Wednesday, February 25, 2026

1937 Encyclical from the Church of Greece on Procreation and Contraception



 Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to the Sacred Clergy and Pious People of Greece

Athens | October 14, 1937

 

The Hierarchy of the Church of Greece has confirmed, with much sadness, that one of the more characteristic evils of our age, a tendency and development that, we must confess, is most degenerate, and which first appeared among the young people of foreign nations, namely, the avoidance of childbearing and childrearing, is attempting to insinuate itself into the Greek Christian family. It seeks to shake its foundations, to destroy the moral meaning and the lofty goal of marriage, to corrupt Greek Christian spouses, and to irreparably harm the Greek nation through the thinning of the population. The principal manifestation of this evil is what we call abortion or induced miscarriage, i.e., the murder of the embryo within the womb of its mother (a murder committed in a variety of ways) and the forced removal of the premature child after its murder. Even crueler and more criminal is the rejection of infants that have just been born, and who are alive, who are then tragically label ‘abandoned.’

Because the repetition of this evil, and greater evils still, blunts our moral sensitivity and cauterizes the conscience (so that with time the evil becomes something permanent, or at least of no concern), the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece has considered it its obligation to present the following points of urgent importance to the clergy and the people for the curtailing of this great evil.

It is well known that the abandonment and rejection of infants, as well as abortion, amounts to the crime of murder, not only for the Church but even according to the penal law of Greece and of all civilized nations. It is among the worst kinds of murder at that because it is committed premeditatedly, at the most far-reaching level, namely within the very family, which is the natural fountain of life. It is committed by the spouses themselves, who are thus reduced to murderers and infanticides in place of being parents, and who thereby serve corruption and death instead of shining forth life!

The second manifestation of this genocidal evil is the obstruction of the conception of children, known as ‘neo-Malthusianism.’ Through this act the spouses reject becoming parents and render their generative organs infertile and sterile, consciously nullifying and abolishing the natural law of reproduction. This crime, which sociologists outside of Christianity have characterized as “the most revolutionary practice in the history of sexual morals,” and which has already spread widely around the world, threatens even our prudent and reverent nation of Greece.

This great and unnatural evil, therefore, namely, the avoidance of childbearing and childrearing, presents itself in these two forms, each of which encompasses a multitude of unacknowledged instances. Nevertheless, the unfailing experience of the ages teaches us that every transgression and subversion of the laws of nature has its consequences, and that all disobedience to moral laws has received a just recompence of reward (Heb 2:2), according to the God-inspired assurance of the Apostle Paul. Therefore, the transgression of the laws which govern human reproduction—laws that belong not only to nature but to morality—cannot remain without consequences and without the punishments proper to nature and to morality. 

The natural consequences of this transgression are confirmed by medical experts, whose opinions are summarized by two of the greatest authorities in gynecology. They write that, “All methods of obstructing the conception of children pose a sure danger to the health of the woman,” because, they say, “Nature will not be mocked.” Conversely, another famous gynecologist says that this act “is not only a disgrace, but the complete destruction of marriage: a danger to the health of the husband and a crime against the wife, capable of bringing about the complete extinction of the race.” Even more fearful are the consequences of abortions, because this crime gives rise in mothers to the most serious illnesses and even death. It suffices to note that the high mortality rate of mothers who undergo abortions (tens of thousands die every year in larger European countries) has forced those who specialize in the study of these statistics to address desperate appeals to the League of Nations in order to curtail this calamity. A multitude of books has been published in Europe and America over the last few years, which, on account of these terrible consequences of the revolt against the law of reproduction, stress “the horror of racial suicide” and consider “the danger of the extinction and disappearance of the entire white race” to be imminent.

Yet the moral consequences are no less significant, because the laws of nature and morality are intertwined. Medical science itself characterizes the obstruction of conception as “an unnatural evil.” Therefore the immediate moral consequence of this evil is the disruption of spousal harmony and familial peace. This is because it is impossible for this sin, in those spouses who preserve some degree of good conscience, not to lead to inner turmoil: the reproach of the conscience. This is so because the instinct to reproduce is also a moral instinct, deeply rooted in the soul. Often there is also psychological depression, which not only destroys the peace of the family but also gives rise in the wife to serious nervous disorders, as the 1929 congress of psychiatrists in the Netherlands confirmed. The disruption of family life is greatly increased when the one or two children to whom the spouses restricted their fertility through such criminal methods die or otherwise forsake their parents at a time in the parents’ life when they are no longer able to correct their mistake by giving birth to more children. Yet an even greater moral punishment of this evil is the spousal infidelity and divorce that frequently follows. For the marriage that has been rendered sterile and infertile by such means is transformed into a disgraceful form of materialism, since it is deprived of its most basic moral element, the bearing and rearing of children, who not only adorn but also strengthen family life. Even the most fervent advocates of this perverse ideology of avoiding childbearing do not deny this truth. They confess that ‘free love’ will be the natural end result of their ideas, and they do not hesitate to confirm that, “Divorce started in order to destroy marriage.” What is more, they themselves acknowledge that, “The public and unlimited dissemination and teaching of the use of methods to prevent conception is a depravity and guarantees calamity.”

We are not unaware that some present the financial insufficiency of parents and the medical risks of pregnancy as an excuse for the revolt against the will of God and against the eternal laws of life—a revolt accomplished through the obstruction of childbearing.

As regards financial insufficiency, we are obligated to point out that those who avoid the conception of children more than anyone are the wealthy classes, who certainly cannot employ this excuse. Among the other classes, we know well that there exists financial insufficiency, often even poverty, especially in this period of economic crisis. But poverty and deprivation are as old as humanity itself. Also, economic crises even greater than today’s have occurred many times over the centuries. Never have economic conditions been so favorable that financial insufficiency could not be presented as a justification for opposing childbearing. Nevertheless, previous generations of Christians exhibited an admirable submission to the law of the transmission of life. Regardless, the confrontation and amelioration of the economic difficulties of a nation are never accomplished through the racial suicide brought about by the rejection of reproduction. Rather, it is accomplished through the overall improvement of life.

The responsibility for this improvement belongs first of all to the state. In order to reward the great benefits that families with many children provide, the state helps these families through a more just distribution of tax burdens and through the bestowal of conveniences and assistance. This is especially important because families with many children contribute the greatest portion of a country’s resources, both at the material and the human level. Secondly, the responsibility for economic improvement also belongs to the individual. For there are many families that spend great sums on superfluities, on basically useless forms of luxury, and on the demands of that insatiable and world-tyrannizing deity called ‘fashion.’ It suffices to note that around six hundred billion drachmas are squandered in various countries every year just for cosmetics! It is a sad fact that even financially strained and poor families imitate the wealthy classes in such waste on superfluities.

If, on the one hand, such expenses are avoided, and, on the other hand, Christians rely on that great supplier of life, namely trust in the providence of God, which is above all economical factors and wealth, then surely the tragic revolt against the divine law of reproduction would cease. For Christians at least should never forget that it is impossible, by nature, for God, our benevolent Father, to be indifferent to the sustenance of the innocent children that we bring into the world in obedience to the law of creation. In the same way, too, we should not forget the invaluable economic significance of these divine words for a head of household who is pious and self-sufficient: Godliness with contentment is great gain (1 Tim 6:6).

A s regards the medical risks of pregnancy, we remind Christians that the actual medical risks in submitting to the sacred duty of motherhood are not special dangers, such that avoiding birth-giving will assure the wife perfect health and longevity. As we noted earlier, it is incomparably more dangerous to the wife to prevent the bearing of children. At the same time, there are numerous other dangers to one’s health and life that are unrelated to pregnancy, and these lurk at every step of one’s life and threaten every person. Furthermore, we would like to remind Christian spouses in particular that every duty has its risks, and when a Christian avoids his duty on account of these risks, he only succumbs to dangers that are greater and more destructive. Every Christian is called in this life to bear a cross. For those who are married, this is fatherhood and motherhood. The particular lot of the woman, which was set in place by God’s first decree following the transgression of Eve, is that she bear her children in the midst of sorrow, pains, and sacrifices. Even so, Christianity provides the greatest possible consolation, a priceless reward for every Christian wife who, as a faithful and true Christian, accepts all the burdens that accompany childbearing. The woman, says the Apostle Paul, shall be saved by childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with self-control (1 Tim 2:14-15).

We cannot fail to make it known to married couples that in especially difficult circumstances, when the avoidance of childbearing is unavoidably imposed, the only lawful recourse is abstinence from conjugal relations by means of self-restraint. This recourse, which even medical science itself recommends, may appear rigid and unattainable. Yet it appears so only to non-Christians and those who live according to the flesh and not according to the Spirit. For true Christians, it is possible, since, in every case, a fruit of the Spirit received by true Christians is self-restraint, as the God-inspired Apostle Paul says (Gal 5:23). This is especially true for pious married couples, who receive from God the grace to confront the difficult circumstances of conjugal life (a grace that empowers them to undertake sacrifices and self-denial). This is a most certain truth, confirmed by both ancient and contemporary experience.

In order to further enlighten Christians about the all-important duty of childbearing, which is being denied in the abnormal and chaotic era of today, we present a few words, first about the purpose of life and marriage, and second about the deeper causes that initiated the rebellion against this duty.

The fundamental problem, which has resulted in the rebellion against childbearing, is that modern man has lost all sense of the purpose of life. This is because he has set the selfish enjoyment of the pleasures of the world as the purpose of life, even though the purpose of life is the fulfillment of one’s duty. And the purpose of marriage is, on the one hand, to transmit and perpetuate the human species through childbearing, while, on the other hand, providing for the mutual help and moral cooperation of the spouses, accomplished through their unity of heart and soul. Thus, in the creation of man, The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; let Us make him a help fit for him’ (Gen 2:18). And God made man, male and female He made them. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Increase, and multiply’ (Gen 1:27-28). It is obvious that this blessing of God upon childbearing is also His eternal and insoluble commandment. Even science, through its research, recognizes and declares that, “Pregnancy is the normal physiological function [leitourgia] of woman and the natural purpose of the procreative cycle.” For this reason marriage was exalted to the status of a Sacrament (Mysterion) in the New Testament. A special significance was ascribed to it through those God-inspired words of the Apostle Paul, wherein he closely compares marriage to the Great Mystery of the union of Christ with the Church (Eph 5:23, 31-32). Children, meanwhile, have also always been considered divine gifts, a blessing of God: So shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord, when his wife is as a fruitful vine on the sides of his house , and his sons like young olive trees planted round about his table; and, May he see his children’s children, says the Holy Spirit through the Psalmist (Ps 127:4, 3, 6).

