One of the marvels to behold in the culture wars is the outright defiance of the homosexual contingent. Previously, they couched their jihad in cautious, flowery words. Things like “inclusion,” “tolerance,” “non-judgmentalism” and the like.
No longer. They are an unstoppable juggernaut. And now they are preparing to lay waste to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.
But first, a word and an apology: Monomakhos has been reluctant to believe that the Orthodox Church would be the venue for the culture wars in so spectacular a fashion. It has long been my belief that we would just trudge along quietly with only a few dust-ups every now and then, at least in the more ethnic jurisdictions.
I was wrong.
Recently, a certain Greg Pappas (who is openly homosexual) wrote a long missive regarding his recent return to the parish of his boyhood. He talks about how he was confronted by the parish priest and that this priest told him that he had received a directive from his superior (Metropolitan Savas Zembillas of Pittsburgh). In this directive, the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh told his priests that no open homosexual could approach the Chalice for Holy Communion. The priest was clearly conflicted on this matter, having been put in the unenviable position of having to choose between his friend and his bishop’s orders.
The essay written by the fellow in question was alternatively petulant, narcissistic, and rebellious. In that post, there was no concern for his friend and even gave the startling impression that he was better than the Orthodox Church and thus, would depart for more agreeable ecclesial climes. That would be the end of that. Or so I thought.
I was informed however by some contributors to this blog that this was not a parting shot but an opening salvo. A Greek-American friend who knows the essayist personally told me flat-out that “Greg going to go to war with the whole Greek Orthodox Archdiocese.”
This friend was right. Mr Pappas recently wrote an even more scabrous letter, addressing it to the parish council. He will not rest; if need be he will go as high up the chain of command as he can.
As you can read for yourself, he has expanded on his jihad against the moral tradition of the Orthodox Church using the most inflammatory language possible. When not correcting the Holy Canons, he was venting his spleen at the parish priest. The tone is hostile; I’ve seen this type of writing before: he clearly wants this priest’s scalp. Moreover, he has marshaled his forces, stating that he has been in contact with two bishops, twenty priests, and his spiritual father. He is going to make sure that the Metropolitan backs down.
His Eminence Metropolitan Savas
Based on my own knowledge of the tenacity of the Lavender Mafia in the OCA, I fully expect that Mr Pappas will succeed. This will be the demarche: Metropolitan will back down, the priest will be thrown under the bus, and the homosexualization of the GOA will proceed handily apace. All the markers are in place: a feminized episcopate (with more waiting in the wings), a lame-duck Primate, and a secularized laity. These are the bitter fruits of ecumenism, secularism, and moral cowardice that has been inculcated in the GOA — the “crown jewel” of American Orthodoxy — lo, these past few years.
Fasten your seat-belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
An Open Letter to the Parish Council and Community of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Pittsburgh
Source: The Pappas Post
Gregory Pappas
To give you a bit of background, since many of you might be new to Holy Trinity: I was the youngest person ever elected to the parish council when I was 17 years old. I taught Greek dancing and Greek language to dozens of young people when I was still in high school myself. I served the parish faithfully, bussing tables at festivals, participating in every ministry, put my time in as GOYA president and even embarrassingly donned a basketball uniform at the Diocesan basketball tournaments, probably going down in history as “the one who never made a single basket.”
Yet I was welcomed. Because unlike the current environment at Holy Trinity, things were different under the leadership of the late Fr. Michael Sfanos. Holy Trinity was an inclusive place. Whether you were poor from the Mexican War Streets, or rich from Mt. Lebanon… Whether you spoke English with a heavy accent or didn’t speak Greek at all— Holy Trinity was a loving place for everyone and anyone who sought her comfort.
Last Sunday— at a time in my life when I needed the comfort, safety and support of my church the most, I was instead afforded one of the most humiliating experiences of my life when Fr. John Touloumes warned me in a private conversation that should I ever approach the chalice at Holy Trinity, he would not impart Holy Communion to me because of a directive from his Metropolitan.
In the eyes of Fr. John Touloumes, I was not worthy to receive the gift of the body and blood of Jesus Christ— a gift that is not even his to offer, because I am a homosexual.
Fr. John took it upon himself to pass judgment on me, despite the fact that I consult my own spiritual father regularly, and it is my own spiritual father’s decision whether or not I am ready to take communion. I shared my experience a few days ago in a post.
I was grateful for the immediate outreach by the local presiding hierarch in Pittsburgh. I had a lengthy conversation with His Eminence Metropolitan Savas about the matter, who informed me that there was no formal directive ever issued, but that the matter of my participation in the sacrament of Holy Communion had been discussed in a private, pastoral conversation initiated by Fr. John specifically about me.
