Sunday of Orthdoxy
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
We have entered into the journey of the Great Fast and though only one week has passed, it is important that we pause to take stock of our progress.
We began with the rite of mutual forgiveness. If we have made our offering well, that is, if we did not simply repeat some formulaic words, but rather we are reconciled with our fellow Christians, then we have hope for progress. If we did not, we have been tripped up by the evil one at the very beginning.
As a wise spiritual trainer, Saint Gregory Palamas offers the following admonitions concerning this in a sermon he preached on Wednesday of the first week of the Fast:
Brethren, there is another sort of evil satiety and drunkenness which does not result from indulging in food and drink, but from anger and hatred towards our neighbor, remembrance of wrongs, and the evils that spring from these. On this subject Moses says in his song, “Their wine is the wrath of dragons and the incurable wrath of asps” (Deu. 32:33). So the Prophet Esaias says, “Woe to those who are drunken, but not with wine” (Esaias 58:3). To those who fasted in this way he says, speaking on the Lord’s behalf, “If thou bendest thy neck as a ring, even then ye will not call this an acceptable fast, and if ye make many prayers, I shall not hearken unto you” (Esaias 58:5), and “When ye spread forth your hands unto me, I will turn away mine eyes from you” (Esaias 1:15).
In this time of fasting and prayer, brethren, let us with all our hearts forgive anything real or imaginary we have against anyone. May we all devote ourselves to love, and let us consider one another as incentive to love and good works, speaking in defense of one another, having good thoughts and dispositions within us before God and men. In this way our fast will be laudable and blameless, and our requests to God while we fast will be readily received. We shall rightly call upon Him as our Father by grace and we can boldly say to Him, “Father forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors” (Matt 6:12).[1]
Let us not allow our fasting to become a fruitless exercise, but rather let us hearken to this wise spiritual trainer and proceed with knowledge. Let us become reconciled and only then offer our gift at the altar (Matt 5:24).
Having thus made a good beginning, we can approach the grace filled feast of the first Sunday of the Fast, the Sunday of Orthodoxy. On this day we celebrate the triumph of the holy icons and all of the correct teachings of the Church.
Why is this important? At the Mystical Supper the God-Man, Jesus Christ, spoke those awesome and saving words, “Drink ye all from it, this is the Blood of the New Testament.” The Mystery of our salvation is inextricably united with the teaching or Testament of our Savior that the Church has preserved from the time of the Apostles. This singular teaching has been preserved through the labors of the Apostles, the blood of the martyrs and the Spirit-bearing ascetical wisdom of the Holy Fathers. This teaching preserves God’s greatest gift unto mankind, the priesthood, which is the means by which we receive Holy Baptism and the medicine of immortality—Holy Communion. In this feast we celebrate the Mystery of our Salvation and the triumph of Truth over error and false teaching.
It is appropriate on this feast to consider the workings of the Church and how the Holy Fathers protected Faith of the singular Covenant of God with His people.
The Holy Spirit descended upon the Holy Apostles at Pentecost and in fulfillment of our Savior’s promise, taught them all things (John 14:26).[2] Filled with revelation, they spread the teaching of Christ throughout the known world. Not much time passed and there were some that tried to impose circumcision and the Law given unto Moses upon newly converted disciples from the nations. [See Chapter 15 of Acts.] The Holy Apostles then prayerfully gathered and there was much discussion on either side of the argument. Saint Peter then rose up and expounded how God had put no difference between the Jew and Gentile in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Afterwards, Saints Barnabas and Paul told of the miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Nations. In conclusion, Saint James the Brother of God, who presided as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, made a speech quoting the Prophet Amos concerning the restoration of the Tabernacle of David and the calling of the Nations.[3] The council then wrote a common decree that proclaimed those famous words, “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…”(Acts 15:28).
Thus, the Holy Apostles thus resolved this outstanding question and established the conciliar principle of the episcopate. In this Apostolic First Council nothing was done arbitrarily, nothing was done unilaterally. (The record of this Apostolic Council alone overturns the pretenses of Rome and its desire to exercise “Papal Primacy” over the all the other bishops of the Church.)
