic beliefs, began to teach in the first century [2029] , and after him other Judaizing heretics continued in the same vein: the Ebionites,[2030] , the Montanists,[2031] , and in the fourth century—the heretic Apollinaris with his followers.[2032] Others, on the contrary, asserted that the bliss of the righteous during Christ’s millennial reign would consist solely in innocent, pure, and spiritual pleasures, and did not preach at all about the renewal of Jerusalem at that time or the restoration of the ceremonial law of Moses. This view of the Millennium was first expressed by Papias, who lived during the Apostolic Age,[2033] and is subsequently found in the writings of Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Methodius, and Lactantius;[2034] In later times, it was revived, with certain modifications, by the Anabaptists, the followers of Swedenborg, and other mystics and Illuminati.[2035] But neither in its original nor in its later form can the doctrine of the Millennium be accepted by an Orthodox Christian. For:

1) In both of its forms, it is based on the assumption that there will be two resurrections of the dead: the first, a thousand years before the end of the world, will be the resurrection of the righteous alone; the second, immediately before the end of the world, will be the resurrection of both the righteous and the sinners, followed by the Last Judgment and eternal reward. Meanwhile, the Savior Himself taught with complete clarity that there will be only one general resurrection of the dead on the last day, when, at His voice, both the righteous and the sinners will rise together from their graves and immediately receive from Him the final judgment and the final reward [(John 5:25–29); (John 6:40–54); (Matt. 13:40–42); (Matt. 25:31–46)].

2) In both of its forms, it posits the coming of Christ the Savior to earth a thousand years before the end of the world, contrary to the teaching of the Word of God, which proclaims only two comings of Christ: the first, in humility, when He came to redeem us; and the second, in glory, to take place at the very end of the world, when He will appear to judge the living and the dead [(Matt. 13:40–43); (Matt. 24:27–51); (Matt. 25:31–46)].

3) In both of its forms, it posits that, following the end of the kingdom of grace and preceding the kingdom of glory, there will be yet another intermediate, third kingdom of Christ, which will come to an end after a thousand years— —whereas the Word of God teaches only of two kingdoms of Christ: the kingdom of grace, which will continue until the very end of the world and the Last Judgment (1 Cor. 15:25), and the kingdom of glory, which will begin immediately after the Last Judgment and will have no end [(Luke 1:33); (2 Pet. 1:11)].

4) In its first form, it contradicts, in particular, the teaching of the Word of God that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage [(Matt. 22:30); (Luke 20:34)], that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking (Rom. 14:17), and that the ceremonial law of Moses—which had only a typological significance prior to the coming of the Savior—was abolished by Him forever and replaced by the most perfect, New Testament law (see §146).

5) If the teachings on chiliasm in their final form were held by some of the early Church Fathers—Justin, Irenaeus, Methodius—they held to it solely as a private opinion, not as a dogma, according to the testimony of Justin himself, who notes that he thinks this way along with some others, while many Christians of pure and orthodox faith do not share his belief.[2036] This is all the more certain because:

6) Other teachers of the Church at the same time directly opposed the doctrine of chiliasm, such as: Caius, a Roman presbyter,[2037] St. Dionysius of Alexandria,[2038] Origen,[2039] Eusebius of Caesarea,[2040] Tycon of Africa,[2041] Basil the Great,[2042] St. Gregory the Theologian,[2043] St. Epiphanius,[2044] Blessed Jerome,[2045] Philastrius [2046] and Blessed Augustine,[2047] — calling the hopes of the chiliasts empty fabrications, ridiculous and absurd fables, completely contrary to Holy Scripture.[2048]

7) Even if it had been possible to hold to the doctrine of chiliasm as a private opinion, this would have been permissible only until the Ecumenical Church had expressed its view on the matter. But when the Second Ecumenical Council (in 381), in condemning all the errors of the heretic Apollinaris, also condemned his teaching on the millennial reign of Christ, and for that reason inserted into the very Creed the words concerning Christ: “His kingdom will have no end,” — it is utterly impermissible for an Orthodox Christian to hold to this teaching, even as a private opinion.

8) To support their views, chiliasts have traditionally pointed—and continue to point—to chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation, which describes the vision of John the Theologian in which an angel holding the keys to hell descended from heaven, bound the devil, and cast him into the abyss for a thousand years; how the first resurrection then took place, when Christ’s followers were raised to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years; and how, after the thousand years have passed, Satan will be released from his prison… for a short time, and he will go out to deceive the nations on the earth, and soon afterward there will be a judgment upon all the resurrected dead and eternal retribution for them and for the devil. But:

a) It is well known that the Apocalypse is a prophetic and deeply mysterious book, the meaning of which is not fully accessible to us. And to interpret prophetic passages literally, if they appear in this form to contradict other passages of Scripture that are direct and clear, is completely contrary to the rules of sacred hermeneutics, which rightly prescribes in such cases that prophecies be explained in a mystical sense: for God, who gave revelation to mankind, cannot contradict Himself.

b) As far as it is possible to fathom the mysterious meaning of the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation, its greatest interpreters, following in the footsteps of Blessed Augustine, have explained this chapter as follows: the name of the Angel who came down from heaven and holds the keys to hell refers, of course, to the Angel of the Covenant—the Lord Jesus—who came to earth to deprive the one who holds the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14), of his power through His death, to destroy the devil’s works on earth (1 John 3:8), and to cast him out (John 12:31). By the binding and imprisonment of the devil in a dungeon is meant that the Lord, through His preaching, His repeated acts of casting out demons from people, and especially through His death, truly cast the devil out, bound the strong one (Matt. 12:29), stripped the principalities and powers of their strength, powerfully put them to shame, and defeated them on the cross (Col. 2:16). The term “the millennial kingdom of Christ” refers to the entire indefinite period of time from the very beginning of Christ’s kingdom of grace on earth—or, more precisely, from the time when the Christian faith became triumphant and dominant in the world under Constantine the Great until the end of the age—in accordance with the words of the Psalmist: “He remembers His covenant forever, the word He commanded for a thousand generations” (Ps. 104:8); the phrase “for a thousand generations” refers indefinitely to all future generations of mankind until the end of the world. By the “first resurrection” is meant the spiritual resurrection of people in Christianity, which begins through their conversion, justification, and rebirth, in accordance with the words: “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you” [(Eph. 5:14); cf. (John 5:24)], and ends when the souls of true Christians pass from this present life—which was, as it were, death to them—into true life with Jesus Christ. Next—the devil’s release from prison for a short time to deceive the nations—signifies the appearance of the Antichrist on earth shortly before the very end of the world. Finally, the judgment of all the dead who have been raised and the rendering of rewards to both them and the devil—this is the universal, final judgment and the final rendering of rewards.[2049]

2. On the reward following the Last Judgment

§268. Connection to the Previous Section and the Characteristics of This Reward

At the conclusion of the universal judgment, the righteous Judge will pronounce His final verdict on both the righteous and the sinners—He will say to the former: “Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34); and to the latter He will say: “Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt.[2050] 25:41). And immediately these will go into eternal torment, but the righteous into eternal life (Matt. 25:46). This reward following the Last Judgment will be complete, perfect, and definitive. Complete: that is, not for the human soul alone, as after the particular judgment, but for both the soul and the body—for the whole person. Perfect: because it will consist not merely in the predestination of bliss for the righteous and torment for the sinners, as after the particular judgment, but in complete bliss and torment, according to each person’s merits. Definite: because it will remain unchangeable for all throughout eternity, and none of the sinners will have any possibility of ever being freed from hell, as some do after the particular judgment (The Orthodox Confession, Part 1, Answers to Questions 60, 68; see also §§252, 257, 258).

§269. Retribution for Sinners: a) What will their torments consist of?

The torments to which sinners will be condemned by God’s righteous judgment are described in the Word of God in various ways and from different perspectives. It mentions:

1) The separation of sinners from God and their condemnation. “Depart from Me, you who are cursed” (Matt. 25:41), the stern Judge will say to them—“I do not know you… depart from Me, all you who practice lawlessness” [(Luke 13:27); cf. (Matt. 7:21)]. And this separation from God and this curse will in itself be the greatest punishment for the wretched. “For one who has feeling and reason,” notes St. John Chrysostom, “to be rejected by God means to have already endured Gehenna.”[2051] “Gehenna and the torment within it are unbearable; yet even if one were to imagine thousands of Gehennas, all of that would mean nothing in comparison to the misfortune of being deprived of this blessed glory, of being hated by Christ, and of hearing Him say, ‘I do not know you,’ and the accusation that, seeing Him hungry, we did not feed Him! For it is better to be struck by countless bolts of lightning than to see the gentle face of the Lord turned away from us and His clear eye unable to look upon us.”[2052] We must remember: a) that sinners will be separated from God forever—that is, they will be forever deprived of this supreme Good, in which alone they could find complete satisfaction of all the needs of their souls, created in the image of God; b) that they will be rejected by their Father, their Savior, who cared for them with such infinite love, poured out so many graces upon them, and will never again be deemed worthy to behold His radiant face, never again enter into the joy of their Lord; c) that, no longer distracted by the world or the flesh—which in this present life constantly caused them to lose themselves—they will all the more keenly feel the agonizing thirst of their souls, which by nature yearn for God—a thirst that nothing can satisfy. Then the second death will come upon the wretched (Rev. 20:14), the most bitter death in eternal separation from the Source of life.

2) That sinners will be deprived of all the blessings of the Kingdom of Heaven, which the righteous will receive. The Savior Himself testified that while many from the east and the west will come and recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven, the unworthy sons of the Kingdom will be cast into outer darkness [(Matt. 8:11–12); (Matt. 22:13)], and, while in torment, they will see Abraham from afar and the righteous in his bosom (Luke 16:23). “This deprivation of blessings,” St. Chrysostom argues, “will cause such torment, such sorrow, and such anguish that even if no punishment awaited sinners here, this deprivation alone—being more severe than the torments of Gehenna—could tear our souls apart and agitate them…” And further: “Many foolish people desire only to escape Gehenna; but I consider the punishment of not being in that glory to be far more agonizing than Gehenna itself; and I think that whoever is deprived of it should weep not so much over the torments of Gehenna as over the deprivation of heavenly blessings; for this alone is the most severe of all punishments.[2053] “I know that many are terrified by Gehenna alone; but I think that being deprived of that glory is a more severe torment than Gehenna itself.”[2054]

3) On the place to which sinners will be banished, and on their community. This place is called sometimes the abyss, which is terrifying even to the demons themselves (Luke 8:31), sometimes hell (Luke 16:22), or the land of everlasting darkness, where there is no light (Job 10:22), and sometimes the fiery Gehenna (Matt. 5:22–28), a fiery furnace (Matt. 13:50), a lake of fire burning with brimstone [(Rev. 19:20); (Rev. 20:14); (Rev. 21:8)]. And in such a place, sinners, for all eternity, will see no one around them except the cast-out spirits of wickedness, who were the chief cause of their ruin (Matt. 26:41). “Whoever sinned on earth,” says St. Ephrem the Syrian, “and offended God, and concealed his deeds, will be cast into utter darkness, where there is not even a ray of light. Whoever harbored deceit in his heart and envy in his mind will be hidden away in a dreadful abyss, full of fire and torment. Whoever gave in to anger and allowed no love into his heart—even to the point of hating his neighbor—will be delivered to the cruel torment of the demons.”[2055]

4) On the inner torments of sinners in hell. Then the words of the Apostle will be fulfilled upon them in their full extent: “Tribulation and distress will come upon every soul of man who does evil” (Rom. 2:9). The recollection of their past lives, which they so recklessly squandered on wicked deeds; the ceaseless pangs of conscience for all the iniquities they have ever committed; later regret that they did not make use of the God-given means of salvation, and the most agonizing realization that there is no longer any possibility of repenting, reforming, and being saved—all this will torment the wretched ceaselessly. And they will say to themselves, repentant and sighing in the anguish of their spirit: We have strayed from the path of truth, and the light of righteousness did not shine upon us, and the sun did not illuminate us. We were filled with deeds of lawlessness and destruction and wandered through impassable deserts, and we did not know the way of the Lord. What good has our arrogance done us, and what has wealth and vanity brought us? All this has passed like a shadow and like a fleeting rumor… so we were born and died, and could show no sign of virtue, but were consumed by our lawlessness (Wisdom 5:6–9, 13). “Those,” writes St. Basil the Great, “who have done evil will rise again to face scorn and shame, to see within themselves the abomination and the imprint of the sins they have committed. And perhaps even more terrible than darkness and eternal fire is the shame with which sinners will be immortalized, constantly having before their eyes the traces of the sin committed in the flesh, like some indelible dye that remains forever in the memory of their souls.”[2056]

5) On the external torments of sinners in hell. These torments are depicted in Holy Scripture through the imagery of the undying worm, and much more frequently—the unquenchable fire. Christ the Savior, warning us against temptations, said, among other things: “If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter life lame than, having two feet, to be cast into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched [(Mark 9:45–46); (Mark 44:48)]; in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he noted that the rich man, who found himself in Hades after his death, suffers in the flames (Luke 16:24), and at the Last Judgment he will say to the sinners: “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41). St. Paul the Apostle likewise testifies that the future Judge of the living and the dead will, in a fire of flame, bring retribution upon those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 1:8). This is also what the Holy Fathers of the Church taught; for example: a) St. Basil the Great: “Then (that is, after the judgment), those who have committed many evil deeds in life will be assigned to fearsome and gloomy angels, whose gaze and breath are fiery, reflecting the cruelty of their will, and whose faces are like the night, reflecting their despondency and hatred of mankind; then an impassable abyss, deep darkness, and a fire without light, which possesses a scorching power within the darkness but is devoid of radiance; then a certain poisonous and carnivorous worm, devouring with greed, never sated, and causing unbearable illnesses through its devouring; then the cruelest of all torments—eternal disgrace and eternal shame;”[2057] b) St. John Chrysostom: “Upon hearing about the fire, do not think that the fire there is like the fire here; this one seizes, burns, and transforms into something else; but the one that once engulfs a person will burn forever and never cease, which is why it is called unquenchable. For sinners, too, must be clothed in immortality—not for glory, but to serve as a constant reminder of the torments to come; and the mind can never fully conceive how terrible this is—except perhaps by gaining a small understanding of those great torments through experience of minor misfortunes. If you ever find yourself in a bathhouse heated more intensely than is proper, imagine the fire of Gehenna; and if you ever burn with a high fever, transport your mind to that flame: then you will be able to understand this difference well. For if a bathhouse and a fever torment and distress us so much, what will we feel when we find ourselves in that river of fire that will flow before the dreadful judgment seat!”[2058]

The Word of God does not define what this undying worm and unquenchable fire are, by which sinners will be tormented in hell. And therefore, St. John of Damascus stated: “Sinners will be cast into eternal fire, not of a material nature as we know it, but of a nature known only to God.”[2059] In general, the ancient teachers of the Church imagined that the fire of hell would not resemble the fire we know here on earth,[2060] it would burn but not consume or destroy anything,[2061] it would affect not only the bodies of sinners but also their souls and the incorporeal spirits—the demons—themselves,[2062] it would be gloomy, without light,[2063] and mysterious.[2064] Some have merely thought that this unquenchable fire and undying worm might be understood figuratively, as symbols of the most excruciating torments of hell,[2065] —that the worm primarily expresses internal pangs of conscience, while the fire represents terrible external torments.[2066]

6) As for the consequences of all these torments, both internal and external—namely, weeping and gnashing of teeth, despair, and eternal perdition—the Savior repeatedly spoke of Gehenna, saying, “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” [(Matt. 8:12); (Matt. 13:42–50); (Matt. 25:30)]. “Between us and you,” said the righteous Abraham to the rich man in Hades, “a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who wish to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone pass from there to us” (Luke 16:26). “Those who will be punished,” the Apostle testified concerning sinners, “will face eternal destruction” [(2 Thess. 1:9); (Matt. 10:28); (Phil. 3:19)]. “When we go there,” St. Chrysostom reasons, “even if we show the deepest repentance, it will no longer do us any good; but no matter how much we gnash our teeth, no matter how much we weep and plead a thousand times over, not even a drop from the tip of a finger will fall upon us, who are engulfed in fire; on the contrary, we will hear the same thing as that rich man—that a great chasm has been fixed between us and you (Luke 16:28)… We will gnash our teeth from unbearable suffering and torment, but no one will help us. We will wail loudly as the flames engulf us more fiercely, but we will see no one except those suffering alongside us and the great void. What can be said about the horrors that darkness will bring upon our souls?”[2067] “What will it be like,” said another Holy Father, “the condition of the body of one subjected to these endless and unbearable torments, where there is unquenchable fire, a worm that torments without end, the dark and dreadful depths of hell, bitter weeping, extraordinary cries, wailing, and gnashing of teeth—and where there is no end to suffering? There is no deliverance from all this after death; there are neither ways nor means to escape these bitter torments.”[2068]

§270. b) The Degrees of Hellish Torments

However, although all sinners will be subjected to the torments of hell, not all will suffer to the same degree: some will be punished more, others less, each in proportion to their sins. This truth is:

1. Is clearly proclaimed by Holy Scripture. Christ the Savior said that the servant who knew his master’s will but was not prepared and did not do his will will be beaten severely; but the one who did not know and yet did what deserved punishment will be beaten less severely (Luke 12:47–48); that the Pharisees, who devour widows’ houses and pray at length hypocritically, will receive all the more severe condemnation (Luke 20:47); that it will be more bearable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for the city that does not receive the Apostles (Matt. 10:15), and that it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon than for Chorazin and Bethsaida (Matt. 11:21–22). The Holy Apostle taught that the righteous Judge will repay each person according to his deeds at the Last Judgment (Rom. 2:6).

2. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church preached this just as clearly. For example:

St. Basil the Great: “It is necessary to know that the expressions ‘there will be many’ and ‘there will be few’ do not refer to the end, but to the difference in the severity of torment. For if God is a righteous Judge—not only of the good but also of the wicked, rewarding each person according to his deeds—then one may be worthy of unquenchable fire, or of a milder fire, or of a more consuming one, another—the undying worm, but again one that causes pain that is either more bearable or more unbearable, according to each person’s merit; and yet another—Gehenna, in which, without a doubt, there are various kinds of torments; and another—utter darkness, where one is brought only to weeping, while another, from intensified torments, even to the gnashing of teeth. Pitch-black darkness itself undoubtedly indicates that there is something internal within it. And what is said in Proverbs—“in the depths of the underworld” (Prov. 9:18)—suggests that some, though in Hades, are not in the depths of Hades and suffer the lightest torment. This can be distinguished even today in physical sufferings. For one person suffers from a fever with convulsions and other ailments; another feels only a fever, and even then not to the same degree as the first; yet another has no fever but suffers from pain in some limb, and again, this pain is greater or lesser than that of the others.”[2069]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “There are various kinds of torments, as we have heard in the Gospel. There is utter darkness (Matt. 8:12): and from this it is evident that there is also another, deepest darkness; the fiery Gehenna (Matt. 5:22)—another place of torment; the gnashing of teeth (Matt. 13:42)—also a distinct place; the worm that never dies (Mark 9:48)—in yet another place; the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20)—yet another place; Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4)—also its own place; the unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43)—a distinct realm; the underworld (Phil. 2:10) and perdition (Matt. 7:13)—in their respective places; the farthest parts of the earth (Eph. 4:9)—another place; hell, where sinners dwell, and the depths of hell—the most tormentful place. It is to these torments that the wretched will be assigned, each according to the measure of his sins—whether more grievous or more bearable—as it is written: “Each is held captive by the bonds of his own sin” (Prov. 5:22); “To whom much is given, much will be required; and to whom little is given, even that little will be required” (Luke 12:47–48). Just as there are differences in punishments here, so too in the age to come.”[2070] “The adulterer suffers one kind of torment, the fornicator another, the murderer another, the thief another, and the drunkard another.”[2071]

St. John Chrysostom: “Whoever has received greater instruction must endure a greater punishment for their crime. The more knowledgeable and powerful we are, the more severely we will be punished for our sins. If you are rich, more sacrifices are required of you than of the poor; if you are wise, greater obedience; if you are vested with authority, demonstrate the most brilliant achievements. And in everything else, you will be held accountable according to your abilities.”[2072] “Those who go there with a multitude of both good and evil deeds will receive some relief from both the punishment and the torments there; on the other hand, those who, having no good deeds, bring only evil ones—it is impossible to say how much they will suffer, having been consigned to eternal torment.”[2073]

St. Cyprian,[2074] Blessed Jerome,[2075] Blessed Augustine,[2076] and others taught the same.

§271. c) The Eternity of Hellish Torments

Although varying in degree, the torments of sinners in hell will not differ in the least with regard to duration: for they will be equally eternal and endless for all.

I. Sacred Scripture does indeed describe these torments of sinners:

1) Eternal. The Savior Himself testified that after the Last Judgment, He will say to the sinners: “Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire … and they will go away into eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:41–46). In the Epistle of Jude, we read: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which in the same way indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desires, serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7). The Apostle Paul states that sinners will be subjected to punishment—eternal destruction—by the Lord Himself and by the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at on that day among all who have believed (2 Thess. 1:9–10). The Book of Revelation states that the smoke of the sinners’ torment rises forever and ever, and they have no rest day or night (Rev. 14:11), and that the devil and his minions—along with whom the sinners will be cast into Gehenna—will be tormented day and night forever and ever (Rev. 20:10).

2) Endless. This endless nature of the sinners’ torments was: a) foretold by the prophet Isaiah: “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched” (Isa. 66:24); b) later—by St. John the Baptist, testifying about Christ the Savior: “His shovel is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:12); c) finally, the Savior Himself in the following powerful statement: “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than, having two hands, to be cast into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off: it is better for you to enter life lame than to be cast with two feet into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than to be thrown into the fiery Gehenna with two eyes, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched [(Mark 9:43–48); (Matt. 18:8)].

II. The Orthodox Church has always believed that the torments of hell will be eternal. It expressed this belief—a) solemnly at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when it condemned the heresy of Origen, which held that demons and the ungodly would suffer in hell only for a limited time and would then be restored to their original, innocent state;[2077] b) likewise in the Athanasian Creed, where we read: “Those who have done good will enter into eternal life; but the wicked into eternal fire.” In particular, this belief of the Church was clearly professed and preached by its teachers even before the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Among them are:

St. Clement of Rome: “All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked, for whom it would have been better if they were not immortal: for, suffering endless torment in unquenchable fire and never dying, they will have no end to their misery.”[2078]

St. Polycarp: “You threaten me with a fire that burns temporarily and soon goes out; for you do not know of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal torment that is prepared for the wicked.”[2079]

St. Justin the Martyr: “That he (the devil), with his host and those who follow him, will be cast into the fire and will be tormented there for all eternity—this was foretold by Christ.”[2080]

St. Irenaeus: “To whom the Lord will say, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire,’ those will be condemned forever.”[2081] “The blessings bestowed by God will be eternal and endless; therefore, the deprivation of them will also be eternal and endless, just as those who have blinded themselves or been blinded by others in the boundless light are forever deprived of the pleasure of that light.”[2082]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “If anyone is sinful, he will receive an eternal body, destined to suffer torment for his sins, so that he may burn eternally in the fire and never perish.”[2083]

St. Basil the Great: “The Lord speaks decisively, saying that these will go into eternal torment (Matt. 25:46), and He sends others into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and the demons (Matt. 25:41), and in another place He calls it the fiery Gehenna, adding: ‘where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mark 9:47–48), and even earlier He foretold concerning some through the Prophet that ‘their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched’ (Isa. 66:24): therefore, if—despite such a multitude of similar testimonies found in many places throughout the divinely inspired Scriptures—many still, as if having forgotten all such sayings and declarations of the Lord, promise themselves an end to their torment so that they may more freely dare to sin—then this is, of course, one of the devil’s deceptions. For if there were ever to be an end to eternal torment, then eternal life, without a doubt, would also have to come to an end. And if we dare not think this of life, what grounds do we have for supposing an end to eternal torment? For both torment and life are equally described by the same word: “eternal.” It is said: “These will go into eternal torment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[2084]

St. John Chrysostom: “Suppose you live for many years and experience no change whatsoever; what is that compared to endless ages and those grievous and unbearable torments? Here, both happiness and misfortune have an end—and a very swift one at that; but there, both continue for immortal ages, and are so different in nature from those here that it is impossible to describe… If someone were to ask: ‘How can the soul endure such a multitude of torments, especially when it will suffer punishment for endless ages?’ Let such a person consider what happens here: how often many have been afflicted with a prolonged and severe illness ( ). Even if they died, it was not because the soul was completely exhausted, but because the body refused to function; so that, had the body not given out, the soul would not have ceased to suffer. Thus, when the soul receives an imperishable body, nothing will prevent the torment from continuing into eternity… Therefore, let us not assume now that the intensity of the torments could exhaust our soul: for at that time, the body will not experience this (exhaustion) either, but will suffer eternally alongside the soul, and there will be no other end.”[2085]

We find similar thoughts in the writings of Tertullian,[2086] Theophilus of Antioch,[2087] Cyprian,[2088] Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Athanasius,[2089] Gregory the Theologian,[2090] Hilary, Jerome, and others.[2091]

III. It is unjust to claim that the doctrine of the eternity of hellish torments contradicts sound reason.

1) Any reasonable person would agree that as long as a sinner remains a sinner and is not cleansed of his sins, he—a) will necessarily remain, in the sight of the most holy and just Being, a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3); b) will necessarily remain incapable of enjoying heavenly bliss, just as a blind person is incapable of enjoying the beauties of nature, and a person of the flesh is incapable of receiving what comes from the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14), and c) cannot in any way free himself from the natural, inevitable consequences of sin—the pangs of conscience and other torments. Who, then, is able to prove that the fallen spirits and people who will be condemned by God’s righteous judgment to eternal fire will ever be cleansed of their sins? On the contrary, it is known of the fallen spirits that, although millennia have already passed since they fell, although they are already undergoing their deserved punishment and are fully aware of the fate that awaits them, they have not only failed to reform and are not reforming, but are even more successful in evil and in opposing God’s will, so that a turn toward good has become morally impossible for them (§§68, 154). Likewise, we know from experience that sometimes people, despite the brevity of earthly life, become so accustomed to certain vices that, despite all incentives and even all efforts to reform, they cannot reform and die in their sins. Let us imagine, then, that these people, just as they did not avail themselves of the help of God’s grace during their lifetime, will also be incapable and unworthy after death to benefit from the salvific effects of the Church’s prayers, and until the very Second Coming of the Lord and the Last Judgment—perhaps for centuries or even millennia—will only become more and more entrenched in evil: is it not natural to think that for these wretched souls, repentance and purification from sin will become morally impossible forever? And if both fallen spirits and sinful humans can remain sinners forever, or for all eternity, then the eternity of their torments cannot be denied.

2) “God, they say, is good: how can the eternal torments of sinners be reconciled with His infinite goodness?” God is indeed infinitely good; but goodness is not His only attribute—He is also infinitely true, infinitely holy, and infinitely just, and all these, like all His other perfections, which are infinite in themselves, balance one another in His actions toward His creatures. God’s goodness has already been manifested toward sinners in all its power: by His goodness alone, the Lord has granted us existence; by His goodness alone, He providentially cares for us as a Father; by His goodness alone, He had mercy on us when we fell in Adam; by His infinite goodness alone, He did not spare even His only-begotten Son from being delivered up to death for us; by His grace alone, He grants us all the means of salvation in Jesus, pours out upon us every divine power necessary for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), and forgives our sins a thousand times over when we repent; by His infinite mercy alone has arranged it so that even after death and until the Last Judgment, we may benefit from the saving effects of the Church’s prayers. What, then, is so unnatural if such a manifestation of the Almighty’s infinite mercy toward sinners is ultimately followed by a manifestation of His infinite justice? He will not cease to be good even when sinners are tormented in hell; but toward them alone He will act not out of His goodness—which, so to speak, has already been poured out upon them in its entirety and found nothing worthy in them—but out of the most perfect justice—He will not cease to be good: because even after the Last Judgment, for all eternity, He will not cease to manifest His infinite love toward all those people who previously knew how to make use of His goodness, and indeed toward all His worthy creatures.

3) “God is supremely just: is it in accordance with His justice to punish temporary crimes with eternal torments?” But the gravity of a sin cannot be measured solely by the duration of its commission: the gravest crimes (parricide, etc.) can be committed in an instant, while minor ones can be committed very slowly. The gravity of a sin is determined by the greatness of the person against whom it is committed; by the condition of the person who sinned; by the clarity of the law that has been violated; by the powers and means available to the sinner to fulfill the law; by the quality and quantity of the motives that could have restrained him from sin; by the sinner’s repentance or lack thereof, and so on. Let us now imagine that the sinners whom the heavenly Judge will condemn at the Last Judgment sinned during their—albeit brief—lives against the Supreme Being Himself, and perhaps trampled upon the Son of God Himself, failed to honor as holy the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29); let us imagine that these people sinned for the most part not out of weakness or passion but with a clear awareness of their transgression, intentionally, out of wicked will; that they violated the clearest laws of God, given in revelation, both natural and supernatural; possessed all the graces and every possible incentive to fulfill the law; caused, perhaps, the greatest harm to their neighbors through their sins; and, finally, died not only without reforming themselves but also without repenting. Is it not entirely just that such sinners should be subjected to eternal punishment? And will God’s justice be violated in any way when He punishes the very sin that, having been cleansed by no repentance, will remain in them and with them forever?

4) “God is infinitely wise: how, then, will His wisdom be vindicated if sinners suffer eternally, when He created moral beings for bliss?” God did indeed create moral beings, among other things, for happiness (§59); but on the indispensable condition that they themselves, as free beings, strive toward this goal along the path shown to them, so that they themselves may make themselves capable of and worthy of happiness. And the only path to bliss, the only means by which moral beings can make themselves capable of it and worthy of it, is a life of piety. Consequently, if sinners do not attain the bliss intended for moral beings but, on the contrary, bring upon themselves eternal punishment—the cause of this lies with themselves, and the wisdom of God, who called them to attain bliss only on this condition, will remain in all its power. It must also be remembered that many—indeed, very many—moral beings will attain eternal bliss: multitudes of good angels and innumerable hosts of the righteous; and that, consequently, this goal of the universe, chosen by God’s wisdom, will be achieved.

§272. The Reward of the Righteous: a) In what will their bliss consist?

I. Just as the Word of God depicts the fate of sinners after the Last Judgment in dark and gloomy terms, so too does it portray the fate of the righteous in bright and joyful terms.

1) They will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (Matt. 25:34)—a kingdom also called the kingdom of heaven [(Matt. 5:3–10); (Matt. 19:23–24)], the kingdom of God [(Mark 9:47); (Mark 10:23); (1 Cor. 15:50)], the kingdom of the Father [(Matt. 13:43); (Matt. 26:29)], the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ [(2 Pet. 1:11); (2 Tim. 4:18); (Rev. 1:9)]; it is also called the city of the living God (Heb. 12:22) and the Father’s house (John 14:2).

2) In this kingdom, this city, this house of God, the primary source of bliss for the righteous will be their constant abiding and fellowship with God Himself and the Lord Jesus Christ, and their constant sharing in divine glory, to the extent possible for a creature. “Let not your hearts be troubled,” said the Savior to His disciples before His departure from this world; “believe in God, and believe in Me.” “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you, ‘I am going to prepare a place for you’? And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, so that where I am, you may be also” (John 14:1–3). And then—in prayer to the Father: “Father, those whom You have given Me, I desire that where I am, they also may be with Me, so that they may see My glory, which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Finally, in the Book of Revelation, He testified: “To the one who conquers, I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, just as I also conquered and sat down with My Father on His throne” [(John 3:21); (Matt. 19:27–29)]. St. Paul the Apostle wrote to the Christians: “This saying is trustworthy: If we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2:11–12), “and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). Then the righteous will truly be revealed as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17).

3) Abiding constantly with the Lord in the kingdom of heaven, the righteous will be granted to behold the Triune God face to face: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). And in this contemplation of the All-Perfect, they will ceaselessly find:

a) Complete satisfaction for their minds, which thirst for truth: “Now we see (God),” says the Holy Apostle, “as it were through a glass, darkly, in a riddle; but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). Then what is now in part will cease (1 Cor. 13:10), faith will be abolished, and there will be only direct vision (2 Cor. 5:7).

b) Complete satisfaction for one’s will, which longs for goodness: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matt. 5:6). As the righteous increasingly contemplate and comprehend with their minds the perfections of the All-Perfect One, they will be increasingly inflamed with love for Him—a love which, in the words of the Apostle, never fails (1 Cor. 13:8), and will become more and more perfected in unconditional obedience to His most holy will and in moral conformity to Him: “Beloved,” said St. John the Theologian, “we are now children of God; but what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know only that when it is revealed, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

c) Complete satisfaction for their hearts, which thirst for bliss. For through their very love, they will be deemed worthy of the closest communion and union with God, the source of bliss: God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him (1 John 4:16). It is then that the Savior’s words will be fulfilled in them with full force: “May they all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me and I am in You, so also may they be one in Us… I am in them, and You are in Me; may they be made perfect in unity” (John 17:21–23).

4) The blessed state of the righteous in spirit will correspond to their state in the body in the kingdom of heaven. In addition to the fact that their bodies, as we have already seen, will be raised for the life to come—incorruptible, glorious, or radiant, strong, and spiritual (§264)—they will be delivered from all the needs of this present life. “They will no longer hunger,” says the mystic regarding the saints in heaven, “nor thirst, and the sun will not scorch them, nor any heat” (Rev. 7:16). And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more; neither will there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore (Rev. 21:4).

5) Added to all this will be the closest, most blessed communion of the righteous with one another and with the angels. For all will not only enter but will truly be united with the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and the myriads of angels, with the triumphant assembly and the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven (Heb. 12:22–23); all will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11); all will be one (John 17:21), bound together by the bonds of the purest mutual love, as children of one common Father, who will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

6) In general, the blessed state of the righteous in heaven will be such that we cannot now even imagine or describe it: no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human heart has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him [(1 Cor. 2:9); (1 John 3:2)].

II. In accordance with Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church described the future bliss of the righteous. For example:

St. Justin the Martyr: We have been taught that people, if in accordance with His (i.e., God’s) purpose they prove worthy by their deeds, will be deemed worthy to live with Him and reign with Him, having become incorruptible and passionless. For just as He created those who did not exist in the beginning, so too, we believe, by His mercy, He will grant incorruptibility and fellowship with Himself to those who have loved what is pleasing to Him.”[2092]

St. Cyprian: “What glory, what joy—to be deemed worthy to behold God and, together with Christ, your Lord and God, to partake of the joy of salvation and eternal light; to greet Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs; to enjoy, together with the Saints and God’s other people, the sweetness of the immortality granted—and to receive what no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and what has not entered the human heart!”[2093]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest in the heavenly city, where all my saints rest in great joy… There, Abraham’s bosom receives those who have endured sorrow, just as it once received the poor Lazarus; there, the treasures of my eternal blessings are opened; there is the heavenly Jerusalem—the mother of the firstborn; there is the blessed land of the meek. Come to me, all of you, and I will give you rest—rest in a place where all is quiet and serene, where all is bright and pleasing to the eye, where there is neither one who offends nor one who is oppressed, where there is no longer sin or repentance, where the light is ineffable and the joy indescribable… where there is neither toil nor tears, neither work nor worry, nor lamentation……where there is neither the devil, nor death, nor fasting, nor sorrow, nor strife, nor zeal, but joy and peace, rest and rapture… where the voices of those celebrating resound, where the unfathomable treasures of wisdom and knowledge are revealed… There are multitudes of angels, the triumph of the firstborn, the thrones of the Apostles, the chief seats of the Prophets, the scepers of the Patriarchs, the crowns of the Martyrs, the praises of the righteous; there the reward is laid in store and a place prepared for every principality, power, and authority. “Come to Me, all you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, and I will fill you with the blessings you have desired—blessings that no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human heart has conceived.”[2094]

St. Basil the Great: “The Kingdom of Heaven is contemplation. Now, as in a mirror, we see the shadows of things; but later, having been freed from this earthly body and clothed in an imperishable and immortal body, we will see their true forms. We shall see them, if we lead our lives along the straight path and uphold the true faith, without which no one will behold the Lord.”[2095]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “The first (i.e., the righteous) will inherit the ineffable light and the contemplation of the holy and royal Trinity, which will then shine more clearly and purely, and will be wholly united with the whole mind (in which alone I place the Kingdom of Heaven in particular).”[2096] “I believe that it is nothing other than the attainment of the purest and most perfect. And the most perfect of all that exists is the knowledge of God. Let us preserve this knowledge in part, acquire it in part, while we live on earth, and save a part for ourselves in the treasuries of the hereafter, so that as a reward for our labors we may receive the complete knowledge of the Holy Trinity—what She is, how She is, and how great She is (if I may put it that way)— in Christ Himself, our Lord, to whom be glory and power forever and ever.”[2097]

St. John Chrysostom: “Imagine the state of that life, as much as it is possible to imagine, for no word can adequately describe it; only from what we hear—as if from some riddles—can we gain a vague idea of it. “Sickness, sorrow, and sighing,” it is said, “shall flee away” (Isa. 35:10). What, then, could be more blissful than that life? There is no need to fear poverty or sickness there; you will see neither the one who wrongs nor the one who is wronged, neither the one who provokes nor the one who is provoked, neither the one who is angry nor the one who is envious, neither the one inflamed by vile lust nor the one tormented by concern for securing the necessities of life, nor the one grieving over authority and power: for the entire storm of our passions will have subsided and ceased, and all will be in peace, joy, and gladness; all will be quiet and serene; all will be day, clarity, and light—not this present light, but another, as many times brighter than this as the (sunlight) is brighter than the light of a candle. For there, the light is not dimmed by night or by the passing of clouds; nor does it burn or scorch the body: for there is neither night nor evening, neither cold nor heat, nor any other change of seasons; but rather a different state, one known only to the worthy. There is neither old age nor the companions of old age; but all that is perishable has been banished, for imperishable glory reigns everywhere. And what is more important than all this is the unceasing delight of communion with Christ, together with the angels, the archangels, and the heavenly powers. Look now at the sky, and let your thoughts turn to what lies beyond the sky; imagine all creation transformed: for it will not remain as it is; but it will be far more beautiful and brighter, and just as shining gold surpasses tin, so the future order will be superior to the present one, as the blessed Paul says: “For the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay” (Rom. 8:21). Now, as it shares in corruption, it endures many things that such bodies are bound to endure; but then, having cast off all this, it will present to us imperishable splendor. Since it will receive imperishable bodies, it too will be transformed for the better. There will be no confusion or strife then, for there will be great harmony among the saints, due to the unceasing mutual unity of mind among them all. There will be no need to fear the devil or demonic wiles, nor the threat of Gehenna, nor death—neither this present one nor the one that is far more terrible than this; but every horror of this kind will come to an end.”[2098]

We find similar ideas in Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,[2099] Ambrose,[2100] Hilary,[2101] Augustine [2102] , and others.[2103]

§273. b) The Degrees of the Righteous’ Bliss

The bliss of the righteous in heaven, though common to all of them, will nevertheless have its degrees, corresponding to the moral merit of each. This truth, which follows from the very concept of God’s infinite justice, from the difference in the merits of the righteous, and from the varying capacity for enjoying bliss revealed in them:

1) Is clearly attested to in Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus expressed it when He said: “In My Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2), and again: “The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each person according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:27); “Whoever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever receives a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. And whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, that person will not lose their reward” (Matt. 10:41–42); likewise, when He told the parable of the talents, in which the faithful servants received various rewards from their master for their different uses of them (Luke 19:17–20). Equally clear are the words of St. Paul the Apostle: “Each will receive his own reward according to his own labor” (1 Cor. 3:8); “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously” (2 Cor. 9:6).

2) This is repeatedly emphasized in the writings of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, such as: Irenaeus,[2104] Theophilus of Antioch,[2105] Clement of Alexandria,[2106] Tertullian,[2107] Hilary,[2108] Theodoret,[2109] Augustine,[2110] and many others. Let us quote the following words:

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “The Savior refers to the degrees of understanding of those dwelling in that land as ‘many abodes’ with the Father; I understand these to be the distinctions and differences in the joys they experience there, according to their understanding. For the Lord named these many abodes not according to the diversity of places, but according to the degree of their gifts. Just as everyone enjoys the rays of the physical sun according to the purity of their eyesight and the intensity of their perception, and just as from a single lamp illuminating a single house, each ray is different, even though the light itself is not divided among many lamps: so in the age to come, all the righteous will dwell undivided, in one joy. But each, in his own measure, is illuminated by the one spiritual Sun, and according to the degree of his worthiness, he draws joy and gladness, as if in the same air and place, in the same seat, contemplation, and image. And no one perceives the distinction between the highest and the lowest, so that, looking upon another’s surpassing grace and upon their own deprivation, they might not find in this a cause for sorrow or anxiety. May this not be the case where there is neither sorrow nor sighing; but let everyone, according to the grace given to him, rejoice inwardly in his own measure, while outwardly all share in one contemplation and one joy.”[2111]

St. Basil the Great: “Since in My Father’s house there are many dwelling places (John 14:2), and various lots are assigned in the land of inheritance, which the meek will inherit (Matt. 5:4): it is clear that some will rest in the radiance of God’s manifestation, others under the protection of the heavenly powers, while still others will be veiled, as it were, by smoke in the glory of the light.”[2112] And in another place: “The rest in which the Lord will grant rest is the honor that, according to God’s justice, will be bestowed according to the merit of one’s deeds. For He will honor some with greater honors and others with lesser ones; for one star differs from another in glory (1 Cor. 15:41). And since there are many dwellings with the Father (John 14:2), He will grant some rest in a more excellent and exalted state, and others in a lower one; yet all, for the sake of honor, will have rest.”[2113]

St. Gregory the Theologian: “Each of the virtues is a distinct path to salvation and undoubtedly leads to one of the eternal and blessed abodes. For just as there are different ways of life, so too are there many abodes with God (John 14:2), and they are divided and assigned to each person according to his or her merit. Therefore, let one practice this virtue, another that, yet another many, and someone, if possible, all of them; but let each one walk without ceasing, strive forward, and follow unwaveringly in the footsteps of that good guide who directs his path straight ahead and, through the narrow gate (Matt. 7:14), leads him to the breadth of heavenly bliss.”[2114]

St. John Chrysostom: “In this (that is, in the difference in the reward), we are convinced not only by our own reasoning but also by the Word of God. For He Himself (Jesus Christ) says: ‘He will reward each one according to his deeds’ (Matt. 16:27). Indeed, not only in Gehenna but also in the kingdom will you find many differences: ‘In my Father’s house are many dwelling places’ (John 14:2); and: ‘The glory of the sun is one kind, and the glory of the moon is another’ (1 Cor. 15:41). And what is so surprising about this, that the Apostle presented such a distinction, when he also says that there will be a distinction there just as there is between one star and another?”[2115]

§274. c) The Eternity of the Righteous’ Bliss

If the torments of sinners in hell seem particularly dreadful because they will never have an end, then, on the other hand, the bliss of the righteous in heaven becomes all the more desirable because it, too, will be endless for all eternity.

I. In Holy Scripture, this bliss:

1) Is explicitly called eternal. Specifically: a) eternal life: “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of My hand” [(John 10:28); (John 3:16)]; “I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in Me, even if he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die” [(John 11:25–26); (John 8:51); (1 Cor. 15:26)]; And the promise He has made to us is eternal life [(1 John 2:25); (Titus 1:2)]; And the righteous will go into eternal life (Matt. 25:46); b) the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ: thus free access will be granted to you into the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:11); c) eternal salvation: although He was a Son, He learned obedience through what He suffered; and having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him (Heb. 5:8–9); d) an eternal inheritance: And so He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that, through His death—which served as an atonement for the transgressions committed under the first covenant—those who are called to an eternal inheritance may receive what was promised (Heb. 9:15); e) eternal glory in contrast to temporary sufferings and sorrows: Now the God of all grace, who has called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, will Himself—after your brief suffering—perfect, establish, strengthen, and make you unshakable (1 Peter 5:10); For our light and momentary affliction is producing for us an eternal glory beyond all measure, as we look not at the things that are seen but at the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are unseen are eternal (2 Cor. 4:17–18).

2) It is presented through such images that show it will never come to an end. It is presented—a) as an inexhaustible treasure in heaven: “Make for yourselves purses that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys” [(Luke 12:33); (Matt. 6:20)]; b) as an enduring, permanent possession in heaven: “You sympathized with my chains and joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, knowing that you have a better and enduring possession in heaven” (Heb. 10:34); c) as an imperishable and unfading inheritance: Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who in His great mercy has regenerated us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to a living hope, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you (1 Peter 1:3–4); d) as an unfading crown of glory: when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive an unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4); e) as an everlasting abiding with Christ: and so we will always be with the Lord [(1 Thess. 4:17); (John 12:26); (John 17:24); (Rom. 8:17–30)].

II. The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church also described the bliss of the righteous in heaven as eternal and endless. For example:

St. Theophilus of Antioch: “To those who, through perseverance in good works, seek incorruptibility, He grants eternal life, joy, peace, tranquility, and an abundance of blessings—things that no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no human heart has conceived.”[2116]

St. Ephrem the Syrian: “Come to me, all of you, and I will give you rest where there is a great gift, incomparable joy, unchanging gladness, unceasing song, unceasing praise, unceasing thanksgiving, unbroken worship, an endless kingdom, immeasurable riches, boundless ages, an abyss of generosity, a sea of mercy and love for humanity, and all that cannot be expressed by human lips, but is revealed only in visions.”[2117] “If anyone enters through this narrow gate and walks along this narrow path, he will receive a blessed reward, a heavenly reward that will never end.”[2118]

Hilary: “Such is the inheritance of the saint: life, incorruption, the kingdom, and eternal communion with God.”[2119]

St. John Chrysostom: “What will come after (the Last Judgment), as the Word describes to us—that is, the sweetness, benefit, and joy that come from communion with Christ? For the soul, having regained its nobility and finally reached the state where it can boldly behold its Lord, it is impossible to describe the delight it finds, the benefit it derives from rejoicing not only in the blessings it possesses but also in the certainty that these blessings will never end. Thus, this joy cannot be fully described in words or comprehended by the mind.”[2120]

The following also taught this: Clement of Alexandria,[2121] St. Cyprian,[2122] St. Ambrose,[2123] St. Gregory the Theologian,[2124] St. Basil the Great,[2125] and others.[2126]

§275. The Moral Implications of the Dogma of the Last Judgment and Universal Reward

The dogma concerning the Last Judgment and the final, eternal reward for the righteous and the sinners—which will bring to a close the entire work of our salvation—is one of the most edifying dogmas for Christian morality.

1. God has appointed a day on which He will judge the world with justice (Acts 17:31); but when that day will come—none of us knows: “Watch, therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour when the Son of Man will come” (Matt. 25:13).

2. The Lord will come from heaven in all His glory with all His angels, and will hold a universal, open, and solemn judgment—most just and most dreadful: Oh, who will then stand before the formidable Judge! If the righteous are barely saved, where will the wicked and sinful appear (1 Peter 4:18)? How will we feel when we suddenly find ourselves on His left hand, when all our unworthy deeds, thoughts, and desires are exposed before the whole world, both heavenly and earthly, when we finally hear the dreadful verdict: “Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41)? What will we feel when, at the same time, we see the righteous at the Lord’s right hand, and the call addressed to them reaches our ears: “Come, you who are blessed by My Father; inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34)?

3. This present world, to which we are so attached, will then pass away: the earth and everything in it will be set on fire (2 Pet. 3:10). What, then, will remain for us of all these treasures we care so much about? What good will all this worldly glory and honor—which we pursue so eagerly—do for us, or all these worldly pleasures, on which we so often squander our strength and health?

4. The torments of sinners in hell will be eternal: centuries will pass after centuries, millennia after millennia; all sense of time will be lost—and there will be no end to the torments of hell… How can one not shudder at the very thought of this? How can we not hate sin, with all its lures and deceptions, if only we could vividly imagine where it will lead us? How can we not love repentance, which alone can cleanse us of our sins and protect us from eternal torment?

5. The bliss of the righteous in heaven will be indescribably sweet: they will enter into the joy of their Lord, and no one will take this joy from them for ever and ever. For such supreme and endless bliss, should we not turn away from the world and all its affairs, devote ourselves entirely to the service of God, and resolve to undertake all the feats and labors that our holy faith prescribes for us?

Oh, if only we would reflect more often and more attentively on that great day (Acts 2:20)—the day of wrath and the revelation of God’s righteous judgment (Rom. 2:5)—which will one day bring to an end the entire work of our salvation! If only we could picture more vividly and distinctly those endless blessings prepared for the righteous in heaven, and those eternal torments that await sinners in hell! How many incentives we would find to refrain from sin and strive in piety!

Grant us, therefore, O Lord, always a living and unceasing remembrance of Your future, glorious coming, of Your final, dreadful judgment upon us, and of Your most righteous and eternal reward for the righteous and the sinners—yes, by the light of it and with Your gracious help, may we live in this present age in chastity, righteousness, and godliness (Titus 2:12), and thus attain, at last, the eternally blessed life in heaven, so that with our whole being we may glorify You, together with Your Father without beginning and Your most holy, good, and life-giving Spirit, forever and ever.

[1] For example: To the one and only wise God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all ages, now and forevermore (Jude 1:25). Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the command of God, our Savior, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope (1 Tim. 1:1). For this is good and pleasing to our Savior God, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:3–5). But when the grace and love of our Savior God appeared, He saved us—not because of righteous deeds that we had done, but according to His mercy—through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:4–6). And in the liturgical books: “Hear us, O God, our Savior, the hope of all the ends of the earth … for You are a merciful and loving God, and to You we send up glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (acclamation at the Litany). Or: “For You are the King of the world and the Savior of our souls, and to You we offer glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…” (antiphon after the 6th ode of the canon).

[2] For example: The Father sent the Son as Savior to the world (1 John 4:14). Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior (Titus 1:4; cf. 2:13; 3:6). And also: “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and Savior, our hope…” (Liturgical Book, p. 128, back cover, Moscow 1817). “O Lord God, Creator and Ruler of all…, who did not despise mankind…, but through the saving incarnation of Your only-begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, have once again sought out and saved us and brought us to Yourself…” (Book of Services, p. 247, Moscow, 1836).

[3] See § 90 above: on the consequences of the Fall of our first parents.

[4] “Man cannot offer God a propitiatory sacrifice even for his own sins. How, then, could he do so for another? And what could he possibly acquire in this world that is of such value as to serve as a sufficient substitute for a soul, which is precious by nature because it is created in the image of its Creator?… A brother cannot atone for his brother, nor can any person atone for himself, because the one who atones for another must be far superior in power to the one who is in bondage and already enslaved. But in general, a person does not have such power before God as to appease Him on behalf of a sinner: for he himself is guilty of sin” (St. Basil the Great, Homilies on Psalm 48, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, pp. 358, 359 ff.).

