Saint Symeon The New Theologian

‎For those of you who believe that the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Catholic Church is hopelessly locked into a stodgy clericalism, ruled by little potentates devoid of the Holy Spirit, read the words of Saint Symeon The New Theologian. The True Church hangs together upon another power and process completely. 

Saint Symeon is one of only three men the Orthodox Church as allowed the name "theologian." (John the Theologian, Gregory the Theologian and Symeon the New Theologian) The Church has countless saints and Holy Fathers who have written tomes amounting to many thousands of books, and she has many Sacred and Secular historians and theologians, teachers, archeologists, anthropologists and the rest - truly tens of thousands of wonderful teachers and writers, but only THREE men are crowned with the title "Theologian." 

For Protestants, Catholics and many Orthodox Christians the words of Saint Symeon the Theologian have to be "shocking."  Don't confuse Saint Symeon's words with the heresy of Donatism, which claims that for the sacraments of the Church to be empowered the priest has to be without sin.  This is not what Saint Symeon is saying, but he is talking about the extreme spiritual power of those ALIVE in Christ, imbued with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  He is speaking of THAT Holy Spirit present in those alive who are the true power and authority, and ministry of the Church.

"Bishops had in the early church been given the authority to bind and loose which they received as successors to the Apostles, but when time had passed, the Bishops became useless and the authority was passed on to priests of blameless life and worthy of Divine Grace.

When they became polluted also, …it was transferred to monks. It was not that it was taken away from the Priests and Bishops, but rather that they had made themselves strangers to it (by means of their lives)…Someone is NOT Orthodox (Christian) just because he does not slip some new dogma into the Church of God, but rather by whether he possesses a life which is in harmony with true doctrine…

However, the devil remained busy with his goal and when the monks had multiplied, he brought false brethren among them also and monks also were rendered useless…

“Therefore, it is neither in the habit of monks, nor to those ordained and enrolled in ranks of priesthood, not even to those who are honored with dignity of episcopate_I mean Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Bishops_ that God has given the Grace of forgiving sins merely by virtue of their having been ordained.

PERISH THE THOUGHT!

For these are allowed ONLY to celebrate the sacraments, although I think even this is not to be done by many of those who are burning up entirely by their service when they are themselves but straw.

Rather this GRACE is given ONLY to those as many are there are among the priests, Bishops and monks, who have been numbered with Christ’s disciples ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR PURITY OF LIFE! “

"Shocking" words by The Theologian Saint Symeon in letter that denounced the hierarchical thought process that had entered the Orthodox Church in his day and continues in so many places even today. This message among many built up the reason why so many monks, Patriarchs and Priests were so angry with his call to holy life and persecuted him while he was alive.

Vol 3, p.186-203, “Letter on confession” by St. Symeon the New Theologian, SVS Press. Translated by Alexander Golitzin.

http://www.amazon.com/On-Mystical-Life-Ethical-Discourses/dp/0881411442

Book Description

St Symeon the New Theologian was abbot of the monastery of St Mamas in Constantinople at the turn of the eleventh century. He was also perhaps the most remarkable and certainly the most forceful advocate of the mystical experience of God in the history of the Byzantine Church. Though they were on occasion suppressed by ecclesiastical authorities wary of his fierce enthusiasm, as well as his claims to charismatic authority, St Symeon's writings survived in the Orthodox Church and continued to play a vital role in the several renewals of spiritual life and prayer which has sustained the Church in its often difficult history over the past millennium.

This is the third of a three-volume series. The first two volumes translated St Symeon's Ethical Discourses, while this book seeks to place the teaching of the discourses in their proper context, both among Symeon's other writings and with regard to his sources in the Tradition. Included thus is a sketch of Symeon's life and times, together with an extensive discussion of his thought, particularly against the background in the ascetical, mystical, and theological literature of the Christian East prior to the tenth century. Just as he always insisted he was, the New Theologian emerges as a thoroughly traditional representative of central themes in Greek patristic thought, in particular of the doctrine of deification (theosis) as summing up the Christian hope. Even his claims to charismatic authority emerge as fully within monastic tradition dating back at least to the fourth century. These claims appear most clearly in his Letter on Confession which is appended to the present work.
Fr Alexander Golitzin is Associate Professor of Theology at Marquette University. He is author of Et introibo ad altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain, and co-author of The Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church.

On the Mystical Life is part of the POPULAR PATRISTIC SERIES.

The Ecumenical Councils - Lecture Series

Very interesting lecture on the Early Church's Methods of Solving Problems, by the CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishing Company, the biggest printer of Bibles and Christian books in the world.

