Hello Paidion,
what do ou know about the Didache?
It is a very interesting writting.
Is there historical evidence that it is written during the first 2 centuries?
Thank you very much.
Love
Dani
A very early book. Probably the late first century or the early second. The word “didache” means “teaching” or “instruction”.
It’s a fascinating book. The injunctions seem to be in accord with the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
I think it is the first early Christian writing I ever read. It seems to give very precise instructions in Christian living.
I have been fascinated with the prayer of thanksgiving for the eucharistic bread:
" Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom."
This is a prayer for the coming together of the Body of Christ into the unity for which Christ prayed.
I am also deeply impressed with the test for an apostle or prophet who may visit your home:
Every thing about the Orthodox Church that is not explicitly in the Scriptures has an ancient pedigree.
For example, no Biblical verse unmistakably says, “Baptize babies.” Neither does a Biblical verse say, “Don’t baptize babies.” Thus we have to use our noggin. Of course, plausible arguments can be made either way. I like to look to history to cut the Gordian knot, since exegetical arguments are endless. We have pre-Constantinian writers mentioning the baptism of babies, and none of them that I’m aware of say, “Don’t baptize babies!” or “We recently started baptizing babies.” On the contrary, it is presented as something correct and of long use. If infant baptism was an innovation, where was the controversy? Where was the debate over its merits?
The same goes for icons, infant communion, and all the rest. Whenever a controversy did arise over something, it was usually someone in a position of authority saying, “I think the Church should STOP doing X.” For example, Arius saying that the Church should stop regarding Jesus as God, or Nestorius saying that the Church should stop describing Mary as the Theotokos, or the Emperor (I forget his name) saying that the Church should stop venerating icons, or Barlaam saying that the Church should stop believing in God’s uncreated Energies, etc. In other words, the heretics are always innovators. They want to change what has always been done.
The question of the veneration of Mary and all the saints is an interesting one. It is vital to remember that the early Church kept most of its liturgy secret from non-members. Even to this day there is a part of the Sunday liturgy that proclaims, “All catechumens, depart. Depart catechumens. All that are catechumens depart. Let no catechumen remain. Let us, the faithful, again and again in peace pray unto the Lord.” This happens rather near the beginning of the liturgy, after only A) some prayers and psalms, B) the Scripture readings, and C) a homily. In other words, the “open to all” part of the liturgy contains only stuff that could have been read by anybody without even attending a liturgy. The rest of the liturgy was for baptized members only. (This, BTW, helps explain the paucity of surviving liturgical materials from the early Church. That stuff was secret! It was for members only.)
Whenever I go to liturgy, I am surrounded by icons of Christ, Mary, and the saints. An icon is not a picture of someone who is absent. It is a divine sign of that person’s presence. We believe that when we perform the liturgy, we are joining the Liturgy in Heaven. We are literally worshipping alongside the Virgin Mary, and the Apostle Peter, and the Apostle Paul, and all the saints and all the angels and all those in Heaven. We are in their presence no less surely and literally than we are in the presence of those physically standing next to us in the church–such as my neighbor Frank, the old Slavic guy (Robert), the guy who teaches ballet (Misha), the new member (Ian), the priest’s wife (Natalia), etc. When I see Frank, Robert, Misha, and all the rest, do I ignore them? No! I bow to them. They bow to me. We bow to the priest. The priest bows to us. Every single person acknowledges every other single person. Why? Because each of us is the Image of God. How could we ignore God’s Image?
For the same reason that we all bow to each other, we bow to the icons. The Apostle Peter is really there, worshipping along with us. It would be the height of insanity to ignore the Apostle in our midst! And if he weren’t there, then I just would not be interested. I’ll either go to Church with all the Apostles and all the rest of the heroes of the Bible, or I won’t go at all.