[5] Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, Part 1, answer to question 20; Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 289–290; Gregory’s Theological Lexicon on Pentecost, ibid., VI, 16; Cyril of Jerusalem, Public Sermons, XVII, § 2, p. 373; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book II, Chapter 3, p. 56.

[6] “It had to be one of two things,” says St. Proclus of Constantinople, “either that all, by virtue of the judgment, be put to death, because all had sinned; or that, in exchange, a ransom be offered such that every condemnation might be annulled. But man could not save himself, for he himself was subject to the penalty for sin. Nor could an angel save the human race, for he was insufficient to provide such a ransom (ήπόρει γάρ τοιούτου λύτρου). Therefore, it was necessary for the sinless God to die for those who had sinned: this alone remained as a remedy for evil” (In laud. S. Virg. Orat. 1).

[7] “What creature could be reunited with the Creator through another creature? Or what help could be given by such beings to their own kind, when they themselves are in need of that same help? And furthermore, how could the Word, if it were a creature, resolve God’s judgment and forgive sin, when this belongs to God alone, according to the words of the Prophet: ‘Who is a God like You, who pardons iniquity and passes over the transgression’ (Micah 7:18)? How, then, could it be that created beings would free us from our sins?” (St. Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians, Oration 11, n. 67). See also note 34 below and the text to which it refers.

[8] “No part of creation could have served for the salvation of creation when it itself was in need of salvation” (St. Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration 11, n. 69). “After human beings, through sin, were subjected to the corruption of nature and deprived of grace, what else could there be, or who else was needed, to restore them, if not God the Word, who in the beginning created everything out of nothing?” (De incarnat. Verbi Dei, n. 7).

[9] See above—§ 93: on the consequences of original sin in us.

[11] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 1, pp. 136–137.

[12] “The Son of God deigns to become and be called the Son of Man, without changing what He was (for He is philanthropic), so that the incomprehensible might become comprehensible… For this reason, the ununitable are united: not only God with birth in time, the mind with the flesh, the timeless with time, the immeasurable with measure, but also birth with virginity, dishonor with that which is above all honor, the impassible with suffering, the immortal with the mortal” (Sermon on the Epiphany of the Lord, , in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 263).

[13] Do such cares for us (on God’s part) lead our thoughts to anything base? Or, on the contrary, do they inspire in us wonder at the great power and, at the same time, at the love for humanity of the Savior, because He was pleased to share in our weakness and was able to condescend to our very weakness? For the superiority of His power is demonstrated not so much by the heavens, the earth, the vastness of the seas, the animals living in the waters and on land, the plants, the stars, and the air, the seasons, and the varied adornment of the universe, but rather by the fact that the incomprehensible God was able, through the flesh, to enter dispassionately into the struggle against death, so that through His own suffering He might grant them dispassion” (On the Holy Spirit, ch. 8, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 257).

[14] “That a self-sufficient nature could condescend to the weakness of human nature—this demonstrates God’s power more than numerous and astonishing miracles, for to perform something great and sublime is, as it were, natural to God’s omnipotence. But to descend to that which is despised and humbled is a certain abundance of omnipotence that finds no obstacles even in the supernatural” (Catechism, ch. 24).

[15] Tertull. contr. Marcion. 11, p. 3; Augustin. de civit. Dei X, c. 29; Leo M. de Nat. Serm. 1, and de Pass. Serm. III.

[16] Contr. Arian. Orat. II, n. 68. And following this, the Holy Father develops the idea that if God, by His power, were to dissolve an oath with a single word and forgive people’s sins, this would certainly demonstrate His power and would not be harmful to people. From this, they would have learned to sin and would soon have fallen again; then it would again be necessary to forgive them, and there would be no end to such forgiveness—and people would become worse and worse. Always sinning, they would always be in need of forgiveness and would never be freed from sins and their pernicious consequences.

[17] Proverbs 19, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. II, p. 158. St. Gregory of Nyssa also asserts that God could have saved us by His mere will and word (Orat. Catechetica, ch. XV).

[18] De Trinit. XIII, p. 13. Elsewhere he says: “There are fools who say: ‘Could the Wisdom of God not have saved mankind in any other way, except by taking on human form, being born of a woman, and suffering all those things at the hands of sinners?’… To whom we say: He certainly could have; but if He had acted otherwise, it would have displeased your folly just as much (De agon. Christian., chap. 11).

[19] Contr. Graec. Serm. IV, in Opp. Vol. IV, p. 578.

[20] De nativit. Serm. II, cf. Serm. LXIII, c. 1. A similar thought is expressed by another pope, Gregory the Great: “He who brought us into being out of nothing could also have delivered us from suffering without His own death.” But to show the extent of the power of his compassion, he deigned to become for us what he willed us to be (Moral. XX, ch. 26)

[21] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 18, pp. 199–200.

[22] As proof of this, it suffices to consider the fact that the very same teachers of the Church who—as we have seen—clearly teach that God could have saved humanity in other ways are the ones who speak of the necessity of the Incarnation and death of the Son of God for the salvation of humanity, namely: St. Athanasius (de incarn. Dei, n. 7; contr. Arian. Orat. III, al. IV, n. 33); Blessed Augustine (Serm. CLXXIV, al. VIII, de verb. Apostoli, n. 1); and St. Leo the Great (Serm. L, al. 1, de pass. Domin., chap. 9). See notes 16, 18, and 20.

[23] That creature which the Virgin conceived and gave birth to, although pertaining solely to the person of the Son, was made by the entire Trinity; for the works of the Trinity are not separable (Augustine, *Enchiridion*, ch. XXVIII, n. 2; cf. *De Trinitate*, II, 5, n. 9; 10, n. 2).

[24] “The Incarnation of the Word of God came about by the good pleasure of God the Father, the inspiration and action of the Holy Spirit, and the consent of the Word Himself” (St. Demetrius of Rostov, Works 1, p. 169).

[25] Cf. Augustine, Against the Arian Sermons, ch. XV; Cyril of Alexandria, Anathemas, IX, in Xp. Readings 1841, 1, 60.

[26] Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 4, p. 225.

[27] Sermon 39, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 263.

[28] “Neither the Father assumed flesh, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son alone, so that He who was the Son in the divinity of God the Father might Himself become the son of a human mother in man, lest the name of ‘Son’ pass to another who was not a son by eternal birth” (De dogmat. eccles. ch. II).

[29] Fulgentinus, *De fide ad Petrum*, ch. II; Ferrandus (deacon), *Paraenes ad Reginum comitem*, no. 12; Demetrius of Pokrov, *Works*, vol. 1, p. 52.

[30] On the Incarnation of God, no. 10; cf. nos. 7, 20.

[32] Chrysostom, Homilies on John, XVIIÏ; Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyr, Book 1; Augustine, On Psalm XXXII, En. III, n. 16.

[33] Contr. haeres. V, chap. 1. St. Athanasius also says the same (De incarn. Dei, n. 11).

[34] De incarn. Dei, n. 13. Further on in the same work (n. 20), the holy Father briefly lists all the reasons for the Incarnation of the Son of God as follows: “No one else but the Savior Himself, who in the beginning created the universe out of nothing, could bestow incorruptibility upon our corruptible nature; – no one but He who is the image of the Father could restore the image of God in human beings, – no one but your Lord Jesus Christ, who is life itself, could raise our mortal nature to immortality, – finally, no one else could impart to people knowledge of the Father and overthrow idolatrous wickedness, except the Word who governs the universe, except the one true and only-begotten Son of the Father” (in Chr. Readings 1838, II, 132–133).

[35] See above—§ 57: on the participation of all Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the work of creation, and then § 100.

[36] Athanas. de incarnat. Dei n. 1; Gregor. Nyss. contr. Eunom. orat. XII; cited in notes 11, 13, 15.

[37] In the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 2.

[38] Homily 38, on the Epiphany, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 245.

[40] On the Incarnation of God, n. 4.

[41] Sermons on Theology IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 79.

[42] On Genesis, Homily III, n. 4; XXIII, n. 6.

[43] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 15, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 282.

[44] Sermon on the Words of the Lord VI. And elsewhere: “If man had not perished, the Son of Man would not have come” (Sermon CLXXIV, n. 2; cf. n. 8).

[45] Exposition on 1 Kings, Book IV, Chapter 1.

[46] “It came to pass... for the salvation of mankind, the Son of Man.” *De Trinit.* III, 4.

[47] What is the reason for the Incarnation, if not to redeem the flesh that had sinned? (On the Incarnation, Chapter VI).

[48] Or the coming of the Lord was entirely for the sake of man, who had been put to death in the tomb of darkness and sin... Homily XXXIV.

[49] Leo, Sermon III on Pentecost; Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, ch. XIV; Glemerius of Alexandria, Paedagogus III, 1; Origen, Homily XXIV on Numbers, n. 1; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism, ch. XV.

[50] Following the Pelagians (Cassian, *De Incarnatione Christi contra Nestorium*, 1, ch. 3), this view was held by many of the Scholastics (Alex. Halens, *P.* III, qu. II, memb. 13; Alhert. M., *Sent.* III, dist. XX, art. 4; Dunc. Scot. Sent. IIIj, dist. VII, quaest. 3; dist. XIX, qu. 1), as well as by Calvinists and Socinians. A detailed refutation of their arguments can be found in The Theology of Theophan Prokopovich, vol. III, pp. 205–217.

[51] Dictionary of Theology, vol. V, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 125.

[52] Orat. in diem. Natal., in Opp. T. III, p. 341, Paris, 1638. The Holy Father then continues: “When all the power of sin sprang from this root, it grew in many and varied forms and manifested itself in the wills of men, notorious for their depravity throughout the ages; then, as the Apostle says, having overlooked the ages of ignorance, God (Acts 17:30) came in the last days... Then, through human flesh, He crushed many heads of the serpent...” (ibid., p. 342). The same idea is expressed by St. Gregory the Theologian (Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, pp. 294–295) and Blessed Theodoret (Contr. Graec. Serm. VI, in Opp., vol. IV, p. 579).

[54] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 14, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, pp. 280–281. See also St. Gregory the Theologian’s homily on Holy Pascha, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 164–165.

[55] See in Ethym. Zygaben. Panopl. Par. 1, Tit. 7, p. 142.

[56] St. Demetrius of Rostov, Collected Works, vol. III, p. 101, in Christian Readings 1842, vol. IV, p. 395.

[57] See on the religion of the patriarchs, Introduction to Orthodox Theology. A. M.

[58] The Church has believed from ancient times that Adam received salvation, as is evident from the testimonies of Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. III, c. 54), Tertullian (Contr. Marcion, lib. II), Origen (In Matth. homil., XXXIII), and others. The former speaks of the Encratites, heretics of the second century: “They reject even the salvation of the first man, which, however, is a fabrication of their own. A certain Tatian was the first to introduce this blasphemous doctrine… and, on his own, invented arguments to refute the doctrine of Adam’s salvation” (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 29, in the Russian translation, pp. 242–243).

[59] We have already examined all these prophecies about the Messiah that existed during the patriarchal and pre-legal periods. Introduction to Orthodox Theology, §§ 61, 77–89.

[60] And Blessed Augustine observes: “The Law, therefore, declares all men who are subject to it to be guilty, and it stands over their heads for this very purpose—to reveal their sins, not to remove them...” When people attempted to fulfill by their own strength what the law commanded, they fell by their own reckless and hasty presumption...; and since they could not fulfill the law by their own strength, having become guilty under the law, they implored the help of the Liberator; and the guilt of the law became a sickness for the proud. The sickness of the proud has become the confession of the humble: now the sick confess that they are sick; the Physician will come and heal the sick (In Joann. Tract. III, n. 2, p. 1397, in Patrolog. curs. compl. T. XXXV).

[61] These include: Meles of Samos (cited in Diogenes Laertius, Book IX, No. 24), Socrates (Xenophon, *Memorabilia*, Book IV, and Plato, Dialogues, “Alcibiades”), Plato (in Epimenides and On the Laws, Book IX), Seneca (Book 1, Chapter 6 of On Clemency), and Iamblichus (in The Life of Pythagoras, Chapter 28).

[62] Clemens of Alexandria, *Stromata* 1, p. 282; Origen, *Philocalia*, chap. XIII, pp. 41–42.

[63] Plato, *Politics*, p. 271, *Opp.* Vol. II, Paris, 1578; Virgil, *Georgics*, Book 1, v. 125, and *Eclogues*, Book IV; Ovid, *Metamorphoses*, Book 1, v. 89 et seq.; Plutarch, *On Isis and Osiris*; Strabo, Book V, p. 250, *Works*, Vol. II, Oxford, 1807. Cf. Eusebius, *Preparation for the Gospel*, 1, ch. 8 and XII, ch. 13.

[64] Schwarz, *On the Fall of the First Human Parents, as Foretold by the Pagans*, Altorf, 1730; Kleuker, *Zendavest*, Vol. I, p. 25, and Vol. III, p. 84 ff.; Windischman, *Philosophy in the Course of World History*, Vol. 1, p. 1, Sect. 1, Bonn, 1827.

[65] Schmidt, *Redemption of the Human Race, Announced by the Religious Traditions of All Peoples*, trans. from the German by Henrion, Paris, 1827; *Xp. Cht.*, 1839, III.

[66] Outline of Ecclesiastical and Biblical History, p. 440, St. Petersburg, 1827.

[67] They were a sacred school for the whole world regarding the knowledge of God and the governance of the soul. *De incarn. Dei*, n. 12, *Opp.*, vol. 1, p. 57, ed. Paris, 1698.

[68] See Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, ch. 22; Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang. VI, ch. 6.

[69] Justin, *Cohort. ad Graec.*, chap. 14; cf. *Apolog.* 1, chap. 20; II, chap. 13; Tertullian, *Apolog.*, chap. 47; Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* 1, chaps. 15, 21; Theophilus, *Ad Antony*, II, 37; Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelii*, IX, 1; Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, VIII, 12.

[70] As attested by: Tacitus (Hist. Book V, p. 13), Suetonius (Vita Vespasiani, ch. 4), Josephus (De Bello Judaeum, Book III, p. 28; Book IV, p. 31), and Aegezius (De Excidio Hierosolymum, Book V, p. 44).

[71] The errors of heretics concerning Christ fall into three categories: for they err either regarding His divinity, or His humanity, or both (Quaest. Evangel. Book 1, Question 45, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XXXV, p. 1332, 1).

[72] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 26; III, 2, n. 1; V, 1, n. 3; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 27, 38; Epiphanius, On Heresies XXVIII; Jerome, On Illustrious Men, chap. 9.

[73] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 25; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, ch. 54; Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ch. 3; Epiphanius, On Heresies, LIV, LV.

[74] Philastru, *Haereses*, 3, 64; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, V, 28; VII, 27; Jerome, *On Illustrious Men*, ch. 71.

[75] Epiphanius, *Haereses* 69, n. 12; 73 and 74; Socrates, *History of the Church* 1, 5, 6; 11, 30, 35, 40; Sozomen, *History of the Church* 1, 15; II, 33; III, 15.

[76] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 23; Epiphanius, On Heresies 57, 62; Basil, Epistle 210.

[77] From the Greek word: δοκέω, to suppose, to think, to seem.

[78] Its main propagators were the heresiarchs: Simon the Magus (Theodoret, Ep. CIV), Menander (Theodoret, Haer. CXLV); Saturninus (Theod., Haer. Fab. 1, 3), Basilides (Epiphanius, Haer. 24 and 26), Valentinus (Tertullian, *De Carnem Christi*, XIV), Kedron (Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 41), Marcion (Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem*, III, 8), Tatian (Jerome, *In Epistulam ad Fabiánum*, VI).

[79] …and this is the one who passed through Mary, just as water flows through a pipe. Iren. adv. haer. 1, 7, n. 2; Euseb. H. E. IV, 30; Epiphan. haer. 31 and 56; Augustin. haer. 35.

[80] …From the substance of the world. Tertullian, *De Carnem Christi*, ch. 6; *De Praescriptione Haeresiarum*, ch. 51; Epiphanius, *Haeresia*, 44; Augustine, *Against Faustus*, XXIII, 2; *Haeresia*, 47; Theodoret, *Haereticae Fabulae*, 1, 26.

[81] Ignatius, Epistles to the Smyrnaeans, nos. 2, 4, 5; to the Trallians, nos. 10, 11; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 18, n. 3; 17, n. 3; III, 18, 19, 22; Meliton, *De Incarnatione*, Book III, fragment (in Anast. Sinait. *Hodeg.*, ch. 13); Tertullian, *De Carne Christi*, ch. 5; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, III, 13.

[82] Belgian Confession, art. XVIII; Formula of the Council, epistle, ch. XI; Gotta, ad Gerhard, Loc. Theolog., vol. III, p. 406, diss. 1, p. 13 ff.

[84] Gregory the Theologian, Epistles to Cleodon I and II, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 200 ff.

[85] Apollinarius, Epistle to Peter (in Mai’s Collection, Vol. VII), Epistle to Heraclitus (ibid.), Against Diodorus (ibid.). Before Apollinaris, the following held to this same heresy: Lucian (Epiphanius, *Anchorita* XXXIII) and Arius with his followers (see Mai, Vol. VII, p. 17; Vol. IV, p. 65).

[86] These include: Athanasius the Great (Contr. Apollin. and Epl. ad Epictet.), Gregory the Theologian (in his letters to Cleodonius), Gregory of Nyssa (Autirr. adv. Apolin.), Epiphanius (Anchor. 71 et seq.), and Augustine (De divers. quaest. LXXXIII, qu. 80).

[87] Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 25, n. 1; 26, n. 1; III, 2, n. 1; V, 1, n. 3; Philastruus, Haereses 36; Theodoret, Haereses, Fab. 1, 5.

[88] Ignatius, *Ad Ephesios*, n. 18; Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 21; Tertullian, *On the Prescription of Heresies*, ch. 13; Cyril (Catechism, IV, 9); Chrysostom, *Commentary on Isaiah*, VII, n. 6.

[89] Nestor, Sermon on the Incarnation 1, n. 10 (in Mar. Merc., ed. Gara, Vol. II, p. 5; cf. p. 118); Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle to the Clergy of Constantinople VIII.

[90] See A Brief History of the Third Ecumenical Council, in Chr. Cht. 1842, III, 340 ff.

[91] Eutyches, *In the Council of Chalcedon*, Acts 1, pp. 91–93, cited in Binius; Leo, *Epistle to Flavian*, in *Acts of the Council of Chalcedon*, 11, p. 165, ed. Binius.

[92] It was preached by Beron and Helicus (Hippol. adv. Beron. et Helicem, n. 5 sq.), Eudoxius Apollinaris (Vid. apud Mai VII, p. 17; Epiphan. haer. LXXXII, n. 33)

[93] See A Brief History of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), in Chr. Ch. 1847, IV, 112 ff.

[94] See A Brief History of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in *Chronological Readings* 1848, II, pp. 1–33.

[95] Madrisii—*De Felic. et Elipan. haer. dissert.*, in *Opp. Paulini Aquil.*, pp. 207 and 599, ed. Venice, 1737; Valch., *Hist. Adoptianor.*, Göttingen, 1755.

[96] The same teaching is set forth in the creed known as the Creed of St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “This is the Orthodox faith, which we believe and confess: that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man—God, begotten of the Father before all ages; and man, born of the Virgin Mary in time; perfect God and perfect man, consisting of a divine soul and human flesh. He who is both God and man, yet not two, but one Christ—one not by the fusion of natures, but by the unity of the hypostasis.”

[97] For their testimonies, see “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M., § 84, note 225.

[101] A more detailed exposition of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, based on Holy Scripture, has been presented by us previously. See “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,” vol. 1, § 33, pp. 219–230.

[102] And based on Holy Tradition, we have elaborated in greater detail on the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ; see the same work, § 31, pp. 212–217. Here we will cite only a few testimonies not mentioned there.

[103] Ad Trall. chap. VII, p. 194; Opp. Pp. Apostol., ed. Hefele. Tübingen, 1847.

[104] Ad Eplies, chaps. XIX and XX, pp. 172, 174, ed. cit.; in Xp. Cht., 1821, vol. 1, p. 41.

[105] Ad Roman., chap. 1, p. 200, ed. cit.

[106] Ad Philip, chap. 1, p. 258, ed. cit.

[107] Epistle to Diognetus, ch. IX, p. 316, ed. cit.

[108] Dialogue with Tryphon, p. 285, in The Works of St. Justin, ed. Cologne, 1686.

[109] Against Heresies 1, 10, n. 1.

[110] Contr. Beron. et Helie., in Fabric. Vol. I, p. 227.

[111] These words are cited by St. Athanasius the Great—in *Epist. de sententia Dionisii*, n. 15.

[112] De Symeone et Anna § 11, p. 403, in Opp. Methodii, ed. Combefis, Paris, 1644.

[113] In *Ramos. Palmar.* §§ 10 and 11, pp. 439, 440, ed. cit.

[114] As for the words of the Apostle: “The first man is from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Just as there is a man of dust, so also there are those of dust; and just as there is a man of heaven, so also there are those of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47–48)—from which the heretics drew the conclusion as if Christ had not taken His flesh from the Most Holy Virgin, but had merely passed through her, as through a channel, with a body that was most subtle and heavenly: here is a comment on this—a) by St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Christ is called the heavenly man not because He brought His body from above and from heaven, but because the Word, being God, descended from heaven and became like us, that is, was born of a woman according to the flesh, without ceasing—even after the Incarnation—to be what He was before His birth according to the flesh, namely—heavenly and from heaven, and God who is above all” (Dialog. IX, in Opp. Cyrill. Alex. p. 723, ed. Fais. 1638); b) Theophylact of Bulgaria: “not because man or human nature was borrowed by Christ from heaven, as Apollinaris falsely claimed, but because the single person of the one Christ—He—is called heavenly as a man and crucified as God—both because of the union of the two natures in a single person” (Commentar, in Pauli Epist., p. 310, ed. London, 1636). St. Athanasius (Orat., contr. Arian., II, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 351, ed. Paris, 1627) and St. John Chrysostom (in Epist. ad Corinth. homil. XLII, in Opp. Vol. X, p. 394, ed. Montfauc.) explained this passage from the Apostle in the same way.

[115] The Docetists countered such clear evidence of the reality of the body of Jesus Christ primarily with the words of St. Paul the Apostle: “God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3)—but this was utterly unfounded, as the defenders of the truth demonstrated. For example, St. Chrysostom: if it is said that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, do not conclude from this that Christ’s flesh was not the same: the word ‘likeness’ is added because human flesh is called the flesh of sin—but Christ did not have sinful flesh; rather, although by nature the same as ours, it was nevertheless only similar to our sinful flesh and sinless” (In Epist. ad Romanos, Homily XIII, in Opp. Vol. IX, p. 564, ed. Montfauc.), And St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “The Apostle did not simply say, ‘in the likeness of the flesh,’ refuting the blasphemy of ungodly teaching—for the grace of the Spirit knows all things in advance—but he said, ‘in the likeness of the flesh of sin,’ so that we might know that he used the word ‘likeness’ because our Savior was free from all sin. For He, having become man, became man by nature, except for sin; therefore, in the likeness of sinful flesh, He condemned sin in the flesh. By assuming human nature, He did not accept the yoke of sin that reigns over people; on the contrary, He crushed all its power and showed that even in human nature it is possible to avoid the arrows of sin” (On the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 9, in Chr. Readings 1847, III, 177–178. See also the rest of this chapter).

[116] Heretics who denied that Jesus Christ had a human soul based their argument primarily on the words of the Evangelist: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). But the word “flesh” in Holy Scripture is very often used to mean the whole person, for example: [(Gen. 6:12); (Matt. 24:22); (Acts 2:17); (Rom. 3:20); (1 Cor. 1:29); (Gal. 2:16); (1 Tim. 3:16)]. “He thinks,” writes St. Cyril of Alexandria against Apollinaris, “that he has as a defender of his madness the most eloquent preacher of theology, the evangelist John, who says: ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14). Meanwhile, he himself knows full well how often Divine Scripture expresses the whole through a part; sometimes, for example, it refers to the whole person as the soul, and sometimes it uses the term ‘flesh’ to denote the entire living being (ολον το ζώον). Thus it is written: “All the souls of the house of Jacob who went down [with Jacob] to Egypt were seventy-five” (Gen. 46:27); it is evident that Jacob’s sons and grandsons were not incorporeal; yet the Chronicler designated the whole by a part. And again: “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:4); but no one has ever known of a soul falling into sin without a body. And again: “My Spirit shall not always contend with man [these people], for they are flesh” (Gen. 6:3)… But everyone knows that those whom Scripture accuses here—to whom it gives the law and whose nature it reveals—were not soulless” (On the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 17, in Chr. Readings 1847, III, 202–203).

[117] Chrysostom, In Epist. 1 ad Timoth. homil. VII, in Opp. Vol. XI, ed. Montfauc. The same idea was expounded by: a) St. Irenaeus: “It was incumbent upon the Mediator of God and man, through his own kinship with both, to bring the two sides into fellowship and harmony, to present man to God, and to reveal God to men” (Against Heresies III, p. 18); b) Blessed Theodoret: “The very name ‘mediator’ here points to the Divinity and the humanity. If Jesus were only God, He would not be called a mediator; how could He mediate between us and God, having nothing in common with us? But since He, as God, is united with the Father, possessing the same power, and as a man is united with us, having taken on the form of a servant from us: He is rightly called a mediator, uniting within Himself the separated parts through the union of natures, that is, the Divine and the human” (in confus. Dialog. II, Opp. T. IV, p. 56, ed. 1642, in Xp. ch. 1846, 1, pp. 352–353).

[119] Catechetical Lectures XII, § 14, p. 218, according to the Russian translation. The same idea is found in St. Athanasius: “As the matter itself requires, the Lord, in order to help people, appears in the form of a human being, takes on a body similar to ours and subject to the lower realm, that is, the works performed in the body, so that people who did not wish to know the Lord through His providence and governance of the universe might at least, through the works He performed in the body, come to know the Word of God who appeared in the flesh, and through Him, the Father” (On the Incarnation of the Word of God, n. 15, in Xp, Ch. 1837, IV. 285).

[120] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, ch. 19.

[121] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, ch. 21.

[122] Athanasius, *On the Incarnation of the Word*, n. 13.

[123] He was the whole truth (Christ); believe me, He would rather not have been born than to lie in any way, and indeed about Himself (Tertullian, *De Carnem Christi*, ch. V). If Christ’s body was an illusion, then Christ deceived; and if he deceived, he is not the truth. But Christ is the truth. Therefore, his body was not an illusion (Augustine, *De quaest. LXXXIII*, qu. 14; cf. *En.*, n. 19, on Ps. XLIV).

[124] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 1, Note 1.

[125] “If He suffered only in an illusion, as the godless—that is, the unbelievers—claim, being themselves nothing more than illusions: then why should I be in chains? Why should I wish to fight wild beasts? So, am I dying in vain?”… (Ignatius, To Trallianus, ch. X, p. 196, ed. Hefel.). And when we begin to truly suffer, He will appear to be deceiving us, urging us to endure the flames and to turn the other cheek, if He Himself has not first endured that in truth; and just as He deceived them so that He Himself might appear to them to be what He was not; so he deceives us, urging us to endure what he himself did not endure (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 18, n. 6).

[126] Iren. adv. haer. IV, n. 33; n. 5; Tertull. adv. Marcion. III, 8.

[127] Iren. adv. haer. V, 2, n. 1. And elsewhere: “For He did not truly take on flesh and blood, through which He spoke to us, unless He had recapitulated within Himself the original creation of Adam” (ibid. V, 1, n. 2).

[128] Tertullian, Against Marcion, III, 8. And again: “We were redeemed at a great price. Indeed, not at all, if Christ was a phantom and possessed no bodily substance whatsoever that could be offered in place of our bodies” (ibid., V, 7).

[129] John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book III, Chapter 28, pp. 219–220, based on the Russian translation.

[130] Gregory of Nyssa, *Contr. Eunom. Orat. II*, *Opp.*, Vol. II, p. 483, ed. Morel. The same idea is expressed by: Blessed Augustine (*De Civ. Dei* X, 27; Serm. XXVII, n. 4), Blessed Theodoret (Ep. CXLV ad monach. CP), and St. John of Damascus: “Thus, the whole received the whole, and the whole was united with the whole, in order to grant salvation to the whole. For whatever He did not take upon Himself would have remained unhealed.” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapter 6, pp. 152–133).

[131] Epistle to Cleodonius, 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 203.

[132] On the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 16, in *Chronological Readings*, 1847, III, 198–199.

[133] Gregory the Theologian, Sermons for Holy Pascha, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 161.

[134] Epistle to Cleodonius I, ibid., 203. This idea is also found among other teachers of the Church, for example: in Blessed Augustine (Ep. CXXXVII, n. II; CXL, p. 12) and in St. John of Damascus: “The Word of God was united with the flesh through the mind, which is something intermediate between the purity of the Godhead and the coarseness of the flesh; for the mind rules over the soul and the flesh, and the purest part of the soul is the mind, while the purest part of the mind is God” (Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book III, Chapter 6, p. 153).

[135] Gregory the Theologian, Epistle to Cleodonius 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 200.

[136] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book III, Chapter 6, p. 152. Similarly, in the writings of Blessed Augustine: “No man is perfect if the human mind is lacking, whether in the soul of the flesh or in the soul itself” (Epistle CLXXXVII to Dardanus, n. 4; cf. On Various Questions, LXXXIII, qu. 80, n. 1).

[137] Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 14, in *Christians’ Readings* 1847, III, 194–195 ff.

[138] Adv. haeres. III, 21, p. 10; cf. Tertull. *De carne Christi*, chap. XVÏ. Nor

[139] Catechetical Lectures, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 63. St. Ephrem the Syrian expounds the same idea (Discourse Against Heretics, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIV, 64).

[140] Letter to Cledonius 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 197, 199.

[141] Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew IV, § 3, in vol. 1, pp. 62–63. Published in Moscow, 1843.

[142] For an exposition of this prophecy, see § 82 of “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M.

[143] Thus: a) the creed known as the Apostles’ Creed states: “our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”; b) the creed included in the Apostolic Constitutions states: “and born of the Holy Virgin Mary…”; c) in the creed of the Church of Antioch, according to the text cited by Cassian: “who came for our sake and was born of the Virgin Mary…” (See Bingham, *Antiquities of the Church*, Book X, Chapter 4, §§ 7, 11, 12).

[144] Council of Ephesus, Part 11, Act 1, cited in Binium, Vol. 1, Part 11, p. 221.

[145] Epistle to the Ephesians, chap. 19, in Xp. Ch. 1821, 1, 40.

[146] Apolog. 1, 33, in Xp. Ch. 1825, XVII, 56.

[147] Against Heresies III, 21, n. 5. And further: “Just as Eve, though she had a husband, yet while still a virgin, showed disobedience, and thereby brought death upon herself and the entire human race: so Mary, having been betrothed to a husband but remaining a Virgin, showed obedience (Luke 1:38), and thereby contributed to her own salvation and that of the entire human race” (-III, 22).

[148] Adv. haer. V, 19, n. 1; cf. III, 19, n. 1 et seq.; V, 21, n. 1. 2.

[149] Orat. in diem natal. Christi, Opp. Vol. III, p. 344, ed. Morel., in Xp. Ch. 1837, IV, 258; cf. Contr. Eunom. Orat. III, p. 536.

[150] Epist. ad Syricium, Vol. II, Class 1, Epistle XLII, p. 967.

[151] He uses the following expressions regarding Mary: παρθενομήτωρ (de Simeon. et Anna n. II), μήτερ παρθένε (ibid. n. V), ω μήτερ παρθένε και παρθένε μήτερ (ibid. n. IX).

[153] Virgin birth (in Christ. natal. n. IV); nor were the gates of virginity opened at all (orat. in Domin. occurs. n. III).

[154] Greg. Naz. carm. II, 196 et seq.; Chrysost. in Genes. homil. XLIX, n. 2; in Matth. homil. IV, n. 3: “Do not ask: How did the Spirit form the infant in the Virgin? For if it is impossible to explain the manner of this formation through natural means, how can it be explained when the Spirit worked a miracle?… Do not think, either, that you have learned everything when you hear that Christ was born of the Spirit. Even with this knowledge, there is still much we do not know—for example: how does the Infinite fit into the womb? How is the All-Containing One carried in a woman’s womb? How does the Virgin give birth and yet remain a Virgin?” (from the Russian translation of the Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 61–62).

[155] “He (Christ) was born without pain, because He was conceived without corruption. He took on flesh in the Virgin, but not from the flesh, but from the Holy Spirit; therefore, He was born of the Virgin: for the Spirit opened her womb so that the Man who created nature and gave the Virgin the power to bring Him to term might come forth, The Spirit assisted in the birth of one who had not known a man’s bed; therefore, the One born did not break the seal of virginity, and the Virgin remained free from pain” (Sermons Against Heretics, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIV, 66).

[156] “Whose virginity was not violated by childbirth, just as it had not been defiled by conception” (Sermon XII, ch. 1).

[157] The Virgin conceived, the Virgin gave birth, and remained a Virgin after childbirth (De Symb. n. 5; cf. Contr. Faust. XXVIII, 4).

[158] “The only-begotten Word of God, having received the beginnings of bodily composition from the one Virgin, thus preparing the unspoiled temple and uniting it with Himself, is born of the Virgin, having neither loosened her virginal girdle by His conception nor broken it by His birth, but having preserved it whole and intact, and thus having wrought a great and ineffable miracle” (On the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 22, in Chr. Readings 1847, 111, 217).

[159] Petr. Chrysolog. Serm. LXII, LXXV; Proclus, In diem nativ. Christi orat. IV, in Combef. auctor, p. 334; Zeno of Verona, Serm. de contit. III, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XI, p. 303.

[160] Proclus, *Oratio 1 in Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary*; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 14, p. 260: “For Him (Jesus Christ), nothing was impossible—not even to pass through the gate without breaking its seals.”

[161] Gregory of Nyssa: “Just as the bush burns yet is not consumed, so too here the Virgin gives birth to the Light and remains incorrupt” (Sermon on the Nativity of the Lord, in The Divine Liturgy, 1837, IV, 259); Ambrose, *De institutione virginarum*, chs. VI, VII; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXXVIII, nos. 9, 10; Cyril of Alexandria, *Contra Anthropomorphe*, 26.

[162] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XXII, 8; Gregory of Nyssa, *Homilies on the Gospel*, XXVI.

[163] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 21, n. 10. Something similar is found in St. Hippolytus: “the firstborn of a virgin, so that the first-created might be shown to have been recreated in him” (in Daniel 7, apud Mai 1).

[164] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XII, § 15, pp. 218–219. The same is found in Tertullian: “The word of death had already crept into the virgin, who was still Eve; the Word that builds up life was likewise to be introduced into the virgin, so that what had gone astray into perdition through such a sex might be restored to order through the same sex” (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 17)—and in Blessed Augustine: (On the Christian Struggle, ch. XXII, n. 24).

[165] Greg. of Nyssa, Oration on the Nativity of Christ, Opp. Vol. III, p. 344; cf. On the Virgin, ch. II, and Augustine, Against Faustus, XXVIII, 4.

[166] What is this gate (Ezek. 44:1), if not Mary, and why is it closed, because she is a virgin? Mary is therefore the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was born of a virgin, and did not break the seal of virginity. The inviolable barrier of modesty remained intact, and the signs of her virginity remained unbroken (Ambrose, *On the Training of Virgins*, ch. VIII, § 52; cf. *Letter to Siricius*, Class. 1, Letter LXXII), *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 14, p. 260.

[167] “Mary’s virginity is all the more precious and pleasing because she consecrated it to God even before Christ was conceived in her. This is shown by her words to the Angel—the herald: ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’ In truth, she would not have said this if she had not already made a vow to God to remain a virgin. But since this was not in accordance with the customs of the Israelites, she became betrothed to a righteous man who would not only refrain from violating what she had already consecrated to God but would also protect her from others” (Augustine, *De Virginitate*, ch. IV).

[168] Epiphanius, *Haereses* LXXVIII, nos. 5, 8, 19.

[169] “The Creator of all things, from the ever-virgin Mary… became man” (De Theolog. et Incarn., n. VIII; cf. Contr. Beron. et Hel. Serm. III).

[170] Athanas. in Luke 1:58; Epiphanius, *Expositio Fidei Catholicae*, n. XV; *Ancorata*, CXXI; Caesar, *Dialogues*, 1, n. 20; III, n. 122; Cassian, *De Incarnatione*, 1:4; Leo the Great, Epistle to Flavius, fragment 1 (in Mansi VI, 424); Cyril of Alexandria, Homily at Ephesus against Nestorius, p. 355, Vol. VI, ed. Aub.

[171] Quintae Synod. coll. VIII, apud. Bin. Vol. II, Part II, pp. 115, 116. Ibid., in the 6th conciliar decree, it is stated: “If anyone maliciously and not in the proper sense accepts the title of the holy, orthodox, and ever-virgin Mary as the Mother of God, as used by the Holy Council of Chalcedon, let him be anathema.”

[172] Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, Councils, and Holy Fathers, p. 62.

[173] In ancient times, this error was held by: Eunomius (Philostorg. H. E. VI, 2) and some of Apollinaris’ followers (Epiphan. haeres. LXXVII, n. 26), as well as Helvidius and his followers (Hieronym. adv. Helvid.; Gennadius, *De dogm. eccles.*, chap. LIX), and the sect of the Antidicomarians (Epiphanius, *Haeres.* LXXVII, LXXVIII; Augustine, *Haeres.* LVI). In more recent times, this heresy, along with others, has been preached by the so-called rationalists.

[174] Origen, Homilies VII, on Luke.

[175] Ambros. *De institutione virginum*, chap. 5.

[176] Gennadius, *On Theological Dogmas*, ch. LXIX.

[177] Epiphanius, *Haeresiae*, LXXIII.

[178] Namely: the Council of Rome, held in 320 under the presidency of Pope Siricius, and the Council of Milan, held in the same year under the presidency of St. Ambrose.

[179] “But would the Lord Jesus choose for Himself a mother who, through a man’s seed, might defile the heavenly court, as if she were one for whom it were impossible to preserve the guardianship of virginal modesty?”… (Ambrose, *On the Institution of the Virgin*, ch. 6).

[180] John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 14, p. 261.

[181] John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily V, § 3, p. 83, according to the Russian translation; Hieroputus, Against Helvidus, Orations, Vol. IV, Part II, p. 134.

[182] “If he (Joseph) had known her and truly had her as his wife, then why would Jesus Christ entrust her to his disciple as a woman without a husband, having no one of her own, and command him to take her to himself?” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily V, Section 3, p. 93). He says to the disciple: “Behold your mother.” He is the disciple to whom the mother was entrusted. How could he have taken a wife if Mary had been married or had known the marital bed? (Ambrose, *On the Training of Virgins*, ch. VI).

[183] John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily V, n. 3, pp. 92–93; Ambrose, *De institutione virginarum*, ch. V; Isidore of Pelusium, Book 1, Epistle XVIII.

[184] Jerome, Against Helvidus, Works, Vol. VI, Part II, pp. 135, 136.

[185] As held by St. Epiphanius (Haeres. XXVIII and LXXVIII), St. Ambrose (De instit. virg. ch. VI), and others.

[186] “Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad: for He who is consubstantial with the Father, co-eternal and co-throned, took upon Himself generosity and philanthropic mercy, setting Himself to suffer, by the Father’s good pleasure and counsel; and dwelt in the womb of a virgin, purified by the Spirit” (Service on the 25th of March, Sticheron 4 of the Litany).

[187] Oglash. Pouch. XVII, ch. 6, sec. 376.

[188] Sermons on the Epiphany, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 245; on the Covenant and the Coming of Christ, ibid., vol. IV, pp. 248–249.

[189] Sermon on Heretics, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 71.

[190] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, vol. III, part 2, pp. 138–139.

[191] See note 115 above. “He says that Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh,” he says. “Not that He took on the likeness of the flesh, as if it were an image of the body and not the reality; but he wishes to be understood as referring to the likeness of sinful flesh; for the flesh of Christ itself was not sinful, but was akin to that which was sinful—in kind, not in vice—to Adam’s flesh, from which we also infer that it was flesh in Christ, whose nature is sinful in man (Tertullian, *On the Flesh of Christ*, ch. XVI; cf. ch. XLI).

[192] Together with... the one and only spotless and sinless Christ. Dialogue with Tryphon, chap. 110.

[193] Against Heresies IV, 20, n. 2.

[194] He alone, then, is the one who was sinless from the beginning, our Lord. Strom. VII, 12.

[195] A man without sin (De Charism. n. 1); a sinless man (De Theolog. et Incarn. adv. Beron. et Helie, n. 2, 4).

[196] Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle to Paul of Samosata; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, III, 2; Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, nos. 17, 18; Jacob of Nisibis, *Sermon on Penance*, VII, n. 1; Chrysostom, *Homily on Ephesians*, III, n. 3; *Homily on Hebrews*, XIII, n. 3; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechetical Oration*, c. XVI.

[197] He was entirely free from sin, whether original or personal (Epistle CLIV to Euod., n. 19).

[198] Didymus of Alexandria, *On the Trinity*, 1, 30; III, 10; Theodoret, *Erauistic Dialogues*, III; *Homily on Hebrews*, II, 8.

[199] Hippolytus, *On Theology and the Incarnation*, n. 11; Chrysostom, *Homilies on Romans*, XIII, n. 5; Cyril of Alexandria, *Against the Anthropomorphists*, c. XXIII; Augustine, *Sermons at Sanet*, XV, n. 30; *On Sin, Merit, and Repentance*, 11, 20, n. 34.

[200] Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, VII, 12; *Paedagogus*, 1, 2; Ambrose, Epistle to Hier (in Mai VII, p. 160); Maximus, Theological Treatises, Vol. II, p. 14, ed. Combef; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 20, p. 207.

[201] Serm. de incarn., fragm. XXV, XXIX (in Mai V).

[202] Council of Constantinople 11, chap. XII.

[203] Tertullian, *On the Soul*, ch. XIII.

[204] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chapters 7 and 8, pp. 155, 160.

[205] “Regarding the unity of the Person, which consists in the union of both natures with one another, it is said that the Son of Man came down from heaven, and the Son of God took on flesh from the Virgin, of whom He was born; and it is again affirmed that the Son of God was crucified and buried, whereas He endured this not through His Divinity—by which He is consubstantial, only-begotten, and co-eternal with the Father—but through His frail human nature. That is why we all confess in the Creed that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried” (St. Leo, in a letter to Flavian, in Chr. Cht. 1841, 1, 157).

[207] Exact Edition of the Treatise on the Faith, Book III, Chapter II, p. 166. Or, as St. Proclus observes: “By the expression ‘He became flesh,’ the Evangelist demonstrates the indivisibility of the most perfect union. For just as a unit cannot be divided into two units—because if it could be divided in this way, it would not be a unit but a pair—so too, that which, by the most perfect union, is one, cannot be divided into two” (Epistle to the Armenians on the Faith, in Chr. Cht. 1841, I, 359). The thoughts of other ancient teachers on how to understand the expression “The Word became flesh” were also compiled by Blessed Theodoret in Dialogue 1 between the Heretical and the Orthodox (see in Chr. Readings 1846, I, 69–76).

[208] See St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 9, in *Christians’ Readings* 1847, III, 176–183.

[209] Damascene, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book III, Chapter 12, Paragraph 168. Regarding the same words of the Apostle (Gal. 4:4), St. Ambrose remarks as follows: “He said: ‘His Son,’ not ‘one of many,’ not ‘one who was adopted,’ but ‘His own.’ By saying ‘His own,’ he pointed to the eternal begetting of the Son; and when he subsequently added, ‘born of a woman,’ he showed that His birth also pertains to Him, but not a birth according to the Godhead, but according to His assumption of humanity” (Apud Binium, Concil. Ephes. Vol. I, Part II, Act I, p. 195).

[210] “He called Him Christ to show that He became a true man; He called Him one who came from the Jews according to the flesh to prove that He did not come into existence only at the time of His Incarnation; He said of Him, ‘the One,’ to proclaim that He is without beginning; he said, ‘He is above all,’ to proclaim that He is the Lord of creation; he called Him God, so that we, deceived by His appearance and passions, might not reject His immortal nature; he called Him blessed, so that we might worship Him as the Almighty and not reproach Him as a servant like ourselves; He declared of Him: “for all eternity,” to show that He who created the ages by His Word is always present in them and is proclaimed as God” (St. Proclus, Epistle to the Armenians on the Faith, in Chr. Readings 1841, 1, 373–374).

[211] Cf. Bingham, *Origin. eccles.*, Book X, ch. 4.

[212] Council of Ephesus, Vol. 1, Patr. II, Acts 1, p. 121, apud Bin.

[213] In Chr. Cht. 1841, 1, 57–58.

[214] Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 7, in Chr. Ch. 1821, 1, p. 34; ref. ch. 20, p. 41.

[216] In *Annunt. Dei parae*, n. II, *Opp.*, Vol. II, p. 399; cf. *Contr. Arian*, Orat. III, n. 31, 32.

[217] Sermon on the Transfiguration of the Lord, in Works of the Holy Fathers, XIII, 158–159.

[218] Epistle to Cleodon 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 197. St. Gregory of Nyssa also expresses this: “For he says that two things have come to pass concerning the person of Scripture: the passion on the part of the Jews, and the glory on the part of God (Contr. Eunom. orat. IV, p. 583, ed. Morel.); likewise Didymus of Alexandria (De Trini, vol. III, 6) and Hilary (De Trinit. X, 52).

[219] We quote the words of Blessed Augustine from a work he wrote before the emergence of the Nestorian heresy, namely, from *Enchirid. ad Laurent.*, ch. 35.

[220] “A body composed of the four elements is not called consubstantial with fire, nor fire, nor water, nor earth, nor is it consubstantial with any of these elements. Therefore, if Christ, as the heretics believe, became of a single composite nature through the union of natures, then He was transformed from a simple nature into a composite one, and is not consubstantial either with the Father, whose nature is simple, or with matter, which is not composed of the divine and human natures. In that case, Jesus Christ belongs neither to the Godhead nor to humanity (Maximus the Confessor, Epist. ad Joan. Cubic., Opp. T. II, p. 279, ed. Gombefis, 1675; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 3, pp. 140–141).

[221] See notes 103–113 above and the text to which they refer.

[223] Namely: St. Leo, Pope of Rome; St. Cyril of Alexandria; Blessed Theodoret and Augustine; St. Maximus the Confessor; John of Damascus; and others.

[224] De theolog. et incarn. contr. Beron. et Helie, n. II. IV; cf. n. VIIÏ: “He is fully God and fully man.”

[225] Contr. Apollinar. I, n. 16; cf. in Ps. XXI, 21: “For Christ is one who consists of the two opposites, perfect God and perfect man” (apud Galland. V, 203).

[226] Sermon on the Transfiguration of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers XIII, 154; continued 158–159.

[227] To the monk Urvicius, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XI, pp. 244–246.

[228] Epist. lib. 1, epl. 419. The same doctrine was taught by: Irenaeus (adv. haer. V, 17, n. 3), Tertullian (de carne Christi V, XI, XIII), Hilary (de Trinit. IX, 3), Gregory of Nyssa (adv. Eunom. orat. IV), John Chrysostom (in Joan. homil. XI, n. 2), and others. Their testimonies were also compiled by Blessed Theodoret in “Discourse 11 between the Heretics and the Orthodox” (see Chr. Cht. 1846, 1, 388–397).

[229] “There is nothing absurd about the fact that kindred natures, when united, undergo a blending and are absorbed by one another; but between the divine and human natures there is an infinite difference, and I consider their blending to be utterly impossible” (Theodoret, Dialogue II between the Heretical and Orthodox, in Chr. Cht. 1846, 1, 376).

[230] See the above statement by St. Basil the Great, cited in note 227. St. Cyril of Alexandria also observes: “To say that the flesh was transformed into the divine nature, or that the Word was transformed into the nature of the flesh, is equally absurd” (Epist. ad Success., Opp. Vol. V, par. II, p. 140).

[231] As St. Leo further remarked concerning Eutyches: “Being blind to the nature of Christ’s body, he will necessarily be blind also to His suffering. For if he does not regard the Lord’s cross as an illusion, but on the contrary has no doubt that the suffering He endured for the salvation of the world was true suffering, then, in accepting death, he must also accept the flesh. Let him not say that the man whom he himself acknowledges as having suffered was not of our nature; for the denial of true flesh is also a denial of the suffering of the flesh. Therefore, if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn a deaf ear to the preaching of the Gospel, let him consider: what kind of nature, fastened with nails, hung upon the cross? Let him reflect: when the soldier pierced the side of the Crucified One with a spear, from where did the blood and water flow to wash and quench the Church of God with a bath and a cup?” (Epistle to Flavius, in Chr. Readings 1841, I, 160–161).

[232] Epistle to Cleodon, I, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, IV, 197. St. Athanasius also says: “For the union of the flesh with the divinity of the Word took place from the womb” (Contr. Apollinar. 1, n. 1).

[233] Epistle 1 to Nestorius, in Bin. *Concil. Ephes.*, part II, act. 1, p. 121; cf. *Opp. S. Cyrill.*, vol. V, part II, p. 23, Lutet. 1639.

[234] Dialogue II between the Heretical and the Orthodox, in Chr. Cht. 1846, 1, 371 and 378.

[235] Letter to the Armenians on the Faith, in *Chronicle and Readings*, 1841, 1, 358–359.

[236] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Vol. III, Ch. 2, p. 139. See also Paul of Emis, Homily on the Nativity of the Lord (in Mai VII, 1, 209); Augustine, Against the Arian Sermons, n. 6.

[237] Contr. Apollinar. 1, n. 18; 11, n. 14, 15; ad Epictet. Corinth. n. 5, 10.

[238] Greg. Nyss. *In Christi Resurrectionem*, Orat. 1, p. 392, Vol. III, ed. Morel., in *Xp*, 1841, 11, 25 ff.; Theodoret, Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas, ch. 15: “The Divinity was not separated from humanity either on the cross or in the tomb” (Chron. Readings 1844, IV, p. 330).

[239] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Vol. III, Ch. 27, p. 218.

[240] Letter to Cleodonius 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 198–199.

[241] In Greek: ίδιοποίησις (Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle XXIX), κοινοποίησις (ibid., X), άντίδοσις (John of Damascus, *On the Orthodox Faith*, III, 4); in Latin: *communicatio idiomatum*.

[242] Clem. Roman. Ep. 1 to the Corinthians, n. 2; Irem. adv. haer. III, 19; V, 1. 17; Hippol. adv. Noet. c. 18; Athanas. contr. Apollin. 1, 7; Epiphanius, *Haereses* LXXVII, 26; Augustine, *Against the Arian Sermons*, n. 8; cited in the *Octoechos*, vol. 1, fol. 54, 266, 283; vol. II, fol. 15, 76, 245, Moscow, 1838.