Most of my friends and relatives are Protestants. Some object to being called that and prefer to be called, Evangelical, or Baptist, or Charismatic, or just "Bible Believing."  Most have no clue why I would become Orthodox. Many of these same people claim to want to get "down to foundational things." Some say that all that matters is "belief in Jesus." The trouble starts when I ask them to explain who Jesus is, and why they believe that mere "belief in Jesus" will save them. Some have become angry with me when I quote the following, "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" - Jas 2:18ff

What is the major "work of faith"? Few realize that the "salvation prayer", which usually goes something like this: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Come into my heart and save my soul" is just the very first baby step in the synergistic work of faith. It only represents the tiniest baby step toward the process of healing/salvation. We see sadly the deformity where people gain great knowledge of the Bible, where they are able to quote proof texts to supposedly prove their salvation, when rather they have not progressed one step towards true salvation.

There is no separation between salvation and healing, they are one and the same. Salvation is the Healing of the whole person. What salvation brings us, is our true humanity, rescue from sin, but more importantly the healing of the wounds, damage and deformities of sin: the inappropriate emotions, the phobias, the bigotry, the hate, the envy, the lust, the religious sickness, the false theologies, the false philosophies, the illusions, the delusion, the lies we have believed to be truth, and all the other things that deform our humanity. AS we are being healed and in fact when we are healed we are not to become "super spiritual" wherein is religious sickness, but rather totally natural. Jesus is the example of that totally natural human being in his post resurrection appearances. That is where we are headed, to be like him. That is the power that the Gospel has, to produce people who have been "sanctified," that is people who have grown to the fullness of the statue of the truly natural human, Jesus Christ, undistorted by sin.

For all those caught in the illusion of "instant salvation" who refuse to accept the clear teaching of the Bible and the Church's Tradition that healing/salvation is taught in three tenses:
Past Tense - We were healed, completely and whole by Jesus' suffering on the Cross.
Present Tense - We are being healed presently in this life as we take advantage of Jesus' work on The Cross, and with the power he gives us through the Holy Spirit, to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Phillipians 2:12
Future Tense - We will be saved/healed wholly and completely in the fulness of the statue of that natural man, Jesus Christ. Ephesians 4:13.

What this world, culture and society see as the "natural human" is a being distorted by sin and the damage of sin; an unnatural man. Indeed the world, cultures and societies, comprised of sinful unnatural men are themselves distortions and unnatural. If in an instant you removed all sin, one is left with the wounds of sin, the damage and distortions of sin.

The idea that salvation is a process is hard to swallow, especially to those clinging to an idea of salvation that is gnostic at its core, that mental assent to a set of simplistic theological principles represents and produces salvation. They say, "I was saved in 1990", claiming Christ's work on the Cross without taking responsibility for the process of realizing that salvation here and now.  What they describe as "salvation" is merely "conversion." Which means "turning around." I was facing away from God, and I've turned to Him." "I was walking away from God, now I'm upon The Way walking toward Him."

The Orthodox early church, that is the Apostles and Holy Fathers, and countless ordinary Christians, those who truly held the Healing Apostolic Tradition, knew that what they were protecting from the assault of false teachers, was The Way, the reality of this very process of healing. Each error taught diluted the strength and reality of the process, some errors destroyed it altogether. This is an elementary recounting of the early Church preserving and protecting that synergistic process of healing/salvation, so that it could and would be passed to generations next, undistorted by human philosophy or the deformities created by ambitious men. Bluntly stated, this is an introduction to the Healing Truth of Salvation, Satan and his minions have been trying to destroy by any means possible for two thousand years. Despite the gates of hell squalling with noisy anger and confusion, (inside and outside of the Church) and the slaughter of Christians in the hundreds of million at this point in history, (over one hundred million in the 20th century alone) nothing will destroy this truth.

 - Archpriest Symeon Elias.

Tape One - The Ecumenical Councils - Part 1 http://audio.ancientfaith.com/eastwest/iew_2008-11-21.mp3

Tape Two - The Ecumenical Councils - Part 2 http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/podup/eastwest/the_ecumenical_councils_-_part_2

Tape Three - The Council of Nicaea - 1: (Dn. Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Four - The Council of Nicaea - 2: (Dn. Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Five - Post Nicaea:  (Dn. Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Six - Constantinople - 1:  (Dn. Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio


Tape Seven - Ephesus (Dn Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Eight - Chalcedon (Dn Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Nine - Constantinople 2 (Dn Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Ten - Constantinople 3 (Dn Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Tape Eleven - The Seventh Ecumenical Council (Dn Michael Hyatt)
Play Audio

Ecumenical Councils 1-7

This is by Dr. Jeffrey Macdonald (from his website OrthodoxChurchHistory.com)
 


1st Ecumenical Council-Nicea 325 AD 
Play Audio

2nd Ecumenical Council-Constantinople 381 AD 
Play Audio

3rd Ecumenical Council-431 AD 
Play Audio


4th Ecumenical Council-450 AD 
Play Audio


5th Ecumenical Council-553 AD 
Play Audio


6th Ecumenical Council-681 AD 
Play Audio


Iconoclasm and 7th Ecumenical Council 787 AD Part 1
Play Audio


Iconoclasm and 7th Ecumenical Council 787 AD Part 2 
Play Audio



Some of the Canons by Fr. Thomas Hopko:

4th Century canons 
Play Audio

Other 4th century canons
Play Audio

3rd Ecumenical council canons
Play Audio

4th Ecumenical council canons
Play Audio

Quinisext Canons Part 1
Play Audio

Part 2
Play Audio

Part 3
Play Audio

For the other 4 to 5 more parts please go to his podcast.