Pious Christians should also know that the deeper cause and origin of the revolt against the natural law of reproduction is enmity against the Christian religion and Christian morals. This is why the movement against childbearing, as much in Europe as in America, has been a propaganda campaign of the so-called ‘atheists.’ This is acknowledged even by authors outside of Christianity,10who confirm that the propaganda against childbirth “is a branch of a widespread movement whose work is to destroy traditional morality.” Collaborators in this propaganda campaign are the latest books, theater plays, and movies, which artfully teach the avoidance of familial duties and virtues. These even praise divorce and a life of pleasure-seeking. So-called ‘feminist’ ideologies have also played an important role. These have sought, together with the economic and socio-political liberation of women, their liberation from the duty of motherhood, since they teach women “to flee from the slavery of motherhood, from which man is also free”!

We consider the foregoing to be sufficient for demonstrating the magnitude of this crime, which is committed against the family, against Christian morals, and against the most innocent member of the human family, that is to say, the child. We therefore address, first and foremost, the most venerable priests, and especially those who are tasked with the ministry of spiritual fatherhood and administer the sacrament of Confession. We remind them that the tradition of the Church is consistent and has been passed on to us unchanged from the times of the apostles. It teaches that the avoidance of children is a lawless act and a deliberate resistance by man to the will of God. If, in this matter, even heterodox Churches have tried not to deviate from this tradition, all the more is faithful adherence incumbent upon us the Orthodox, the unbending custodians of the dogmatic and moral truths handed down to us from the beginning.

The reverend priests are not unaware that every transgression of priestly duty imposes upon the priest a grave responsibility and may lead to such penalties as the Lord pronounced upon the wicked stewards (priests being stewards of the Mysteries) (cf. Mt 24:48–51 and Lk 12:45-46). If a spiritual father, in the matter of childbearing, reasons contrary to all that the truth of the Orthodox Church teaches and in any way consents to the rebellion perpetrated by those parents who by any means whatsoever nullify the conception and birth of children, his conduct amounts to a great criminal scandal, for which the responsibility of the priest is frightful. To him, in this situation, apply those words of the Lord, They are blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch (Mt 15:14).

Secondly, we address physicians, and especially those physicians involved in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. These must be aware that they are tasked with a lofty responsibility worthy of all honor because they collaborate in the propagation of life, so that they become, in some measure, collaborators with the Creator. They are, after the parents, the most natural protectors of that innocent age, the wonders age of childhood, and God accords honor to physicians: Honor the physician, for the Lord hath made even him. And He gave men science to glorify in His wonders (Sirach 38:1, 6). But physicians must not, as some of them unfortunately do, neglect this high calling and play the role of assassin, performing abortions or in any way assisting in thwarting the continuation of the human species by impeding conception and childbearing. Let them reflect on the fact that Hippocrates, although living in an era of idolatry, affirmed, “I will keep pure and holy both my life and my profession.” He forbade abortion to his students and placed in his Oath the promise that they would not give an ‘abortive pessary’ to women. Today Christian physicians have given an oath that they will practice their profession “to the glory of God and the salvation of men.” How, then, in light of this, can Christian physicians degrade their field and their conscience to such a base and criminal level?

Finally, we address the faithful laity. We assure them that marriage is not simply a carnal union between a man and a woman. Rather, it is a calling from God for spouses to become parents. For children are not simply the natural fruit of lawful marriage, but gifts and a blessing of God to the parents. They are their glory, because, through their childbearing parents become instruments and co-workers of God in the magnum opus of His creation. This is because every child is, for his country, a potential citizen, and, for the Church, a potential saint and child of the heavenly Father.

 

We adamantly protest and absolutely condemn every method of neo-Malthusianism, which defiles the purity of family life and thwarts conception for selfish reasons, for comforts, and for luxuries. All the more we condemn abortion, because these murderous acts are a deliberate insurrection against the will of God and a revolt against His laws. No such revolt can remain unpunished by Him, as the example of Onan shows us, whom God put to death precisely for this reason. The divine Paul also assures us of this, when he says that childbearing is a means of salvation for faithful spouses such that its deliberate obstruction can only result in the loss of salvation.

We are not unaware of that category of parents who are faced with great difficulties in their married life, either because they bear unsustainable financial burdens or because childbearing entails a direct danger to the life of the mother. We nurture deep compassion for them. We appeal to them, however, to bear in mind that in the life of a family, as in the life of every individual, we are called to carry a cross and to suffer trials. But we must put all our hope in the power of God, who enables us to bear the weight of our cross. In these circumstances spouses have a duty to abstain, as they do in the circumstances indicated by the Apostle Paul, when he spoke of the temporary abstinence of spouses for the sake of fasting and prayer (1 Cor 6:1–6). Abstinence constitutes for spouses the only lawful means of avoiding childbearing when a real need for it is present.

Let Christian spouses be assured that when they are self-controlled and submissive, not to the disorderly impulses of the flesh but to the divine law, living not as carnal but as spiritual persons and accepting the burden of abstinence for the sake of the family and the exalted and moral meaning of marriage, they will thereby receive the Cross as a crown and blessing from the first Crossbearer, our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, Whose grace and boundless mercy be with all of you. Amen.

 

Chrysostomos of Athens, Primate

Anthismos of Maroneia and Thassos

Eirenaios of Kassandreia

Gennadios of Thessaloniki

Spyridon of Ioannina

Germanos of Mantineia and Kynouria

Antonios of Patras

Iakovos of Mytilini

Konstantinos of Kitron

Alexandros of Zichnas

Konstantinos of Edessa

Chrysostomos of Philippi-Neapolis

Polykarpos of Beroea and Naousis

Ambrosios of Phthitis

Joakeim of Xanthos

Joakeim of Chios

Sokrates of Ierissos and the Holy Mountain

Diodoros of Sisanios and Siatisti

Prokopios of Hydra, Spetsas, and Aegina

Synesios of Thebes and Levadeia

Sypridon of Arta

Eirenaios of Samos and Icaria

Gervasios of Grevenas

Joakeim of Servias and Kozani

Hierotheos of Aetolia and Akarnania

Basileios of Drama and Philippi

Polykarpos of Trikki and Stagas

Dionysios of Sparta

Joakeim of Alexandropolis

Kallinikos of Elasson

Hierotheos of Argolides

Georgios of Paramythia

Kyrillos of Polyana and Kilkisios

Dionysios of Mithymni

Damaskinos of Corinth

Dorotheos of Larisa

Gregorios of Chalkida

Andreas of Triphylia and Olympia

Panteleimon of Karystia

Philaretos of Syros, Tinos, and Andros

Joakeim of Demetrias

Theoklitos of Kalavryta and Aigialeia

Anthimos of Thera

Vasileios of Florina

Vasileios of Sidirokastron

Demetrios of Leukas and Ithaca

Germanos of Kefallinia

Chrysostomos of Zakynthos

Prokopios of Gortynas and Megalopolis

Iakovos of Attica and Megara

Cherubim of Paronaxia

Andreas of Nikopolis and Preveza

Nikephoros of Kastoria

Germanos of Naupakia

Athanassios of Phocis

Prokopios of Gytheion, Oitylon, and Kythira

 

 

Greek source: Εκκλησία, 42 (October 23, 1937), pp. 329-333.

English source:

Contraception and the Orthodox Church, by Tikhon Alexander Pino, Ph.D., Patristic Nectar Publications, 2025, pp. 113-132.

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Against Baptism by Affusion

Encyclical Letter of Archbishop Nikifor (Theotokis) of Slaviansk and Kherson

1754 A.D.

 

By virtue of my office, I am obliged to watch over everything that pertains to Christian teaching, that this teaching may be preserved sound and uncorrupted. And first of all, I direct your attention to holy baptism, which is the door of all the Sacraments, the beginning of our salvation, the remission of sins, and reconciliation with God. It is the gift of adoption, because in baptism we become sons of God and co-heirs with Christ, putting on Christ our Lord, according to the word of the holy Apostle Paul: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Without this no one can be saved: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Reflecting on this holy Mystery, I must tell you that:

1. The very word or name of it in the original language in which the God-enlightened Evangelists handed down to us the glad tidings signifies immersion, and not pouring or sprinkling (the Greek word “βάπτισμα” — I immerse, I baptize with water).

2. The first lawgiver of baptism, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, having entered into the River Jordan and immersing Himself, was baptized.

3. Likewise also the Apostle Philip baptized the eunuch: “and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:38).

4. The Orthodox Church, according to apostolic tradition, has always baptized by immersion. This is evident from the 50th Apostolic Canon: “If any bishop or presbyter perform not three immersions… let him be deposed…”; from the second Mystagogical Catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “You made the saving confession and, having been thrice immersed in the water…”; and from the words of St. Basil the Great: “By three immersions and the same number of invocations the great Mystery of Baptism is accomplished.”

5. Immersion in water, and moreover a threefold immersion, and likewise a threefold rising from the water, was established not arbitrarily and not by chance, but as an image of the mystery of the three-day Resurrection of Christ. “The water,” says St. Basil the Great, “represents the sign of death, receiving the body as into a tomb. The bodies of those being baptized are in some manner buried in the water, mystically depicting the putting off of the fleshly body, according to the word of the Apostle: ‘In Him also ye are circumcised… with the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; being buried’” (Col. 2:11–12).

