Nowadays, many claim that theology should not interfere with science, and that science—which deals with physical and material matters—is one thing, whilst theology—which deals with spiritual matters—is quite another. Unfortunately, those who hold these views are joined by many theologians who promote theological isolationism and the marginalisation of the Church and theology within the confines of a vague, otherworldly spirituality. Saint Gregory the Theologian responds to this view, which is unfounded from both a theological and scientific perspective, by stating that Pastoral Theology 1, in contrast to Medicine—referring to the priest and being suited to ecclesiastical practice and life—represents the art of arts and the science of sciences. Since Medicine deals with physical matters and perishable matter, as a discipline which, even if it succeeds, with the aid of technique—that is, scientific data—in maintaining matter in its present state, it cannot prevent its inevitable course, which is disintegration and disappearance, whether due to disease or the passage of time; for, in accordance with the laws of physics, it cannot allow the body and matter to transcend the limits of nature 2. Furthermore, it is not always certain that the preservation and well-being of the body, when these exist, or the restoration of them when they have been lost, are, in every instance, beneficial to human beings. Often, many people have derived benefits from illness and physical defects, from poverty and obscurity, discovering and cultivating abilities which they neither knew they possessed nor considered to be so valuable to them 3. On the contrary, the sacramental life and theological discourse nurture the inner person and develop one’s spirituality, so that even if the sciences cannot provide a solution to one’s physical and social problems, one may still manage difficulties and overcome impasses.
It is therefore absolutely necessary, and in keeping with her duties as the Church—without rejecting medical science 4, nor indeed any other science— on the basis of the connection and synthesis of the human body with its psychological and spiritual existence, to intervene in any human activity, whether of a medical nature, a social action or a political decision. For there is no human activity that takes place independently of a person’s spiritual state and that does not have spiritual and psychological consequences, which may be disastrous for the preservation of their psychosomatic integrity.
…there is no human activity that takes place independently of a person’s spiritual state and does not have spiritual and psychological consequences, which can be disastrous for the preservation of their psychosomatic integrity.
It is precisely for this reason that the Church, perceiving man as a whole psychosomatic entity, exactly as he was created by God—an entity that unites the physical with the spiritual, the material with the immaterial, and the world with God—a union which, unfortunately, in the present day, attempts are being made to separate—both in political life and, even worse, in the church life of faithful Christians; it includes in the Prayer Book dozens of prayers concerning the health not only of humans, but also of animals and plants, with the ‘5’ elements of nature not being excluded either.
The Church’s attempt at (self-)isolation from the debate on diseases—a debate which has been undertaken, with the SARS-CoV-2 virus as its focal point, by many scientists, Church figures and politicians, under the pretext of [the distinction]6 between the scientific fields of Theology and Medicine, as well as the distinct aims and objectives of each science, amounts to a denial of the very existence of the Church and of its role as a healing power and unifying principle of the universal world. For the healing power is inherent in the very nature of the Church; it is expressed through the filling of the voids in human life and the restoration of physical impairments by the renewed functioning of natural laws. This power, which in ecclesiastical language and in the sacramental life of the Church is called a ‘miracle’7 further indicates its unifying character, which ensures historical continuity and order within the framework of physical laws 8. Therefore, according to Saint Maximus the Confessor, the Church, possessing this healing power of divine energy, is the image of God’s natural unity; this means that just as God is One in His nature, so too are people within the Church. It is only through the Church and the Divine Eucharist that all physical distinctions and all racial, ethnic, personal or professional differences between people are abolished, making them all one in Christ. All grow together and are united within a single, undivided grace and power of faith, through communion with the one Body and Blood of Jesus Christ 9. All this is nullified if the Church were to consider itself incompetent and incapable of taking an active stance on this major issue of an epidemic, in contrast to the ecclesiastical approach it has previously followed, which has, in its own way, contributed to similar or analogous cases in the past. Its role in society is denied, and its pastoral mission is clearly called into question. However, in order to better understand this unique situation of the Church, which is underpinned by theology, and to recognise the beneficial consequences at both the individual and social levels, especially in cases where humanity is confronted with the corrupting and disruptive power of an epidemic, we must first explore the concept of death, as defined by the Holy Fathers of the Church.