7th Ecumenical council canons
Play Audio

What About That Rapture Thing?

The different views of Protestant Eschatology

This is a roundtable discussion with Authors and Professors, Piper, Hamilton, Wilson, and Storms, where they talk about their views on Eschatology (the study of end time things) and their differences.  One believes in Premillennialism (which the Church calls "Chiliasm "), another in  Postmillennialism, and the third in Amillennialism.  A lot of money and fear has been spread in books and movies like "Left Behind" which depicts "the Rapture" in Chiliasm terms. Yet the majority of convert to Christianity in the last 20 years have been into movements that stress "Premillennial Rapture."  In other words they believe that before things get really bad here on earth they will escape, they will be caught away and not face Tribulation.

Some evangelicals and some protestants influenced by Premillennial pop-culture like to take pot shots at me because of the Church's suspicion of their teaching, which it has called a speculation and not a true teaching of the church. This discussion clearly shows that Protestants too see the same as "speculation" and not a cardinal doctrine of the faith. The largest percentage of Evangelicals are "Premillennialist" but more and more the movement is split along these lines, and in the extremes separation has been ugly.

While there are those who assail Dr Gingrich and call him arrogant and egotistical for refusing to bow to party elitists and capitulate to Mitt Romney . . . in his determination I see a humility they cannot comprehend.

I see the qualities of this prayer having become a part of Dr Newt Gingrich's soul. I honestly believe this prayer resides at the core of his being, whether or not he has ever articulated it or even heard it articulated. This is the formation of Character that makes men/women unconquerable by Satan and all his minions.

O Jesus, meek and humble of heart, hear us.
From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being honored, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being praised, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the desire of being approved, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being humiliated, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being despised, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being falsely accused, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged, Deliver us, Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected, Deliver us, Jesus.
That others may be loved more than I, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That in the opinion of the world, others may increase, and I may decrease, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it.
That others my become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it. - Amen.

(NOTE** Please don't confuse this with any position of surrender. It is only by this massive and true humility that we may find Victory in HIM,[Christ] and His Mercy in the world. NOTHING is more powerful in God's eyes than a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart.)

In The Lamp Light In The Garden

"On my last night, before I face judgment and death - can't you please stay awake with me while "I" pray. I don't even ask you to pray, just be awake, keep me company, but you can't do even that." +++

Lord, so very special is the heartbreak of this night. This night more than the public spectacle of your arrest, your trial, your physical tortures, your physical humiliation - - no, this night is the hardest and most blessed for me. The day remaining represents courage and heroism, but this dark night of the soul, represents the state of human pathos. We all die, inside our own skin, isolated even if surrounded by those who love us. We die alone. Yet, the decisions made by a human (not made by a God) but a human, who could have saved his own skin, yet he remained in the Garden, knowing the Temple Guard was headed his way and torture and death was the ONLY possible outcome.

This night, did you hate Judas? No you didn't. You grieved more for Judas than for the eleven sleeping a hundred feet away from you. You laughed and joke with Judas, you traveled together for three years. You saw his passion and his nationalistic pride, burning to throw off the Romans yoke. No you loved Judas, like you love every person in all of time that has, like me, betrayed you. I can't imagine the human psychic weight of that supper. The banter, the food, and Judas' eyes dancing, while Your heart was breaking.
This night, this supper, you are speaking to your closest friends and they are listening with near total non-comprehension. (As so many still can't hear it.) “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. This cup is the new testament in my blood: ( IN MY BLOOD) this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 

Oh Precious ONE, the being by whom all things were made; Who came to his own but his own did not recognize Him. He, who places life in every cell, and truth be told, life in every atom; Who places the light in every man's eye coming into this world . . . That light a living soul, created in a mystery we cannot comprehend, in YOUR image and likeness - though sin has stolen the likeness, still that soul filled with cognition (self awareness) is by YOUR power, and YOUR power alone, conscious. 

Oh Precious ONE, through the immense power of love we cannot define, though we experience, IF we are truly blessed, tiny sparks of it which almost destroy us, which always fundamentally change us, yet, those sparks, so painful and so wonderful, may be contained in our hearts of flesh - but would shatter and destroy a heart of stone. “one of Thy deep, piercing rays shone into my heart; it became luminous, full of light like iron glowing in the furnace . . .”

