The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

A popular protestant trope is that Christianity - specifically the Roman Catholic Church - was subverted by the Emperor Constantine in AD 325, and became a Neo-pagan cult. This hogwash began during the Protestant reformation and was promoted for centuries by Protestants to justify their heresy.  Never mind that the Roman Catholic Church from which Protestantism sprang is a far different church than that of the Christian world of 325.  The promoters of this propaganda seem to have never heard of the Orthodox Church.  They got away with this nonsense for so long because there was no readily available history of what actually transpired in the first Council of Nicaea.  Even today, if you try to find details about the council, you'll have a hard time finding a definitive source.  This blog aims to rectify that, and subsequent blogs will detail the other ecumenical councils.

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325. Before this Council, there had been local synods of Bishops to resolve local problems, but the issue of the Arian heresy was too widespread to be dealt with at a local level.  No Bishop had the authority to call a general council of all of Christendom - sorry, Romans, not even the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pope.  Since the issue threatened the peace of the empire, Constantine exerted his authority to call the council and preside over it, even though he wasn't a Christian at the time.  Constantine's role as chair was non-voting, and he exerted no influence on theological matters.

The council was attended by approximately 318 Bishops. Some names are lost to history, as the record only shows their origin and not their name.  Notable attendees included:

St. Alexander of Alexandria – Patriarch of Alexandria, a leading opponent of Arianism.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria – Deacon and secretary to Alexander of Alexandria, who later became a central figure against Arianism.

St. Eustathius of Antioch – Bishop of Antioch and an outspoken defender of Nicene orthodoxy.

St. Macarius of Jerusalem – Bishop of Jerusalem, who contributed to discussions on church jurisdiction.

Hosius of Corduba – Bishop of Corduba (Spain), representing the Western Church and serving as a close advisor to Emperor Constantine.

Nicholas of Myra – Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), popularly known as St. Nicholas.

Eusebius of Nicomedia – Initially sympathetic to Arian views, he later played a role in promoting semi-Arian ideas.

Eusebius of Caesarea – Bishop of Caesarea, church historian, and theologian who supported a compromise position.

Leontius of Caesarea – Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and a firm opponent of Arianism.

Marcellus of Ancyra – Bishop of Ancyra (Ankara), a staunch anti-Arian who later became embroiled in theological controversy.

Paphnutius of Thebes – An Egyptian bishop known for his asceticism and orthodoxy.

Spyridon of Trimythous – Bishop of Trimythous (Cyprus), noted for his simplicity and wonderworking reputation.

Potamon of Heraclea – Bishop from Egypt and a strong opponent of Arianism.

Aetius of Lydda – Bishop from Palestine.

Theognis of Nicaea – Bishop of Nicaea, initially supportive of Arius.

Paul of Neocaesarea – Bishop from Cappadocia.

Gregory of Bostra – Bishop from Arabia.

John of Persia and India – Bishop of the Persian and Indian regions, representing Eastern Christianity.

Hypatian of Gangra – Bishop from Paphlagonia.

Amphion of Epiphania – Bishop from Syria.

Anthimus of Nicomedia – Bishop of Nicomedia, killed in an earlier persecution.

Menophantus of Ephesus – Bishop of Ephesus.

Patrophilus of Scythopolis – Bishop from Palestine, sympathetic to Arius.

Gaius of Didymoteichus – Bishop from Thrace.

Alexander of Thessalonica – Bishop of Thessalonica.

Longinus of Ashkelon – Bishop from Palestine.

Euphration of Balanea – Bishop from Syria.

Diodorus of Tenedos – Bishop from the island of Tenedos.

Heliodorus of Laodicea – Bishop from Syria.

Theodorus of Perinthus – Bishop from Thrace.

Sabas of Methone – Bishop from Greece.

Nicetas of Remesiana – Bishop from what is now Serbia.

Alexander of Byzantium – Bishop of Byzantium (later Constantinople).

Theophilus the Goth – Bishop from Gothic territories.

Narcissus of Neronias – Bishop from Cilicia.

Secundus of Ptolemais – Bishop from Libya, a supporter of Arius.

George of Laodicea – Bishop of Laodicea, initially sympathetic to Arianism.

Eusebius of Nicomedia – Strong supporter of Arius and influential figure.

Theognis of Nicaea – Supported the Arian cause at Nicaea.

Maris of Chalcedon – Bishop of Chalcedon, supported Arianism initially.

Secundus of Ptolemais – Bishop from Libya and an ally of Arius.

John of Persia and India – Represented Christians from the East.

Theophilus the Goth – Likely from Gothic territories north of the Empire.

Auxentius of Mopsuestia – Bishop from Cilicia.

Germanus of Sirmium – Bishop from Pannonia (modern-day Serbia).

Cyril of Jerusalem – Later Bishop of Jerusalem, though young at the time.

Moses of Khorasan – Bishop from Armenia.

 

The Resolution against Arianism and Establishment of the Creed

Arius’ Teachings: The primary theological issue was the teaching of Arius, a priest from Alexandria, who argued that the Son (Jesus Christ) was not co-eternal with the Father but was created as a subordinate being. This implied that the Son was not truly divine in the same sense as the Father.

Resolution: The council decisively condemned Arianism, affirming that the Son is "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father. This established that the Son is co-eternal, uncreated, and fully divine, sharing the same divine nature as God the Father.

The resolution against Arianism is most clearly expressed in the original text of the Nicene Creed that was adopted in 325 AD. The creed explicitly affirms the Son’s divinity and rejects Arian views by stating that the Son is “of the same essence” (homoousios) as the Father. Below is the specific text of the original Nicene Creed, along with the anathema (a formal condemnation) against Arian beliefs:

The Nicene Creed (325 AD)

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father; through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, becoming human; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into the heavens; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit."