6. The Orthodox Church everywhere baptizes by threefold immersion in water and by rising from the water. Thus the Greek Church baptizes; thus the Arabic, Bulgarian, Serbian, Wallachian, and Dalmatian Churches baptize; thus also the Russian Church baptizes throughout all Great Russia. Each of these Churches has a vessel in which they thrice immerse the infants being baptized, naked, with the invocation of the names of the Most Holy Trinity (as indicated in the 49th Apostolic Canon: “If any bishop or presbyter baptize not according to the Lord’s ordinance, into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit… let him be deposed”). And that throughout all Little Russia infants were formerly baptized in the same manner, there is no doubt. Saint Vladimir received the faith and borrowed all the church rites from the Greeks, who both formerly and now baptize by immersion. After this it seems strange that those who had Greek teachers and were baptized by Greeks are now baptized not by immersion.

However, I think, and not without reason, that baptism by means of pouring began first in Kiev, and afterward throughout all Little Russia. Such a departure occurred from the time when the Uniates took possession of the Kiev Metropolia.

In the Roman Church, until the twelfth century, baptism was performed by immersion; afterward they began to baptize not only by pouring but also by sprinkling. From this it follows that among all the Orthodox, only the Little Russians, having abolished immersion, baptize by means of pouring. And this has given occasion to the schismatics to reproach us with having, by neglecting the tradition of the holy Apostles, which is maintained without change in the whole Orthodox Church, followed the custom of the Papists, who among various improper alterations dared also to alter holy baptism. “I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus wrote the divine Apostle Paul. And St. Basil the Great clearly says: “There is danger when someone dies without baptism or when anything delivered in the performance of baptism is omitted.”

Why then do we make omissions in so important a matter? Why do we not preserve this holy apostolic tradition, as it is preserved by the whole Orthodox Church? What reason, what excuse shall we offer for this? Perhaps someone will say that it is dangerous to immerse infants in water. But this would be cunning. The life of His Imperial Highness, the Right-Believing Sovereign Tsarevich and Grand Duke Paul Petrovich, and of his august children is very precious; nevertheless, without any fear, by the goodness of God, they were baptized by threefold immersion in a rather deep vessel, which I myself saw in the court church. Finally, if anyone should say that cold water in wintertime may be harmful to the health of infants, he must know that no law commands that the water used in baptism be cold and frozen; one may take water that is kept in a room.

It seems that what I have said to you, beloved children in Christ and most honorable priests, is sufficient — sufficient that you should no longer baptize by pouring, but should baptize as is prescribed, by immersion; that you, before others in Little Russia, may show this holy example and, for your service and zeal in preserving in the Church the most ancient apostolic tradition, may be deemed worthy to receive from God a reward. Nevertheless, lest anyone neglect this our decree under the pretext that there was no clear command from us concerning it, we, by our pastoral authority, command all our ecclesiastical administrations:

1. To take care that in every church there be constructed a vessel of silver or copper or of some other suitable material, which would have the shape of a bell or of a censer, narrower at the bottom and wider at the top, with a depth of not less than one arshin, and with a width proportionate to its depth, so that it would be fit for use.

2. To order everywhere the priests that over the above-mentioned vessel with water the customary prayers be read, and that in the sanctified water they baptize infants by threefold immersion, invoking at each immersion one of the three names of the Most Holy Trinity, as is performed in the East and in Great Russia.

3. Strictly to command that the sanctified water, after the completion of baptism, not be poured out somewhere outside into an unclean place, but that it be carefully and with due reverence poured into the piscina, that is, where the priests wash their hands; and that the vessel itself not be used for any other purpose, but be kept in the church among the other sacred vessels.

To those who obey and willingly desire to fulfill this our command we promise God’s blessing, eternal glory, and our pastoral blessing.

 

Russian source: Вера и Жизнь [Faith and Life], Chernihiv, Ukraine, 1995, Nos. 2–4 (9–11), pp. 33–34.

Online: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Nikifor_Feotokis/protiv-oblivatelnogo-kreshhenija/

 

Archbishop Platon of Kostroma (+1877): “The Composition of the Church”


 

The Church, as a society of believers, consists of the invisible and the visible, of soul and body.

The Church – an Invisible Society

The invisible, which constitutes the object of faith (Heb. 11:1), or the soul of the Church, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, invisibly and mysteriously acting both in the entire composition of the Church and in each believer. To the invisible side of the Church belong all the gifts of God which Jesus Christ, as Head, communicates to His mystical body — the Church — especially faith, hope, and love, and the gifts of wonderworking and of prophecy.

Such a concept of the invisible Church is found in the Word of God. The Holy Apostle Paul calls the Church the living body of Christ and the house of God (Eph. 4:15–16; Col. 1:18, 24; 1 Cor. 12:27).

The Church – a Visible Society

The Church is not only an invisible spiritual society, but also a visible one. According to its visible side, it is a harmonious assembly of Orthodox believers, arranged in seemly rank and order, or, as it is expressed, an organic whole consisting of visible members, closely united among themselves. The Lord Jesus Christ established a visible society of His disciples; in a sensible and visible manner the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost descended upon the disciples gathered together in one place, and so closely united by love as though all had one soul, one heart. It did not please the Holy Spirit to come only in an inward invisible manner; but as the Word became flesh, so also the Holy Spirit descended upon the Church in a form accessible to the senses (Acts 2:1–2). Jesus Christ established in the Church visible pastors, visible sacred rites and sacraments, for their visible imparting to the faithful.

To the body of the Church belong all Orthodox believers in Jesus Christ who have received holy baptism. Some of them are pastors, others are the flock; some are teachers, others are instructed; some impart sanctification, others receive it. “As in the body one part rules and as it were presides, while another is under rule and governance, so also in the Church all are appointed in such a way that some, for whom this is more beneficial, remain among the flock and under authority, while others are pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the Church and have toward the others the same relation as the soul to the body and the mind to the soul, so that both the deficient and the abounding, being, like the bodily members, joined and knit together into one composition, united and bound by the bond of the Spirit, may present one body, perfect and truly worthy of Christ Himself — our Head” (St. Gregory the Theologian, Orations, Oration 3).

Christians Belonging to the Composition of the Church

The true living members of the Church are only those Orthodox Christians who live holy lives and, with the help of the grace of God, bring forth the fruits of eternal life. But from the purpose of the Church to lead men to eternal salvation, it is evident that not only saints belong to her composition, but sinful people as well. Upon her has been laid by the Lord Jesus Christ the duty to preach His word, to perform the sacraments, to correct those who err, to renew the fallen through repentance, to cut off from herself her stubborn opponents, and to govern the faithful. If the Church consisted of saints alone, she could not fulfill these duties; it would never be possible to know who belongs to the Church, for only the Lord God knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19).

Thus taught the Fathers of the Church, especially those who refuted the Novatians and the Donatists — St. Cyprian and Blessed Augustine.

The Eastern Patriarchs say: “We believe that the members of the catholic Church are all, and indeed only, the faithful, that is, those who undoubtedly confess the pure faith of Christ the Savior, which we have received from Christ Himself, from the Apostles, and from the Ecumenical Councils, even though some may be subject to various sins… they, notwithstanding that they are subject to sins, remain and are recognized as members of the catholic Church, provided only that they do not become apostates and hold fast to the catholic Orthodox faith” (Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith, Article 11).

Christians Not Belonging to the Church

But not all sinners belong to the Church.

a) Those who have fallen away from the Church of Christ do not belong to her — those who through apostasy have trampled upon the Son of God and do not regard as holy the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and who insult the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29).

b) Heretics, who reject or distort the dogmas of the faith of Christ (Gal. 1:7–8; 2 Tim. 3:8–9; 1 John 2:19). St. Irenaeus testifies that from the very earliest times the Cerinthians, the Ebionites, and other heretics were cut off from the Church (Irenaeus of Lyons, Exposure and Refutation of Falsely So-Called Knowledge [Against Heresies], Book I, Chapter XXVIII). Heretics who appeared in later times were likewise continually cut off from the Church both by local and by Ecumenical Councils.

c) Schismatics, who although they do not distort the dogmas of the faith, nevertheless do not submit to the Church. The Savior says: “If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17); Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea forbids praying with schismatics. St. Basil the Great writes: “It is necessary to be very bold and senseless to call members of Christ those who do not work for holy peace, but create divisions in the Church, or who assert that they are governed by Christ” (St. Basil the Great, On Asceticism, Epistle 69).

d) Finally, all those whom the Church, for particular and grave reasons, recognizes it necessary to excommunicate from the Church (Matt. 18:17–18).

It must be added that only manifest, obstinate, and malicious heretics and schismatics do not belong to the Church. But those among them who have not themselves openly separated from the Church, or have not been excommunicated by her, belong to her, although by the invisible judgment of God they may be out of communion with the Church. [Emphasis added.]

 

Source: Сокращённое изложение догматов веры по учению Православной Церкви [A Concise Exposition of the Dogmas of the Faith According to the Teaching of the Orthodox Church], Archbishop Platon of Kostroma and Galich (+1877), “Lestvitsa” Publishing House, Moscow, 1999.

Online:

https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Platon_Fivejskij/sokrashhennoe-izlozhenie-dogmatov-very-po-ucheniyu-pravoslavnoj-tserkvi/

"It came from Me"


 

Did you ever stop to think that everything that affects you affects Me as well? For everything that has to do with you also has to do with apple of My eye. You are precious in My sight, very precious, and I love you. It therefore brings me special joy to educate you. I want you to know that whenever a flood of the enemy’s temptations enemy has descended upon you, it came from Me.

I want you to know that in your weakness, you need My strength, and that your safety lies in giving Me the opportunity to defend you. Did you ever find yourself in difficult straits, among people who did not understand you, who did not consider what you liked, who kept aloof from? Know that this was from Me.

