DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI AND SAN
FRANCISCO
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WITNESS (USPS 412-260)
is published monthly by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Cathedral,
10300 Ashworth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98133-9410.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
OCW, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA. 98133-9410
Fr. Neketas S. Palassis, Editor Email: frneketas@stnectariospress.com
Telephone (206) 522-4471; (800) 643-4233 U.S. & Canada;
Fax: 206-523-0550
JULY, 2007 VOL. XLI, No. 7 (1574)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. WHAT IF?
2. THE NICECE CREED
3. DONATIONS
4. NEW ITEMS FROM THE BOOK CENTER
We should be unyielding towards sin, because if it steals our consent
even once, it becomes our true master. A suitable example, which
exposes the deceitful and tyrannical character of sin, is the method
with which Semiramis seized the kigdom and became an empress. Semiramis
succeeded through various affectionate gestures to persuade her
husband, Nino, king of Assyria, to step down from his reign for just
one day and to hand over to her the scepter of the kingdom. But what
was the empress' first action? She commanded that her husband Nino be
executed in order to secure for herself life-long power.
St. Nektarios of Pentapolis V. I, Repentance and Confession.
1. WHAT IF?
By Joseph Bragg
What if a boy grew up in the
mountains of West Virginia and never knew of any Christian Faith except
the various brands of Protestantism that permeated the West Virginia
hills and hollows?
And what if that boy, while
growing up never heard of the Orthodox Church until he left home, moved
to a big city and began to discover a whole new world that he never
knew existed before?
And what if his discovery of the
Orthodox Faith was made entirely through reading church history and the
writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and other
early Saints and he had no contact with any Orthodox people or any
Orthodox Church?
And what if, having learned the
Orthodox Faith entirely from reading the Saints and the Fathers, he now
discovers there are Orthodox churches all across America and the world?
Then, as he learns about these
various Orthodox churches, he discovers that some are called Old
Calendarists or Traditionalists and some are called New Calendarists or
World Orthodoxy. As he investigates further, he discovers that
the faith and practices of the Old Calendarists look and sound just
like the Orthodox Faith he read about in the Fathers and the
Saints. And he discovers that much of the faith and
practices of the New Calendarists look and sound different from what he
read in the Saints and the Fathers.
Now the question is, to which of
the two should he go to find and embrace the Orthodox Faith?
The one looks and sounds and feels
like the Orthodoxy he read about. The other, while appearing
similar in some respects looks and sounds very different. In the
one, he senses something that he can’t understand or explain. It
is a certain spirit or atmosphere, a devotion to the Saints and Fathers
and a zeal for piety, holy Tradition, and truth that he also discovered
in the Saints and the Fathers. In that which is called World
Orthodoxy, he doesn’t sense this same spirit but in fact hears, and
sees, and reads many things in their publications and from their
bishops that contradict the spirit and teachings of the Fathers and the
Saints and the Councils.
In the course of his discoveries,
he is told that the Old Calendarists are schismatics while World
Orthodoxy is the official Orthodox Church.
So how does he decide? Does
he choose that which is “official” or does he choose that which looks
and sounds and feels like the Faith of the Saints and the Fathers?
WHAT IF?
What if the following
correspondence took place between an Orthodox Christian and his Roman
Catholic friend who is seeking for truth and is considering converting
to the Orthodox Faith?
Letter from the Roman Catholic
seeker to his Orthodox friend.
Dear _____________,
I pray this letter finds you and
your family in good health.
As you have encouraged me to do, I
am continuing to explore the teachings of the Orthodox Faith and
compare them with the teachings of my own Roman Catholic Faith.
Since our last conversation I have read a lot and learned quite a bit
of Orthodox history, which has raised some questions in my mind, that I
hope you will answer for me. If I have misunderstood or
misrepresented something, please let me know.
In reading the history of the
Church I see that there were some major disagreements between the East
and Rome that lead up to what has been termed the Great Schism.
From my reading it appears that Rome had begun to teach some things
that the East considered totally unacceptable and incompatible with the
Orthodox teachings such as the authority of the pope over all of
Christendom as the Vicar of Christ and all that this dogma implies for
salvation, along with the addition of the Filioque in the Creed.
