Interpretation of the Bible and Explanation of Patrology –Lectures 3–4, 5

Fr. Dr. Andria Saria

Today’s meeting is dedicated to a very painful topic and question that we often

hear, and about which we almost never have a sufficient or convincing answer. Why is it

that we are told that Christians have one God and one Bible, yet we have so many

differences and divisions among us?

A person who does not seriously study Christian history and its modern life may

list five or six different Christian denominations that he knows. For those who know

more, the situation is even more painful, because there are more than 4,000 different

beliefs within Christianity, which are usually divided into Orthodox and Catholic

branches.

It is true that this course is connected to many practical aspects: learning about

sources, reading texts, studying Christianity, and understanding the sacramental life in the

Orthodox Church. These are subjects that future priests study in theological seminaries.

However, since the people who come to church need basic knowledge, I decided that this

course should not have only a simple and practical purpose, but also a deeper spiritual

and intellectual one.

Of course, we cannot explain everything. But in this course, we will learn the main

points: where the Orthodox Church begins, on which sources the Church stands, and how

it exists. You may have heard many things before, but I am sure you will also learn many

new things.

The first part of my lecture course will be about Christian literature. To give it a

more organized form, and as I have already started before, during these lectures, I will

also explain the Creed step by step, and we will continue this in the future.

Christian literature is very large. It is impossible to cover everything, because it is

like an endless sea. So we must choose certain topics and give special attention to them.

It is not possible to present everything fully, because that would take much more time.

Therefore, I will focus more on less-known parts of Church history and on less-known

Church writers. As for well-known texts and authors, I will give our own explanation and

approach when needed, or I will simply recommend publications for you to read.

The first thing we must do when we explain Church literature is to define important

terms. We need to understand what Church literature and Tradition mean in general. The

explanation of terms should always come before any academic course, so that later,

during the lectures, there will be no confusion.

One important term is patrology. For many centuries, this word has been used to

describe the history of Church literature. But there is another term, patristics, and the

relationship between these two terms sometimes creates confusion. I think their meaning

is often not understood correctly.

Fr. Dr. Andria Saria 3

Sometimes these two words are used as if they mean the same thing. However,

when a language has two different words, even if they come from the same root, usually

there is some difference in meaning.

Both terms are related to Church literature and Church writings. But what is the

difference?

Patristics refers to the actual Church literature itself — the collection of texts and

writings that have been preserved from the Church Fathers. Patrology, on the other hand,

is the study or the science about this literature — about these texts as a whole.

In other words, patristics is the material that we study, and patrology is the academic

study and analysis of that material.

For this reason, in this catechism class, our subject will be both the mysteries

(sacraments) of the Church and patristics. When we use the word patrology, it is better to

understand it as the study of the works of Orthodox Church teachers. This term is often

used to mean the history of Christian literature. More precisely, it means the history of

Orthodox Church literature, because this is what the term includes. The word Pater means

“father,” and logia means “speech,” “study,” or “knowledge.” If we translate this directly

into English, we would get something like “the study of the Fathers.” When I speak about

the Fathers, I always mean the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

From this point of view, it is correct to use the word Patrology when we speak

about the writings of the Orthodox Fathers. Patristics can be used to describe Orthodox

theological literature. However, the history of Church literature, or Christian literature in

general, has a wider meaning. It includes not only the works of Orthodox teachers, but

also the writings of other Christians, even those that may contain heretical ideas.

We must clearly say that without these writings, Church literature cannot be fully

understood. They help us see the complete historical picture and understand the history of

the Orthodox Church itself. For example, it is impossible to understand deeply the antiheretical

works of Athanasius of Alexandria if we do not know what Arianism was, who

the Arians were, what they wrote, and why the Church had to struggle strongly against

them. His works were directed against the Arian heresy.

The same can be said about Cyril of Alexandria and his struggle against Nestorius.

He did not always explain everything in general terms, but he wrote specific works

against this heresy.

