When the Evil One tries to ruin your life and lead you away from Christ, keep in mind that all trials and temptations are occasions for developing a stronger prayer life, and becoming more like Christ. In other words, they are occasions for Salvation and true Theosis.
Salvation is, in one sense, very much about living a life after the likeness of Christ. We are to “put on” Christ, of course, but we are also called to suffer with Him. To imitate Him, just as He imitated the Father.
Jesus, as the express Icon of God the Father and the clearest revelation of and encounter with the All-Holy Trinity, should serve as the example — the standard — and the Person to endeavor to imitate in our Christian lives. This is why the Holy Gospels are the only Scriptural text found on the Altar in the Sanctuary of an Orthodox parish; they are the clearest and greatest revelation in Scripture that God has given us about Himself — in and through Jesus Christ, Who was Incarnate for our salvation.
As such, we should never “start” our pursuit of God and our journey towards deification by looking at the Old Testament Law or ordinances and other things which were only shadows of the reality to come in Christ. With Christ here, it is time to look to Him, and imitate Him — to venerate the Cross, the Holy Eucharist, His Holy Icon, and the Holy Gospels, along with those who have spent their entire lives imitating Him at all cost (i.e., the Saints and Martyrs).
To “know” God, we must know Jesus Christ to the fullest extent possible in this life — and even then we can only scratch the surface.
We should not seek, therefore, to “do theology” by exegeting or dissecting to the utmost minutia every single passage of the Old Testament. This is like turning out the lights in order to find something you’ve misplaced. The light has come; we are no longer living under shadows and signs; under vagueness and subtle prophecies.
Christ has conquered death by death, and we must look to Him — first and foremost — in order to know how to live as Christians. All Scripture is not equal in helping us do this; this fallacy has plagued the Western, modern Church for long enough. Look to Christ and His Holy Gospels, and look to the Church, the Bride and Body. This is how we learn true Theology, and find true theosis. After all, Jesus founded a Church — He didn’t write a book. Do you have Faith in Her?
Reading:
Saint Theodore the Studite was born in Constantinople in 759; his pious parents were named Photinus and Theoctiste. He assumed the monastic habit in his youth, at the monastery called Sakkoudion, and became abbot there in 794. About the year 784 he was ordained deacon, and later presbyter by the most holy Patriarch Tarasius. On joining the brotherhood of the Monastery of Studium (which was named after its founder Studius, a Roman consul), the Saint received the surname “Studite.” He proved to be a fervent zealot for the traditions of the Fathers and contested even unto death for the sake of his reverence for the holy icons. He endured three exiles because of his pious zeal. During the third one, to which he was condemned by the Iconoclast autocrat, Leo the Armenian, he endured courageously – being beaten and bound and led from one dark dungeon to another – for seven whole years. Finally he was recalled from exile by Michael the Stutterer. Receiving thus a small respite from his labours of long endurance, he reposed in the Lord on November 11, 826, a Sunday, while his disciples, who stood round about him, chanted the 118th Psalm. Some say that after receiving the immaculate Mysteries, he himself began chanting this psalm. And on reaching the verse, ‘ I will never forget Thy statutes, for in them hast Thou quickened me” (Ps. 118:93), he gave up his spirit, having lived for sixty-seven years. In addition to his other sacred writings, he composed, with the collaboration of his brother Joseph, almost the whole of the compunctionate book of the Triodion (see also July 14).
Apolytikion:
You are a guide of Orthodoxy, a teacher of piety and modesty, a luminary of the world, the God inspired pride of monastics. O wise Theodore, you have enlightened everyone by your teachings. You are the harp of the Spirit. Intercede to Christ our God for the salvation of our souls.
Kontakion:
Ascetic in truth and equal to the Angel’s life, thy life was made bright with contests and martyric trials; and the holy Angels’ companion was thou, Theodore, blest of God; now together with them, O Saint, thou ceaselessly prayest Christ in our behalf.
Reading:
All the Angels, according to the Apostle Paul, are ministering spirits, – sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation – (Heb. 1:14). God set them as overseers of every nation and people, and guides to that which is profitable (Deut. 32:8); and while one Angel is appointed to oversee each nation as a whole, one is also appointed to protect each Christian individually. He commands them to guard them that hope on Him, that nothing should harm them, neither should any evil draw nigh to their dwelling (Ps. 90:10-12). In the Heavens they always behold the face of God, sending up to Him the thrice-holy hymn and interceding with Him in our behalf, seeing they rejoice over one sinner that repents (Esaias 6:2-3; Matt. 18:10; Luke 15:7). In a word, they have served God in so many ways for our benefit, that the pages of Holy Scripture are filled with the histories thereof. It is for these reasons that the Orthodox Catholic Church, wisely honouring these divine ministers, our protectors and guardians, celebrates today the present Synaxis that is, our coming together in assembly for their common feast to chant their praises, especially for the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, who are mentioned in the Scriptures by name. The name Michael means “Who is like God?” and Gabriel means “God is mighty.” The number of Angels is not defined in the divine Scriptures, where Daniel says that thousands of thousands ministered before Him, and ten thousands of ten thousands attended upon Him -(Dan. 7:10). But all of them are divided into nine orders which are called Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim, Dominions, Powers, Authorities, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.