Note that this differs from the Creed we know today.  The second part that we're familiar with was added in the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople.

The Anathema Against Arianism

The Council added an anathema specifically condemning Arian views, which reads:

"But as for those who say, ‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before being begotten he was not,’ and that he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different essence or substance, or created, or subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."

Key Points of the Condemnation:

1. "There was when he was not": Rejects the Arian belief that the Son did not exist eternally and was instead created in time.
   
   
2. "Before being begotten he was not": Condemns the idea that the Son did not exist before His generation by the Father.
   
   
3. "Came into existence out of nothing": Denies the claim that the Son was created from nothing, as creatures are.
   
   
   
4. "Different essence or substance": Asserts that the Son shares the same essence (homoousios) with the Father, rather than being of a different, created essence.
   
   
   
5. "Subject to alteration or change": Declares that the Son’s divine nature is unchangeable, opposing the Arian view that He could be mutable.

This text not only refutes Arian claims but also establishes the orthodox Christian teaching of the Son’s eternal and divine nature, unified with the Father, forming the foundation of Trinitarian doctrine.

Establishing the Date of Easter

 Background: There were significant disagreements about when to celebrate Easter, with some communities following the Jewish Passover date (Quartodeciman practice), while others followed a different calculation.

Resolution: The council decided that Easter should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox, separating it from the Jewish Passover. This decision was meant to unify the celebration of Easter across the Christian world, establishing a tradition still followed in the Orthodox and Western churches.

Summary of the Decision on Pascha at Nicaea

The council decreed that:

1. Pascha (Easter) should be celebrated on the same Sunday throughout the Christian world to promote unity in observance.
   
   
   
2. Pascha should be celebrated independently of the Jewish Passover (which follows the lunar calendar), as the council wanted to separate Christian practices from Jewish customs.
   
   
   
3. The date would be based on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox. This keeps the celebration close to the Jewish Passover but ensures it will always occur on a Sunday.

Emperor Constantine’s Letter to the Bishops (Eusebius’ Account)

While the council did not record an official canon on Pascha, a surviving letter from Emperor Constantine, as preserved by Eusebius in Life of Constantine, captures the essence of the council's decision:

"It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd … we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Lord, have wandered in error? … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have anything in common with those parricides and murderers of our Lord."

This statement from Constantine, which was shared with bishops and communities following the council, reflects the council’s intention to establish a unified celebration of Pascha separate from the Jewish calendar. However, the technical details of calculating the date were not finalized at Nicaea itself; they evolved in subsequent years and through later councils.

So while the council initiated the separation of Pascha from the Jewish Passover and anchored its timing to Sunday following the spring full moon, the exact formula became standardized over time. This decision is why Christians today celebrate Easter independently of the Jewish Passover, using the method based on the Nicene framework.

Today, the Eastern Orthodox Church follows the Julian Calendar and the traditional Paschalion, ensuring that Pascha always falls on a Sunday after the Jewish Passover, in line with this custom that developed after Nicaea rather than from the council itself.

Establishment of the Scriptural Canon 

The Council did not officially address or determine the scriptural canon of the Bible. Although the council tackled major theological issues, particularly Arianism, and established ecclesiastical rules through its 20 canons, no surviving records indicate that the council took formal action on the canon of Scripture.

That said, the bishops at Nicaea were certainly aware of the growing consensus around key scriptural texts. By this time, many Christian communities had begun widely accepting the four Gospels, the letters of Paul, and certain other writings as authoritative. However, the precise content of the New Testament canon was still under informal discussion in various regions of the early Church.

 Some traditions or legends later suggested that the Council of Nicaea determined the books of the Bible, but no historical records support this claim. The Council’s primary focus remained theological doctrine, particularly regarding the nature of Christ, as well as church discipline and liturgical uniformity.

The Canons (Laws or Rulings) of the Council 

Although specifically called to address Arianism, the Bishops took advantage of the council to clarify and standardize the Church's approach to many other lesser issues and questions that arose.

Canon 1, Concerning Eunuchs and Ministry:

"If anyone in sickness has been mutilated by physicians, or if anyone has been castrated by barbarians, let such remain among the clergy. But if anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it is good for such a one, if already enrolled among the clergy, to cease from his ministry, and henceforth not to be advanced. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, they may continue as clergymen in the same condition."

Canon 2, Concerning New Converts:

"Since, either from necessity or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who were instructed but a little while, have been brought at once to the spiritual laver, and as soon as baptized were advanced to the episcopate or the priesthood, it has seemed right to us that for the future no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolic saying is clear, 'Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil.' But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he is convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whosoever shall transgress these enactments will imperil his own clerical position, as a person convicted of disobedience."

Canon 3, Concerning Clerics living with Women:

"The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatsoever, to have a subintroducta in his house, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion."

Canon 4, Concerning Appointment of Bishops:

"It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province; but if this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan."

Canon 5, Concerning Excommunication:

"Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the canon be observed by the bishops, which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, let inquiry be made whether they have been excommunicated through peevishness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And that this may be duly carried out, it has seemed good that in every province synods should be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be thoroughly examined into by them, and so that those who have confessedly offended against their bishop may be seen by all to be for a season excommunicated, or that such persons as have been wrongly excluded from communion may be admitted again. And these synods shall be held, one before Lent, that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away, and again in the autumn."

Canon 6, Concerning the Authority of Major Sees:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if anyone be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three by reason of personal rivalry do oppose the common suffrage of all, which is according to the ecclesiastical canon, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

Canon 7, Concerning the Privileges of Jerusalem:

"Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia (that is, Jerusalem) should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honor."