We talk to Mary and to all the angels and saints during our liturgy. How could we not? They are present with us! After all, the Psalmist even talks to inanimate nature. If the Psalmist can talk to and make requests of hills, waters, etc., then how much more so is it good to talk to and make requests of Mary, Peter, Paul, John, etc.
Further, we praise those in Heaven because they have been thoroughly deified. They utterly participate in the Divine Nature (as Peter wrote). They are utterly sinless. They are now perfect Images of Christ. Or, as St. Irenaeus wrote: “God became man so that man might become God.” Everything God is by nature, they are by grace. One day it will be so with us.
The experience of the saints in the Church is unavoidable. The only alternative would be to pretend that Mary, Paul, John, etc. are not there:
“Look! There’s Mary!”
“Shhhhhhh! Pretend she isn’t here.”
“Huh?”
We aren’t in Church to pretend, but to rejoice, and to rejoice in God with all creation. 
You’re very welcome. 
I have never understood those church bodies that A) practice infant baptism but B) do not practice infant communion. The only logically consistent practices are to do both or to do neither. Consider:
Inconsistent Christian: “Yes, of course we baptize babies. They are just as much members of the church as the adults. Who cares if they do not intellectually grasp the significance of their baptism? After all baptism is a great mystery, and even we adults grasp so very little of it. Besides, baptism isn’t an intellectual thing, but rather a spiritual one.”
Inquirer: “Oh, so you must give the babies communion, too.”
Inconsistent Christian: “Heavens, no! What would be the point of giving communion to babies? They wouldn’t intellectually grasp the significance of taking communion. They simply aren’t smart enough, unlike we smart adults.”
(Yes, I’ve had conversations with Roman Catholics that basically went just like that.)
Actually, if I were to put an age limit on receiving Communion, I’d put it the other way. I’d prohibit people over a certain age from taking Communion because they are too sinful, unlike little babies.
Further, if babies are excommunicated (in the literal sense of the term), then what about those who are severely retarded? Are they to be given life-long excommunications? “Sorry, but you’re just too stupid to take communion.” I shudder at the very thought. For that matter, what of someone who has received severe brain damage later in life? Is he to be excommunicated because he’s now not smart enough to take communion?
Infant communion was one of the things that initially attracted me to Orthodoxy. It makes sense historically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. I can’t bear the thought of excommunicated little babies.
Dear Geoffrey,
but let us assume that the dead are dead. I mean that “soul sleep” is true and that all the saints are not present in a litural way.
Maybe just in our mind and heart for we remember them but if I pray to them and they are dead they cannot hear me.
I do not mean to ignore them but I think it is very hipothetical that they are actually “spiritually” present.
Can I be an Orthodox believer and not honor the saints in the way of praying to/with them?
Is it all right just to pray to God the Father and His Son Jesus?
Can I be an Orthodox believer and having a strong inclination toward Universal Salvation?
Can I be an Orthodox believer without affirming the doctrin of the Trinity?
Can I be an Orthodox believer and rejecting the icon adoration?
Love and Shalom
Dani
-
No, to be Orthodox you must participate in the liturgy. Every single liturgy includes prayers to/with the saints.
-
No. We worship all three Persons of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
-
Yes. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was the president of the Second Ecumenical Council, and who was called “the Father of the Fathers” by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, believed in universal salvation. There are many examples of Orthodox believers who believe in universal salvation.
-
No. The Trinity is central and essential to Orthodox theology.
-
No. Iconoclasm (i. e., rejecting the veneration of icons) is recognized as a heresy in Orthodoxy.
Thank you very much for your answers.
Love
Dani
How is worship of the Father different than worshiping the Son? How do you know that you are worshiping One and not the Other? This is not facetiousness on my part; I’m just curious.
In the Orthodox Church we have prayers to each Person of the Trinity, as well as prayers to the Trinity. Here is an example of each:
To God the Father:
“Our Father art in Heaven, hallowed by Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Thine is the king, and the power, and the glory, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.”
To God the Son:
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.”