[243] Epist. ad Theoph. Alex., Opp. Vol. II, p. 697, Paris, 1615. The Blessed Theodoret also notes: “For union makes the names common, but does not confuse the commonality of the names” (Epist. CXXVII ad Job. Archimandr.).

[244] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Vol. III, Ch. 4, pp. 147–148.

[245] John of Damascus, ibid., pp. 147, 149.

[246] Or, as the school puts it: “The communion of properties in Christ must be recognized only in concreto, that is, when both of His natures are considered in the unity of His Hypostasis, and not in abstracto, when the natures are considered separately, abstracted from the unity of His Hypostasis.”

[247] Exact Exposition of the Articles of Faith III, ch. 17, pp. 197–198.

[248] The Lutheran doctrine of the omnipresence of Jesus Christ in His human nature alone is contrary to: a) Holy Scripture: Matt. 28:5–6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6; John 11:15, 21; Acts 1:11; 3:21, etc.; b) the teachings of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, which recognized that the two natures were united in Christ inseparably and indissolubly, with the properties of each preserved, as well as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which condemned the iconoclasts who considered Christ’s flesh to be indescribable or boundless; c) finally, the teachings of the Holy Fathers… (For their testimonies, as well as a detailed examination of the aforementioned Lutheran doctrine in general, see Theophan Prokopovich—*Theolog.*, vol. III, lib. IX, cap. 9, §§ 209–232).

[249] Thus, the seemingly contradictory statements of the ancient Church Fathers regarding the Savior’s foreknowledge are fully reconciled. Some of them, in explaining the words of Matthew 24:36, stated that Christ did not know the last day of the world in His human nature; among them were Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. II, 29, a. 6, 8), Athanasius the Great (contr. Arian. orat. III, n. 43, 46, 52, 53), Basil the Great (Epist. CCXXXVI, n. 1), Gregory the Theologian (Discourses on Theology IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers III, 94), Gregory of Nyssa (Against Apollinarius, Antirrhetica, nos. 14, 28; On the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, p. 470, Vol. III, Morel.), Didymus of Alexandria (Enarrat., in 1 John 2:3, 4), Epiphanius (Ancorat. XL), Theodoret (in Ps. XV, 7), Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Anthrop. c. 14), and in general many, if not all, as attested by Leontius of Byzantium (De Sectis, art. X). Others, though very few, maintained that Christ knew the last day of the world, as well as everything else, not only by virtue of His Divinity but also by virtue of His humanity (Ambros. de fide V, 18, n. 221; Eulog. apud Phot. cod. CCXXX, p. 882; Damasc. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith III, ch. 22). The former are also correct: for in this case they understood the Savior’s humanity—in abstracto, that is, in and of itself, apart from the unity of His divine hypostasis, as is evident from the words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “It is clear to everyone that the Son knows as God; yet He attributes to Himself ignorance as a human being, insofar as the visible can be separated from the intelligible.” This idea is also suggested by the fact that the title of the Son is used here in an abstract and unqualified manner, that is, without any qualification as to whose Son He is, so that we might understand this ignorance in a sense more consistent with piety and attribute it to His humanity rather than to His Divinity” (Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 94). The latter are also correct: for they understood the Savior as a single Divine Person, in whom the Divinity and humanity are inseparably united—a point clearly demonstrated, in particular, by the words of Eulogius (loco citat.). It was in this latter sense that the Church condemned, in the 6th century, the heresy of the Agnostes, who, by merging the two natures in Christ—namely, by allowing the absorption of humanity by the Godhead within Him—asserted that Christ, even when understood as a single Divine Person, did not know (αγνοέω) the last day of the world (Nicephorus, *Ecclesiastical History*, XVIII, chs. 45, 49, 50; Suicer, *Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus*, under the entry “Αγνοηται”).

[250] “If the flesh, from the very moment of its conception, is truly united with God the Word—or rather, has come to exist in Him and shares hypostatic identity with Him—how could it not be fully enriched with every wisdom and grace? – The flesh does not receive grace on its own, and it participates in what the Word possesses not by grace but by hypostatic union; from the very moment that both the human and the divine came to belong to the one Christ (because the same Christ was both God and man), it pours out grace and wisdom and the fullness of all good things upon the world” (Damascene, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book III, Chapter 22, p. 211).

[251] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, ch. 3; Bac. on Ps. 44, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. V, p. 230.

[252] “Human flesh, by its very nature, is not life-giving; but the Lord’s flesh, hypostatically united with God the Word Himself, although by its very nature it was not exempt from mortality, nevertheless, by virtue of its hypostatic union with the Word, it became life-giving: and we cannot say that it is not life-giving, or that it is not always life-giving” (Damascius, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 21, pp. 208–209).

[253] Justin, *Expositio fidei*; cf. *Opp.*, p. 387, ed. Col., 1686.

[254] Council VI, in Vinnius, Vol. III, Part I, pp. 184–185.

[255] Contr. Arian. orat. 1, n. 43; ad Adelph. Epist. n. 3. 5–8.

[256] Ancorat, IV. Cf. Ambrose, Spir. S. III, II, nos. 76–79.

[257] In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chapter V, Works, Vol. XII, p. 51.

[258] Epist. CLI; cf. in Cant. III, 6; in Eph. II, 7.

[259] Epistle CIV to Flavian of Constantinople.

[260] See Anaphora VIII, in Xp. Ch. 1841, 1, 59–60.

[261] Exact Exposition of the Articles of Faith, Vol. III, 8, pp. 159–160.

[262] The Books of the Holy Apostles, the Council, and the Fathers, p. 4, ed. 1843.

[263] “Before His saving suffering, He says: ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me’ (Matt. 26:39); but clearly, He had to drink the cup as a man, not as God. Therefore, as a human being, He desires that the cup pass from Him. These were words of natural fear. ‘Nevertheless, not My will, but Yours be done’ (Luke 22:42); not Mine, insofar as I have a nature distinct from Yours, but Yours—that is, Mine and Yours—insofar as I am consubstantial with You.” (Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Faith, III, 18, p. 202; see also ch. 24, p. 214).

[264] “Was He obedient (Phil. 2:8) willingly or unwillingly? If unwillingly, then it would not have been obedience, but coercion. But the Lord was obedient, not as God, but as a human being. For, as God, He could be neither obedient nor disobedient: this, as the divine Gregory says, is proper to those who are subject. Consequently, Christ had a will as a human being (St. Maximus the Confessor, *Disput. cura Pyrrh.*, p. 179, *Opp.*, Vol. II, ed. Paris, 1675).

[265] “If He, as God, felt thirst and, having tasted, did not wish to drink, it would follow that He was subject to suffering even as God; for both thirst and tasting are states of suffering. If, however, He was thirsty not as God, then, without a doubt, He was thirsty as a human being; and consequently, He also had a will as a human being” (Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, III, 14, p. 177).

[266] On Theology and the Incarnation, Against Beron and Helicus, ch. II, IV.

[267] On the Incarnation and Against the Arians, n. 21.

[268] In Agathon’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Emperor (cited in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Acts IV, col. 652, Vol. VI, ed. Labb.).

[269] In Matthew 26:38 (in Anastasius, PP, On the Doctrine of the Incarnation, ch. XVIII).

[270] On the Faith II, 7, nos. 52, 53.

[271] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew LXXXIII, Part III, p. 428 in the Russian translation.

[272] John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Faith, Vol. III, Ch. 14, p. 174; Ch. 15, pp. 184–185.

[273] Maximus the Confessor, *Disput. cum Pyrrh.*, *Opp.*, Vol. II, pp. 187–188, Paris, 1675; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Vol. III, Ch. 15, p. 188.

[274] Maximus the Confessor and Damascene, loc. cit.

[276] “Just as He was fully God together with His humanity, and fully human together with His divinity: so, as a human being, He subjected His humanity to God the Father in Himself and through Himself, and was obedient to the Father, providing us with a most excellent example and model in Himself” (Damascene, ibid., ch. 18, p. 202; cited in ch. 14, p. 178, and see note 264 above).

[277] Book III, ch. 14, p. 172; cf. Hippol., *De incarn. adv. Beron. et Heliс*, n. 1: “He made Himself divine in both natures, and acting in both, I say, divinely and humanly.”

[280] Chap. 19, pp. 204–205; chap. 15, p. 190. Cf. Athanasius, Commentary on Luke XII, 10, Opp. T, 1, 974, Colon. 1686.

[284] p. 206; cf. Dionysius Areopagite, Epistle IV to Cajus the Monk.

[285] “The Word Himself became flesh, conceived by the Virgin, and God came forth from her with the human nature He had assumed, which, at the very moment of its coming into being, was deified by the Word; so that these three—the assumption, the conception, and the deification of humanity by the Word—were accomplished at the same time. That is why the Holy Virgin is honored and called the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of human nature” (Damascene, Exact Exposition, ch. 12, p. 170).

[287] Epist. ad Ephes. c. XVIII, in Xp. Readings 1821, 1, p. 40.

[288] Contr. haeres. III, 21 et seq. 31, n. 10.

[289] Socrat. Hist. eccl. VII, c. 32.

[290] See in Xp. Ch. 1840, IV, 17.

[291] Alexandri Epist., apud Theodoret. H. E. 1, ch. 4.

[292] Contr. Arian. orat. III, n. 29. Or: “John, still in his mother’s womb, leaped for joy at the greeting of the Virgin Mary” (n. 33). The Holy Father gives the same title to the Most Holy Virgin in other passages of his writings as well (Contr. Arian. orat. III, n. 14; orat… IV, n. 32; de incarn. verbi Dei n. 4).

[293] Dictionary on the Transfiguration of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIII, 154.

[294] In *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1840, I, 116.

[295] Letter to Cleodon 1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 197; see also the entry on “Theology, Part III” in the same volume, p. 56.

[296] Epistle to Eustathius and Ambrose, Opp., Vol. III, p. 660, ed. Morel. Cf. On the Beatitudes, Oration I, Vol. 1, p. 767, and On the Meeting of the Lord, Vol. III, p. 460.

[297] “Yet you do not cease to call Mary the Mother of God.” In Cyril, Against Julian, Book VIII, in Opp., Vol. VI, 262.

[298] See the 1st of the XII anathemas, in Chr. Cht. 1841, I, 57.

[299] The ancient and time-honored pillars of the Orthodox faith, in accordance with the apostolic tradition, have taught that the Mother of God should be called and believed to be the mother of the Son of God. Haeret. Fab. IV, c. 12, in Opp. Vol. IV, p. 245, Lut. 1642.

[300] For no one among the ecclesiastical teachers has ever rejected this name.... In Harduin, Act. Concil. Vol. 1, col. 1329.

[301] Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle to the Egyptian Monks 1, in Opp., Vol. V, Part II, pp. 6–8.

[302] “We by no means call the Holy Virgin the ‘Christ-bearer’: for this offensive title was invented by the impious, vile, and Judaizing Nestorius, a vessel of dishonor, to degrade the name ‘Mother of God’ and to deprive Her—who alone is truly exalted with honor above every creature—of a part of that honor. King David and Aaron the high priest are also called ‘Christ’—because both kings and priests were anointed—but any God-bearing man may be called ‘Christ’ by nature, though not ‘God’; in this sense, the mad Nestorius dared to call the One Born of the Virgin ‘God-bearer.’ But let us not call Him, or even conceive of Him in our thoughts, as “God-bearer”; on the contrary, let us confess Him as God incarnate” (Damascene, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, III, IX 12, pp. 169–170).

[303] Damascus, ibid., III, ch. 6, p. 151.

[304] Ibid., ch. II, pp. 166, 167; ch. 6, pp. 151, 152.

[305] Concil. Ephes. Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 46, apud Bin.

[306] Commentary on Matt. 19:1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, pp. 214–215.

[307] De Trinit. III, c. II, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. X, p. 82.

[308] *Adv. Apollin.*, in Vol. III, p. 262, ed. Morel.

[309] Epistle to the Armenians on the Faith, in *Chronological Readings* 1841, 1, 361–362 and 364.

[310] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Vol. III, Ch. 8, p. 160; Ch. 9, pp. 160–161.

[311] “He is called Christ because of His anointing by the Holy Spirit. But He was anointed not as God, but as a human being. And if He was anointed as a human being, then He is called Christ because of His Incarnation” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1844, IV, 314). “We say that the Word was then called Christ” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1844, IV, 314). “We say that the Word was then called Christ” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1844, IV, 314). “We say that the Word was then called Christ” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1844, IV, 314). “We say that the Word was then called Christ” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1844, IV, 314). “We say that the Word was then called Christ” (Theodoret, *Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas*, ch. 11, in *Chronicle Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. 11, in the Christian Reader, 1844, vol. IV, p. 314). “We say that the Word received the name Christ Jesus when It became flesh. Since the Lord is anointed by God the Father with the oil of joy, or the Spirit, He is therefore called Christ. And that the anointing was performed upon humanity—no one of sound mind will doubt this (Cyril of Alexandria, in a letter to the empress, cited in Damascene’s Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, ch. 6, p. 29). “We affirm that the Son of God—the Word of God—became Christ (the Anointed One) as soon as He was conceived in the womb of the Holy Ever-Virgin; He became flesh without any change in His Divinity, and that flesh was anointed by the Divinity” (Damascene, ibid.). See the same idea in St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Instructions on the Mysteries, III, § 2, p. 450) and St. Gregory the Theologian (Discourses on Theology, IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 101).

[312] Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, Part 1, Answer to Question 34: “The name ‘Christ’ means ‘the Anointed One’: for in the Old Testament, those who were anointed were called Christs, such as priests, kings, and prophets—the three offices to which Christ was anointed, though not in the same way as the others, but preeminent above all other anointed ones” (p. 34, 7th ed.). Explanation from the Christian Catechism on Article 2: “Q. Why is Jesus, the Son of God, called the Anointed One? Answer: Because all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been bestowed upon His humanity in immeasurable abundance, and thus He possesses, to the highest degree, the knowledge of a prophet, the holiness of a high priest, and the power of a king” (pp. 37–38, Moscow, 1840).

[313] See the article by the prophet Moses on a prophet like himself in Chr. Readings 1831, XLI, 290.

[314] Constit. Apostol. II, c. 6. 20; Method. de Symeon. et Anna n. 5. 6; Clementin. homil. I, n. 20. 21; II, n. 6. 9; III, n. 11; XI, n. 25; Theodoret, Epist. CXLVÏ: “Christ has been called—as according to the human nature—anointed by the Holy Spirit, and having served as our high priest, apostle, prophet, and king.”

[315] Catechetical Lectures VI, n. II, pp. 107–108.

[316] De incarn. Verbi Dei, n. 14, in Chr. Th. 1837, IV, 283–284. See also the words of St. Irenaeus, cited earlier in note 33.

[317] Commentary on Isaiah, Book V, in Opp., Vol. II, p. 776, ed. Lutetia, 1638.

[318] Christ’s teaching is often referred to in Holy Scripture as the law [(Isa. 2:3); (Micah 4:2); (1 Cor. 9:21)], specifically as the law of faith (Rom. 3:27), a commandment, or Christ’s moral law [(John 13:34); (Gal. 6:2); cf. (Matt. 7:12); (John 15:12)]. Similarly, the division of this law into two parts—dogmatic and moral—is known both from Holy Scripture [(Matt. 28:19–20); (James 2:24–26)] and from the writings of the Church Fathers (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism IV, n. 2; Chrysostom, Homily on Genesis II, n. 5; XIII, n. 4).

[319] “So, where does Christ begin, and what foundations does He lay for our new life?… He begins His wondrous word: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’ What does it mean to be poor in spirit?—To be humble and contrite in heart… since pride is the summit of all evils, the root and source of all wickedness: therefore, the Savior prepares a remedy appropriate to the disease and establishes this first law as a firm and secure foundation. For upon this foundation, all else can be safely built… Just as pride is the source of all wickedness, so humility is the beginning of all piety. That is why Christ begins by uprooting pride from the souls of His listeners at its very root” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily XV, paras. 1–2, vol. 1, pp. 267–269, Russian translation).

[320] “Although Christ describes the rewards in various ways, He ultimately leads all into the kingdom. And when He says that those who mourn will be comforted, and the merciful will be shown mercy, and the pure in heart will see God, and the peacemakers will be called children of God—by all this He means nothing other than the kingdom of heaven. Whoever has received these blessings will certainly receive the Kingdom of Heaven as well. Therefore, do not think that only the poor in spirit will be worthy of this reward, but also those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the meek, and all the others. For He mentioned “blessed” with every commandment so that you would not expect anything sensual. “One cannot be blessed by receiving a reward that is destroyed in this life and vanishes like a shadow” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, XV, 5, vol. 1, p. 278).

[321] Ambrosius, Epistle XLIV to Horentian, n. 15; Chrysostom, On Penance, Homily VI, 4; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 20.

[322] These ideas are expounded by: Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. III, 12, n. 12; IV, 34, n. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. IV, 1, 11, 21; V, 2), and especially—Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. 1, 5, 6, 7) and others.

[323] Sermons on Easter, in The Works of the Holy Fathers IV, 170–171. St. John Chrysostom also notes: “His (Jesus Christ’s) teaching did not abolish the former law, but elevated and fulfilled it. For example, the commandment ‘You shall not murder’ is not superseded by the commandment ‘You shall not be angry’; on the contrary, the latter serves as a supplement and confirmation of the former. The same must be said of all the others… For example, He not only commands us to be merciful, but also to give even the other cheek; not only to be meek, but to turn the other cheek to one who wishes to strike us” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Discourse XVI, § 3, Vol. 1, pp. 309, 311). Blessed Theodoret says the same: “The ancient law condemns adultery (Ex. 20:14); but the Gospel law even calls the sinful desire arising from a lustful glance ‘adultery’ (Matt. 5:28). The ancient law forbids breaking an oath (Matt. 5:33), while the new law forbids even swearing an oath (Matt. 5:34). The ancient law commanded a husband to release his wife if he no longer loved her (Deut. 24:1); while the New Law calls the divorce of a wife—unless it is due to her adultery—adultery” (Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. 16, in the Christian Reader, 1844, IV, 332).

[324] On the Gospel of Matthew, Homily XVI, § 5, vol. 1, p. 317.

[325] Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, ch. 41; Chrysostom, *Against the Jews*, Oration V, n. 12; Augustine, *The City of God*, XVIII, 35, n. 3.

[326] “And He fulfilled all that was lawful, as I believe, in order to bestow upon the law both a reward, as upon a tutor, and a funeral honor, as upon something being abolished” (Gregory the Theologian, Sermons on the Covenant and on the Coming of Christ, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, IV, 249).

[327] “And in breaking the Sabbath, He did not suddenly introduce such a legal provision, but first presented many and varied reasons. If, intending to abolish even a single commandment, He exercises such caution in His words so as not to frighten His listeners, then all the more so when He was adding an entirely new law to the entire, former law did He need to prepare His listeners and adapt to their condition, so as not to upset them… “Intending to fulfill the law, He proceeds to do so with great caution” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily XVI, §2, vol. 1, p. 307).

[328] “Just as the greatest praise for a teacher is that the young man he has educated no longer needs his supervision to preserve chastity, because he has already become sufficiently established in this virtue, so too the greatest praise for the Law is that we no longer need its help. For this is precisely what we owe to the law: that our soul has become sufficiently capable of receiving the highest wisdom” (Chrysostom, Homilies Against the Jews II, ch. 3, in vol. III, p. 488, from the Russian translation published by the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1850).

[329] “God turned the Jews away from sacrifices by destroying the city itself and making it inaccessible to all. For if this were not His intention, why would He have confined all worship to a single place, being omnipresent and filling all things? Why, then, did He—having linked worship to sacrifices, sacrifices to a place, a place to a time, and a time to a single city—subsequently destroy that very city? And here is what is astonishing and strange: the entire universe is open to the Jews, and nowhere in it are they permitted to offer sacrifices; only Jerusalem is inaccessible, and it was only there that they were permitted to offer sacrifices. So, is the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem not clear, not obvious, even to the most foolish? If a builder, having already laid the foundation, erected the walls, constructed the arch, and secured it with a single keystone set in the center, were to remove that keystone, he would destroy the entire structure: so too God, having made the city, as it were, the keystone of (Jewish) worship, and then destroying it, thereby destroyed the entire structure of that worship” (Chrysostom, Homily Jude 4, p. 6, pp. 536–537 in the same volume; excerpted from the Commentary on Jude 3, p. 3, p. 503).

[330] A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. 17, in the Christian Reader, 1844, vol. IV, pp. 337–338. Patriarch Photius discusses this abolition—but not the destruction—of the Old Testament law quite thoroughly and in detail in one of his letters (Photii Epist., ed. Londini 1651, ep. L, pp. 103–105).

[331] *Pisís Katholíkē*..., Liber Rar. Epist. ad episcop. orient. (apud Socrat. IV, 14); Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VI, 5. 17; Qrig. *contr. Cels.* IV, 9; Euseb. *Demonstr. Evang.* 1, 5. 7. Fides catholica… Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV, 4; Augustine, On the True Religion, IX, n. 17; On the Usefulness of Faith, ch. VII, n. 13. Disciplina Catholica… Augustine, On the Usefulness of Faith, ch. VIII, n. 20.

[332] Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, XV, fol. 6, 7, pp. 283, 286–287; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7; Preparation for the Gospel, 1, 1.

[333] “The doctrine of salvation…” Eusebius, in Psalms XXXII, 8. – “The doctrine of salvation…” Eusebius, Demonstrations of the Gospel 1, 5.

[334] Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. VI; Justin, Apology II, n. 1; Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, cIII; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, 25, n. 1; Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, VIII, nos. 1, 4; Eusebius, Demonstration of the Gospel, 1, 5; on Psalms XXXII, 8; XCIX, 8; Theodoret, Commentary on Hebrews, II, 3; Augustine, The City of God, X, 25; On the Trinity, IV, 22, no. 27.

[335] See commentaries on this passage: St. Chrysostom (Homilies Against the Jews, VII, ch. 5, 6, pp. 628–636, in Vol. III, The Works of this Father in Russian translation), St. Epiphanius (On the Melchizedekian Heresy, LV), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Glaphyr., Book II, Vol. 1, p. 16 et seq.), Blessed Augustine (On the Christian Doctrine, IV, ch. 21), Blessed Theodoret (Commentary on Genesis, Q. 64).

[337] Hymns on the Sacraments concerning the Son, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 220.

[338] Discourses on Theology, Book IV, ibid., Book III, p. 102.

[341] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 1, n. 36; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, n. 33, 34, 36, 118; Clement, Stromata VII, 3; Arnobius, Against the Gentiles II, 65.

[342] “God empties Himself and descends for our sake; by ‘emptying’ I mean a kind of weakening and diminishing of His glory” (Gregory the Theologian, Commentary on Matthew 19, I, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 215). “The Incomprehensible is comprehended through the rational soul, which mediates between the Godhead and the coarse flesh; The Rich One becomes poor—He becomes poor even to the point of my flesh, so that I might be enriched by His Divinity. The Full One is emptied—He is emptied, if only for a time, of His glory, so that I might share in His fullness” (Homily on the Epiphany, ibid., p. 245).

[343] “He became man for our sake. He took upon Himself the worst in order to give us the best; He became poor so that we might be enriched by His poverty; He took the form of a servant so that we might obtain freedom; He humbled Himself so that we might be exalted; He was tempted so that we might triumph; endured disgrace so that we might be glorified; He died to save us; He ascended to draw to Himself those lying below in the fall of sin” (Gregory the Theologian, Homily for Easter, in The Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 7).

[345] Epistle to the Corinthians 1, no. 21; cf. no. 49.

[346] Epistle to Trall, no. 2; cf. Epistle to Smyrna, no. 1.

[347] Epistle to Philip, n. 1. 8, in Xp. Readings 1821, 1, 117, 123.

[348] Apolog. 1, n. 63; cf. Dialog. cum Tryph. n. 88.

[349] Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 1; cf. 16, n. 3; 17, n. 1; 21, n. 1.

[351] Lib. ad Demetrian. n. 25, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. IV, p. 564, ed. Migne.

[352] Demonstr. Evang. IV, 12; cf. 1, 10; X, 1.

[353] Treatise on Theology IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers III, 100.

[356] Discourses on the Suffering of the Savior, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XV, 243.

[357] Discourses on Psalm 48, ibid., V, 360.

[358] De incarn. Verbi Dei, n. 25, in Chr. Th. 1838, II, 145–148. For the same ideas, and especially the last two, see St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V, 17, n. 4), Lactantius (Inst. Divin. IV, 26), St. Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. Cathech. c. XXXII; contr. Eunom. cr. IV, in T. II, p. 583, ed. Morel.), St. John Chrysostom (Homil. 1, 11 on the Cross and the Thieves), and others. Or consider this further argument: “Since death came through a tree (Gen. 2:3), it was fitting that life and resurrection should also be granted through a tree” (Damascene, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book IV, Chapter II, p. 244; cf. Refutations Against Heresies V, 16, n. 3; 17, n. 4; 18, n. 3; 19, n. 1).

[359] Epist. ad Diognet. n. IX, in Chr. Readings 1825, XX, 156.

[360] Adv. haeres. V, 16, n. 3. And further: (unidentified) “the Father who suffered for us, in whom we had sinned, and who consoled our disobedience with His own obedience, granting us that which leads to our creator: fellowship and submission” (V, 37, n. 1).

[361] Catechetical Instructions XIII, n. 33, p. 270.

[363] On the Incarnation of the Word of God, n. 20, in Christian Readings 1838, II, 133–134, 135.

[364] Sermons 3, in The Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 31, 32.

[366] Epist. LXXVIÏ: “The price of our liberation was the blood of the Lord Jesus...”

[367] *De occurs. Dom.*, p. 454, Vol. III, ed. Morel.

[368] Homilies on the Cross and the Thieves, 1, n. 1.

[369] De Trinit. XIII, ch. 15: “In redemption, the blood of Christ was given as the price for us.”

[370] Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel*, I, 10; IV, 12; X, 1; Didymus, *On the Trinity*, III, 12; Cyril, *Commentary on John*, VII, 30; Theodoret, *Commentary on Isaiah*, LIII, 5.

[371] Catechetical Lectures XIII, § 33, p. 270.

[372] From the Commentary on Romans, X, p. 2, pp. 211–212, according to the Russian translation published in Moscow in 1844.

[373] To whom was this ransom offered on our behalf? Some have suggested that it was offered to the prince of this world—the devil, in whose captivity we all find ourselves (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Vol. XYΙ, n. 8; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism, ch. ΧXII et seq.; Ambros. Epist. LXXII, n. 8; Hieronym. in Epist. c. 1, 7). But St. Gregory and St. John of Damascus clearly demonstrated the inconsistency of such a view. The former argues as follows: “To whom and for what purpose was this great and glorious blood of God, the High Priest and the Sacrifice, shed for us? We were in the power of the evil one, sold into sin and having purchased our own ruin through sensuality. And if the price of redemption is given to none other than the one who holds us captive, I ask: to whom and for what reason was such a price paid? If to the evil one: then how offensive this is! The robber receives the price of redemption; he receives not only from God but God Himself; for his torment he takes such an immeasurable payment that it would have been just to spare us for its sake! But if it is to the Father: then, first of all, how? We were not held captive by Him. And secondly, for what reason is the blood of the Only-Begotten pleasing to the Father, who did not accept even Isaac, offered by his father, but substituted the sacrifice, giving a ram instead of the promised offering? Or does this show that the Father accepts it, not because He demanded it or had a need for it, but for the sake of His plan, and because humanity needed to be sanctified by the humanity of God, so that He Himself might deliver us by overcoming the tormentor with power, and raise us up to Himself through the Son, the Mediator and the One who arranges all things for the glory of the Father, to whom He is in all things obedient” (Easter homily, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, 175–177).

[374] Clem. Epist. ad Corinth. I, n. 7; Justin. Dialogue with Trypho, n. 88; Clem. Alex. Strom. VII, 2; Euseb. in Ps, XCVII, 1.

[375] For He died for all. In *Hebr. homil. IV*, n. 2.

[376] Gregory the Theologian, Homily on Theology IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers III, 100; ref. IV, 165; Basil the Great, on Psalm 48, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 360; on Psalm 59, ibid., p. 381; Ambrose, *De Isaaas et anima*, ch. III, n. 9; Pelus, Book IV, Epistle 100.

[377] He offered the all-holy and salvific sacrifice for all people. Eran., Dialogues II, in Chr. Readings 1846, I, p. 362.

[378] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 6; Jerome, *Epistolae*, XCII, n. 4 to Julian; Cyril of Alexandria, *Adversus Anthropomorphe*, ch. VIII.

[379] Homily XXIV… suffered for all.

[380] Homily on the Resurrection of the Lord, in Vol. III, p. 454.

[381] Sermon M. on Faith, n. 13 (in Galland, Vol. V, p. 163); cf. On the Incarnation, n. 20.

[382] In Hebr. homil. XVII, n. 2. Similarly, Blessed Theodoret, in explaining the words: “through the obedience of the one righteous man, many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19), says: “The Apostle very aptly used the word ‘many’ here. For after the coming of the Savior, not everyone receives salvation, but only those who believe in Him and act in accordance with His divine laws” (Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas, ch. II, in the Christian Reader, 1844, IV, 318).

[383] On the Epistle to the Romans, Discourse X, § 2, in the Russian translation, p. 210. And further: “Therefore, the Apostle did not say ‘grace,’ but ‘an abundance of grace.’ The gifts of grace have been bestowed upon us not merely to eradicate sin, but for a far greater purpose. We have been freed from punishment, delivered from all evil deeds, born again from above, raised from the dead after the burial of the old man, redeemed, sanctified, adopted as sons, justified, made brothers of the Only-Begotten, made His co-heirs, united with Him into one body, made His members, joined to Him as the body is to the head” (- p. 211).

[385] Discourses on Theology IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers III, 93.

[386] In Chapter VIII of the Epistle to the Romans.

[387] Justin, Apology I, 28; II, 8; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 10; Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, ch. 1; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 148, n. 7; Augustine, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, n. 24; The City of God Dei XIV, 27; Jerome, Commentary on John III, 6; Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Job IX, 50, n. 76; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II, chs. 3, 4, 30, pp. 53, 59, 133.

[388] Tertullian, *On the Flesh of Christ*, ch. XIV; Methodius, *On Simeon and Anna*, n. XIII; Jerome, *Commentary on Isaiah*, XIV, 20; *Against Rufinus*, 1, in Vol. IV, Part II, p. 379, ed. Mart.

[389] Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen, Canon VII.

[390] *Against Heresies*, 1, 10, n. 1. A similar confession of the kingly dignity of Jesus Christ is found in the writings of the martyr Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, n. 34, 86, 118) and Hippolytus (On Christ and the Antichrist, n. 6).

[391] In *Ramos Palmar*, no. V, in Galland, vol. III, p. 823.

[392] On the Form of the Christian Life, in Vol. III, p. 227, ed. Morel.

[393] *De profess, Christ.*, ibid., p. 269.

[394] On the words: 1 Cor. 15:24, in Xp. Ch. 1838, II, 15.

[397] This idea is now preached by almost all Protestant theologians.

[398] Church History, Book I, Chapter 13, pp. 51, 56, St. Petersburg edition, 1848.

[399] Bingham, *Orig. Eccles.*, Book X, Chapter 3, § 7; Chapter IV, § 13.

[400] It is worth noting that the descent of Jesus Christ into hell is mentioned in many apocryphal writings that appeared in the early days of Christianity. See, for example, the Gospel of Nicodemus, n. 18 (in Birch, Auct., 115 ff.), the Acts of Thomas, n. X (ap. Thilo, Cod. apoc., p. 20), the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, ch. IX; and the Sibylline Oracles, VIII, 743.

[401] Adv. haeres. IV, 12, n. 1; 27, n. 2.

[403] *De anima*, ch. LV, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. II, p. 742, Migne.

[405] In Genesis, homily XV; cf. in John, vol. VI, n. 18.

[406] Divin. instit. IV, ch. 12, p. 481, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. VI, ed. Migne.

[407] Haeres. Negodian. XX; cf. Haeres. LXIX, 62; LXXVII, 8.

[408] Homilies on Psalm 48, verse 16, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 371.

[409] Treatise on Theology III, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 75.

[410] Commentary on St. Matthew, Discourses II, ch. 1, p. 23 in vol. I of the Russian translation. The same teaching is found among other teachers of the fourth century, for example, St. Eustathius of Antioch (Contr. Origen. in Galland. Vol. IV, p. 563) and St. Zeno of Verona, who says: “He (Jesus Christ) tasted death in order to conquer it—He descended into Hades to bring the dead out of there alive” (on 1 Cor. 15:24, in the 1838 Christian Reader, 11, 15).

[411] Athanas. contr. Apollinar. 1, n. 13, 14; 11, 17; Epiphan. haeres. LXXVII, n. 7, 8, 25; Philastr. haeres. XL.

[413] A saying for Easter; taken from the Gospel of Matthew, Discourses II, n. I: “If you follow us in proper silence, we can lead you out and show you where death lies, nailed to the cross; where sin is hanged; and where the numerous, wondrous, and victorious monuments of this war, this battle, stand. Here you will see the bound tormentor, and behind him a multitude of captives: that stronghold from which the accursed demon, in days of old, launched his raids everywhere. You will see the robber’s hideouts and caves, already ravaged and laid bare: for the King came there as well” (p. 23, vol. 1, Russian translation).

[414] Hymn to Christ, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, IV, 358.

[415] Demonstr. Evang. lib. X ad verba Ps. 16.

[416] See notes 401 and 403 above.

[417] Homilies, Catechetical, IV, n. II, pp. 64–65; Sermons, XIV, p. 19. “Death was terrified upon seeing someone new who had come into hell, one who was not bound by its chains. Why were you, gatekeepers of hell, terrified when you saw Him? What extraordinary fear seized you? Death fled, and this flight revealed her fear. The holy prophets gathered together, along with Moses the Lawgiver, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David, Samuel, Isaiah, and John the Baptist, who testified, saying, ‘Are you the One who is to come, or should we expect another?’ (Matt. 11:3). All the righteous, who had been swallowed up by death, were redeemed. For the King who had been foretold was to be the Redeemer of the good forerunners” (p. 295).

[418] …φημί, των αγίων πατριάρχων. Naeeres. LXIX, n. 62.

[419] De instit. coenob. III, c. 3.

[420] Moral. XII, c. 7. And elsewhere: “Hold fast to nothing else but what true faith teaches through the Catholic Church, for the Lord, descending into Hades, rescued from the confines of Hades only those whom He had preserved while they were alive, through His grace, in faith and good works” (Book VII, Epistle 15); cf. Hippol., *De Christo et Antichr.*, ch. 26; Euseb., *In Luc.* XIV, 25; Chrysost., *Contr. Jud. et Gentes*, “Quod Christus est Deus,” n. 5.

[421] Clem. Alex. Strom. VI, p. 461; Ambr. On the Paschal Feast, ch. 3, 4. See notes 401, 408, and 414 above.

[422] The teachers of the Church also preached the same: a) St. Athanasius: “The Lord had as the special purpose of His Incarnation to reveal the resurrection of His body; in it He wished to reveal to all a sign of victory over death, and to assure everyone that through Him corruption has been destroyed and incorruption has been granted to people” (De incarn. Verbi Dei, n. 22, in Chr. Readings 1838, II, 140); b) St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “He who was dead has risen, He who delivers from the dead (Ps. 87:6), and the Deliverer of the dead. He upon whom, as a sign of mockery and because of His long-suffering, a crown of thorns was placed has now risen and been crowned with the diadem of victory over death” (Catechetical Discourses XIV, n. I, p. 279)—and others (e.g., Cyril of Alexandria, On the Incarnation of the ch. 27, in Chr. Cht., 1847, III, 227).

[423] Clem. Rom. Epistle to the Corinthians 1, n. 24; Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, nos. I, II, III; Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, IX; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 10; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV, no. 12; John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 90.

[424] Treatise on Theology, Book IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, pp. 81–82.

[425] In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, on verse 15, line 24; Homily XXXIX.

[426] On the words: 1 Cor. 15:24. In the Christian Reader, 1838, II, p. 18.

[427] “If we have been granted the best and most perfect teaching, if God in these last days has spoken to us not through prophets but through His Son, then we must lead a life that is far better, one worthy of the honor we have received. For when God condescends to us so much that He desires to speak to us no longer through His servants but through Himself: it would be inappropriate if we were not in some way superior to the ancient Israelites. They had Moses as their teacher, but we have the Lord of Moses Himself as our Teacher. Therefore, we must display a wisdom worthy of such a high honor and have nothing in common with the world. For it was for this very purpose that He brought us the teaching from heaven, so that we might be transported there in our thoughts and, to the best of our ability, imitate our Teacher” (Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, XIV, in the Christian Reader, 1837, III, 15–16).

[428] Have you seen the sanctification, which is the foundation of our salvation? If sanctification does not take place, neither is the sacrament completed. Severian, *De mundi creatione*, Oration II, n. 6 (in Chrysostom, Vol. VI, p. 453, ed. Montfauc.). Cf. Oecumenicus, in Epistle to the Thessalonians 1, ch. III, v. 13.

[429] Bac. on the Holy Spirit, ch. 9, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, pp. 265–267.

[430] Against Eunomius, Book 5, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 220.

[431] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16; ibid., pp. 286–287.

[432] Epistle to Serapion 1, n. 30. The same idea is expressed in church hymns, for example, in the following: “The grace of the Father is one, which the Son and the Spirit bring to fulfillment; to those who freely desire the divine baptism and have received the power of sonship, it is granted to cry out: ‘God, You are blessed’” (Min. for Genv., fol. 44 on the reverse, Moscow 1837).

[433] Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 287: “From the fact that the Apostle mentions here (1 Cor. 12:4–6, 11), first, the Spirit; second, the Son; and, third, God and the Father, one should by no means conclude that his order is distorted. The Apostle began with the relationship to us; for we, who receive the gift, first turn our thoughts to the giver, then imagine the sender, and then raise our thoughts to the Source and Cause of all good.”

[434] For it is sanctifying in itself to be sanctified by the Son and the Father (Cyril of Alexandria, Against Julian, Book 1). The following also taught this: Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, ch. 9, 16), Athanasius the Great (Against the Arians, Oration 11, n. 18), Eusebius (in Ps. XXXII, 6), and others.

[435] “The Holy Spirit is called Christ and Lord; for, as the Apostle says: ‘If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him; but if Christ dwells in you’ (Rom. 8:9–10), thereby making it clear that the indwelling of the Spirit is the indwelling of Christ” (His Holiness’s Work Against Eunomius, Book V, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 191).

[436] “A created being does not sanctify another created being, but all are sanctified by the one Holy One, who says of Himself: ‘I sanctify Myself’ (John 17:19). He sanctifies through the Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit is not a created being, but the image of God’s holiness and the source of holiness for all. We are called into the sanctuary of the Spirit, as the Apostle teaches (2 Thess. 2:13). He renews us and recreates us in the image of God” (Vas. vel., ibid., p. 192). Cf. Cyrill. Alex. in Jes. lib. IV, or. II.

[437] On the etymological meaning of the word “Church” (εκκλησία), see “Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” § 16, note 58. Other names given to the Church in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the ancient teachers are: the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt.

[438] For example, according to Blessed Augustine: “The Church is therefore the temple of God, that is, the holy temple of the entire Holy Trinity, namely, the universal Church both in heaven and on earth” (Enchirid., chap. 56; cf. De Civitate Dei, Book X, Chapter 7).

[439] In the Angelic Liturgy on November 8, Hymn 9, verse 2.

[440] In the Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, X, n. 1, in Opp., Vol. XI, p. 75, ed. Montfauc.

[441] Sermon IV on Jacob and Esau, or XLIV. And in another place: “which (Church) from Abel himself onward to those who are yet to be born, and onward to the end, and those who will believe in Christ—the entire people of the saints” (in Ps. XCII; cf. in Ps. XXXVI and CXXVIII).

[442] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, 1, n. 5; “from the beginning, not revealed later…”; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, Book 1, Chapter 4; *Ad Stephanum*, Question VII, n. 4 (in Mai, Vol. 1); Gregory of Nyssa, *Homilies on the Gospels*, Homily XIX.

[443] The Order of Orthodoxy, fol. 16, Moscow, 1820.

[444] “The Church, being visible insofar as it exists on earth and includes all Orthodox Christians living on earth, is at the same time invisible, insofar as it also exists in heaven and includes all who have departed this life in true faith and holiness.” (Extended Christian Catechism on Article IX, p. 67, Moscow, 1840; cited on p. 70). For the souls of the righteous dead are not separated from the Church, which is now also the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise, their memory would be commemorated at the altar of God in the communion of the Body of Christ… For why do these things take place, unless it is because the faithful, even the departed, are members of the Church? (Augustine, *The City of God*, XX, 9, n. 2).

[445] Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the True Faith, Art. 18. Cf. Chrysostom, Homily XXI on the Acts of the Apostles, n. 4; Augustine, Confessions IX, 13, n. 34, 37; Sermon CLXXH, n. 2: For the entire Church observes what has been handed down by the Fathers, namely, that prayers be offered for those who have died while partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, since they are commemorated in the sacrifice itself in their place, and that the offering be commemorated for them as well.

[446] Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Articles 11 and 18. Cf. Augustine, Sermon CLXXII, n. 2.

[447] Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 10. Cf. Augustine, *Enchiridion*, n. 15: (The heavenly Church) provides for its members who are on a pilgrimage, as is fitting, because both are one community of eternity, and now are one through the bond of charity, which is entirely established for the worship of God.

[448] As for all the other, even more specific meanings in which this word is used, both in Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Holy Fathers, we will have the opportunity to address them when we come to the actual exposition of the doctrine of the Church.

[449] This expression is found in church hymns and in the writings of the Holy Fathers. For example: “The sun and the moon stand in their order; You, the Long-Suffering One, ascended the tree and established Your Church upon us” (Triodion of Lent, p. 428, Moscow, 1835). Or: “For in this way—that is, through humility and through the cross—He gathered the Church to Himself” (Ambrose, Exposit. in Ps. 98, Serm. XIV, n. 20, in Patrolog. curs. compl., Vol. XV, p. 1398).

[450] Introduction to Orthodox Theology by A. M., § 17.

[451] For what is taught to the believer is foreign to him. Chrysostom, Homily XXV on John, n. 3. Cf. Augustine, Treatise XLIV on John, n. 2.

[452] Psalm 40, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 286.

[454] That the Church of Christ consists, as it were, solely of the righteous and the saints—in ancient times this was asserted primarily by the Novatians (Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII; Augustine, On Heresies XXXIII) and the Donatists (Augustine, On Heresies LXI); but today it is asserted by some Protestants who believe only in the invisible Church.

[455] “If anyone says that the saints, in the Lord’s Prayer, when they say ‘forgive us our debts,’ are not speaking of themselves—since they no longer need this petition—but of other sinners among their people, and that each saint does not say individually, ‘forgive me my debts, but ‘Forgive us our debts,’ so that this petition of the righteous may be understood to refer more to others than to himself: let such a one be anathema” (Council of Carthage, Canon 129; see also Canon 130).

[456] “It has been determined regarding the saying of St. John the Apostle: ‘If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). Whoever deems it proper to interpret this as meaning that, for the sake of humility, one ought not to say, ‘We have no sin,’ rather than because it is truly so—let him be anathema. For the Apostle continues and adds the following: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (v. 8). Here it is very clearly shown that this is not spoken merely out of humility, but out of truth” (Council of Carthage, Canon 128).

[457] Neither our faith nor our charity should prevent us, since we see that there are tares in the Church, from withdrawing from the Church ourselves (Epistle to Maximus).

[458] ... the Church does not seek to exclude the hard-hearted, but to soften them (On the Resurrection, Book II, n. 118).

[460] Adv. Lucifer, p. 302, p. IV, Vol. II, ed. Mari. Cf. Ecclesiast. II, 7.

[461] Treatise IV on John, v. 2. In general, Blessed Augustine expounds this doctrine in great detail, especially in his works against the Donatists. See the Index to all his works under the entry: Ecclesia (in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XLVI).

[462] Origen, Commentary on John, Vol. X, n. 16; Homily VIII on Leviticus, n. 1; Homily I on Ezekiel, n. II; Patianus, Letter III to Symphorus, n. 21; Theodor. in Ps. XXXIX, 13; Gregor. M. in Evang. lib. II, homil. XXXVIII, n. 7, 8.

[463] Apostolic Canons 62; Peter of Alexandria, Canons 4 and 10. In general, see the index to *The Book of Canons of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils, and Holy Fathers* under the entry: “apostasy.”

[464] Irenaeus, Against Heresies II, ch. 28.

[465] See the index to the “Book of Canons” under the terms: heretic, heresy.

[466] For how can those who teach the opposite of what the Church confesses concerning Christ not be antichrists? (Didymus, Commentary on 1 John II, 29).

[467] Justin, Apology I, 26; Dialogue with Trypho, chs. 35, 36, 80. Cyprian, Epistle LII; Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, Book IV, ch. 9: “He denies Christ who does not confess all that belongs to Christ.”

[468] Tertullian, *De Praescriptione Haeret*., ch. 37: “For if they are heretics, they cannot be Christians”; Cyprian, *De Unitate Ecclesiae*: “Just as the devil is not Christ, even though he calls himself by His name, so too is he not a Christian who does not adhere to the Gospel and the true faith” (Chr. Readings 1837, 1, 24); Athanasius, Against the Arians, Oration I, n. 2; Chrysostom, Homily XXXIII on the Acts of the Apostles, n. 4; Basil, Commentary on Psalm XLVIII, n. 7; Augustine, On True Religion, ch. V, n. 9.

[469] Is there any difference between them, except that the pagans believe without believing, while the heretics believe while not believing? Tertullian, *On the Flesh of Christ*, ch. 15; Chrysostom, homily on the passage: “For in it he can…” n. 5.

[470] See Basil’s Great Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius I, rule 1.

[471] “It is not proper to pray with a heretic or a schismatic.”

[472] “One must know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop, and that those who are not with the bishop are not in the Church...” Epistle LXIX, n. 8.

[473] On the Unity of the Church, in Xp. Readings 1837, 1, 25. And further: “One must shun and flee from any person who has separated himself from the Church: such a one is corrupt, sins, and is self-condemned (Titus 3:11). Indeed, does anyone who rebels against Christ’s priests—thereby separating himself from communion with His clergy and people—truly think he is with Christ? No, he raises arms against the Church, opposes the divine order; he is an enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ’s sacrifice, a traitor to the faith, and a blasphemer against piety; he is a disobedient slave, a defiant son, and a hostile brother. Having despised the bishops and forsaken God’s priests, he dares to set up another altar, to offer another prayer in forbidden words, to defile the true sacrifice of the Lord with unlawful offerings, and does not even want to acknowledge that whoever acts contrary to the divine order is punished by God for his reckless audacity” (pp. 46–47).

[475] On the Judgment of God, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, IX, 12.

[476] De unic. baptis. contr. Petilian. c. 9.

[477] See the service for Orthodoxy Sunday.

[478] Rules. Acts 9, 10, 45, 65; First Ecumenical Council 11, 12, 14; Council of Ancyra 4, 5. 6, 8, 9; Antioch, 2; Peter of Alexandria, 4; Gregory Neocles, 8, 9, 10; Basil the Great, 84, 85, and many others.

[479] Epistle LXII to Pomponius, n. 4.

[480] Commentary on Isaiah, ch. I, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VI, 83–84. And in another place: “Those whom ordinary punishments do not keep from sin, and whom exclusion from prayer does not lead to repentance, must be dealt with according to the rules given by the Lord. For it is written: ‘If your brother sins against you, rebuke him between you and him alone; if he does not listen to you, take another with you; and if he does not listen even to them, tell it to the church. “But if even the church does not listen to him, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt. 18:15, 17)” (ibid., p. 286).

[481] In the 3rd Epistle to Titus; cf. Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39; Augustine, On the Unity of the Church, ch. 25.

[482] Canonical Epistle to St. Amphilochius I, Canon 1.

[483] In chapter 3 of the Epistle to Titus.

[484] *De fide et symbolo*, ch. 10.

[485] That is why Blessed Augustine said: “Some who are in their hearts aligned with the Donatists present to us a bodily presence—whether of men or women—with the body within and the spirit without” (On the Catechism for Beginners, ch. 17). The following words of Blessed Augustine on heretics are also remarkable: “Those who defend their opinion—though false and perverse—without any stubborn animosity, especially since they did not conceive it through the audacity of their own presumption but received it from parents who had been led astray into error, yet seek the truth with prudent diligence, ready to be corrected, once they have found it, they are by no means to be counted among heretics (Epist. 43, also 162; Conf. tract. 45 in John, and On the Usefulness of Believing, ch. 1).

[486] Among the servants of Christ listed by the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4,

[487] Letter to the Philadelphians, ch. 3.

[488] *Adv. haeres.* III, p. 24, in *Chron. Cht.* 1838, I, pp. 135–136.

[489] Adv. haeres. V, p. 20, in Chr. Cht. 1838, I, 143.

[490] Adv. Autol. II, p. 14. He then likens heretical sects to underwater rocks against which ships are wrecked, and the sailors perish along with them.

[491] On the Unity of the Church, in Chr. Cht. 1837, I, 27, 40.

[494] In Ezek. VII, 15. Elsewhere: “The Lord rained upon one city, the church of true confession, but did not rain upon the other, which is in the gatherings of heretics.” While the former receives the everlasting rain, the latter withers from the yoke of drought, so that those who are thirsty, driven by need, may come to the city of the Lord, from which flows the most abundant spring, which will turn the torrent of thorns into a stream (In Amos 4:7).

[497] Epistle CLII. Furthermore: one may possess everything outside the Church, except for salvation. One may have honor, one may have the sacraments..., one may hold to the Gospel, one may have faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and preach it, but nowhere except in the Catholic Church will one be able to find salvation (Sermon to the People of the Church of Caesarea, no. 6).

[498] In *Jes. Nav.*, Question II.

[499] Many believe they have it, but in reality do not; within the Church all have it, outside the Church none have it (Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 10:39).

[500] Hilarion, in Matthew, ch. XIII, n. 1; Jerome, in Ecclesiastes X, 15.

[501] Augustine, *On the True Religion*, ch. V, n. 9; Prosper, *Commentary on Psalm* CXXXI, 7.

[502] Augustine, *Enchiridion*, ch. V; Peter Chrysologus, *Sermon* XXI.

[503] Augustine, *On Baptism Against the Donatists*, III, 17, n. 22; *Sermon* LXXI, n. 30.

[504] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration XL.

[505] Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 66:15, 16.

[506] Augustine, Commentary on Psalm XLII, n. 4.

[507] Augustine, Commentary on Psalm LXXXIII, n. 6; On Baptism Against the Donatists, IV, 17, n. 24.

