Comments Posted By lexcaritas
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 257 Comments
Antonia, do you know why the Chechens converted? A matter of free choice . . . or . . . just wondering as I do not know and you may.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 24, 2013 @ 1:23 pm
Stan, you are a “member” of the OCA, but you attend a Greek Church and an Antiochian also.”
Are you two people? Or do you mean you attend a Greek parish regularly and an Anthiochian one occasionally . . . or periodically? Why not an OCA parish regularly? Not one nearby? So much for growth??? In any event, you have a quirky definition of membership. Do you mean, perhaps, you were baptized and chrismated in an OCA parish?
At any rate, why not become a member of the Greek parish if that’s where you attend?
You say you have seen “lots of growth” and recommend we “get in our car and take a tour.” I daresy, if we do, we won’t see many. Orthodox churches of ANYtype are hard to come by except in large metropolitan areas on either coast or in the rust belt.
Finally, you assert “Diocese (sic) aren’t vacant”
?????? You’ve got to be kidding. Dallas, Chicago, Alaska, Canada . . . Are there others? It’s hard to keep track, there are so many and the vacancies go on so long. 4 years in some cases.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 20, 2013 @ 12:50 pm
Doesn’t seem to me as if you and Michael agree, Carl. You say the term “sexual minority” exists and so it is all right, maybe even useful or necessary to use it. Michael seems to me to be saying the term itself is a lie and must be avoided. Even to use it creates a mental category that legitimates a delusion. I think he’s saying that in this case the approach is crucial and critical and, therefore, despite your protestation ot the contrary there is an essential difference.
In any event, the history of ideas and argument tends to show that the terms of any debate predetermine its outcome. Once you adopt these kinds of terms and euphemistic falsehoods you have already implicitly conceded the case and it is only a matter of time before the result will be actualized and undeniable.
By the way, the fact that many of us fear that what has happened in the PECUSA could happen in and to the OCA is somthing we’ve been trying to tell you for two years now. It isn’t and never has been a smokescreen to defend +JONAH. The threast is as real as the Evil One who roams the world seekign the ruin of souls and who would like nothign better that to take over various ecclesial organs and deceive if possible the very elect–as our Lord predicted he would.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 9, 2013 @ 1:19 pm
Thank you, Michael. So well said. One day when I’m up to Wichita to St. George’s or St. Mary’s or Eighth Day Books, I hope we’ll meet.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 9, 2013 @ 1:06 pm
Saunca, Michael did not say he “considered” killing anyone. I think by his hyperbole he meant to illustrate how grave the sin of homosexuality is and shock us into seeing how accustomed we have become to accepting it as just part of our fallen humanity, for he seemed to intend to say that willing participation in this kind of perversion of marriage is every bit as bad a homicide–which is something, I suspect, most of us moderns find hard to accept. Each, however, is a violation of one of the 10 Words entrusted to Moses by Christ for our instruction and benefit at Mt. Sinai and intensified by our Lord Himself on the Mt. beside the Sea of Galilee. But as we have adulterated marriage since at least the 1920s first by accepting no fault divorce and remarriage and then by what Chesterton called “companionate marriage” and unbridled artificial contraception, widespread single mothers, cohabitation and now same-sex “marriage”, transgenderism and polyamorous living arrangements, so the next step is the adulteration of the 5th Commandment by the acceptance of the killing of babies in the womb, the killing of the old, assisted suicide and next to come the killing of newborns in the first month of life. Where will it stop in a God-rejecting world in which the voice of the Church is muted, lame, timid and divided?