We can say even more. Heretical literature, although it had serious errors and

negative consequences, also had one positive result. When a dogma was attacked, the

Church was forced to explain that dogma more clearly and more deeply. In this indirect

way, heretical writings helped the Church to express Orthodox teaching in a more precise

and detailed manner.

The Arian heresy questioned the true divinity of the Son of God, the second

Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. At that time, Athanasius of Alexandria clearly explained

this dogma in all its depth, so that no doubt would remain. This does not mean that other

saints could not explain it, but in his time, there was a historical need for such a clear

explanation.

In general, the history of Church literature shows us the work of Divine

Providence. Because of the false teaching of Nestorius, it became necessary to speak

clearly about the Virgin Mary. Cyril of Alexandria wrote about this in detail.

Patrological literature mainly refers to a genre that explains the meaning and essence of

dogma in a detailed way. For example, The Fount of Knowledge is the major three-part

work of John of Damascus. The title itself shows how important this work is. In it, he

presents Orthodox teaching, but he also includes a section about heresies and a section

about theological terminology. He included these parts so that, by studying heresies, we

may become stronger in the Orthodox faith.

The study of heresy first of all means a warning for ourselves and for others about

the errors we must avoid. If we do not understand what an error is, we may easily fall into

it and think that we believe correctly and remain in the truth. Therefore, it is necessary to

study Church literature as a whole.

To return to the main question: where did so many different beliefs come from?

Why do we have so much disagreement and conflict among ourselves? It is almost

impossible to give a clear and final answer to this question. To explain something can

also mean to justify it. And if we fully explain why so many divisions exist, it may seem

that we are trying to justify them. In that case, we would not only go against the

commandment given by Jesus Christ, but also reject His prayer: “Father, may they all be

one in You.” We would theoretically say that unity is not necessary or important.

Therefore, we cannot answer this question completely.

However, we can come closer to an answer and try to receive at least a small but

correct response. A person should not search for answers only in the differences

themselves, but should try to be nourished by the first source. The most authentic and

closest understanding of the truth, in my opinion, is the apostolic teaching and the

apostolic spirit, which has been preserved by Eastern Orthodox Church and its Tradition.

Today in my sermon I spoke about the Book of Revelation. In Protestant theology, we

often hear an argument against Orthodoxy: “Look at the Revelation of John, and you will

see that if anyone adds anything to the Holy Scripture, God will destroy and punish him.”

In other words, the Bible itself tells us that nothing should be added to it. And you

Orthodox, they say, have non-biblical practices and doctrines that have no connection

with the interpretation of the Bible. These are considered wrong additions to the Bible,

and for this, the Lord will punish you. It is called a great sin against God.

This is a serious argument in the sense that many people believe it, and it can be

effective. But let us examine this argument more closely. After examining it, we will see

that it is not as strong as it first appears.

The first and main answer is that Orthodox Christians do not add anything to the Bible.

For example, we have the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to

Mark. If I added at the end “The Gospel according to Father Andria Saria,” that would

truly be an addition. Or if we said that the works of John Chrysostom or Gregory of

Nazianzus are also part of the Bible and must be accepted as Holy Scripture, that would

be a different matter. In that case, the Protestant criticism based on the words of John the

Theologian would be correct. But we do not do this.

The writings of the Holy Fathers, their commentaries, and the liturgical texts stand next

to the Bible, not as part of it. They do not have the same authority as the Bible itself.

Finally, even within the Protestant tradition there are many books and interpretations of

Holy Scripture, which are called teaching, explanatory, missionary, or saving works. Why

is it acceptable for Protestants to publish books by different authors and use them in

seminaries, schools, and churches, but when Orthodox Christians publish books, it is

called “tradition” and considered unacceptable? This seems strange and unclear.

Second, even though Orthodox Christians do not add anything to the Bible, how do we

know that the exact words spoken by John the Theologian were referring to the entire

Bible itself?

