QA00064

Icons of Christ

I have a question concerning the icon of Christ:

Why is it that the nailprints upon his hands and feet are not shown ? The Bible tells us that after his resurrection he still had them.

Do you think that a real worhip is possible without the use of icons ?

Some say, that the icons have their origin in the 8th century, others think that St. Luke the Apostle manufactured the first icon of Christ, others believe that the Lord himself created the first icon. What is your position in this ?

Thank you very much for answering.

Sven, Germany

There are many different icons of Christ. Some show Him crucified, showing his wounds, which of course His human nature had after His Resurrection, as the Gospel says. Other icons show Him as the Almighty (Pantokrator), or as the Eternal Logos. These latter icons emphasize His Divine nature or show Him as the Eternal Son that He is. So it all depends on which icons you are thinking of.

Of course, it is possible to pray and worship without icons. It is possible to pray anywhere at any time. But icons make it easier. And it is also important dogmatically, for there are those 'spiritualists', who deny the Incarnation of Christ and they would destroy all icons. Not only do they destroy holy images (icons) on wood, but also the image of God in man. Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and all the others were all iconoclasts.

Our Lord created the first icon by sending His image on a cloth to Abgar of Edessa. The first icon-painter was St Luke. We still have some of his icons of the Mother of God, though they have been overpainted down the centuries. There are only a few icons left from before the iconoclastic heresy in the 8th and 9th centuries, some are on Mt Sinai. But any text-book on Christian art history will show you pictures of other early icons, still in the catacombs in Rome etc. Of course their style is not very evolved and they still have strong 'classical overtones'. Icon-painting only developed in full after the brutal attacks of the iconoclasts. At that point it became fixed, just as all the dogmas of the Church only became fixed after the attacks of heretics on Church Truth.

Fr Andrew


QA00063

The Canons & Feminine Hygiene

In the Canons a women is forbidden to enter Church or to touch any Holy thing when menstruating. What is the "common" practice today within the Orthodox Church concerning this, as there are a lot of Canons not fully adhered to now?

Angela USA

The practice of not coming to church refers to a time when there were not the possibilities of feminine hygiene which exist today. Although there are still some women, especially in the Balkan countries, who do not come to church during menstruation, this is their personal decision, and this is not something imposed on them by the Church. Nowadays, with modern feminine hygiene, there is no longer any reason for this. Indeed, a few years ago. Patriarch Pavle of Serbia wrote an article on this question and urged women to come to church, including when they are menstruating.

On the other hand, it is also true that women's menstruation is the result of the Fall (Genesis 3, 16), therefore women do not take communion during menstruation. For them it seems a natural reflex to refrain at these moments. In the same way, men can suffer the problem of loss of semen during the night (nocturnal emissions), in which case they too should refrain from communion. Although both problems are involuntary, part of our fallen nature, nevertheless they are the results of ancestral sin, that is, the fact that sin is in the world causes these problems. Adam was not created to suffer in this way, nor was Eve. Sin came into the world, and so also did these problems. Had the Fall not happened, men and women would not suffer these problems.

However, we must also understand that in extreme cases, a priest will make exceptions. Thus a man who had been in a car crash and was about to die would not be refused communion because the night before he had suffered a loss of semen. Obviously, a woman in the same situation and menstruating would not be refused communion either. We have to use discernment, always asking what is the best thing for salvation.

Fr Andrew


QA00062

Exact Nature of the Toll-Houses?

I am still confused about the exact nature of the toll-houses, and how they differ from Roman concepts of purgatory (not necessarily the medieval ones, modern ones too). I've read Protopresybter Pomazansky's explanation, and also those of Hieromonk Seraphim. Is the only objectionable thing about the Roman doctrine of purgatory its emphasis on legalism and indulgences? Does the Orthodox Church believe that after death the Christian endures purification by the prayers of the Church on earth, and by the Uncreated Light of God? Are the stories of the toll-house experience symbolic of something greater?

This is indeed confusing.