[508] Patianus, Letter II to Symprian, n. 7.

[509] Chrysostom, Homily II on Philippians, n. 3; Commentary on Psalm XLIV, n. 12; Hilarion, Commentary on Psalm XIV, n. 8.

[510] Isidore of Pelusium, Book 1, Epistle CCCLXIX; Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel, Chapter VII, verse 19.

[511] Hilarion, on Ps. XIV, n. 8; Augustine, On Fasting, n. 7.

[512] Jerome, Commentary on Amos 4:7.

[513] Ambrose, *On the Questions of David*, II, 2, n. 9; Jerome, *Commentary on Micah*, I, 14, 15.

[514] In Eusebius, *Life of Constantine*, III, 65.

[515] Ambrose, *On the Virgin*, I, 5, n. 22; Augustine, *On the Creed*, ch. VI, n. 13.

[516] Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Song of Songs, homily VIII; Cyril, Commentary on Isaiah, Book I, Oration II; Jerome, Commentary on Jeremiah, chapter XXXI.

[517] Greg. of Nyssa, Homily XIV on the Song of Songs.

[518] Eusebius, Commentary on Psalm 86:4; Commentary on Isaiah 11:9.

[519] Irenaeus, Preface to Book III of *Against Heresies*.

[520] Augustine, Commentary on Psalm XXI, Exposition, no. 19.

[521] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechism XVIII, n. 28; Cyril of Alexandria, on Isaiah XXXV, 6, Book III, Vol. III.

[522] Namely, Protestants, who do not acknowledge that Christ established a special priesthood or hierarchy in the Church, but assert that all believers, by virtue of the sacrament of baptism, are equally priests of the Most High God; but since it is impossible for everyone to perform the duties of the priesthood, the believers themselves choose from among their number special men as their representatives, whom they endow with the rights of priestly authority.

[523] What is said here about Paul and Barnabas is also reported by the ancient teachers of the Church regarding the other holy apostles. See the words of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius’s *Church History*, Book III, Chapter 23; also Tertullian, *De Praescriptione Haeresiarum*, Chapter 35, and Jerome, *De Viris Illustribus*, Chapter 9.

[525] Epistle to the Magnesians, paras. 3, 6, 7.

[526] “One must obey the presbyters who are in the Church and who are successors of the apostles, and who, by the Father’s grace, have received true gifts along with the succession of the episcopate; but as for the others, who have received the office of presbyter not through such succession and gather in every place, they are to be regarded as suspicious individuals, heretics, and malicious people—apostates, the proud, the self-centered, and hypocrites—who do this for profit or vain glory” (Adv. haeres. IV, 26, in Chr. Cht. 1838, 1, 137–138).

[528] Hist. Eccl. III, 4; in Ps. LXXXVIII, 35; in Isa. I, 27; IX, 14; XI, 6, 7.

[529] On Observing Order in Conversations. Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 142–145.

[530] Homily II on 2 Timothy, n. 2; Homily XV on 2 Corinthians, n. 4; Homily XVIII, n. 3.

[531] On the Office of Ministers, Book II, Chapter 24, n. 123.

[532] Against the Luciferians, ch. 4.

[533] Against the Epistle of Parmenian, Book 1, Chapter 3, n. 5.

[534] Epistle 1 to the Corinthians, n. 44.

[535] Epistle to the Ephesians, n. 3, in Chr. Th. 1821, 1, 32. See also his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chr. Th. 1828, XXXI, 3–4.

[536] Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, in Chr. Readings 1838, II, 4–5.

[537] We have succeeded the apostles, governing the Church of the Lord with the same authority (see in Act. concil. Carthag.). And in another place: “The power to remit sins was therefore given to the apostles and to the churches which they established, having been sent by God, and to the bishops who succeeded them through vicarious ordination” (Epist. XXV).

[538] The bishop embodies Christ; he is the Lord’s vicar (Commentary on 1 Corinthians).

[539] Among us, the bishops hold the place of the apostles; among them (the Montanists), the third bishop is (Epistle XXVII to Marcellus).

[540] The final words: “Amen, I say to you: whatever…” clearly testify that by “church” the Savior meant precisely those persons whom He had endowed with the authority to bind and loose—just as among the Jews in a similar case, when it came to the correction or punishment of someone, the “church” (kahal – εκκλησία) was actually the supreme council or Sanhedrin. That is why St. Chrysostom, in his commentary on this passage, after the words “tell the church,” adds: “that is, its leaders,” and further interprets the words “whatever you bind” as a continuation of the same thought, applying them equally to the leaders of the Church. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Russian translation, vol. III, p. 32. Cyprian, Augustine, Theophylact, and others interpret this passage in accordance with St. Chrysostom.

[541] Χωρΐς τούτων έκκλησΐα ου καλεΐται. Epictetus, Ad Trall. n. 3.

[542] “There is no church without a bishop” (Adv. Marcion. IV, 5; cf. De praescript. haeret. c. 32).

[543] … for the assembly is constituted by one another (De charism. n. 1).

[544] To Him (Christ) belongs the church—the people gathered around the priest, and the flock clinging to its shepherd: hence… (Epist. LXIX, n. 8).

[545] Sermon 3, in The Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 17–18.

[546] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, ch. 33, 43; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, ch. 37.

[547] They are known as Presbyterians.

[548] Ἐπίσκοπος means overseer, supervisor, and πρεσβύτερος means elder, the oldest.

[549] This is acknowledged by many of the Holy Fathers: see the testimonies of some of them in Thesaur. Eccles. Suiceri under the entry: έπίσκοπος– n. II.

[550] Thus, in the Book of Acts, we read that St. Paul, while in Miletus, summoned the elders of Ephesus to him, whom he then himself calls bishops (ch. 20:17); likewise, in his Epistle to Titus, after mentioning the appointment of presbyters by Titus throughout the cities of Crete, he goes on to call them bishops (1:5–7); in his Epistle to the Philippians (1:1), when greeting the bishops and deacons, he makes no mention at all of presbyters; in 1 Timothy (chap. 3), he describes only the qualifications of bishops and deacons, making no mention of presbyters. For extensive commentaries on all these passages by St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Jerome, Epiphanius, and other Holy Fathers, see Petavius, *De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia*, Book II, Chapters I–IX, and his *Dissertatio Ecclesiastica*, Book 1, Chapters 1 and 2.

[551] Epiphanius, *Against Heresies*, Book III, Heresy LXXV, n. 5.

[552] 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, nos. 40, 42, in *Chron. Ch. 1824*, XIV, pp. 278, 279–280.

[557] Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 20, in Chr. Cht. 1838, 1, 142.

[559] Homil. XI in Jerem. n. 3, ed. Mavr. Opp. vol. III, p. 189.

[560] For an almost innumerable series of testimonies of this kind, see – Natal. Alexandr. Dissertat. XLIV in sec. IV, as well as – Witasse de Sacram. Ordin. pars. II sect. III art. 1, c. 1 and following.

[561] Epiph. haeres. 75, c. 3; Augustin. lib. de haeres. c. 53.

[563] *De praescript. haeret.*, c. 32.

[564] *Histor. Eccles.*, Book IV, ch. 5, 22.

[565] Epistle to Philadelphia, ch. 1.

[566] Adv. haeres. IV, ch. 43; cf. 1, ch. 28.

[567] The Apostles ordaining presbyters and bishops in each province (Matt. 25:26).

[568] See notes 551, 552, 554, 555, 556, 558, and 559 above.

[569] For an interpretation of the passage in the Acts of the Apostles describing the apostles’ ordination of the first seven deacons (6:1–7), see Canon 16 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

[570] See notes 534 and 552 above.

[571] Epist. ad Trallian, n. 2, in Chr. Readings 1830, XXXVII, 240. Cf. notes 541, 554, 555.

[572] Epistle to Philip, ch. 5, in Chr. Readings 1821, 1, 120, 121.

[574] *De praescr. haeret*, p. 41; *De bapt.*, ch. 17.

[576] “The deacons… the apostles appointed for themselves as ministers of their own episcopate and of the Church” (LXV).

[578] Greg. Naz. Epist. CCV; Hieronym. in Ezek. XLIV; Theodoret. in 1 Tim. III, 8.

[579] Epist. ad Magnes, ch. 2; cf. ch. 6. See also notes 552, 554, and 555 above.

[580] What of deacons in the third order? What of presbyters ordained to the second priesthood? They themselves are the leaders and princes of all… bishops (Schism. Donat. 1, 13). For similar testimonies from Tertullian and Origen, see notes 558 and 559 above.

[582] See the Epistle to the Philadelphians in the Slavonic translation, folio 19, verso. Cf. notes 554 and 555.

[583] Since the achievements of bishops, presbyters, and deacons in the church here are, I believe, reflections of angelic glory. Strom. VI, 13.

[584] Lib. II in Epist. ad Roman., ed. Paris 1582, part II, p. 304.

[585] There were three ranks: first, the order of presiding officers; second, that of the presbyters; and third, that of the deacons. In Jes. XIX, n. 18.

[586] But when the leaders themselves—that is, the deacons, presbyters, and bishops—flee, how can a layperson understand the reason for the command to flee from city to city (Matt. 10:23)? Therefore, when the leaders flee, who among the flock will remain to urge them to take their place in the ranks? (On Flight in Times of Persecution, ch. XI).

[587] See note 543 above and the text to which it refers.

[589] The episcopal throne, the honor of the presbytery, the ministry to the people of God. In Matthew 10:15, n. 26.

[590] Bishops, and their fellow presbyters and deacons... (in Jer. X. XII), The five orders of the Church: bishops, presbyters, deacons, the faithful, and catechumens... (in Isa. XX).

[591] This title for bishops is very ancient: it is found as early as in St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (Epist. ad Trall. n. 2. 3; ad Smyrn. n. 9; ad Rom. n. 9; ad Ephes. n. 4) and in the Apostolic Constitutions (Constit. Apost. II, 26).

[592] And this title has been applied to bishops from time immemorial. Herm. Fast. lib. III Sim. IX, n. 27; Origen. in Luc. homil. XXXIV; Cyprian. de unit. eccl. p. 397, ed. Bal.

[594] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, ch. 3; Tertullian, *On the Prescription of Heretics*, ch. 32.

[595] In general, in the early Church, according to the testimony of the Church Fathers (Ambrose, *De offic. Sacer*, Book I, Chapter 1; Chrysostom, Homily X on the First Epistle to Timothy; Hieron. epist. 83 ad Ocean.), the rules of the ecumenical councils (Laodicea 19 and Trullo 19), and even civil laws (see the law in the Theodosian Code: de munere seu officio episcoporum in praedicando verbo Dei), the preaching of the truths of the Gospel was entrusted primarily to the bishop.

[596] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, V, ch. 22; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, VII, ch. 19.

[597] Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, n. II; Cyprian, Epistle 29; Origen, Homily I on Psalm XXXVII; Homily XVII on 3 Sirach.

[598] “Let a single bishop ordain presbyters, deacons, and other clergy” (Apostolic Canons 2; cf. Apostolic Constitutions III, c. 2).

[599] “Every bishop in his diocese… shall ordain presbyters and deacons, and shall judge all matters with discernment” (9th Canon of the Council of Antioch).

[600] “There is a slight difference between presbyters and bishops: for the former are also obligated to teach and care for the church, and what the Apostle said about bishops applies equally to presbyters: bishops are elevated by the single rite of ordination (τή χειροτονία μόνη), and it seems that this alone gives them an advantage over presbyters” (Chrysostom, Homily XI on 1 Timothy, n. 1). “What does a bishop do, apart from ordination, that a presbyter does not do?” (Jerome, Epistle LXXXV to Evagrius).

[601] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXXV.

[602] Council of Carthage, Canon 6.

[603] Canonical Confessions, Part I, answer to question 105; Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs on the True Faith, Article 10.

[604] Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, No. VIIÏ: “It is not permissible without the bishop either to baptize or to perform the sacrament of love…”; Cyprian, Epistle XXXVIII; Tertullian, On Monogamy, ch. II; On Baptism, ch. 7, 17; Patianus, To Symprian, 1, n. 6; Jerome, Against Lucifer, ch. 4.

[605] For it is not lawful for a deacon to offer a sacrifice, to baptize, or to bestow a blessing, whether small or great. Apostolic Constitutions VIII, ch. 46. See the Canons of the Council of Nicaea, Canon 18.

[606] On the Church Hierarchy, ch. V.

[607] Ignatius, Letter to Magnus, n. 6; Letter to Polycarp, n. 7.

[608] After the Lord’s ascension into heaven, the apostles appointed deacons as ministers of their own episcopate and of the Church (Cyprian, Epist. LXV).

[609] Justin, Apology 1, nos. 85, 87.

[610] Apostolic Canons 39; Council of Laodicea 57; Council of Carthage 6, 42, 52; Council of Antioch 8, 25; Council of Chalcedon 8; Council of Sardis 14.

[611] Apostolic Canons 15, 32, 55; Chalcedon 18; Trullo 34.

[612] Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, nos. 51, 56; Cyprian, Epistle LXIX.

[613] Apostolic Canons 31; Council of Carphaga 6.

[614] Cyprian, Epistle LXXV; Tertullian, *De Poenit.*, ch. 4, 7; Gregory of Nyssa, *In Evang.*, Book II, Homily 26, n. 5, and others.

[615] Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians, n. 4; Letter to the Ephesians, n. 4; Letter to the Trallians, n. 3.

[616] Cyprian, Epistle XIII to Rogatian.

[617] Cyprian, Epistles III, VIII, XXXV; Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39; Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, ch. IIÏ: “And we have in the church our own senate, the assembly of presbyters.”

[618] Origen. Treatise V on Matthew.

[619] Apostolic Constitutions, Book III, Chapter 44; Book III, Chapter 19.

[620] Origen, Treatise V on Matthew; Cyprian, Epistle XLIX; Epiphanius, On Heresies LXXIX.

[621] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, 33, n. 8; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VI, 13; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heresies, Chapter 32; Cyprian, Epist. LXIX: “He who speaks to the apostles, and thereby to all those in authority who have succeeded the apostles through vicarious ordination: ‘He who speaks to you speaks to me’…” (cf. Epist. XLII, and see note 537 above); Euseb. H. E. 1, ch. 1; Jerome, Epist. CXLVI, or LXXXV on the Gospel: “All (bishops) are successors of the apostles” (see note 539); Augustine, in Ps. XLIV, n. 32: “Bishops were appointed in place of the apostles” (cf. Epist. XLII to the Brothers of Madavr.).

[622] Cyprian, Epistle XXVI, from which the history of the bishops and the structure of the Church unfolds through the passage of time and succession, so that the Church may be established upon the bishops, and all the affairs of the Church may be governed by these same leaders (cf. Epistle XXVI); Basil. Epistle LXXXI to Bishop Innocent, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, X, 196.

[623] Ignatius, To the Ephesians, n. 3; To the Philadelphians, n. 4; To the Trallians, n. 7.

[625] “Of course, the other apostles were just like the Apostle Peter—that is, they had equal honor and dignity” (St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, III. Chr. Readings 1837, 1, 25).

[626] Wherever a bishop may be—whether in Rome, Eugubium, Constantinople, Rhegium, Alexandria, or Tanis—his merit is the same, and so is his priesthood… All are successors of the apostles (Jerome, Epistle CXLVI to the Gospel, n. 1, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, Vol. XXII, p. 1194, ed. Migne).

[627] Apostolic Canons 1; Council of Nicaea 4; Antioch 19, 23; Laodicea 12; Carthage 13; Chalcedon 28, etc.

[628] Apostolic Canons 74; Carthage 12, 28; Constantinople 6; Cyril of Alexandria 1.

[629] First Ecumenical Canon 5; Second 2; Fourth 19; Sixth 8; Antioch 20; Carthage 87, 88.

[630] Tertullian, *De Jejun.*, ch. 13; Basil, *Epist.* CXIV, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, X, 257; Ambrose, *De Fide*, III, ch. 15; Augustine, *Epist.* LIV to Januarus; Leo, *Epist.* LXXVIII to Leo the Great, ch. 3; Gregory of Nyssa, *Epist.* to John of Constantinople.

[631] Apostolic Canons 34; Antiochian 9; First Ecumenical 5; Fourth 19; Sixth 8.

[632] Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, ch. 14; Cyprian, Epistle XXXV.

[633] Origen, Treatise XXIV on Matthew.

[635] Apostolic Constitutions, Book III, Chapter 67; Cyprian, Book III of Testimonies, Chapter 84.

[636] As expressed by the Church in well-known prayers.

[637] holding fast to… the one and only true head, who is Christ. De judicio Dei n. 3, in The Works of the Holy Fathers IX, 12.

[638] Christ is the one head of the Church. Orat. XXXI, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 220.

[640] Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Oration XII, in Vol. II, p. 725, ed. Morel; Theophylact, on 1 Corinthians 11:3; 12:27.

[641] Epistle to the Corinthians 1, n. 46, in Chr. Readings 1824, XIV, 284.

[642] Against Heresies 1, ch. 10, § 1.

[643] *De praescr. haeret*, ch. XX.

[644] Strom. VII, 17; cf. Paedag. 1, 6.

[645] De unit. Ecclesiae, in Xp. Thu. 1837, 1, p. 26; note on p. 55.

[646] In the one body of his Church. Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, n. 1; cf. Epistle to the Ephesians, n. 4; to the Philippians, n. 3.

[647] Dialogue with Trypili, nos. 42, 63, 116.

[649] Since the Church is one body—not a confused mixture of bodies, nor a disorderly and shapeless heap of individuals gathered together, but united through the unity of faith, the fellowship of love, the harmony of works and will, and the one gift of the sacrament in all—we are all one (in Ps. CXXI, n. 5; cf. *De Trinitate* VII, 4; VIII, 7, 13).

[650] The Church is born of one faith; conceived by the Holy Spirit, she is one and the only one. Exposition of the Catholic Faith, n. 6; cf. On Heresies, XXXI, n. 31.

[651] To Ageruchus on Monogamy, Epistle XCI, ed. Mart.

[652] In Ps. XXVI, Exposition II, n. 23; in Ps. XLIV, Exposition n. 24.

[653] The Church of the Savior is one, for those who believe are united in one body. In Ps. XCVI, 8.

[654] Many Reformed theologians hold this view. Calvin, *Institutes*, IV, I, n. 2, 7, 8; *Helvetic Confession*, 1, c. 17; *Belgic Confession*, art. XXVII.

[655] Theophilus, ad Autolycus 11, 14; Origen, Homilies on Leviticus IV, n. 2; IX, n. 5; Eusebius, Commentary on Isaiah LXII, 5; Ephrem, Commentary on 2 Kings VI, 16; Epiphanius, Against Heresies LIX, n. 4; Augustine, *On the Holy Virginity*, ch. 2; *On Baptism Against the Donatists*, V, 17, n. 33.

[656] Pastoral Care, Book 1, Vision I, n. 3.

[658] Catechetical Lectures XVIII, n. 26, p. 427 in the Russian translation.

[660] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 25, n. 2; Cyprian, Epistle LXXXIII; Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, IV, 1.

[661] Basil, Commentary on Psalms XXIII, n. 3.

[662] Chrysostom, Commentary on Ps. XLIV, n. 11; Basil, Commentary on Ps. XLIV, n. 10.

[663] Basil, Homilies on Ps. CXXXI, n. 5.

[664] Clement, Strom. III, 12; Cyril, Cathech. XVIII, n. 26; Theod., in Ephes. V, 28.

[665] Gregory of Nyssa, Homily VII on the Song of Songs.

[666] Basil, Commentary on Psalm XVIII, n. 1; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Hosea, n. XLIII; Theodoret, Commentary on Ephesians IV, 30.

[667] Theodoret, Commentary on Colossians 1:19.

[668] In general, regarding the designation of the Church as “Catholic,” it should be noted that, according to the most ancient usage of this word among Christians and even according to the decrees of the Greek emperors, only Orthodox Christians were called and could be called “Catholics,” in contrast to heretics; that is why individual Orthodox churches were called “Catholic,” and the bishops of these churches referred to themselves as “Catholic.” Heretics and schismatics, however, had no right to call themselves “Catholics,” no matter how numerous or widespread they might be. See Thesaur. Eccles. Suicerï, “καθολικός” 11, 13, 1, 2, 6.

[669] Wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. Epist. ad Smyrn. n. 8.

[670] Ab init., etc., n. 19, in Xp. Ch., 1821, I, 125–139.

[671] Apostolic Constitutions VIII.

[672] Adv. haeres. 1, 10, n. 1; cf. IV, 19, n. 1.

[673] Catechetical Lectures XVIII, n. 23, p. 424.

[675] Epist. LII, n. 1; cf. in Ps. XLVII, Enarr. n. 7.

[676] Homily on the Captives, Eutropius, n. 6; cf. Homily VII on Ephesians, n. 2; Homily XXI on Hebrews, n. 3.

[678] In Ps. LX, n. 6; cf. in Ps. LXXVII, n. 42.

[679] Catechetical Lectures XVIII, § 23, pp. 424–425.

[680] See “Introduction to Orthodox Theology” by A. M., §§ 135–140.

[681] Against Heresies, III, 3, and Christian Readings, 1838, II, 4. And further: “True knowledge consists in the teaching of the apostles and the ancient state of the Church throughout the world, and in the character of the Body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, through whom they handed down the Church, as it exists in each place” (Adv. haer. IV, 83, n. 8).

[682] Chr. Cht. 1838, 1, 142–143.

[684] On the Prescription of Heresies, ch. 32.

[685] Against the Opponents of the Law and the Prophets 1, n. 39.

[686] Dialogue Against Lucifer; cf. Clement, Strom. VII, 17; Hilary, On the Trinity VII, 7; Ambrose, On Penance VII, n. 33; Chrysostom, on Ps. XLIV, n. 13.

[687] See, for example, Augustine, *De gratia Christi*, ch. III, n. 5; XXVI, n. 27; XXIX, n. 30.

[688] Augustine, *De Gest. Pelagii*, ch. X, n. 22; XVII, n. 41; XXXV, n. 61, 65; *De Spiritu et Litt.*, XIX, n. 32; *De grat. Christi*, II, n. 2; XXXVIII, n. 42; XL, n. 44; *Contr. Duas Epist. Pelag.* IV, 5, n. 11.

[689] The acts of these councils are found in *Collect. concil.*, vol. I, ed. Harduin.

[690] Augustine, *De gratia Christi*, ch. XIV; *Contra duas epist. Pelag.*, III, 4; IV, 9; *Contra Julianum*, op. imperf., II, 168; Council of Milev (A.D. 416), canons III, V, VI, VII, VIII.

[691] See in Natal. Alexandr., *Histor. eccles. saecul.*, V, diss. IV.

[692] Augustine, *On the Predestination of the Saints*; *On the Gift of Perseverance*; Prosper, *Against Collatus*; Fulgentinus, *On the Beginning* and *On Grace*; Celestine, *Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul*.

[693] Fulgentinus, *On True Predestination and Grace*, II, 17; cf. Gregory the Great, *Homilies on Ezekiel*, IX, n. 2.

[694] Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 8, n. 2; Clement, Stromata II, 3; V, 1; Epiphanius, Against Heresies XXXII, 8.

[695] Sirmond, *Hist. Praedest.*, chs. I, II, III.

[696] Gottchalk, *Confessio prolixior* (in Mauguin, *Vindic. praedestin. et gratiae*, vol. I, p. 9).

[697] Calvin, *Institutes*, III, 21, n. 5; 22, n. 11; 23, n. 4; *Helvetic Confession*, ch. X; *French Confession*, ch. XII; *Belgian Confession*, ch. XVI.

[698] Jansen, *De gratia Salvatoris*, Book VIII, Chapter 3.

[699] Jansen, *De gratia Salvatoris*, Book VIII, Chapter 6.

[701] Conf. Augustin. IV, VI, X; Apol. III, n. 186; Solid. Declar. art. ΙΠ de justitia fidei n. 6 et seq.

[702] Conf. Helvet. I, ch. XV; Conf. Belg., art. XXII, XXIII.

[703] Apolog. III, n. 171; Solid. Declar. III de just. fidei n. 15, 22, 55, et seq.

[705] *De oratione Domin.* XII, p. 207, ed. Sal.

[706] In Gen. fragm., apud Galland. II, p. 484.

[707] Catechetical Lectures XVI, n. 22, p. 362.

[708] For know this: it is grace that saves. In the Homily on the Acts of the Apostles, XLV, n. 1.

[709] A discourse on how every soul that desires to inherit the kingdom of God must be reborn of the Holy Spirit, in Chr. Readings 1839, 11, p. 320. Excerpt from Discourses on Spiritual Anointing, ibid., p. 162: “Just as a fish cannot live without water, or as no one can walk without legs, see the light without eyes, speak without a tongue, or hear without ears: so without the Lord Jesus and without the assistance of divine power, it is impossible to comprehend the mystery of God’s wisdom and to be a perfect Christian.”

[710] Discourses on the Change Christ Brings About in a Christian, in Christian Readings 1836, I, 38.

[711] Epistle CLXXXVI, to Paulinus, n. 3. Or: “By the grace of God through Jesus our Lord, all are set free—whoever is set free” (Epistle CLXXXIX to John Hieros, n. 6).

[712] On the Grace of Christ, chap. XXVII.

[713] Harduin. *Acta concil.*, vol. I, col. 2011.

[714] Harduin. Ibid., vol. II, col. 1099.

[715] Recall, for example, the prayers: “Heavenly King…”; “Most Holy Trinity…”; as well as the evening and morning prayers, the Penitential Canon, and others.

[716] St. Cyprian (see note 705 above) and Blessed Augustine (see note 732 below) pointed to this evidence in their time.

[718] …Since he cannot preserve the salvation he has received without God’s grace, how could he have restored what he had lost without God’s grace? (Can. XIX, in Harduin, op. cit.).

[719] Ecumenical Epistles, ch. IX, in Chr. Th. 1830, XXXVII.

[720] Dialogue with Trypho, n. XX.

[722] Ibid., n. CXIX; cf. Apolog. II, n. 10.

[723] *De fide*, in *Mai.* VII, II, p. 170.

[724] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 18, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 302–303. And further: “If the mind turns toward the divine and receives within itself the grace-filled gifts of the Spirit, it then becomes capable of comprehending the divine, to the extent that this is possible for its nature” (Letter 225 to Amphilochius, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XI, p. 156).

[725] In the Homily on John, XLV, n. 3. Elsewhere: “The success of the preaching did not depend on the apostles, but on the grace that preceded them. Although their task was to go and preach, it was God Himself, acting through the apostles, who brought about conviction. So Luke said that He opened their hearts (Acts 16:14); and elsewhere: ‘It was given to them to hear the word of God.’ On the Epistle to the Romans, Homilies I, verse 5, according to the Russian translation, Moscow, 1844, p. 18).

[726] In Homily XII on 1 Corinthians, nos. 1, 2.

[727] ... nor is faith our own. It is, he says, a gift from God. Homily IV on Ephesians, Chapter II, verse 8.

[728] He Himself instilled faith in us; He Himself gave us the beginning. In the Homily on Hebrews, XXVIII, n. 2.

[730] It is not by one’s own power, but aided by grace from above that the one who confesses makes his confession. In Matth. homil. XXXIV, n. 3. We have deliberately cited here a significant number of testimonies from the Greek Fathers, and especially from St. Chrysostom, to demonstrate the utter injustice of the Jansenists, who claim that the Greek Fathers were not alien to semi-Pelagianism. A detailed refutation of this slander can be found in the work by Isaac Habert, *Theologiae Graecorum Patrum vindicatae circa universam materiam gratiae* (Paris, 1646); also in Dion of Patavia, *De Theolog. dogmat.*, Book on God IX, Chapters 4 and 5.

[731] Coll. III, 15. By the same author: “It is fitting that we believe in the knowledge of Him from whom alone comes all that we believe about Him; for God certainly could not have been known by man unless He Himself had granted knowledge of Himself” (De incarn. IV, 4).

[732] *On the Gift of Perseverance*, ch. XXIII, n. 63.

[733] On the Predestination of the Saints, ch. I, n. 4; cf. ch. III, n. 7.

[734] Contra Collator, Chapter XII, n. 36.

[735] De incarn. et grat., chap. XVIII. And further: “If God, through His grace, does not grant it to man, man can never will to believe in God, because he does not find the will itself through grace, but rather God works it in man” (chap. XXI).

[736] Can. XXV, in Harduin, op. cit., col. 1102.

[737] “The Spirit helps us in our weakness, and intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words against the law of our minds that is at war with the law of our bodies (Rom. 8:26). For we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words, that is, He teaches us what we ought to pray for” (John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 22, p. 289).

[738] Adv. haeres. III, 17, n. 2, 3.

[739] Commentary 37 on Matt. 19:1, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 225.

[740] In Genesis, Homily LVIII, n. 5. Or: “For we have never been able to accomplish anything good without having enjoyed the impulse from above.” In Genesis XXV, n. 7.

[741] On Obscure Prophecies, IX, n. 5.

[742] *De natura et gratia*, chap. XVI.

[743] Hilar. on Ps. CXLVI, n. 12; Ephrem. to the Monks, vol. III, p. 347.

[744] In John 14:18; in Zechariah, n. 85.

[745] There is no doubt that God is the author of good works and spiritual pursuits, for He stirs up the minds toward them and assists in their performance (Epistle LXI to Martin, and to Faust the Presbyter, ch. 1).

[746] Petr. Chrysolog. Serm. LXXI; Mar. Victorin. in Philipp. X, 13.

[748] On the Gift of Perseverance, ch. VIII, n. 15; ch. II–VI, in Patrologia Corsica, vol. XLV, p. 1002.

[749] Homilies on Ps. XLIV, v. 3, in Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 323.

[750] Homilies on Psalm 7, v. 10, ibid., p. 205.

[751] Homily 37 on Matthew 19:1, ibid., vol. III, p. 225.

[752] Homily VI on 2 Thessalonians, n. 2.

[753] Epistle to the Bishops of Gaul, chap. 6. Other teachers of the Church preached the same: Hilary (in Ps. CXLII, n. 9), Cyril of Alexandria (in John XIV, 18), Prosper (Responsa ad Gall. Obj. VII), Theodore of Edessa (One Hundred Edifying Chapters, chs. 68 and 71, in Chr. Cht. 1825, XVII, 155, 159).

[754] Epist. ad Corinth. n. 1, 7 (in Chr. Cht. 1824, XIV, 245).

[755] For grace is poured out upon all. In the Homily on John, VIII, n. 1, Opp. vol. VIII, ed. Montfauc.

[756] Serm. VIII, n. 57, ed. Maur.

[758] In Epist. ad Rom. chap. VIII, verse 29.

[759] *Against Heresies*, IV, 39, n. 4.

[762] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, LXXIX, in the Russian translation, vol. III, p. 362, Moscow, 1839.

[763] In the Homily on Ephesians 1, n. 2. Cf. in the Homily on Romans XV, n. 1, 2.

[764] On Faith, Book V, Chapter 3.

[765] Opp., vol. VII, fol. 460, Venice, 1584.

[766] In Romans 8:30. Cf. in Ephesians 1:4; in Psalm 57:4.

[767] See Opp. Basilii Graeco-latin., vol. II, near the end of p. 220. Paris, 1618.

[768] Justin, Apology 1, nos. 44, 45; Origen, Commentary on Romans 8:28; Eusebius, Commentary on Psalm 57:8; Jerome, Commentary on Malachi 1:2; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Malachi 1, 2, 3. (Xp. Readings 1842, III, 10–14); Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Book 1, Chapter 8.

[769] “When the Apostle says, ‘neither he who wills nor he who runs,’ he does not thereby destroy freedom, but shows that not everything belongs to man; on the contrary, he needs grace from above. Although one must both will and strive, one must rely not on one’s own efforts but on God’s love for humanity, as the Apostle also said elsewhere: ‘Not I, but the grace of God that is with me’ (1 Cor. 15:10).” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, XVI, p. 420, Moscow, 1844).

[770] St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, XVI, pp. 406, 407, 411, 418.

[771] Apolog. 1, n. 10, in Chr. Cht. 1825, XVII, 2, 3.

[772] On the Change of Names, Homily III, n. 6. Cf. Homily on John, X, n. 2, 3.

[773] Treatise on Theology, Book IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, p. 90.

[774] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 9, ibid., VII, 265–266.

[776] Conversations, XXXVII, § 10.

[777] Conversations, XXVII, paras. 10, 11.

[778] Sermon on the Exaltation of the Mind, no. 16.

[779] In the Middle Ages, the Scholastics devised numerous theories or systems to explain this mystery, the four best-known of which are: the Thomist, Augustinian, Molinist, and Congruist systems. But all these systems have their shortcomings and remain in use only within the confines of the school. A presentation and analysis of these four systems can be found in the works on dogmatic theology by Perrone, Lieberman, Feuer, and others.

[780] Public Lecture 1, § 4, pp. 20–21.

[781] Hymns on the sacraments concerning human virtue, in The Works of the Holy Fathers of the Church, vol. IV, p. 255.

[782] In Genesis, Homily LIV, n. 1; cf. in John, Homily X, n. 2, 3.

[784] Rule for Ascetics, ch. 15, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, p. 423.

[785] Conversations, XXXVII, para. 10.

[786] ... for both are necessary: our own willingness and divine assistance... In Phil. 1:30.

[790] Against Eunomius, Book V, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 192.

[791] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 9, ibid., 266.

[792] Homily on Pentecost, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 19.

[793] Homily on Baptism, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, 111, 277.

[797] In Is., Book IV, Oration II, Vol. II, p. 691, ed. Albert.

[798] Among our Russian theologians, His Eminence Stephen Yavorsky very thoroughly expounded the Orthodox concept of justification in opposition to the Protestants—in his treatise on good works, Part II, Chapter 7 (see Kam. Very, Part III, pp. 451–474, St. Petersburg, 1840).

[799] “Faith is an unquestioning assent to what has been heard, with the assurance of the truth of what has been preached, by the grace of God” (St. Basil the Great, On Faith, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, 28). “The word ‘faith’ is one in name, but is divided into two kinds. The first kind is instructive faith, when the soul assents to something. And it is beneficial to the soul, as the Lord says: ‘Whoever hears my word and believes in him who sent me has eternal life and will not come into judgment’ (John 5:24)… The other kind of faith is that which is granted by Christ through grace: “To one is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing” (1 Cor. 12:8–9). Thus, this faith, bestowed by grace through the Holy Spirit, is not merely instructive but also active beyond human strength. For whoever has this faith will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move (Matt. 17: 20)” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Cat. of Teachings V, ch. 10, 11, pp. 92, 93).

[800] “Faith is twofold. There is faith that comes from hearing (Rom. 10: 17). By listening to the divine Scriptures, we believe in the teaching of the Holy Spirit. This faith is perfected through the fulfillment of all that Christ has ordained—that is, when we truly believe, live piously, and keep the commandments of the One who has renewed us. For whoever does not believe in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church, or through evil deeds communes with the devil, is an unbeliever. There is also the faith of those who hope—the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb. 11:1)—that is, a firm and unshakable hope in the promises given to us by God and in the fulfillment of what we ask for” (St. John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 10, p. 140).

[801] 1 Corinthians 1:31, in the 1814 Edition of the Holy Readings, Vol. XIV, p. 369.

[803] Epistle to the Philippians, 3, in the Christian Reader, 1821, 1, 119.

[804] Discourses on Humility, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, p. 313.

[805] Commentary on Isaiah, ch. 1, in the same, VI, 65.

[806] Rules, set forth in detail, in response to question 2, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, p. 99.

[807] Sermon on the Observance of Good Order, ibid., III, 150.

[808] On the Epistle to the Romans, Discourses, Vol. VIII, p. 155, Moscow, 1844.

[809] On the Epistle to the Romans, Discourses, Vol. VIII, p. 168.

[810] Ibid., Discourses IX, p. 191.

[811] Summary of Teachings, Vol. I, § 5, p. 12.

[812] Outline of Teachings, Vol. V, sections 7 and 8, pp. 90–91,

[813] Outline of Teachings, XVIII, n. 1, p. 405.

[814] Epistles to Philadelphia, nos. VIII and IX; to Tralles, VIII.

[815] Against Heresies IV, 15, n. 1.

[816] On Cain and Abel, II, 1, n. 8.

[817] “Believing in Almighty God, let us approach with a pure heart, free from all worldly cares, the One who grants to all the communion of the Holy Spirit in proportion to their faith” (Discourses XXXVI; Refutations XLIV, § 5; XLI, § 2). “Because of our unbelief, because of our lack of zeal, because we do not love God with all our hearts and do not truly believe in Him, we have not yet received spiritual healing and salvation. Therefore, so that He may soon grant us true healing, let us approach Him with true faith” (Discourses, XX, para. 8).

[818] In Jon. Book V, Vol. IV, p. 539, ed. Aubert.

[819] In Hebrews 10:39; in Ephesians 3:17.

[820] Faith is the beginning of man’s life, but since even demons believe, it is necessary to add hope and charity (Sermon XVI on the Words of the Apostle; cf. On the Spirit and the Letter XI, n. 26).

[821] Origen, *Homilies on Numbers*, homily XXVI, n. 2; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, V, 1; VII, 1; Hilarion, Commentary on Matthew, ch. XX, n. 7; Commentary on Psalm LX, n. 3; On the Trinity, VIII, 12; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, vol. IV, ch. II, pp. 141–142.

[822] In Titus 1:4; “But the fruit of faith and the harmony between the one who begets and the one who is begotten.”

[823] Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 8, pp. 157–158, 174, 175.

[824] 1 Corinthians 1:33–34, in Chr. Readings 1824, XIV, 270–271.

[825] 2 Corinthians 3:4, in Chr. Readings 1842, II, 46–47.

[826] Summary of Teachings, Vol. IV, § 2, p. 58.

[827] Commentary on Isaiah, ch. 14, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VI, 400.

[828] “A Word About Himself,” in The Works of the Holy Fathers, II, 296.

[829] Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew, LXIV, pp. 102, 103, 104.

[830] “I Do Not Want You to Be Unaware of Paul’s Saying,” no. 6.

[831] Homily VIII on 2 Timothy, n. 1.

[832] On Exodus, Question LXVIII; cf. On Psalm XLVIII, 1.

[835] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, n. IV; Barnabas, Epistle, n. XIX; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 6, n. 2; Theophilus 11, 27, 37; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V, 1; VI, 14, 15; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 27; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXIX.

[836] It is not enough to be saved by faith alone. Book IV, Epistle 65.

[837] Ambrosius, *On Cain and Abel*, II, 2, n. 8; Jerome, *Commentary on Isaiah*, ch. XXVII: “For it is not enough to have the wall of faith, unless faith itself is confirmed by good works”; Augustine, Against the Two Letters of Pelagius, III, 5, n. 14: “For faith, without works, saves no one”; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 237.

[838] “Whoever compels himself to prayer alone, but does not compel himself to humility, love, meekness, and other virtues, nor strives to practice them, is sometimes granted, upon his request, the grace of God: for God, being good, graciously grants to the one who asks what he asks for. But since such a person has not practiced these virtues and has not trained himself to fulfill them, he either, falling into pride, loses the grace he has received, or gains nothing more from it and does not grow in it” (St. Macarius, Great Discourses on the Freedom of the Mind, § 19; Discourses, XIX, § 6).

[839] One cannot help but recall here the remarks of St. John Chrysostom: “Christ did not give us anything sensory, but everything spiritual—only through sensory things. So too in baptism, through a sensory thing—water—the gift is imparted, while the spiritual action consists in birth and rebirth, or renewal. If you were incorporeal, Christ would have imparted these gifts to you incorporeally; but since your soul is united with the body, the spiritual is imparted to you through the sensible” (Homily on Matthew, LXXXII, § 4, pp. 420–421, vol. III, Russian translation).

[840] Luther, Opp., Vol. III, fol. 266, ed. Jen.; Melanchthon, Loc. Theolog., p. 46, 141.

[841] Calvin. Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 4, §§ 1, 17, 18; Zwingli. Confession to Emperor Charles V, in Works, Vol. II, pp. 477, 511.

[842] Socinian. Catechism of Racow, VI, 3; Arminian. Confession of Remonstrance, XXII, 3.

[843] See Moehler, Symbolique, Vol. II, p. 185 ff.

[845] See on the Quakers—ibid., p. 235; on the Dukhobors—in Novitsky’s treatise on them.

[846] For example, Luther and Melanchthon sometimes recognized three sacraments: baptism, the Eucharist, and penance, although they considered the first two to be the most important (Luther, *De Capt. Babyl.*, fol. 276, Jen 1680; Melanchthon, *Apol.*, V, 167; VII, 200); Zwingli and Calvin also sometimes recognized three, but the former, instead of penance, regarded marriage as the third sacrament, while the latter regarded the priesthood as such (Calvin, *Inst.*, Book IV, 18).

[847] Moehler, *Symbol*, vol. 1, p. 303 ff.

[848] St. Ignatius on the Sacraments of the Church, p. 89, St. Petersburg, 1849.

[849] Lib. de missa privata, in Bellarmine, De Sacram., 1, c. 24, n. 2.

[850] His Eminence Ignatius on the Sacraments of the Church, pp. 5, 266–270.

[851] Cited in Natal. Alex., Ecclesiastical History, Books XI and XII, Chapter 4, Article 13, § 2; Books XIII and XIV, Chapter 3, Article 1, § 2; Article 22, § 4; Books XV and XVI, Chapter 2, Article 1, § 2.

[852] Luther, *De Capt. Babyl.*, Vol. II, p. 286, ed. Jen.; *Confess. August.*, Art. XIII; *Apolog.*, Art. III, n. 155 et seq.

[853] Cyril of Alexandria, in John 20:17; Augustine, *On Sin, Merit, and Remission*, 1, 20, 26.

[854] Λοΰτρον – Justin, Apology 1, 62; Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue 1, 6; Chrysostom, On the Incomprehensibility of God, Homily IV, n. 5. Lavacrum – Tertullian, On Baptism, chs. 5, 7, 16.

[855] Fons sacer – Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XIII, 7.

[856] Barnabas, Epistle, n. II; Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue 1, 6; Cyprian, Epistle L, XIII.

[857] Φως φωτισμός, φώτισμα. Justin, Apologeticus 1, n. 61; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1, 6; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXXII; Theodoret, On Divine Decrees V, 18.

[858] Χάρισμα. Clem. Alex. Paedag. 1, 6.

[859] Anagennesis – Justin, Apology 1, n. 61; Palingenesia – Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXXII; Secunda nativitas – Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity, ch. 1.

[860] Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism XXV, XL; Theodoret, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.

[861] Seal in Christ – Epiphanius, *On the Mind and the Body*, n. 15.

[862] Ephrem, *On Charity and Mercy*, in Vol. II, p. 254, Greek ed.

[863] Eulogius of Alexandria, Against Novatian, III.

[864] Λοΰτρον μυστικόν – Gregory of Nyssa, In Praise of St. Basil, Vol. III, p. 483, ed. Morel.

[865] Justin, *Dialogue with Trypho*, XIII; *Lavacrum salutare* – Ambrose, *On the Questions of David*, 11, 4, n. 14.

[866] Λοΰτρον τής μετανοίας και γνώσεως – Justin, *Dialogues with Trypho*, ch. XIV.

[867] The Bath of Regeneration – Theophilus, To Autolicus II, 16; Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Isaiah, n. 2; Eusebius, On the Psalms XVIII, 73.

[868] Apostolic Constitutions II, 7.

[869] Water of eternal life – Cyprian, Epistle to Cecil, LXIII; Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, n. XIV,

[870] Fons Divinus – Cassiodorus, Commentary on the Song of Songs VII.

[871] Felix sacramentum aquae nostrae – Tertullian, *De Baptismo*, ch. XI.

[872] Sacramentum nostrae nativitatis – Hilary, Commentary on Psalm LXIII, 11; Augustine, On Sin, Merit, and Remission 11, 27, n. 37.

[873] “The Apostle Paul says: ‘For John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance—it is not said, of remission—so that they might believe in Him who was to come after us’ (Acts 19: 4). But how could there be forgiveness of sins when no sacrifice had yet been offered, the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, sins had not yet been atoned for, enmity had not yet been put to an end, and the curse had not yet been destroyed?.. See with what precision the Evangelist sets this forth—for, having said that John came preaching a baptism of repentance and the wilderness of the Jews, he added—“for the forgiveness of sins”; as if to say: he persuaded them to acknowledge and repent of their sins, not to punish them, but so that they might more readily receive the forgiveness that was to follow. For if they had not condemned themselves, they would not have asked for mercy; and without seeking it, they would not have been granted the remission of their sins. Thus, John’s baptism paved the way for the other” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, X, nos. 1, 2, vol. 1, pp. 177, 179; Snes., note 195).

[874] Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XII, ch. 3, vol. 1, p. 225, from the Russian translation.

[875] Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, III, n. 8, p. 51.

[876] “At the baptism (of the Lord Jesus), the dove appeared in order to point out—as it were with a finger—the Son of God to both those present and to John, and at the same time so that you, too, might know that the Holy Spirit descends upon you when you are baptized” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XII, p. 2, vol. 1, p. 223). “The Holy Spirit descended upon the Lord in a bodily form, in the likeness of a dove, to signify the beginning of our baptism” (St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 239).

[877] See also note 881 and the text to which it refers.

[878] De baptismo, chs. X, XI, XIII, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. I, pp. 1211, 1212… 1215… An expansion of the sacrament was added, the sign of baptism… The law of immersion was established and the form prescribed.

[879] Discourses and Exhortations on Baptism, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, pp. 225–226.

[880] Homily 39 on the Epiphany of the Lord, ibid.—III, 267.

[881] We say that nothing, for each was equally a partaker of the grace that comes from the Spirit… In the Homily on John XXIX, n. 1, in Opp., Vol. VIII, pp. 164–165, Venetian ed.

[882] On Matthew, Homily XII, n. 3, vol. 1, p. 225.

[883] In John, Book II, Chapter 57.

[884] “He (John) baptized in the Jordan; all of Jerusalem went out to him, receiving the first rites of baptism” (Catechetical Lectures III, § 4, p. 48; Homily XVII, § 8, p. 378).

[885] In Matth. III, II (fragment in Galland, V, 176).

[886] Against the Donatists V, 10, n. 12; Epistle LXIV to Eleusius, n. 10.

[887] Dialogue Against Lucifer, ch. 3.

[888] “John’s baptism was preparatory, leading those being baptized to repentance so that they might believe in Christ. For John said: ‘I baptize you with water, but the One coming after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire’ (Matt. 3:11). Thus, John purified them with water in preparation for receiving the Spirit” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 238). Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, in the Gospels, Book 1, Homily XX, n. 2; Theophylact, in Matthew III; in Mark I; in Luke III.

[889] Apolog. 1, n. 79, in Chr. Readings 1825, XVII, 91–92.

[890] Catechetical Lectures, Book III, Section 2, Paragraphs 44–45.

[891] Sermon on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, p. 277.

[892] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 15; ibid., VII, 283–284.

[894] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 236.

[895] Such as, for example, the Paulicians. Photius, Adversus Manicheos 1, 9.

[896] See Bellarmine, *De Baptismo*, Book 2.

[897] “If anyone performs not three immersions in a single sacrament, but a single immersion administered in the Lord’s death, let him be excommunicated. For the Lord did not say, ‘Baptize in my death,’ but, ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’” Orthodoxy 50.

[898] Tertullian, Against Praxillus, XXVI; Chrysostom, Homily XXV on John, n. 2; Ambrose, On the Sacraments, II, 7; Jerome, Against Lucifer, c. 4. “The great sacrament of baptism is performed by three immersions and an equal number of invocations, so that the image of death may be imprinted upon us, and the souls of those being baptized may be enlightened through the transmission of the knowledge of God to them (Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ch. 15, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VIII, 284; cited in the same work, p. 333).

[899] Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction on the Mysteries, II, § 4, p. 446; Gregory of Nyssa, On the Baptism of Christ, in Vol. III, p. 327 (ed. Morel), Catechism, ch. XXXV; Leo, Epistle to the Bishops of Sicily, ch. 3.

[900] “Eunomius, by baptizing the candidates with a single immersion, accepts them—along with the Montanists…—who among them wish to be admitted into Orthodoxy, just as he accepts pagans. (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 7).”

[901] Cabassut, *Synops. Concilium III*, p. 331, Paris, 1838; Klee, *Kathol. Dogmat. III, 5, 128*, Mainz, 1845; *Manuel de l’hist. des dogm. chrétiens II*, p. 209, Paris, 1848.

[902] De Eccles. Hierarch. c. II, n. 7.

[903] For we are not baptized once, but three times, with each name corresponding to a distinct Person (Adv. Prax. ch. XXVI). When we approach the water… we are immersed three times… (De corona milit. ch. III). See note 878 above.

[905] Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech. ch. XXXV.

[906] Tertullian, *De Poenit.*, ch. VI; Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, VI, 43; Augustine, *Tractate on John*, LXXX.

[907] No one should be troubled by the fact that the sick appear to be sprinkled or doused with water when they receive the Lord’s Grace, since Holy Scripture, through the prophet Ezekiel, speaks and says: “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness…” From which it is evident that the sprinkling of water also serves as a salvific ablution... Epistle LXXVI.

[908] See the book: “Justification of the History of Christians Who Pour Water on Those Being Baptized,” published in 1701.

[911] … to be baptized in the full and assembled Trinity. Epistle to Jubaj, LXXIII.

[913] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 19, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 273. Cf. note 898.

[914] Greg. of Nyssa, Orat. II, against Eunomius, Vol. II, p. 430, ed. Morel; Ambrose, on Luke VIII, n. 67; On the Mysteries IV, n. 20; Cyril of Alexandria, on Isaiah, Book II, Vol. IV, p. 283, ed. Aub.

[915] We are baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we are immersed three times (in Ephesians, ch. IV).

[916] These are the certain words of the Gospel, without which baptism cannot be valid… (On Baptism, VI, ch. 25).

[917] In Phot. Biblioth., cod. CCLXX, p. 833.

[918] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 12, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VII, p. 272.

[919] Fulgintus, Against Fabian, Book X, Fragment 37, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. LXV, col. 832.

[920] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, pp. 334–236.

[922] Apostolic Canons 50; Origen, Commentary on Romans VI, 3; Socrates, Ecclesiastical History V, 24.

[923] Eriha, Haeres. XXXIV; Euseb. H. E. IV, II; Theod. Haeret. Fab. 1, 9.

[924] Epiphanius, *Haeresia* LXXVI.

[926] … for the forgiveness of sins… Epistle No. XI.

[927] Dialogue with Tryphon, ch. 44.

[929] Instructions, Prologue, p. 16, p. 13.

[930] Discourses, Exhortation to Baptism, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, p. 233.

[931] Sermon on Holy Baptism, ibid., III, 277.