This is a very incorrect and mistaken interpretation of these words. The word “Bible”

itself comes from a Greek word in plural form and means “books.” However, in the

writing of John the Theologian, the word “book” is used in the singular form, not in the

plural. Therefore, if John had wanted to speak about “books” and not “a book” at the end

of his writing, he would have done so and clearly given a prohibition about all the books

as a whole.

The Apostle John is the author of several writings: the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Book

of Revelation. From this, the first and main question is: when was the Book of Revelation

written—first or last? According to Orthodox research and modern scholarship, the Book

of Revelation was written at the end of the first century. John lived until around the year

117, into the second century. He was the youngest among the apostles of Jesus Christ. He

was about 14–16 years old when he became His disciple—very young.

If you compare the texts written by John, any psychologist would tell you that the

Apocalypse seems to be written by a relatively young person. When you read John’s

Epistles, you feel only one strong emotion: love. “Little children, love one another.” Holy

Tradition tells us that the Apostle John almost never used other words, but always

repeated: “Love one another.” No matter what question people asked him, he answered

the same way: love one another.

But what about the Apocalypse? The Apocalypse is open and direct truth—strong and

even angry truth. It sounds as if a young and energetic man is speaking, full of strength.

Remember the opening of the fifth seal, the cry for justice and for an answer. You do not

find such expressions in John’s Gospel. Therefore, both secular research and church

writings tell us that this book was written earliest among his writings. When John wrote

these words, he himself probably did not fully understand their deep meaning.

This book is itself sealed. It is closed and not yet fully opened, and no one can add

anything to it. It is not accidental that in the Orthodox Bible, the Book of Revelation is

placed at the very end. The last word mentioned in the Apocalypse expresses the final

word of the whole Bible.

For almost 2,000 years, there has also been discussion about the identity of the author of

this book. Is it truly Christian? Is it acceptable? The Orthodox tradition recognizes and

receives this book as canonical, and Protestants also accept it. But forgive me—nowhere

in the text itself does it clearly state who the author is. So, how do Protestants know if the

book itself does not clearly say who the author is?

Nowhere in Revelation does it directly say that this John is exactly the same John who

was next to the Savior at the Last Supper. That John the Presbyter—the Theologian—

who was on Patmos and saw the Revelation, and who was the Apostle and Evangelist, is

known to us through Orthodox Tradition. You cannot understand this only from textual

analysis, no matter how much you study Scripture.

What does this mean? It means that, as in other cases, Protestants have used Orthodox

Tradition. They do this without admitting to themselves that they benefit from Orthodox

Tradition. I am not against this—on the contrary, may God bless them in using it. I only

ask that they say openly where they receive these resources from.

On the other hand, when we look at the canonization of the books of the New Testament

and early Christian texts, we see that until the fifth century, churches hesitated about

accepting Revelation as canonical, just as they hesitated about other books. The Georgian

Orthodox Church was careful about recognizing this book until the 8th–9th centuries. It

took a very long time. One reason was that when the lists of canonical books were

formed, the Book of Revelation was not included in the canon list of Athanasius of

Alexandria in the fourth century. Therefore, many churches discussed and debated

whether this book was truly Orthodox and canonical.

For this reason, the Book of Revelation is placed at the end of the Bible. This is the only

reason. It is not because it was written last, but because it was recognized last among the

canonical books by the Orthodox Church.

The apostles were very wise people. Why does John end the Book of Revelation with

such strong words, while the same John does not end his Gospel in the same way? This

question itself shows that the warning at the end of Revelation refers to that specific

book, not to the whole Bible. It actually says the opposite of what some people

claim. At the end of chapter 21 of the Gospel, it says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

These words are from the Gospel of John the Theologian. Here, there is no prohibition.

On the contrary, it is open. It says that many other things were not written. But in the

Apocalypse, the text is closed. This is because the nature of that book is difficult,

symbolic, and deep. No one should add anything to it or interpret it wrongly.