No doubt Christ came not for the righteous but to call sinners to repentance. By this statement He made it clear that the fear of His accusers that He ate and drank with publicans and sinners to affirm their lifestyle was unfounded; rather He stated that it was for one purpose: to call them to repentance and to heal them. His mission was clear; the way it is carried out by many of our more sophisticated clergy is not. He had no place to lay His head and His teaching was with power and authority. Many of us live relatively comfortable lives in reasonably comfortable homes, and our teaching sounds nice but is not confirmed with signs following. It is almost as if too many people got well to quickly we would find ourselves out of a job, so we need the illness to continue.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 2, 2013 @ 5:41 am
Thanks again, Nate. I read the Birmingham address and don’t find the use of the term “sexual minorities” in the context of a series of questions problematic. Far more troubling is the exaggerated praise for Jim Wallis and Congressman John Lewis in the introduction in the Chancellor’s Diary. Mr. Wallis is a Marxist, isn’t he? And Marxism and Orthodoxy are hardly compatible. Mr. Lewis is, I see, far , far left on the spectrum meaning that he tends to see big, secular, godless government as the solution to all ills. Again, something that is not compatible with Orthodoxy.
I appreciated reading Fr. Jillions dissertation on the human tendency to demonize our adversaries and even agreed with him (Gillet, Bulgakov and others he mentions near the end) that this strategy of self-justification and defensiveness has, in some ways, hampered our understanding of and, might we say, conversion of Catholics, Jews and Muslims–and sometimes even ourselves when repentance and humility are called for.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 30, 2013 @ 6:56 am
Where exactly and in what context did the Chancellor use the term you quote “sexual minorities”? It would to know so we could read it in context.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 26, 2013 @ 6:15 pm
Thank you, Nate, for the link. The term “sexual minorities” is problematic, isn’t it? There are two sexes, male and female. There are men and women. They are naturally in approximate balance by number, though typically there are slighlty more girls born than boys, if I’m not mistaken. In addition, men typically predecease women, so I suppose, technically, men are the minority.
There aren’t other sexual minorities. So, something else is obviously hinted at by the terminology and it must be the sexual orientation thing, suggesting that it is normal for men to be sexually attracted to men or men and women and for women to be sexually attracted to women or to women and to men.
This whole way of thinking is to debase holy matrimony. It is clear that sexuality is ordered to the making of new offspring. Among human beings, it retains this purpose and is also sanctified through the mystery of matrimony as a way of the commonion and self-donation of persons and the procreation through their union of other new persons.
But wait, the Chancellor himself told us at the Diocese of the South assembly last summer that there was no culture war going on. That, unfortunately, is the progressivist line, isn’t it? It is intended to discourage and disarm dissent–and it has been working for a generation or more in this country before our very eyes.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 26, 2013 @ 6:07 pm
Supplementing what our brother Ilya says, while some continue to bemoan the “unilateral” actions that ++JONAH purportedly took or threatened to take before his resignation, I am struck by the contrast between the grandiloquent but apparently vacuous title we ascribe to our Metroplitan: “of ALL AMERICA AND CANADA”, when he apparently is (according to some) to have no more real power than a diocesan (arch)bishop. And yet the former is nominated by the whole church through the All-American Council, whereas the latter is nominated by the single Diocese that he will be called to shepherd. Shouldn’t we either drop the exaggerated titles, or make them mean something real?
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 25, 2013 @ 5:19 pm
I meant to ask: How much has the Church actually grown in proportionate spread of the Gospel since the Canon(s) regarding episcopal celibacy spoken of by Fr. Philip and our brother Carl cite were adopted?
Of course the Church of Rome has, as has the Church in Russia.
In Russia’s case She had the support of the State.
When the canon in question was adopted the Church had hundreds of monasteries inhabited by hundreds of monastics–literally thousands of thousands of candidates for episcopal office and, likewise, imperial support.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 19, 2013 @ 5:54 pm
Frs. Patrick and Philip make excellent points. The celibacy of bishops having been determined by ecumencal canon could not be properly changed except by consent of the whole Church in ecumenical council. Neverthless, it does not seem to follow that the matter is closed to discussion by members of the Church, by reason of which the matter might be discussed and merit action at such a council, should one be held, and conditions be such 1200 years later as to merit a different pastoral approach.