Resurrectional Apolytikion:
Let us worship the Word who is unoriginate * with the Father and the Spirit, and from a Virgin was born * for our salvation, O believers, and let us sing His praise. * For in His goodness He was pleased * to ascend the Cross in the flesh, and to undergo death, * and to raise up those who had died, * by His glorious Resurrection.
Resurrectional Kontakion:
You descended to Hades, my Savior, and shattered its gates, as the Almighty. As Creator, You raised the dead with yourself, and smashed the sting of death, O Christ. You freed Adam from the curse, O Lover of humanity. Therefore we all cry out to You, Save us, O Lord.
Seasonal Kontakion:
Today, the most pure temple of the Savior, the precious bridal chamber and Virgin, the sacred treasure of God, enters the house of the Lord, bringing the grace of the Divine Spirit. The Angels of God praise her. She is the heavenly tabernacle.
Ouspensky notes that the use of artwork or Icons within the Church was not for the sake of self-expression or the enumeration of opinions, but the preservation of the Faith. This is no different, really, than the role the various writings of Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, or the Holy Scriptures as gathered and used by the Church in Her Liturgy. In fact, both the doctrinal writings and the doctrinal artwork of the Church underwent a significant change following the legalization of Christianity in the Byzantine Empire. Icons no more “sprang up” in the fourth century A.D. than the Scriptures or the doctrinal Truth of the Incarnation or the All-Holy Trinity “sprang up” out of nowhere in this time (or through dabbling with paganism, since many doctrinal definitions of the Church were explained through certain philosophical terminology or presuppositions having common use at the time).
“The art of the first Christians was a doctrinal and a liturgical art. It embodied a true spiritual direction, and the claim of certain scholars who maintain that sacred art was born outside the Church, or that it had no importance until the third or fourth centuries, cannot be taken seriously. Quite the opposite is true. This art reflects a general ecclesiastical guidance and a tight control over the artists’ work. Nothing was left to chance or to the whim of the artist. Everything is concentrated on the expression of the Church’s teaching. From its first steps, the Church begins to develop an artistic language which expresses the same truth as the sacred word. We shall see later that this language, just like the theological expression of the Christian teaching, will become more and more specific throughout the Church’s history, and will become a most perfect and exact instrument of teaching.”
Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, Volume 1, pp. 79-80
The importance of the Icons (along with the Liturgy, the decisions of the Councils, the lives of the Saints and Martyrs, etc.) in a doctrinal and liturgical context within the Church is inestimable, really.
One can quickly see the difference between doctrinal fidelity and stability in an Iconoclastic church (e.g. the Reformed churches, Evangelicals, Baptists, etc.) and the Apostolic Church, where Truth is ever the same and unchanging, just as Christ Himself is (cf. Hebrews 13).
Our Chrismation is now less than a day away, and as it draws near many things are flowing through my mind. One of the important parts of being received into the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church is the reception of a Patron Saint; that is, a Saint who you are named by or identified with, who specifically is assigned to you by Christ to protect you through their intercessions and to encourage and strengthen you in your Spiritual walk, along with all the Saints, one’s Spiritual Father here on earth (whether it be a presbyter or monk, etc.), one’s guardian angel, and our blameless and immaculate Lady Theotokos, the Ever-Virgin Mary.
Long ago, and far away, my parents decided to name me after my father’s father, giving me the middle name of Vincent. Fast forward 26 years, and my search for the Apostolic Faith and a house of refuge and Ark of Salvation for my family (and especially for my baby girl). One of my primary concerns when approaching Orthodoxy was a search for the true Catholic Faith and the true nature of Catholicity. I had been told for a long time what “Catholic” meant, but it was never really the full picture (ironically). Catholicity is about fullness; that is, the fullness of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. Throughout Protestantism, you find bits and pieces of this Faith, but never the unchanged, unabridged, fullness of the Apostolic Faith. Essentially, when you put all of these bits together, you find Orthodoxy and the One True Church. It is with these concerns and thoughts in mind — desiring to be a part of the Faith of Christ and His Apostles — that I approached Orthodoxy, hoping and praying that I would find it, and that I could raise my daughter and perhaps future children in it. I did not want her growing up in a place of turmoil, constant change, schism, doubt, and where there was an exaltation of “reason” over Faith (especially where it concerns the Church and Her claims). We, of course, found all of this in Orthodoxy, and the rest is history.