[933] Ad illumin. Catech. n. 3. Elsewhere: “a great doctrine, that those who are baptized are completely cleansed of their sins” (in Act. homil. XI, n. 2). And further: “In baptism, through a sensible element—water—a gift is imparted, while the spiritual action consists in birth and rebirth, or renewal” (on Matthew, Homilies LXXXII, § 4, vol. III, p. 421).

[935] In baptism, all guilt is washed away. De Sacram. III, n. 17; cf. in Luke VI, n. 3; VIII, n. 24.

[936] Baptism is the purification from sins, the remission of transgressions, and the cause of renewal and rebirth. In Baptism of Christ III, 366, ed. Morel.

[937] Reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, all our sins—whether of original sin from Adam, in whom all have sinned, or of our deeds, words, and thoughts—are washed away in the cleansing of that baptism (Letter to Dardanus, CLXXXVII, n. 28).

[938] “It (baptism) not only grants us the forgiveness of past sins, but also instills in us hope for the promised blessings, makes us partakers of the Lord’s death and resurrection, bestows the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and makes us sons of God—and not only sons, but also heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (A Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas, ch. 18, in *Christians’ Readings* 1844, IV, 338).

[939] Hier. Epist. LXXXIII ad Ocean. c. 2; Hilar. in Ps. LXIII, n. II; Didym. de Trinit. II, 13.

[940] Here, Baptism is presented as the transmission of the unbreakable seal, III, c. 16.

[941] Σφραγίς, sigillum, signaculum. Pastor. III, Sim. IX, c. 16.

[943] Augustine, *On Free Will*, III, 23, n. 67.

[944] Catechetical Lectures, n. 16, p. 13.

[945] Homily on 2 Corinthians, III, n. 7.

[946] The sign of God is such that, just as man was originally created in the image and likeness of God, so too in the second regeneration, whoever has received the Holy Spirit is marked by Him and takes on the form of the Creator. Ephesians 1:13.

[947] This (the Lord’s seal) is in no way violated in those whom we receive, even though we do not rebaptize them. Epistle CLXXXV to Boniface, n. 23. Cf. On Baptism VI, 1; Ps. XXXIX, Exposition, n. 1.

[948] Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 237.

[949] Dionysius of Alexandria (cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VII, 9); Cyprian, Letter to Jubaj, LXXIX; Optatus, On the Donatist Schism, V, 3; Epiphanius, Exposition of the Catholic Faith, n. XVIII; Nilus—Book 1, Epistle XXIV; Augustine, Commentary on Psalm XXXIX, Exposition n. 1.

[950] It is not permitted to wash it again. *Pudic. 1*.

[954] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, pp. 233–234.

[955] First Ecumenical Council, Canon 8; Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 7; Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 95; Basil the Great, Canon 1.

[956] “According to ancient custom, let them (those baptized by the Donatists) be received into the Catholic Church of God by the laying on of hands...” Council of Carthage, Canon 68. Cf. Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle to Stephen (ap. Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History*, VII.3); Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV.

[957] Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 7; Council of Laodicea, Canon 7.

[958] Council of Laodicea, Canon 8; Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 7; Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon 95. “All who have been baptized not in the Holy Trinity must be baptized again.” Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 234.

[959] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 15, 3; Tertullian, On Baptism, XI, XII, XIII, XVIII; Didymus, On the Trinity, II, 12; Chrysostom, Homily III on Philippians, n. 4.

[960] Catechetical Lectures, Book III, § 2, p. 45.

[961] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 10, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 269.

[964] On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, ch. 74.

[965] As for the fate of infants who die without baptism, there are two main views held by the early Church Fathers. Some believed that such infants suffer torment (Augustine, *De peccatis, meritis, et meris*, 1, 16, n. 21; Fulgentinus, *De fide ad Petrum*, 8, 27), though as mild as possible (Augustine, *Enchiridion*, c. XLIII). Others placed them in a sort of intermediate state between bliss and condemnation. This latter view is expressed by: a) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “The premature death of infants does not yet suggest that one who ends life in this way should be counted among the unhappy; nor that they should share the same fate as those who, in this life, have purified themselves through every virtue” (To Hyarius on Infants Taken by Premature Death, in Christian Readings 1838, IV); b) St. Gregory the Theologian: “The latter (those who did not receive baptism due to their young age) will neither be glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge; for, although they are not sealed, they are nevertheless not wicked, and they themselves have suffered more than they have caused harm. For not everyone who is unworthy of punishment is already worthy of honor; just as not everyone who is unworthy of honor is already worthy of punishment” (Homily on the Feast of the Holy Baptism in The Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 294). Cf. Severian, in Joann. III (in Catena).

[966] Adv. haeres. 11, 22, n. 4; cf. V, 15, n. 3.

[967] Book V on the Sixth Epistle to the Romans.

[968] Homily XIV on Luke; Homily VIII on Leviticus, n. 3.

[969] Epistle LIX to Fidus, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, Vol. III, col. 1013.

[970] Sermon on the Epiphany, in the Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, p. 287.

[971] Sermon CLXXVI, on the Words of the Apostles, n. 2. And elsewhere: “The custom of the Mother Church regarding the baptism of infants is by no means to be despised, nor is it to be regarded as superfluous in any way, nor is it to be believed at all, unless it be an Apostolic tradition” (On Genesis, in response to Letter X, 23, n. 30).

[972] Apostolic Constitutions VI, 15; Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, ch. VII, n. 11; Clement of Alexandria, *Paedagogus*, III, 11; Isidore of Veii, Book III, Epistle CXCV; Ambrose, *On Abraham*, II, n. 81; Chrysostom, Homily to Neophytes.

[973] This belief of the Church is evident from the fact that it honors (on December 29), among the saints, the fourteen thousand infants slain by Herod in Bethlehem for Christ’s sake.

[974] Epistle LXXVIII to Jubaianus; Exhortation to the Martyrs, preface.

[975] Catechetical Lectures III, n. 8, pp. 50–51.

[976] On the Holy Spirit, ch. 15, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VII, 285.

[977] Commentary on the Holy Epiphanies of the Lord, ibid.—III, 268.

[978] In John, Vol. VI, § 26; Exhortation to the Martyrs, n. 30; Homily on the Judgment, VII, n. 20.

[979] On Baptism, ch. XVI; Against Scorpiacus, ch. VI.

[980] The Passion of St. Pamphilus, n. VI.

[981] In Ps. 18, n. 14; Funeral Oration on the Death of Valentine, n. 53.

[982] Chrysostom, Homily on St. Lucian the Martyr, n. 2; Didymus, On the Trinity, 11, 12; Augustine, On Baptism, IV, 22, n. 28; The City of God, XIII, 7.

[983] “Baptism by blood and martyrdom, as Christ Himself was baptized for us, is the most glorious and blessed, because it is no longer defiled by subsequent impurities” (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 9, p. 239).

[984] Gennadius, *De dogmatis ecclesiasticis*, ch. LXI; Cassian, *Collectiones*, XX, 8.

[985] Valsamon makes the following comment on this rule: “For this reason, the legislator mentioned only bishops and presbyters, because it is not permissible for anyone else to baptize.”

[986] But only bishops and presbyters, assisted by deacons. Book III, ch. 11.

[987] Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, No. VIII.

[989] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Hierarchy and the Church*, ch. II, n. 11, § 7; Ambrose, *On the Mysteries*, ch. III, n. 8; *On the Sacraments*, III, 1; Jerome, *Against Lucifer*, ch. IV; Epiphanius, *On Heresies*, VII, n. 34; LXXIX, n. 3. 7; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm LXVII, 32; Didymus of Alexandria, On the Trinity, 11, 12; Augustine, The City of God, XXII, 18; Against the Epistle of Parmenides, 11, 13.

[990] Tertullian, *On Baptism*, XVII; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, XVII, § 35, pp. 401–402; Theodoret, *Commentary on 2 Chronicles*, Q. 1.

[991] “A deacon… does not baptize.” Book VIII, ch. 28.

[993] Otherwise, laypeople also have the right... (Tertullian, *De Baptism*, ch. 17). We know that laypeople are also permitted to baptize, if necessity compels it (Jerome, *Adversus Luciferem*, ch. 4).

[994] Moschus, *Prat. spirit.*, ch. III; Nicephorus, *Confess.*, can. LI. However, if an infant, baptized out of necessity by a layperson through immersion in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, survives, the rules of the Church require that a priest perform the entire remaining rite of baptism for that infant, except for what has already been accomplished. See the Euchologion, or Service Book, published in Kyiv in 1651, p. 40.

[995] It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church, nor to teach, nor to anoint, nor to offer... (Tertullian, *On the Veiling of Virgins*, ch. 9). These heretical women themselves—how brazen!—who dare to teach..., perhaps even to anoint (- *On the Prescription of Heretics*, ch. XLI).

[996] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXXIX; cf. Apostolic Constitutions III, 9.

[997] Epiphanius, *Haereses* XXII. Cf. Balsam, *Commentary on the Canons of Trullo*, ch. XCV.

[998] Herm. Sim. IX, 17; Justin. Apolog. 1, n. 61; Hippolytus, De Suzana, n. 17; Chrysostom, in Acta Homil. 1, n. 2.

[999] Apostolic Constitutions VII, 39, 40; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies

[1000] Clem. of Alexandria, Strom. V, 11; Tertullian, On Baptism XX; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 1, n. 25, pp. 18–21; Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 1, n. 3.

[1001] Tertullian, *De Coronatione Militibus*, ch. 3; *Const. Apost.* VII, 41; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, 1, n. 2, 3; Jerome, *Commentary on Amos*, VI, 14; *Commentary on Matthew*, XXV, 26.

[1002] On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, VII, 3, § 11.

[1004] In this matter, it is rightly and piously believed that the faith of the child being offered for consecration is sufficient. *De lib. arbitr.* III, 23, n. 67; cf. *Epist.* CXXXIII ad Mercat., n. 3.

[1005] Chrysostom, on Ps. XIV; Gennadius, On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, ch. LIÏ: “If, however, the children are very young or simple-minded, unable to grasp the doctrine, let those who present them respond on their behalf, in accordance with the custom of baptism…”

[1006] Tertullian, *De Bapt.*, chs. VII, VIII; Cyprian, *Epist. ad Jan.* LXX; *ad Jubaian.* LXXIII; Ambrose, *De Myst.*, ch. VII; Chrysostom, *Homilies on the Acts*, 1, n. 5; Council of Laodicea, Canon 48.

[1007] Unctio, Tertullian, *De Bapt.*, ch. VII; Cyprian, *Epist. ad Januar.*, LXX. – *Chrisma*, Cyril of Jerusalem, *Cat. of Teachings*, XIII, n. 1; Theodoret, *in Is.*, LXI, 2.

[1008] (1008) Eusebius, *In Is.* XXV, 7; *Demonstr. Evang.* 1, 10.

[1009] (1009) Sacramentum chrismatis, Augustine, *Contr. lib. Petil.* 11, 104; Cyprian of Alexandria, *in Is.* XXV, 6.

[1010] Leo the Great, Serm. XXIV, 6.

[1011] Or the essence of the Spirit, Isidore of Pelusium, lib. 1, epist. 450.

[1012] Sacramentum Spiritus, Tertullian, *De praescriptione haeresium*, ch. XXXV; Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew*, ch. IV, n. 27.

[1013] Kup. of Jerusalem, *Instructions on the Mysteries*, III, n. 1.

[1014] Βεβαιωσις, Constit. Apostol. III, 17. Confirmatio, Ambrose, *De Initiatione*, ch. VII; John the Great, *Epistle to Nicetas*, ch. VII.

[1015] Τό τέλειον, Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. 1, 6. Perfectio, Ambrose, *De Sacram.* III; Consummatio, Cyprian, *Epist. ad Jnbaian.* LXXIII.

[1016] Σφραγις, Clement of Alexandria, Strom. II, 3; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XVIII, n. 33.

[1017] Signaculum Dominicum, Cyprian, Epistle to Jubaian, LXXIII.

[1018] Signaculum spirituale, Ambrose, *De Sacram.* III, 2, n. I; VI, 2, n. 8.

[1019] Signaculum vitae aeternae, Leo the Great, Sermon XXIV, 6.

[1020] This is what the apostles did when they spoke to Christians about the inner effect of baptism, that is, they borrowed this expression from the outward sacred rite of the sacrament. “You were once such (sinners), but you were washed clean,” wrote, for example, St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 6:11). And in another passage: “By his grace he saved us through the washing of rebirth” (1 Tim. 3:5; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

[1021] Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, VII, 4, 5; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Instructions on the Mysteries*, III, 6, 7; Chrysostom, *Commentary on 2 Corinthians*, ch. 1, v. 23; Ambrose, *De his, qui initiantur*, ch. 7; Theodoret, *Commentary on 2 Corinthians*, ch. 1, v. 23.

[1022] “But there is another sacrament of the same order; our leaders call this the Rite of Myrrh.” On the Church Hierarchy, ch. IV, 1.

[1023] Ibid., ch. IV, § 11. See also ch. 11, § 8.

[1024] Therefore, we are called Christians because we are anointed with the Oil of God. Ad Autol. 1, n. 12.

[1025] On Baptism, ch. VII; cf. On the Prescription of Heresies, ch. 37; Against Marcion, III, 22.

[1026] Nor is baptism any longer a blessing, nor a blessed seal. Strom. 11, 3.

[1027] It is also necessary to anoint the one being baptized so that, having received the chrism—that is, the anointing—he may be anointed by God and possess the grace of Christ within himself. Epistle to Jannuar. LXX.

[1029] ... This is also the practice among us today: those who are baptized in the church are presented to the church leaders, and through our prayer and the laying on of hands, they receive the Holy Spirit and are sealed with the Lord’s mark. Epistle LXXIII.

[1030] See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 43.

[1031] We cannot fail to mention here the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions, which states: “After this, the priest shall baptize him in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and anoint him with myrrh....” Book VII, ch. 43; Cf. III, ch. 16, VII, ch. 22.

[1032] .... and just as the seal of the communion of the Holy Spirit has been given to you..., Compendium of Instructions XVIII, n. 33, pp. 432–433.

[1033] Instructions on the Sacraments, III, n. 1, p. 449; p. 3, p. 451.

[1034] Sermon on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. III, p. 285.

[1035] “Noah’s Ark foreshadowed that He who would establish the Church would come out of the waters to set its members free in the name of the Holy Trinity; and the dove symbolized the Holy Spirit, who would perform the anointing—the sacrament of salvation” (Adv. Serat. Serm. XLIX, Opp. Syr. Vol. III, p. 90).

[1036] “There follows (after baptism) a spiritual seal… because, after emerging from the font, perfection is achieved when, at the priest’s invocation, the Holy Spirit is poured out: the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of the fear of the Lord—as it were, the seven virtues of the Spirit (Isaiah 11:2). *De Sacramentis*, Book III, Chapter 2, n. 8.

[1037] In Philipp. homil. III, n. 4.

[1038] “But the myrrh signified very clearly the anointing of the Holy Spirit…” In Isaiah 25:6, I. III, T. 1; in Joel 2:23.

[1039] The spiritual anointing is the Holy Spirit Himself, whose sacrament is found in the visible anointing (in 1 John, Tract. III, n. 5). The sacrament of chrism is—in general—a sacrament of visible signs, just as baptism itself is… (Contr. Iit. Petiliani II, c. 104).

[1040] The mystical anointing, which we are worthy to receive… In Jes. LXI, II. 2.

[1042] Panoplia, Part II, Title 20.

[1044] Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. I, 573; II, 121, 239, 300.

[1045] Assem. Ibid. Vol. IV, Dissertation on Syr. Nestor, p. 272; Cod. Liturg. Vol. III, p. 136.

[1046] Renaudot. Perpetuité de la foi. Vol. V, p. 147.

[1047] See notes 1029 and 1036 above.

[1048] “After this, having baptized him (the person) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let the priest anoint him with myrrh, saying: ‘Lord God, self-existent and supreme Ruler of all, who has spread the fragrance of the Gospel’s teaching among all nations! Grant now also that this chrism may be effective in the one who has been baptized, so that the fragrance of Your Christ may abide in him firmly and steadfastly, and that, having been buried with Christ, he may rise again and live with Him.” Let him say this and similar words: for “in this lies the power of the laying on of hands upon each one (εκάστου γάρ ή δύναμις της χειροθεσίας ’εστιν αυτη)” Lib. VII, c. 43, 44.

[1050] “You must know that the prototype of this Chrismation is found in the Old Testament. For when Moses conveyed God’s command to his brother (Leviticus 8: 1, 2) and appointed him high priest, he anointed him after washing him with water (Leviticus 8: 6:12); and he was called the anointed one (Lev. 4:5), that is, by virtue of the anointing that conferred office. Likewise, when Solomon was enthroned, the high priest anointed him after he had been washed at Gihon (1 Kings 1:39, 45). “But these things happened to them as examples (1 Cor. 10:11). For you, however, it is not figuratively but truly: for you have truly been anointed by the Holy Spirit” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Instructions on the Mysteries, III, ch. 6, pp. 452–453).

[1051] Second Ecumenical Council, Canons 7; Sixth Ecumenical Council, Canon 95.

[1053] See notes 1022–1024, 1032–1036, and 1038–1040 above.

[1054] See notes 1025, 1029, and others.

[1055] However, the opinions of Roman theologians themselves regarding the significance of these two actions in the sacrament of Confirmation vary. Some consider only the laying on of hands to be essential here; others, only the anointing with chrism; still others believe that both are equally necessary, and therefore it is sufficient to use either one or the other; a fourth group, finally, recognizes both of these signs as equally necessary for the celebration of the sacrament (See Perrone, *Prael. Theolog. de Confirmat.*, ch. III, n. 67; Klee, *Kathol. Dogmat.*, vol. III, p. 169, Mainz, 1845).

[1057] The laying on of hands is designated by the anointing of the forehead, which is also known by another name, Confirmation (chap. “Cum venisset,” Extra—de sacra unctione).

[1058] In the church, Confirmation is administered in place of the laying on of hands (Decret. pro unione Armenor., in Harduin, Act. Concil., vol. IX, col. 458).

[1059] They should carefully instruct the people as to why this sacrament, which from the beginning was administered solely by the laying on of hands, soon began to be conferred—even in the time of the Apostles themselves—through the anointing with chrism, in accordance with their tradition… (In Harduin, Ibid., col. 2118).

[1060] There is a particular view—one that is, however, worthy of attention—that the laying on of hands, through which the Apostles originally bestowed the Holy Spirit upon believers, has not been abolished in the strict sense, but continues to this day in the celebration of the sacrament of Confirmation. For the very act of anointing with chrism, which the pastor of the Church performs with his hand on the forehead and other parts of the baptized person, already involves the laying on of this anointing hand upon the one being anointed. Consequently, the Apostles, having chosen—by the guidance of the Holy Spirit—another sign for bestowing His grace-filled gifts upon the faithful, did not thereby abolish the former, which was also divinely ordained; on the contrary, they wisely combined the two. This view is found in the writings of the 7th-century author, the Venerable Bede (Asin. alm. XXIX), and in those of the 8th-century author, Rababa Maurus (De instit. cleric. lib. 1, c. 28), as well as in the works of others (see note 1048).

[1061] God has anointed you; Christ has marked you. How? Because you have been marked with the form of the cross itself, with his own passion (De Sacrament. VI, c. 2, n. 7).

[1063] Instruction on the Sacraments, Book III, n. 4, pp. 451–452.

[1064] Second Day of the Feast of the Orthodox, 7; Sixth Day of the Feast of the Orthodox, 95.

[1065] “All the entrances to your soul are sealed with the seal of the Holy Spirit; all your members are sealed with the seal of testimony. The King has, as it were, placed His letter upon you and set upon it the seals of fire (Matt. 3: 11; Luke 3: 16), so that strangers may not read it and corrupt the writing” (Orr. Syr. T, II, p. 332).

[1066] Catechism. Roman. Part II, ch. 3, n. 23.

[1067] Asseman. Cod. liturg. T, III, pp. 83–84. 111–112: The Rite of Confirmation of the Armenian Church, ed. Joseph, Archbishop of the Armenians, St. Petersburg, 1799.

[1069] In Phot. Biblioth. Cod. CCLXXI, col. 1499.

[1070] See note 1023 above. Του μύρου τελειοτιχή κρίσις (The Ecclesiastical Hierarch, Book II, § 8).

[1071] See note 1025 above. “The body is marked, so that the soul may be protected” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 8). “Not that we receive the Holy Spirit in the waters, but, having been cleansed in the water, we are prepared under the angel for the Holy Spirit…” (On Baptism, ch. 6).

[1072] See notes 1027 and 1029 above.

[1073] See notes 1030–1034 and 1035–1040 above.

[1074] Sins are cleansed by the washing, and the Spirit is infused through the chrism. Pacianus, *De baptism.* n. 6. Cf. Didymus, *De Trinit.* II, 1, 14.

[1076] Instruction on the Sacraments, Book III, n. 7, p. 453.

[1077] Ibid., § 4, p. 452. See note 1071.

[1078] See notes 1026, 1030, and 1075 above.

[1079] Augustine, *Contr. lit. Petil.* II, 13; Optatus, *Schism. Donat.* VII, 4; Photius, *Epist. encyc.* 11.

[1080] Ignatius, Archbishop of Voronezh, On the Sacraments of the Church—p. 143, St. Petersburg, 1849.

[1081] See the rite of the sacred coronation of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Nicholas Pavlovich, translated into Greek, pp. 16 and 30, St. Petersburg, 1827.

[1082] In our Russian Church, chrism is consecrated only at two sees—Kyiv and Moscow—from where it is distributed throughout Russia.

[1083] Council of Carthage II (390), Canon 3; Council of Carthage III (397), Canon 36; Nana, Gelasius I, Epistle IX to Heres Luc., Chapter VI.

[1084] Book 7, Chapter 22. And in chapters 43 and 44 of the same book, the priest—ό ίερεύς—is mentioned as the sole officiant of both baptism and chrismation.

[1085] After this (after baptism), you surely went up to the Priest; consider what followed. Is it not what David says: “Like oil on the head, running down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron” (Ps. 132:2)? This is the oil… (De myster. c. VII). For another reference, see note 1036 above.

[1086] For they have gone beyond ordination alone, and by this alone they think they have an advantage over the presbyters (Chrysostom, Homily X on 1 Timothy, n. 1). What does a bishop do, apart from ordination, that a presbyter does not do? (Jerome, Epist. ad Evangel. CXLV, n. 1).

[1087] Asseman, *Cod. liturg.* III, p. 187.

[1088] Council of Trent, Session VII, on Confirmation, Canon 3; Session XXIII, Canon 7.

[1089] Cle, Perrone, Brenner, and other theologians in their treatise on confirmation.

[1090] “Why did they (the Samaritans), having been baptized, not receive the Holy Spirit? Either because Philip did not impart Him to them out of respect for the Apostles, or because he did not possess this grace (χάρισμα): for he was one of the seven deacons, which seems more reasonable” (Chrysostom, on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XVIII, § 3).

[1091] See Cyprian’s words above in note 1029. And St. Chrysostom, in the same homily on the Acts of the Apostles, having stated that Philip did not bestow the Holy Spirit upon the Samaritans precisely because he was a deacon, continues: “for this was reserved for the Apostles—which is why, as we see, even now it is performed not by others but by the presbyters (κορυφαίους).”

[1093] … In many places we find that this was done in honor of the priesthood rather than out of legal necessity. Otherwise, if the Holy Spirit descends only through the bishop’s invocation, those who… are to be lamented, for they were despised by the bishops (Dialog. adv. Lucifer. n. 9).

[1095] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8; Tertullian, *De Monogamia*, ch. 2; *De Baptismo*, ch. 7, 17.

[1096] See in Harduin, Collect. Concil., vol. IX, p. 438.

[1097] See the letter of appointment to the priests.

[1098] Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, vol. VI, p. 114: “On the Minister of Confirmation.”

[1099] Trombell, *De ministro confirm.*, Dissert. X, Sect. 1, Quaest. II, § 6 et seq.

[1101] Instruction on the Sacrament of Confirmation, Book III, n. 1, p. 450.

[1102] Cyprian, Epist. ad Jan. LXX; Ambrose, de myster. c. 7; Augustine, In Johann. Epist. trac. VI, n. 10; Leo the Great, Serm. IV de natal. Domini.

[1103] Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, vol. VI, p. 132, Lausanne, 1841.

[1104] Roman Catechism, Part II, ch. 3, 17. Cf. Perrone, loc. cit.

[1105] Const. Apost. VIII, c. 12; Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. VII, § XI; Gennadius, *De dogmat. eccles.*, chap. 52; if they are young children or mentally impaired and cannot grasp the doctrine, those who present them shall answer on their behalf, in accordance with the custom of baptism, and thus, having been united through the laying on of hands and chrism, they shall be admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist.

[1106] The Lord’s Supper, Chrysostom, Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians; a mystical and divine mystery, Hippolytus, on Proverbs 9:1.

[1107] "Despotic table," Theodoret, in 1 Corinthians 11:20; – "of Christ" – Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. 1:10; – mystical, Hippolytus, in Prov. IX:1; – sacred, Chrysostom, Homily III on David and Saul, n. 1.

[1108] Sacramentum altaris, Augustine, *De civitate Dei*, X, 6.

[1109] The Lord’s Bread, Theophilus, Epist. Paschal. 1; – of God, Ignatius, Epist. n. 5; – heavenly, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies IV, 5; – daily bread, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies V, 15.

[1110] Sacramentum calicis, Cyprian, Epistle LXIII to Caecilius on the Apostates; Chrysostom, Homily LXXXV on John, n. 3.

[1111] Ποτήριον τής ευλογίας, Bac. on the Holy Spirit, ch. 27.

[1112] Body of Christ, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Book V, 22; – the Lord’s, Apostolic Constitutions.

[1113] Blood of Christ, Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13; – precious, Hippolytus, in Prov. IX, 1.57; – salvific, Eusebius, in Isa. XXV, 7; – holy, Cyprian, Epist. X.

[1114] Communion, Isidore of Pelusium, Book 1, Epistle 228; John of Damascus, Exposition of the True Faith, IV, 13.

[1115] Chalice of Life, Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13; – of salvation, Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction on the Mysteries IV, 5.

[1116] Mysteries, Hippolytus, *On Charisms*, XIX; Chrysostom, *De Virg.*, ch. XXIV; – *holy*, *Const. Agost.* VIII, 14, 15; – *divine*, Theodoret, *in 1 Cor.* XI, 27, 30; – *terrible*, Chrysostom, *in Prod. Jud.*, homil. 1, n. 1.

[1117] Sacrifice—holy, mystical, liturgical. Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel*, 1, ch. 10; Theodoret, *Commentary on Hebrews*, ch. VIII, and others.

[1118] “The Jews are perplexed here and say: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ (6:52). But if you are asking here about the manner, why did you not ask the same regarding the loaves—why did you not ask how He made five loaves sufficient for such a great multitude of people? ‘Because,’ you might say, ‘at that time they had no time to examine the miracle, but only to be fed; moreover, the experience itself was enough to convince them.’—But it was precisely because of this experience that they ought to have believed this present teaching as well. Jesus Christ performed that extraordinary miracle beforehand precisely so that the Jews, having been enlightened by it, would not show unbelief toward His subsequent works” (Chrysostom, Homilies XLV, on John 6:41. 42, in Chr. Th. 1842, 11, 189).

[1119] This statement by the Jews is explained by a tradition that existed among them and still exists today, namely, that just as their first deliverer, that is, Moses, brought down manna from heaven, so too will the second, that is, the Messiah. Shoetgenius. *Horae hebr. et talmud.* Vol. 1, p. 359. Leipzig, 1733.

[1120] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, V, 2. 3; Council of Carthage, Canon 46, in the Book of Canons...

[1121] It should be noted, however, that in their doctrine the Latins recognize both unleavened bread and leavened bread as equally suitable substances for the sacrament of the Eucharist (Perrone, Praelect. Theol. Tract. de Eucharistia, par. II, c. 3, propos. 1); but in practice they usually use only unleavened bread.

[1122] The various opinions of Greek writers, with which they sought to prove and explain this truth, are briefly summarized and discussed in the Theology of His Eminence Theophan Prokopovich (vol. III, pp. 603–610, Leipzig, 1793).

[1123] Maldonatus, in Matthew, chap. XXIV, v. 2; Petavius, *De doctrina temp.* XII, c. 15 et seq.; Natalis Alex., *Diss.* XI, in Saec. XI and XII.

[1124] And it shall be observed by you (the flock) even until the fourteenth day of this month; and the whole assembly of the children of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight. And they shall take some of the blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. And they shall eat the meat that night, roasted over the fire, and unleavened bread with bitter herbs (Ex. 12:6–8). Beginning on the fourteenth day of the first month, from the evening onward, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month, until evening. For seven days, no leaven shall be found in your houses (18:19).

[1125] But while one of the Evangelists writes, “The Day of Unleavened Bread came, on which it was customary to eat the Passover (Luke 22:7), and the other two say: “On the first day of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him, ‘Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?’” (Matthew 26:17; Mark 14:12): these expressions, in accordance with St. John Chrysostom, can and indeed must be understood as follows: “The day came (the first day of Unleavened Bread), that is, it was approaching, it was at the door” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, LXXXI, in Vol. III, p. 389). This—a) follows naturally from the fact that the disciples were only just approaching the Savior with the question of where to prepare the Passover, while the first day of Unleavened Bread began only after the Passover had been celebrated (see the following note); and—b) it is necessary in order to reconcile the accounts of the three Evangelists with the testimony of the fourth: “Before the Passover feast…” (John 13:1).

[1126] “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, is the Lord’s Passover, and on the fifteenth day of the first month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord: for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. The first day shall be a holy day for you; you shall not do any kind of labor” (Lev. 23: 5–7). For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; from the first day onward, you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whoever eats leavened bread, that person shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day until the seventh day. The first day shall be a holy day, and the seventh day shall be a special holy day for you (Ex. 12:15, 16).

[1127] The Gospel also indicates the reason why it pleased the Lord to celebrate the Passover before the appointed day. Before the Passover feast, says St. John, Jesus knew that His hour had come to pass from this world to the Father… (John 13:1). And the Savior Himself, sending His disciples to Jerusalem to a certain host, instructed them to tell him: “My time is near; I will celebrate the Passover at your house with My disciples” (Matt. 26:18). The next day, when the Jews were to celebrate the Passover, the Savior was already about to suffer death and, consequently, could not have celebrated the Passover.

[1128] “What happened with the Passover also happens with baptism. For just as Jesus Christ, having celebrated both the Passover and the other Passover, abolished one and established the other; so here, having fulfilled the Jewish baptism, He opened the doors to the baptism of the New Testament Church” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XII, § 3, vol. 1, p. 225). “Christ did not establish the sacrament until the time when what was prescribed by the law was already to be abolished. In this way, He abolishes the most important feast of the Jews, calling them to another supper, and says: ‘Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you…’ And He adds: ‘Do this in remembrance of Me.’ Do you see how Christ rejects and turns people away from Jewish customs? ‘Just as you celebrated the Passover,’ He says, ‘in remembrance of the miracles that took place in Egypt, so also celebrate this sacrament in remembrance of Me…’ What then? Should we not, you might ask, celebrate both the ancient and the new sacrament? No, we should not. For Christ said, “Do this,” precisely to turn us away from the ancient one” (Discourses LXXXII, vol. III, pp. 409–411).

[1129] Michael Kerullus, Epist. in Basilii Thesauro, Vol. III, p. 1, p. 277.

[1130] Let us quote a remark on this occasion by one of our ancient saints, Metropolitan Leontius: “The Lord says in the Gospel: ‘Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees’; and the disciples thought to themselves: ‘This means that we did not take any bread.’ But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said to them: ‘How is it that you do not understand that I was not speaking to you about the leaven of bread’ (Matt. 16:6–11)? Thus, when the disciples heard about leaven, they immediately imagined that He was speaking of bread (άρτος), and their Teacher made it clear that the concept of leaven is naturally associated with the concept of bread (άρτος): then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but from the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (-12)” (on unleavened bread, in Chr. Cht. 1850, I, 128).

[1131] For further details and a refutation of the objections, see Mitrofan Kritopulos, *Confess. Ecclesiae Oriental.*, vol. IX, p. 90 et seq., Helmst. 1671.

[1132] Justin, Apology 1, ch. 66, in Chr. Readings 1825, XVII; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, n. 4, 6; Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction on the Sacraments IV, 1–6; Ambrose, *De Sacramentis*, IV, c. 4: “You may well say: ‘My bread is ordinary’...”

[1133] Thus—1) Pope Innocent I wrote: “The priests receive the leaven prepared by us through the acolytes, so that they may not be separated from our communion on that most important day—which I do not believe should be done in the parishes, since the Sacraments are not to be carried far” (Epist. XXV, ad Decent, c. IV, n. 8); 2) Regarding Pope Melchiades, it is noted in his biography: “He decreed that the consecrated offerings from the church be sent to the bishop’s consecrated place, which is referred to as ‘fermentum’” (Vita Melchiad. in Libr. pontificiali); 3) Regarding Pope Siricius, it is also noted: “He decreed that no presbyter should celebrate Masses… which is called ‘leaven’” (Ibid., Vita Siricii).

[1134] “The mysteries are celebrated… with unleavened bread, and the other part of the mystery with water alone,” Haeres. XXX, n. 16.

[1135] Such as: Sirmondus, *Disquisitio de azymo*, 1651; Cotelerius, *Monum. eccles. Graecae* II, pp. 108, 138; Pagitis, Critic. in Baron, 1313, n. 15; Bingham, Orig. eccles. XV, c. 2, § 5; Klein, Hist. eccles. vol. I, p. 430, and others.

[1136] The latter are further divided into two categories: some claim that the Roman Church has consistently used only unleavened bread since apostolic times (Ciatriap., *De perpet. azym. usu. Rom.*, 1688; Mabillop, *Diss. de pane eucharist.*, Paris, 1674); others claim that from ancient times it has used both unleavened bread and leavened bread indiscriminately (Bona, *Rer. liturg.* 1, 23).

[1137] Such were the Ebionites and Encratites, who, instead of wine, consumed only water (Irenaeus, *Adv. Haer.* V, 1, n. 3; Epiphanius, *Haer.* XXX, n. 16; Clement of Alexandria, *Paedag.* 11, 2).

[1140] “Since some use water in the sacraments: this is to show that He used wine when instituting the sacrament, and after the Resurrection, when He offered an ordinary meal without the sacrament, He also used wine; for this reason He says: ‘from the fruit of the vine’; but the vine produces wine, not water. (On Matthew, Homily LXXXII, § 2, in Vol. III, p. 413).

[1141] Canon 46 of Carthage; Canon 32 of Trullo.

[1142] “He poured wine and water into the cup, consecrated it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink…’” Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 12.

[1143] Based on Proverbs 9:5. Lightfoot, *De Ministerio Templi*, ch. XIII.

[1145] Thus, both the mixed cup and the consecrated bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the Body of Christ (Adv. haer. V, 2, n. 3). Temperamentum calicis (lib. IV, 33, n. 2).

[1146] When water is mixed with wine in the chalice, the people are gathered to Christ (Epist. LXIII, ad Caecil.).

[1147] Gregory of Nyssa, Cathech. ch. 37; Ambrose, de sacram. V, 1, n. 4; Gennadius, de dogm. eeclcs, ch. 78.

[1148] “Let nothing be brought into the sanctuary except the Body and Blood of the Lord, as the Lord Himself has ordained, that is, except bread mixed with water in wine” (Canon 46).

[1149] The Council of Trullo, Canon 32: “And he (St. Chrysostom) instructed his Church, over which he had been entrusted with pastoral governance, to mix water with wine when the bloodless sacrifice is to be celebrated, pointing to the union of blood and water, which flowed from the most pure side of our Redeemer and Savior, Christ God, for the life-giving of the whole world and for the redemption from sins. And in all churches where spiritual luminaries shone, this God-given rite is preserved. For both James, the brother of Christ our God according to the flesh, to whom the throne of the Church of Jerusalem was first entrusted, and Basil, Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose fame spread throughout the entire universe, having handed down to us in writing this mysterious sacred rite, decreed that in the Divine Liturgy the holy chalice be prepared from water and wine.”.

[1150] Contrary to the erroneous view held by the Latins (Perrone, *Prael. Theolog. tract. de Euchar.*, p. 11, ch. 3), who, as is well known, attribute the entire power to consecrate the Holy Gifts solely to the Savior’s words: “Take, eat…” and so on.

[1151] See the rite of the episcopal oath, and the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Part 1, answer to question 107; the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 17.

[1152] See this Liturgy in *Biblioth. Part. Gr. Latin.*, vol. II, p. 12.

[1153] Lib. VIII, c. 12, p. 407, in Coteler, *Patr. Apost.*, vol. 1, Amsterdam, 1724.

[1154] See the priest’s prayers before the consecration of the Holy Gifts, during the singing of the hymn: “We sing to You…”

[1156] ... having become holy through the prayer, and sanctifying... (Contr. Cels. lib. p. 399). Elsewhere he says: sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem (in Matth. XV, Vol. II, p. 17, Paris, 1604).

[1157] Instructions on the Sacraments, 1, n. 7, p. 440 in the Russian translation.

[1158] Instructions on the Sacraments, Vol. III, p. 3, p. 451.

[1159] Instructions on the Mysteries, Vol. V, p. 7, p. 462.

[1160] On the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, ch. 27, in The Book of Rules, p. 328.

[1161] On the Trinity, Book III, Chapter 4, n. 10, in the Complete Collection of the Patristic Works, Vol. XLII, p. 874.

[1162] Epist. CXLIX ad Paulinum, chap. 2, n. 16, in the cited Patrol., vol. XXXIII, p. 636.

[1163] On the Tradition of the Divine Liturgy, in Chr. Cht. 1839, vol. VI, pp. 37, 38.

[1164] Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13, p. 252.

[1165] The bread is sanctified by the Word of God and by the consecration. Catechism, ch. 37.

[1166] Through whose (the presbyter’s) prayers, the body and blood are constituted (Epistle LXXXV to Evagrius).

[1167] See their testimonies further on in the article: The Image and Consequences of the Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

[1168] For example, in the works of Simeon of Thessalonica (in his treatise on the sacraments), Patriarch Jeremiah (in his letter to the Wittenberg Theological Society, Christian Readings 1845, 1, 346), and Mitrofan Kritopulos (in his defense of the Eastern Church, treatise on the Eucharist). In our tradition, the Likhuda brothers, St. Dimitri of Rostov, and Stephai of Yavorsk wrote specifically on this subject against the Papists (see the entry on them in Fr. Eugene’s dictionary), and an entire council of pastors, convened by Patriarch Joakim in 1690, deliberated on the matter (see the same in the article: Ioannikiy Likhud).

[1169] These included: the Docetists (Ignatius of Bogot, Epist. ad Smirn. n. 7), the Cathars (Moneta, adv. Cath. et Wald. IV, 3, § 1), the Paulicians, and the Bogomils (Photius, contr. Manich. 1, 7).

[1170] These include: Wycliffe, Zwingli, and Calvin with their followers, as well as all Socinians and rationalists.

[1171] Calvin, *Institutes*, IV, 17, n. 10; *Helvetic Confession*, 1, art. XXI; *French Confession*, art. XXXVI; *Belgic Confession*, art. XXXV.

[1172] Or, as the Lutherans put it: corpus Christi est in pane, cum pane, sub pane.

[1173] Just as the Protestants want it.

[1174] In general, and from other instances concerning the Savior, it is known that when the Jews correctly understood His words in their literal sense, He—despite the grumbling and objections of His listeners—expressed His thought with even greater force and clarity. John 8:56–58; 10:24–39; Matt. 9:2–6, etc.

[1175] Clement of Alexandria, *Paedag.* VI, 12; *Strom.* VI, 52; Tertullian, *De resurr. carn.* 37; Cyprian, *De Orat. Dominic.* p. 421, ed. Baluz.; Eusebius, *in Jes.* 11, Ps. LXXX, 12.

[1176] Gregory of Nyssa, *Contr. Eunom.*, *Orat.* XI, Vol. II, p. 704, ed. Morel.; Basil the Great, on Ps. 44, n. 2; Chrysostom, On the Priesthood III, 5; Epiphanius, Haeres. LX; Macarius, in Luke XXIV, 7 (in caten. Mai IX, p. 707).

[1177] Ambrose, *De Fide* IV, 6; *De Sacramentis* IV, 5; V, 1; Cyril of Alexandria, in Abac., n. 48; Augustine, in Eph. I, 7; Theodoret, H. E. IV, 11; Leontius, Advers. Nestorian., VII, 3 (in Mai IX); John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 14.

[1178] Council of Ephesus, Epist. ad Nestor., in Harduin, Art. Concil., Vol. 1, col. 1290; Council of Constantinople II, Actio IV, col. 370.

[1179] Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, n. 7.

[1180] Apologetic Treatise 1, n. 61, in Chr. Readings 1825, XVII, 99.

[1181] Against Heresies IV, 18, n. 4; cf. n. 5.

[1182] Ibid., Vol. V, 2, n. 2; cf. Vol. IV, 17, n. 5; 33, n. 2.

[1183] “not a mere image of the body, nor a mere place of blood, as some have foolishly claimed, but truly the blood and body of Christ.” Apolog. adv. Theostenem. ethnic. lib. III fragm. (in Galland. III, 541).

[1184] Instructions for the Initiates, Book IV, nos. 1, 2, 3–6, pp. 434–456.

[1185] On Matthew, Discourses LXXXII, paras. 4, 5, in vol. III, pp. 421.

[1186] On the Mysteries IX, n. 53; cf. VIII, n. 47, 48; on Ps. XLIII, n. 36.

[1187] In Mai Specileg. roman. Vol. IV, p. 33… but let him believe that the bread and wine offered are transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

[1188] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13, pp. 250, 251, 252, 255.

[1189] Hippolytus in Galland, Vol. II, p. 488; Clement of Alexandria, *Paedagogus* 1:6; 11:2; Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem* V:8; *De idolatria* ch. 7; Cyprian, *Epistle LIX to Cornelius*; LXIII to Caecilius; Dionysius of Alexandria, Epistle on Canon Law 2 (in the Book of Rules, p. 254); Hilary, *De Trinitate*, VIII, 16; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, ch. 37.

[1190] Basil the Great, Letter to Caesarea 93 (in The Works of the Holy Fathers, X, 219); Epiphanius, *Ancoratus*, n. 57; Isidore of Pelusium, *Lib. III*, *Epist. 364*; Jerome, *in Malach. 1, 7*, *in Ezech. XLI*; Augustinus, *De Trinitate*, III, 10; *Contra Faustus*, XII, 10.

[1191] Theodore, in Cantic. III, II; in Epist. V, 29; Alex. of Kup, in Joann. XX, 27; adv. Nestor. IV, 5, 6; Leo the Great, Epist. LIX ad Cler. et popul. Constantinop. c. 11.

[1192] “By saying, ‘This is my body,’ he shows that the bread consecrated in the sacrament is the very body of the Lord, and not a figure (ουχΐ άντίτυπον). For He did not say, ‘This is a symbol,’ but ‘This is my body’; it is transformed by a mysterious action, even though it appears to us as bread” (on Matthew 26).

[1193] Didymus. Alex. in Ps. XXXIX, 7; Theod. Heracl. in Ps. XII, 5; Theoph. of Alexandria, Lit. Paschal. an. 401, n. XI; Peter Chrysologus, Serm. XXXIV; Leontius of Jerusalem, adv. Nestor. VII, 3 (in Mai. T. IX), and others.

[1194] Gelas, of Cyzicus, Commentary on the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, ch. XXXI, Diatyp. 5.

[1195] Sopsilus of Ephesus, P. II, Act. 1 (p. 121, ed. Binium). Cf. Cyrus of Alexandria, Orations, Vol. V, Part 11, p. 72, Lutetia, 1638.

[1196] Second Council of Nicaea, Acts VI, Lecture by Epiphanius the Deacon.

[1197] Bona, Rer. liturg. 1, c. 8 et seq.; Renaudot, Collectio liturg. oriental., Paris, 1685; Asseman, Cod. liturg. eccl. universae, Rome, 1749; Murator, Liturgia Romana vetus, Venice, 1748: Diss. de orig. liturg., c. 1.

[1198] The term “transubstantiation” (μετουσίωσις, transsubstantiatio), which expresses precisely the same idea, began to come into use in the West in the mid-11th century and in the East in the 15th century, when it appears in the writings of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Against the Calvinists, pp. 74, 75). From that time on, this term—which correctly and very powerfully expresses the essence of the dogma—came to be used consistently by the Orthodox Church alongside the term “transformation” (see Orthodox Exposition of the Faith, Part 1, answer to question 56; Epistle of the Eastern Fathers on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 17; Rite of the Episcopal Oath, etc.).

[1199] Instruction on the Sacraments, Vol. IV, § 2, p. 454.

[1200] Instruction on the Sacraments, 1, para. 7, p. 440.

[1203] De myst. IV, n. 50; cf. n. 54.

[1204] In Matthew 26:26 (cited in Possin’s Catena).

[1205] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith IV, ch. 13, p. 252.

[1208] In Matthew 26:28. Cf. Panoplia, Book 11, Title 20.

[1209] Chrysostom, *De Coen. et Cruc.*, n. 3; Ambrose, *De Sacram.* IV, n. 16, 17.

[1210] Ambrose, *De Sacraments* IV, 4, n. 15; Damascene, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith* IV, 13.

[1211] Ambrose, *De Myst.* IX, n. 53; Damascene, ibid.

[1212] Cyril of Jerusalem, *Instructions on the Mysteries*, IV, § 2; Ambrose, *De Mysterium*, IX, n. 50.

[1213] John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, IV, 13, p. 252.

[1214] “Receive the most pure Body of the Lord with complete faith, knowing without a doubt that you are fully partaking of the Lamb Himself” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, *Opp. Graec.*, Vol. III, p. 424, ed. Assemani, Rome, 1746).

[1215] “The Lord’s Body is united with our bodies in a new way, and His most pure Blood is poured into our veins: He Himself is wholly present in all of us, through His goodness” (St. Ephrem the Syrian, loc. cit.).

[1216] John of Damascus. *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 13, p. 255.

[1217] Council of Trullo, Canon 52; Council of Laodicea, Canon 49.

[1218] Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VII, ch. 44; Chrysostom, Epistle to Innocent, n. 3; Council of Nicaea I, Canon 13.

[1219] Justin, *Apology*, 1, n. 67; Eusebius, *Church History*, V, 44.

[1220] Cyprian, Epistle to Cornelius, 54.

[1221] Chrysostom, *On the Priesthood*, VI, 4.

[1222] Tertullian, *De Orat.*, ch. 14; *Ad Uxor.* 11, 5; Cyprian, *De Laps.* 381; Ambrose, *Orat., Funebr. in Statyrum*; Augustine, *Contr. Julian.* (unfinished work), III, 154.

[1223] Bac. the Great, Letter 93 in Caesarea.

[1224] On 1 Corinthians, Discourses XXV, 5.

[1225] On the Holy Spirit XII, 11, n. 78, 79.

[1227] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, vol. III, ch. 8, p. 159; vol. IV, ch. 3, p. 225.

[1228] Hierarch… performs the most sacred rites. On the Church Hierarchy, Ch. III, fol. 3, § 10.

[1229] After the presiding priest has given thanks… Apologetic Treatise 1, 65.

[1230] Nor do we receive them from the hands of others, but from the presiding officers. On Military Crowns, ch. 3.

[1231] The Great Letter 93; John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood III, 4, 5; VI, 4; Hilary, Commentary on Matthew, ch. XIV, n. 10; Epiphanius, *Haeres.* LXXIX; Jerome, *Epist. ad Evangelum*; Siricius, *Epist. X ad Episc. Gall.* c. 11, n. 5; Cyril of Alexandria, *in Abac.* n. 47; *in Soph.* n. 11.

[1232] “It has come to the attention of the holy and great Council that in some places and cities deacons are administering the Eucharist to presbyters, whereas neither by rule nor by custom is it permitted for those who do not have the authority to offer to administer the Body of Christ to those who do. It has also come to light that even some deacons, and even some bishops, touch the Eucharist. All this must be put to an end: and deacons must remain within their proper bounds, knowing that they are servants of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. Let them, then, receive the Eucharist in order after the presbyters, as it is administered to them by the bishop or a presbyter” (Canon 18).

[1233] “It is not fitting for bishops or presbyters to offer the sacrifice in private homes” (Canon 58).

[1234] Council of Nicaea I, Canon 18; Jerome, Epist. ad Evangelum.

[1235] Ambrose, *De Offic. ministr.* 1, 41, n. 214.

[1236] Iusmin. *Apolog.* 1, 65; Athanasius the Great, *in Matth.* VII, 6 (in Galland, V).

[1237] Apostolic Constitutions VIII, 13; Cyprian, *De lapsis*, p. 381; Augustine, *Sermon CCCIV*, in Laur. III, n. 1.

[1238] Council of Trullo, Canon 58.

[1239] Apolog. 1, n. 86, in Christian Readings 1825, XVII, 99.

[1240] See the index to Book IX of the Canons for the terms: apostasy, heretic, schismatic, penance, pagan, and similar.

[1241] Apostolic Constitution VII, ch. 7.

[1242] Instruction on the Administration and Reception of the Divine Sacraments, at the end of the Service Book.

[1243] Council of Trent, Session XXI, Canon IV.

[1244] Apostolic Constitution VIII, c. 13.

[1245] Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, ch. VII, § 11; Cyprian, De Lapsis, p. 381 (Bal.); Testimonies III, 25.

[1246] But if anyone dares to say that this statement (“unless you eat…”) does not apply to little children, and that they can possess life within themselves without partaking of this Body and Blood (On Sins and Merits, 1, ch. 20).

[1247] It has been asserted that little children can be granted the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism: for unless they have partaken of His blood, they will not have life within themselves (Epistle XCIII to Augustine and the Council of Milevitanus).

[1248] Basil of Kyllos, ap., Phot. Biblioth., cod. CVII, p. 281; Evagrius, E. E. IV, c. 36.

[1249] Gennadius, *De dogmatis ecclesia* c. 52; Council of Toledo II, c. XI.

[1250] Thus, in the book *Ordo Romanus*, compiled in the 9th century, the following instruction is given: “Care must be taken for the little ones, so that after they have been baptized, they do not receive any food, nor be nursed unless absolutely necessary, before they partake of the sacrament of the Body of Christ” (in *Biblioth. PP.*, vol. X, p. 84. Paris, 1654).

[1251] Bona, Rer. liturg. II, ch. 19, § 2.

[1252] Canon Law, Part 1, response to question 107; cited from St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Canon 2.4; St. Timothy of Alexandria, Canon 5.7.12.

[1253] See “The Rite of Burial of Infants” in the Trebnik.

[1254] Council of Trent, Session XXI, canons 1 and 2.

[1255] Perrone, Praelect. Theolog. Tract. de Eucharistia, Part 1, Chapter III, Proposition IV.