So here I sit on this night, that spark aglow, would that we were able, would that we could reach through time and touch the humanity you took to yourself, which in such TRUTH of human nature recoiled in fear in the wee hours of THIS night. Oh IKON of humility, and eternal LOVE, who weeping tears and sweating blood, took control of that human self, steadied your nerves, and from your gut came the words, "Nevertheless, Father, Not MY will, but Thy Will Be Done."

I just took a breath, and without YOU even that simple act would be impossible. I glance at the olive oil lamp I am burning as I sit up with YOU this night, and that act would be impossible without YOU. I am sometimes so weak that if I eat lunch, I cannot manage the leisurely afternoon without a nap. I put on a video, intending to listen to a lecture and awaken realizing that I missed the last thirty minutes. 

Precious ONE, why would YOU choose to take upon yourself the weak human flesh bound by death, certain to die? Why Lord?  I am without a clue.

I know you, because you have lived in my heart and endured my sorted and sinful life, via the presence of Your Holy Spirit from a very, very young age. Yet, the more I Know you, the greater mystery you become. For the turtle, the horizon is across the pond, his “universe is simple.” And that is what the babe is Christ sees, merely the pond where it sits and muddies the waters. Sadly, many Christians remain infants, as you well know. But grace and communion cause the soul to climb out of the mud, and YOU, Precious ONE, who is always speaking just over the horizon recede into the distance, the higher we climb, the farther the horizon. Upon the mountain YOU are hundreds of miles away. Every step up the mountain is intimacy with YOU. Yet, in a mystery incomprehensible the more I KNOW YOU, the greater mystery shrouds YOU.

I see your Might. (Hard to imagine that the concept of the power of the Universe could be symbolized in a single syllable "might.")  I see the universe and know it is a mere single thought, expressed in WORD, and BREATH, that courses through my body. So removed from my existence is such a being, I cannot comprehend why You condescended to take upon yourself human nature like mine? Does a KING burrow in the earth like a worm, more as a worm, more as an actual worm, with the nature of a worm? Yet, that is the message. THAT is the point - YOU created us higher than the angels. Something in us is valuable. What? We Do Not KNOW! But, something in us is worth healing and restoring, rescuing, saving!  

I know YOU, and I know just the thought of my favorite elder brother languishing in the garden alone, not a single faithful friend capable of sharing the fear you experience this night to the point of sweating blood, offends me. Yet, what a hypocrite am I!

How silly my efforts at discipline are by comparison! Skip a couple meals. So what! Would I stand in Truth, in LIFE, were the prospects so fearful that the discipline needed to harness my weak humanity caused me to SWEAT BLOOD? I can't even stay awake for more than three chapters of reading, or forty minutes of a lecture. Like Peter I say, in my weakness and failure, “Yes, Lord, you know my heart. You know I love you.” But like Peter, this night, I'm sleeping.

I have slept most of my life! Lord, Awaken ME! Lord, Awaken ME!

I remember when I first ran across that line, “I have seen my brother in his coffin without grace or beauty, what more can I expect.” I've seen two brothers, both precious, precious people resting with the theatrical pretense in which we cosmetically cover death in money, and even then the grief of it was too much to bear. Yet, the dates of their deaths pass and I remember with fondness all the things I miss without them. But this night Lord, THIS night I grieve. I read those words again, “And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed, saying, "Father, if You will, remove this cup from Me--nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in agony . . .” 

There that is the line – And being in agony . . . . . How could the heart and soul of all that IS chose to suffer agony? Why? If I say . . .listen carefully . . . If I say, “I am not worth it.” I make of my Savior a mere fool, passionately seeking the restoration of something whose value is a fantasy. I make of my Savior a deluded creature, living out some drama for fools. 

But here is the truth of it and what Christianity teaches. If I, or you, just YOU, were the only person on earth, doomed to death via sin, HE would have come and suffered all the same, JUST FOR YOU. And for YOU, just YOU, “He prayed more fervently. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down onto the ground.”

And so sealed his isolated struggle, “And rising up from prayer, coming to the disciples, He found them sleeping from sorrow. Then He said to them, "Why do you sleep? Rise up and pray, lest you enter into temptation." And while He was still speaking, behold, a crowd; and he who was called Judas, one of the twelve, was going before them and drew near to Jesus to kiss Him. But Jesus said to him, "Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?"

Do I Lord, betray the Son of Man with these tears? A language quakes in my bones unutterable by human tongue, a thankfulness so profound no words can speak it, no act purchase it, no mere human intellect understand it. So, once again, on Maundy Thursday I am done in! I know my flesh rests in the cold courtyard huddled by the fire with Simon Peter, surrounded by murderous pagans, quaking in fear and shivering in discomfort.