Canon 8, Concerning the Reception of the Schismatic Novatians:

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular, that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who have lapsed in persecution, and for whom a time has been fixed, and a season of penance enjoined. So that in all things they may observe the ecclesiastical decrees. Wherever, however, any of these come over, whether they were in villages or in cities, let the Bishop of the Catholic Church have the authority, if he should see fit, to ordain them as he pleases. But if he should not wish to ordain them, then let them give to them the honor of being in the clergy. And those who are not in orders, are not to be ordained. Moreover, those who come over should be rebaptized. But if any have been ordained in an irregular manner, but have otherwise done uprightly in their life, let them be received with the laying on of hands as clergymen of the Catholic Church."

Canon 9, Concerning Unordained Ministers:

"If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have confessed crimes, and men in ignorance of the matter have laid hands upon them, the canon does not admit such persons; for the Catholic Church requires that only such as are blameless should be admitted to the clergy."

Canon 10, Concerning Relapsed Clergy:

"If anyone who has lapsed has been ordained through ignorance or even with knowledge of the fact, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church; for when he is discovered he shall be deposed."

Canon 11, Concerning Penance for the Lapsed:

"Concerning those who have lapsed without necessity, and without the spoiling of their property, or without danger, or such like circumstances, the Synod decrees that, though they are not to be entirely cast out, yet are they to be dealt with as those who fall under the common canon of penitence. And therefore, to them is assigned a more severe penance, and after this, being found in good works, they may be admitted, if it shall seem fit."

Canon 12, Concerning Lapsed Military Converts:

"As many as were called by grace, and displayed the first zeal, having cast aside their military girdles, but afterwards returned like dogs to their own vomit, so that some spent money and by means of gifts regained their military stations, let these, after they have passed the space of three years as hearers, be for ten years prostrators. But in all these cases, it is necessary to examine well into their purpose and repentance. For as many as give evidence of their conversion by deeds, and not pretence, with fear, and tears, and perseverance, and good works, when they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers, may properly communicate in prayers, and after that the bishop may determine yet something more favorable concerning them. But those who take the matter with indifference, and who think the form of entering the Church is sufficient for their conversion, must fulfill the whole time."

Canon 13. Concerning Deathbed Communion:

"Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But if, after he has been thought worthy of communion, and has partaken of the Offering, he be again numbered among the living, let him be placed only among those who communicate in prayers. But, generally, and in the case of anyone in danger of death asking to receive the Eucharist, the bishop shall give it to him."

Canon 14, Concerning Penitential Requirements for Catechumens:

"Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years as hearers only, they shall again pray with the catechumens."

Canon 15, Concerning Restrictions on Clerical Mobility:

"On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon shall pass from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter."

Canon 16, Concerning Disciplinary Transfers:

"If any presbyter or deacon, desiring to withdraw from his own church, entirely abandons it, and goes over to another, let him no longer perform the office of the ministry; especially if he cannot persuade the bishop of the diocese to which he had attached himself, to receive him into communion, he must be content to be admitted only to lay communion."

Canon 17, Concerning a Prohibition on Clerical Usury:

"Forasmuch as many enrolled among the clergy, following covetousness and lust for gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture, which says, 'He hath not given his money upon usury,' and in lending money ask the hundredth of the sum, the holy and great Synod thinks it just that, if after this decree any one shall be found to receive usury, whether he accomplish it by secret transactions, or otherwise, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list."

Canon 18, Concerning the Deacon's Role in Eucharist:

"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some places and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to those who do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop, and inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or presbyter administer to them. Further, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that order is beyond their authority. And if, after this decree, anyone shall refuse to obey, let him cease from his ministry."

Canon 19, Concerning the Rebaptism of Paulianists:

(Followers of Paul of Samosata were a heretical sect)

"Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them in past time have been numbered among their clergy, if they be found blameless and without reproach, let them be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. But if on examination they are found unfit, let them be deposed. Likewise, if any of their clergy shall turn to the Catholic Church, let them in like manner be rebaptized; but if they be not rebaptized, let them be made to renounce their heresy, and afterward let them communicate in prayers with the faithful. In all cases, however, bishops are to be careful that the goods and chattels of the Church are not appropriated to any individual's profit, but that all should remain intact for the Church."

Canon 20, Concerning Kneeling during Liturgy:

"Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere in every parish, it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing."

 Conclusion

There we have it, the declarations and canons of the Council of Nicaea.  Conspicuously absent is any hint of pagan influence.  The church was not restructured, nor the theology revised.  Issues were presented and resolved in the fashion of the Apostles, demonstrated in the Council of Jerusalem detailed in Acts 15. The church wasn't remade according to Augustine, he had no vote in the decisions.

 

Nicaea I was the first of seven councils which clarified the faith in the face of evolving theologies and 

YHWH, the God of Jesus

So, I was recently informed that the God that Jesus worshiped and YHWH are two different Gods. The person making this claim is aghast at the “barbaric” rituals of the Jews, particularly the feast of the Red Heifer, which is specifically called for in Numbers 19: 1-7. The person who made this astounding claim backed it up with this supporting video by author Paul Wallis.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, or Brandolini’s Law, says that, “The amount of energy required to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.” I’m not sure I want to devote ten times as much effort into refuting Wallis as he did in inventing his fantastic fiction, but I’ll give it a minor shot.

Before I start, this is the sort of nonsense that you end up with when you divorce yourself from the Memory of the Christian Church and assume that anyone armed with a Bible is as qualified as a patristic father to interpret scripture, especially when you disregard the ancient tradition which form the context and frame of reference in which the scripture was written.