The Book of Revelation contains many allegories and symbols. Many people have been

tempted to understand and explain it in their own way. Many would want to add their

own dreams and visions to it. Imagine someone saying, “Yesterday I had a dream, and it

is a continuation of Revelation.” To prevent such confusion and mixing, John writes that

nothing should be added to this book. He strongly warns that no poison should be mixed

into his writing. He says: What I have written is from God; what is yours, keep for

yourself.

In the Christian world, this does not mean that there were no revelations after that. There

were. For example, we know about revelations and visions on Mount Athos and the

vision of the Mother of God to Saint Seraphim in Diveyevo. However, the Church has

never added these to the Gospel or inserted them into the biblical text. The book of

Revelation remained as it was originally written.

So these debates are normal and even necessary. They help us understand more. The Lord

trusts human beings. The Word became flesh and even went to the Cross. God was

incarnate not only through the Mother of God, but He is also present in the pages of the

Gospel. He entrusted these words to people and trusted them to protect and preserve

them.

People often say, “The Bible teaches this,” or “The Bible teaches that.” The

problem is that every person understands the Bible according to his fallen nature.

Everyone interprets it in the way that is comfortable for him. A person cannot escape a

subjective understanding of Scripture, and this is understandable.

Each of us is, in a way, born twice. We are born in modern times, in our own country and

culture. We receive our education and our way of thinking from our environment. But a

Christian is also born spiritually from the Lord. However, being spiritually born does not

automatically destroy the past culture in which we were raised.

A person who comes to church is, in some sense, also a “smuggler.” He brings with him

past influences and ways of thinking that formed his mind. We rarely criticize these

mental weaknesses. But biblical exegesis does the opposite—it focuses exactly on this

issue. It asks: what is your personal interpretation of the Bible, and what is the authentic

understanding of Holy Scripture without mixtures?

If you have a subjective understanding of Scripture—and you do—at least recognize that

it is subjective. In any scientific field, recognizing your own subjectivity already solves

half of the problem. First understand that you approached the Bible incorrectly in some

ways. Then seek the correct approach, so that you may grow, correct your mistakes, and

become spiritually stronger.

Do not destroy the natural light of the Gospel with your subjective views. When we read

the Bible, we think, and together with the Bible, we form ideas. We become co-workers in

meaning. A text exists in this way: there is the text, the author, and the reader. In real life,

a text becomes alive in this relationship. We give it life together with our understanding.

Our modern understanding of the Bible is naturally influenced by our context. We cannot

escape this reality because the Bible does not speak directly about modern America or

the problems of contemporary life. It does not say that Father Andria Saria must wake up

in 2026 and go to Bowling Green and do certain things. We will not find such a sentence

in the Bible.

What does this mean? It means that the Bible gives eternal truth, not detailed instructions

for every modern situation. We must approach it with humility, awareness of our limits,

and with the guidance of the living Tradition of the Church, so that we do not replace

God’s truth with our own opinions. When we read Holy Scripture, each of us sees himself

in it and understands his spiritual need through the text. Which biblical person expresses

my spiritual condition? Which chapter and verse speaks about me here and now? From

whom can I take an example in this situation?

For example, I see that someone publicly insulted me. Not only did they call me a fool,

but they also insulted my faith. Suppose a television channel like CNN shows a film that

offends my religious feelings. How should I act in such a moment?

I open the Bible. In one place, I read how Jesus Christ says to Saint Peter, “Put your

sword back into its place.” In another place, I see how Moses kills a man who oppressed

his fellow brother. Both examples are from the Bible. Both are Holy Scripture. Which

one should I follow? Should I take a sword and begin to destroy journalists? Or should I

put the sword away and be calm, as Christ told Peter? Where do I see myself correctly in

Scripture?