“I was born a weak, defenseless child, but Thine angel spread his wings over my cradle to defend me.” The first time I sang that sentence it crushed my heart, thinking about the reality of it. But on this night I considered that YOU O Precious ONE, YOU were born a weak, defenseless child!!! YOU were born a weak defenseless child. YOU CHOSE to be born a weak defenseless child. And on this night you chose to be a defenseless lover of all mankind, so that when Simon chopped off the ear of the soldier you stopped him and healed Malchus' ear. You Lord, chose to be defenseless, and it took discipline strong enough to over come fear that sweat blood!

Everything that happened after THIS night was created and sustained by THIS night. Lord, strengthen us all for the dark night of the soul, send us your ministering angels.

Jesus' Prayer In the Garden:

Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.  I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.  Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.  Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.  O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

The Blessed Theotokos (God Bearer)

Zeal Not According to Knowledge (Romans 10:2)
Saint John (Maximovitch) of San Francisco


The corruption by the Latins, in the newly invented
dogma of the "Immaculate Conception, " of the true
veneration of the Most Holy Mother of God
and Ever- Virgin Mary.

WHEN THOSE WHO censured the immaculate life of the Most Holy Virgin had been rebuked, as well as those who denied Her Ever-virginity, those who denied Her dignity as the Mother of God, and those who disdained Her icons-then, when the glory of the Mother of God had illuminated the whole universe, there appeared a teaching which seemingly exalted highly the Virgin Mary, but in reality denied all Her virtues. 

This teaching is called that of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and it was accepted by the followers of the Papal throne of Rome. The teaching is this- that "the All-blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her Conception, by the special grace of Almighty God and by a special privilege, for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin" (Bull of Pope Pius IX concerning the new dogma). In other words, the Mother of God at Her very conception was preserved from original sin and, by the grace of God, was placed in a state where it was impossible for Her to have personal sins.
 
Christians had not heard of this before the ninth century, when for the first time the Abbot of Corvey, Paschasius Radbertus, expressed the opinion that the Holy Virgin was conceived without original sin. Beginning, from the 12th century, this idea begins to spread among the clergy and flock of the Western church, which had already fallen away from the Universal Church and thereby lost the grace of the Holy Spirit.


However, by no means all of the members of the Roman church agreed with the new teaching. There was a difference of among the most renowned theologians of the West, the pillars, so to speak, of the Latin church. Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux decisively censured it, while Duns Scotus defended it. From the teachers this division carried over to their disciples: the Latin Dominican monks, after their teacher Thomas Aquinas, preached against the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, while the followers of Duns Scotus, the Franciscans, strove to implant it everywhere. The battle between these two currents continued for the course of several centuries. Both on the one and on the other side there were those who were considered among the Catholics as the greatest authorities.


There was no help in deciding the question in the fact that several people declared that they had had a revelation from above concerning it. The nun Bridget [of Sweden], renowned in the 14th century among the Catholics, spoke in her writings about the appearances to her of the Mother of God, Who Herself told her that She had been conceived immaculately, without original sin. But her contemporary, the yet more renowned ascetic Catherine of Sienna, affirmed that in Her Conception the Holy Virgin participated in original sin, concerning which she had received a revelation from Christ Himself (See the book of Archpriest A. Lebedev, Differences in the Teaching on the Most Holy Mother of God in the Churches of East and West)


Thus, neither on the foundation of theological writings, nor on the foundation of miraculous manifestations that contradicted each other, could the Latin flock distinguish for a long time where the truth was. Roman Popes until Sixtus IV (end of the 15th century) remained apart from these disputes, and only this Pope in 1475 approved a service in which the teaching of the Immaculate Conception was clearly expressed; and several years later he forbade a condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception. However, even Sixtus IV did not yet decide to affirm that such was the unwavering teaching of the church; and therefore, having forbidden the condemnation of those who believed in the Immaculate Conception, he also did not condemn those who believed otherwise.
 
Meanwhile, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception obtained more and more partisans among the members of the Roman church. The reason for this was the fact that it seemed more pious and pleasing to the Mother of God to give Her as much glory as possible. The striving of the people to glorify the Heavenly Intercessor, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the deviation of Western theologians into abstract speculations which led only to a seeming truth (Scholasticism), and finally, the patronage of the Roman Popes after Sixtus IV-all this led to the fact that the opinion concerning the Immaculate Conception which had been expressed by Paschasius Radbertus in the 9th century was already the general belief of the Latin church in the 19th century. There remained only to proclaim this definitely as the church's teaching, which was done by the Roman Pope Pius IX during a solemn service on December 8, 1854, when he declared that the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Virgin was a dogma of the Roman church. Thus the Roman church added yet another deviation from the teaching which it had confessed while it was a member of the Catholic, Apostolic Church, which faith has been held up to now unaltered and unchanged by the Orthodox Church. The proclamation of the new dogma satisfied the broad masses of people who belonged to the Roman church, who in simplicity of heart thought that the proclamation of the new teaching in the church would serve for the greater glory of the Mother of God, to Whom by this they were making a gift, as it were. There was also satisfied the vainglory of the Western theologians who defended and worked it out. But most of all the proclamation of the new dogma was profitable for the Roman throne itself, since, having proclaimed the new dogma by his own authority, even though he did listen to the opinions of the bishops of the Catholic church, the Roman Pope by this very fact openly appropriated to himself the right to change the teaching of the Roman church and placed his own voice above the testimony of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. A direct deduction from this was the fact that the Roman Popes were infallible in matters of faith, which indeed this very same Pope Pius IX likewise proclaimed as a dogma of the Catholic church in 1870.
 