The whole world is a synthesis of elements upon which movement—and, consequently, the development, decline, evolution of species 10 and the continuity of life—are based. The changes that take place within a physical organism, in the context of a world in constant motion and evolution, point precisely to the existence of beings as alteration, decay 11 and synthesis 12. That is to say, nothing can exist in the world without undergoing alteration. Any ‘division’ within the world is attributable to these two principles, namely synthesis and decay. Decay leads to disintegration, and synthesis to creation 13, which clearly shows that creation and disintegration are not two diametrically opposed dimensions, but represent the two facets of one and the same thing.
…nothing can exist in the world without undergoing alteration. Any ‘division’ within the world is attributable to these two principles, namely synthesis and decay. Decay leads to disintegration, whilst synthesis leads to creation.
Therefore, man, as part of this world, cannot, strictly speaking, be distinguished from this unified reality of creation and decay. Just like all created beings, so too was he created from the synthesis of opposing elements, which are characterised in Holy Scripture by the general terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, and subsequently follows the dynamic evolution of beings. In this process of human creation, corruption—which, from a theological perspective, is based on the denial of God’s unifying presence—leads humankind, as well as all beings in the world, to ‘division’; in other words, the disintegration of their constituent elements. It is precisely this ‘division’ that the Church regards as death; in other words, the separation of the constituent elements of every being 14.
Human death has three stages 15. The first stage is existential death, which signifies the division of the unified human being into its constituent elements of ‘man’ and ‘woman’16. The second stage is hypostatic death, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, and the third stage is death as it relates to the material body, which ends in the decomposition and disintegration of the material elements of which it is composed 17. In this way, God’s warning to humankind applies universally: ‘for on the day you eat of it 18, you will surely die’19. And this is because the warning does not refer merely to the separation of the soul from the human body, which is what we understand today as biological death, but to human existence itself, which means not merely death, but ‘dwelling’ in the corruption of death 20.
The significance of ‘dwelling’ in death, as opposed to mere death, lies in the fact that death is not the end of man, but a permanent state in which the sensation of death is ever-present, without the possibility of deliverance from it. This observation leads to the conclusion that the cause of man’s dwelling in death cannot be attributable to himself. If the cause of death were attributable to man himself, in other words, if it depended on the integrity (the perfect human being) or the insufficiency (the incomplete human being) of his spiritual and biological faculties, then there would be no continuity in man’s abiding in death; rather, death would constitute the end of human life. Man’s corruption would lead to his non-existence and, along with him, death itself would disappear, as the end of his existence. Consequently, the cause of death must be sought outside human existence; in other words, in the conditions that determine man’s ‘dwelling’ in a particular state, without these conditions threatening human nature itself.
Indeed, the conditions of man’s environment can be altered without directly threatening human life. This change alters the possibilities for human habitation under these new living conditions, which may be suitable for humans and correspond to human potential, or may be unsuitable for them and create the conditions for hardship, suffering and death 21. An example to better understand the importance of living conditions is the change in the environmental conditions that prevail on Earth. If these were transformed into the conditions of another planet, for example Mars, it would immediately result in human death, no matter how healthy a person might be. Thus, it becomes clear that, regardless of the cause that creates new living conditions for humans, it is these conditions that make their environment hospitable or inhospitable. Of course, this does not, at the same time, imply that human existence is impossible in an inhospitable environment. For death does not stem from the person themselves, but from the change in living conditions, which slow down or accelerate the deterioration and decay of the human body, leading to the disintegration of its physical elements and the person’s death, without, at the same time, destroying human nature itself.
Nevertheless, a person’s living environment is not something fixed and independent of the person themselves. It is shaped on the basis of their own preferences and choices (22). Thus, within the same environment, living conditions can be altered without the need to change a person’s living space, which influences the course of their life; a qualitative change to their living environment itself is sufficient. An example of this is environmental pollution or the development of technology and genetics, which give rise to new ways of life and a new quality of life, affecting human health and life expectancy, without this implying that the changes in a person’s life result from their moving to another place or to another planet 23. In other words, it is not a person’s place of residence that changes to another, but the place itself, which is shaped by each person’s choices; it may be ideal for their life and ensure that they ‘live well’, but, at the same time, it may be entirely unsuitable or even harmful to someone else. In this way, it can be seen that the same place of residence for a person can be both life and death, that is, ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ at the same time 24.