The same could be said, by the way, couldn’t it, with regard to the status of the five Patriarchates. Not that they are not important due to their apostolic foundations and (q.v. Rome) the relics of martyrs they embrace, but now that the Church is worldwide in scope and the position of the five Patriarchates changed (three under long-standing Mulsim domination and one in a kind of schism) might it not make sense for a Council to expand the number of Patriarchates to, say, ten or twelve? After all, we are not a Mediterranean centered Body anymore but one that extends to vast, distant and ocean-separated lands and includes peoples of every tongue, tribe and nation.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 19, 2013 @ 5:41 pm
Nick, I think I must agree with our brother James. How does your assertion (which the record does not entirely support) that +JONAH’s resignation came via his own brothers on the Synod prove that activists were not involved? The chancellor averred last summer that there was no culture war going on and reassured us that all our bishops are traditionalists. They all say the Creed. So do all the progressive Episoplians, but that has been no guarantee of their orthodoxy, has it? The fact is there is a spiritual war that has been ongoing since Eden, there are, in every age, wolves in sheep’s clothing and men who tickle the ear and do not fulfill the spiritual calling into which they are placed. As in St. Paul’s day we are against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places–and sometimes these have their minions–willing or unsuspecting–within the Church herself. The chancellor’s glib assurance that we have nothign to fear in this regard does not evince the sobriety and vigilance that would instill confidence.
What unilateral decisions were being made by +JONAH that were opposed by the Synod? Why were the content of those decisions objectionable? If not objectionable, what would have been so bad about his making them? How do you know his brother bishops decided he must go? Some may have; but the record shows that all of them did not.
I know nothing of +Alexander and do not oppose him; he is the Synod’s choice. But I would ask why you think he is a good choice for the Midwest. Geographical proximity? Time on his hands? You assert, but do not persuade.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 19, 2013 @ 11:40 am
I agree with you, George; but would aim a diocese with a radius of no more than the distance one may travel in 2-3 hours by car to meet your “day trip” criterion. 3 hours would make 6 for a round trip and a pastoral visit would typically need 3-6 hours (or more) at the chosen destination.
Furthermore, should a bishop have more parishes and missions under his care than he can visit in a 3 or 4 month period (i.e. 3-4 times a year)? How else can he truly function a the chief shepherd of his diocese and be the servant of servants of the priests serving under his omophorion for whom he ought to be the spiritual guide and example as our Lord was of His apostles (the 3, the 12 and the 70) of whom it was clear for all to see that they had been with Him?
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 17, 2013 @ 12:21 pm
Indeed, when we see that we need vastly more and smaller dioceses at this point of time, does it make sense and conform to the will of God to make celibacy the primary criterion and sine qua non for episcopal selection?
Between two chaste men of equal caliber, he who is the monk may well be preferable, but why make this state of life an absolute prerequisite in the current state of urgent missionary need unmet by an apparent dearth of good men who are ready, willing and able to take up the work diocesan shepherds, when our Tradition, oral and written, affords us other more fundamental and critical qualifications: that the man be righteous and full of the Holy Spirit; that he be one who is a credible witness of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, godly, irreproachable, a faithful husband , vigilant and self-controlled, ruling his own household well and with the respect of his children, holy and honourable, generous and hospitable, ready and able to teach, not given to much wine, patient, non-avaricious, not quarrelsome but a peacemaker, experience and humble, candid and forthright and holding the mystey of the Faith with a good conscience and trustworthh in all things and of whom one can say that this man “has been with Jesus.”
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 16, 2013 @ 11:05 am
Probably because our locum tenentes have proven of recent years not to be short-term placeholders and this is a recipe for stagnation.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 26, 2013 @ 1:29 pm
But Ivan the Union was entered into voluntarily by ratification by the constituting states and their people and it should have been preserved voluntarily and by ongoing consent.
When it must be maintained by force and war how is that different from Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968?