In time other differences surfaced, including the Immaculate
Conception, salvation by the special merits of the saints, created vs.
uncreated Grace, purgatory, and others.
From my reading I see that many
whom the Orthodox now honor as fathers and confessors opposed these
things as taught by Rome. Eventually, East and West went their
separate ways with each one condemning and excommunicating the
other. I have been trying with all sincerity to search out the
truth to determine who really preserved the Apostolic Faith unchanged.
The more I read, the more it
becomes clear to me that the fathers, confessors and councils of the
East preserved the Faith unchanged, while a number of things in the
West were undergoing change and resulted in different and new dogmas,
even the dogma of salvation, itself. I find myself agreeing more
and more with the Orthodox fathers and councils who condemned the new
dogmas of Rome as heretical, pronounced anathemas against these
teachings, and excommunicated anyone who held these teachings.
I have been amazed as I read the
lives of such Eastern saints and fathers as Gregory Palamas, Photius,
Germanos, Mark of Ephesus and others to see how they refused union with
Rome and taught that the faithful should flee from any communion with
the Latins and even the Orthodox who are Latin minded.
Seeing how things did change in
the West and how the fathers of the East fought and gave their lives to
oppose what they saw as the “heresies of the Latins,” I have been
moving more towards the feeling that I should leave the Roman Catholic
Church and start attending the Orthodox Church.
But just this week, I ran across
some things that raised a whole new set of questions for me and have me
perplexed. This is where I hope you can help me.
I was reading about Orthodox
participation in dialogue with the pope and his representatives.
I have learned a number of things that I wonder about, such as:
- An Orthodox bishop has lifted
the anathemas against Rome that were once imposed by those who are
still honored by the Orthodox as saints, fathers and Ecumenical
councils;
- An Orthodox bishop has announced
that the pope of Rome is recognized as the bishop of Christendom while
the Patriarch of Constantinople is perceived more as the bishop of the
East.
- Many Orthodox now seem to accept
Rome as your “sister Church” and have announced that the sacraments of
the Roman Catholic Church are just as valid as those of the
Orthodox. Now Roman Catholics do not need to be baptized to be
received into the Orthodox Church. In fact the hierarchy on both
sides have agreed to cease from trying to win people from one side to
the other since both sides are recognized as the “two lungs” of the
Church.
- Orthodox bishops have announced
that Orthodox Christians can receive the Eucharist in Roman Catholic
Churches and vice versa under certain circumstances. This is
clearly an acknowledgement of the Roman Catholic priesthood, baptism,
chrismation and Eucharist.
- I read about your Orthodox
Patriarch, who was presented as the leader and spokesperson for all of
Orthodoxy, and how he participated in the Mass with our pope and how
they exchanged the Kiss of Peace, which indicates full Eucharistic
union. I have heard that joint prayers and Mass between Orthodox
and Roman Catholics take place quite often.
- I have read about recent
meetings between East and West dealing with the Filioque. My
understanding is that they have essentially concluded that the uproar
over the Filioque in the past was due to misunderstandings and they
agreed that we all mean essentially the same thing whether we insert
the Filioque or not. (I was glad to see that they have come to
the same conclusions about the differences between the Orthodox and the
Monophysites as well.)
What I am getting at is
this. All of these new developments are very encouraging but they
also raise some questions for which I need answers.
They are encouraging because I
think it would be wonderful if we could just all be one and stop the
bickering and divisions. I really don’t want to leave my Roman
Catholic parish. I love our priest and all my family attends
there. Our priest is really wonderful and he sounds very Orthodox
in what he says and believes.
In view of all these recent
developments and agreements, why should I leave the Roman Catholic
Church to become Orthodox? It seems that we are practically one
already and if our bishops can worship together and share the Kiss of
Peace, and if our sacraments are all the same what really is the
difference?
I recently talked with a Roman
Catholic priest who was going through the same questions I was going
through and was considering becoming Orthodox. He visited an
Orthodox monastery in the Northeast and was amazed to find that they
venerate Roman Catholic saints there and the monks told him there was
no reason for him to leave the Roman Catholic Church to become
Orthodox. I assume all of this is known and approved by their
bishop.