Gavin Fetter

As you probably realize, Roman Catholicism is the Orthodox Church, as seen through a distorting mirror, like you can find in fairgrounds. If therefore you start off from the distorting mirror perspective, obviously you will be confused, you will only see a fuzzy blur of the original. The image is so distorted that you can no longer see the purity and clarity of the original.

Thus, Orthodox, like Roman Catholics, use words like Trinity, Christ, dogma, priest, angel, incense, Pope, Mother of God, marriage, Easter, Christmas, saints, sacrament, heaven, hell, bishop, canon, Church etc etc, but we mean quite different things. (This is some Orthodox like to use other words like Pascha, the Nativity, the mysteries etc etc for these things).

The early Orthodox Church in the West had the same theology as the early Orthodox Church in the East. Purgatory is simply the twelfth century (i.e. post-Schism) Roman distortion of the Orthodox Church's teaching on the after-life. From that distortion there grew up indulgences and all the rest which led directly to the Protestant schisms from the Roman schism.

In Orthodox (i.e. Christian) teaching, after death comes the particular judgement and at the end of the world the Last Judgement. The particular judgement comes forty days after the separation of the soul from the body. During those forty days, the soul is examined for its faults (if they have not been repented for).

The symbolic illustration of this is the 'toll-houses'. Obviously, this has to be understood as an illustration or symbol. Just as at the Last Judgement, although there is a 'Judgement', there is no court-room, no attorneys etc etc, so there are no physical toll-houses either. The toll-houses illustrate the examination of the soul, after it has lost its body.

After the particular judgement, the soul is allocated a place, where it 'sleeps' or 'rests'. From then on until the Last Judgement, the soul can move upwards, or heavenwards, thanks to the prayers of those on earth, who do not sleep or rest, but are active in the Church Militant on earth. These prayers are the fruit of love - not of legalism, papal power or money paid for bits of paper called indulgences.

This is quite different from purgatory ('cleansing fire') and the payment of indulgences. However, one can still just see in indulgences the medieval distortion of the original Orthodox Church's teaching on prayer for the departed - that is the distorting mirror created by the filioque, which is why the Protestants, as usual, ended up throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

Those who are saints go straight to heaven. That is why we no longer sing the words of memorial services for them: 'Give rest, O Lord...'. Theirs is not the rest or sleep of us others between the particular judgement and the Last Judgement, but the active life of the Church Triumphant (in heaven) interceding for the Church Militant.

'Sleep' is the rest or repose of the souls that await the prayers of the Church Militant and then the Last Judgement. 'Disembodied' is a good term for this, but consciousness perhaps less so. Their souls rise heavenwards as the prayer of love of the Church Militant raises them up. I would not call this state 'bliss' or otherwise, and neither the prisons of hell. Hell is the absolute self-exclusion from God, and that can only come to pass after the Last Judgement. Simply 'sleep' is the best word for this state. Only the saints do not experience this and go straight to heaven. As regards those who commit great evil, perhaps we could say that their sleep is 'disturbed', like that of ghosts, 'unquiet spirits'.

We pass through the toll-houses, i.e, we all have our sins weighed up. We cannot atone for them at that point, as we are bodiless. Only the love of those on earth for us and later the Mercy of God at the Last Judgement can save us from here on. We are never 'confident' of the Mercy of Christ, because our sins are so heavy. But the Mercy of Christ does keep us from despair.

I don't think anyone of us can 'understand' this in a rationalistic sense. It is all in images - 'seen in a glass darkly'.

Fr Andrew


QA00061

Fast for Sunday Morning Communion?

What is the canonically required fast for Sunday morning communion?

So far I have heard that we fast on Saturday and can eat oil on Saturday till midday only, then we fast from midnight till communion on Sunday. Is this correct - as I thought Saturday was canonically a non-fasting day? Why then do we fast on Saturday for Sunday communion without meat and fish, but only oil is allowed?

Taken from the 85 Canons of the Apostles: Canon LXVI.