Therefore, death, as a division and separation from life, cannot be addressed by science alone. Science contributes, on the one hand, to maintaining existing living conditions, and on the other, to creating new ones, which, although they fill the gaps created by material decay and deterioration, cannot be truly new. If living conditions are different, then, based on evolutionary theory, it is certain that the majority of people will not be able to adapt immediately to the changed conditions, with the result that they will die. A new environment will be created, in which humans will not be certain that they can survive. Only a small proportion of humanity, which will adapt to the different living conditions, will continue to exist. This new environment is being created today, both at a political and a scientific level.
As regards the changes being implemented at a scientific level – and, more specifically, the mass vaccination of the world’s population, as was undertaken in the case of Covid-19 – there are others, more competent and possessing specialised scientific knowledge, who could highlight these changes and their consequences for the human body. Research into side effects, for example, may lead to the study and identification of organic changes in humans that are the cause of these side effects and, in this way, pinpoint the changes targeted by mass vaccination. However, in any case, whatever changes to the body are brought about by human intervention and do not constitute a natural process, they entail, through alteration and deterioration, the breakdown of the elements that make up the human body and, consequently, death. Nevertheless, one might, at a political level, put forward a few thoughts that have social and moral dimensions.
Based on the above description of death as a division and disintegration of unity, death imposes itself on society by dividing human cohesion. The means usually employed is social division, which was undertaken during the recent pandemic by distinguishing between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, or through the compulsory vaccination of citizens, thereby abolishing the inalienable right to human self-determination. This division leads to the breakdown and disintegration of the social fabric, that is, to the death of society. In this regard, the words of the Greek Prime Minister25 are revealing, as they imply social division, however much he has tried to conceal the nature of this division. He states specifically: ‘From the moment that the vaccinated find themselves, de facto, in a different position to the unvaccinated as regards the risks of the pandemic, from the moment that safe, free vaccination is directly accessible to all, it would be absurd and dangerous for the same rules to apply to everyone. Please note, we are not seeking to create divisions’26
The speech by this politician, which has been rephrased in various ways by many politicians and scientists around the world, clearly distinguishes between two social categories of people, one of which is identified as dangerous and will need to be dealt with accordingly. The refutation of this divisive framing has essentially come from scientific studies, which, when referring to the effects of the disease, do not categorise people as vaccinated or unvaccinated. Specifically, according to Nature and The New York Times, evidence from various countries appears to confirm the fears of some scientists: the Delta variant is more likely to infect vaccinated people and, subsequently, to spread through them as well. Data from the US, the UK and Singapore, obtained from Covid-19 tests, show that vaccinated people who are infected with the Delta variant can have as high a viral load in their noses as unvaccinated people. This most likely means that, despite the protection offered by vaccines, vaccinated people can transmit the virus to others27.
…contemporary society, by using science to transcend the natural limits of human existence and attempting to create a new living environment through new conditions of human life, will bring about its own dissolution, due to a confused perception that will encompass, at the same time, good and evil, truth and error, reality and fantasy.
Therefore, based on recent studies, which suggest that vaccinated people are infected and are likely to infect others more than the unvaccinated, the division of society based on virus transmission is not justified. Furthermore, the Delta variant itself has revealed the virus’s continued growth and evolution, circumventing the protection offered by the vaccine, which [should have functioned] as a means of bringing the epidemic to an end, thereby demonstrating thus that the vaccine does not prevent the virus from developing; on the contrary, it rather contributes to the mutation of more resistant forms of the virus, which may be far more harmful to the human body. And this raises the logical question: what was the aim of society’s social, axiological and moral division? Society, as it was portrayed at that time, did not merely distinguish between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, but between the ‘good’, who get vaccinated, and the ‘bad and dangerous’, who do not. In this way, a major moral problem arises, resulting in the breakdown of society – that is, disintegration, confrontation and social erosion; in other words, social death. If this also prevails in smaller social groups, such as groups of friends, families and even sports teams, then we should be less concerned with individual health and more with social disintegration, in which the law of the jungle will prevail. That is to say, in the name of social solidarity – which means something else entirely and has been used, excessively to promote universal vaccination, a Manichaean conception of the conflict between good and evil will prevail, where good – represented by the vaccinated – will combat evil – represented by the unvaccinated. Furthermore, the unvaccinated, who feel threatened by the vaccine’s side effects and believe it is better not to be vaccinated, will, in the name of solidarity, oppose the vaccinated, who seek to impose the vaccine with its disastrous consequences for health, and will themselves be treated as the ‘bad guys’. Thus, the very argument of social solidarity, which was invoked in favour of vaccination, is now being used to fuel social conflict, whilst the vaccine—which has been scientifically proven not to halt the transmission and continuous mutation of the virus and, consequently, nor health, could be perceived as the synthesis of good and evil, which would lead to the destruction of all forms of sociality; for one would combat the other, as has indeed happened in many cases, since everyone seemed, at the same time, both good and evil.