Here, a new problem begins: how do I define myself inside Holy Scripture? As the

Apostle Peter says, Scripture is not a matter of one’s own private interpretation. We must

have the Spirit of Scripture in order to apply it correctly to ourselves. It must come not

from our emotions, but from the peaceful Spirit of Scripture itself.

The second issue concerns the origin of the Bible. Some Christian groups even want to

remove or ignore the words of Paul the Apostle. Here is an important question: when Paul

spoke about “Scriptures,” what did he mean? Did he mean the Book of Revelation or the

Gospel of John, which were not yet written? Or did he mean his own texts? When he

used the term “Scripture,” what was he speaking about?

The first Christians, when they used the word “Scriptures,” usually meant the writings of

the Old Testament, just as Christ Himself said, “It is written.” When Paul wrote that

something was delivered through the Scriptures, was he speaking about his own letters?

Protestants often say that we must listen only to the Bible. I agree. But where does the

Bible say that we are required to include Paul’s letters inside the Bible? Where does Paul

command, “Go and add my writings next to the Prophet Isaiah”? Where does he say,

“Brothers, add my books to the Bible”? He never says this.

And yet, we place his words next to the words of the Prophet Isaiah. We give them equal

spiritual authority. But Paul himself did not do this. So who did?

From the analysis of the biblical texts alone, no passage clearly commands that the

apostolic writings must become part of a single biblical canon. The fact that we accept

these texts as inspired is not based only on textual analysis. It was formed through

Tradition—through the living Tradition of the Church. This is something that many

Protestant churches do not fully recognize or appreciate.

Now we come to the main question: who is the author of the Bible? I know the ready

answer: God and the prophets sent by God. But that is not exactly my question. I am not

asking who wrote the Gospel of John or Revelation. I am asking: who is the author—or

better, the editor—of the Bible as one book?

When a collection of writings by different authors is published, at the end it says who is

the editor and publisher. In the same way, who gathered these biblical texts and placed

them into one codex? Who decided that these different writings, with different styles and

purposes, are equal in value and belong together as one Holy Scripture?

This question leads us again to the role of the Church. The Bible did not fall from heaven

as a single completed book. It was recognized, gathered, and preserved by the Church.

Without the Church’s discernment, there would be no unified Bible as we know it today.

At the beginning, these books existed separately. They were written independently. Who

gathered them together? By what principle and by what authority? This is the main

question: by what authority?

We know that the history of the first Christians was not simple. Even the authors of the

Gospels mention that already in the first century there were many narratives about Christ.

The apostles themselves write that false gospels, false witnesses about Christ, false

teachings, and false apostles had appeared. In the writings of first- and second-century

Christian authors, we also see warnings: “Be careful, many false teachings are

spreading.”

There were many false teachers who spread their own works and books. They presented

them as if they were from God and even attached the names of apostles to them. In this

sea of material, who separated the true teaching from the false and brought the correct

faith to us?

We know many examples of such false writings: the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary,

and others. So again, the main question remains: who collected and united these books

into one?

Today, we use the term “copyright.” In the early Church, they used the term “canonical”

and “non-canonical” books. For example, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, or The Da

Vinci Code by Dan Brown—each author wrote independently. But if someone gathers

their works into one collection, that collection belongs to the publisher as an idea and as a

united edition. The publisher places its name and rights at the beginning of the book.

In a similar way, the “copyright,” so to speak, of the Bible belongs to the Church, which

received it as one united book. I am not against Protestant churches using the same Bible

with the same content. The only thing we ask is recognition—that this unity of the Bible

as one canon is also a tradition received from the ancient Church, which Protestants

inherited from the Orthodox Church.

Protestants often say very easily that they rejected extra traditions and now live only

according to the Bible. But today we have seen at least twice that this is not completely

true. They still benefit from tradition. They share many traditions and continue to live by

them, but they do not always recognize or fully realize this.