I am your God, Who orders circumstances. It was no accident that you found yourself in that specific place; it was the very place I had appointed for you. Did you not ask that I teach you humility? Thus, I set you into that specific milieu, in the school in which that lesson could be learned. Those around you, those living with you, are merely acting according to My will. If you were ever in financial difficulties, if it was hard for you to make ends meet – that came from Me.

For I manage your resources, and I want you to run to Me, to know that you depend upon Me, that my store of resources is inexhaustible. I want you to become convinced that I faithfully keep My promises, so that in your time of need, others might not be able to say to you “Don’t believe your Lord God.” Did you ever spend the night in sorrow? If you were estranged from loved ones and neighbors, I sent you that.

I am the Man of sorrows, who knows the meaning of sickness. I allowed it so that you might turn to Me and in Me find eternal comfort. If a friend, someone to whom you had opened your heart, disappointed you, that also came from Me.

I allowed you to be touched by that disappointment, so that you might recognize that the Lord is your truest friend. I want you to bring Me everything, and to talk to Me. If someone slandered you, present it to Me, and with your shoulder lean closer to Me, your refuge, so that you might be sheltered from wagging tongues. I will bring out your truth like a bright light and and your fate like noonday. When your plans fell through and you felt downhearted and exhausted, that was from Me.

You had made your own plans, you had your own intentions, and you brought them to Me for My blessing. However, I wanted you to allow Me to decide and order the circumstances of your life, for you are merely an instrument and not an active participant. When in your secular life you encountered unexpected misfortunes, when your heart was seized by despair, know that it came from Me.

For I want your heart and soul to always be ablaze in My sight, to defeat with My name any faint-heartedness. If, because those dear to you infrequently get in touch with you, your faint-heartedness and weakness of faith cause you to fall into discontented grumbling and despair, know that that also came from Me.

It is through this troubling of your soul that I test the strength of your faith, the immutability of your promises, and the daring of your prayers for those dear to you. Was it not you who entrusted your cares for them to My providential love? Was it not you who still entrusts them to the Protection of My Most-pure Mother? If you were struck by a serious illness, whether temporary or incurable, and you became bedridden – that came from Me.

I wanted you to come to know me even more even better through your bodily ills, so that you would not complain about all of these trials sent to you, so that you would not strive by various means to discern my plans of salvation of human souls, so that instead you would obediently and without complaint, would bow your head before My grace for you. If you ever dreamed of doing some special work for Me, and instead lay down on your bed of illness and weakness, that was from Me.

For you would have been burdened with your own affairs, and I would have been unable to attract your mind to thoughts about Me. Yet I want to teach you My most profound of thoughts and lessons, so that you might be in My service. I want you to comprehend that you are nothing without Me. Some of My best children are those who are cut off from active work, so that they might learn to use the weapon of ceaseless prayer. If, unexpectedly, you are called to take on this difficult and responsible position, put your trust in Me. I entrust you with these difficulties, and for them, your Lord God will bless you in everything you do wherever you go; in everything, your Lord will be your Director and Teacher. On this day, My child, I have placed in your hands that container of Holy Oil. Make free use of it. Always remember that every difficulty that arises, every word that offends you, every wrongful accusation or condemnation, every obstacle to doing your job that could evoke disappointment, disillusion, disenchantment, every manifestation of weakness and impotence will be anointed with this oil. That came from Me.

Remember that every false accusation is an instruction from God. Therefore, instill in your heart those words I have told you today: It came from Me.

Keep them, know them and always remember them, wherever you might go. The pain of every sting you endure will be blunted if you will but learn to see Me in everything. I sent everything to perfect your soul. It all came from Me.

 

- Written by St. Seraphim of Vyritsa (+1949) for the consolation of his spiritual son, a bishop being held in a Soviet prison.

The Church Calendar: Just a Question of Thirteen Days?

Adapted from an article entitled "Le Calendrier Ecclesiastique" by J. Besse, which appeared in Foi transmise et sainte tradition, #78, published by Monastère de l'archange Michel in Lavardac, France, which has kindly given permission for this use. As the adaptation is extensive, responsibility for the article as printed rests upon the translator/editor. The historical information regarding conciliar pronouncements concerning the calendar rests entirely upon the original article. Previously printed in Living Orthodoxy, No. 90 [Vol. XV, No. 6, November- December 1993]. – Fr. Gregory Williams [+2016]. Typos corrected.

 

 

Khomiakoff called the insertion of the filioque clause into the Creed a "sin against love." Even though it has not the same theological import, the introduction of the Papal Gregorian Calendar into the Orthodox Church in 1924 by a minority party within Orthodoxy may likewise be called a sin against love, concord and holy Tradition. The misleading and rather absurd attempt to mask the truth concerning this calendar by calling it a "Revised Julian Calendar" (the two coincide until the year 2800!) does nothing to alleviate the transgression.

As if they had an intuition of this unfortunate innovation, destined to destroy the jurisdictional and liturgical unity of the Church, the four patriarchs assembled at the Council of Constantinople of 1848 alerted the faithful people by a solemn encyclical: "Those who accept modernism accuse the Orthodox Faith which was preached to us of having been mutilated. But it is whole and already sealed, accepting neither addition nor retraction, nor any variation whatever. He who dares to think, to counsel or to do such a thing has already renounced faith in Christ. He has already placed himself under the eternal anathema, for having blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, Who is alleged not to have spoken appropriately in the Scriptures and through the Ecumenical Councils. It is not we, brethren and children well-beloved in Christ, who pronounce this terrible anathema, but Our Lord Who has first pronounced it..."

The Orthodox liturgical calendar is constructed of two independent yet interrelated components. To tamper with either is to throw the entire into disharmony. The Paschalion determines the time of the celebration of Pascha (not "Easter," concerning which more will be said later) and all the feasts which depend upon it: the Sundays of the Paschal Cycle, Ascension, Pentecost, and several others whose calendar date varies from year to year. The Menologion, the sanctoral calendar, is of fixed date. Upon it depend the celebration of Our Lord's Nativity ("Christmas"), Theophany (Epiphany) and nearly all the feasts of the saints. The relationship of the Paschalion and the Menologion (the calendar of fixed feasts) was established during the first ten centuries on the basis of the Julian Calendar, which was thus sanctified and thus is separated only with great difficulty from the Orthodox liturgical rhythm.

Certainly, the adoption of the "reformed" (one might more accurately say deformed) calendar, all but identical to the Gregorian calendar, widespread in the Roman Catholic West since the 16th century, does not touch directly upon the dogma of the Church (though it is not without dogmatic significance, concerning which more later). Nevertheless, it seriously harmed the spirit and discipline of the Church in numerous ways:

(1) Without reason, it violated unanimous resolutions to the contrary taken by Orthodoxy, from as early as 1583, to as recently as 1924.

(2) It reduced to nothing, or nearly so, the Apostles' Fast. (In some years, when Pascha is very late, this fast, according to the Church's reckoning, is caused by this foolish "reform" to end before it begins. No wonder some call it the "ignored fast"!)

(3) It introduced a regrettable distortion between the Paschal and sanctoral cycles.

(4) It destroyed the unity of festal celebrations throughout Orthodoxy.

(5) It gave pretext for all manner of schisms.

(6) Above all, it was clearly presented by its principal promoter, the false ecumenical patriarch Meletios IV Metaxakis, an adventurer and notorious Freemason, whose avowed model was the Anglican (Episcopal) Church, as a decisive step toward union with the heterodox. It was in the name of a worldly and exterior love for the heterodox (rather than a godly desire to aid them along the path of salvation) that this blow was struck against love amongst the Orthodox people. One can easily recognize therein, even by the testimony of Meletios himself, the progress of ecumenism, anonymous and remote-controlled, never hesitating to sacrifice some part or other of the Orthodox heritage in the interests of a super-Church, of which the chief cornerstone is no longer the Son of God, but rather Man, divinized by his own genius, his pride, and his technological audacity.

There is no possibility of comprehending or appreciating the interior life of the Orthodox Church upon the basis of the rationalist criteria which prevail throughout most of denominational Christianity; still less so, on the basis of the radically emotional criteria which infuse the revivalist/ pentecostal groups. For Orthodoxy, any radical distinction between dogma, the fundamental doctrinal understanding of the Church, and its daily expression in the life of the Church, can only be artificial. Morality, liturgy, and personal piety are all flowers of the same dogmatic plant. They live in it, and from it adopt an eternal and sanctifying rhythm. By altering but one element of the whole, even one called "minor," but in fact received by the Church and thus sanctified, one in fact alters the Tradition altogether, in its entirety. Under a rationalist, and often masonic, influence, the modernists have substituted a moralist idealism for the divine-human character of the Church, the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it is in the name of humanitarian idealism, a complete stranger to the realism of the Church, that ecumenism pretends to justify itself.

So far as the question of astronomical exactness is concerned, the Gregorian calendar is at least as much in error as the Julian. Shocking as this statement may sound to the average "modern" mind, a brief consideration of the various elements (most particularly the solar and lunar cycles) to which a calendar should respond makes its accuracy apparent. Even more than the Julian, the Gregorian calendar hopelessly ruptures the harmony between the traditional concept of time (as we see it in the Holy Scriptures) and the Church Calendar. [1]

Several great Russian astronomers and theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries have clearly shown the advantages kept, despite its imperfections from an astronomical perspective, by the Julian calendar. Notably, these demonstrations were the result of Professors [Vasily] Bolotov, [Alexey] Georgievsky, and [Nikolai] Glubokovsky who, before 1917, caused numerous attempts to introduce the "new style" which arose in the scientific and civil communities of Russia to run aground.

Professor Glubokovsky (†1937) has shown that the author of the calendar reform adopted by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, Aloysius Lilio Ghiralda, believing that the earth was at the center of the solar system, was compelled to artificially conform the Gregorian year to the actual tropical course of the sun (by which the solstices and equinoxes are defined), by an intermittent and non-periodic adjustment (the leap year). By contrast, the Julian calendar, which reflects the genius of Sosigenes, serves better the influence of the heliocentrism taught by Aristarchus of Samos, relying upon the periodic rotation of the earth around the sun... a cycle much more stable and independent.