On the other hand, when I think
about it, I am perplexed about what the Orthodox fathers, confessors
and councils said about all of this. I know that our Roman
Catholic Church still holds to the idea of the supremacy and
infallibility of the pope as the Vicar of Christ on earth. I know
we still use the Filioque, baptize by sprinkling or pouring, believe in
the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, and other things that have been
points of disagreement in the past. I really have not seen
anything to indicate that we have changed any of the dogmas that once
separated us from the Orthodox. It seems that the agreements and
unions are now being accomplished on the basis that the disagreements
of the past were due to misunderstandings. I am reading things
that suggest that the fathers of the past were blinded by the culture
of their day, a culture that was more barbaric and less loving.
Our leaders today seem to have better insights into some of these
issues than the saints of the past did.
My only concern here is
this. If the saints, fathers, confessors and councils of the past
acted out of ignorance, blindness, lovelessness or lack of
understanding, where was the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in all of
this? And if the fathers were wrong concerning the Monophysites
and Latins, how can we trust anything they taught? Maybe they
were also wrong or in darkness about the Arians, the Iconoclasts, the
dogmas of the Trinity, the Sacraments, the Church and even salvation
itself. And if they were wrong and caused all these years of
division and conflict needlessly, how can we still honor them as
bearers of the Grace of God?
I hope you can help me out of my
dilemma by answering two questions for me. Why should I leave the
Roman Catholic Church to become Orthodox and how can we trust anything
the Fathers taught if we now know they misunderstood many of these
issues?
I hope we can get together soon
for some more discussions.
Yours truly,
Another Letter from the
Roman Catholic seeker to his Orthodox friend.
Dear _____________,
Thanks for your quick reply to my
last rambling letter and my questions. I’m leaving tomorrow on my
trip but wanted to get this off before I left, hopefully to have a
reply from you when I return
The comments from various ones in
the chat group that you copied and shared with me are both helpful and
hard to understand. If I understand them correctly, several seem
to be saying that they don’t agree with what the Ecumenical Patriarch
and others involved in Ecumenism are saying and doing. It even
sounded as though they were saying that they consider many of the
ecumenical statements and activities by ecumenical bishops to be
un-Orthodox. Some of these comments seemed to say you should just
ignore these bishops who are teaching contrary to the Orthodox
Faith. It doesn’t seem to matter if you are in communion with
bishops who say and teach and do things that are un-Orthodox.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding them.
If what they are saying is true, I
am wondering why I couldn’t just remain a Roman Catholic and say that I
disagree with my bishop and even the pope, so long as I hold the
Orthodox Faith in my own heart and if my priest is Orthodox. I
could even say the Orthodox version of the Creed in my own heart during
Mass and ignore what the bishops say or do. How would this be any
different from them being in communion with bishops who call themselves
Orthodox but teach contrary to the Orthodox Faith? It seems
that I remember from my reading that some of the Orthodox fathers
taught that even if your faith is true that you are still in error if
you are in communion with others who are in heresy. Maybe I
misunderstood but I think this is also what you have been telling
me.
So if what some in the chat group
are saying is true, my question remains. Why do I need to
leave my Roman Catholic parish since it seems permissible to be in
communion with those who hold false or un-Orthodox teachings so long as
you don’t hold those teachings yourself?
Let’s plan a visit when I return.
Yours truly,
WHAT IF?
We often debate the pros and cons
of whether the Orthodox should be a part of the efforts of the WCC and
dialogue with Rome. Some say yes and some say no.
But I have never heard anyone talk
about what would happen if the efforts of ecumenism actually
succeeded. Has anyone even thought about it? What if the
World Council of Churches actually succeeded in an agreed union between
all the participating groups?
Imagine that on January 15, 2008
an announcement is made that the participants of the WCC have all
agreed to accept the Orthodox Faith and will now be called
Orthodox. In addition, Rome has agreed to set aside the Filioque
and the Supremacy of the Pope and will now be under the Orthodox
umbrella. (Does anyone really expect such a thing to
happen? If not, what are the expectations of the ecumenical
movement?)
So now the WCC Protestants and the
Roman Catholics have all agreed to be Orthodox. What now.