Paul Wallis is first and foremost an author, and his primary goal is to sell his books. As a historian and religious scholar, he’s on par with the charlatans Zecharia Sitchin, Immanuel Velikovsky and L. Ron Hubbard. All of these men have invented fantastic theories of ancient history, devoid of common sense, scientific literacy or any tangible evidence. Wallis is no different. He invents a science fiction story that the Early people were influenced by Extraterrestrial visitors who taught them agriculture, and that YHWH was one of these who was an abusive dictator, and that all of scripture is the early peoples trying to tell us about this. Amazing that centuries of scholars never twigged to it. . . .

 Before I go into detail about why Wallis gets it wrong, let’s talk about some of the claims he makes in the video I linked to above, and disassemble some of the ways he cleverly twists scripture to support his fantasy.

First, he says several times that YHWH is never mentioned in the New testament, that "Jesus Never spoke in YHWH's name" and “Jesus never used the name YHWH.” Sorry, Paul, but the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. So you won’t see the word itself. But this claim is without merit because Jesus specifically refers to HIMSELF with that reference. We first hear the name “YHWH” in Exodus:

 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”

  And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM (Hebrew: YHWH) has sent me to you.’” And God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

-Exodus 3:13-15

Jesus proclaims himself to be this same god in John:

The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he shall never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” The Jews therefore said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” - John 8:52-58

This proclamation shocked the Jews to the point here they were prepared to stone him to death for blasphemy.

Then Wallis tries to suggest that Jesus repudiated and mocked YHWH, starting with a mis-quoted passage from John 8, where Wallis tries to spin Jesus’ words to say that the Pharisees were children of YHWH and that YHWH was an evil being. An objective read of the chapter shows that wasn’t what Jesus was saying at all. He was telling the Pharisees that they’ve forgotten their heritage from Abraham and were serving the devil, thinking and claiming they were serving God/YHWH. The level of misdirection that Wallis uses in his twisting of this passage borders on Satanic.

 Wallis next tries to suggest that his words in Matt 7:9-10 (“What man among you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?) are making fun of the way God treated the Israelites in Exodus. He says that the Israelites were thirsty, and YHWH gave them a rock. No, Paul, He told Moses to strike a rock, and then water flowed forth, enough to feed the multitude and their animals. He tries to equate the passage in Numbers 21:4-9 with giving a child a snake instead of a fish. No, God sent the serpents to punish the people for speaking against him. More on this theme later.

Then he makes some strange point using 2 Kings 17, which discusses the behavior of the Israelites that ended in the Babylonian Exile, to suggest that the people of Israel were worshipping other gods from their past. He shows the passage, but it’s nothing like the passage in my New American Standard Bible, which is considered the gold standard for English translations. His is some sort of condensed version and mis-states a number of things, for example his version says they were following the patterns of their ancestors, where the proper translation clearly states they were following the example of the nations that surrounded them. But it suits his narrative to mis-state that as ancestors.

He follows this by asserting that they were remembering the way Judaism used to be, not what it became after Hezekiah and Josia removed ancient writings that referred to the "Paleo contact." This is pure science fiction, without a shred of supporting evidence. No texts suggest this, which Wallis conveniently writes off that these two kings destroyed all references in an effort to reform Judaism to a YHWH based monotheism.

He then returns to his original claim that YHWH was not the God of Jesus, saying "It took awhile for the idea to bed down that Jesus really rejected and repudiated YHWH and his laws." Yeah, Paul, because it never happened. No Christian with an unbroken line of apostolic succession believes this.

Then he tries to show that Jesus repudiated the Law of YHWH the times he said, "Moses said this, but I say this." Nice try, Paul, but anyone who knows the Gospels knows that Jesus isn't replacing Mosaic teaching with these, He's not teaching something different, He's enhancing them, reinforcing them, showing the spirit of the Law, calling people to do more than the law requires because they understand the spirit of the Law.

Then Wallis overstates the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, and completely misses the implications. He puts words into the mouths of the Apostles and infers intent in the decision making process that suits his conclusions, which have no merit in history or the written record.

He then tries to equate the history of Christianity with regard to wars, enslavement, misogyny, and violence with this link to what he calls "YHWHism".  This completely ignores the fact that these are symptoms of the Christian West after the Great Schism, and a result of the scholasticism and monarchism that's the hallmark of the Roman Catholic Church and its myriad derivative Protestant offshoots.

He belabors the point with comparing the punishment that David received for counting his armies to Jesus offering is the whole cosmic realm, claiming that YHWH is a micromanaging martinet and Jesus wants to give us the universe.  Except Wallis forgets that these two things are deeply connected:  You have to have faith.

Enough of directly refuting Wallis’ nonsense.  I’ll explain why the God of Jesus, YHWH, seems to our modern sensibilities to be so strange.  First of all, you have to take to heart the words of Isaiah:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
and your ways are not My ways.”

“For as heaven is higher than earth,
so My ways are higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts. “

             -Isaiah 55: 8-9.

Don’t try to understand why God does things, for you can no more understand it than a two year old can understand why adults do certain things.

To give you an idea of the world outside of ancient Judaism, we can look to the accounts of Herodotus and his story of Astyages and Harpagus.  Harpagus the general disobeyed his king Astyages, who a decade earlier ordered him to execute his own grandson, for whom his palace seers gave evil portent. In retaliation, Astyages acted as if he was relieved that the deed hadn’t been done, and offered to host a banquet of reconciliation.  At that banquet, he fed Harpagus the meat of his own son, whom he had butchered. This is one example of the casual barbarity that was common in the world of Abraham and Moses.  We have to be very careful, because we look at the world through the lens of a Judeo-Christian social ethos that’s so ingrained in us that we actually mistakenly believe it’s human nature. Monogamy, human rights, privacy, the value of human lives, these things are the exception in human history, not the rule, and the only reason we have them is because of the Abrahamic covenant and the Law of Moses.