Thus was the teaching of the Western church changed after it had fallen away from communion with the True Church. It has introduced into itself newer and newer teachings, thinking by this to glorify the Truth yet more, but in reality distorting it. While the Orthodox Church humbly confesses what it has received from Christ and the Apostles, the Roman church dares to add to it, sometimes from zeal not according to knowledge (cf. Rom. 10:2), and sometimes by deviating into superstitions and into the contradictions of knowledge falsely so called (I Tim. 6:20). It could not be otherwise. That the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) is promised only to the True, Universal Church; but upon those who have fallen away from it are fulfilled the words: As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in Me (John 15:4).
 
It is true that in the very definition of the new dogma it is said that a new teaching is not being established, but that there is only being proclaimed as the church's that which always existed in the church and which has been held by many Holy Fathers, excerpts from whose writings are cited. However, all the cited references speak only of the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary and of Her immaculateness, and give Her various names which define Her purity and spiritual might; but nowhere is there any word of the immaculateness of Her conception. Meanwhile, these same Holy Fathers in other places say that only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin.
 
None of the ancient Holy Fathers say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in the womb; and many directly indicate that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by Her Divine Son.

Commentators of the Latin confession likewise say that the Virgin Mary was saved by Christ. But they understand this in the sense that Mary was preserved from the taint of original sin in view of the future merits of Christ (Bull on the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception). The Virgin Mary, according to their teaching, received in advance, as it were, the gift which Christ brought to men by His sufferings and death on the Cross. Moreover, speaking of the torments of the Mother of God which She endured standing at the Cross of Her Beloved Son, and in general of the sorrows with which the life of the Mother of God was filled, they consider them an addition to the sufferings of Christ and consider Mary to be our CoRedemptress.


According to the commentary of the Latin theologians, "Mary is an associate with our Redeemer as Co-Redemptress" (see Lebedev, op. cit. p. 273). "In the act of Redemption, She, in a certain way, helped Christ" (Catechism of Dr. Weimar). "The Mother of God," writes Dr. Lentz, "bore the burden of Her martyrdom not merely courageously, but also joyfully, even though with a broken heart" (Mariology of Dr. Lentz). For this reason, She is "a complement of the Holy Trinity," and "just as Her Son is the only Intermediary chosen by God between His offended majesty and sinful men, so also, precisely, -the chief Mediatress placed by Him between His Son and us is the Blessed Virgin." "In three respects-as Daughter, as Mother, and as Spouse of God-the Holy Virgin is exalted to a certain equality with the Father, to a certain superiority over the Son, to a certain nearness to the Holy Spirit" ("The Immaculate Conception," Malou, Bishop of Brouges).


Thus, according to the teaching of the representatives of Latin theology, the Virgin Mary in the work of Redemption is placed side by side with Christ Himself and is exalted to an equality with God. One cannot go farther than this. If all this has not been definitively formulated as a dogma of the Roman church as yet, still the Roman Pope Pius IX, having made the first step in this direction, has shown the direction for the further development of the generally recognized teaching of his church, and has indirectly confirmed the above-cited teaching about the Virgin Mary.


Thus the Roman church, in its strivings to exalt the Most Holy Virgin, is going on the path of complete deification of Her. And if even now its authorities call Mary a complement of the Holy Trinity, one may soon expect that the Virgin will be revered like God.


(text missing) who are building a new theological system having as its foundation the philosophical teaching of Sophia, Wisdom, as a special power binding the Divinity and the creation. Likewise developing the teaching of the dignity of the Mother of God, they wish to see in Her an Essence which is some kind of mid-point between God and man. In some questions they are more moderate than the Latin theologians, but in others, if you please, they have already left them behind. While denying the teaching of the Immaculate Conception and the freedom from original sin, they still teach Her full freedom from any personal sins, seeing in Her an Intermediary between men and God, like Christ: in the person of Christ there has appeared on earth the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Pre-eternal Word, the Son of God; while the Holy Spirit is manifest through the Virgin Mary.


In the words of one of the representatives of this tendency, when the Holy Spirit came to dwell in the Virgin Mary, she acquired "a dyadic life, human and divine; that is, She was completely deified, because in Her hypostatic being was manifest the living, creative revelation of the Holy Spirit" (Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, 1927, p. 154). "She is a perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis" (Ibid., p. 175), CC a creature, but also no longer a creature" (P. 19 1). This striving towards the deification of the Mother of God is to be observed primarily in the West, where at the same time, on the other hand, various sects of a Protestant character are having great success, together with the chief branches of Protestantism, Lutheranism and Calvinism, which in general deny the veneration of the Mother of God and the calling upon Her in prayer.