This latest development is reminiscent of the knowledge that the First Parents [Adam and Eve] sought to acquire, wishing to transcend the natural limits of their cognitive possibilities. By tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just as, in our own day, science ‘tastes’ new vaccines—in other words, acquires a mixed form of knowledge—the First Parents experienced the effects of that act, which were the severing of their communion with God and, subsequently, corruption and death. This will also occur in contemporary society, which, by using science to transcend the natural limits of human existence and attempting to create a new living environment through new conditions of life for humankind, will bring about its own dissolution, due to a confused perception that will encompass, at the same time, good and evil, truth and error, reality and fantasy. Consequently, following social disintegration, [society] will face moral decay and the extermination of the groups and individuals that comprise it. In this way, the original sin will be repeated within the same society; that sin was based on man’s arrogance in considering himself equal to God and led to death. Human society, through the destruction of the social fabric, will dissolve itself through the disintegration of its constituent elements.
The saddest thing of all is that the Church [in Greece]28 is, through its stance, contributing to this political situation and the course of humanity, although it ought to oppose the forces of division and, as a counterbalance, promote the unity of sacramental life, which characterises its very existence. Furthermore, through its pastoral work and liturgical practice, it ought to unite not only people who are biologically, socially and culturally different, but also the sick with the healthy, as the Holy Apostle Paul clearly states in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, regarding the members of the body of the Church: ‘and those parts of the body which we think are less honourable, those we clothe with greater reverence 29; and our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, whilst our seemly parts have no need of covering’30
The distinction between the Church, as the Body of Christ, and human society, with its special characteristics, is based on the fact that it is not an institution or an organisation that functions according to the principles and laws of nature and of mankind. The Church is, by grace, the Body of Christ, which is constituted, by His work, by God, and through sacramental life is guided by the Word of God Himself. The Church is the union of those who are estranged from one another; consequently, the divisions imposed by the political and scientific communities should not predominate in its spiritual life. On the contrary, it is fitting that it should provide a spiritual counterbalance and counteract the demonisation and division of society. As we can see from all this, Covid-19, the issue of vaccines, and indeed any other scientific topic, is not exclusively a medical or purely technical matter, but clearly has social, moral and spiritual dimensions. The Church should have recognised these moral and spiritual dimensions and promoted its theological teaching and its two-thousand-year-old experience through its pastoral work, which consists in the unity of humankind with God and of people amongst themselves. However, instead of responding on the basis of its own life and experience, it [is drawn]31 to interpret, more often than not, the spiritual life in scientific terms and to align itself, for the most part, with the society of each era, which is certainly devoid of spirituality and sacramental life.