In 1948, Professor Georgievsky [†1984], of the theological academy of Moscow, spoke to a pan-Orthodox conference conducted on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church: "In contrast with the new Gregorian Calendar, and the so-called ‘Corrected Julian Calendar’, the calculation of the ancient Julian Calendar is very simple. It has an enormous scientific importance for astronomy, history, and the Paschal Canon. The simplicity, viability and convenience of the Julian Calendar alone do not explain the fact that the days repeat their cycle exactly every 28 years, the new and full moon their cycle every 19 years, and the Paschal Canon repeats its cycle exactly every 532 years." (Acts t. I, р. 399.)

At the same conference, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) declared: "The Julian Calendar... constitutes on all occasions the healthy anchor which holds the Orthodox back from being definitively swallowed up by the heterodox world. It is like a standard under which the children of Orthodoxy may gather to form a single body. The authorization for certain children of the Church to separate from us in church practice, walking in step with the heterodox, despite all its apparent utility and even without the slightest difference of dogma, could in the future have regrettable and even fatal consequences for the well-being of the Church. It could well serve as a weapon in the hands of the enemies of the Church." (Acts t. I, pp. 399-400). This was also the opinion of the representative of the Bulgarian Church (which seems to have a short memory!): "In the practice of the Orthodox Church, one can no more admit a mixed calendar -- that is, that one establish the fixed-date feasts following the Gregorian style, with Pascha and the moveable feasts determined after the fashion of the Julian Calendar." (p. 423)

Finally, Professor Bolotov [†1900] wrote in 1899 to the Russian Astronomical Society: "I remain, as in the past, a convinced partisan of the Julian Calendar. Its great simplicity constitutes its scientific advantage, in contrast to all the so-called corrected calendars. I think that the cultural mission of Russia consists, in this question, in that she must maintain for yet several centuries the Julian Calendar so as to make it easier for the people of the West to abandon the Gregorian reform, of which no one has need, and to return to the ancient undeformed style."

Furthermore, it is a bit of a paradox to see some Orthodox tempted by the Gregorian Calendar just at the moment when Rome contemplates its abandonment altogether in favor of a perpetual calendar fixed and defined by the United Nations, which suppresses both the weekly cycle (and thus the Resurrection celebration of each Sunday) and the variable Paschal cycle. For an atheist society, an atheist calendar...

The "new calendar" was a sin against love amongst the Orthodox from its very beginnings. It was by surprise that Patriarch Meletios IV Metaxakis, assisted more or less against his will by his old teacher the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom I Papadopoulos, brought about the adoption of this reformed calendar by several bishops hastily assembled at Constantinople in 1923. Few of these were in any sense representative of those whom they "represented." It is noteworthy that this initiative was little to the taste of the great majority of the autocephalous churches. Firmly and with discernment opposed by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, already in exile, it encountered a very limited success. With few exceptions, it was then in fact adopted only by those patriarchates which counted only a handful of faithful, in which Church life had become very decadent. Meletios IV had been patriarch of Alexandria before becoming ecumenical patriarch. He retained a powerful influence on that church, which remained very small in number. It was the same with respect to Antioch.

The first significant exception was Greece. But, as we have seen, Meletios had a great influence on its chief bishop. The second was Romania, where the higher clergy were often very liberal and rallied themselves to the position of Constantinople.

Informed by Metropolitan Anthony of the perils to which the introduction of the "new calendar" would inevitably lead (a risk of division which the Soviet power encouraged), the holy Patriarch St. Tikhon of Russia revoked his initial inclination to adopt the new style, and the Church of Georgia followed suit. The Churches of Jerusalem, Sinai, Serbia and Bulgaria, as well as the monasteries of Mt. Athos (with the exception of Vatopedi) categorically refused the new style. It was only much later, under the laicizing and ecumenist spirit which arose there, that certain Western parishes of the emigration were authorized to accept it. Under pressure from the Communist state, the Church of Bulgaria finally accepted it after 1970; however, as was the case with Greece and Romania in 1924, this initiative immediately provoked a schism.

It is necessary to emphasize (for it would certainly appear otherwise from a Western perspective) that the vast majority of Orthodox Christians throughout the world keep still to the traditional calendar of the Church: Russia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Jerusalem, Sinai, Athos, and a major portion of Russians in exile, not to speak of the millions of Greek and Roumanian old-calendrists, the schism of which, while regrettable, is entirely comprehensible.

The partisans of the "new calendar" have carefully concealed the repeated condemnations of the Gregorian calendar by Church authorities over more than three centuries. These severe warnings have concerned not only the Paschal cycle, but just as much the menology, the sanctoral calendar, that of the feasts of fixed date. It is as if they were concerned to condemn in advance the partial reform of 1923. Let us recall only the most clearly stated positions:

• The Council of Constantinople of 1583, presided over by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem, convened after the calendar reform instituted by Gregory XIII, urged the Orthodox, under pain of anathema, "not to accept the new Paschalion, nor the innovative sanctoral calendar."

• This same decision was reiterated by councils at Constantinople in 1587 and 1593, this latter being presided over by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and by a representative of the Church of Russia.

• In the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century, one after another the various local Orthodox Churches condemned again the use of the Gregorian calendar for the fixed feasts- at Constantinople in 1827, 1895, 1902 and 1904; Jerusalem, Russia and Romania in 1903; Greece in 1919.

Only after long reluctance did the Protestant world begin to accept the papal calendar. Great Britain continued to use the ancient Church Calendar for all affairs, religious and civil, until the 18th century... and then only changed its course over considerable protest from the religious community. Even today, certain Swiss valleys continue to keep the ancient Julian Calendar, even for their civil affairs. The Uniate portions of the Roman Catholic Church also resisted the change of calendar, which provoked a temporary schism amongst the Melchites when Rome imposed it upon them in the 19th century. Most of the Roman Catholic Ukrainians and Russians even now keep the true Calendar, not to speak of the Old Believers, the Copts and the Jacobite Syrians.

Perhaps few Americans (certainly high school history books don't make much of a point of it!) are aware that the Church Calendar was the only calendar in use on this continent until the time of the American Revolution. It persisted long after, indeed, in one form or another in some of the more remote regions of the country. In our own mountainous region, there are still to found older folk who remember their parents or grandparents keeping "Old Christmas." This has sometimes been explained away as an alternative name (no matter how absurd) for Theophany (Epiphany, sometimes called "Little Christmas"), but careful inquiries have made it clear that this is not the case... There was a specific, even if fragmentary, awareness that some chicanery had been worked upon the calendar, and that the "real" Christmas didn't come until thirteen days after that marked on the official calendars.

On a purely practical level, the Julian Calendar certainly has some incidental, but far from insignificant, advantages, particularly in the West. The celebration of those few feasts widely observed (notably Christmas, became "X-mas") has become at best sentimental, and at worst, outright pagan. Its follow-up with the chaos of New Year's Eve, and the dreadfully materialistic hype of the weeks of compulsive shopping which precede it, make it an especially good time to avoid. For any serious Christian, it can come only as a great relief to sidestep all that and wait for the arrival, in the stillness which follows, of the traditional day for the celebration of the Nativity of Christ, on that day which "the world" calls 7 January, but the Church knows to be 25 December. In this, the faithful can clearly perceive one dimension of the difference between "to be of this world" and "to live in the world." Do not even the Jews and the Muslims have their own peculiar religious calendar? Why should we be reticent about ours?

There is no small irony in the current situation in the West. While the Protestant world loudly proclaims its separation from, if not outright hatred of, Rome, it continues to accept the dictates of Rome concerning the very calendar by which it regulates its life. [There are, to be sure, some radical sects, scarcely Christian in character or doctrine at all, which reject any liturgical dimension to time whatever, and therefore even any celebration of the Birth or Resurrection of Our Lord. With such extremes we are not concerned here.]

No matter how remotely, it was and is the Pope upon his throne in Rome who decreed that the ancient Church Calendar should be abandoned in favor of keeping the equinoxes and solstices in their "proper place" in the calendar. Who celebrates the equinoxes? Certainly, they have never been celebrated by the Church... but they are very important in any pagan calendar.

It was and is the Pope whose determination of the date of Pascha is substituted for the decrees of the Council of Nicea, with preposterous results. Until the time of Nicea, there was some variation in various parts of the Church concerning the choice of date for the annual celebration of the Resurrection of Our Lord. In some places, it was treated as a fixed date (following the Hebrew calendar, of course); in others, it was kept in relationship to the Jewish feast of Passover, itself a variable feast. The hundreds of bishops assembled at Nicea, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that it was harmful to the life of the Church for such a pivotal celebration to be kept on different days in different places, and so resolved upon a formula for determining a single date for the entire Church, to be variable from year to year, based upon the Biblical formula for the determination of Passover, and always falling after Passover.

This same Council of Nicea was called in the first instance to address a variation in teaching concerning the single most significant dogma of the Christian Faith, something we today (unless we are of the liberal modernist variety) take for granted: Who is Jesus? There had arisen a persuasive preacher, Arius, who was teaching that He was the greatest of all God's creations... but not God Himself, not the Son of God. Arius was able to draw multitudes (even, in some cases, entire countries) into his pernicious teaching – a notion much more comfortable for sinful man than the Truth. Even today, of course, this dreadful blasphemy rears its head (though not with any genuine historical continuity) in such sects as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unitarians.