[1258] “After the presider has offered the Eucharist and the entire congregation has proclaimed ‘Amen,’ those whom we call deacons give each of those present a portion of the bread over which the Eucharist has been offered, as well as wine and water, and they also distribute these to those who were absent” (Apolog. 1, 85, in Chr. Readings 1825, XVII, 98–99).

[1259] Contra Haeres. XV, 18, n. 4, 5; V, 2.

[1261] “Those whom we rouse and urge to battle, let us not leave unarmed and unclothed, but let us fortify them with the protection of the Body and Blood of Christ… For how can we teach or urge them to shed their own blood in the confession of the Name, if we deny them the Blood of Christ as they go forth to battle?” (Epist. LIV).

[1262] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, IV, n. 3. 6; Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, LXXXII, p. 5; Ambrose, *De myster.,* ch. VIII, n. 48.

[1263] Sermon IV on Lent, in *Bibliotheca Patrum* vol. VII, p. 1015, Lyon 1677.

[1264] In Gratian, Decretals III on Consecration, dist. 11, c. 12.

[1265] Bona, *Rer. liturg.* IX, ch. 18, § 1; ch. 19, § 3; cf. Buttenstock, *Hist. eccles.* N. T. III, p. 252.

[1266] Council of Trent, Session XXI, Canon II; cf. Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, *Tract. de Euchar.*, Part 1, Chapter III, Proposition V.

[1267] Here are the principal reasons: a) the danger of bloodshed; b) the difficulty of preserving wine for the sick, especially in hot and cold climates; c) the scarcity of such wine in many remote places; d) the natural aversion many people have toward wine, and so on (Perrone, loc. cit., n. 214).

[1269] Perrone, Praelect. Theolog. Tract. de Euchar. P. 1, c. III, prop. IV, n. 192.

[1271] Iycmyn. Apolog. 1, n. 85 (see note 1258 above). Cf. Baronii Annal. eccles. Vol. V, ad an. CCCCIV.

[1272] Baronius writes: “You also have this proven by the authority of St. Gregory, Pope of Rome, when he says (Dialog. III, c. 36) that the body and blood of Christ were carried aboard the ship by those on board” (Annal. eccl. loc. cit.). Cardinal Bona confirms the same regarding the hermits (Rer. liturg. II, c. 18, n. 11), where, in particular, he points to the example of St. Mary of Egypt, who was granted the privilege of receiving both the Body and Blood of the Lord in the desert from the hands of St. Zosimas (see The Four Minor Feasts).

[1273] Perrone, loc. cit., n. 190.

[1274] Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction on the Mysteries, IV, n. 3; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13; Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, c. XXI.

[1275] Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Book IV, § 9; St. Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13.

[1276] Justin, *Apology*, 1, 65; Chrysostom, *Homily XLVI on John*, n. 3; Cyril of Alexandria, *Commentary on Genesis*, Book 11.

[1277] Cyril of Jerusalem, Epistle LIV to Cornelius; Chrysostom, Homily XLVI on John, n. 3; Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, Book VIII, n. 51.

[1278] Ambrose, Commentary on Ps. XLIII, n. 36; Cyril of Alexandria, Homily on John IV, 36.

[1279] Council of Trullo, Canon 28; Ambrose, *De Sacramentis*, IV, 6, n. 28; V, 3, n. 17.

[1280] Cyprian, Epistle LXIII to Caecilius; Cyril of Jerusalem, Instruction on the Mysteries, IV, n. 6; Council of Trullo, Canon 23. 101: “He who eats and drinks Christ is continually transformed into eternal life, sanctifying both soul and body through communion with divine grace.”

[1281] Cyprian, Epist. LIV; Chrysostom, Homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians.

[1282] Ignatius the God-Bearer, Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 20, in the Chr. Readings for 1821, 1, 42.

[1283] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 18, n. 4, 5; cited in Justin, Apology, 1, 66; Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 11, 2; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism, p. 37.

[1284] Ambrose, *in Luc.*, Book X, n. 49.

[1285] Luther, *Captiv. Babyl.*, vol. II, fol. 283; Calvin, *Inst.* IV, 18, n. 1 et seq.; Zwingli, *De canon, missae epichr.*, vol. III, p. 100, ed. Schul. and Schutt.

[1286] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, IV, 17, n. 5; Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph. ch. XLI; Hippolytus, *De Charismatibus*, ch. XXVI; Eusebius, *Demonstration of the Gospel*, 1, 10; Chrysostom, *Against the Jews*, oration V, n. 12; Theodoret, *In Malachi*, 1, 11.

[1287] See the liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, as well as Renaudot, *Liturg. Orient.*, vols. I, II; Asseman, *Cod. Liturg. eccles. univ.*, vol. V.

[1288] See note 1194 above and canon 18 of this Council.

[1290] Canon 28. See also Canons 3 and 32.

[1292] Epistle to the Philadelphians, ch. IV; cf. Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. VIII; Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. V.

[1293] Dialogue with Trypho, n. CXVII; cf. n. XLI.

[1294] Adv. haer. IV, 17, n. 5; cf. 18, n. 4.

[1295] On Charisms, ch. XXVI, in Galland, vol. II, p. 512.

[1297] In Chr. resurr. orat. 1, Opp. Vol. III, p. 389, ed. Morel.

[1298] In Hebr. homil. XVII, n. 3; cf. in 1 Cor. homil. XIV, n. 4; in Eph. homil. III, n. 5; De sacerd. III, 4; VI, 4.

[1299] By receiving the Lord’s body and preserving both, both the participation in the sacrifice and the performance of the office are safeguarded (De or. n. XIV).

[1300] Demonstration of the Gospel 1:10; 5:3; Ecclesiastical History 10:8.

[1301] “When the priest has once offered and consecrated the sacrifice, the one who receives it as a whole offering, partaking of it daily, must rightly believe that he is receiving and partaking from the one who consecrated it” (Letter 93 to Caesarea, in The Works of the Holy Fathers X, 220).

[1302] (God) accepts the bloodless sacrifice offered piously and truly (De Trin. 11, 7, n. 8). He also introduces the bloodless sacrifice as a rational representation of the Lord’s body and blood (in Ps. XXXIX, 7, art. Corder. Caten.).

[1303] De offic. ministr. 1, 48, n. 248.

[1304] The fattened calf, which is sacrificed for the salvation of the penitent, is the Savior Himself, whose flesh we eat and whose blood we drink daily (Epist. ad Damas. XIV).

[1305] There the presbyter offered the sacrifice of the Body of Christ (De civ. Dei XXII, 8, n. 6; cf. XVI, 22; XVIII, 20, n. 2).

[1306] Only He who takes away the sin of the world is deemed blameless and pure. In Malachi 1:11. Cf. Psalm 109:4.

[1307] As for the wine, it signifies the mystical blessing of the bloodless sacrifice, which we are accustomed to celebrate in the holy churches. In Isa. (XXV, 6), Book III, Vol. 1.

[1308] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. IV, 25; Origen, Homil. on Lev. XIII, n. 3; Cornelius Nana, Epist. ad Fab. Antioch, n. 7; Athanasius the Great, Apol. contr. Arian. n. 11.

[1309] The words of the priestly prayer during the Cherubic Hymn. See also Ambrose, *De Benedic. Patriarch.*, ch. IX; *In Ps.* XXVIII, n. 25; Augustine, *De Civ. Dei*, X, 20: “And the priest is both the one who offers and the offering itself, whose sacrament he willed to be the daily sacrifice of the Church...”

[1310] “So that those counted among the clergy… may be presented… as worthy of the spiritual sacrifice of the great God, who is both the sacrifice and the High Priest… (Council of Trullo, Canon 3). Cited by Chrysostom, in the Homily on the Proselyte, 1, n. 6; in the Homily on 2 Timothy, 11, n. 4.

[1311] In Hebr. homil. XVII, n. 3. Cf. note 1307.

[1312] Gregory of Nyssa, *De Resurrectione Christi*, Oration 1; Theodoret, *In Hebr.* VIII, n. 5: “We do not offer any other sacrifice, but we perform the memorial of that one sacrifice and of salvation…”; Augustine, Epist. XXXVIII ad Bonif., n. 9: “Was not Christ sacrificed once in himself, and yet in the sacrament he is sacrificed not only during all the solemnities of Passover, but every day for the people; and surely he who, when asked, replied that he is sacrificed, does not lie.”

[1313] See notes 1287–1291 and 1295 above.

[1314] See the liturgical rites mentioned below.

[1315] Biblioth. PP. Gr. – Latin. Vol. II, p. 12; Const. Apost. VIII, c. 12.

[1316] Apolog. 1, n. 85, in Xp. Ch. 1825, XVII, 98. Cf. Dialog. cum Tryph. n. 4; Chrysostom, homily XXIV on 1 Corinthians.

[1317] Here, after the consecration of the Holy Gifts, the priest prays: “We offer to You, O Lord, this awesome and bloodless sacrifice; may You not deal with us according to our iniquities, nor repay us according to our sins; but by Your mercy and Your great and ineffable love for mankind, purify us, Your servants, who fall down before You” (Renaudot, Lit. orient. Vol. II, p. 51).

[1318] Hostia placationis, sacrificium placationis (Asseman, Codex Lit. eccles. univ., Vol. IV, Preface 26).

[1319] Ad uxor, 11, 8; ad Scapul. c. XI.

[1320] We offer prayers for the dead and on their birthdays each year (De coron. milit. c. III; cf. de monogam. c. IX).

[1321] There is no offering made among you for the repose of his soul (that of a certain Victor, who brazenly violated the canons of the Church), nor is any prayer in his name recited in the church (Epist. LXVI).

[1322] … the sacrifice of atonement, Catechetical Lectures V, n. 8, p. 462.

[1324] In 1 Corinthians, Homily XLI, n. 5. Elsewhere, St. Chrysostom clearly refers to the custom of commemorating the departed during a bloodless sacrifice as an apostolic ordinance: “These things were not established by the Apostles merely as a matter of custom; rather, the remembrance of the departed during the sacred mysteries brings them great benefit and much profit” (in Philipp. hom. III, T. XI, 217, E).

[1325] See the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great.

[1326] Instructions on the Mysteries, V, § 9, p. 462. Blessed Augustine expresses the same idea: ut orent ipsi pro nobis… (in Johan. Tract. LXXXIV, n. 1).

[1327] Instructions on the Mysteries, V, n. 8, p. 642.

[1328] For repentance can be understood—and is still understood—in the sense of a virtue.

[1329] Tertullian, *De Poenit.*, ch. IX, X,

[1330] Ἐξομολόγησις, Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses* 1, 13, n. 5, 7.

[1331] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 9, n. 2.

[1332] Council of Carthage, Book V, Chapter XI.

[1333] Tertullian, *De Poenit.*, ch. IV; Jerome, *Epist. ad Pammach. et Ocean. de error. Orig.*; *Epist. XCVII ad Demetriad. de serv. virginit.*

[1334] Apostolic Constitutions II, ch. 11, 12.

[1336] Ibid., ch. 38, 40, 41–43, 18.

[1337] For they have received authority over life and death from God… Ibid., ch. 33.

[1338] De laps. ch. 28, 29, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. IV, pp. 488, 489.

[1339] … through the priest he receives forgiveness by the grace of Christ. Adv. Novat, fragm. (in Galland, V, 213).

[1340] On the Rules of Asceticism, a brief exposition, answer to question 288, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XX, p. 360.

[1341] Ibid., answer to question 110.

[1342] On the Priesthood III, 4. 5, pp. 59–60, in the Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1836.

[1343] “He who, knowing that the Lord has established confession for him, fails to make it, will pass over that which restored the king of Babylon to his kingdom” (De poenit., ch. 12).

[1344] Lacmanz., *Divin. inst.* IV, 30; Gregory of Nyssa, *Homil. in eos, qui alios acerbe judicant*, in T. II, p. 234, Morel.; Ambrose, *De poenit.* II, 7, 11; Jeronymus, Commentary on Matthew 16:19; Augustine, On Adult Marriage 1:28, n. 35; 11:16, n. 16, 17; The City of God 20:9, n. 2; Alexander of Kup, Commentary on John 20:23.

[1345] For it is indeed very useful and necessary that the guilt of sins be saved through priestly supplication before the last day (Epist. LXXXV, c. 3, ad Cacc.).

[1346] Asterius in Luke XV, 11 (fragment in Combefis, auct. 228); Cassian, *De Incarnatione* VI, 18.

[1347] Apostolic Canons 52; see notes 1334–1337.

[1348] The authority to forgive sins was given to the apostles and to the churches which they established as Christ’s mission, as well as to the bishops who succeeded them through vicarious ordination (Epistle to Cyprian).

[1350] This right is granted exclusively to priests (De Poenit., 1, ch. 2, n. 7).

[1351] On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 8.

[1352] On the Priesthood, Book III, Chapters 5 and 6, pp. 60, 61–62, in the Russian translation.

[1354] … In which work the Savior Himself undoubtedly intervened without ceasing (Epist. LXXXIV, ed. Cacc.).

[1355] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, VIII, n. 10; Pacuanus, Epistle to Sympr., III, n. 7.

[1356] Ambrose, *De poenit.* 1, 2; Eusebius, *Qu. ad Marin.* n. 9 (Mai 1, 277); Alex. of Kup, *in Johan.* XX, 33.

[1357] Const. Apost. 11, 12, 20, 21; Firmilian, Epist. ad Cypr. (inter. Cypr. Epist. LXXV); Athanasius the Great, homil. in illud: profecti in pagum, n. 7; Ambrose, de poenit. 11, 2.

[1358] Origen, Homily X on Numbers, n. 1; James of Nisibis, On Penance, Sermon VII; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 16:19; Theodoret, Commentary on Exodus, Question XV.

[1360] *De adult. coniug.* 11, 16, n. 16. Cf. Tertullian, *De poenit.* ch. 7, 12.

[1361] De lapsis, chap. XXXV, in *Patrologia Cursus Completa*, vol. IV, p. 492.

[1362] Discourses on Repentance, III, § 13, in Vol. II of Discourses to the People of Antioch, pp. 320–321, St. Petersburg, 1850.

[1363] Poems About Himself, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 291.

[1364] Moral Rules 1, ch. 3; see also VII, 360.

[1365] Commentary on Isaiah, Chapter 15, ibid., Vol. VI, p. 422.

[1366] “When you sin, weep and wail—not because you will be punished, for that means nothing—but because you have offended your Lord, who is so meek, who loves you so much, and who cares so deeply for your salvation that He gave up His Son for you. This is what you must weep and wail over, and weep unceasingly. For in this lies true repentance” (Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Corinthians, IV, p. 120, Moscow, 1843).

[1367] That fear, not yet pure, fears the presence (of the Lord) and the punishment… It does not fear losing the embrace of the most beautiful Bridegroom, but fears being cast into Gehenna. This fear, too, is good; it is useful. (Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 127, n. 8). It is therefore necessary that fear enter first, through which charity may come. Fear is the medicine; charity is the healing (Augustine, in Epist. Johann. Tract. IX, n. 4).

[1368] “Just as fire, falling upon matter, usually consumes everything, so too the fire of love, wherever it falls, consumes and obliterates everything… Where there is love, all sins are consumed” (Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Timothy, VII, 3).

[1369] Commentary on Isaiah 1:14, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VI, pp. 58–59.

[1370] On Moral Law 1, ch. 4; ibid., VII, 361.

[1371] …but also to cover and conceal greater sins with better deeds, so that the sin may not be imputed to him (De psenit. II, 5, n. 35).

[1372] It should be noted that although there were two forms of confession in the early Church—public confession, performed before the entire Church, and private confession before a single priest—even in the first form of confession, which was heard by all Christians, the right to absolve or not to absolve the sins of the penitent belonged solely to the pastors, just as in the latter case. Consequently, in both cases, the essence of the sacrament of penance remained intact. Over time, the Church, out of maternal indulgence toward her children, abolished the public form of confession without in any way altering the sacrament itself.

[1373] Adv. haer 1, 6, n. 3; 13, n. 5, 7.

[1375] (1374) De poenit cap. X; cf. c. III.

[1379] Ibid.: cf. in Genes. homil. XVII, n. 3. 9; in Ps. XXXVII, homil. II, n. 6.

[1380] See notes 1339–1341 above.

[1381] It is most clearly commanded, Lord, in the preaching that even those guilty of the gravest crimes, if they show repentance from a sincere heart and through a clear confession of sin, are to be restored to the grace of the heavenly sacrament (De poenit. 11, 3).

[1382] Sermon on Penance, VII, ch. 2, 4.

[1383] Homilies on Those Who Judge Others More Severely, in Opp., vol. 11, p. 137, Morel.

[1384] Chrysostom, Homilies on the Cross and Thieves, IX, n. 3; Homily on Hebrews, IX, n. 4, 5; Theodore Heraclian, on Psalm 106, 23; Innocent, Epistle to Decentius, ch. VII; Hull, Book III, Epistle 33; Gregory the Great, in 1 Kings, Book V, Chapter 4, n. 55.

[1385] See also Ankyra, Canon 2, 5, 7; Neocaesarea, Canon 3; Nicaea I, Canon 17; Basil the Great, Canon 84.

[1386] Commentary on Isaiah, ch. XIV, v. 20, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VI, p. 397.

[1387] Commentary on Isaiah, ch. IX, art. 18, ibid., p. 326.

[1388] On the Priesthood, III, 5, p. 64, from the Russian translation.

[1389] Discourses on Repentance III, n. II, in Vol. II of the Discourses to the People of Antioch, pp. 318–319, based on the Russian translation.

[1390] Epistle LXXXV, section 3, ed. Sass.

[1391] “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Why? Because you know the Holy Spirit, yet you are not ashamed to reject the obvious truth. For if you say that you do not know Me, then you certainly know that casting out demons and performing healings are the works of the Holy Spirit. “Thus, you are not only reviling Me, but also the Holy Spirit; therefore, your punishment is inevitable, both here and in the hereafter” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, XLI, vol. II, p. 217, Russian translation).

[1392] Athanasius the Great, *In Matth. XII, 31–32* (Galland, V, 185).

[1393] Augustine, Epist. CLXXXV ad Bonif., n. 49.

[1394] Canon 5 of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

[1395] Commentary on Matthew, Chapter XLI, in Vol. II, p. 216, according to the Russian translation.

[1396] Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, 1, 10; IV, 28; VII, 25; Epiphanius, Haereses, LIX, 1.

[1397] Eulogius of Alexandria, *Adv. Novat*, Book IV (in Phot. *Bibliotheca*, cod. CCLXXX, p. 886).

[1398] See the index in the appendix to the Book of Canons under the entry: “epitimia.”

[1399] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, 1, 13, n. 5; III, 4; Tertullian, *On Penance*, chs. 6, 7, 10, 11; Cyprian, *Epistles*, VII, LII.

[1400] Const. Apost. II, 16, 18, 41.

[1401] See the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, 11, 12, and following.

[1402] See the entry “epitimia” in the index of the Book of Canons.

[1403] Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 8.

[1404] Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his response to Protestant theologians on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Church, wrote, among other things: “Regarding the penalties prescribed by the canons (κανονικάς ίκανοποιίας), which you completely reject, we believe that if they are imposed by ministers of the Church as a remedy, for example, on the proud, the covetous, the intemperate and the licentious, on the envious and the hateful, on the slothful, or on those afflicted by any other vices; then they are very beneficial and greatly assist the penitent in the work of correction. That is why the Holy Fathers prescribed that they be imposed on those who are turning back and repenting. But if they are used solely for the gain of those who impose them, and not with a true, soul-saving purpose; if they are used not as the Fathers themselves prescribed and initially practiced—namely, for the sole purpose of healing sin—then we too reject them; we too acknowledge them as futile and dishonorable, and we affirm that they must undoubtedly be recognized as such.” (Acta Theolog. Wirtemberg. et patriarch. Hieremiae, respons. patriarchae 1, c. 12, p. 89, Wirtemb. 1584, in Xp. Cht. 1842, 1, 243–244).

[1405] See Chrysostom’s commentary on this passage, in Homily IV on 2 Corinthians, pp. 107–308, Moscow, 1843. Elsewhere he remarks: “Having commanded that the sinner be handed over to Satan, Paul, after the sinner had changed and become better, says: ‘Let this reprimand suffice for such a one, as it has been given by many. Therefore, show him love’ (2 Cor. 2:6, 8)… ‘Tell me, what happened? Did you not hand him over to Satan?’ ‘Yes,’ he says, ‘but not so that he might remain in Satan’s hands, but so that he might be delivered from his power as soon as possible’” (Discourses on Repentance 1, § 283, in Vol. II of the Discourses to the People of Antioch, p. 283 in the Russian translation).

[1406] “He who has appropriated another’s property through secret theft, and then confessed his sin to a priest, shall heal his affliction by practicing the opposite of his passion—that is, by distributing his wealth to the poor and squandering what he has—and thus prove himself cleansed of the disease of greed ” (Gregory of Nyssa, Rule 6, in the Book of Rules, p. 342).

[1407] Translated by Theophilus Prokopovich—*Christ. orthod. Theolog. vol. III*, pp. 700–702, Leipzig, 1793.

[1408] Incidentally, the Latins cite this passage to support their doctrine. See, for example, Perrone, Feuer, Liebermann, and others, in their treatises on the sacrament of penance, in the chapter titled “De Satisfactione.”

[1409] And Roman theologians refer to all these passages. See ibid.

[1410] St. Chrysostom reasons: “What, then, saved those Ninevites? Upon the wounds of their souls they imposed a strict fast, clothed themselves in sackcloth, sprinkled themselves with ashes, and bathed them in bitter tears; they prostrated themselves on the ground, and along with this, they also changed the very course of their lives. Let us see, then, which of these remedies healed them… ‘God saw,’ says the Prophet, ‘that they had turned from their wicked ways, and God relented concerning the disaster He had threatened to bring upon them’ (Jonah 3:10). He did not say: “God saw the fasting of the Ninevites, their sackcloth and ashes.” I say this not to reject fasting—far be it from me—but to persuade you to do what is better than fasting: to abstain from all evil” (from the Discourses on 2 Corinthians, IV, pp. 118–119, in the Russian translation).

[1413] Here we may also recall a rule enacted at the Council of Rome, held in the third century, against the Novatians: “Novatus and others who, along with him, have exalted themselves and resolved to endorse his brother-hating and inhuman doctrine, are to be considered excommunicated from the Church; on the contrary, the brethren who have fallen through misfortune shall be healed and restored through the means of repentance” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 43, Vol. 1, p. 386 in the Russian edition).

[1414] Discourses on Repentance 1, paras. 7–8, in Vol. II of Discourses to the People of Antioch, pp. 286–289.

[1415] Discourses on Repentance II, n. I, ibid., p. 291; note on p. 344.

[1416] In 1 Corinthians, Homily XXVIII, n. 2.

[1417] On the Priesthood II, pp. 33–36, in the Russian translation.

[1418] Discourses on Repentance III, paras. 2 and 3, pp. 307–308.

[1419] Discourses on Repentance III, § 10, p. 317.

[1420] On 2 Corinthians, Homilies IV, pp. 122–123. St. Basil the Great reasons in a similar way: “In illnesses, doctors advise the sick to be attentive to themselves and not to neglect anything that contributes to healing. But in the same way, the Word—the physician of our souls—heals the soul afflicted by sin with this small remedy. Therefore, pay attention to yourself so that, in proportion to your transgression, you may receive healing. Is your sin great and heavy? You need a long confession, bitter tears, intense vigilance, and unceasing fasting. Is your fall into sin light and bearable? Let your repentance be commensurate with it. Only be mindful of yourself, so that you may know the health and sickness of your soul” (Discourses on the words: “Be mindful of yourself,” in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, 36).

[1421] See also notes 1423–1426 below.

[1422] In this sense, the Orthodox Church also recognizes penances as means of appeasing or satisfying God: “We accompany the remission of sins,” wrote Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, “with penances for many valid reasons: first, so that, through voluntary suffering here, the sinner may be freed from involuntary, severe punishment in the next life; for nothing appeases the Lord as much as voluntary suffering. That is why St. Gregory says that ‘tears are rewarded with love for mankind.’ Second, to eradicate from the sinner those terrible desires of the flesh that give rise to sin; for we know that like cures like. Thirdly—so that penance may serve, as it were, as bonds or a bridle for the soul, preventing it from returning to the very same vices from which it has only just been cleansed. Fourthly—to accustom one to toil and patience; for virtue is the fruit of toil. Fifth, so that we may see and know whether the penitent has truly come to hate sin. But we exempt from all this the one who is about to depart from this world, and we forgive his sins, content with the sincerity of his repentance and the purity of his conversion.” (Acta Theolog. Wirtemb. et patriarch. Hieremiae, respons. 1, c. 12, in Xp. Cht. 1842, 1, 244).

[1423] … God is moved to mercy by repentance (De poenit. c. IX). And immediately thereafter: “Thus, confession is a discipline for prostrating and humbling a person, thereby compelling a life of mercy…” (ibid., Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. 1, p. 1243).

[1424] De lapsis, ch. 29, 32, 31: “There remains, therefore, penance that satisfies; but those who remove the penance for the crime block the path to satisfaction” (in the cited Patrolog. IV, pp. 489, 491, 492).

[1425] A great wound requires a thorough and prolonged treatment; a great crime necessitates great satisfaction… And therefore one must grieve more deeply, for the sin is more grave (De lapsu virgin. consecr. c. VIII, n. 37, in cit. Patrolog. XVI, 378–379).

[1426] For it is not enough to change one’s ways for the better and to turn away from evil deeds; unless one also makes satisfaction to God for what has been done through the sorrow of repentance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a contrite heart, accompanied by almsgiving (Matt. 5:7) (Serm. CCCLI, ch. 5, n. 12, in cit. Patrolog. XXXIX, p. 1549).

[1427] Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, vol. VII, *Tract. de indulgentiis*.

[1428] It is known from the canons of the councils that, before death, penances were lifted from the penitent, and they were admitted to church communion; and those excommunicated from the sacrament of the Eucharist were granted Holy Communion, even if the period of their penance had not yet ended (Council of Ancyra, Canon 6, 22; Council of Neocaesarea, Canon 2; Nicaea, Canon 1, 13; Carthage, Canon 7; Basil the Great, Canon 73; Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 2).

[1429] As the defenders of indulgences conclude.

[1430] Perrone, op. cit., *Tract. de indulgentiis*, proposition 1.

[1431] Catholic Institute in the Form of Catechesis, Vol. III, p. 307.

[1432] Perrone, *Tract. de indulg.*, propos. IV.

[1433] Perrone, *Tract. de indulg.*, propos. 1.

[1434] He can grant an indulgence; he can set aside his own judgment; he can mercifully forgive the penitent, the one who acts, and the one who asks; he can accept whatever the martyrs have requested and the priests have done on behalf of such people (De laps., ch. XXXVI, in Patrolog. curs. compl., Vol. IV, p. 494).

[1435] If anyone makes a supplication with all his heart, if he groans with true lamentations and tears of repentance, if he seeks forgiveness for his sin through righteous and continuous works, he may have mercy on such people… (ibid., p. 493).

[1436] De laps. chs. XVII, XXIX, XXXV, ibid., pp. 480, 489, 491.

[1437] …nor can a servant remit or grant indulgence for a grave sin committed against the Lord… (ibid., ch. XVII).

[1438] Martyrs can do nothing if the Gospel can be fulfilled, nor can they act contrary to the Gospel if the Gospel cannot be fulfilled (ibid., ch. XX, p. 483).

[1439] The martyrs command that something be done; but if it is just, if it is lawful, if it is not against the Lord Himself, it must be done by God’s priest… (ibid., ch. XVIII, p. 481).

[1440] I beg you to… carefully and prudently weigh the desires of those who petition, to examine the deeds, works, and merits of each individual, and to consider the nature and quality of their own sins as well… (Epistle X to the Martyrs and Confessors, n. 3, in Patrologia, vol. cited, p. 255).

[1441] …whose repentance you observe to be close to satisfaction… (ibid., n. 4, p. 256).

[1442] “In all cases, one must take into consideration the disposition and manner of repentance” (Canon 12).

[1443] “Healing, however, is to be measured not by time, but by the manner of repentance” (Canonical Epistle to Amathphilus, ch. 2). “We write all this so that the fruits of repentance may be tested. For we do not judge by time alone, but look to the manner of repentance” (ibid., rule 84; note 7).

[1444] “For those undergoing repentance with greater zeal, and who demonstrate through their way of life a turning toward the good, it is permissible for those who arrange what is beneficial in the governance of the Church to shorten the period of examination and bring them more quickly to conversion: likewise, to shorten the time for this and to admit them more quickly to communion, in accordance with how he, through his own examination, ascertains the condition of the one being healed” (Canon in the Epistle to Litoius, ch. 4).

[1445] Pope Innocent. Epist. ad Decent, c. VII.

[1446] Council of Ancyra, Canon 5; Council of Nicaea I, Canon 12, and others.

[1447] Nicaea I, canon 12; Gregory of Nyssa, canon 2.5; Carthage IV, canons LXXVI and LXXVIII.

[1448] As history confirms, even according to the accounts of historians of the Roman Church: see, for example, Fleury, 4 Discours sur l’hist. eccl., nos. 2 and 16.

[1449] Fleury, *Hist. eccles.* Vol. VI, Book 104, Chapter 48, ed. 1840.

[1450] Ἐλαιον, Hierem. respons. 1 ad August. Confess. c. VIII, in Act. Theolog. Wirtemberg. p. 81, ed. 1584.

[1451] Holy Oil, Goar, *Euchologion*, p. 408; *Jeremiah*, loc. cit., p. 79.

[1452] Euchelaiōn, Goar, *Eucholog.*, p. 417.

[1453] Extrema unctio. This term became known after the 12th century (Mabillon, preface to the first edition of the Ben edict, n. 98).

[1454] Sacramentum exeuntium, Conc., Exon. 1287.

[1455] Rosenmuller, in Jacob, vol. V, ch. 15.

[1456] By substituting these words for those of the Apostle—“and let him pray over him”—Origen apparently refers to one of the rites still observed during the Anointing of the Sick: the laying on of the priest’s hands upon the sick person (see the rite of the Anointing of the Sick).

[1457] In which is fulfilled what the Apostle James says… (in Lev. homil. II, n. 4).

[1458] See Chrysostom, *On the Priesthood* III, n. 6, pp. 59–63, in the Russian translation.

[1459] De adorat. in spir. et verit. lib. VI, Opp. Vol. 1, p. 211 (Paris, 1638).

[1460] … and the oil was a symbol of these things. Commentary on Mark VI, 13, in Vol. 1, p. 103, ed. Matth.

[1461] Serm. CCLXV, n. 3, in the appendix to Aug. Vol. V; cf. Serm. CCLXXIX, n. 5.

[1462] This cannot be administered to penitents, for it is a sacrament; since the other sacraments are denied to them, how can one sacrament be considered to be granted? (Epistle to Decent, ch. VII, n. 12).

[1463] *Lib. Sacrament.*, in *Opp.* Vol. III, pp. 235–237, ed. Maur.

[1464] Renaudot, *Perpet. de la foi*, Vol. V, Book 5, Chapter 1 and following; Asseman, *Bibl. Orient.*, Vol. III, “Dissertation on Nestorius the Syrian,” p. 276; Marten., *Antiqu. Eccl. ritib.*, Book 1, Part II, Chapter 7.

[1465] See άσδενέω, κάμνω in dictionaries—Ivashkovsky’s Greek-Russian, Alexander’s Greek-French, and others.

[1466] Chardon, *Hist. d’extr. onct.*, in *Curs. Theolog. compl.*, vol. XX, ed. Migne. Cf. Walter, *Manuel du Droit canon.*, § 319, Note – e.

[1467] … because bishops, being occupied with other duties, cannot go to all the sick (Epist. ad Decent. c. VIII, n. II).

[1468] Simeon of Thessaloniki, ch. 40, in Nov. Scripta, vol. IV, ch. 14.

[1469] Ibid. Cf. Marten, *De antiqu. Eccl. ritib.* 1, c. 7, art. 3, 4.

[1470] Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 1.

[1471] See “έγείρω” in the Greek dictionary by Ivashkovsky, Alexander, and others.

[1472] “Although you are about to proceed with the celebration of this sacrament (the Anointing of the Sick), preserve the ancient ecclesiastical custom regarding the priest: namely, that the sick person, before receiving it, should purify himself through the sacrament of penance—that is, by confessing his sins—and thereafter perform the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick for him” (Preface to the Anointing of the Sick in Peter Mohyla’s Book of Liturgical Rites).

[1473] Prayer 7, read during the Anointing of the Sick.

[1474] Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 2.

[1475] Rule 13 of the First Ecumenical Council states: “Regarding those who are at the point of death, let the ancient law and rule be observed even now, so that the dying person may not be deprived of the final and most necessary send-off,” and then specifies what exactly this send-off consists of: “To every departing soul, whoever they may be, who asks to receive the Eucharist, the Holy Gifts shall be administered, subject to the bishop’s judgment.”

[1476] “If anyone departs from this life without having completed the period of repentance prescribed by the canons, the love of the Fathers commands that he be admitted to the Holy Mysteries and not be sent forth on his final and distant journey without this final blessing” (Gregory of Nyssa, Canonical Epistle to Litoius, Canon 7).

[1477] This precise division of all seven sacraments of the Orthodox Church into three classes is clearly expressed by Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople: “Useful to all are baptism, chrism, and communion; to those consecrated to God—ordination; as marriage for the laity, and for those who have sinned after baptism—repentance and the anointing with consecrated oil (Respons. 1 ad Augustan. Confes. cap. VII, in Act. Theolog. Wirtemberg. p. 77).

[1478] Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 28, n. 1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, 6; Methodius, Discourses on the Decree Concerning Virgins, II, n. 2; Tertullian, Against Marcion I, 29; Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, homily XXI, n. 4; Augustine, Against the Second Manichaean, ch. XXII.

[1479] Epiphanius, *Haereses*, XXIII.

[1480] Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, 24; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata III, 1. 2; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures VI, n. 17; Epiphanius, On Heresies XXIV, XXVII.

[1481] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, I, 23, n. 1; Tertullian, *Adversus Marcionem*, I, 29, 30; IV, 11, 29; V, 7.

[1482] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, I, 28, n. 1; Eusebius, *Church History*, IV, 29; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, XLVI, LXI, n. 1.

[1483] Tum. Bostr. Against Manichaeans II, 16, 33; Augustine, On the Morals of Manichaeans II, 10, n. 19.

[1484] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History II, 43; Augustine, *Haereses* LXX.

[1485] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 23; Minucius Felix, Octav. XXXI; Augustine, Serm. LXI, n. 22. Accordingly, St. Gregory the Theologian says: “When marriage is truly marriage and a conjugal union, and there is a desire to leave behind children, then marriage is good, for it increases the number of those who please God” (Homily 37, in The Works of the Holy Fathers III, 221).

[1486] Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, XXI, n. 4; LIX, n. 3.

[1487] Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 12; Chrysostom, XLIII, n. 9; On Virginity, ch. XIX, XXV; Augustine, On Genesis According to the Letter, IX, 7, n. 12; On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1, 14.

[1488] Wedding ceremony, Balsam. in Theop. Alex. Resp. can. XI; sacred rite, Balsam. in Phot. Nomoc. Vol. XIII, ch. II; conjugium, nuptiae, nuptiale mysterium—Leo the Younger, Epist. ad Rustic. Narbonn. CLXVII, ed. Ball.

[1489] This idea is apparently expressed by some of the Church Fathers, who say that Christ then blessed, sanctified, and graced marriage with His presence (Epiphanius, Haeg. LI, p. 30; LXVII, ch. 6; Cyril of Alexandria, Book II on John, ch. 2, v. 1, Opp. Vol. IV, p. 135, Paris 1638; Augustine, Treatise IX on John, n. 2).

[1490] Is this not what St. Ambrose alludes to in his words: “Let us not deny that marriage is sanctified by Christ, who says with a divine voice, ‘the two shall become one flesh’…?” (Epist. ad Sirie. XLII)?

[1491] “Those who are to be married and those who are to be wedded must have their union blessed with the bishop’s consent, so that the marriage may be according to God and not according to desire” (Epist. ad Polycarp, n. 6).

[1492] On the Six Days, Discourses VII, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 132.

[1493] Sermon on Holy Baptism, ibid., III, 288.

[1494] Epistle to Vigil, XIX, or XXIII, n. 7.

[1496] Where, then, shall we begin to describe the happiness of marriage, which the Church brings about, the offering confirms, and the blessing seals (Ad uxor. II, c. 9)?

[1497] *Paedagogus*, III, ch. II; *Stromata*, III, 21, § 12.

[1498] Letter to Himerius of Tarragona, ch. 4.

[1499] Letter to Victricius of Rothomag, Chapter 6.

[1500] De praescr., haeret., ch. 40. Elsewhere: “It suffices to say among these things that, if the Creator’s sacraments are great in the eyes of the Apostle, they are minimal in the eyes of heretics. But I, however, say,” he says, “in Christ and the Church. It has an interpretation, not a separation of the sacrament. It shows the figure of the sacrament administered by Him, of whom it was certainly a sacrament” (Adv. Marcion. V, 18).

[1501] ... Why do you expound the mysteries of the sacred marriage?... united by the divine will... (in Genes. homil. XLVIII, n. 6).

[1502] On Abraham, I, chap. 7… let him make amends; and therefore, because he sins against God, he loses his share in the heavenly sacrament.

[1503] This conjugal affection unites two people into one flesh through a venerable sacrament (L. 1, Tr. II, on Hope, Faith, and Charity, n. 4).

[1504] On the Good of Marriage, ch. 18, n. 21; cf. ch. 24, n. 32.

[1505] De Genes. ad litt. IX, ch. 7; cf. de pecc. Orig. XXXIV, n. 39; XXXVII, n. 42.

[1506] Renaudot, *De la perpetuitate...*, Vol. V, Book 6, Chapter 1; Asseman, *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, Vol. III, Part I, p. 356; Vol. III, Part II, p. 319 ff.

[1507] The meaning of the prayer is as follows: “Lord, our God! Just as these uniting spouses are now adorned, in Your name, with crowns; so, by the power of Your blessing, crown and adorn their marital union with glory and honor, that this union may remain honorable, glorious, and unbreakable until the end of their lives, and that they may shine with mutual fidelity and purity of character, like bright crowns.”

[1508] For each has received the same. Therefore, this marriage, being performed according to Christ, is a spiritual marriage and a spiritual birth, …, entirely spiritual…, in Ephesians, Homily XX, n. 5.

[1509] See notes 1491, 1496, and 1500 above. And further: “so that you may marry in God according to the law and the Apostle, if indeed you care about such things—as you do, seeking this marriage, which those from whom you seek it are not permitted to have—from a monogamous bishop, from presbyters, and from deacons…” (Tertullian, *De Monogamia*, ch. XI).

[1510] Basil the Great, On the Six Days of Creation, VII, 5; Gregory the Theologian, Letter to Procopius, LVII; Chrysostom, Homily on the Same: On Fornication, n. 2.

[1511] Since marriage itself must be sanctified by the priestly veil and blessing… Epistle to Vigil, XIX, n. 7.

[1512] Syril, Letter to Himerus of Tarragona, 1, n. 5, 13; Innocent, Letter to Vitrigius of Rothomag, ch. VI, n. 10; X, n. 13.

[1514] Canonical Responses, response to question II, in the Book of Canons, p. 352.

[1515] Theod. Stud., Book 1, Epistle 1; Nikephorus, Chapter XXXIV; Photius, Nomocanon, Vol. XIII, Chapter II, Schol. in Justell., p. 1091.

[1516] See the section on weddings in the Trebnik.

[1517] Hermas, *Pastor*, Book II, Mandate IV, n. 4; Methodius, *De Conv. Decem*, *Virg. Orat.* III, n. 12; Chrysostom, *De Non Iterand. Conjug.* n. 1, 2; *In Tit.* Homily II, n. 1; Epiphanius, *Haeres.* XLVIII, n. 9.

[1518] Cyril of Jerusalem, General Instructions, Book IV, § 26; Basil the Great, Letters, CLXI, § 4; Epiphanius, On Heresies, LIX, nos. 4, 6.

[1519] Athinagoras, Legat, ch. XXXIII; Clumeas of Alexandria, Strom. III, 2; Gregory of Nyssa, Vita S. Macrinus, vol. II, p. 180, ed. Morel; Ambrose, De viduis, ch. IX; Chrysostom, De non iterand. conjug., n. 2.

[1520] Canon 1 of the Council of Laodicea; Canon 4 and 87 of Basil the Great.

[1521] Chrysostom, *De non iterand. conjug.*, n. 2; Ambrosiastus, *in I Corinth.* VII, 40; Theodorus of Cyzicus, *lib.* 1, *Epist.* L; Nicephorus, *can.* X.

[1522] Tertullian, *Exhort. cast.*, ch. VII; Origen, *in Luc.*, hom. XVII; Siricius, *ad Himer. Tarrac.*, chs. VIII–XII; Chrysostom, *in Tit.*, hom. Π; Epiphanius, *Expos. fidei cathol.*, n. 21; *haeres.* LIX, n. 4; Jerome, Epistle to Oceanus, LXXXII.

[1523] Basil the Great, On the Orthodox Faith, 4, 50, 80.

[1524] Justin, *Apologeticus* 1, n. 6; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* II, 23; III, 11; Basil the Great, *On the Six Days of Creation*, VII, p. 5; Chrysostom, *Epistle to the Syrians*. XXV; Epiphanius, *Expos. fidei cathol.*, n. XXI; *Haeres.* LIX, n. 4, 6; Cup. of Alexandria, *in Malach.*, n. 28; Theodoret, *in 1 Cor.* VII, 11; Lactantius, *Inst. Div.* VI, 23, and others.

[1525] Canon 8 of the Neo-Caesarean Council; Canon 115 of the Council of Carthage; Basil the Great, Canons 9, 21, 39, 48; Canon 87 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

[1526] Other names: ιερά τάξις (Gregory, Theological Lexicon 21), ιερά στάσις (ibid.), κλήρος (apud Suicer., Theeaur. eccles.), ordo sacerdotalia (Tertullian, Exhort. cast., ch. 7), ordo ecclesiasticus (Jerome, in Ep. XLIV).

[1527] Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Philad. n. X; Apostolic Constitutions, VШ, 16, 17; Chrysostom, de anathem. n. 4.

[1528] Mystical ordination, Council of Nicaea, Synodal Epistle (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1, 9).

[1529] Ordinatio, Cyprian, Epistles XXXIII, LXVIII.

[1530] Benedictio presbyterii, Council of Aurelian V (540), c. IV.

[1531] Sacramentum antistitis, Tatian, *De Baptism*, n. VI.

[1532] First Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius, Canon 1, p. 287 in the Book of Canons.

[1533] In *Acta Apostol.*, homil. XIV, n. 4; XV, n. 1.

[1534] Epistle to Diosc. LXXXI, ch. 1. Elsewhere: “Who, then, would dare to conceal the injustice perpetrated in such a great sacrament (of ordination)?” (Epistle to the Bishop of the Province of Mauretania Caesar. XII, ch. 3).

[1535] Canon 2. The Seventh Ecumenical Council repeats the same in Canon 5.

[1536] And further: “Let them explain how the sacrament of baptism cannot be forfeited, while the sacrament of ordination can be forfeited; for if both are sacraments—which no one doubts—why is the former not forfeited while the latter is? No sacrament is to be treated with disrespect” (Contr. epist. Parmen., Book II, Chapter 13, Note 28). See also Gregory the Great, in 1 Kings, Book IV, Chapter 5, where the priesthood is likewise called a sacrament.

[1537] Asseman, *Cod. liturg. eccl. univ.*, vol. VIII, p. 159; *Biblioth. Orlont.*, vol. III, part II, p. 331 ff.; Morin, *De sacr. ordinat.*, pp. 18 and 314.

[1538] “If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon receives a second ordination from anyone, both he and the one who ordained him shall be expelled from the sacred order; unless it is reliably known that he received his ordination from heretics. For it is impossible for those baptized or ordained by such persons to be either faithful or ministers of the Church” (Canon 68).

[1539] When ordaining a presbyter, O Bishop, he himself places his hands upon the candidate’s head. Lib. VIII, c. 16; cf. cap. 17.

[1540] Dionysius. *Apeona* on the Church Hierarchy, ch. V, n. 2; Ephrem the Syrian. *De Sacerd.*, vol. III, p. 3 (Greek ed.); Ambrose. *Epist.* II, n. 6.

[1541] Hippolytus, *On Charisms*, ch. II; Cornelius, *Epistle to Fabius of Antioch* (Eusebius, *Church History*, VI, 43).

[1542] Dionysius Areopagite, On the Church Hierarchy, ch. V, n. II, § 8; Hippolytus, On Charisms, ch. III, V.

[1543] Theodoret, Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:22; Celestine, Epistle XXII to the Synod of Ephesus, n. 2: “we were present… while the mystical words were being spoken over his head.”

[1544] See the rite of ordination in the Episcopal Service Book.

[1545] See note 1532 above and the text to which it refers.

[1546] See note 1533 and the text itself.

[1547] In 2 Timothy, Homily I, n. 2, Opp. T. XI, p. 661, ed. Maur.

[1548] On the Priesthood III, p. 59 in the Russian translation.

[1549] In *Baptism of Christ*, Vol. III, p. 370, ed. Morel.

[1550] On the Dignity of the Priesthood, chap. V, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. XVII, p. 577.

[1551] First Ecumenical Council, Canon 8.

[1552] Council of Carthage III, Canon LXVIII; Council of Carthage IV, Canons LII and LXXI; Augustine, Letter CLXXXV to Boniface, nos. 44 and 46; Letter LXI to Theodore, no. 2.

[1553] Onmam., Book 1, p. 44; cf. Bingham, *Origines Ecclesiae*, Vol. 1, Part II, Book IV, Chapter 7.

[1554] Letter to Theodotus, Bishop of Nicopolis, XXX, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, Vol. X, p. 285.

[1555] Faustinus and Mareellus, Petition to the Emperors, n. XIII, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XIII, p. 92. 101.

[1556] Faustini and Mareellini’s Petitions to the Emperors, n. XIII, in *Patrologia Cursus Completus*, vol. XIII, pp. 92, 101.

[1557] First Ecumenical Council, Canon 19; Pope Innocent, Epistle to Alexander XVIII.

[1558] Canon 4 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Epistle of the Council of Nicaea to Alexander (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.9).

[1559] As for the words of the Holy Apostle to Timothy: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of hands by the priesthood” (1 Tim. 4:14): here, the term “priesthood” (πρεσβυτέριον) refers to the council of the elders (πρεσβυτέρων, from πρεσβυς—“old”) of the Church, since the Apostle Paul himself was among them (2 Tim. 1:6), and by no means to ordinary priests. “It is not about the presbyters,” St. Chrysostom remarks on this passage, “but about the bishops, for it is not the presbyters who ordain the bishop” (in 1 Tim homil. XIII, n. 1).

[1560] Const. Apostol. III, c. 20.

[1561] Ibid., Book VIII, Chapter 46.

[1565] Epistle to Evagrius, LXXXV. Ambrose, Epistles, II, n. 6; XIII, n. 1; Theodoret, in Num. interrog., XVIII.

[1566] Apology Against the Arians, No. 12, Opp., Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 134, ed. Maur.

[1567] “Bishops, presbyters, and deacons should not be ordained until they have made everyone in their household Orthodox Christians.”

[1568] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I, 27, 31; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII, 12. See notes 1179–1484.

[1569] Such were all the great saints of the ancient Church: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and others. St. Gregory the Theologian, referring to the circumstances of St. Basil’s election to the See of Caesarea, says: “The disputes were all the more reckless for being all the more heated. For it was no secret who stood above all others, like the sun above the stars. Everyone saw this clearly, especially the most venerable and impartial of the citizens, all those belonging to the altar, and our Nazirites (monks), upon whom alone—or at least for the most part—such elections ought to have fallen; in such a case, the Church would have suffered no harm… For who among the right-minded would seek another, passing you by, O sacred and divine head, you who are inscribed on the Lord’s hands (Isa. 49:16), unbound by the bonds of marriage, unworldly, incorporeal, and almost bloodless?” (Sermon 18 in Praise of the Father, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, II, 137–138).

[1570] “While serving as a cleric in Thessaly, I was familiar with yet another custom. There, a cleric who continued to live with his wife—whom he had married before his ordination—was expelled from the clergy, whereas in the East everyone, even bishops, refrained from having relations with their wives of their own free will, that is, they themselves so desired, without being compelled to do so by an unalterable law; for many of them had children by their lawful wives during their episcopate” (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book V, Chapter 22, p. 431, in the Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1851). See the Collection of Carthaginian Canons 4, 34, 81.

[1571] Justin, Novellae VI, chap. 1: “But one who has previously professed the monastic life or been ordained to the clergy, yet remains married and has no children…” and so on.

[1572] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, ch. 1, ch. II, pp. 65–66, in Russian translation.

[1573] Council of Illiberit, canon 33, 65.

[1574] Council of Popes (385), canon 3; Innocent I (404), canon 2.

[1575] Leo (443), canon 3; Council of Aurelianum 11 (452), canon 7.

[1576] Council of Toledo (531), canon 1; Council of Tours (567), canon 19; Council of Altiss (570), canons 20–22. Cf. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts, § 212, Bonn, 1842.

[1577] Synod of Rotap (743), can. 1, 2; Council of August (952), can. 1, 11, 16, 17, 19.

[1578] Council of Lateran I (1123), canon 40, and other councils.

[1579] Public Teachings, Vol. III, § 2, p. 44, in the Russian translation.

[1580] Instructions on the Sacrament of Penance, III, § 3, p. 451.

[1582] Orat. in baptisma Christi, Vol. II, p. 803, ed. Morel.

[1583] Commentary on Matthew, LXXII, n. 4, in Vol. III, p. 421.

[1584] Letter to Caesar XCIII, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, X, 219.

[1586] This is particularly emphasized by Protestants.

[1587] Renaudot, *Perpetuité de la foi*, Vol. V, Book 1, Chapters 2, 3, 9; Galan, *Conc. Eccles. Arm. cum Rom.*, Vol. III, p. 439; *Dissert. de Coptis, Jacobitis*, Sect. III, n. 186 (in Bolland, *Jun.*, Vol. V, p. 140).

[1588] One cannot help but recall here the words of Tertullian: “quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum, sed traditum” (De praescriptione haeresium, ch. 28), and later those of Blessed Augustine: “What the whole Church holds, even if not instituted by Councils but always preserved, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority” (De Baptismo contra Donat. IV, 24, n. 31).

[1589] We have already pointed out many of these differences above.

[1590] Theolog. Wirtemberg... respons. 1 patriarch. Hieremiae ad Augnstan. Confess. c. VII, p. 77, Wirtemb. 1584.