But we can say with the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus: "There is an equal harm in both these heresies, both when men demean the Virgin and when, on the contrary, they glorify Her beyond what is proper" (Panarion, "Against the Collyridians"). This Holy Father accuses those who give Her an almost divine worship: "Let Mary be in honor, but let worship be given to the Lord" (same source). "Although Mary is a chosen vessel, still she was a woman by nature, not to be distinguished at all from others. Although the history of Mary and Tradition relate that it was said to Her father Joachim in the desert, 'Thy wife hath conceived,' still this was done not without marital union and not without the seed of man" (same source). "One should not revere the saints above what is proper, but should revere their Master. Mary is not God, and did not receive a body from heaven, but from the joining of man and woman; and according to the promise, like Isaac, She was prepared to take part in the Divine Economy. But, on the other hand, let none dare foolishly to offend the Holy Virgin" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites").


The Orthodox Church, highly exalting the Mother of God in its hymns of praise, does not dare to ascribe to Her that which has not been communicated about Her by Sacred Scripture or Tradition. "Truth is foreign to all overstatements as well as to all understatements. It gives to everything a fitting measure and fitting place" (Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov). Glorifying the immaculateness of the Virgin Mary and the manful bearing of sorrows in Her earthly life, the Fathers of the Church, on the other hand, reject the idea that She was an intermediary between God and men in the sense of the joint Redemption by Them of the human race. Speaking of Her preparedness to die together with Her Son and to suffer together with Him for the sake of the salvation of all, the renowned Father of the Western Church, Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, adds: "But the sufferings of Christ did not need any help, as the Lord Himself prophesied concerning this long before: I looked about, and there was none to help; I sought and there was none to give aid. therefore My arm delivered them (Is. 63:5)." (St. Ambrose, "Concerning the Upbringing of the Virgin and the Ever-Virginity of Holy Mary," ch. 7).


This same Holy Father teaches concerning the universality of original sin, from which Christ alone is an exception. "Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, Who in a special new way of immaculate birthgiving, did not experience earthly taint" (St. Ambrose, Commentary on Luke, ch. 2). "God alone is without sin. All born in the usual manner of woman and man, that is, of fleshly union, become guilty of sin. Consequently, He Who does not have sin was not conceived in this manner" (St. Ambrose, Ap. Aug. "Concerning Marriage and Concupiscence"). "One Man alone, the Intermediary between God and man, is free from the bonds of sinful birth, because He was born of a Virgin, and because in being born He did not experience the touch of sin" (St. Ambrose, ibid., Book 2: "Against Julianus").

Another renowned teacher of the Church, especially revered in the West, Blessed Augustine, writes: "As for other men, excluding Him Who is the cornerstone, I do not see for them any other means to become temples of God and to be dwellings for God apart from spiritual rebirth, which must absolutely be preceded by fleshly birth. Thus, no matter how much we might think about children who are in the womb of the mother, and even though the word of the holy Evangelist who says of John the Baptist that he leaped for joy in the womb of his mother (which occurred not otherwise than by the action of the Holy Spirit), or the word of the Lord Himself spoken to Jeremiah: I have sanctified thee before thou didst leave the womb of thy mother (Jer. 1:5)- no matter how much these might or might not give us basis for thinking that children in this condition are capable of a certain sanctification, still in any case it cannot be doubted that the sanctification by which all of us together and each of us separately become the temple of God is possible only for those who are reborn, and rebirth always presupposes birth. Only those who have already been born can be united with Christ and be in union with this Divine Body which makes His Church the living temple of the majesty of God" (Blessed Augustine, Letter 187).
 
The above-cited words of the ancient teachers of the Church testify that in the West itself the teaching which is now spread there was earlier rejected there. Even after the falling away of the Western church, Bernard, who is acknowledged there as a great authority, wrote, " I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, 'One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.' This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her."


"I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. if, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness" (Bernard, Epistle 174; cited, as were the references from Blessed Augustine, from Lebedev). The above-cited words clearly reveal both the novelty and the absurdity of the new dogma of the Roman church.


The teaching of the complete sinlessness of the Mother of God (1) does not correspond to Sacred Scripture, where there is repeatedly mentioned the sinlessness of the One Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (I Tim. 2:5); and in Him is no sin U John 3:5); Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (I Peter 2:22); One that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15); Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf (II Cor. 5:2 1). But concerning the rest of men it is said, Who is pure of defilement? No one who has lived a single day of his life on earth (Job 14:4). God commendeth His own love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us If, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life (Rom. 5:8-10).