There is almost certainly a relationship between these two actions of the Fathers of the Council. On the one hand, they condemned the heresy of Arius and proclaimed the Truth in what we now call the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Faith: "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty...; And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God..." On the other, addressing one of the practical ways in which we affirm and celebrate this Truth, they fixed the celebration of the Resurrection of Christ, Pascha. ["Easter" is an undesirable name, derived from a pagan festival in honor of Oestre, the Teutonic equivalent of the Egyptian fertility goddess Osiris, whence the word "estrus." This same Osiris, with her partner Isis, is much beloved of the Freemasons and other Gnostic/ecumenist cults. Anyone who doubts the connection is invited to journey to San Francisco and pay a visit to the facade of the Masonic Temple Al-Islam (!!), there to witness a remarkable display of religious emblems carved in stone, amongst which are the much-suffering Cross of Christ alongside the scimitar of Islam... the whole overshadowed by a giant bas-relief of Isis and Osiris. Calendar, names of feasts, theology... the whole forms one continuous fabric.]

How did they fix this celebration? Quite specifically, it was related to the Hebrew Passover... for "Christ is our Passover." He, the Son of God, is the sacrificial Lamb; He is the Messiah, the One Who is the true Deliverance. In other words, the calendar itself proclaims the Truth: "I believe... in One Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God...."

If one wishes to unravel this Truth, to hide it away from the conscience of the believers, how better to begin? To attack it directly would be to provoke a rebellion. First, "reform" the calendar so that time itself no longer tells the Truth. Then, overlay the true Christian celebration with a wide variety of pagan foolishness or worse (one need recall only Easter bunnies and the perversion of the holy Bishop Nicholas, one of the Fathers of the Council of Nicea, into "Santa Claus"). Finally, it may become possible to persuade at least some that emotions and sentiment and social work are far more important than such silly questions as calendars and even theology...

In the end, we come back to where we began, for the whole tissue of Christian life forms a single fabric. Not infrequently, someone taxes those who are casually dismissed (perhaps even by themselves) as "Old Calendrists" with being so foolish as to suppose that salvation could have anything to do with something so insignificant as a mere thirteen days. Ultimately, of course it doesn't... indeed, ultimately, it has nothing to do with time at all. But God Himself chose to become incarnate, to be made flesh in time, for our salvation, and therefore gave to time a significance it did not previously have. So for us, here and now, it is indeed vital. To turn our backs on the Truth incarnate in time, as incarnate in God made Flesh, is to deny the Incarnation and the Resurrection itself. To unravel the seamless robe of Christ...

 

1. This concept is explored in greater depth in A Scientific Investigation of the Calendar Question, by Hieromonk Cassian (CTOS: Etna, CA, 1998), and in The Orthodox Church Calendar: In Defence of the Julian Calendar, articles by Bishop Photios of Triaditsa and Ludmila Perepiolkina (Holy Trinity Monastery: Jordanville, NY, 1996).

 

Monday, February 23, 2026

The Who’s Who of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete

Protodeacon James Hughes

 

 

As we approach Great Lent, the time given to us specifically for repentance, the Church gives us a whole host of images to help us. St. John of Kronstadt teaches that:

“Imagery or symbols are a necessity of human nature in our presently spiritually sensual condition; they explain [by the vision] many things belonging to the spiritual world which we could not know without images and symbols.”

We need pictures to help us think, to help us digest and understand the truths given to us. What St. Andrew of Crete does in the Great Canon written by him, is to being to remembrance many characters of the Old Testament and a few from the New Testament. In earlier times, people knew the scriptures much more than we do. Mention a name like Korah, Datham, Hophni or Phinehas and many people would be able to tell you all about them. When they heard these names in St. Andrew’s canon, they had the opportunity to be struck in the heart and brought to repentance. Unfortunately, we are not that scripturally literate so the names can just fly by and not mean anything to us. We could be virtually untouched by the canon. The reason for this talk is to at least start us on the way to knowing to whom St. Andrew is referring.

However, we need to do more than simply know who all those people are. We need to take the canon personally. Their sins and failings are our sins and failings. That St. Andrew expects us to approach the canon personally is clear from the way he writes it.

Adam and Eve

The first people mentioned are, understandably, Adam and Eve. In Canticle One we read:

“I have rivaled in transgression Adam the first-formed man, and I have found myself stripped naked of God, of the eternal kingdom and its joy, because of my sins.

And:

“Instead of the visible Eve, I have the Eve of the mind: the passionate thought in my flesh, showing me what seems sweet; yet whenever I taste from it, I find it bitter.”

It is interesting that St. Andrew refers to Eve as the mind. Last week, on March 16/29, in the For Consideration section of the Prologue, there is a quote from St. Hesychius which reads: “If you make yourself fulfill [God's commandments] in thought, you will rarely find it necessary to toil over the fulfilling of them in action.”

So in the beginning of the canon, St. Andrew, through mentioning Adam and Eve tells us of the results of sin (separation from eternal life) and the cause of sin (turning from God in our thinking). St. John of Kronstadt teaches that we do not actually think with our mind. The thoughts we have are generated in our hearts, or are the result of suggestions by the devil. One of the things which the elder Simeon told the Mother of God was that her child “shall be spoken against, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

In the prayer read at Midnight office on Sunday morning, there is a phrase which reads something like “I have become a slave to pleasure through slothfulness of mind”. I have even seen a warning on a bumper sticker which read, “Don’t believe everything you think”. If we believe everything we think, and, in our laziness, do not weigh our thoughts against the commandments of Christ, we become enslaved. By being aware of our thoughts, we can come to know what lies in our heart. We may not like what we come to know, but such is the spiritual life.

Perhaps the rest of the Old Testament figures mentioned in the canon could be seen as symbolizing the various ways in which we sin against God, in thought word, and deed.

Cain

Cain was half-hearted in his devotions and sacrifice toward God. He didn’t give his best. He gave lip service, empty words, to God; he did not give his heart. He knew that the sacrifice he was making was only an outward show, but “killed” his conscience by not listening to it.

Next mentioned is Cain, the first son of Adam and Eve.

“By my own free choice I have incurred the guilt of Cain’s murder. I have killed my conscience, bringing the flesh to life and making war upon the soul by my wicked actions.”

However, God was not mocked; He saw the shallowness of Cain’s efforts and therefore did not accept the sacrifice and reward Cain.

Abel

Of course, Cain is mentioned in contrast to his brother Abel, who offered to God an unblemished lamb. St. Andrew writes:

O Jesus, I have not been like Abel in his righteousness. Never have I offered Thee acceptable gifts or godly actions, a pure sacrifice or a life unblemished.”

Some interpreters of the story of Cain and Abel see Cain’s sin as not offering the correct kind of sacrifice; he offered the fruits of his garden, not a lamb as did Abel. This is missing the point. God, of course wants our hearts. Our responsibility is to give our best in all we do.

Cain’s sin could more correctly be seen as jealously which led to murder. Jealousy comes when we are ungrateful and have not given with a sincere and humble heart. When we feel jealous, it is a sign that we got caught in our ingratitude and we don’t like it. We got caught trying to give our second best but still expecting to receive the best reward. We kill our conscience which tries to tell us that our disappointment is our own fault. Of course, our disappointment, our dissatisfaction, must be someone’s fault so we turn on our brother.

We probably do not murder outwardly as did Cain, but we all know the judgments and anger that accompany jealousy. Our Lord tells us in the sermon on the mount that, “Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time ‘Thou shalt not kill’… But I say unto you “Whosoever shall be angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.”

Mention the school children. Cain and Abel mean “I can’t” and “I am able”. When one of them is not putting their heart in their works, we simply need to ask Cain? or Abel?

Canticle Two

Lamech (descendent of Cain)

In Canticle two, we hear of Lamech. There are a few Lamechs in the Old Testament. This one was a descendant of Cain. Cain had a son named Enoch, and, according to Genesis 4:17, built a city and named it after his son. Enoch had a son named Irad, Irad had a son named Mehujael. Mehujael had a son named Methusael (not to be confused with Methuselah). Finally, Methusael had a son named Lamech.

Lamech’s sin was, like Cain, murder. Whereas Cain killed one person, Lamech kills two people – an older man and a young man. The canon reads:

“To whom shall I liken thee, O soul of many sins? Alas! to Cain and to Lamech. For thou hast stoned thy body to death with thine evil deeds, and killed thy mind with thy disordered longings.

“Through sin, a man ends up destroying his own soul, (the man) and his mind (the young man).”

St. Andrew then mentions four righteous men.

“Call to mind, my soul, all who lived before the Law. Thou hast not been like Seth, or followed Enos or Enoch, who was translated to heaven, or Noah; but thou art found destitute, without a share in the life of the righteous.”

Seth was a son of Adam and Eve born after Abel had been murdered and Cain had been cast away. Seth had a son named Enos. The last verse of the fourth chapter of Genesis reads:

“And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”

Enos had a son named Cainan. Cainan had a son named Mahalaleel. Mahalaleel had a son named Jared, in turn had a son named Enoch. This second Enoch did not die as men normally do. When he was three hundred five years old, he was “translated.”

I cannot tell you exactly what “translated” means, but Enoch was true to the meaning of his name “dedicated”. The scriptures say: “Enoch walked with God: and he was not, for God took him” (Genesis 5:24). Enoch had a very famous son, the oldest recorded person in history -Methuselah.

We have now been introduced to two people named Enoch. The first Enoch was Cain’s son. He was dedicated to this world, symbolized by his connection to a worldly city. The second Enoch was the one mentioned by St. Andrew, who was dedicated to God and was found worthy to enter the heavenly city.

Noah

The fourth righteous man mentioned in canticle two is Noah. We all know Noah. He was a righteous man in the midst of a very unrighteous society. Only Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives survived the Great Flood.

Canticle Three

Lot

Canticle three begins with a reference to Lot, Abraham’s nephew and the son of Abraham’s brother, Haran. Apparently, Haran had died and Abraham was looking after Lot in Haran’s place.

The reference to Lot in the canon is:

“O my soul, flee like Lot to the mountains, and take refuge in Zoar before it is too late. Flee from the flames, my soul, flee from the burning heat of Sodom, flee from the destruction by the fire of God.”