Don’t we believe that governments are duly consituted by and among men to preserve their inalienable God-endowed rights and that when a government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right and duty of the people to abolish it. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution reserve rall ights and powers not specifically granted to the limited Federal government of putatively co-equal branches to the states and people, respectively. Implicit in this reservation of rights and powers must be the right of a state to secede when it determines that the union is a unbearable threat to it or its people. Obviously, no state would take this action lightly and it would only resort to it in dire circumstances, and the way to persuade it to remain in (comm)union is by fair treatment and persuasion not the practical tyranny of military force, invasion and occupation.
» Posted By lexcaritas On May 23, 2013 @ 12:55 pm
Is one’s saint’s name false? Nor more so is one’s pen name inherently so. In fact, if chosen with purpose and good intention it may be transparent and true, revailing something of one’s hopes and aspriations or other invisblte quatities.
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 6, 2013 @ 11:57 am
Joseph, the footwashing was done, as our Lord Jesus Christ tells us in St. John’s Gospel, to show us that we should do as He did, and wash each others feet and, yes, even lay down our lives for each other as He was in the process of doing.
While He did this at the beinnging of this particular anticipated Seder, when a mere handwashing would usually occur, and at the meal during which He would institute the Holy Eucharist, does not necessarily mean that the footwashing or the Eucharist should be, thereafter, confined to men or the apostles successors (i.e. bishops).
While I do not disagree that the rite in question would best be confined to twleve men, it might not be so bad to have them was, in return, the feet of their wives, children and parents. We do something very like this a Forgiveness Vespers, don’t we?
May Christ fill us all with a little more charity for those we would so easily criticize–even our Catholic brethren. How can we not be show them more mercy, when our Lord would have us even pray for our enemies? Let us not be such ready accusers of the brethren. Let us rather pray for them and do what we can to see them restored. Let us win them and seek reconcliaton. Is this not the way of the Cross?
» Posted By lexcaritas On April 4, 2013 @ 7:06 am
Here’s a quote I found from Rabbi Alejandro Avruj that comes close to our brother Basil’s allegation:
“He’s the one [Jorge Cardinal Bergolio] who opened the cathedral of Buenos Aires for interfaith ceremonies, like when we prayed for peace. He’s not one of those who waits for you to call them to participate in these events — he promotes them.” Certainly, interfaith ceremonies are, themselves, problematic, but this is a somewhat lesser “offense” than allowing Jews and Mulsims “to conduct” worship services “in the Cathedral.” I presume the altar was not used. Were the icons, crosses and statues left unveiled?
Reaching out to persons of other faiths is not an easy path and there are dangers along the way of giving scandal. But how shall they believe except one be sent? And how shall that one receive a hearing? Sometimes the first step is to listen to and appreciate the other and “earn” the right to gain his willingness to hear and receive. We are sent to be fishers of men and fishermen must be wise and patiently seek ways to get the fish to bite or accept to enter the net–especially when the fish are rational and endowed with free will.
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 19, 2013 @ 11:28 am
Basil, would you be so kind as to provide reliable documentary evidence regarding the accuracy of the allegation that Jorge Cardinal Bergolio allowed Muslims and Jews “to conduct worship services” in the RC Cathedral of Buenos Aires? Why would he do so? Why would they have wanted to?
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 19, 2013 @ 11:16 am
Our brother, Basil, reminds us that our Lord’s Kingdom is “not of this world.” True, but then He has also taught us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
What happens to the world when, and as, that prayer is answered?
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 19, 2013 @ 10:21 am
How sad. I had been hoping the best of Fr. Rodion. Were his detractors right after all? Was it perhpas neither wise nor merciful to put him in a position where ability to access and misuse funds would be too great a temptation?
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 7, 2013 @ 12:36 pm
Thank you for these enlighting comments, Michael. I do see that what the KJV and the Latin vulgate render as purity and castias, respectively, corresponde to the Greek agneia, rather than sophrosune. It is good, perahps, to consider, as you have caused me to do, the (perhaps deep and implicit) relationship between these terms.