After the example of the Apostolic First Council the bishops of each region would prayerfully gather in council seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to clarify the teaching of the Church and settle disputes.
The Holy Fathers were very careful in guarding the “Pearl of Great Price” (Matt 13:46) that was handed to them by the Holy Apostles. One of the best explanations in the English language of how the early Church guarded and preserved the teaching of the Apostles was written by an Anglican Historian/Thelogian by the name of Henry R. Percival:
The history of the Council of Nice has been so often written by so many brilliant historians, from the time of its sitting down to to-day, that any historical notice of the causes leading to its assembling, or account of its proceedings, seems quite unnecessary. The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others.[4]
The Holy Fathers guarded the faith that they received by honesty and the guilelessness that is referred to in the Gospel for today. The Holy Fathers did not act arbitrarily, but rather they soberly examine all things carefully from all sides when confronted with heresy or accusations against bishops and teachers of the Church. As it is written in the History of the Church by Sozomen regarding the deliberations at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea:
The bishops held long consultations; and after summoning Arius before them, thy made an accurate test of his propositions; they were intently on their guard, not to come to a vote on either side…[5]
This carefulness to study all aspects of the issues was motivated by the intrinsic seriousness of the matter, but it was also for pastoral reasons. How could the process be considered fair and ethical if there was not an impartial hearing? A fair and impartial hearing is part of the principles and protocols for the Holy Church. As it says in footnote 4 of the 32nd Apostolic Canon:
For this reason even divine Chrysostom, since he was summoned into court because he failed to keep and respect the excommunication which the synod of Theophilus pronounced against him, but, on the contrary, disregarded it before any other synodical investigation had been made, defended his stand by stating that he was not present at the trial at all, nor had even heard the accusations made against him by his accusers, nor was he granted any opportunity to present his side of the case in his own defense…[6]
What the lawless Synod of the Oak did not provide for Saint John Chrysostom, the lawful First Ecumenical Council provided for Arius.
Let us thank God for the examples of the Holy Fathers in Council as witnessed by Church History. We have a clear guide. We have a place to stand in times of confusion. To live as a Christian today is very difficult. There is every indication that we are in the last times. We should never be confused or shaken in our faith when we encounter heresy or personal failings in Bishops or other clergy who we formerly held in high esteem. Whole Synods and local Churches have fallen away from Orthodoxy. God’s gift of the grace of the Priesthood in His Covenant with the Church is one thing and human failings are another. Human failings have manifested themselves from time of the fall of Adam and will continue until the Second Coming of Christ. Saint John Chrysostom and Arius were both clergy of the Church and, where one shone forth in sanctity and truth, the other, out of personal ambition, fell miserably away.
The Church is the Lord’s Vineyard and we are all servants that will be judged according to how we fulfilled our stewardship. God will judge. We need to put our faith in our Savior and His promise to Saint Peter that He would build the Church upon the rock of the Faith, “and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).
During these last times, we should ever have before our eyes the words of our Savior recorded in the Book of Revelation:
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. He that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God ( Rev 3:11-12).
On this feast of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, let us thank God for the Holy and God-Bearing Fathers and resolve to become familiar with their teachings and live by them.
As Orthodox Christians we are called upon to preach, proclaim and campaign for the preservation of the one unique Faith and correct understanding of the Church ‘once delivered unto the saints,’ that in so doing, we may partake of the Mystery of Salvation, even in the midst of the many errors of our day. Amen.
____________________
[1] Homily Seven from The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas by Christopher Veniamin, Vol. I, pg. 76-78, St. Tichon’s Seminary Press, South Canaan PA 2002.
[2] “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26).
[3] After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (Acts 15:16-17 [Amos 9:11-12])
[4] Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 14, pg. 2, Historical Introduction to the First Ecumenical Council.
[5] Nicene and Post Nicene Series, Vol. 2, pg. 254.
[6] The Rudder, by SS. Nicodemus and Agapius, trans. by D Cummings, pg. 48.