[1591] On the Seven Sacraments, Chapter V (in Schellstrat, Acts of the Eastern Church Against the Lutherans).

[1593] Symeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, The Complete Works, Part II, On the Sacraments of the Church, Venice 1820, p. 74.

[1594] Decree to the Armenians at the Council of Florence.

[1595] In Allat., *De Eccles. Orient. et Occid.*, vol. III, ch. 16, n. 4, p. 1256.

[1596] Manuel Calec. Prine, Fld. Cath., chap. VI.

[1597] Galan. Conc. eccles. Armen. cum Rom. Vol. III, p. 439.

[1598] In Allat., *De Eccles. Orient. et Occ. Cons.*, vol. III, ch. 16, n. 4.

[1599] Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiae*, Part III, Question 65, Article 1; Bonaventure, *Commentary on the Four Books of the *Sententiae Breves***, Part VI, Cent. III, Sect. 47, Chapter 3; Alexander of Hales, *Summa Theologiae*, Part IV, Question 8, Member 2, Article 1.

[1600] See in *Collect. Concilior.*

[1601] Ottonis vit, Book II, Chapter 3, in Basnag., Thesaurus Monasticorum, Vol. III, Part II, p. 62.

[1602] Hugo of St. Victor, *Summa sentent.,* on the sacraments, Book 1, p. IX, ch. 2.

[1603] Petrus Lombardus, *Libri quatuor Sentent.,* Book IV, Chapter 13.

[1604] As is rightly concluded from the text of these liturgical rites themselves, samples of which Martenius appended at the beginning of his book *De antiquis eccles. ritibus libri IV*. Cf. Renaudot, *Perpetuité de la foi*, vol. V, book 1, chap. 7.

[1605] From the 27 chapters on the Holy Spirit to Amphilochius, rule 91, in the Book of Rules, art. 328.

[1606] Emman. a Schelstrate, *Diss. apolog. de disciplin. arcani*, Rome, 1685, chaps. II and III, where numerous proofs are cited in support of this truth.

[1607] For example, St. Justin (Apolog. 1, nos. 65, 66), Blessed Augustine (Enarr. 1 in Ps. CCXVIII, 14), St. John of Damascus (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, pp. 9, 13)—on baptism and the Eucharist.

[1608] For example, St. Ambrose (De sacramentis, Book VI) and St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Instructions on the Mysteries, Books I–IV)—on baptism, chrismation, and the Eucharist.

[1609] For example, Blessed Augustine says: “If what is said in the Gospel—‘God does not hear a sinner’ (John 9:31)—applies in this context, so that the sacraments may be celebrated for sinners; just as He hears the murderer who prays, whether over the water of Baptism, or over the oil of the Anointing of the Sick, or over the Eucharist, or over the heads of those upon whom hands are laid (the priesthood)? All of these, however, are performed and are valid even by murderers—that is, by those who hate their brothers—even within the Church itself (De baptism. V, c. 20, n. 28). St. Gregory the Great (in Sacramentario) also speaks of the four sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, and Anointing of the Sick.

[1610] See above for the names of these teachers.

[1611] For example, Blessed Augustine says in the same passage (see note 1607): “Look to the gifts of the Church itself. The gifts of the sacraments are found in Baptism, in the Eucharist, and in the other holy sacraments” (Enarr. cit., n. 9).

[1612] The same Blessed Augustine, for example, clearly classifies as sacraments—or refers to as sacraments—in addition to Baptism and the Eucharist (see the previous note), Confirmation—sacramentum chrismatis (see note 1039 above, on Confirmation), and Penance: “the cause of Penance is the same as that of Baptism” (De Poenit., 1, ch. 38, n. 35; see note 1360), Anointing of the Sick (note 1609), marriage—sacramentum (note 1504. 1505), the priesthood: both (baptism and Holy Orders) are sacraments, and both are conferred upon a person through a certain consecration—the former when he is baptized, the latter when he is ordained (Contr. Epist. Farmen. II, ch. 13, n. 98; see note 1536).

[1613] Renaudot clearly demonstrated this. *Perpetuité de la foi*, vol. V, book 1, chap. 8.

[1614] Gabriel of Philadelphia, *De sacramentis*, chap. V; see also Jeremiah, *Responsa*, 1, ad *Augustana Confessio*, chap. VII (in *Script. Theolog. Wirtemherg.*, p. 77). See also the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic Church, answer to question 98.

[1615] The Extended Christ Catechism, on Article X.

[1616] It is well known that there is a rather heated debate on this subject between the Latins and the Protestants—a debate not without, as is usually the case, extremes and scholastic subtleties (V. Perrone, *Praelect. Theolog.*, tract. de Sacrament. in genere, c. 3, prop. 3).

[1617] “Grace is not from human beings, but is given by God through human beings: approach the one who baptizes, but as you approach, do not look at the face of the one you see, but keep in mind the Holy Spirit, of whom we are now speaking. For He is ready to seal your soul (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XVII, § 35, p. 402). The priest does not sanctify the water, but fulfills the necessary service, having received grace from God (St. Athanasius the Great, *De Comm., Essent. Patr., Fil., et S. Sp.*, n. 40). See also note 1620.

[1618] Whether we baptize, compel repentance, or grant forgiveness to the repentant, we do so through Christ as the author (Tacian, ad Sympronianus, Epist. III, n. 7). See notes 1355 and 1356.

[1619] “The hand of a man is laid upon him, but God does the work; and his hand is the one that touches the head of the one being ordained, if he is ordained as required” (St. Chrysostom, in Act. homil. XIV, n. 3). Translated from the note dated 1550.

[1620] “Believe that even now the same Supper is being celebrated at which He Himself (Jesus Christ) reclined. For one is in no way different from the other. One cannot say that this one is celebrated by a man, while that one was celebrated by Christ: on the contrary, He Himself celebrates both. Therefore, when you see the priest offering you the gifts, imagine that it is not the priest who is doing this, but Christ who is extending His hand to you. Just as at baptism it is not the priest who baptizes you, but God who holds your head with an invisible power, and neither an angel, nor an archangel, nor anyone else dares to approach and touch you; so it is with Holy Communion. If God alone regenerates, then the gift belongs to Him alone” (Chrysostom, Homily 2 on Matthew, vol. 11, p. 357).

[1621] Homily on Holy Baptism, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. III, pp. 298–299.

[1622] In 1 Corinthians, Homily VIII, n. 1… “But he who works all things through the power of God is the one who initiates you into the mysteries.”

[1624] Epistle to the Donatists CV, n. 12.

[1625] Contr. lib. Petil. 11, 37, n. 88. And further: “While they baptize, as regards the visible ministry, both the good and the evil, invisibly, however, He baptizes through them, to whom both the visible baptism and the invisible grace belong” (Contr. Crescon. II, 21, n. 26).

[1626] …just as we are sanctified through unworthy priests. In Matth. VII.

[1627] Augustine, in John, Treatise V, n. 15; Against Crescon, III, ch. 8; On Baptism, III, 10, n. 15.

[1628] “And again, when He comes in glory to judge the living and the dead.” Similarly, in the liturgical books: “You who gave birth to the Son, who is above all creation, O Pure One, He is the Judge of the living and the dead and the Judge of the whole earth, and He saves from torment those whom He wills, especially those who worship Him with love through His images and who sing praises to You, the Mother of God, forever” (Trebn., p. 144, Moscow, 1836). “Standing before Your awesome, awe-inspiring, and fearsome throne, O Christ, just as those who have died from of old await Your righteous judgment and receive divine justice” (Octoechos, Part 1, fol. 158v, Moscow, 1838).

[1629] Barnabas, Epistle, ch. 7; Justin, Apology 1, ch. 8; Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 125; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 111, 16, n. 6; IV, 33, n. 3; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, n. 13.

[1630] Catechetical Lectures, XV, § 26, p. 333, in the Russian translation.

[1631] Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, § 14, pp. 417–418.

[1632] On Moral Principles 1, chs. 2 and 5, in The Works of the Holy Fathers VII, pp. 359, 361.

[1633] Discourses XV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. II, p. 54.

[1634] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Discourse XXXVI, in Vol. II, p. 139, in the Russian translation.

[1636] On Psalm VI, 6; cf. Psalm XCV, 1.

[1637] Commentary on Chapter 6 of the Gospel of Luke.

[1638] Commentary on Chapter 22 of the Gospel of Matthew.

[1639] Commentary on Chapter 25 of the same Gospel.

[1640] Sermon XXII, in praise of St. Athanasius the Great, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. II, p. 200.

[1641] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Discourses XIV, § 4, vol. I, p. 263.

[1642] Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew, XIII, § 6, Vol. I, pp. 251–252.

[1643] Discourses on Lazarus II, § 4, in Vol. I, Discourses to the People of Antioch, p. 63, according to the Russian translation.

[1644] Did you not know, after all, that what (Vincentius Victor) believes most rightly and salutarily—that souls are judged after they have departed from their bodies, before they come to that judgment in which they are to be judged with their bodies already restored, and that they are tormented in the very flesh in which they lived here—did you not know this, after all? (On the Soul and Its Origin II, 4, n. 8, in Patrologia Cursus Completus, vol. XLIV, p. 498).

[1645] An Inquiry into the Schism of the Bryansk Faith, p. 117.

[1646] Collected Works, vol. V, p. 8.

[1648] Some heretics taught that the soul dies along with the body, only to be resurrected with it on the Day of Resurrection (Eusebius, *Church History*, VI, ch. 37; Augustine, *On Heresies*, LXXXIII; Damascene, *On Heresies*, XC – *thneopsychitai*). The Nestorians asserted that, although the soul does not die, it remains in a state of unconsciousness throughout the entire period in question—that is, from the death of the body until its future resurrection (Asseman, *Dissert. de Nestor*, in *Bibl. Orient. Vol. III, Part 11, p. 342). This latter view was revived by the Anabaptists and certain Protestants (Zwingli, Elench. adv. Catabapt., Vol. III, n. 433).

[1649] However, the essence of this teaching is also expressed in the Orthodox Confession itself, although not as clearly or fully, and the term “temptations” is not used (see Part II, answer to question 25).

[1650] “Discourse on the Departure of the Soul,” in Opp. Vol. V, Part II, pp. 405–408, ed. Lutet., in Christian Readings 1841, 1, 202–207.

[1651] The same account of the “mytarstva” as a path common to all the dead is set forth in the life of St. Basil the New, where the Blessed Theodore, among other things, recounts: “As we were ascending the mountain, I asked the holy angels who were guiding me: ‘My lords, do all Christians pass through these trials, and is it not possible for any person to pass through them without the torment and fear that occur at the toll-houses?’ The holy angels answered me: ‘There is no other way for the souls of the faithful ascending to heaven; all pass through it, but not all are tormented as you are; only sinners like you, who have not made a complete confession of their sins, being ashamed and hiding their shameful deeds from their spiritual father; For if anyone truly confesses all his evil deeds, and feels sorrow and repents of the evils he has committed, those sins are invisibly blotted out by God’s mercy: and when such a soul comes on its own, the heavenly tormentors, having opened their books, find nothing written against it, and cannot inflict any harm upon it, and the soul ascends rejoicing to the throne of grace.”

[1652] “And it is fitting,” says St. Basil the Great, “that God’s judgment should not be coercive, but rather have more in common with the judgments that take place among people, and that it should give the accused an opportunity to defend himself, so that a person, having his case made clear, and upon receiving punishment may confirm God’s irrefutable judgments, acknowledging that the punishment has been imposed upon him in all justice, and likewise, upon receiving mercy, may recognize that forgiveness has been granted to him according to the law and in due order” (Commentary on Chapter 1 of Isaiah, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VI, 69–70).

[1653] Up until the fourth century, hints of this doctrine can be found in Tertullian (de anima, chap. 53, in Patrologia Care, compl., vol. II, p. 741), Origen (in John, vol. XIX, n. 4; Vol. XXVIII, n. 5; in Levit., hom. IX, n. 4), Hippolytus (adv. Platon, c. 1), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV, 18), and others.

[1654] Sermon on Those Who Have Fallen Asleep in Christ, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers*, vol. XV, pp. 269, 270, 271. St. Ephrem expresses the same teaching in his sermon refuting the claim that there is no resurrection of the dead (in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XV, pp. 115–116) and in his will (Chronicle of Readings, 1827, vol. XXVII, pp. 275, 285, 292).

[1655] The Life of St. Anthony the Great, in Orr., Vol. I, Part II, p. 845, ed. Maur., in the Cheti-Miny, Jan. 17.

[1656] Discourses on the Dual State of Those Who Have Departed from This Life, in Chr. Cht. 1828, XXXI, 113–114.

[1657] Sermon XI, on the memory of the departed (see in Margarita). The Holy Father speaks similarly in Sermon II on Lazarus, § 3, in Vol. I of Sermons to the People of Antioch, p. 61 in the Russian translation.

[1658] On the Gospel of Matthew, Homily LIII, in Vol. II, p. 414.

[1659] In one passage he says: “Let no one flatter himself with vain words (Eph. 5:6). For destruction will come upon you suddenly (1 Thess. 5:3), and ruin will overtake you like a storm. A grim angel will come, forcibly lead away, and drag off your soul—bound by sins, often turning back to what it leaves behind here, and weeping silently; for the instrument of weeping has already fallen silent” (Discourses, Exhortation to Accept Baptism, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, p. 241). And in another: “Turn your thoughts to the Last Day (for, without a doubt, you will not be the only one to live forever); imagine the turmoil, the shortening of your breath, and the hour of death; God’s approaching judgment; the hastening angels; your soul in that terrible confusion, mercilessly tormented by a guilty conscience, casting pitiful glances toward the hereafter; and finally—the inevitable necessity of that distant departure” (Letter 43 to the Fallen Maiden, and also X, 139).

[1660] De baptism. in Opp. vol. II, p. 220, ed. Morel.

[1662] Demonstr. Evangel. III, c. 5; Praeparat. Evang. XI, c. 20.

[1663] Lavsaik, ch. 24, pp. 89–90, St. Petersburg, 1850.

[1664] Essay on the Departure of the Soul, in Chr. Cht. 1831, XLIII, 126–131.

[1665] Homily 1 to the Monks, in Bibliotheca Patrum, Vol. VII, p. 656.

[1666] Sermon on the Departure of the Soul, in the Prologue for October 29, folio 211, verso.

[1667] Epist. Cubicularium, in Biblioth. PP., Vol. XXVI, p. 581.

[1668] (1668) John Climacus, *The Ladder of Paradise*, p. 158, Paris 1633.

[1669] (1669) On his deathbed, he prayed to the Lord Jesus as follows: “My Lord! Have mercy on my soul, that it may not encounter the wiles of evil spirits, but that Your angels, who guide us through the dark trials and lead us to the light of Your mercy, may receive it” (The Four-Day Service, May 3).

[1670] He expounds on the doctrine of the trials in great detail (Memorials of 12th-Century Russian Literature, p. 92, Moscow 1821).

[1671] See Le-Quien, *Diasert. Damascen.* V, in *Opp. s. Joan. Damasceni*, vol. I.

[1672] “When the dreadful hour comes for my soul to be separated from my body: then, my Redeemer, receive it into Your hands, and preserve it from all calamities unharmed, and may my soul not behold the gloomy gaze of the wicked demons, but may it pass through all the purgatorial torments and be saved” (Collected Works, vol. I, p. 179).

[1673] Such as: the Life of St. Anthony the Great on January 17; the Life of St. John the Merciful on October 29; the Life of St. Basil the New on November 12 and March 26.

[1674] And also: “At the hour, O Virgin, of my end, deliver me from the hands of demons, and from judgment, and strife, and terrible trials, and bitter torments, and the fierce prince, O Mother of God, and eternal condemnation” (Octoechos, vol. I, p. 286 on the reverse side, Moscow 1838).

[1675] Also: “Have mercy on me, O most holy angels of Almighty God, and deliver me from the torments of all the wicked; for I have no good deeds to counterbalance my evil deeds” (Trebnik, p. 182, reverse side, Moscow, 1836).

[1676] “The angels then took Lazarus away. On the other hand, the soul of that man (the rich man) was taken by certain terrifying forces, perhaps sent for that purpose; for the soul does not depart of its own accord to that life, since that is impossible. If we, when traveling from city to city, need a guide, how much more will the soul—torn from the body and presented to the life to come—need guides? That is why, as it departs from the body, it often rises and falls, and is afraid and trembles. For the awareness of our sins always torments us, but especially at that hour when we are about to be led away to the torments and the dreadful judgment that await us there.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies to the People of Antioch, III, On Lazarus II, § 3, vol. I, p. 61, according to the Russian translation).

[1677] “There is also a mental (νοητός) place in which the mental and incorporeal nature is conceived by us and exists. In it, she is present, acts, and is contained not bodily but mentally; for she has no form (σχήμα) by which she could be contained bodily. An angel, though not confined to a place in a corporeal sense, so as to have an external form and appearance, is nevertheless said to be in a place, because he is spiritually present there and acts there according to his nature; and he is not found in another place, but possesses an intellectual form precisely where he acts” (St. John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 13, pp. 42–43).

[1678] A Sermon on the Departure of Souls, in Chr. Readings 1831, XLIII, 126.

[1679] Compare, for example, the detailed description of the trials in the sermon of St. Cyril of Alexandria and in the life of St. Basil the New.

[1680] 1 Corinthians 1:5, 50, in Chr. Cht. 1824, XIV, 243, 287.

[1681] … para. 19, in the Liturgy of the Hours, 1821, 139.

[1682] See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V, ch. 2, p. 268 in the Russian translation.

[1683] And further: “How great is the dignity and how great is the security… to close one’s eyes for a moment, through which men and the world were seen, and to open them again immediately, so that God and Christ may be seen!” (Epistle to Fortunatus, On the Exhortation to Martyrdom).

[1684] On Christ and the Antichrist, n. 21.

[1685] See Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, Chapter 42, p. 385.

[1686] For these (the martyrs) are indeed glorified by God. V, ch. 8.

[1687] Ignatius, Epistle to Tralles, n. 13; Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, III, p. 3, § 9; Athenaios, Legatus, XXXI; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII, 10; Origen, On the Principles, 11, 11.

[1688] Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, pp. 138, 139.

[1691] Homilies on Philippians, III, nos. 3, 4; Homilies on 2 Corinthians, X, no. 2.

[1692] Even if they have tasted the death of the body, they nevertheless attain an incorporeal life and are illuminated by the splendor of their own merits, and they also enjoy eternal light (De Cain et Abel. II, 9, n. 31).

[1693] “Where else should the soul of St. Ephrem dwell but in the heavenly dwellings, but where the ranks of the angels are, where the choirs of the prophets are, where the thrones of the apostles are, where the joy of the martyrs is, where the gladness of the saints is, where the radiance of the teachers is, where the triumph of the firstborn is?” (De vita S. Ephr., in Vol. III, p. 316, Morel.).

[1694] Your Holiness’s Discourses on the Feast of St. Barlaam the Martyr, in The Holy Fathers of Tver, vol. VIII, p. 274; Hilary, in Ps. 194, n. 5.

[1695] The noble souls of the victorious soar through heaven, joining in such heavenly choirs (Graec. aflect. cur. disp. VIII).

[1696] It is not easy to stand in Paul’s place or hold Peter’s position, now that they reign with Christ (Epistle V to Heliodorus).

[1697] Adv. monophys. IV, in Mai T. VII, 196 ff.

[1698] (1699) Dialog. IV, 25, 28; in Job, ch. III, n. 48.

[1699] In the Octoechos of Tone 2 for Tuesday Matins, in the 9th ode, he exclaims: “Passion-bearing martyrs! The earth, having opened wide, received your blood, and heaven received your divine spirits.”

[1700] See notes 1683, 1685, 1688, 1690, 1693, 1695, 1698, and 1699 above.

[1701] On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Church prays: “Accept, O Lord, our prayers and supplications, and grant rest to all the souls who have departed before us, in the hope of the resurrection to eternal life: inscribe their spirits and names in the Book of Life, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the land of the living, in the Kingdom of Heaven, in the paradise of bliss, guiding them all through Your bright angels into Your holy dwellings...” (Prayer V).

[1702] Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV, 34; On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 17, 43; On the Soul, ch. 7, 8, 55; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, VII, 21; Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 120, n. 16.

[1703] Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 258, 288.

[1704] Cyprian, Epist. LVI ad Thiaritanos; Chrysostom, orat., in S. Philogonium, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 494, ed. Montfauc.; in 2 Cor. homil. X, n. 2.

[1705] He is now (St. Acholius) a resident of the higher realms, a citizen of that eternal Jerusalem which is in heaven. There he beheld its immense expanse…, perpetual light without the sun; and though he had long since known all these things, they are now revealed to him face to face, etc… (Epistle XV, n. 4).

[1706] Hilary, *Tract. in Psalm.* II, n. 48; Augustine, *De Civitate Dei* XXII, 30; *In Psalm. XXXIII. Enarr.* II, n. 9.

[1707] Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 262–263.

[1709] Homil. XXVIII, on ch. XII of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[1710] Homil. XXXIX, on 1 Cor. 11:3.

[1712] Athanasius, Epistle to Prince Antiochus, response to question 20 (in Chr. Cht. 1842, 11, 224); Ambrose, *De bono mortis*, ch. 10, n. 47; Augustine, *Tract. m Psalm. XXXVI*

[1713] “The reward at the (Last) Judgment will undoubtedly be increased. For the righteous now enjoy bliss only in their souls; but then they will also enjoy it in their bodies, and they will rejoice in the very bodies in which they endured sickness and suffering for the Lord. This multiplied glory is written of: ‘They shall receive a double portion in their own land’ (Isa. 61: 7). And concerning the souls of the saints who abide in heaven until the day of the resurrection, it is written: “White robes were given to each of them, and it was said to them, ‘Rest a little while longer, until their fellow servants and their brothers have also been killed’” (Rev. 6:11). “The righteous now shine only with the glory of the soul, but then they will rejoice in the glory of both soul and body” (Dialog. IV, p. 25).

[1714] St. Basil the Great, in a homily for the feast of St. Baraeam the Martyr, observes: “The martyr looks not to the dangers, but to the crowns; he is not terrified by the blows, but counts the rewards; he sees not the executioners who scourge him here on earth, but imagines the angels greeting him from heaven; he has in mind not fleeting dangers, but eternal rewards. And already our martyrs are reaping the bright pledge of glory, for, hailed by all with enthusiastic greetings, they draw thousands of people into their net from their coffins. This very thing has now come to pass for the valiant Barlaam. The martyr’s trumpet of battle has sounded, and, as you see, it has gathered the warriors of piety. The ascetic of Christ, lying in his grave, has been proclaimed, and has revealed a spectacle to the Church” (Works of the Holy Fathers, VIII, 274–275). And St. Gregory, in his eulogy for his sister Gorgonia, says: “If our praise is of any salvation to you, if it is granted by God as a reward to holy souls to feel such praise, then accept my words as well” (ibid., I, 288).

[1715] Well-known opponents of the dogma of the veneration of saints include: Eustathius of Sebaste, condemned by the Council of Gangra (c. 340); later, Vigilantius, the Eunomians (Jerome, Epist. ad Ripar. adv. Vigilant.) and the Manichaeans (Augustine, adv. Faust. XX, 14); in the Middle Ages—the Albigensians, Paulicians, Bogomils, Waldensians, and followers of Wycliffe and Hus; and in modern times—Protestants in general.

[1717] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 15, p. 217.

[1718] The Martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in the Holy Thursday Service of 1822, VIII, 356.

[1719] Gregory of Nyssa, *Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus*, ch. 27; Basil the Great, Letter to Amphilochius 169 (or 176), in *Works of the Holy Fathers*, X, 359; Gregory the Theologian, Homilies, as cited by St. Gregory of Nyssa, ibid., 1, 304; John Chrysostom, Sermon on Anna 1, n. 1.

[1720] St. Basil the Great, Letter 244 to the Bishop of Pontus, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XI, p. 216.

[1721] Laodicean Canons 51; Carthaginian Canons 56, 94.

[1722] We offer annual sacrifices for the departed on their birthdays (De corona, ch. 3).

[1723] We always offer sacrifices for them, as you know, whenever we celebrate the passions of the martyrs and their annual commemorations (Epistle XXXIV).

[1724] Chrysostom, Homily XXI on the Acts of the Apostles, n. 4; Augustine, Sermon CCLXXIII, ch. 12.

[1725] Vit. Macrin., in Opp. Vol. II, p. 200, Morel.

[1726] “Having taken up your positions in advance within this sacred enclosure of the martyrs, and from the middle of the night appeasing God, the God of the martyrs, with hymns, you have endured until this noon, awaiting my arrival; therefore, for you who prefer the honor of the martyrs and service to God to sleep and rest, a reward is ready” (Homilies on Ps. 114, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, V, 397).

[1728] For example, Basil the Great’s major homilies on the feast of St. Barlaam the Martyr, on St. Mamant the Martyr, on the Forty Holy Martyrs, and others (Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V); Gregory the Theologian’s homilies in praise of St. Cyprian the Martyr and others (ibid., 1 and 11); Chrysostom’s Homilies in Praise of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, Meletius, Eustathius, and others (Chronological Readings 1835, 1836, 1842, and others).

[1729] See the entry: “martyrium” in the General Index to the Works of Chrysostom (Opp., vol. XIII, ed. Montfauc.). “The churches of the holy martyrs serve as a sign and image of the future judgment; in them, demons are tormented, while people are punished and absolved. Do you see what power the Saints possess, even those who have died?” (Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians, Homily XXVI, p. 533, according to the Russian translation).

[1730] “Wishing to distinguish the city that bore his name, he (Emperor Constantine) adorned it with numerous places of worship, magnificent churches dedicated to the martyrs, and stately buildings, which he constructed partly in the suburbs and partly within the fortress itself; and, in this way, having honored the memory of the martyrs, he consecrated both them and his own city to God” (On the Life of the Blessed King Constantine, Book III, Chapter 48, Section 202, according to the Russian translation; cited in Book IV, Chapter 62, p. 275).

[1731] De sii. Dei VIII, 26, n. 1.

[1732] “In this city there is a famous and glorious church, built in memory of the Apostle Thomas, and in that church, because of the holiness of the place, regular gatherings are held” (Socrates, Life of Constantine, Book IV, Chapter 18, p. 345, according to the Russian translation).

[1733] Eusebius, *The Life of Emperor Constantine*, Book IV, Chapter 68, p. 272.

[1734] Socrates, *History of the City*, Book VI, Chapters 6 and 12, pp. 461, 478.

[1735] Cyril of Alexandria, *Apol. ad Theod.*; *Epist. XX ad Cler. constantinopol.*; *XXI ad Cler. alex.*

[1736] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, p. 217.

[1737] Discourses on the Four Holy Martyrs, in Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, p. 295.

[1738] Discourses on St. Gordius the Martyr, ibid., pp. 281–282.

[1739] Discourses on St. Mamant the Martyr, ibid., p. 266.

[1740] Discourses on 2 Corinthians, XXVI, pp. 530–531.

[1742] Contr. Faust. XX, c. 21. And subsequently: “Since the offering of a sacrifice pertains to this worship…, we in no way offer such a thing, nor do we command that it be offered to any martyr, or to any holy soul, or to any angel; and whoever is led astray into this error is rebuked by sound doctrine, whether to be corrected, condemned, or warned.

[1743] Second Council of Nicaea, Acts IV.

[1744] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 15, pp. 262–266. Elsewhere he also says: “We worship those in whom God, the One Holy One, dwells, and who dwell in the saints, such as the Holy Mother of God and all the saints. For they have become like God in every possible way, both by the action of their own will, and by God’s dwelling within them, and by His assistance… They are worthy of worship not by their own nature, but because they have within themselves the One who is by His own nature worthy of worship: just as red-hot iron is not by its own nature untouchable and burning, but because it has taken in fire, whose natural property is to burn. Thus, we worship them because God has glorified them and made them formidable to enemies and benefactors to those who come to them in faith; we worship them not as gods and benefactors by their very nature, but as servants and ministers of God who have boldness before God out of love for Him; we worship them because the King Himself takes honor in it when He sees that the person He loves is honored—not as a king, but as an obedient servant and a friend well-disposed toward Him” (See Word III on Icons at the end of The Orthodox Confession of Faith, pp. 217–219).

[1745] This idea is set forth quite clearly in The Rock of Faith: “There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all… Just as the oneness of the heavenly Father does not negate earthly fathers, nor does the oneness of Christ as guide and teacher negate earthly guides and teachers, nor does the oneness of Christ’s holiness and lordship take away holiness from the other saints or lordship from earthly lords: so, likewise, the unity of Christ as Intercessor does not set aside the distinction of other intercessors, but rather mediates through the incomparable nature of His intercession and the immeasurable distance He bridges. For Christ is the Intercessor by excellence, as it is said: “The saints, however, are intercessors of a lower order and far removed from Christ in rank.” Christ is the Intercessor of redemption and of the filial supplication to the Father. The saints, however, are intercessors of a single, friendly supplication, according to the words of the Psalm: “Your friends, O God, were a great honor to me” (Ps. 138:17). Christ is the Intercessor, needing no other intercessors for Himself; the saints, however, who lived here on earth, sought Christ as their Intercessor, and now seek Him—not for their own sake, but for ours. Christ is the Intercessor, possessing the power of intercession from Himself; the saints, however, are intercessors, possessing the power of intercession from Christ and from the merits of His crucifixion, like iron, which does not possess the power to burn from itself but from its participation in fire. Christ is the Intercessor by nature; the saints, however, are intercessors by grace”… And further: “When the Apostle says that Christ is the one and only intercessor and mediator between God and man, he says this because Christ is not only a mediator by His office—as the One who reconciles God to man—but also by His very nature, mediating between God and man: for He is both God and man, which was absolutely necessary for the reconciliation of man with God. For this reason, Christ alone is such an intercessor and mediator. The saints, however, are not, nor can they be, such intercessors. This is what the Holy Fathers—Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact, Epiphanius, Cyril, and others—teach and proclaim…” (Dogma on the Invocation of Saints, Part II, Chapter 1, in Book II, pp. 254, 255, 256.

[1746] To this common Protestant objection—that “invoking other intercessors causes offense and contempt toward Christ”—The Rock of Faith responds with the following two counterarguments: 1) “Jesus Christ is the sole intercessor between God and man. For in vain does Paul call upon those living on earth, asking for their prayers. The Apostle James also says in vain: ‘Pray for one another’ (James 5:16). And you, my opponents, also call upon one another in vain, ask one another for prayer, and teach others to do the same. Since Christ is the only intercessor, both Paul and James—and you—are causing offense and showing contempt toward Christ… 2) “Christ says in the Gospel: ‘Do not call yourselves teachers, for you have one Teacher, Christ; and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor call anyone on earth your ‘mentor,’ for you have one Mentor, Christ (Matt. 23: 8). For there is one Teacher, Christ; one Mentor, Christ; one Father in heaven: did Paul sin by calling himself a teacher of the Gentiles? Why, then, do you, adversaries, call yourselves a father, a teacher, and a mentor on earth? For you cannot call the one who begot you anything other than “Father,” and you cannot call those who teach you anything other than “teachers” and “mentors.” Why, then, do you transgress the Lord’s commandment? Tell us. You cannot answer otherwise than by agreeing with us and saying that there is one Father in heaven in supremacy, and one Teacher and Instructor, Christ, in supremacy. For from that one Father all fathers on earth proceed, and from that one Teacher and Instructor, Christ, all teachers and instructors receive true teaching and instruction. Earthly fathers are indeed fathers, but in the lowest order; they are fathers by paternity, proceeding from the one heavenly Father. Likewise, earthly teachers and instructors are truly teachers and instructors, but in the lowest order: that is to say, they receive their true teaching and instruction from the one Teacher, Christ. – The same must be understood when we hear or read: “One Holy One, one Lord Jesus Christ.” But how is Christ the one Holy One, how is Christ the one Lord, when Scripture also calls other saints “holy” and other lords “lords”? The answer to this is the same as above. Christ is the one Holy One, the one Lord, surpassing all in holiness and lordship, subject to no one, proceeding from no one, and incomparable to anyone. The other saints and lords, however, are of the lowest order, far removed from Christ; they are saints and lords by virtue of holiness and lordship that come from above. And just as red-hot iron burns not by its own power, for iron in itself is cold, but burns and scorches through its participation in fire, which imparts its fiery power to the iron: so too should we speak of the holiness and lordship of the other saints and lords” (ibid., pp. 252–254).

[1747] “Just as we have no doubt that the prophets, while still in mortal bodies, saw heavenly things, which is why they foretold the future: so too do we not only have no doubt, but we also firmly believe and confess that the angels and the saints—who have, as it were, become like angels—see our needs in the boundless light of God” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 8). The ancient teachers of the Church also explained this knowledge of the Saints in the same way (Augustine, *De cara pro mortem gerenda*, nos. 18, 19; Gregory, *Homilies on Job*, XII, 26). “Is it possible,” the latter asks, “not to know Him who sees and knows all, even as we see Him?” (Dialog, IV, p. 33)?

[1748] Renaudot, *Liturg. orient. collect.*, Vol. II, p. 33, Paris 1716.

[1749] Ibid., p. 145, 176, and following.

[1750] See the prayers for the consecration of the Holy Gifts, etc.

[1751] Asseman. Cod. liturg. Eccl. universae, Vol. IV, Parts 1, 2, 3. Rome, 1751; Zaccaria, Dissert. de liturg. in rebus theolog. usu, Coroll. 17, 18.

[1752] Instructions on the Mysteries, V, n. 9, pp. 462–463.

[1753] The Martyrdom of St. Ignatius of Bogon, in *Chronicle Readings* 1822, VIII, 355–360.

[1754] See *Acta martyrum Scillitanorum*, in *Acta martyrum sincera*, ed. by Ruinart, p. 87.

[1755] (1785) See the Acts of St. Maximus—ibid., p. 157.

[1756] Church History, Book VI, Chapter 5, p. 330.

[1757] Hymn in Praise of St. Cyprian, Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. II, p. 255.

[1758] On the Church Hierarchy, Book VII, Part 3, § 6.

[1759] Epistle LVII to Cornelius, p. 96, ed. Mavr.

[1760] Preparations for the Gospel, XIII, ch. 11.

[1761] Discourses on the Holy Four Martyrs, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, pp. 306–307.

[1762] Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. II, p. 103.

[1763] Ibid., p. 264. He offers similar prayers to St. Athanasius the Great (ibid., p. 213) and to St. Basil the Great: “Look down upon me from on high, O divine and holy head, and by your prayers, quell the thorn in the flesh given to me for my instruction (2 Cor. 12:7), or teach me to bear it patiently, and direct my whole life toward what is most beneficial” (ibid., IV, 139).

[1764] On the Gospel of Matthew, Homilies V, paras. 4–5, in vol. 1, pp. 96–97.

[1765] In the Homily on Genesis, XLIV, n. 2.

[1766] Eulogy on the Martyrs, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XV, 250.

[1767] Martyrs are to be implored, for we see that they vindicate their patronage over us as a pledge of their bodies. They can intercede for our sins, for they have washed away their own sins with their own blood—even if they had any—for these are God’s martyrs, our shepherds, and the watchers over our lives and deeds. Let us not be ashamed to call upon them as intercessors for our weakness... (On Widows, ch. 9).

[1768] He addresses the holy martyr Theodore thus: “Intercede for the fatherland before our common King and Lord. We are threatened by the greatest dangers… Warrior, fight for us; martyr, intercede boldly for your compatriots. Though you are in another world, you are always aware of human afflictions and needs. Ask for peace for us, so that our holy gatherings may not cease… We beg you, do not deprive us of your protection henceforth. If an even stronger intercession is needed: gather the ranks of the martyrs, your brothers, and pray together with them all. “The prayers of many righteous people will cover the sins of the nations” (Orat. de s. Theodor., in Opp. t. 111, p. 585, ed. Morel.).

[1771] If the apostles and martyrs, while still in the body, are able to pray for others—even when they must still be concerned for themselves—how much more so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?… (Adv. Vigilant. Vol. IV, Part II, p. 285, ed. Martianay).

[1772] “The churches of the victorious martyrs are magnificent… We hold very frequent gatherings there… Those who enjoy full health pray for its preservation, while the sick pray for a speedy recovery. The childless ask for children, and the barren pray for the blessing of motherhood. Those setting out on a journey pray to the holy martyrs to be their companions and protectors, while those who have returned safely pour out their feelings of gratitude before them. “We do not address them as gods; rather, we simply ask them, as holy men, to intercede for us before God” (De martyr, serm. VIII, in Opp. t. IV, p. 605, ed. Cramoisy).

[1773] “At the Lord’s Supper, we commemorate the holy martyrs not so that we may pray for them, as we do for others who have departed this life, but so that they may pray for us” (In Joan. LXXXIV, in Patrolog. curs. compl. vol. XXXV, p. 1847).

[1774] Leo the Great, Serm. IV, c. 6; Serm. XVIII, c. 3; Gregory the Great, in Evang. lib. II, homil. XXXII, n. 8.

[1775] Council of Chalcedon, Acts X.

[1776] Conc. Nic., Act. VI. See note 1743.

[1777] Renaudot, *Liturg. orient. collect.*, Vol. II, pp. 646–647.

[1778] Bruce, *Voyage to the Sources of the Nile*, London 1730, Book VIII, p. 113.

[1779] Renaudot, ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 41, 42.

[1780] Khudobashev, Memoirs on the Doctrine of the Armenian Church, pp. 141, 245. St. Petersburg, 1847.

[1781] Protestant objections to this dogma are thoroughly examined in The Rock of Faith (on the Intercession of the Saints, Part II, Chapters 1 and 2, in Book II, pp. 248–338).

[1782] “He (Elisha), while still alive, performed the miracle of resurrection through his soul. However, so that not only the souls of the righteous might be honored, but people might also believe that the bodies of the righteous possess such power: the dead man who had been laid in Elisha’s coffin came back to life upon touching the prophet’s dead body. The prophet’s dead body performed the deed in place of his soul. Even though it was dead and lay in the coffin, it bestowed life upon the dead man; and having bestowed life, it itself remained dead as before. Why? So that this deed might not be attributed solely to the soul when Elisha was raised from the dead; but to show that even when the soul is not present in the body, there remains within the bodies of holy people a certain miraculous power, since for many years a righteous soul dwelt within it, to which the body was subject” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Homilies XVIII, ch. 16, p. 420).

[1783] In the Works of the Holy Fathers 11, 262.

[1784] First Sermon Against Julian, ibid., 1, 125.

[1785] Epist. XXII, n. 9, in Patrolog. curs. compl. Vol. XV, 1022. Blessed Augustine also testifies, as an eyewitness, to the miracles that occurred through the relics of the aforementioned martyrs (Confessions IX, p. 7; De Civitate Dei XXII, 9; Retractations 1, 13, n. 7).

[1786] Hymns in Praise of the Holy Martyrs, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 128.

[1787] Hymns in Honor of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, no. 5, in *Chronicle of Readings* 1835, III, 255–256.

[1788] Sermons on 2 Corinthians, XXVI, pp. 532–533, based on the Russian translation.

[1789] Sermons on the Memory of St. Bavila the Martyr, in *Chronicle Readings* 1842, III, 309.

[1791] Leo the Great, Sermons, IV, p. 4; Gregory the Great, Dialogues, IV, 40; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 15. “Our Lord Christ has granted us the relics of the Saints as saving springs that bestow manifold blessings: they pour forth fragrant myrrh (Ex. 17:6), and no one should doubt this… We no longer call those who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and with faith in Him (God) ‘dead.’ And indeed, how can a dead body work miracles? How is it that through the relics of the saints—demons are cast out, diseases are repelled, the infirm are healed, the blind receive their sight, lepers are cleansed, temptations and sorrows are put to an end, and every good gift from the Father of lights descends upon those who ask with unquestioning faith (James 1:17)?” (- pp. 263–264).

[1792] Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, II, ch. 3; Nikephoros Kallistos, Ecclesiastical History, XV, ch. 26. Here are accounts of miracles performed by the robe of the Mother of God and by her belt.

[1793] See, for example, in the Cheti-Miny: Jan. 7; Oct. 26; June 9; Aug. 2, 25, and many others.

[1794] See reports of miraculous healings from the relics in *Christian Thursday* 1833, 1, 401; 1834, 1, 112; 1839, 1, 414, and others.

[1795] From ancient sources, see St. Gregory of Nyssa, *Orat. de s. Theodoro martyre*, in *Opp.*, vol. III, pp. 579–580, ed. Morel.

[1796] (1786) See the sermon by His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, on the incorruptibility of holy relics, Part II, p. 174, Moscow, 1844. Here, among other things, we read: “Just as a vessel in which fragrant ointment is kept for a long time takes on its fragrance, so too the very body of a Christian, in which the grace-filled power of Christ constantly dwells, is permeated by it throughout its entire being, and even exudes its fragrance to others. And since the power of Christ is incorruptible, it is natural that, as it dwells (2 Cor. 12:9) in those who belong to Christ (Gal. 5:24), it imparts incorruptibility to their bodies; since the power of Christ is almighty, it is also in accordance with its nature that it works miracles through them when it pleases the Lord, just as it once worked miracles through the headcloths and handkerchiefs that were on the body of the holy Apostle Paul and absorbed his sweat (Acts 9: 12), and through a single passing of the shadow of the holy Apostle Peter (Acts 5: 15)” (- p. 182). And further: “To this day, the bodies of the departed saints remain incorrupt, possessing miraculous and life-giving power for us who are alive, as a testimony—if, to the shame of our times, there are still unbelievers among us— —as proof of Christ’s Resurrection and of our own future resurrection, to strengthen the weak in their struggle against sin and death, and to inspire the inattentive and the negligent to acts of piety” (p. 184).

[1797] For more on this topic, see Sosnina: On the Incorruptibility of Holy Relics.

[1798] “The wish of St. Ignatius the Martyr was fulfilled—that no one should be burdened with gathering his remains for the sake of the brethren, since he had previously expressed in a letter that this was how he wished to end his life. For only the hardest parts of his body remained, which were taken to Antioch and placed in a cloth, like a priceless treasure, by the grace that dwelt in the martyr, left to the Holy Church” (On the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius, in Chr. Cht. 1822, VIII, 355).

[1799] “We then gathered his bones, a treasure more precious than precious stones and purer than gold, and laid them where they belonged” (Epistle of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, in the Works of St. Eusebius, Book IV, Chapter 15, p. 217).

[1800] John Chrysostom, Eulogy for the Holy Martyrs Juvenal and Maximus, in *Chronological Readings* 1842, III, 336.

[1801] Ambrose, *Exhortation to Virgins*, I, 1, n. 1; Chrysostom, *Eulogy for St. Ignatius the God-Bearer*, in *Chronological Readings*, 1835, III, 254: “You (the inhabitants of Antioch) sent the bishop away, but received the martyr; you sent him off with prayers, but received him with crowns: and not only you, but all the inhabitants of the cities along the way. Imagine what they all must have felt upon the return of his holy relics? What delight did they experience? In what rapture were they? With what praises did they extol the crowned one from every side? Just as spectators enthusiastically greet a brave warrior who has defeated all his opponents and is marching triumphantly from the battlefield—not even allowing him to set foot on the ground, but lifting him up and carrying him on their shoulders into the house, showering him with countless praises— In the same way, all the inhabitants of the cities, beginning with Rome, successively carried this saint on their shoulders and brought him to our city, glorifying the crowned one and honoring the ascetic… At that time, the holy martyr bestowed grace upon all those cities, establishing them in piety; and from that time until this very day, he has been enriching your city.”

[1802] Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. de s. Theodor., Opp., vol. III, p. 579, ed. Morel; Philostratus, Hist. eccl., III, 2; Theodoret, Hist. Relig., nos. 10, 13, 16; Leo the Great, Epist. LX; Paulinus, Epist. XXII, n. 17.

[1803] Gregory of Nyssa, *Vit. a. Greg. thaumat.*, n. 27; Basil the Great, *Epistles* 143, 282 (in *Works of the Holy Fathers*, X, 309; XI, 281); Jerome, Epist. ad Jul. XCII; Acmep., on the icon of St. Euphemia the Martyr, in Chr. Cht. 1827, XXVII, 37–38.

[1804] See note 1740 above and the very words to which it refers.

[1805] Council of Carthage, Rule 94; Council of Nicaea, Rule II, 7.

[1806] We read of the martyr’s nails—and indeed many of them, so that there were more wounds than limbs… We gather the blood of triumph and the wood of the cross… (Ambrose, Exhort. Virginit., ch. II, n. 3. 10). For what does your ingenuity not find for the victor’s glory, when even the instruments of torture have been transformed into symbols of triumph? (Leo the Great, in Natal. s. Laurentii).

[1807] Church History, Book VII, Chapter 19, p. 425.

[1808] In *Chronicle of Thursday*, 1835, vol. III, pp. 255–257.

[1809] In *Chronicle Readings*, 1842, Vol. III, pp. 337–338.

[1811] Epistle XXXVII (also known as SIX), no. 1. And in his treatise against Vigilantius, he wrote: “It grieves me (Vigilantius) that the relics of the martyrs are covered with a precious veil… Are we therefore sacrilegious when we enter the basilicas of the Apostles?” Was Emperor Constantine a sacrilegious man, who transferred the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy to Constantinople?… And furthermore: for who, O insane mind, has ever worshiped the martyrs? Who has ever considered a man to be God? (Contr. Vigilant, n. 5).

[1812] Council of Nicaea, Session XI, Act VI. For detailed responses to Protestant objections against the veneration of holy relics, see *The Rock of Faith*, vol. 1, pp. 343–360 (Dogma on the Relics of the Saints, Part II, Chapters 1 and 2).

[1813] In their letter to the emperors, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council express this idea more clearly: “From time immemorial, it has been the custom of the Holy Catholic Church and has been sanctioned by the holy first teachers of our faith and their successors, our illustrious Fathers, to venerate (προσκονεΐν) holy icons and to honor (άσπάζεσθαι) them—which is one and the same thing. But worship and service are not one and the same. Gregory the Theologian says: ‘Honor Bethlehem and worship the manger.’ Who among those of sound mind would think that this refers to spiritual service (περί τής έν πνεύματι λατρείας)? Is St. Gregory really calling us to serve (λατρεύειν) the manger? Worship (προσκύνησις) expresses love and respect for someone. Therefore, Scripture teaches us: “You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” (Luke 4:8). Here the word “you shall worship” stands without the addition of “the one and only,” since worship can be rendered to many. But it goes on to say: “you shall serve the one and only,” for service (λατρεία) is due only to God” (apud Labb. Concil. T. VII).

[1814] Outline of Church History by His Eminence Innocent, 8th century, sections II and V, in vol. I, pp. 395 and 420–425, 4th ed.

[1815] Conf. Helvet. 1, c. 4; Heidelberg Catechism, qu. XCVIII; Racov. Catechism, qu. CCLI et seq.

[1816] “Since this (Seventh Ecumenical) Council makes it abundantly clear how holy icons are to be venerated, while condemning to anathema and excommunication those who ascribe divine worship to icons, or who call Orthodox Christians who venerate icons idolaters: therefore, together with them, we also condemn to anathema those who, whether to a saint, an angel, or an icon, or a cross, or the relics of the saints, or sacred vessels, or the Gospel, or anything else—whether in the heavens above, or on earth, or in the seas—bestow the kind of honor that is due to God alone in the Trinity.” (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Answer to Question 3, pp. 37–38, St. Petersburg, 1845).

[1817] See the priest’s conversation with a Molokan on the veneration of holy icons—in *Christian Readings*, 1841, III, 81–113.

[1818] Therefore, I honor and venerate the images themselves, especially since they have been handed down from the holy apostles and have not been forbidden, but are displayed in all our churches. Epist. CCCLX to Julian the Apostate in Opp. Vol. III, p. 463, ed. Maur.

[1819] Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.* IV, c. 27; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 16, p. 268; Epistle to Emperor Theophilus, no. 5, in Opp., vol. 1, p. 631, Le-Quien; Kedrun, History, Book 1, p. 175, in Chr. Readings 1834, III, 154–163.

[1820] Act. IV, cited in Labb, Vol. VII.

[1821] Theodore the Reader, *Hist. eccl.* 1, sect. 1; John of Damascus, *Epist. ad Theophilum Imperat.*, n. 4, p. 631; *Orat. adv. Constantinum Cabalin.*, n. 6, p. 618. Vol. 1, ed. cit.

[1822] Some of these icons are now in our country, such as, according to tradition: the Icon of the Vladimir Mother of God, the Icon of the Smolensk Mother of God, and the Icon of the Ephesian Mother of God (see Sakharova, Studies on Russian Iconography, vol. II, pp. 20–23, St. Petersburg, 1849)

[1823] “If by any chance a shepherd is depicted in the chalice…” (De puditicis, chap. X). And further: “Let the paintings of your chalices speak for themselves, if even in them the interpretation of that sheep will shine forth” (ibid., chap. VII).

[1824] Tertullian says that the pagans therefore called Christians, in reproach, *religiosi crucis* (Apolog. c. XVI), *antistites erucis* (ad Nation, 1, 12); Minucius Felix, referring to the same reproach from the pagans (Octav., chs. IX, XII, XXIX), remarks: “we do not worship crosses” (ch. XXIX); Origen, Against Celsus, II, n. 47.

[1825] Church History, Book VII, Chapter 18, p. 425.

[1826] This testimony is cited by St. John of Damascus in his Third Homily on Icons, Opp. Vol. 1, p. 382, in the Chr. Readings for 1828, XXX, 46.

[1827] It is also cited by Damascene (ibid., Opp., p. 390, and Chr. Readings 61; cf. Galland, Bibl., Vol. III, p. 781).

[1828] Raoul-Rochette, *Premier mémoire sur les antiquités chrétiennes: Peinture des catacombes*, p. 185, Paris 1836; Mar. Lupi, *Dissertations*, Vol. 1, Treatise VIII, p. 243 ff.; Aringhius, *Roma subterranea novissima*, Book III.

[1829] D’Agincourt, *Storia dell’arte, coi monumenti*, Prato 1826, vol. IV, p. 69 ff.; Mar. Lupi, Vol. I, Dissertation VIII, p. 213 ff.

[1830] Mamachius, *Orig. et antiqu. Christ.*, Rome 1751, Book 1, Chapter 1, § 8 et seq.

[1831] Ciampinius, *Vetera monumenta*, ch. 14, Rome, 1690.

[1832] Why do they have no altars? No temples? No well-known images? (In Minut. Felic. in Octav. c. XXXII; cf. Origen, Against Celsus, VIII, n. 17).

[1834] A Eulogy in Honor of the Father, Works of the Holy Fathers 11, 142.

[1835] Orat. de s. Theodor. in Opp. Vol. III, p. 579, ed. Morel.

[1836] Sermon on the Icon of St. Euphemia the Martyr, in *Chronicle Readings* 1827, XXVII, 33–42.

[1837] Pauline. Epist., ad Sulpic. XXII, n. 2, 5.