This verse of the canon is in reference to the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Three angels were sent by God to destroy these cities for their extreme wickedness. However, before destroying the cities, angels first went to visit Abraham who was living on the Plain of Mamre, not too far from Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham offered them wonderful hospitality. It was during this visit that the angels told Abraham and Sarah (99 and 89 years old at the time) that Sarah would bear a son who would be called Isaac. This incident is the inspiration behind the icon we know of as “The Hospitality of Abraham.”

When the angels told Abraham that they were on their way to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham realized that his nephew lived there and asked the angels if they would destroy the cities if they found fifty good people there. They said, “No.” Abraham kept questioning the angels, lowering the number of righteous people required to warrant a reprieve. The angels finally agreed that if ten righteous people were in the cities they would not destroy them.

As it turned out, only four good people were found – Lot and his wife and two daughters. The angels told them to flee to the mountains and not turn back. This is when Lot’s wife disobeyed and turned back. She turned into a pillar of salt. It is very possible that the site of Sodom and Gomorrah is now covered by the Dead Sea.

Toward the end of Canticle three there are more references to Lot. We are urged:

“Do not look back, my soul, and so be turned into a pillar of salt. Fear the example of the people of Sodom, and take refuge in Zoar. Flee, my soul, like, Lot, from the burning of sin; flee from Sodom and Gomorrah; flee from the flame of every brutish desire.”

Lot escaped destruction because he fled from temptation and did not look back. So often we entertain sinful thoughts, thinking we can then discard them at will. The Fathers of the Church urge us not to attempt to fight temptation by our own strength but to immediately flee to Christ.

The wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah is generally considered to center around unrestrained sexual desire which leads to depravity. This is clear from the narrative as given in Genesis 19 and also from the reference made in the epistle of St. Jude.

Canticle three also refers to the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

“O my soul, thou hast followed Ham, who mocked his father. Thou hast not covered thy neighbor’s shame, walking backwards with averted face. O wretched soul, thou hast not inherited the blessing of Shem, nor hast thou received, like Japheth, a spacious domain in the land of forgiveness.”

These verses refer to an incident that happened some time after the ark had landed and Noah had planted a vineyard. He was affected by the fermented grape juice and was found in an embarrassing position. His son, Ham, saw him and made fun of his father in front of Shem and Japheth. Unlike Ham, Shem and Japheth did their best to shield their father and “cover his sin”. Ham’s sin was mocking the faults and weakness of others. In the Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian, which we say many times during Lent, we beg God to prevent us from committing this serious sin.

“Yea, O Lord, King, grant me to see my failing and not condemn my brother, for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages.”

When Noah realized what had happened, he cursed the descendants of Ham and blessed the descendants of Shem and Japheth.

Abraham

Canticle three also refers to Abraham:

“O my soul, depart from sin, from the land of Haran, and come to the land that Abraham inherited, which flows with incorruption and eternal life.”

Abraham probably does not need too much of an introduction. Abraham was apparently born in Ur, a city in Mesopotamia. After the death of Haran, Abraham’s brother, his father Terah moved his family north to a city known as Haran (perhaps named after Terah’s son). This became their new home. When Abraham was seventy-five, God told him to, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee.”

So far, we have been presented with two righteous men who were told to leave the place they were living. This, of course, symbolizes the fact that we have ingrained ways of thinking and perceiving that need to be left behind. Prayer and the examination of our own thoughts and perceptions are required of us in the spiritual life. This is part of leaving the old man and allowing Christ to make us new. We venture beyond our own “self-image” into the spiritual unknown, relying on God.

Ishmael

“Thou hast heard, O my soul, be watchful! How Ishmael was driven out as the child of a bondwoman. Take heed, lest the same thing happen to thee because of thy lust. O my soul, thou hast become like Hagar, the Egyptian; thy free choice has been enslaved, and thou hast borne as thy child a new Ishmael, stubborn willfulness.”

Abraham was married to Sarah who was barren. At Sarah’s suggestion, Abraham had a son by Sarah’s maid, Hagar, and this son is Ishmael. Egypt is usually a symbol of evil, or of the passionate, unregenerate life. Thoughts and actions which arise from the passionate in us enslave us. This is a reoccurring theme in the canon.

Canticle Four

Jacob

“Thou knowest, my soul, the ladder that was shown to Jacob, reaching up from earth to heaven. Why hast thou not provided a firm foundation for it through thy godly actions.”

Leah and Rachel

“By the two wives, understand action and knowledge in contemplation. Leah is action, for she had many children; and Rachel is knowledge, for she endured great toil. And without toil, 0 my soul, neither action nor contemplation will succeed.”

Once again, we are enjoined to be watchful rather than slothful with our thoughts. If you remember, Jacob had to work for his uncle, Laban, for seven years in order to marry Rachel. He was given Leah instead, so he worked another seven years for Rachel.

Esau

“Thou hast rivaled Esau the hated, 0 my soul, and given the birthright of thy first beauty to the supplanter; thou hast lost thy father’s blessing and in thy wretchedness been twice supplanted, in action and in knowledge. Therefore now repent.”

Do you recall how Esau lost his birthright to Jacob? He came home from an unsuccessful hunting trip very hungry and asked Jacob for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob said he would give Esau the soup if Esau, in turn, would give him the birthright. Esau, so unwilling to suffer a little, traded his birthright in order to appease his appetite. This is a good lesson for lent.

Canticle Five

Reuben

“In my misery I have followed Reuben’s example, and have devised a wicked and unlawful plan against the most high God, defiling my bed as he defiled his father’s.”

Joseph

“I confess to Thee, 0 Christ my King: I have sinned, I have sinned like the brethren of Joseph, who once sold the fruit of purity and chastity. As a figure of the Lord, 0 my soul, the righteous and gentle Joseph was sold into bondage by his brethren; but thou hast sold thyself entirely to sin.”

Moses

“O miserable soul, thou hast not struck and killed the Egyptian mind, as did Moses the great. Tell me, then, how wilt thou go to dwell through repentance in the wilderness empty of passions? Moses the great went to dwell in the desert. Come, seek to follow his way of life, my soul, that in contemplation thou mayest attain the vision of God in the bush.”

These passages, of course, refer to the time when while still a prominent man in Egypt, saw an Egyptian guard beating an Israelite. Moses killed the guard, thinking no one had seen him…. In this passage we see an example of Egypt, and Egyptians, as symbols of the old, unregenerated man.

Korah, Datham, Abiram, Aaron, Hophni and Phinehas

“Aaron offered to God fire that was blameless and undefiled, but Hophni and Phinehas brought to Him, as thou hast done, my soul, strange fire and a polluted life.” (Then in Canticle six) “Like Datham and Abiram, O my soul, thou hast become a stranger to Thy Lord; but with all thy heart cry out ‘spare me,’ that the earth may not open and swallow thee up.”

Korah, Datham and Abiram were the leaders of a revolt against Moses. When the Israelites were but a short distance from the Promised Land, Moses sent six pair of men, one man from each tribe, as “spies” into the Promised Land. They were to get a sense of the people who inhabited the land and of the land itself. Five pair, (ten men) returned with glowing reports of the land, but told Moses that the people were strong and fierce, with many chariots. It would be impossible to defeat them. Only one pair, Joshua and Caleb, said that although it was true that the people were great, the Israelites could conquer them with God’s help. When the Israelites shouted down Joshua and Caleb and despaired of entering into the new land, God told them that they would wander in the desert for 40 years, until they were all dead. Of the 600,000 people who initially left Egypt, only Joshua and Caleb actually entered the Promised Land.

God told Moses to lead the people south, away from the Promised Land. This is when Korah and his friends lead a revolt. God responded to their revolt by opening the earth which swallowed them. All their families were also killed. When the rest of the Israelites saw what had happened, they blamed Moses and spoke against him, God then sent a plague to kill the people. Aaron, however, took a censer and ran among the people, making atonement for them. The plague then stopped.

The reference to Hophni and Phinehas concerns the two sons of the priest, Eli. As sons of the priest, they had privileges and responsibilities in the temple. The sons greatly misused their position to steal from the people and do all kinds of immoral things. Eli knew what was happening but did nothing but verbally scold his sons. A prophet told Eli that his sons would be killed for their evil. When Eli was told his sons had been killed by the Philistines, he fell backwards and died also.

Although the reference to Eli is in the next canticle we will quote it here.

Eli, the Priest

“Thou hast drawn upon thyself, 0 my soul, the condemnation of Eli, the priest: thoughtlessly thou hast allowed the passions to work evil within thee, just as he permitted his children to commit transgressions.”

Canticle Six

Ephraim (raging as a maddened heifer)?

Joshua, the son of Nun

“Like Joshua, the son of Nun, search and spy out, my soul, the land of thine inheritance and take up thy dwelling within it, through obedience to the law. Rise up and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua against Amalek, ever gaining the victory over the Gibeonites, thy deceitful thoughts.”

This is a reference to Joshua’s work as one of the twelve spies sent into the Promised Land. We are given a foretaste of heaven when we are faithful to God.

Joshua against the Amalekites (descendants of Esau) was the battle shortly before the Israelites reached Mount Sinai where Moses received the Ten Commandments.

The reference to the Gibeonites concerns something that happened after the Israelites had entered the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua. The Israelites had conquered Jericho and the city of Ai and as a result, the surrounding peoples were very afraid of them. The people of Gibeon devised a plan to join forces with several other kingdoms in order to defeat the Israelites. Some of the men of Gibeon dressed themselves in rags, gathered some old dry bread and dried out wineskins and pretended to be emissaries from a distant country. The told a story about how they had heard of the wonders of the Israelites and were seeking to be their servants. The leaders of Israel, including Joshua, were deceived. The scriptures say that, “And the men took of their victuals (believed in the outer appearance), and asked not counsel at the mouth of the Lord.”

Joshua finally realized the plot, gathered his armies together and did battle with the opposing kingdoms. It was a very long and difficult battle, so long in fact that Joshua had to pray that the sun stop in the sky so he would have enough time to win.