Coming full circle, it just so happens that a fifth century A.D. monk named Vincent left for the Church a solitary work entitled Commonitory, which was an apologetic defense of the Catholicity of the Apostolic Church and Faith against the schismatics and various heresies of his day (such as Nestorianism, which he addresses directly). While seeking out Orthodoxy, I read St Vincent’s work with great interest and it seemed as if everything he wrote was specifically written for me and for my concerns for both the Faith and how to find it in its fullness. St Vincent is famous for defining the Catholic Faith (against heretics and their novelty) as “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” I soon realized that God knew all of this would happen, even from the day I was born and named by my parents 26 years ago, and He has been carefully guiding my steps ever since up to this very moment on the eve of our Chrismation and reception into the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I know that St Vincent has been praying for me for some time now. It is obvious. He knew that his words that providentially have been left to and preserved by the Apostolic Church were for me and my concerns precisely. He knew me and searched me out before I even knew he existed. I know that I’ll always be in good hands with him interceding to our Lord and Savior on my behalf, and I know that if I ever wonder again or need to be refreshed on how to discern the Catholic Faith, his words are there, ready and waiting, to inspire me and lead me into the arms of our Loving Father.
Someone always has a recollection of the old saying, “God works in mysterious ways.” I’m not sure where exactly this saying came from — I’m not that smart. What I do know, however, is that I think it is more appropriate to say “The Evil One works in mysterious ways.”
One of the signs that Protestantism does not contain the Catholic Faith is the lack of Monastic Orders.
Then, with the accompanying promises, the heretics are amazingly inclined to entice the reckless. For they dare to teach and promise, that in their church, that is, in the conventicle of their communion, there is a certain great and special and altogether personal grace of God, so that whosoever pertain to their number, without any labor, without any effort, without any industry, even though they neither ask, nor seek, nor knock, have such a dispensation from God, that, borne up by angel hands, that is, preserved by the protection of angels, it is impossible they should ever dash their feet against a stone, that is, that they should ever be offended.
St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 26
It is no wonder that one of the key components of a radical revolution is Iconoclasm, since all Icons — whether religious or cultural — are reminders of and even part of our connection with the past. Alongside this, as a result, comes the re-writing of history to suit our particular opinions, tastes, or ideas about what should have happened, maybe — but emphatically didn’t.
When it comes to the Christian past and how we got to where we are today as Christians, Western Protestants are notorious for stacking the deck against reality and presenting a new version of Christian history. This is common for Westerners in general (as conquerors and empires are enabled to tell the story, of course), but is even present among Protestants who are — by and large — Iconoclastic (and even more rigorously so than any Christians ever were in the 8th or 9th centuries, or even Muslims).
In Ouspensky’s next chapter, he deals with the origins of the Christian image, or Icon, and explains in relative detail what these images are really about.
First and foremost, Icons are all about the Incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God and Second Person of the All-Holy Trinity. “The Church declares that the icon is an outcome of the Incarnation; that it is based upon this Incarnation and therefore belongs to the very essence of Christianity, and cannot be separated from it.” (p. 36)
Unfortunately, thanks in large part to the historical ineptness of an English scholar (Gibbon) and his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (an eighteenth century volume), an idea crept into popular scholarship (and eventually Western, Protestant “scholarship”) that “the first Christians had an insurmountable aversion to the use of images [...] this aversion was a consequence of their Jewish origin” (Ibid, p. 36). Gibbon goes on to make the laughable claim that the first Icons didn’t appear until well into the fourth century, and these ideas have sadly been supported by many, many people ever since. The problem here is not that such a claim flatly ignores the countless evidence to the contrary (Icons have been uncovered in archaeological digs from the first century onward, not only in catacombs and burial places for clergy and laity, but also in Jewish synagogues and early Christian “house churches”), but that this “worldview” and approach to scholarship/history is based upon unbelief. In other words, what the Church teaches probably isn’t true, so let’s find out what is. This approach to scholarship is of the Evil One, as it is based upon doubt and skepticism, and not faith — a Faith that is supposed to be grounded in the “One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” precisely as the Nicene Creed says. This is, sadly and tragically, the default scholarly worldview of the Protestant West.