[1838] Epist., Book IV, Letters LXI and LXII.

[1839] Demonstration of the Gospel, Book V, cited by St. John of Damascus in his treatise III on icons, Chr. Cht. 1828, XXX, 15.

[1840] On the Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book IV, Chapters 69 and 72, pp. 281–283, according to the Russian translation.

[1841] Quoted by St. John of Damascus in Discourse III on Icons, Chr. Ch., 1828, XXX, 45.

[1843] He speaks of Sts. Gervasius and Protasius: “when a third person appeared to me, who seemed to resemble the blessed Apostle Paul, whose likeness I had learned from a painting” (Epistle LIII).

[1844] “Whether we are being born, the cross is presented to us; whether we wish to partake of this mystical food, whether we are to be ordained, or whatever else we do—everywhere this sign of victory stands before us. That is why we take great care to inscribe it on houses, on walls, on doors, on our foreheads, and in our hearts” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Lecture LIV, in Vol. II, p. 426).

[1845] Orat. contr. Jud. et Gentil. n. 9, in Chr. Readings 1832, XLVII, 46–47.

[1846] I believe that in several places they (Peter and Paul) were seen depicted together with Him (Christ) (De consens. Evangel. 1, c. 10).

[1847] Contr. Faust. XXII, ch. 73.

[1849] Fragmenta historiae ecclesiasticae, p. 581, ed. Vales, in Chr. Quart. 1828, XXX, 43–44.

[1851] In Damascius’s Glossary of Iconography, in Chr. Readings 1828, XXX, 10.

[1852] “Worship the wood of the cross” (in St. Cyril of Alexandria, *Contra Julianum*, Book VI, in *Opp.*, Vol. VI, Part II, p. 194, ed. Aubert.).

[1853] In Xp. Thu. 1827, XXVII, 41.

[1854] Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Book 1, ch. 34, p. 66, ed. Vales.; Philostorgius. Hist. Eccles. Book II, n. 17, p. 176, ed. cit.

[1855] Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, Book 1, Chapter II.

[1856] However, such evidence, in great abundance, can be found in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (apud Labb. T. VII) and especially in St. John of Damascus’s Homily III on Icons (Chron. Th. 1828, XXX).

[1857] See, for example, the Prologue for October 11, August 16, 22, and many others. Some of these accounts were cited at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Labb., Vol. VII, pp. 251–282).

[1858] See, for example, in Chr. Cht. 1829, XXXVI, 357; 1830, XXXVII, 235, and others.

[1859] Nilus, *Epistolae*, Book IV, Letters LXI, LXII; Gregory the Great, *Epistolae*, Book IX, Letter IX, to Serenus.

[1860] See the Life of Mary of Egypt, April 1, and the Complete Collection of Russian Liturgical Texts, vol. 1, p. 46.

[1861] See the exact words in note 1832 above.

[1862] Origen, *In Matth.*, tract. XXVIII, n. 38; *In Jes. Nav.*, homil. X, n. 3; Apollonius, *Adversus Gentiles*, Book IV, toward the end; Eusebius, *Church History*, Book VIII, ch. 13; Lactantius, *De Mortibus Persecutorum*, ch. 13, and others.

[1863] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, t. 25, n. 6; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, XXVII; Augustine, *De Haeresis*, c. 7.

[1864] Irenaeus, loc. cit.; Epiphanius, Against Heresies XXVII, n. 6; Theodoret, Against Heresies and Fables, Book VII.

[1865] It was decided that there should be no paintings in churches, so that what is venerated and worshiped would not be depicted on the walls.

[1866] De-Aguirre, *Collect. max. conciliorum Hispaniae*, Rome, 1693, Vol. 1, p. 502 ff.

[1867] For other objections to icon veneration and responses to them, see *The Rock of Faith*, vol. 1, pp. 115–200 (dogma on holy icons, part XI, chapter I).

[1868] Cohort. Graec. c. XXXV; cf. quaest. ad Orthod. LXXV.

[1869] *De mortal.*, p. 466, ed. Baluz.

[1870] Tract. in Psal. II, n. 48; cf. in Psal. LVII, n. 5, 6.

[1871] On the assertion that there is no resurrection, in Works of the Holy Fathers, XV, 115–118.

[1872] Sermon on the Resurrection of the Dead, in Christian Readings 1837, III, 49.

[1873] (1878) Discourses on the fact that God is not the cause of evil, in Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VIII, p. 145.

[1874] Discourse Encouraging the Acceptance of Baptism, ibid., 241.

[1875] Tertullian, *De Anima*, p. 2; Clement of Alexandria, *Recognit.* IV, 14; Gregory of Nyssa, *Orat. in eos, qui differ, baptism*, Opp. T. II, p. 220, ed. Morel.

[1876] “Whoever, while living in this body, has not obtained forgiveness of sins, and thus has departed from life, perishes before God and ceases to exist, remaining in punishment” (Commentary on Isaiah LXV).

[1877] The souls of the righteous, separated from the body, are at rest, while the wicked endure punishment (De civit. Dei XIII, 3).

[1878] Gregory the Great, *Dialogues*, IV, 28.

[1879] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses* IV, 12, n. 1; Tertullian, *De Anima* c. 55; Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata* VI, 6; Basil the Great, *Homilies on Psalm XLVIII*, in *The Works of the Holy Fathers* V, 371; Epiphanius, *Haeresia* LXIX, n. 62; Hilary, *In Psalm* LIII, 14; Jerome, *Commentary on Ephesians* IV, 10. See also note 1868 above. 1871–1874.

[1880] Vaculus, Great Commentary on Isaiah, V, 14, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, VI, 222; Athanasius, Great Epistle to Antiochus, response to question 19, in Historical Readings, 1842, II, 224.

[1881] “You ask: where will Gehenna be? In my opinion, somewhere outside this entire world. Just as royal dungeons and ore mines are far away, so too will Gehenna be somewhere outside this universe” (on Rom. Homilies XXXI, p. 703, according to the Russian translation).

[1882] Ibid., pp. 702, 703. Cf. Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 16.

[1883] “For me, their future torments and the punishment awaiting sinners are most lamentable. I am not yet speaking of the greatest punishment, that is, of how agonizing it will be for them to be rejected by God” (Exhortation 1 Against Julian in The Works of the Holy Fathers 1, 115).

[1884] “Is there a particular torment? Yes, there is. What is it? Despair, the sense of an angry God, deprivation of eternal blessings, a dark and dreadful place, the constant vision of the devil and living with him, and the torment of the soul caused by him, unquenchable fire, and the undying worm of conscience” (St. Demetrius of Rostov. Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 60).

[1886] Letter to Antiochus, reply to question 20, in Chr. Cht. 1842, II, 224.

[1887] (1887) *De bono mortis*, ch. 10.

[1888] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily XXVIII, n. 3, in Vol. I, p. 581.

[1889] In John, Treatise XLIX; cf. *De Civitate Dei* 1, 13; XII, 9, n. 2; XX, 9, n. 2. 3.

[1890] Of certain people it would not be true to say that their sins are not forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come, unless there were others to whom, even if not in this age, forgiveness will be granted in the age to come (Augustine, *De Civitate Dei* XXI, 24, ch. 2; cf. Gregory the Great, *Dialogues* IV, 4. 39).

[1891] It contains the following prayer for the dead: “Lord, God of spirits and of all flesh, remember the Orthodox, those whom we have commemorated and those whom we have not, from righteous Abel to this day; Thou Thyself grant them rest in the dwelling place of the living, in Thy kingdom, in the delights of paradise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our holy fathers, from whence sickness, sorrow, and sighing have fled; where the light of Your countenance shines and illuminates forever” (see Liturgies of the Holy Fathers—James… Paris, 1560).

[1892] Bona, *De rebus liturg.* H, ch. 1, § 7; *De officio defunct.* § 2. 3; Lebrun, *Explicat, de la Messe*, dissert. X, Vol. III, p. 300, Paris, 1741.

[1893] See Apostolic Constitution VIII, chs. 41–42, in Coteler, Vol. I, p. 419; cf. ibid., note 25.

[1894] …it is necessary to speak of the tradition handed down to us by our divine teachers. 1144 Eccles. Hier. c. VIII, sect. 11, §§ 4, 6, in Opp. Vol. I, pp. 411, 413, Antwerp 1634.

[1895] Quoted by St. John of Damascus in his homily on those who have fallen asleep in the faith, Opp. Vol. 1, p. 592, ed. Le-Quien; Chr. Cht. 1827, XXVI, 325.

[1896] Ibid., in Damascene, Opp. Vol. I, p. 584, in Chr. Cht. 1827, 313.

[1897] It was not the apostles who instituted that, in connection with the sacred mysteries, remembrance be made of those who have departed... In Philip. hom. III, n. 4.

[1898] ... all these things were ordained by the Spirit... In Act. apost. hom. XXI, n. 4.

[1899] A Sermon on Those Who Have Departed in the Faith, Chr. Th. 1827, XXVI, 309.

[1900] We offer prayers for the departed on the anniversary of their passing (De coron. milit. c. 3). And further: indeed, he prays for her soul, and requests temporary relief for her, and fellowship in the first resurrection, and offers prayers on the anniversary of her passing (De monog. c. 9).

[1901] Epistle LXVI to the Clergy and Laity of Furtina.

[1902] On the Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book IV, Chapter 71, p. 272, according to the Russian translation.

[1903] Instructions on the Mysteries, V, § 9, pp. 462–463.

[1904] Orat. on the Death of Theodosius. Cf. On the Departure of Satyrus 1, n. 80.

[1905] Testament, in Xp. Cht. 1827, XXVII, 294. And elsewhere: “Let us ceaselessly implore Him (God) to blot out the sins of His flock—the children of His chosen and holy Church—and to purify the sins of the departed who have rested in hope of Him;(On Repentance, XXXVI, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XVI, 343).

[1906] Arnobius, *Adversus Gentiles*, IV, 36; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXXV, n. 7; Gregory the Theologian, *Eulogy for Caesarius*, in *Works of the Holy Fathers*, I, 258, 267; Augustine, Confessions IX, 13, n. 34, 37; *De Civitate Dei* XX, 9, n. 2.

[1907] Calvin, *Institutes*, III, ch. 10; Bingham, *Origines Ecclesiae*, XV, ch. 3, § 16.

[1908] Instruction on the Sacraments, V, p. 10, p. 463.

[1909] In Philip. homil. III, n. 4.

[1910] ... how will He not do the same for us as well.... In the Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, XXI, n. 3.

[1911] … For the entire Church observes what has been handed down by the Fathers, namely, that prayers be offered for those who have died while receiving the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, as they are commemorated in their place during the Sacrifice itself… (Serm. CLXXII, n. 2).

[1912] Contr. haeres. Aёr. LXX, n. 3.

[1913] Quoted by John of Damascus in his homily on the departed, Chr. Cht. 1827, XVI, 345.

[1914] Testamentary, in Chr. Readings 1827, XXVII, 293.

[1915] Athanasius, Epistle to the Antiochians, response to question 34, in Chr. Cht. 1842, II, 328.

[1916] Therefore, new merits are not attributed to the dead, since they themselves do nothing on their behalf, but these consequences are bestowed upon them as a result of their prior deeds (Serm. CLXXII, n. 2).

[1917] Words on the Departed in the Faith, Christian Readings 1827, XXVI, 327–328.

[1918] The Church traces this prayer for those who have died a vain death back to the Apostles themselves (see the Synaxarion for Meatfare Sunday).

[1919] “The sayings: ‘For You will repay each person according to his deeds,’ and ‘Everyone will reap what he has sown,’ and similar ones, without a doubt, refer to the coming of the Creator, to the terrible judgment that is to take place then, and to the end of this world; for then there will be no room for any help, and every prayer will be in vain. For when the market closes, it will be too late to engage in trade. For where will the poor be then? Where will the clergy be? Where will the psalm-singing be? Where will almsgiving be? Where will acts of charity be? Therefore, before that hour comes, let us help one another, and let those who love the brotherhood, who are philanthropic and merciful toward souls, offer sacrifices of brotherly love to God” (John of Damascus, Sermons on the Departed in the Faith, Chr. Readings 1827, XXV, 513).

[1920] Orthodox Confession, Part I, answers to questions 64–66; Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Article 18. Mark of Ephesus, Gabriel of Philadelphia, and other Orthodox teachers of the East taught the same (see apud Le-Quien, Dissert. Damascen. V, pp. LXV–LXVIII). Therefore, one cannot agree either with those who say that souls, through the prayers of the Church, are delivered not from hell but from the limbo, which thus constitutes, as it were, a special intermediate or third place between heaven and hell (see The Stone of Faith, Book II, p. 440 on the blessed departed, Part II, Chapter 3); nor with those who, while admitting that souls are delivered from hell, nevertheless regard hell as one and the same as the purgatory, as a distinct, intermediate place between heaven and Gehenna (Protopresbyter Nikolskiy, On Prayer for the Dead, pp. 62–94, St. Petersburg, 1847). We cannot agree: for the Orthodox Church does not admit of an intermediate state of souls after death, a third place between heaven and hell, or Gehenna (Orthodox Confession, Part 1, answers to questions 64, 67, 68).

[1921] Const. Apost. VIII, p. 42, cited in Coteler, Patr. Apost., vol. 1, p. 424.

[1922] Ephrem, “Testamentary Discourse,” in Christian Readings 1828, XXVII, 292; Macarius of Alexandria, “On the Departure of the Soul,” in *Christian Readings* 1831, XLIII, 126–131; Ambrose, *Orat. de obitu Theodosii*; Pallas, *Lavsaic.*, ch. 26; Isidore of Pelusium, *Epist. lib. 1, epist. 114*.

[1923] Ismoun, *Novell.* 133; Eustratus, apud Phot. *Bibliotb.* cod. CLXXI; Damascene, *Dictionary on the Decline of Faith*, *Chron. Readings* 1827, XXVI, 322; Philip the Hermit, apud Coteler, *Patr. Apost.*, vol. 1, p. 424, note 5.

[1927] The Stone of Faith, on the blessed repose, Part 1, Chapter 5, Sections II, pp. 431–434.

[1928] Dictionary of the Departed in the Faith, Christian Readings 1827, XXVI, 324.

[1930] Perrone, *Praelect. Theol.*, vol. III, pp. 308–310, Lausanne, 1839; Feier, *Inst. Theol. Dogmat.*, VII, pp. 41–47; *Curs. Theolog. compl.*, VII, p. 1604 et seq.; Lieberman, *Inst. Theolog.* V, pp. 406–413, Paris, 1839.

[1931] At the Council of Florence, this doctrine was expressed as follows: if truly penitent souls have departed in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for their sins and omissions through the worthy fruits of penance, their souls will be purified after death from the pains of Purgatory, and, in order that they may be relieved of such punishments, the intercessions of the faithful—namely, the sacrifices of the Mass and prayers—will be of benefit to them… (In definit, fidei).

[1932] See §§ 226–228 above; on penances and so-called indulgences.

[1933] At the Council of Florence, this doctrine is expressed as follows: if truly penitent souls have departed in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for their sins and omissions through the worthy fruits of penance, their souls will be purified from the pains of Purgatory after death, and, so that they may be relieved of such punishments, the intercessions of the faithful—namely, the sacrifices of the Mass and prayers—will be of benefit to them… (In definit, fidei).

[1934] Curs. Theolog. compl., loc. cit.

[1935] Perrone, *Prael. Theolog.*, vol. III, pp. 310–318, 325, 327; Klee, *Manuel de l’hist. des dogm.*, vol. II, p. 474, Paris, 1848.

[1936] Bellarmin, *De Purgatorio*, Book II, Chapter 11.

[1937] Feier, Inst. Theolog. dogm. VII, pp. 42–43; Curs. Theolog. compl. VII, pp. 1068–1612.

[1938] “The Apostle says: ‘And for this reason God will send them a deluding influence’ (2 Thess. 2:11). ‘Will send’ means the same as ‘will allow to happen’—not so that they might be justified, but so that they might be condemned. Why? Because they did not believe the truth (v. 12), that is, the true Christ, but took pleasure in falsehood, that is, in the Antichrist. God will allow this to happen during the time of persecution, not because He is unable to prevent it, but so that, as is usually the case, He may crown His faithful for their endurance—just as He did with His prophets and apostles—so that through their brief sufferings they may inherit the eternal kingdom of heaven, as Daniel says: “And at that time all your people who are found written in the book will be saved” (Daniel 12:1); clearly, this refers to the Book of Life (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies XV, ch. 17, p. 325).

[1939] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 25, n. 1, et seq.; Hippolytus, *On the Antichrist*, ch. 14, 15; Tertullian, *On the Prescription of Heresies*, ch. 4; Eusebius, *In Luc.* XVII, 24; Chrysostom, *De cruc. et latron.* homil. 1, n. 4; II, n. 4; Ambrose, *Bened. Patriarch.* c. 7; Jerome, *In Ps.* LXXXIX; Theodoret, *In Nam.* quaest. III.

[1940] Lactantius, *Inst. Divin.* VII, 17; Hesychius of Jerusalem, *Quaest.* IX, in Coteler, *Monum. eccles. Graec.* Vol. VIII; Jerome, *in Isa.* ch. XVI, XIII.

[1941] Cyril, Homilies, General Instructions, V, n. 14, p. 321; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 26, pp. 300–301.

[1942] “Before the coming of Christ, the enemy of mankind and the adversary of God, the demon, the usurper of God’s name, will appear in the world, clothed in human nature” (Theodoret, A Brief Exposition of the Divine Dogmas, ch. 23, in Chr. Readings 1844, IV, 355).

[1943] “Knowing that there will be no forgiveness for him at the judgment, he will wage open war not through his servants, as is customary, but by himself, through all manner of false signs and wonders. Being the father of lies, he will deceive the imagination through deceptive acts, so that the people will imagine they are seeing a resurrected dead person, even though he has not been resurrected; they will imagine they are seeing the lame walking and the blind seeing, even though there has been no healing” (Cyril of Jerusalem, General Instructions, XV, § 14, p. 321). The same is found in St. Ephrem the Syrian’s commentary on the coming of the Lord and the Antichrist (Works of the Holy Fathers, XIV, 31).

[1944] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 30; Hippolytus, *On the Antichrist*, chs. 14, 15; Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew*, XVII; Ambrose, *Blessing of the Patriarch*, ch. 7; Jerome, *Commentary on Micah*, ch. IV; Augustine, *The City of God*, XX, 7.

[1945] “The blasphemer and lawbreaker who will not receive the kingdom from his ancestors, but will seize power through sorcery” (Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, XV, § 13, pp. 320–321. Cited in: Damascene, Exact Exposition of the True Faith, Book IV, Chapter 26, p. 301).

[1946] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 25, n. 1; 28, para. 2; Cyril of Jerusalem, *General Discourses*, XV, para. 15, p. 322.

[1947] Ephrem the Syrian, Homily on the Second Coming of the Lord and the Antichrist, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 33; John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, ch. 26, p. 301, and others (see Coucepa’s Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus under the entry: άντίχριστος).

[1948] “The Antichrist will reign for only three and a half years. We say this, drawing not from books whose divine inspiration is unknown, but from Daniel; he says: ‘And he will be given into his hand until a time, times, and half a time’ (Dan. 7:25). By “a time” is meant one year, during which he will appear and grow in power; by “times” are meant the following two years of his lawless reign, which together with the first will make up three years; and by “half a time” are meant six months. And in another passage, Daniel also says: “And they will swear by the living God forever, for a time, times, and half a time” (Dan. 12:7). (Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, XV, § 16, pp. 323–324).

[1949] In general, more detailed information about the Antichrist can be found in the book by His Eminence Stephen Yavorsky: Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist and the End of the Age. Moscow, 1703.

[1950] De civit. Dei XX, 19, n. 3.

[1951] Hammond, in 2 Thessalonians.

[1952] Klee, *Manuel de l’hist. des dogm. Chret.* Vol. 1, p. 133, Paris 1848.

[1953] Luther, Captiv. Pabyl.; Calvin, Inst. IV, 8, n. 10.

[1954] The essence of the dispute on this subject between Protestants and Roman Catholics is briefly outlined in *The Theology of St. Irenaeus Falkowski*, Book XVII, p. 6, in Vol. II, pp. 262–263.

[1955] “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens (v. 30)—that is, the cross, which is brighter than the sun; for the sun is darkened and hidden, while the cross appears; it would not appear if it were not far brighter than the sun’s rays. But why does this sign appear? To utterly put to shame the shamelessness of the Jews. For Christ will come at this judgment, possessing the greatest justification—the cross—revealing not only His wounds but also His shameful death” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily LXXVI, §3, Vol. III, pp. 309–310). “The Holy Cross will appear first again at the Second Coming of Christ, as the honorable, life-giving, venerable, and holy scepter of Christ’s Gift, according to the words of the Lord, who says that the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens (Matt. 24:30)” (Ephrem the Syrian, Homily on the Holy Cross, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIV, 41). See Cyril, Hieromonk, General Discourses, XV, ch. 22, pp. 329.

[1956] Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, XV, ch. 1, pp. 308–309.

[1957] See the creeds: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Athanasian Creed, as well as those of St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., 1:10), Tertullian (De Praescriptione Haeresium, ch. 13), and others.

[1958] Letter of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of Polycarp, § 14, in Chr. Readings 1821, I, 135. Cf. Ruinart, *Acta Martyrum Sincerum*, pp. 70, 150, 494, Amsterdam, 1713.

[1959] Justin, Apology 1, ch. 18, 52; Tatian, *Contra Graecus*, ch. 6; Theophilus, *Ad Autolicum*.

[1960] The following authors left behind specific works on the resurrection of the dead: St. Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Methodius, Eusebius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Zeno of Verona, and others.

[1961] Justin, *Dialog. cum Thyph.*, ch. 80; Tertullian, *De resurr. earnis*, ch. 1; Augustine, *De civit. Dei*, XX, 20; Cyril of Alexandria, *In Joann.*, XX, 24, 25.

[1962] Tatian, *Contr. Graec.*, ch. 6; Minucius Felus, *Ad Octav.*, ch. 16; Gregory of Nyssa, *De Opif. Homin.*, ch. 26; Jerome, *Epist. XXXVIII ad Pammach.*

[1963] Tertullian, *De Resurrectione Carnis*, ch. 68 et seq. “Let various plant seeds be mixed together (I present weak examples to you, who are weak in faith), and let these various plant seeds be found in a single handful of yours: is it difficult for you, a human being, or, on the contrary, easy to distinguish what is in your handful, to separate the seeds of each plant according to their nature, and to give them their proper place so that they may grow? So, you can distinguish and restore to its former state what is in your hand; but can God not distinguish and restore to its former state what is contained in His hand?” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures XVIII, ch. 3, p. 407).

[1964] Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 12, n. 6; Gregory of Nyssa, Oration III, On the Resurrection of Christ, Opp. Vol. III, p. 425, ed. Morel.

[1965] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, V, 13, n. 1; Tertullian, *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, ch. 17; *Constitution of the Apostles*, V, 7; Cyril of Jerusalem, *General Discourses*, XVIII, n. 16, p. 419.

[1966] Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, n. 1; Epistle to the Trallians, n. 9; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 7, n. 1; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, c. 69; Cyprian, Epistle LXXIII; Epiphanius, Against Heresies, LXIV, n. 67; Cyril of Alexandria, *in Joan.* X, 10.

[1967] Clement of Rome, Epist. 1 ad Corinth. n. 24; Theophilus, ad Autolic. 1, 13; Tertullian, Apol. ch. 48; Epiphanius, Haeres. LXIV, n. 37, 68; Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, XVIII, n. 6: “Wheat is sown, if it so happens, or some other kind of seed: once the seed falls, it dies, rots, and becomes unfit for food. However, it is considered to be alive in its green state, and having fallen in a small form, it now appears in a beautiful form. But wheat was created for us. For wheat and other seeds were created for our use, not for their own sake. Thus, what was created for us, having been put to death, comes back to life; and we, for whom this was created, having died, will we not rise again?” (p. 410).

[1968] Theophilus, ad Autol. 1:13; Tertullian, de resurr. carnis, ch. 12; Minucius Fel., ad Octav., ch. 31; Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilies, IV, n. 30, p. 78; Ambrose, de resurr., Book II, n. 61.

[1969] Theophilus, ad Autol. 1, 13; Epiphanius, Ancorat. n. 84; Zeno of Verona, de resurr. n. 8.

[1970] Tertullian, *De Anima*, ch. 43; Epiphanius, *Haereses*, LXIV, n. 37.

[1971] Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, III, 17, n. 2; Isidore of Pelusium, *Epistles*, Book 1, Epistle CCXXÏ: “We are therefore baptized on behalf of the dead, believing that they have been transformed by nature into incorruptibility.”

[1972] Dionysius the Areopagite, *On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy*, Book VII, No. III, § 9.

[1973] Ignatius the God-Bearer, Epistle to the Ephesians, n. XX (the medicine of immortality, the antidote to not dying); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV, 18, n. 5; Gregory of Nyssa, Orations and Catecheses, c. 38; Hilary, On the Trinity, VIII, 16.

[1974] Justin, Apology 1, n. 19; Tatian, Contra Graec. c. 6; Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilies IV, n. 30, p. 78; XVIII, n. 9: “A hundred or even two hundred years ago, where were all of us who are now speaking and listening? Do we not know the original composition of our bodies? Do you not know that we are born from weak, shapeless, and uniform substances? And from this uniform and weak substance, a living human being is formed; from this weak substance, when it takes on flesh, strong nerves and clear eyes are formed, as well as nostrils for smelling, ears for hearing, a tongue for speech, a beating heart, hands for work, legs for running, and all other limbs. And this feeble substance becomes a builder of ships and houses, an architect and an artist in every art, a warrior, a lawgiver, and a king. God, who created us from unformed substances—can He not raise the dead? He who forms a body from the weakest substance—can He not raise a dead body? He who created what did not exist before—will He not raise what once existed and has since died?” (pp. 412–413)?

[1975] Nilus. Epist. lib. 1, epist. ad Aphlhon. Samarit. CIX. CXI.

[1976] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V, 3, n. 2; Tertullian, Apology, ch. 48; Epiphanius, Against Heresies, LXIV, n. 66, 72; Cyril of Jerusalem, Book XVIII, n. 6: “If we compare the difficulty of the task: which is harder, to sculpt a statue from the beginning, or to restore a fallen one to its former state? God, who created us out of nothing, will He not be able to raise the living when we die?” (p. 409); James of Nyssa, on the Resurrection of the Dead: “If God created Adam out of nothing, then it is far easier for Him to raise him in the form in which he already existed, because the seed had already been sown in the earth… If the earth produced what it did not have as a seed within itself; and if, without having been sown, it gave birth in its virginity: then what kind of impossible task is it for it to bring forth what it has as a seed within itself and to give birth, having been sown?” (Chron. Readings 1837, II, 32–33).

[1977] Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, XVIII, ch. 4, 19, pp. 407, 423; Eusebius, *De Resurrectione*, Book 1 (in Galland, IV, p. 480); Ambrose, *De fide resurrectione*, n. 52: “Since the whole purpose of our life lies in the union of body and soul, and since the resurrection is either the reward for good deeds or the punishment for the wicked, it is necessary for the body to rise again, for it is through the body that our actions are performed... and so on”; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 27: “If the soul alone were to practice acts of virtue, it alone would receive the crown; and if it alone were to indulge in pleasures, it alone would justly be punished. Since, however, the soul does neither good nor evil deeds without the body, both the soul and the body together justly receive their reward” (p. 303).

[1978] Athenagoras, *De Resurrectione Mortuorum*, n. 15.

[1979] Clement of Rome, Epistle 1 to the Corinthians, n. 24; Irenaeus, Apology 1, n. 18. 52; Theophilus, To Autolycus 1, 13; Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heresies, c. 13; Athanasius, *On the Incarnation of the Word*, n. 10; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm* LV, n. 7; Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catechetical Lectures*, IV, n. 30; Eusebius, *Commentary on Psalm* 1, 5; John Chrysostom, *Homily on Hebrews*, XIX, n. 1.

[1980] (4979) For what else is the resurrection but a restoration to the original state? (Gregory of Nyssa, in Ecclesiast. hom. 1, in Opp. Vol. 1, p. 385, ed. Morei). For this is what the resurrection is: a restoration to the original state of our being (- in the funeral oration for Pulcher, Funebr. T. III, p. 523). Quoted by John Chrysostom in 1 Corinthians, Homily XLI, n. 2.

[1981] He clearly taught that it is not something else that rises, but this very perishable thing. For he pointed this out, as it were, with a finger, saying, “This perishable thing and this mortal thing” (Theodoret, in 1 Corinthians 15:53, in Vol. III, p. 280).

[1982] Irenaeus, Against Heresies II, 59, n. 5; V, 13, n. 3–5; Justin, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, n. 2. 5 (in Grabe’s Spicil., Vol. II); Theophilus, To Autolycus 1, 12; II, 36; Methodius, On the Resurrection 11. 12. 13; Cyril of Jerusalem, General Discourses, IV, n. 3. 31; XVII, n. 18; Epiphanius, Haereses, LXIV, n. 64; Jerome, Epist. XXXVIII against the errors of John of Jerusalem; Augustine, Against Faustus, XI, 3.

[1983] Irenaeus, *Adversus Haereses*, V, 13, n. 3; Irrolitus, *Contra Graecus et Platon*, n. 2; Hilary, *Commentary on Psalm* CXLIII, n. 7; Theodore of Heraclea, *Commentary on Psalm* CII, 5; Cyril of Jerusalem, Homilies, IV, n. 31: “We will all receive eternal bodies, but not all will be the same. The righteous will receive them so that they may rejoice eternally with the angels; and the sinners—so that they may suffer eternal torment for their sins” (p. 79).

[1984] “Then,” Scripture says, “the righteous will shine like the sun (Matt. 13:43) and the moon, and like the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:3). And God, foreseeing human unbelief, granted even the smallest worms in summer the ability to emit a luminous glow from their bodies, so that people, judging by what they see, might believe in what they hope for. “He who gives a little can also give everything: he who created the worm to shine—how much more will he enlighten the righteous person” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Homilies, XVIII, § 18, p. 422). See also John Chrysostom, ad viduam junior, n. 3; Theodoret, *In Philippians* III, 21; Gregory the Great, *Homily on Job* XVIII, n. 76.

[1985] Origen, *Against Celsus*, IV, 57; Cyril of Jerusalem, *General Discourses*, XVIII, n. 18, p. 422; Basil the Great, *Commentary on Psalm 114*, n. 5.

[1986] Hilary, Commentary on Matthew, Book X, note 20; Augustine, The City of God, Book XIII, 20.

[1987] “You might ask: ‘Is not the present body spiritual?’ It is spiritual, but the future body will be far more spiritual. For now, the abundant grace of the Holy Spirit often withdraws entirely from those who sin much…; but then it will not be so, for He will dwell constantly in the bodies of the righteous, and His power will prevail, regardless of the soul’s presence. Or this is what the Apostle meant when he said: ‘a spiritual body’—either that it will be lighter and more subtle (κουφότερον και λεπτότερον), and capable of flying through the air; or, most likely, both” (John Chrysostom, in 1 Corinthians, hom. XLI, n. 3).

[1988] “The natural body is sown (1 Cor. 15: 42–44)—that is, a coarse and mortal body—is sown, and a spiritual body rises, such as the body of the Lord after the Resurrection, which passed through closed doors, knew no weariness, and had no need of food, sleep, or drink” (John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 27, p. 306).

[1989] Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. Book III, Epistle 77; Hilary, in Ps. XXVIII, Letter III, n. 3; Augustine, De Civitate Dei XIII, 20.

[1990] Catecism, XVIII, n. 18, p. 422; cf. Augustine, Enchiridion, ch. 92; Sermon CCLXXVII, n. 13.

[1991] “The Apostle, first of all, distinguishes between sinners and the righteous, saying: ‘heavenly bodies’ and ‘earthly bodies,’ meaning the former to be earthly and the latter to be heavenly. Then he shows the distinction among sinners themselves, saying: ‘Not all flesh is the same flesh: for one kind of flesh is that of humans, another that of animals, another that of fish, and another that of birds’ (1 Cor. 15:39), and so on.” (Chrysostom, Homily XLI on 1 Corinthians, n. 3).

[1992] “All receive a body commensurate with their own deeds. The bodies of the righteous shine seven times brighter than the light of the sun; but the bodies of sinners are dark and filled with a foul odor; and the body of each person reveals his deeds: for each of you carries his own deeds in his own body” (Ephrem the Syrian, Discourses on the Judgment and the Resurrection, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XV, p. 125). Cf. Augustine, Epist. CCV, § 14.

[1993] Catechetical Lectures XVIII, § 19, p. 422.

[1994] “All will rise again with the same power, the same incorruptibility, and the same glory of incorruptibility; but all will share in the same honor (τιμής) and security (άσφαλείας)” (Chrysostom, Homily XLI on 1 Corinthians, n. 3).

[1995] Origen, on Ephesians V, 28; on Matthew, Vol. XVII, n. 30; Basil the Great, on Psalm 114.

[1996] Tertullian, *De Resurrectione Carnis*, ch. 60; Jerome, *Epistola ad Pammachium de Erroribus Ioannis Hierosolymitani*.

[1997] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XXII, 17–18.

[1998] “An infant whose mother died with him during pregnancy will appear at the resurrection as a perfect man, and he will recognize his mother, and she will recognize her child…. The Creator will raise the sons of Adam as equals; just as He created them equal, so will He raise them from the dead as equals. In the resurrection, there are neither great nor small. And the one born prematurely will rise just as the one of full age. Only by their deeds and way of life will some be exalted and glorious there; and some will be like light, while others will be like darkness” (Ephrem the Syrian, On the Fear of God and the Last Judgment, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XV, 306–307. Cf. Hilary, Commentary on Matthew, ch. V, n. 10).

[1999] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XXII, 14–15.

[2000] “And those bodies, not perishing, will be transformed and pass into incorruptibility” (Chrysostom, Homily XLII on 1 Corinthians, n. 2). See also Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, ch. 18; *Constitutio Apostolicae*, V, 7; Schlarer, *Commentary on Psalm* LI, n. 10; Cyril of Alexandria, *On the Worship of the Spirit and the Truth*, Book XVII; *Commentary on John*, IV, 51; Theodoret, *Commentary on 1 Corinthians*, VI, 51.

[2001] “He who is called neither the Resurrection nor the Judgment is the firstborn of Satan.” Epist. ad Philipp. n. 7.

[2002] Apology 1, n. 8, 52; Dialogue with Trypho, n. 117, 125.

[2003] On the Prescription Against Heresies, ch. 13.

[2004] The day of judgment is at hand, as Holy Scripture proclaims (Epistle to Demetrius, ch. 8).

[2005] Catechetical Lectures IV, n. 15, pp. 67–68; XV, 1, 2.

[2006] “If you do not believe our words, ask the Jews, the Greeks, and every heretic; they will all, as it were, answer with one voice that there will be a judgment and retribution. And if you are not satisfied with human testimony: ask the demons themselves, and you will hear them cry out: ‘Why have you come here before the time to torment us?’ (Matt. 8:29)” (in the Roman Discourses, XXXI, p. 706, according to the Russian translation).

[2007] Athanasius, *De Resurrectione Mortuorum*, ch. II; Isidore of Pelusium, *Epistolae*, Book III, Letter 37; Theodoret, *Commentary on Psalm IX, 9*.

[2008] “When you sit upon the twelve thrones as Judges of all to judge every creature: show that I am not condemned, and deliver me from darkness and every affliction, my benefactors, divine Apostles” (Octoechos, Part 1, folio 199 verso, Moscow, 1838).

[2009] “When it is said that the wicked will not rise for judgment, this means that they will rise not for judgment but for condemnation. For God has no need of a prolonged trial; but as soon as the wicked are raised, punishment will follow” (Cyril of Jerusalem, General Instructions, XVIII, § 14, p. 417).

[2010] “Everyone will see their own deeds standing before them—both the good and the bad—whichever they have done” (Ephrem the Syrian, “Sermon on the General Resurrection,” in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XIV, p. 16).

[2011] “Even in the smallest matters, whether bad or good, there will be a strict judgment. We will be punished for an immodest glance; we will give an account for idle words and those spoken in jest, for slander, for thoughts, and for drunkenness; and likewise, for good deeds—for a cup of cold water, for a kind word, for a single sigh—we will receive a reward” (Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, XXXI, p. 706, according to the Russian translation). “Not a single thought of the heart will remain hidden there; not a single glance of the eyes will escape judgment. And even a shameful word, spoken secretly and in a whisper, will be revealed on that day before the righteous Judge, who judges the hidden things openly” (Ephrem the Syrian, On the Fear of God and the Last Judgment, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XV, p. 302).

[2012] See John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 25; also Hilary and others who wrote commentaries on this Gospel.

[2013] Commentary on Isaiah 1:18, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. VI, p. 70. There is a certain divine power to be understood, by which it will come to pass that everyone’s deeds—whether good or evil—will be recalled to memory and perceived with astonishing speed by the mind’s intuition, so that knowledge may either accuse or exonerate the conscience, and thus all and each may be judged at the same time. This divine power has indeed taken the name of the Book: for in it, as it were, everything that the doer recalls is read (Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XXII, 14).

[2014] On the City of God, Book 68, Chapter 2, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, 447.

[2015] Commentary on Isaiah 3:13, ibid. 6:157.

[2016] “The King descends from His throne to judge the earth; His armies accompany Him with great fear and trembling. These mighty hosts come to bear witness to the dreadful judgment; and all people, as many as have ever lived and will live on earth, appear before the King. However many have been and will be born into the world, all will come to this spectacle to witness the judgment (Ephrem the Syrian, On the Fear of God and the Last Judgment, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XV, 305–306).

[2017] “And He will summon both heaven and earth to stand with Him in judgment; and those above and those below will appear before Him with fear and trembling. And the heavenly hosts and the legions of the underworld will tremble before the merciless Judge, who will come, accompanied by terror and death” (ibid., 302–303).

[2018] “This judgment will be unique, final, and dreadful, yet even more just than it is dreadful—or rather, it is dreadful precisely because it is just” (Gregory the Theologian, Homilies, delivered in the presence of the Father, Works of the Holy Fathers, II, 55).

[2020] Catechetical Lectures XV, n. 3, pp. 310–312.

[2021] Discourses on the Six Days, I, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, V, 6, 7.

[2023] Justin, *Apologeticus* 1, n. 59; II, n. 7; Athenagoras, *Legatus*, c. 22; Tatian, *Against the Greeks*, c. 25; Theophilus of Antioch, *Against Autolycus*, II, 37, 38; Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, c. 34; Hippolytus, *De Christo et Antichristo*, ch. 64; Methodius, *Convivium Decem Virginarum*, oration IX, n. 1; Origen, *Against Celsus*, IV, 11, 12; V, 15; Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 16.

[2025] “And from there He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and to reign forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Rite of Reception of Those of Other Faiths, fol.

[2026] Gregory the Theologian, On Theology, IV, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, III, 81–82; John Chrysostom, Homily XXXIX on 1 Corinthians, on verse XV, v. 24.

[2027] On the words: 1 Cor. 15:24, in *Christian Readings* 1837, II, 18–19.

[2028] Catecism XV, paras. 26, 27, 29, pp. 335–338.

[2029] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 28; VII, 25; Augustine, On Heresies, p. 8; Theodoret, On Heresies, Fab. II, 3.

[2030] Jerome, *Commentary on Isaiah*, LXVI, 20.

[2031] Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, I, 29; IV, 29; V, 10; *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*, ch. 25.

[2032] Basil the Great, Letters, CCLXV, no. 4; CCLXV, no. 2; Gregory the Theologian, Epistles 1 and 2 to Cleodonius.

[2033] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, 39; Jerome, Catalogus, p. 18.

[2034] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, nos. 80, 81; Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, 81, n. 1 (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 39); Hippolytus, apud Photinus, Bibliotheca, cod. CI; Methodius, Convivium of the Ten Virgins, Oration IX, n. 5; Lactantius, Institutes of the Divine, VII, 24 et seq.

[2035] Cf. Wiest, *Demonst. dogmat.*, vol. VI, § 296.

[2036] Dialogue with Trypho, n. 80.

[2037] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, 28.

[2038] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VII, 24; Jerome, Catalogus, p. 69; Theodoret, Haereticae Fabulae II, 2.

[2039] *De princip.* II, 11, n. 2; *Prolegom.* in *Cantic.*

[2040] Church History III, 28, 39; VII, 24.

[2041] See Gennadius, *Catalogus*, c. 18.

[2042] Letters CCLXIII, in The Works of the Holy Fathers XI, 249; CCLXV, ibid., 255.

[2043] Epistle II to Cleodon, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IV, p. 211.

[2045] Commentary on Isaiah XXX, 26; LIV, 11; LV, 3; LVIII, 14; Commentary on Ezekiel XVI, 35; Commentary on Zechariah XIV, 6 et seq.; Commentary on Matthew XIX, 29.

[2047] *De civit. Dei* XX, 7; *Haeres.* VIII.

[2048] Origen, Prolegomena to the Song of Songs; Epiphanius, Haeres. LXXVII; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, 28, and others.

[2049] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei* XX, 7; for further details, see the commentary on this chapter of the Apocalypse in *Cursus S. Scripturae Compl.*, Vol. XXV, pp. 1109–1122, Paris 1812.

[2050] “He says to the condemned: ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed!’ He does not say: ‘Depart from the Father’—for it is not He who has cursed them, but their own deeds; ‘Depart into the eternal fire, prepared not for you, but for the devil and his angels.’ When He spoke of the kingdom, saying, ‘Come, you who are blessed, inherit the kingdom,’ He added: ‘prepared for you from the foundation of the world’; but when speaking of the fire, He did not say this, but added: ‘prepared for the Devil and his angels.’ “For I have prepared the kingdom for you, but the fire is not for you, but for the devil and his angels. But since you yourselves have cast yourselves into the fire, you yourselves are to blame for this” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily LXXIX, vol. III, pp. 362–363).

[2051] On Romans, Homily V, p. 95, according to the Russian translation.

[2052] On the Gospel of Matthew, Homily XXIII, in Vol. 1, p. 495.

[2053] Letter 1 to Theodore the Martyr, in *Chronicle Readings* 1844, vol. 1, pp. 370, 375.

[2054] On the Gospel of Matthew, Homilies XXIII, vol. 1, p. 494.

[2055] On the Fear of God and the Last Judgment, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. XV, p. 308.

[2056] Homilies on Psalm XXXIII, 6, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 293.

[2057] Homilies on Psalm 33:12, ibid., p. 302.

[2058] Homily 1 to Theodosius the Great, in *Christian Readings* 1844, 1, 366.

[2059] Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 27, p. 308. “I believe that no one knows what kind of fire this will be, or in what part of the world or of creation it will occur, unless perhaps the Divine Spirit reveals it to them” (Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 16).

[2060] Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, ch. 48; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, ch. 40; John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Theodosius the Great, in *Christian Readings*, 1844, vol. 1, p. 366.

[2061] Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, ch. 48; Minucius Felix, *Octavius*, ch. 35; Lactantius, *Institutions on the Divine*, VII, 21; Gregory of Nyssa, *Catechism*, ch. 11; Augustine, *The City of God*, IV, 13, n. 18.

[2062] Minucius Fel. *Octav.* 31, 35; John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Theodosius the Great, in *Chron. Readings* 1844, 1, p. 367 ff.

[2063] Basil the Great, Homilies on Psalm XXXIII, ch. 8, in Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. V, p. 302; John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on Hebrews, ch. 4.

[2064] Tertullian, *Apologeticus*, 47, 48; Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XX, 16.

[2065] Origen, *De Principiis*, II, 10, n. 4, 5; Ambrose, *In Luc.*, Book VII, n. 205. Jerome, *In Eph.* V, 6; *In Isa.*, ch. XLVI.

[2066] Augustine, *De Civitate Dei*, XXI, 9, n. 2; 10, n. 1.

[2067] Commentary on Theodoret’s Epistle 1, in Chr. Cht. 1844, 1, 361, 366–367.

[2068] The Great Vasily’s Letter to the Princess XLVI, in The Works of the Holy Fathers X, 131.

[2069] Canon Law, A Brief Exposition, Answer to Question 207, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, pp. 346–347.

[2070] Sermon on the Second Coming of the Lord, Works of the Holy Fathers, XII, 390.

[2071] Sermon on the Holy Cross and on the Second Coming of the Lord, ibid., XIV, 50; see p. 18.

[2072] On the Roman Discourses, V, p. 84, according to the Russian translation.

[2073] Sermon on the Martyrdom of Theodosius, 1, in the Christian Reader, 1844, 1, 413.

[2074] “Then He will punish the most diverse kinds of wickedness… Those who have rejected the Lord’s night and despised His commands, He will restrain with various forms of destruction, and in accordance with the merit of the salvation demanded, He will exert His power, while imposing a distinction based on the nature of the crime… and so on” (Book on the Praise of Martyrs).

[2075] If the fate of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah is more bearable than that of the city that did not receive the Gospel, then there are also different punishments among sinners (Commentary on Matthew 10).

[2076] Nor is there any doubt that the very punishments by which the damned will be tormented will vary according to the diversity of their crimes (De baptism. IV, 19).

[2077] In Harduin, *Concilia*, vol. IV, col. 66; Nicetas Callistus, *Historia Ecclesiastica*, XVII, p. 28.

[2078] Cited in St. John of Damascus, *Eclog. litt.* Ψ, tit. 1.

[2079] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, ch. 15, p. 213.

[2080] χολασθησομένους τόν άπέραντον αιώνα. Apol. 1, c. 28.

[2081] Against Heresies, Book IV, p. 28.

[2083] Catalog of Teachings XVIII, n. 19, pp. 422–423.

[2084] Orthodoxy, a brief exposition, answer to question 207, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, p. 345. See note 2069.

[2085] Commentary on Theodore’s “On the Fall,” vol. 1, in *Chronicle Readings*, 1844, vol. 1, pp. 365–366, 367–368.

[2086] Apologetic, p. 18. 45: “We foresee eternal punishment from Him… because of the magnitude of the torment—not temporary, but eternal—for those who fear Him.”

[2088] …nor will there be any place where they might ever have torment or rest, or an end to it (Letter to Demetrian; cf. Letter XV. LV).

[2089] Minucius Fel. *Octav.* p. 35; Hippolytus, *Adversus Graecus et Plat.*, ch. 3; Athanasius, *In Ps. XLIX, 22*.

[2090] “The lot of the latter (sinners), among other things, will be torment—or rather, above all else, rejection by God and endless shame in their conscience” (spoken in the presence of his father, Works of the Holy Fathers II, 56).

[2091] Hilary, Commentary on Matthew 5, n. 12; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 24:46; Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 65:11, Book V, Vol. VI; Theodoret, Commentary on Psalm 93:13; Augustine, On the Life of God Dei XXI, 17, 21, 26, n. 6.

[2092] Apolog. 1, n. 10, in Chr. Readings 1825, XVII, 22–23.

[2094] Sermons on the Second Coming of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIII, 403–404.

[2095] Letters to the Monks of Caesarea, VIII, ibid., X, 42.

[2096] Sermons Delivered in the Presence of the Father, ibid., II, 56.

[2097] Sermon on the Ordination of Bishops, ibid., II, 174–175. And further: “Believe in this common name (shared by all the Divine Persons), prosper, and reign (Ps. 44:5), and you will pass from here into the bliss that awaits there, which, in my understanding, is the most perfect knowledge of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Words of the Protopresbyter Arius, ibid., III, 182).

[2098] Speech to Theod. the Martyr in the Christian Readings of 1844, 1, 370–372.

[2099] Theophilus, ad Antol. I, 7. 14; Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ. c. 12, 31; Irenaeus, adv. haer. V, 20, n. 5, 7; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, 19; V, 1.

[2100] We shall go to that place where the paradise of joy is, where… the glory of God alone will shine…; we shall go to that place where the Lord Jesus has prepared dwellings for His servants… and so on. (On the Goodness of Death, ch. 11, 12). There all good things, there all happiness, there all prosperity…; no one will feel hunger, tears will be wiped away, there will be no fear… (On Penance, ch. 30).

[2101] This is the inheritance of the saints: life, incorruptibility, the kingdom, and eternal dwelling with God (Tract. in Ps. LX).

[2102] How great will be that happiness, where there will be no evil, no good will be hidden, and it will resound with the praises of God, who will be all in all (De civit. Dei XXII, 30).

[2103] Hippolytus, Against the Greeks, n. 3; Origen, On the Principles, II, 11, n. 2; Commentary on John, Vol. 1, n. 16; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechism, ch. 40.

[2104] There are many dwellings with the Father, just as there are many members in the body (Against Heresies III, 19, n. 3).

[2105] When he has laid aside the mortal and put on incorruptibility, then he will see God face to face according to his worth (Ad Autolyc. 1, 7).

[2106] Strom. VI, 13, in Opp. Vol. III, p. 300.

[2107] We shall all be one before God, though our rewards may vary, and though there are many dwellings with the same Father (De monog. c. 10).

[2108] “There are prepared many dwellings of varying dignity for those who dwell there...” (Tract. on Ps. LXIV).

[2110] On the City of God, XXII, 30, n. 2.

[2111] “O Blessed Abode,” in The Works of the Holy Fathers, XIV, 496.

[2112] Commentary on Isaiah 4:5, ibid. 6:182.

[2113] Commentary on Isaiah 11:10, ibid., 353–354.

[2114] Sermons on Love for the Poor, ibid., II, 5. Compendium of Sermons on Theology 1, ibid., III, 13.

[2115] Sermon on the Martyrdom of Theodore, 1, in Chr. Readings 1844, 1, 414. And elsewhere: “Some will shine like the sun; others, like the moon; still others, like the stars”… and so on (Adv., Oppugn. Vitae Monast., III, 5). Cf. Homily XLI on 1 Corinthians, n. 3.

[2117] Sermon on the Second Coming of the Lord, in The Works of the Holy Fathers XIII, 404.

[2120] Sermon on the Martyrdom of Theodosius I, in the Chronicle of the Holy Fathers, 1844, vol. 1, p. 380.

[2121] “If we live chastely and piously, we will be blessed here on earth, but even more blessed after we depart from this life; and this bliss of ours will not be limited by time, but we will enjoy everlasting peace” (Strom. V, p. 14).

[2123] Those complete riches, that power to be attained, which time cannot take away, nor place can remove, which remains in a perpetual state, which is preserved by an eternal privilege, which is not subject to decay… De poenit. c. 30.

[2124] Poems on Oneself, in The Works of the Holy Fathers IV, 286.

[2125] Rules, extended exposition in The Works of the Holy Fathers, vol. IX, p. 88; conversations with youths on the benefits of reading pagan works, ibid., vol. VIII, p. 365.

[2126] Augustine, *De Soli Dei* XXII, p. 30; John of Damascus, *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, Chapter 27, p. 308.