Manoah

“O my soul, thou hast heard how Manoah of old beheld the Lord in a vision, and then received from his barren wife the fruit of God’s promise. Let us imitate him in his devotion.”

Manoah was the father of Samson.

Samson

“Emulating Samson’s slothfulness, O my soul, thou hast been shorn of the glory of thy works, and through love of pleasure thou hast betrayed thy life to the alien Philistines, surrendering thy chastity and blessedness.”

Once again we are given an example of the enslavement which follows slothfulness.

Barak and Jepthah with Deborah

“Barak and Jepthah the captains, with Deborah who had a man’s courage, were chosen as judges of Israel. Learn bravery from their mighty acts, O my soul, and be strong.”

Part of “see-saw days” after the death of Joshua. The Israelites did evil in the sight of the Lord and as a result they were conquered by another nation, this time by Jabin, King of the Canaanites. Deborah, a prophetess was the judge of Israel. She called together two good men Barak and Jepthat and they inspired the people to repent and regain their freedom.

Jael, who pierced Sisera

“O my soul, thou knowest the manly courage of Jael, who of old pierced Sisera through his temple and brought salvation to Israel with the nail of her tent. In this thou mayest see a prefiguring of the Cross.”

Sisera was the captain of the armies of Canaan. When the Israelites routed the armies of Canaan, this Sisera fled on foot. He went to the Kenites with whom the Canaanites were at peace and was invited into the house of a man named Heber. Heber’s wife, Jael, knew the whole situation and as Sisera was resting, she took a nail and hammered it into his head. This made the defeat of the Canaanites complete.

Gideon

“O my soul, consider the fleece of Gideon, and receive the dew from heaven; bend down like a hart and drink the water that flows from the Law, when its letter is wrung out for thee through study.”

Hannah and her son Samuel

“Hannah, who lovest self-restraint and chastity, when speaking to God moved her lips in praise, but her voice was not heard; and he who was barren bore a son worthy of her prayer.”

“Great Samuel, son of Hannah, was born at Ramah and brought up in the house of the Lord; and he was numbered among the judges of Israel. Eagerly follow his example, O my soul, and before thou judgest others, judge thine own works.”

Canticle Seven

Saul

“When Saul once lost his father’s asses, in searching for them he found himself proclaimed as king. But watch, my soul, lest unknown to thyself thou prefer thine animal appetites to the Kingdom of Christ.”

David

“David, the forefather of God, once sinned doubly, pierced with the arrow of adultery and the spear of murder. But thou, my soul, art more gravely sick than he. For worse than any acts are the impulses of thy will, David once joined sin to sin, adding murder to fornication; yet then he showed at once a twofold repentance. But thou, my soul, hast done worse things than he, yet thou hast not repented before God.”

Uzzah

“When the ark was being carried in a cart and the ox stumbled, Uzzah did no more than touch it, but the wrath of God smote him. O my soul, flee from his presumption and respect with reverence the things of God.”

While Saul was king and Eli was high priest, the Ark of the Covenant was stolen by the Philistines, the archenemy of the Israelites. When the Ark was brought into the Philistine’s temple where their idol was kept, the idol fell and was smashed. The Ark caused the Philistines all kinds of difficulties so they put it on a cart drawn by two oxen, and pointed the oxen toward Jerusalem. The oxen did not make it all the way to Jerusalem, but stopped about 7 miles short, at the house of a man named, Abinadab. There it stayed there until David was crowned king.

Shortly after being crowned king, David started making plans to return the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. It was put in a cart drawn by two oxen. At one point the cart seemed to be tipping so Uzzah, one of the sons of Abinadab, stretched out his hand to steady the Ark. He was immediately killed.

Absalom and Ahitophel

“Thou hast heard of Absalom, and how he rebelled against nature; thou knowest of the unholy deeds by which he defiled his father David’s bed. Yet thou hast followed him in his passionate and sensual desires.

“Thy free dignity, O my soul, thou hast subjected to thy body; for thou hast found in the enemy another Ahitophel, and hast agreed to all his counsels. But Christ Himself has brought them to nothing and saved thee from them all.”

Absalom was one of the sons of David and was well respected. The Scriptures say of him: in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.” However, Absalom’s goodness and beauty were all on the outside. Inside he was full of pride, ambition and deceit. He rebelled and fought against his father.

Ahitophel was one of David’s counselors, and like Absalom, was highly respected. When Absalom decided to turn on his father and take over the throne, Ahitophel joined him. Together they forced David to leave Jerusalem. Ahitophel wanted to immediately pursue David before he (David) had time to gather those faithful to him. Through a series of events, Ahitophel was delayed and David rebuilt his forces. When Ahitophel saw that he was to be defeated, he set his house in order and hung himself.

We see here a foreshadowing of events which were to take place in the life of Christ almost a thousand years later. Judas betrayed Christ, just as Ahitophel betrayed David, the king. Both Judas and Ahitophel hung themselves. Psalm 54, which is read at Sixth Hour refers to these events:

“For if mine enemy had reviled me, I might have endured it. And if he that hateth me had spoken boastful words against me I might have hid myself from him. But thou it was, O man of like soul with me, me guide and my familiar friend, thou who together with me didst sweeten my repasts; in the house of God I walked with thee in oneness of mind.”

Solomon

“Solomon the wonderful, who was full of the grace of wisdom, once did evil in the sight of heaven and turned away from God. Thou hast become like him, my soul, through thy accursed life.”

Rehoboam

“O my soul, thou hast rivaled Rehoboam, who paid no attention to his father’s counselors, and Jeroboam, that evil servant and renegade of old. But flee from their example and cry to God: I have sinned, take pity on me.”

Rehoboam was a son of Solomon who became the King of Judah. Some representatives of the northern tribes came to him asking for lower taxes. Rehoboam told them that he would give his answer in three days. He spoke with his father’s counselors who advised him to be merciful. He then spoke with some men his own age who advised him to make the taxes even greater. He listened to the younger men, who suggested that he tell the people. “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions”

Jeroboam was the first king of the northern kingdom, of the Kingdom of Israel. He gained his position through treason and encouraged the worship of idols.

Ahab, Jezebel and Eliiah and Zarephath

“Heaven is closed to thy, my soul, and a famine from God has seized thee; for thou hast been disobedient, as Ahab was to the words of Elijah the Tishbite. But imitate the widow Zarepheth and feed the prophet’s soul.”

Ahab was one of the kings of Israel. If you remember, after Solomon’s rule the kingdom was divided into the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. Ahab and his wife, Jezebel encouraged the worship of many different idols. The prophet Elijah, who is also mentioned in the canon, was constantly in opposition to them. Elijah was so enraged by the blasphemers of Ahab that he prayed to God that it would not rain for three and a half years.

At one point Elijah fled because Ahab was going to kill him. God told Elijah to go to a certain widow, Zarephath. He met the widow gathering sticks in preparation for a last meal for her son and herself.

Christ referred to Elias and Zarephath, as recorded in Luke 4:25-26

Hezekiah and Manasseh (mentioned in other services)

“My days have vanished as the dream of one awaking; and so, like Hezekiah, I weep upon my bed, that years may be added to my life. But what Isaiah will come to thee, my soul, except the God of all?

“By deliberate choice, my soul, thou hast incurred the guilt of Manasseh, setting up the passions as idols and multiplying abominations. But with fervent heart emulate his repentance and acquire compunction.”

Hezekiah was one of the kings of Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem. Hezekiah was one of the good kings. He destroyed the idols that had been erected. However, at one point Jerusalem was being besieged by the Assyrians who were conquering all the surrounding area and Hezekiah was despairing. The servants of Hezekiah sought help from the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah prophesied that Jerusalem would be spared; that God would disburse the Assyrians. Hezekiah begged God for mercy and in the morning the citizens of Jerusalem looked over the city walls and saw 185,000 dead Assyrians.

Later when Hezekiah was very sick, Isaiah came to him and told him that he should set his house in order for he was indeed going to die. Hezekiah wept upon his bed and begged again God for mercy. The Lord heard him and granted him fifteen more years of life.

Manasseh was a son of Hezekiah, and therefore the next king of Judah. However, he restored the idols and was very wicked, building altars for idols in the temple itself. Once again God had to send punishment upon the people; the Assyrians captured Manasseh and took him to Babylon. There Manasseh humbled himself before God and repented. When Manasseh was released from Babylon, he tore down the idols he had previously erected and restored the temple to its proper use.

Canticle Eight

Gehazi

“O wretched soul, always thou hast imitated the polluted thoughts of Gehazi. Cast from thee, at least in thine old age, his love for money. Flee from the fire of hell, turn away from thy wickedness.”

Gehazi was the servant of the prophet Elisha. Elisha had healed a man named Naaman of leprosy. When Naaman wanted to give Elisha some money, the prophet refused. After Naaman left, Gehazi thought of a way to get some money for himself. He ran after Naaman and made up a story about Elisha having a few visitors and needing some money. Naaman gave two talents to Gehazi. Gehazi thought he had made some easy money, but when he returned to Elisha, the prophet knew what he had done and prophesied that the leprosy of Naaman would now come upon Gehazi.

Christ referred to this incident as recorded in Luke 4:27.

Uzziah

“Thou hast followed Uzziah, my soul, and hast his leprosy in double form; for thy thoughts are wicked, and thine acts unlawful. Leave what thou hast done, and hasten to repentance.”

Uzziah was one of the kings of Judah and reigned very well, conquering the pagan nations as God had directed and making many improvements in the kingdom. “But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction” He decided one day that he could act as one of the priests and burn incense upon the altar of incense. The priests and several rulers confronted Uzziah but he rebuked them. As Uzziah continued to swing the censer in violation of the Law, his face was covered with leprosy. He died a leper.

Also mentioned are Jonah and the men of Nineveh who repented; Jeremiah, in the muddy pit; and Daniel with the three holy children in the furnace.

1937 Encyclical from the Church of Greece on Procreation and Contraception

  Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to the Sacred Clergy and Pious People of Greece ...