This makes for fruitful diaglogue.
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 8, 2013 @ 1:39 pm
Indeed, when knowing, malicious and not quickly uncorrected.
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 8, 2013 @ 1:36 pm
Well said, Fr. Peter. Thank you and may your priesthood continue to be blessed.
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 7, 2013 @ 12:27 pm
This is so sad. I couldn’t disagree with you more, Basil. The tenor of your and Sasha’s comments hardly evince hearts that are “in the right place.” I’ll stick with Fr. Patrick. Is Christ God pleased, do you think, with aspersions cast by “cradle Orthodox” at “converts”? Isn’t every Christian a convert–begotten from above by water and the Spirit? Aren’t we all called to live in a constant state of repentance and continuous conversion? How does being proud of one’s good fortune to have been “born” Orthodox differ from a Baptist’s claim of “once saved, always saved”? We had best beware, since, as St. Paul admonishes us we must work out our slavation with fear and trembling and through Proverbs Christ warns us that “Pride comethe before the fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction” and in the Gospel that a “every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.” He applied it to Satan’s reign, but how would the same principle not apply to the Church as well? Should we not weep over the schism of 1054 and pray with every fibre of our being for it to be healed? Are we sure that we even have a glimmer of the damage done by it to slow the progress of the Gospel and the manifestation of the sons of God for which St. Paul reminds us all of creation groans? When James and John thought to call down fire from heave to destroy a Samaritan village, our Lord Jesus Christ cautioned them that they knew not what spirit they were of. Ought we also take care not to make the same kind of mistake.
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 1, 2013 @ 4:20 pm
Well, then, Sasha, if you’re voluntarily among the idiots, why would we want to invest time in reading any of your future comments?
» Posted By lexcaritas On March 1, 2013 @ 4:06 pm
There are broken and missing rungs on this Ladder.
» Posted By lexcaritas On February 26, 2013 @ 12:56 pm
It would appear that our brothers George Osborne and Basil are on to something in the suggestion that ++JONAH’s election was a way of getting him out of the DOS and leaving it an orphan. On a visit to Syosset and SVS some years ago I was surprised to sense a certain disdain in that direction among the “in crowd.” The distaste was palpable and in stark contrast to the affection for +Dimitri and ++JONAH among most in the DOS.
Our Lord must weep. He did over Jerusalem . . . are we His Body acting any better?
» Posted By lexcaritas On February 22, 2013 @ 4:50 am
Back To Stats Page
Ok, Fr. Justin, but if as +Nikon says he believes “Our strategic plan is on the altar,” than why isn’t he–along with his “brother” bishops–bent on seeing ++JONAH treated fairly and with love and dignity and released to serve in another jurisdiction immediately? Why isn’t he bent letting the DOS nominate a bishop? The months and years are passing and there is NO sense of urgency to do what the Gospel says and see the Church edified and equipped for growth in love and service.
Why do these men who claim to be successors to the apostles and ought to be examples of Christ to us, look more feckless and less Christian than your neighbour agnostic? whay are they acting like practical atheists? Where is the love? the humility? the repentance?
Service beyond the OCA is looking more appealing all the time and the time may not be far off when one’s moral duyty is to put his shoud to the plow in a more profitable field, where the soil of pure hearts is more apt to receive the seed and bring forth much good fruit. Here the harvest is getting pretty sour and the fruit aas bitter as poison.
I pray each day for every member of our Synod–and for JONAH–but frankly the sky seems as brass, for there is no escaping that as we sow, we reap and there is scant to no hope without heartfelt and humble repentance–of which there is littleif any sign–and which often only lately comes in response to exile and disaster–and sometimes not even then, for the refrain of the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian is: “Even men refused to repent.”
» Posted By lexcaritas On February 21, 2013 @ 12:52 pm