(2) This teaching contradicts also Sacred Tradition, which is contained in numerous Patristic writings, where there is mentioned the exalted sanctity of the Virgin Mary from Her very birth, as well as Her cleansing by the Holy Spirit at Her conception of Christ, but not at Her own conception by Anna. "There is none without stain before Thee, even though his life be but a day, save Thee alone, Jesus Christ our God, Who didst appear on earth without sin, and through Whom we all trust to obtain mercy and the remission of sins" (St. Basil the Great, Third Prayer of Vespers of Pentecost). "But when Christ came through a pure, virginal, unwedded, God-fearing, undefiled Mother without wedlock and without father, and inasmuch as it befitted Him to be born, He purified the female nature, rejected the bitter Eve and overthrew the laws of the flesh" (St. Gregory the Theologian, "In Praise of Virginity"). However, even then, as Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom speak of this, She was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for Her salvation and overcame all temptations (St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on John, Homily 85; St. Basil the Great, Epistle 160).


(3) The teaching that the Mother of God was purified before Her birth, so that from Her might be born the Pure Christ, is meaningless; because if the Pure Christ could be born only if the Virgin might be born pure, it would be necessary that Her parents also should be pure of original sin, and they again would have to be born of purified parents, and going further in this way, one would have to come to the conclusion that Christ could not have become incarnate unless all His ancestors in the flesh, right up to Adam inclusive, had been purified beforehand of original sin. But then there would not have been any need for the very Incarnation of Christ, since Christ came down to earth in order to annihilate sin.


(4) The teaching that the Mother of God was preserved from original sin, as likewise the teaching that She was preserved by God's grace from personal sins, makes God unmerciful and unjust; because if God could preserve Mary from sin and purify Her before Her birth, then why does He not purify other men before their birth, but rather leaves them in sin? It follows likewise that God saves men apart from their will, predetermining certain ones before their birth to salvation.


(5) This teaching, which seemingly has the aim of exalting the Mother of God, in reality completely denies all Her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Her mother, when She could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God's grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after Her birth, then in what does Her merit consist? If She could have been placed in the state of being unable to sin, and did not sin, then for what did God glorify Her? if She, without any effort, and without having any kind of impulses to sin, remained pure, then why is She crowned more than everyone else? There is no victory without an adversary.


The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary were manifested in the fact that She, being "human with passions like us," so loved God and gave Herself over to Him, that by Her purity She was exalted high above the rest of the human race. For this, having been foreknown and forechosen, She was vouchsafed to be purified by the Holy Spirit Who came upon Her, and to conceive of Him the very Saviour of the world. The teaching of the grace-given sinlessness of the Virgin Mary denies Her victory over temptations; from a victor who is worthy to be crowned with crowns of glory, this makes Her a blind instrument of God's Providence.


It is not an exaltation and greater glory, but a belittlement of Her, this "gift" which was given Her by Pope Pius IX and all the rest who think they can glorify the Mother of God by seeking out new truths. The Most Holy Mary has been so much glorified by God Himself, so exalted is Her life on earth and Her glory in heaven, that human inventions cannot add anything to Her honor and glory. That which people themselves invent only obscures Her Face from their eyes. Brethren, take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, wrote the Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit (Col. 2:8).
 
Such a "vain deceit" is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by Anna of the Virgin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belittles Her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the "father of lies" (John 8:44), the devil, who has succeeded by it in blaspheme the Virgin Mary. Together with it there should also be rejected all the other teachings which have come from it or are akin to it. The striving to exalt the Most Holy Virgin to an equality with Christ ascribing to Her maternal tortures at the Cross an equal significance with the sufferings of Christ, so that the Redeemer and "Co-Redemptress" suffered equally, according to the teaching of the Papists, or that "the human nature of the Mother of God in heaven together with the God-Man Jesus jointly reveal the full image of man" (Archpriest S. Bulgakov, The Unburnt Bush, p. 141)-is likewise a vain deceit and a seduction of philosophy. In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), and Christ has redeemed the whole human race; therefore at His Resurrection equally did "Adam dance for joy and Eve rejoice" (Sunday Kontakia of the First and Third Tones), and by His Ascension did the Lord raise up the whole of human nature.
 
Likewise, that the Mother of God is a "complement of the Holy Trinity" or a "fourth Hypostasis"; that "the Son and the Mother are a revelation of the Father through the Second and Third Hypostases"; that the Virgin Mary is "a creature, but also no longer a creature"-all this is the fruit of vain, false wisdom which is not satisfied with what the Church has held from the time of the Apostles, but strives to glorify the Holy Virgin more than God has glorified Her.
 
Thus are the words of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus fulfilled: "Certain senseless ones in their opinion about the Holy EverVirgin have striven and are striving to put Her in place of God" (St. Epiphanius, "Against the Antidikomarionites"). But that which is offered to the Virgin in senselessness, instead of praise of Her, turns out to be blasphemy; and the All-Immaculate One rejects the lie, being the Mother of Truth (John 14:6).