Who is it that we are talking about? In addition to the Romans,
it is primarily the most liberal of all Protestants – The United
Presbyterians, the United Methodists, the Episcopalians, United Church
of Christ and the most liberal of the Lutherans. So now we have a
union with these groups. Who is our union with? Groups that
are spiritually and morally bankrupt. Groups that are filled with
people who deny the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the
Resurrection, heaven, hell, and the very concept of Salvation except as
social reform. Many in these groups do not accept the Bible as
the inspired Word of God. Some approve gay marriages and
have gay and women clergy. We are now in union with all of
this? Now what? Does anyone really think all of this would
be cleared out and everyone would become Orthodox as the saints and
fathers taught it? What would such a union mean?
Can we not see from this simple
illustration that the very idea of the WCC concepts of ecumenism is
absolutely absurd, totally unrealistic and completely
un-Orthodox? It should enable us to see clearly that such a union
would not mean the conversion of anyone to True Orthodoxy but only to a
false and contrived external form of union. It should make it
clear that the very idea and concept of union as sought after in the
WCC and in dialogue with Rome could not possibly lead to the conversion
of their millions of members to the Orthodox Faith. And if this
is so, then what would it lead to?
At best, it would be a mere
organizational or jurisdictional union. What would this
accomplish? Of course, we all know that even this kind of union
will not happen. We all know that it is only the Orthodox who are
changing and compromising and moving more towards the spiritual and
moral bankruptcy of the rest. We all know that any union will be
the result of the Orthodox agreeing to a watered down and compromised
version of Orthodoxy. So why do the ecumenists keep pushing for
union? Is it not because they themselves no longer hold the
Orthodox Faith as it was held by the saints and the fathers?
Which of the saints and the fathers would have desired such a union as
is possible within the WCC and with the Latins?
Why is it that none of the
Ecumenists, Orthodox or otherwise, are interested in seeking union with
those Evangelical Protestants who sincerely believe in the Virgin
Birth, the deity of Christ, the Resurrection and the hope of eternal
life and who sincerely with all their hearts seek to know, love and
obey God but who refuse to have anything to do with the spiritual and
moral bankruptcy of the WCC?
These things alone should be
enough to end all debates about whether or not we should participate in
efforts for union with the WCC and the Latins. What if we
actually got it?
______________________________________________________________________________
2. THE NICENE CREED
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth and of all things, visible and invisible.
The Creed sets forth the
Faith of the Church in the one true God revealed through the Prophets
and Apostles as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three Persons,
one in essence, unconfused and undivided – a profound mystery. In
particular this first article of the Creed confesses God the Father as
the Godhead of the Holy Trinity, Who is the creator and source of all
things, visible and invisible. In this article, the Church rejects any
idea of the possibility of any other God, or that the world is the
result of blind fate or evolutionary chance without divine creation,
order, and purpose.
And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father
before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not
made; being of one essence with the Father; by Whom all things were
made.
Some began to teach that
Christ was not fully and truly God but a creation of God the Father.
The Church used the words of this article to leave no doubt as to the
Church’s teaching that Christ is begotten, not made, and eternally
exists as the second person of the Holy Trinity. He is of the same
essence as God the Father, and with the Father and the Holy Spirit
created all things in the beginning.
Who for us men, and for our
salvation, came down from the Heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
In this article the meaning
and nature of Christ’s mission to earth is confessed. He came to save
or rescue humanity from sin, death, and the devil. God the eternal WORD
became incarnate, i.e., took on human flesh and became truly and fully
man in order to partake of our nature, bear our sins, and destroy death
so that we could become partakers of His divine and eternal nature. The
Incarnation was the result of the conception by the Holy Spirit in the
womb of the Virgin Mary. Thus, Christ is confessed to be the God-Man.
He is God by the Holy Spirit, and man by the flesh of Mary. Anything
less than this God-Man cannot be our Savior. The Church honors the
Virgin Mary as one who is “blessed among women” because she bore God in
the flesh. The Church does not worship her as God but venerates her as
the first of the Redeemed and the example of how we must receive Christ
in humility, faith, and obedience in order for Him to be born in us.
Holding firmly to the Virgin Birth, the Church calls Mary by the Greek
term Theotokos, meaning God-bearer, and in this way guards the teaching
that the Christ born in the flesh of the Virgin was and is truly God
enfleshed or incarnate.
And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried.