One important tradition that Protestants also inherited from Orthodoxy is the Jesus

Prayer. Of course, it is natural that a Christian prays to Christ. However, when I speak

with Protestant friends, I know their style. Often they ask: “Show me where this is

written in Scripture. Not logically, not historically—show me directly from the text.

Where does it say to pray to the saints? Where does it say to pray to the Mother of God?

Where does it say to pray before icons? Where does it say to baptize infants? Show it

from the Bible.”

If this is the tone of the discussion, I sometimes answer: then show me from the text of

Holy Scripture where it clearly says that we must pray directly to Jesus Christ. Yes, it

says to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. But where is the direct example in

Scripture that says, “Pray to Jesus Christ” in exactly those words?

These questions show that faith is not built only on isolated verses. It is lived inside the

community of the Church, where Scripture and Tradition work together. Without this

living Tradition, even the Bible itself would not exist for us as one united and recognized

book. Yes, during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, we clearly see people speaking directly

to Him: “Lord, heal my child,” and similar prayers. After His Resurrection, when people

saw Him, they also spoke to Him. But where do we see in the text an example of

someone praying to Christ when He was no longer visibly present on earth?

For us, who live in the flesh and do not physically see Him, where is the clear example in

Scripture of prayer addressed to the invisible Christ? The Bible does not describe this

situation in a detailed way. During their lifetime, people also asked Saint Peter, Paul the

Apostle, and the other apostles for help and prayer.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses do not pray to Jesus Christ. They mention only

Jehovah. From the Orthodox understanding, we have many texts where people pray to the

Lord. But Jehovah’s Witnesses ask: how do you know that “Lord” in those places means

Jesus as God?

Interestingly, the great second-century theologian Origen believed that one should not

pray directly to Jesus Christ. He thought that the Bible does not give enough clear

evidence for praying to Jesus. His view did not come simply from textual analysis but

from his personal theological system. According to Origen, the whole universe moves in

cycles and will return to its beginning. He taught that everything began from God the

Father and will return to the Father. He even suggested that Christ’s reign would have an

end—that Christ would reign for a thousand years and then everything would return to

the Father.

Because of such ideas, in the fourth century, the Church clearly stated in the Creed that

Christ’s kingdom will have no end. This was to protect the true faith. Orthodox Christians pray to Jesus Christ—on what basis? On the basis of Church Tradition. This does not come from a direct command written clearly as an instruction in the Bible. It comes from Holy Tradition, the living experience of the Church. Protestants also pray to Jesus, and the important point is that they should also recognize that this

practice itself is part of Tradition.

There is a story in the ancient desert fathers. In one story, a monk lived alone in the deep

desert. Thieves attacked his cell and stole everything they thought was valuable. They left

behind one old monastic garment, because it had no value for them. In ancient Greek

terminology, the monk’s garment was not something special like today’s priestly

vestment. It was simply a rough piece of clothing.

When the monk saw that the thieves had left this garment, he took it and ran after

them, saying, “Brothers, stop! You forgot something—take this also.” He gave them what

they had left behind.

This is how Orthodox Christians sometimes see their relationship with Protestant

brothers. “Brothers, wait. You have taken the Bible from the ancient Church. You have

taken the prayer to Jesus Christ. You have taken what John wrote in the Apocalypse.

Come also and take the Apostolic Tradition, the Tradition of the Church, which is still

missing for you. Take infant baptism. Take prayer to the saints. These also belong to the

Tradition of the Church.”

So the question becomes: why do Protestants accept some parts of Tradition but

reject others? By what criteria do they decide what to accept and what to reject?

In Protestant theology, Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Fide (faith alone),

and Sola Gratia (grace alone) are three of the five main principles of the Reformation.

These ideas are closely connected with figures like Martin Luther. However, we can see

that Protestants also have traditions that, in some ways, are similar to Orthodox Tradition.