God can be known to us in the same way as a man can see an endless ocean by standing at the shore at night with a dimly lit candle. Do you think he can see much? Not much, almost nothing. And nevertheless, he sees the water well. He knows that there is and ocean in front of him, that this ocean is huge and that he cannot see it all at once. The same is true of our knowledge of God.
St Symeon the New Theologian, Works, “Oration 61,” p. 100
Continuing through Ouspensky’s first volume on Icons, we come to the ever-important topic of Symbolism within the Christian Church. Ouspensky states plainly that “Symbolism expresses indirectly, through images, that which cannot be expressed directly in material or verbal forms.” (p. 17)
Making a necessary distinction between “sign” and “symbol,” as well, Ouspensky writes:
Everyday language frequently confuses the ideas of “sign” and “symbol,” as if they were identical. In fact, there is a necessary spiritual distinction between them. A sign only portrays reality; a symbol always qualifies it in a certain way, bringing forth a superior reality. To understand a symbol is to participate in the presence; to understand a sign is to translate an indication. Let us take the example of the cross. In arithmetic, it is a sign of addition; as a road sign, it is a symbol which expresses and communicates the inexhaustible contents of Christianity.
Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, Volume 1, p. 17
As a symbol, the Cross is a powerful example of this. Whenever it is displayed, the Truth of Christianity is immediately brought to mind for anyone that sees it, and it can be both a rather divisive and controversial symbol as a result. There is probably no other symbol that is so simple and yet so packed with meaning and authority. It calls people to devotion and worship of Jesus Christ as the Son of God; it drives away demons and the powers of the Evil One; it heals; it blesses. Symbolism is extremely important for the Christian, and we must understand this rightly if we are to in turn understand Icons as symbols.
Moving on, Ouspensky wisely notes, “In the Church, symbolism plays a very important role because the entire Church is, in a way, both material and spiritual. That which is material is directly accessible to us; that which is spiritual is indicated through symbols.” (Ibid, p. 17) And just as with Icons specifically, or even the Holy Scriptures, the symbolism found within the Church has its context within the Liturgy and effectively loses all meaning apart from it. They become nothing more than “sterile abstractions” removed from their context, just as the Scriptures do in the hands of unbelievers and those outside the Apostolic and Catholic Church, wherein the Holy Spirit dwells.
The clear words of our Lord and Savior in the venerable Holy Gospel regarding forgiveness:
Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I say not to you, ‘Until seven times,’ but, ‘Until seventy times seven.’ ”On this account the kingdom of the heavens is likened to a man, a king, who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. And after he began to make a reckoning for himself, there was brought to him one debtor of ten thousand talents. But when he had not ability to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and the children, and all things he had, and to render payment. The slave therefore fell down and was making obeisance to him, saying, ‘Lord, be long-suffering toward me, and I will pay all to thee.’ And the lord of that slave was moved with compassion, and released him, and forgave him the loan.”
The Holy Gospel According to St Matthew (18:21-27)
This couldn’t be any clearer. You would especially think people that believe in the perspicuity of Scripture would “get this.” But, I digress.
Jesus teaches us that the way we are to forgive is to “simply forgive,” no matter how great the debt one has with us. There is no debt or sin so great or insurmountable that we are released from the command to forgive. There are no conditions; no complicated scenarios; no intricacies to wrangle in your mind. The command is clear: Forgive, if you wish to be forgiven. In this situation, especially, we see that even when there is no possible way to settle a debt and “make things right,” the command and necessity to simply forgive is still there — again, even when things are so completely out of hand between two parties that there is no possibility of conventional restitution and reconciliation, we are to forgive to “make things right,” not “make things right” in order to forgive. The former is the Gospel, the latter is contrary to it.
So, when someone teaches others that there are certain situations where it isn’t “cut and dry” that we need to simply forgive, or that there are a myriad of “conditions” and “circumstances” necessary to consider before we forgive others, they are not only teaching a falsehood but calling Jesus Christ a liar and denying the very heart of the Gospel of God’s Grace. In fact, the only “condition” given in this Gospel is later where Jesus teaches we are to in turn forgive others likewise, just as we have been simply forgiven by God the Father.
This isn’t “cheap grace;” it is grace beyond our comprehension or understanding, for sure. It is certainly contrary to our wisdom and sinful inclinations. But the fact remains that we are simply called to simply forgive. Period.
Anything contrary to this is the work of the Evil One, the Great Slanderer, Deceiver, and Accuser, and a lie. O Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner! May I always freely and without question forgive those who have sinned against me, so that You in Your great mercy will likewise forgive me! Forgive, O God, those who hate us and those who love us. Amen.