Here the historical reality
of Christ is confessed. The Church teaches that Christ is not just a
nice story but that He really existed in time and place as recorded in
the Gospels and as confirmed also in secular history. Furthermore, he
died a real death. He truly died and was buried, having suffered on the
Cross as the Lamb of God. In Him our sins were nailed to the Cross, and
humanity and all of creation was redeemed. By this love and mercy He
draws us to be reconciled with God the Father and makes it possible for
us to be reunited with God both now and in eternity. In the Orthodox
Faith, this is the essence of the meaning of the Incarnation and our
salvation.
And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.
The Church believes in a
real bodily resurrection. As man, Christ died. As God, Christ’s body
did not suffer corruption in the grave but arose by His own will and
power on the third day, opening heaven for humanity. Through union with
Christ’s death and resurrection, we have the hope of resurrection to
eternal life. As the Church chants many times each year at Pascha (the
Feast of the Resurrection), Christ is risen from the dead, by death
hath He trampled down death, and on those in the graves hath He
bestowed life.
And ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of God the
Father.
The Church teaches that
Christ, in His glorified and resurrected body, ascended back to the
right hand of God the Father where He reigns as our Mediator and High
Priest. As God, He is omnipresent and therefore is never absent from
His Church on earth, even as He reigns in the Heavens.
And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the
dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
The Church teaches that
Christ will come again at the end of this age, at a time known only to
God, and that everyone will stand before Him to be judged. Those who
have been united to His death and resurrection will enter eternal life;
those who have rejected His Mercy and lived in opposition to it will
suffer the eternal pain and consequence of sin.
And in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord, the Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the
Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by
the Prophets.
The Church teaches that the
Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Holy Trinity Who proceeds from
the Father and is also worshipped and glorified as God. As the Lord and
Giver of life, the Holy Spirit creates and sanctifies (makes holy) the
Body of Christ – the Church, through the means God has appointed.
In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The Church teaches in
accordance with Holy Scripture that there is one Church or Body of
Christ. This Church is understood not merely as an invisible or hoped
for dream but as something that is real, visible, and present wherever
the Apostolic Faith is held and lived. This one Church is made holy by
its union with Christ. It is Catholic, meaning the Church possesses the
fullness of the Faith in all places and at all times. It is Apostolic,
in that the Church holds the Apostolic Faith and is one in Spirit,
truth, and life with the Church throughout the ages and the Church in
Heaven. The bond of love with the Church in heaven moves us to ask for
their intercessions, even as we ask members of the Church on earth to
pray for us.
We believe that the saints
in heaven continually behold the face of God and intercede for the
Church on earth.
I confess one baptism for
the remission of sins.
The Church teaches that we
are made members of the Body of Christ by the New Birth in the washing
of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit given in Holy
Baptism by triple immersion.
Since Baptism is God’s gift
of grace to us rather than our work, obedience, or mere profession of
faith, this gift of grace is given also to infants. After Baptism, the
Gift of the Holy Spirit is given in the Church through Divine Anointing
even as it was done at the hands of the Apostles in the Acts of the
Apostles. This Divine life and union with God is then nourished and
maintained in the Church through a personal love, faith, and
participation in repentance, Confession, and the Eucharist, together
with a struggle to overcome sin and to acquire the virtues of being
like Christ through prayer, fasting, and good works. The Church
believes that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ given
for the forgiveness and healing of sins and for union with Christ’s
death and resurrection.
I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come.
Here the Church confesses
Her faith and hope in the eternal promises that Christ has given to His
Church – the outcome of our union with Him in His Church.
As can be seen from this
summary of the Creed, various Christian denominations hold much in
common with the Orthodox Church but differ in many important ways. In
addition to what has already been summarized, here are some further
explanations of these differences.
The Orthodox Church does not
make a distinction between the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Faith,
believing them to be one and the same. The Church does not make a
separation between Christ and the Church, believing that the Church is
the Body of Christ, that Christ is the Head of the Body, and the two
cannot be separated.
The Orthodox Church does not
consider itself to be one of many denominations but rather the
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. This is not a
statement of pride but a confession of faith and an historical reality.
The Church does not make judgments about the eternal destiny of anyone
since God alone knows and judges the heart of each individual. The
Church does, however, make judgments about truth and error, as the
Apostles and the Church have done from the beginning.