If any of the clergy be found fasting on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath, excepting the one only, let him be deposed. If a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Peter Kyriazopoulos

The fast is clear: it is from midnight (and not before) on Saturday and it is total abstinence from food, water, cigarettes etc.

As regards the customs of the Local Churches, for example a three-day fast or fasting on the Saturday before communion, these are customs, not canons, and they were introduced because of infrequent communion. For example, if someone only takes communion two or three times a year, it is not a bad thing for them to observe such a fast. But it is not the norm. As you say, the canons forbid fasting on Saturdays. However, we should remember that the canons are guides to piety and that the Church is higher than the canons.

Personally, as a priest, I avoid eating much on Saturday evenings and avoid eating meat. However, this is purely personal and not a canonical requirement. The key is: moderation in all things.

Fr Andrew


QA00060

Do We Believe in Destiny?

In orthodoxy to what extent do we believe in destiny and to what extent do we believe in our own will to change things. I know for example when something wrong happens people often say it was "gods will" but then again we make the decision to sin (sometimes unconsciously). I often think that my sins could be connected to something going wrong, often times people (at least in my culture) say "god will punish you".

Also what is the difference between being tempted by the devil and being tested by god.

Paul Subotic

In the eternal mind of God there is no time, so He knows past, present and future. But since He gives us complete freedom, He forces nothing on us, although He does know all things. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination, but there is God's foreknowledge. The prophets and the clairvoyant are allowed to see some small parts of the past, present or future through God's grace, but no more.

There is therefore no such thing as destiny or fate in the deterministic sense, they are pagan ideas. We are completely free. (Though, of course, we can talk in the loose sense from a future perspective that someone's 'destiny was to...', when talking about their life story). We are free to live our lives, that is to do God's will or not to do it.

When something happens because we have prayed about it, we can say that it is God's will (even though the result may not at all be what we would have wished) through the prayers of such and such a person. If we do not pray for God's will to be done, then of course we cannot say that something is necessarily God's will, only that God has allowed it through our sins (= lack of prayers). If we do not pray, then all sorts of things can happen to us which are not God's will, though God allows them to happen. For example, sometimes God allows us to be tempted by the devil in order to show us that we need to pray. Some people call this being tested by God.

The term 'God will punish you' is a common expression used by people on the fringes of the Church (and also therefore in the Old Testament). God as a God of love never punishes us, we punish ourselves. But God does allow such things to happen and work out paradoxically for our benefit (we can learn, grow and mature through suffering). Thus teh negative can become good.

All this is known as the Providence (= foresight) of God (The Greek word 'economy' or the Latin word 'dispensation' are also used in this sense of Providence).

I hope this is of help to you,

Fr Andrew


QA00059

Patron Saint of Australia?

Could you tell me who the patron saint of Australia (and New Zealand) is, according to the Orthodox tradition. My superficial search on the internet did not give me any clues.

Evgeny Selenski

I have never heard of any patron saint for these countries, according to any tradition. As far as I know, these countries have never produced a saint - so far.

My suggestion is that, with the blessing of Archbishop Hilarion, a group of people who feel strongly about this, have a large (say three feet by five feet) icon painted of the Mother of God (perhaps have it done on Mt Athos, if possible). She is a universal emblem to unite all Orthodox. In her icons she wears three stars, and in her Akathist she is called 'the star that gave birth to the Sun' (zvezda rozhdshaya Solntse). There are also stars on the Australian flag.

Since you live in the New World, the feast day of this Icon could be fixed on one of the Australian national holidays. (Is there a joint Australian and New Zealand holiday??). This would give sense to that holiday. This would also avoid problems of calendar among Orthodox. All Orthodox would feast this Icon on that day. The Icon could be called 'The Mother of God of the South', for example. She would be the Patroness of all Australasia. Someone could write an Akathist especially to this Icon, expressing the hope for salvation for all your countries and peoples through her prayers. Maybe even if some notion of this could appear on the Icon, with different peoples bowing before her in the forground of the Icon?

All these are thoughts. I am sure if you showed this to Archbp Hilarion, he could improve on them,

Fr Andrew