Therefore, the problem which the political and scientific community highlights as a confusion between Science and Theology—that is, between scientific knowledge and the faith of the Church—and its subsequent resolution, by distinguishing between them and confining Theology solely to the sanctifying acts of the Church and to its otherworldly spirituality, is not a real issue. The real issue lies in the theological word and sacramental life, [since both] help people to transcend the systemic way of life of contemporary society and to secure genuine freedom from any form of dependence—a freedom which no science or politics wishes to guarantee. The problem is not the virus; humanity has faced such viruses in the past and will face them in the future. The problem is, first and foremost, the approach to the virus, which promotes terror, fear of life and a ‘new normal’ that likely serves current economic and political interests. For the creation of new political conditions—that is, a new political system—which does not uphold the freedom of the human will, as we know it from ancient Greek philosophy and its reformulation through the Christian faith, which characterises man as such, would mean the abolition of human self-determination and the ‘creation’ of a new man, who will develop the ability to adapt to every dictate of local and international interests. Secondly, one problem concerns the method of curing the virus, which heralds a new life and a new living environment for humankind. In this case, new conditions for human survival are being created, and we are unsure whether humans will be able to survive within them. The development of technology, which forms the basis of these new cures—and which is linked to artificial intelligence—leads to the degradation of human value, despite the fact that it promises to elevate it. However, both cases, in which humanity plays a leading role, are, in an absolute sense, of a moral and spiritual nature; this means that not only the technocratic world, but also the spiritual and religious worlds will have to contribute substantially to the new reconfiguration of the future, so as to avoid the errors of arrogance and the denigration of humanity. Today, the Church is called to this task through its pastoral work, and, drawing on its sacramental experience, to seal the new era in Christ.
Translated from the Greek and annotated by Ion Marian Croitoru.
- 1
The term refers to a discipline taught within Faculties of Theology, through which future ministers of the Holy Altars are trained to convey the content of divine Revelation to the faithful whom they will shepherd. More specifically, Pastoral Theology deals with the systematic and methodical presentation of the guidelines for a priest’s pastoral work in a parish, the methods and means of counselling and enlightenment through which he may fulfil his missionary work as spiritual shepherd of his flock, in order to lead them along the path to salvation, through living out their faith in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as His Church teaches us. Clearly, all of this relates to the stages of the holy and spiritual life—purification, enlightenment and deification—through which the priest, and indeed every believer, attains the state of theologising; therefore, Pastoral Care relates directly to Theology (translator’s note).
- 2
Saint Gregory the Theologian, Second Homily, in Patrologia Graeca (= PG) 35, 425 AB.
- 3
Ibid., 432 AB.
- 4
Ibid., 428 AB.
- 5
Or the elements (translator’s note).
- 6
Both in the main text and in the notes, we have included, in square brackets and with the author’s consent—and in some cases, following direct consultation—additional explanations and clarifications regarding certain nuances, to facilitate a clearer and more accurate understanding of the material presented (translator’s note).
- 7
Or ‘miracle’ (translator’s note).
- 8
See N. Matsouka, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology, Vol. II. An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki, 1985, p. 161 ff.
- 9
Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, in PG 91, 665 C–668 C.
- 10
Not in the Darwinian sense, that is, from one species to another, but within each species as such (translator’s note).
- 11
Or deterioration, degradation, etc. (translator’s note).
- 12
For further details, see N. Xioni, Man and Society. The Creation of the World and Human Nature, Vol. I, published by Ennoia, Athens, 2020, p. 67 ff.
- 13
Ibid., p. 292 et seq.
- 14
Ibid., p. 299 et seq.
- 15
Or stages, phases (translator’s note).
- 16
Genesis 2:23 and 3:20.
- 17
Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On Holy Easter (Εἰς τὸ Ἅγιον Πάσχα), in GREGORII NYSSENI OPERA, vol. IX, W. Jaeger, G. Heil (eds.), Brill, Leiden, 1992 (= JAEGER IX), p. 263 (PG 46, 673 B).
- 18
That is, from the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (translator’s note).
- 19
Genesis 2:17 (ᾗ δ' ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε). It should be noted that, in producing a new Romanian translation of this verse—which differs from the established translation—it is apparent that God speaks in the plural, although He is addressing only Adam, but as if God were referring to both Adam and Eve (translator’s note).
- 20
Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 3, Sources Chrétiennes (= SC) 199, p. 274 (PG 25, 101D): ‘For to die without fail—what else could this mean but simply to die, and also to dwell in the corruption of death? (τὸ δὲ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε, what else could it be but not merely to die, but also to dwell in the corruption of death?).