For the first 1,000 years of
Church history, there were five major centers of Christianity:
Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. The first four
were in the East, Rome was in the West. In the year 1054, after many
years of conflict and growing apart, the bishop of Rome parted ways
with the remaining bishops in the East; thus, the Eastern Orthodox
Church and the Roman Catholic Church. All the bishops of the East
rejected the papal teaching that the Pope was the head of the Church on
earth.
The Church had always held
that each bishop presides only in his own diocese, that no one bishop
can rule over all the other bishops, and that Christ alone is the head
of the Church.
The Church at Rome also
changed some of the words and meaning of the Nicene Creed. The Eastern
Church said the teachings of the Church cannot be changed. Over the
years, the bishop of Rome introduced numerous other changes and
alterations to the Faith including adding the doctrines of the
infallibility of the pope, the immaculate conception, the merit of
works and indulgences for salvation, purgatory and others. Rome was
greatly affected by the Western philosophical systems of
rationalism and scholasticism introduced by Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine,
and others, resulting in a different understanding about the Church and
the doctrine of salvation, itself.
Some five hundred years
after Rome’s break with the East, Martin Luther, a German monk,
rebelled against many of Rome’s abuses. But instead of returning to the
Orthodox Faith that had never changed, he gave birth to the Protestant
reformation that also introduced numerous other changes to the
Apostolic Faith. The Lutheran Reformers did communicate with the
Orthodox Church at the time but then decided to follow their own
interpretations of Scripture.
Taken from the new publication of the same name by the Holy Orthodox
Church in North America. The entire pamphlet is available from St.
Nectarios Press
________________________________________________________________________
3. DONATIONS RECEIVED AND GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEGED HEREWITH:
OCW: The Kaschkadajews, St. Petersburg, FL; Anonymous, LIC, NY;
Christos Daskalakis, Burlingame, CA; Patricia Gregoroff, Erie,
PA; Mr. & Mrs. James Vlachos, Roslindale, MA; James
& Barbara Jackson, Midlothian, VA; Evanthia Vardal, Wethersfield,
CT; Mr. & Mrs. G. Kent, Thousand Oaks, CA (2); Pantaleon Kolchev,
Sacramento, CA; Eleni Bizoukas, Calumet City, IL; Pantaleon Kolchev,
Sacramento, CA; Anna Reishman, Central Point, OR; Anonymous, Portland,
OR; Anastasia McIntyre, Roslindal,e MA; Joseph Bragg, Smyrna, TN;
Patrick & Daniele Battstone, Roslindale, MA; Lakis Boulougouris,
Mississauga, Canada; William Anagnostopulos, Johnstown, NY; Patricia
Gregoroff, Erie, PA; Anonymous, Albuquerque, NM; John Alexon,
Pittstown, PA; Theodorea Geokezas, Seattle, WA; Pantaleon
Kolchev, Sacramento, CA; Anonymous, Pennsylvania
BENEVOLENT FUND: Oregon(4), California (2), Erie, PA (Memorial),
Oregon (3); San Gabriel, CA (2); Little Rock, AR; Albuquerque, NM (2)
ST. NECTARIOS CATHEDRAL: Anonymous, Seattle, WA; Zoe
Papayiannis, Santa Monica, CA
____________________________________________________________________________
4. NEW ITEMS FROM THE BOOK CENTER
(CRE) THE CREED Several articles from The True Vine including
“The Historical Setting of the Creed” and ”The First Ecumenical
Council” by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and “The Creed” by the Rt.
Rev. Michael Gelsinger. A valuable compilation in one booklet.
52pp. Paper d$3.00
(JPM) THE JESUS PRAYER AND ME by Vasiliki Tisgas-Fotinis, illus.
By Joanne Venetos Dallis. The first book written for young
children about the Jesus Prayer, this full color book has a simple text
about ways children can remember God and say the Jesus Prayer
throughout the day. With helpful notes for parents. Hard
cover 28pp. e$13.00
(AWB) SAINT BASIL ASCETICAL WORKS trans. by Sr. M. Monica Wagner.
Contains several ascetical discourses, the Morals, the Long Rules,
Concerning Faith, Concerning Baptism and similar works. Vol. 9 of
The Fathers of the Church series. Subject and scriptural index,
525 pp. Paper f$40.00