To God the Holy Spirit:
“O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere and fillest all things; Treasury of Blessings, and Giver of Life - come and abide in us, cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.”
To the Trinity:
“O most Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Lord, cleanse us from our sins. O Master, pardon our transgressions. O Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities, for Thy name’s sake.”
Thank you, Geoffrey, for those prayers - I like them very much.
My question though, if I was to sharpen it up a bit, would be - when you are praying to the Father, does the Son ‘hear’ you?
Could you say the “Jesus prayer” to the Father?
Does it matter which one of the Trinity we are praying to?
I’m Not being facetious. Someone on the forum has said that the Trinity ‘is the basis of all reality’.
Is that really, substantially (kind of a pun there) different than saying 'God is the basis of all reality"?
Dave, the quick theological answer is: the three trinitarian persons are indivisible in substance and thus perfectly indwell each other. Hence, when I pray to the Father, I am also praying to the Son and Spirit; when I pray to the Son, I am also praying to the Father and Spirit; when I pray to the Spirit, I am also praying to the Father and Son.
How do we know which person we are praying to? That’s why we use names.
Perhaps the best answer to this question is: about 2000 years!
Och, I will let it go. I’ll be happy with ‘my’ Trinity, you with yours. 
I fully believe we are worshiping the same God, I don’t believe ‘yours’ is Higher or that I am a second-class Christian, though.
Thanks. Onward and upward!
Hello Dave,
so how do you explain “your” trinity?
Blessings
Dani
Dani - I don’t. I do not wish to bandy about metaphysical terminology concerning the trinity. I have found it to be counter-productive, and it splits people into camps. The simple things I said above will have to do, there are other good threads in the archives that have worked the subject to death.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but really, it has all been said before, and by excellent theologians.
Well, it’s more than saying “God is the basis”.
God is the basis == the one and only basis of reality can rationally act. That’s an important claim.
The Trinity is the basis == the one and only basis of reality is a rationally active interpersonal reality of fair-togetherness between persons, essentially being love and justice in its own eternally active self-existence. The basis would still be self-begetting, loyally self-begotten, and graciously self-giving, even if nothing else but the basis existed.
The idea that this substantially singular mutually supporting interpersonal union is the one and only basis of reality, ought to make a big difference in what we believe to be true about morality. Hopeless punishment could not possibly be truly just, to give perhaps the most pertinent example in relation to this forum. 
Dave, I appreciate your desire to avoid “metaphysical” disputes; but may I suggest that the Church Fathers weren’t engaging in metaphysical speculation. What they did was to adopt, and rework, some basic philosophical concepts in order to express the fundamental faith of the Church. If we approach the Nicene question from a grammatical viewpoint, it all becomes clear.
What does it mean to be God? Whatever properties are properly attributed to “God,” they are to be equally attributed to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
What does it mean to be a “divine Person”? Whatever it means, it means, it means that the Father is distinct from the Son and Spirit; the Son is distinct from the Father and Spirit; the Spirit is distinct from the Father and Son.
No metaphysical “explanation” is being offered–simply rules for proper speech about the Christian God.
Perhaps you and Chris B and JP and moderators and others are correct. I don’t think so, and since the issue is still alive after a couple thousand years - and kept alive by smarter people than any of us here, I don’t think there is room for boasting or complete certainty on either side.
Like I said about 3 minutes ago on another thread, unless I am marginalized or caricaturized for my belief, I am willing to let it be; we are not going to solve this any more than we can solve the free-will debate, the two-natures debate, the creation ex-nihilo debate, the virgin birth debate etc ad nauseum, world without end.
The smiley face is there to display an attitude of friendliness and openness.
Note: my spell-checker tried to change ‘caricaturized’ to ‘catheterized’ - I would purely hate to be catheterized for my belief,
Very good point.
Right. The faith of the Orthodox Church is identical to the faith of the simple fisherman, St. Peter the Martyr and Apostle. Only the terminology is new.