When YHWH revealed himself to Moses and led the people of Israel out of Egypt, he performed many wondrous miracles, any one of which should have cemented the faith of the Israelites in Him.  But they repeatedly showed themselves to be faithless.  Shortly after leaving Egypt, Moses sent scouts into Canaan.  They all came back and all but Caleb and Joshua were dismayed.  They told Moses the cities were too big, the armies too strong, their soldiers were giants, and that they couldn’t be defeated.  Only Joshua and Caleb reported all these things, but with their faith said that through YHWH they could still take them. Moses chose caution.  YHWH saw they lacked the faith Him he required of His chosen people and condemned them to wander in the desert until everyone who had left Egypt was dead.  The New generation, who had never known Egyptian society or gods, who YHWH had fed with mana and quail all their lives, would take the Promised Land.

YHWH gave Moses the Law.  Very specific, precise instructions in nearly every aspect of life.  The purpose was to foster a new culture among the Israelites.  The penalties were severe, often capital, because the idea was that over the generations the idea of disobeying the law was so horrific that eventually the law would become second nature, that no one would even think of disobeying it, to the point where the Law would be considered human nature.

When Moses died, Joshua was to lead the invasion of Canaan, with the instruction to slaughter all of the Canaanites, even their livestock, and leave nothing. Harsh, but with a reason.  YHWH knew that to foster the culture he was trying to instill there could be no contamination with pagan outside influences.  The Israelites were to be completely insular, geographically, spiritually and culturally.

Joshua and the Israelites disobeyed.  Canaanites were spared, their livestock and temples weren’t razed to the ground.  Canaanite culture remained.  And the rest of the Old Testament is a repeating story of how that caused problems for the Israelites.  The culture of the strange religions and practices were like siren songs, leading the Israelites away from YHWH.  When they stayed faithful to YHWH’s law, they prospered.  When they strayed, they suffered. YHWH sent prophets to call them back to him, to warn them of the consequences of straying.  Stray they did, and suffer mightily they would.  Then they would repent and return to YHWH and prosper. It oscillated back and forth, to greater extremes each time, until the Scythians carried off ten of the tribes, followed by the Babylonians carrying off the remaining two tribes and destroying the Temple.

Fifty years as slaves in Babylon was a time of repentance and introspection.  Scribes and historians compiled the books of Chronicles and Kings.  Prophets instructed the people on what to do when they regained their freedom.  Cyrus the Great defeated the Babylonians and restored the Jews to their land, even offering to help rebuild the Temple.

The Jews never embraced foreign gods or cultures again.  They fought a partisan war against the armies of Alexander when the Greek armies occupied Israel. And at last the culture of morality that God tried to instill was a reality. The Israelites developed a reputation of being stiff necked people who would never bow to or accept the gods of their occupiers, whether they be Greek, Persian, Egyptian or Roman.  The harsh Mosaic Law had done its job.

But there was a problem.  The Law became second nature, but the Levite enforcers of the Law became abusive autocrats in their own right.  The Law was enforced to the letter, without regard to the sprit of the Law.  Meanwhile the philosophical culture of the Greeks infused Israeli society.  They never accepted Greek gods, but they learned of Greek science, mathematics, and philosophy.  Remember, the Greek Philosopher Plato had written a work named the Timaeus, which started with logical definitions of the physical, observable world, and then through a process of logical deduction arrived at a conclusion of a monotheistic God. The Greeks had a philosophy of logical conclusion that drove their ethos.  The Jews had a rigid Law that drove theirs.  The combination of the two mingled for three hundred years, making a fertile social bed for the catalyst that would merge the two:  Jesus Christ.

Christ – YHWH incarnate – came with the Mosaic Law in one hand and Greek philosophy in the other. Take note of His teachings:  He rarely if ever issued edicts or rules.  He would teach as a Socratic, offering scenarios that forced his disciples to think about the Law and how to apply it.  Sometimes they missed His point, and he would give them another perspective or insight and ask the question in a different way until they got it. These lessons, the successes and the failures are recorded in the Gospels. The need for the rigid Mosaic law was no more: the people’s ethos was so ingrained that it was their nature, thought to be inborn.  They needed now to learn how to think about the law.

But Jesus came for the Jews. He even overtly referred to gentiles as dogs (Matt15:26). The faith shown by the gentiles, though, was even greater than that of Israel, and he embraced it.  The Jewish powerful disavowed him, He was a threat to their position, causing him to declare that the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (Mark 12:10). 

YHWH made a covenant with Abraham, that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars and the nations of the Earth will be blessed by them (Gen 26:4).  YHWH keeps his covenant, even though the children of Israel acted like the harlot, consorting with strange cultures and idols, YHWH never broke his promise. All of the nations and cultures of the Old Testament are gone, but Israel remains. Today look at the Nobel prizes, and the many scientific achievements and innovations coming from Israel.  Without Jewish scientists, we never would have unlocked the power of the atom. It’s no wonder that Satan sows discord among the nations about Israel, and has sought to exterminate them repeatedly.  Read the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekial and Jeremiah. If you’re not on the side of Israel, you’re on the losing side, because YHWH, the god of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, will not break His word.

If you can understand how the arborist prunes the vie to get the greatest yield, you can start to see why YHWH seemed so bloodthirsty in a very bloodthirsty age. The vine never likes to be pruned, it hurts.  That’s a lesson for society and for our personal lives.

The Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy

Entering into an Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy can be a daunting, confusing experience for most people. It may be quite unlike anything you’re likely to have experienced before. If your background is Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican, some things may be familiar, but there’s still a lot going on and it can be confusing. I’m writing this to try to de-mystify the experience. You’ll appreciate it a lot more if you have some idea of what’s going on, and why. There’s a lot of motion that seems repetitious and confusing at times, but it all has a purpose. I hope you’ll appreciate the solemnity of the service and the seriousness with which the priest and participants give it.

First, some history

The normal divine liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, who was the Bishop of Constantinople from 398 to 404. It’s derived from the older mass of St. Basil, which was derived directly from the Mass of St. James the Lesser, Apostle of Christ. The changes St. John Chrysostom introduced reflected the matured theology from the ecumenical councils - for example, the inclusion of the Nicene Creed - and he streamlined the complex liturgy of St. Basil to be more accessible and understandable to the rapidly growing Christian mission communities. The essential elements are still present, and first century Christians would recognize their mass in the modern divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. There are many echoes of Jewish worship in it. For example, the altar area is distinctly separate from the rest of the church and only those with business on the altar may go there. The use of incense is prevalent, as it was in Jewish services in the first century.

The Church

When you enter the Eastern Orthodox church, you come in through the Nave, or entryway. From there you go through the Narthex, which is where the uninitiated attendees would traditionally sit, separate from the main sanctuary. That tradition is rarely observed or enforced today. In the Narthex, you’ll have several icons. The iconography style of the Eastern Orthodox is simply traditional – the eastern church never experienced the photorealistic art renaissance that Western Europe did. To the right of the main entry way to the sanctuary will be the Pantocrator, the Icon of Christ the Ruler of All. To the left of the entrance will be an icon of Mary, the Theotokos, or God-bearer. Typically, there will also be an icon of the patron saint of the church, of which the church is named after, and an icon of the saint whose feast day is currently being celebrated. Most Orthodox pay some sort of homage to the Pantocrator and Theotokos upon entry into the church, typically a metanoia, or bow to the touch the ground and a kiss on the icon. The Eastern Orthodox have a solid historical connection to the Seventh Ecumenical Council which held that veneration of an icon wasn’t idolatry, that the honor paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and they who venerate the image, venerate the person represented in that image.

Symbolism is everywhere in the Eastern Orthodox church. Compare the icons of the Pantocrator and the Theotokos. Note that Christ wears a red or burgundy tunic, with a blue cloak over it. Red is the color of the divine, and blue is the color of humanity. Christ is divine, cloaked in humanity. On the other side, the Theotokos is wearing a blue tunic, and a maroon cloak. Human, cloaked in the divine. As you enter the church, if you look back and above, you’ll see you passed under a tapestry depicting the burial of Christ. By entering the sanctuary, you are passing through the grave to eternal life. 

You’ll notice that, unlike modern Western churches, the altar is behind a screen or a wall called the iconostasis. The center doors are the Royal Doors, and only ordained clergy may go through them. This is in keeping with the ancient Jewish temple layout, where the holy of holies was physically separate from the main area. There are two doors to either side, for utility and non-ordained acolytes and sub-deacons. Typically, the traffic flows counterclockwise, out the left door and back in through the right. If the priest is speaking on the other side of the screen, he is praying to God. To address the congregation in any way, he’ll come out to our side of the screen.

The layout is reminiscent of the Jewish temple.  The area of the altar, behind the iconostasis, is where the Holy of Holies was kept in the Jewish temple.  The Ark of the Covenant contained the Law, the promise of God. It's the same in an Orthodox Church, the Altar area is where the Holy of Holies is, only now Christ is the living embodiment of the Law. If you look above the altar, there's a huge icon of the Theotokos - Mary, in Greek literally the God-bearer.  This icon is referred to as "Bigger Than the Sky" or "Bigger than the Heavens." Mary carried the Christ the son of the Living God, who is everywhere, so her womb is bigger than the universe to hold Him.

Above the center of the church in the domed ceiling is the Pantocrator, Christ  the Ruler of All.  You may see letters, IC - XC, NIKA.  These are Greek abbreviations where they would use the first and last letters of a word.  In Greek there is no "J", it follows more the Hebrew "Y" or "I", so IC - XC is Iesus Kristos. NIKA isn''t an abbreviation, it's greek for "Victory" or "Victorious". Jesus Christ victorious.

Responses

The priest sometimes addresses the congregation in a formulaic statement. If you aren’t familiar with the correct response, well, I feel like an idiot not knowing what to say. The most common, of course is “Peace be with you!” which is used several times in the liturgy. The response, sung by the choir is, “Also with your spirit!” Another common one is “Christ is in our midst!” The response to this is, “He is and always shall be!” During the Paschal season, this will be replaced with “Christ is risen!” and the response is, “Truly He is risen!” This may come in any language, the most common is Greek, “Christós Anésti!” to which you respond, “Alíthos anésti!” In our Arabic speaking Antiochian church, you may also hear, “Almasih qam!” to which you respond, “Haqana qam!”

Orthodox Christianity is a trinitarian theology, and the Trinity is invoked many times in the liturgy. When it’s done so, it’s customary to make the sign of the cross. You’ll see a lot of this during the service. The sign of the cross is done with the right hand with the thumb and the first two fingers drawn together to represent the Trinity, and the last two fingers into the palm to represent the two natures of Christ, divine and human. Unlike in the West, the sign of the cross is done from right to left, mirroring the priest blessing you. St. Peter the Aleut was the first martyr in North America, killed by Spanish priests in California because they didn't like the way he made the Sign of the Cross.