In a previous post on Ouspensky’s work, I explored rather briefly some of his thoughts on the recent developments in the Roman Church regarding images and Iconography, and how unfortunately it has become more common than otherwise to find atheists or unbelievers outside of the Church doing the “decorating” of churches. So then, what does the Orthodox Faith teach in contrast to this?
As with most things in the One True Church, the Orthodox emphasis on Icons is an emphasis of … Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Tradition guides us to make Icons “as they were painted by the ancient and holy iconographers” (Ouspensky, Vol. 1, p. 11; cf. Hundred Chapters Council of AD 1551). However, this does not mean to merely imitate the “form” or “style” of previous Icons, but the Faith and Tradition represented and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is intimately connected to this. An atheist could paint an exact copy of an Icon from the Byzantine world in the 8th or 9th century and still fail to actually create an Icon according to Tradition. We should not be surprised by this, either. What business do unbelievers have with the Scriptures or the Body and Blood of Christ? It is not for them, and they can neither understand nor believe what these represent to and for us as Christians. In a similar manner, an unbeliever cannot make a true Icon according to Holy Tradtion.
St Symeon of Thessalonica once said of Icons, “Use colors according to Tradition.” What a telling and beautiful statement this is! In a similar fashion, Ouspensky notes that,
“St Paul did not imitate Christ by copying His gestures and His words, but by integrating himself into His life, by letting Him live in him. Similarly, to paint icons as they were painted by the ancient iconographers does not mean to copy the ancient forms, since each historical period has its own forms. It means to follow the sacred Tradition, to live in the Tradition.” (Ibid, p. 11)
And what does it mean to “live in” this sacred Tradition? Ouspensky continues:
“But the power of Tradition is the power of the Holy Spirit and of the continuity in the spiritual experience of the Church, the power of communion with the spiritual life of all the preceding generations back to the time of the apostles. In Tradition, our experience and our understanding are the experience and understanding of the Apostle Paul, of the holy iconographers and of the entire Church; We no longer live separately, individually, but in the Body of Christ, in the same total body as all of our brothers in Christ. This is in fact the case in all areas of spiritual life, but it is particularly true in that of sacred art. The contemporary iconographer must rediscover the internal outlook of the iconographers of old and be guided by the same living inspiration. He will then find true faithfulness to Tradition, which is not repetition but a new, contemporary revelation of the internal life of the Church. Indeed, an Orthodox iconographer faithful to Tradition always speaks the language of his time, expressing himself in his own manner, following his own way.”
Leonid Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, Volume 1, pp. 11-12
It seems that one could simply summarize any aspect of Orthodox Theology as having “orthodoxy” as a central focus, but that is almost unnecessarily redundant and obvious. Orthodoxy is all about Orthodoxy, of course. This isn’t about denominationalism, the latest scholarship, a passing fad according to the traditions of men, or the idle speculations of the wisdom of this world — it is the unchangeable, infallible, living Tradition of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, Who is Himself without change and “the same yesterday, today, and unto ages of ages.” And it is in this sense, and in this particular context, that the Church is infallible, incidentally. Therefore, when it comes to Icons and orthodox Iconography, the only “criteria” for such is Orthodoxy, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Ouspensky writes:
“One can speak of style in scientific analyses, in historical or archaeological studies, but to use this idea in the Church to characterize its art is as absurd as discussing the “style” in which the Creed or the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete is written. It is clearly a meaningless statement. In the Church there is only one criterion: Orthodoxy. Is an image Orthodox or not? Does it correspond to the teaching of the Church or not? Style as such is never an issue in worship.”
Ibid, p. 12
For the Orthodox, Icons are not subject to the scrutiny of issues such as “aesthetics” or being “outdated” any more than the Liturgy or the Scriptures could be. The same Spirit speaks through them all, and without change in their Orthodoxy and truth. We should not subject the images of our churches to “personal taste,” either. Certainly, one can have opinions about preference or taste when it comes to artwork (even sacred images and Icons), but such opinions have no bearing on the Icons’ value “as a liturgical image” (Ibid, p. 14). The Great Doctor of the Faith, St John of Damascus, wisely warns us: “If each person could act according to his desire, little by little, the entire body of the Church would be destroyed” (Third Treatise in the Defense of Holy Icons, Ch. 41) — and this St John said during the Iconoclastic period of the 8th century while in exile in Muslim-dominated lands. We should heed his words and carefully examine all of our beliefs and actions as being lived in accordance and as part of sacred Holy Tradition, and Icons are no exception to this.
Recently Said