- 21
Saint Basil the Great, Homily at Lachis (Ὁμιλία ἐν Λακίζοις), in PG 31, 1453 C–1453 A: ‘For one [that is to say, the cosmos or the universe, that is, the world with all that is in it, with the exception of man] came into being by command, whilst the other [that is, man] was created by the hand of God. And one was created for man, and man for God, so that God might be glorified; the sun to serve mankind… For [God] did not create man first, lest he be created destitute [that is, deprived of the conditions necessary for his life], but He made the heavens, which He fashioned as a natural canopy [for man], and spread out the earth, preparing it as a stable ground for man’s feet”; see also Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man (Περὶ κατασκευῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), II, in PG 44, 132 C–133 B. Naturally, the prior creation of the world, which would constitute man’s environment and conditions of life, does not refer solely to his paradisiacal life in communion with God, but also to his dwelling and survival in the new conditions that would be created following his fall.
- 22
Or prudence (translator’s note).
- 23
In setting out the extent of the connections between the three ontological categories of sensible reality and their environment, W. Pannenberg observes that, whilst plants reproduce of their own accord within the space in which they find themselves, and living beings adapt to their environment on the basis of their own instincts, human beings neither confine themselves to their surroundings nor adapt to them. Open to all the impressions and surprises (Überaschungen) that life offers him, he seeks not only to encompass his surroundings, but, by constantly moving towards something new and different from what he already possesses, to transcend the very reality in which he finds himself. However, since this endeavour aims to encompass the surrounding world—an encompassment whose purpose is the harmony of the self with reality—what prevails in the shaping of the surrounding environment is not reality as such, but the self itself. Thus, man cannot escape the conflict between the self and the world—that is, between self-referentiality (Ichbezogenheit) and openness to the world (Weltoffenheit)—and, being confined within a ‘metaphysics’ of the self, in other words, in an endless attempt at self-determination through the world, instead of coming to the recognition of God as the sole possibility for the unity of the self with the world, he ultimately arrives at selfish withdrawal into himself (Ichhaftigkeit), which is also the quintessential sin of humankind (idem, Was ist der Mensch? Die Anthropologie der Gegenwart im Lichte der Theologie, published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1976, p. 42 ff. Thus, for Pannenberg, man’s relationship with his environment is not something given; it does not represent the objective space of life, as it is for plants and other living creatures, but rather a gnostic object, to which man gives meaning and which he then uses for his self-determination. From this perspective, therefore, man’s living space is not his ontologically determined environment, but one that is qualitatively ‘nuanced’ by him and for him. And responsible for this ‘altered’ perception of the world is, of course, man himself—that is, his self—since man transforms his relationship from an ontological one (acceptance of the environment and its value as they are given) into a moral one (acceptance based on value-oriented use, with the aim of self-determination—the self); see G. Kaufman, ‘Imago Dei als Geschichtlichkeit des Menschen’, in Der Mensch als Bild Gottes, ed. L. Scheffczyk, published by Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1969, p. 475 ff.
- 24
See N. Xioni, Man and Society, p. 324 ff.
- 25
This refers to the Greek Prime Minister, Chiriac Mițotachis, who is currently serving his second term (which began in June 2023), his first having been from 2019 to 2023, when the author wrote this report (translator’s note).
- 26
https://www.iefimerida.gr/politiki/oikonomoy-sto-trapezi-i-epektasi-toy-ypohreotikoy-emboliasmoy (accessed on 26 August 2021; re-accessed on 19 January 2023; emphasis added by the author).
- 27
https://www.ethnos.gr/ygeia/170136_koronoios-metallaxi-delta-ayximenes-pithanotites-na-metadothei-apoemboliasmenoys (accessed on 13 August 2021; emphasis added by the author); see also https://www.tanea.gr/2021/10/29/health/koronaios-oi-pliros-emvoliasmenoi-metadidoun-eksisou-tin-covid-19-alla/ (accessed on 13 August 2021).
- 28
The author refers to the situation in Greece, where, for a time, a considerable number of bishops and clergy allowed the faithful to be divided into those who had been vaccinated and those who had not, with access to services even being restricted, in some churches, only to those who had been vaccinated. This was not the case with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which did not foster such a division or schism (translator’s note).
- 29
Or ‘honour’, if we consider the Greek term ‘τιμή’ used in the original text (translator’s note).
- 30
1 Corinthians 12:23–24.
- 31
Both by those within it and by those acting from outside it (translator’s note).