Standing and sitting

In many more traditional Orthodox churches, there are no pews. The congregation stands for the entire service. Standing in the East is the position of reverence. Pews are provided in more westernized congregations. Generally speaking, you’ll stand whenever the priest addresses or blesses the congregation, during the Gospel reading, and especially when he brings out the Eucharist.

Music

Unlike Western churches, the choir’s participation is an integral part of the liturgy and prayers, many times taking the form of a dialogue between the choir and priest. All are encouraged to join the choir if you know the hymns and responses. There are no hymnals as such, the liturgical books provided give the responses, if you can follow them.

The Liturgy

In preparation for the divine liturgy, there are two other services said. The ancient church would observe the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday by attending services in the Temple, and then on Sunday they would gather at the house of the Bishop for the Eucharist. Little has changed. Vespers is said the evening before the Divine Liturgy as the Sabbath observance. Orthros is the daybreak service, and begins about an hour before the Divine Liturgy and sort of segues into it. So when you arrive at church and walk in a few minutes before the stated time and things already seem to be happening, don’t worry, you’re not late. The Orthros service is in full swing.

You’ll recognize the beginning of the Divine Liturgy when the priest intones, “Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever unto ages of ages.” This is the opening line of the actual liturgy.

Throughout the Divine Liturgy there are prayers of supplication, praise, and preparation. The priest says these. Some are brief, others are lengthy, and most of the time the priest says them quietly. During these prayers, a deacon will be simultaneously leading an ektenia, or litany, which consists of prayerful petitions, to which the congregation typically responds singing, “Lord, have Mercy” led by the choir. When the ektenia is complete, the priest will say the final portion of his prayer aloud. Most prayer books have both the litany and the prayer, which makes it a little confusing to follow at first, because they happen simultaneously. After the prayer there’s typically a refrain from the choir.

After the opening line of the Liturgy, the priest will say the first antiphon while a deacon leads the Great Ektenia. This is a prayer of praise to God in preparation for the Liturgy.

Then the priest prays the second antiphon while the deacon says the little ektenia. The second prayer is a petition of blessing for the congregation.

Then the priest prays the third antiphon while the deacon says another little ektenia. The third prayer is a petition of blessing for the liturgy being celebrated.

After these preparatory prayers come the little entrance. The priest and the acolytes leave the altar by a side door and form up in front of the Royal doors, with the book of the Gospel held high. The priest will say the prayer of entrance and will carry the Gospel through the royal doors and place it on the altar. The choir will sing the troparia for the day, which is typically a passage from psalms. This entrance seems unnecessary and redundant in today’s churches, but it hearkens back to a time where the Gospel was kept separately in a side chapel and had to be retrieved for the Liturgy and paraded before the congregation. The old forms are kept, even when not strictly necessary. 

After the little entrance, the choir will sing the beautiful Trisagion hymn while the priest quietly prays the trisagion prayer of praise and invitation to God. The hymn is repeated three times. The form varies from church to church, but in our Antiochian church, it’s sung each time in a different language. The first is in English, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have mercy upon us,” then in Arabic, “Quddῡsun Allāh, Quddῡsun al-qawī, Quddῡsun alladī, lā yamῡt urhamnā,” and finally in Greek, “Hagios o Theos, Hagios ischyros, Hagios athanatos, eleison imas.” Many people cross themselves repeatedly while this is sung. At the end, a deacon will call out, “Dynamis!” which translates to strength, force or power, and this call is echoed back from the choir leader.

Then the scripture is read. First, a reading from the Acts of the Apostles, one of the letters or epistles. A lay person does this, and it may be spoken or sung, depending on the reader. In our church, the readings are in both English and Arabic. Then a priest or deacon reads the Gospel. During the Gospel, it’s customary to stand in the presence of the Word. After the readings will come a short homily.

The homily ends the liturgy of the word and marks the beginning of the liturgy of the Eucharist. This starts out with a series of ektenias and prayers. The ektenia is, again, a call and response between a deacon and the congregation, while the priest prays quietly. The last line or two of the prayer is said aloud by the priest when the deacon finishes the ektenia.

The prayer of Fervent Supplication is a prayer for mercy and compassion preparatory to celebrating the Eucharist. This may be omitted at the priest’s discretion.

Then there’s a prayer for the Catechumens, that they may be made worthy to be baptized. This prayer is omitted if there are no catechumens in the congregation.

The first prayer of the Faithful is a prayer that all present be made worthy to call upon God.

The second prayer of the Faithful is a prayer that all present be made worthy to receive the Eucharist. Both of these prayers may be omitted at the priest’s discretion.

Then begins the Cherubimic prayer. This is a lengthy prayer that prepares the altar and the sacred space of the church for the performance of the Eucharistic celebration. The priest blesses altar, the icons, and the congregation with incense. All the while, the choir sings the Cherubimic hymn, which essentially places the congregation in the role of the cherubim, singing the praises of God and setting aside all earthly cares in preparation to receive the Eucharist. The hymn is sung slowly, because there’s not much content to it, and the priest has a very long preparatory prayer to say. 

With the altar prepared, the priest, deacons and acolytes perform the Great Entrance. They leave the altar through a side door and process all the way to the back of the church and down the main aisle, carrying the chalice and holy bread. A deacon leads the priest with incense. During the procession, the Priest calls upon the congregation to draw near and attend, and offers blessings to the Metropolitan (Bishop), the civil authorities and the armed forces. Remember that the priest perfoms the liturgy only by the express permission of the Metropolitan. At the end of the procession, before the altar, the priest will pray especially for special intentions for specific people for whom he has been asked to pray. During the procession, many people will touch the priest’s garments in the fashion of the Canaanite woman who was healed by touching Jesus’ cloak. Again, this Great Entrance recalls a time when the bread and wine were kept in a separate chapel, frequently another building.

