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.