____________________
APPENDIX
Saint Paul wrote to Saint Timothy, “Hold fast to the form of sound doctrine” (2Tim 1:13). As we see from the historical examples above, this refers not only the form of the words used to express the Faith, but also the procedures of the Church. By way of demonstrating an example of how carefully the Church guides due process, a Template for how ecclesiastical investigations are done today is provided below.
Template for conducting an ecclesiastical investigation
When it becomes necessary to investigate a charge or charges of canonical violations the following template may offer a fair and thorough means to bring the process to a legitimate and proper conclusion. The Holy Canons (along with the accepted commentaries- Zonaros, Balsamon, etc.) provide in themselves the correct application of the canon and the penalty (canona) to be applied. This is only an outline of the investigation portion of the process. Other separate monograms can be prepared if needed for the trial portion of the process. Certain definitions must be clarified to avoid confusion and misunderstanding in whom or what is being stated:
§ Petitioner ( Kategoros): Person or persons who bring a charge or charges against a clergyman. The petitioner must himself be free of any canonical impediment that would invalidate his ability to act or level a charge. He should be able and prepared to introduce evidence to support his claim.
§ Defendant (Kategoroumenos): The accused clergyman. It is a very serious sin to falsely accuse a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon of a canonical infraction.
§ Witnesses ( Martyres) : Persons who may be called to support the petitioner , or the defendant. The same standard of eligibility as per the canons applies to the witnesses.
§ Investigator(s): Person or persons charged to conduct the inquiry. They too are required to free from any canonical impediments and must be clergyman to investigate an accused cleric.
§ Mandate: The official decree issued by the appropriate authority ( the bishop, or Holy Synod in the case of the defendant being a hierarch). The mandate cannot be set aside (or those called, relieved) except in the fulfillment or withdrawal by the issuing authority. The mandate will state the scope and intent of the investigation and the names of the investigators. If the Holy Synod is the issuing authority, only when the synod re-convenes and formally enacts (by a vote) to rescind the mandate, can it be overturned.
It cannot be overemphasized that only a legitimate violation of the Holy Canons should be considered and entertained by the person or persons (the bishop, or synod) charged to oversee the application of this process. If the petitioner(s) is himself found to have violated the canons in his/their effort to bring harm to the accused, he (they) must be prepared to receive an appropriate canona and possible deprivation of rank—suspension or defrockment.
The actual procedure for carrying out the investigation is straightforward:
1) The Date, time and location should be published in multiple formats (letter, email, etc) to provide all those concerned ample time and opportunity to prepare and attend the inquiry.
2) Those who materially participated in the complaint(the petitioner and witnesses) should be required to answer in person if possible the charges they bring forth.
3) A clear set of well defined questions must be asked of all of those interviewed. This is critical so to avoid confusion and possible bias (positive, or negative). The questions must be agreed upon by the investigators beforehand. Additional questions may be asked if a majority of the investigators agrees. Caution must be used in asking additional questions and should be limited to clarifying the answers of the parties questioned.
4) A neutral location should be used and the petitioner/ witness should be interviewed alone without outside influence or pressure.
5) The investigators should avoid any contact with the petitioners outside of the inquiry venue. They must report any attempts to communicate and received communications from the petitioners or other interested parties.
6) A Holy Gospel and Cross should be present. The petitioner /witness should be instructed and admonished in the serious nature of their testimony and the consequences to intentional dishonesty.
7) The investigators should make every attempt to call and interview those materially involved.
8) A journal should be kept by the investigators. They may record (if it is agreed )the proceedings if they wish. The answers of each petitioner/ witness must be recorded.
9) When the investigation is completed the investigators should prepare an individual report by each member. A summary report should be prepared with recommendations if desired. The summary will be presented along with the journal and any supporting evidence to the issuing authority (the bishop, or synod). Only then are the investigating members discharged and their mandate fulfilled.
The issuing authority will then determine if any further canonical action is required (an ecclesiastical trial) or the charges are dismissed. As noted before (if appropriate) canonical sanctions may be imposed on the petitioners if any uncanonical actions can be ascertained through the discovery process of the investigation.