Having re-entered the altar, the priest quietly prays the ektenia of prosthesis while the deacon leads the litany. This prayer is a prayer of preparation for celebrating the Eucharist, asking God to accept the offering. In some churches, this prayer may conclude with the announcement that “Christ is in our Midst,” to which the congregation responds, “He is and always shall be!” During the time of Pascha, this is replaced with “Christ is risen!” to which the congregation responds, “Truly He is risen!” Either of these is followed by the congregation greeting those around them with the same formula. This greeting can take the form of a cheek-to-cheek kiss, a handshake or a simple bow.

Then the priest cries out, “The doors! The doors! In wisdom let us attend!” This was once a signal to doorkeepers that all who weren’t admitted to Holy Communion would be sent away. The congregation follows this by saying the Nicene Creed. The Eastern Orthodox have a different lineage of translation than does the Western Christian world, so the precise wording of the creed may be slightly different than what you’re used to. Take note that near the end the Holy Spirit is declared to proceed from the Father alone, not the Father and the Son as is common in the Western Christian world. This addition by Western Christianity ultimately precipitated the Great Schism.

The Priest then says the Anaphora, which is the prayer of mystery of the Eucharist, calling upon the Holy Spirit to descend upon the gifts and turn them into the body and blood of Christ. The recollection of the last supper is taken from the Gospel of Mark, which is unusual in Western Christianity. This series of prayers is lengthy. Some of them are said quietly by the priest, punctuated with proclamations. The belief in the real presence of Christ, foreign to most Protestants, goes all the way back to the mass of St. James the Lesser, Apostle of Christ, whose prayer before communion includes the words, “I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood.”  This prayer is still used today.

A deacon will come out from the altar to lead the congregation in the litany in preparation for the Lord’s Prayer. During this litany, the priest will be praying quietly that those present be worthy to partake of the Eucharist, ending with, “. . . and Vouchsafe, oh Lord that with boldness and without condemnation we may dare to call upon thee, the heavenly God, as father and say:” At this point, the Congregation responds with the Lord’s Prayer, which may be done in multiple languages.

After the Lord’s Prayer, the priest concludes the Eucharistic prayer while the choir leads the congregation in the Eucharistic hymn. The priest and deacons then prepare the Eucharist for distribution by cutting the bread and mixing it with the wine in the chalice. The Orthodox use leavened bread made of flour, water and salt, unlike the Western Christian tradition, which uses unleavened bread in the form of the Passover feast. The Orthodox believe that Christ provided the leaven for Passover, and that the feast of the unleavened bread has been replaced. The bread is shaved in thin cuts, and with each cut the deacon says a quick, quiet, prayer of remembrance for someone identified by the person who made the bread. This can be a long list. As this takes place, the congregation recites the beautiful prayer before communion.

Once the communion is prepared, the priest(s) and arch-deacons begin the distribution. If there are any recently baptized, they come forth first to receive communion, followed normally by the children and the choir. Because the body and blood are mixed, communion is distributed from a small spoon. Acolytes hold a cloth under the chin of the communicant to prevent anything from falling to the ground. When communing someone, the minister will say, “The servant of God [name] partakes of the precious and all-holy body and blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, unto remission of sins and unto life everlasting.” You may see small children and even babies being communed, for the Orthodox believe that baptism makes one a full member of the church, able to partake of all the mysteries. If you aren’t a baptized Orthodox, it’s best to just remain in your place during communion, standing reverently.

After receiving, the communicant may take some antidoron, which is parts of the bread that was blessed but not consecrated, to eat back in their place. They may also distribute this to other members who didn’t receive communion as a sign of fellowship. This bread isn’t consecrated as part of the Eucharist, so anyone can partake.

Once everyone has received communion and the priest has returned to the altar, a deacon will lead a short litany while the priest makes a brief prayer of thanksgiving. After this the priest says a prayer for the church and the congregation. In this prayer the Church is meant to include all Orthodox churches. 

Then the prayers of dismissal are said. The priest leaves the altar and prays before the icons of Christ and Mary the Theotokos in turn, then blesses the congregation.

Normally there’s a brief pause here for announcements. Unlike western churches there’s no general dismissal. After the announcements, the priest will stand before the congregation and the people will come forward to be dismissed individually. He will usually have a small cross, and it’s customary to venerate the cross with a kiss. If this is uncomfortable for you, you may simply touch the cross and bow. The priest may greet you, and if he doesn’t know you, may inquire more about you. Orthodox priests take their charge as shepherds very seriously and want to know who’s in their church. A bowl with the antidoron will be available to grab some as you depart.

Advice from one of the saints is that if you encounter a priest and an angel on the path, kiss the hand of the priest first, because his hands have touched the body and blood of our Savior.  For this reason, you'll see Orthodox kiss the hand of a priest in greeting.

But wait! The service isn’t over yet! The celebration of the divine liturgy was the community participating in the liturgy, but now the community participates with each other. Coffee and food are normally available in the parish hall for all to partake. Part of the Orthodox preparation for communion is to fast since the night before, so people are famished. If you’re new, or a visitor, a deacon or priest may seek you out during the fellowship and ask more about you and answer any questions you may have. Please don’t leave right after the dismissal, come be a part of the community.

Unlike Western churches the whole community gathers to participate in the divine liturgy. Canon law states that a priest may only conduct a divine liturgy once a day, and an altar may only host a divine liturgy once a day. There are no multiple services. The whole community comes together as one.

If you want to review a divine liturgy our church generously livestreams Orthros and the Divine Liturgy every Sunday on Youtube.  You can see the latest services here.