We must think carefully about the Bible. Not because it was written by people with a

different spirituality than ours, and not only because some important passages are hard to

understand without the Holy Spirit. We must think carefully because we have the clear

words of the Apostle Peter. In Second Epistle of Peter 3:15–16, Peter writes that Paul’s

letters contain “some things that are hard to understand,” which ignorant and unstable

people distort.

The Apostle Peter, a direct disciple of Jesus Christ, admits that the writings of the

Apostle Paul are sometimes difficult. Yet some Protestant churches say that everything in

Scripture is simple and clear. In some cases, after reading the Bible for only a few

months, a person may feel ready to preach.

We should also remember that there are many challenges in translating the Bible from

one culture and language into another. Translation itself can create differences in

understanding.

Another important point is history. Protestants can name the exact time and place

of the beginning of their movement: the 16th century, Germany, and Martin Luther. But it

is impossible to name a “birth date” or a single place for Orthodoxy. The Orthodox faith

was preached in many places from the first century: Africa, Egypt, Antioch, Jerusalem,

Rome, and other regions.

How can we know what is true Orthodoxy and what is only the influence of a

school, a university, or a single person? In Orthodoxy, we follow the principle of

Consensus Patrum — the common agreement of the Church Fathers. This means that true

doctrine is recognized by the consistent teaching of the Fathers across different centuries,

countries, and languages, beginning from the first century. Where many holy Fathers

agree over time, no foreign spirit can easily enter and change the faith. The same Gospel

spirit has been preserved from the beginning until today. It is harder to say this about the

Protestant world, where there are many different interpretations.

Orthodoxy also teaches that Christianity is not only about texts. There are

mysteries that cannot be fully explained by words. Christ healed the blind, but we do not

always know how or why He healed in different ways — sometimes by word, sometimes

by touch, sometimes with mud. The Sacrament of Baptism is also a mystery. Its depth

cannot be fully described by texts alone.

We honestly say that there are things we do not fully understand. A rationalist may

say, “If we do not understand it completely, why believe it?” But faith means trust.

For Protestants, Holy Communion is often understood as only bread and wine, a symbol.

For us, it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ — Christ Himself. We do not know

exactly how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but we believe

that Christ has the power to do this.

This leads to a deeper question: what does it mean to be a Christian? It means to

trust Christ completely and to see in Him our Savior and Protector. Christianity is

different from other religions. Other religions often teach what sacrifice we must offer to

God. Christianity teaches what God has done for us.

Christ did not leave us only a book. He left us Himself and promised to be with us

always. There is a difference between knowing about Christ and knowing Christ

personally. We were not His contemporaries, so we learn about Him from the Gospel. But

to know Him personally is something deeper. This knowledge comes through the heart

and does not require a special place or state — it requires an open heart.

The Apostle Paul himself wrote that he did not want to speak only through letters,

but to come and speak face to face. Christianity is not only information; it is living

communion with Christ.

The history of the Church is a continuation of biblical history. Holy history did not

end with the New Testament or with the generation of the apostles; it continues in our

generation as well. Just as in the time of Moses and Abraham, the same Spirit is at work

today.

As St. Macarius the Great said in the fourth century, God is the same, the devil is

the same, and Job is the same as before. It is important to remember, as the Apostle says, that the Church is the Body of Christ. A body is material and visible. If the Church is Christ’s Body, this means the

Church must also be visible. It is the connection of people in His Body. This is not an

invisible connection with invisible beings, but a visible connection.

It is the connection of humans, with their weaknesses and strengths. From the Old

Testament onward, we see this visible people, in the visible Church, in a visible

connection.

When the Apostle Paul says, “Imitate me, as I imitate Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1),

he uses the word μιμηθήτε (mimēthēte) — “imitate me” or “follow my example.” He

could have simply said, “Imitate Christ,” but people need a teacher to show them the way.

Timothy imitated Paul, others imitated Timothy, and so the tradition of passing on

teaching in the Church was established.

The same is true for the sacraments: Christians receive the mystery — the Body

and Blood of Christ, both spiritually and visibly.