Indeed, the Metropolitan informed me that Fr. John Touloumes was technically “within his canonical right” to refuse me communion. At the same time, His Eminence Metropolitan Savas also told me that he would defer to the discretion of my own spiritual father and commune me accordingly.
So contrary to what I was told, there was no directive about the issue. Fr. John Touloumes made a specific and targeted request to the Metropolitan about me, personally.
On that note— the zealots amongst you will now copy and paste your “homosexuality is a sin” cookie cutter responses that your bible software sends you every day to your inboxes.
My response to each and every one of you is to challenge yourselves to go deeper than the words of the law and dissect the spirit of the message. Don’t just memorize verses, but try to understand their essence. It may take a bit of work, but do give it a try. Enlightenment comes with hard work and reflection.
I also invite you to consider the two-thousand year old history of the church and how the church has adapted to social and societal change. Paying interest on loans and charging interest used to be a mortal sin, according to the canon laws of the Orthodox Church. Divorce and remarriage were calls for excommunication. Election or the holding of public office, too, were grave sins against the word of God.
But in each of these instances, the Church and individual leaders within the church—priests included, took a look around, and understood the changes happening in society. Today, we are allowed to remarry, use our credit cards and serve in secular public office—NOT because canons were changed, but because character, judgment, compassion and love ultimately prevailed.
People “choose” to commit adultery. People choose to be seen by Jewish doctors and swim in swimming pools with Jews present. They choose to steal. They choose to rape. They choose to masturbate. They choose to take God’s name in vain. Every day, people make conscious decisions to commit sins that go against the teachings of the Church.
But people do not choose to be blond, or to be five foot eleven inches tall, or to have green eyes. They are created this way. And yes, people are created gay. And if you believe, including Fr. John Touloumes who preaches from the pulpit every Sunday, that we are created in the image and likeness of God, then you have no choice but to believe that I, too, a child of God, was created in this same image and likeness, as were millions of others.
And I’m not sure what you believe, but I believe that God doesn’t make things that he hates. There is a huge difference between being something and doing something.
But I am not here to preach to you, or to talk to you about physiological, DNA or other deeper issues that should be left to science and research, or even matters of Church Synods. I am here to explain to you something very human— that each and every one of you can relate to.
A church should be a place of safety, support, compassion and love— especially during times of need, pain and human suffering. And a priest, who has been called to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and a shepherd to his flock, should share these expressions with his faithful and ensure that his church is such a place.
But let’s leave aside these issues of compassion and intangible elements that were absent from Fr. John’s heart last Sunday. These are human conditions, after all, and examples of character and not something we can impose on people. We are either compassionate, or we are not. We either love, or we do not. We are either decent, or we are not.
Instead, let’s talk church canon and rules and the bigger picture of how the church has adapted and evolved over the years, beyond the scope of the last 25 or 50 years of our own lifetimes, and especially beyond the scope of what we are watching on Fox News.
Yes, Fr. John Touloumes was within the canonical order to deny me Holy Communion in his parish. Yes, according to Orthodox Christian canons, homosexuality is a sin.
But so is seeing a Jewish doctor for treatment. And also, anyone who has masturbated or has had an involuntary nocturnal emission, or a woman who is menstruating is also breaking canon law by approaching the chalice. Anyone who has been in a synagogue is also breaking canon law, and anyone who has been at the beach, or in a swimming pool with a Jew is also against Orthodox Christian canon law and subject to excommunication.
Should Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew be excommunicated for entering a synagogue and having relations with Jews? This is against canon law, after all.
Does Fr. John ask those approaching the chalice if they have been seen or cared for by a Jewish doctor? Does he ask if they had a “nocturnal emission”? Does he ask if they have fasted or prepared properly? Does he ask women if they are menstruating? Does he ask his altar boys before communing them if they have masturbated?
No, he does not. And this is why this is a judgment issue, or more so a lack of judgment issue. Because “selective morality” subject to what we personally believe to be right or wrong, is wrong— especially in America in 2014. This is called prejudice and it is deep rooted inside a person. The problem is, if you’re going to apply the canons, as Fr. John is within his right to do, you can’t pick and choose what canons you want to apply, just to discriminate against someone or some group that you personally disagree with.
More importantly, no one has the right to deny me the gift of Holy Communion except my own spiritual father with whom I have regular contact and to whom I confess. These antiquated, Taliban-like practices have no place in American society and no place in the Greek Orthodox Church that rests in American society in the 21st century.
This type of religious zealotry and fundamentalism is dangerous. It destroys people and families, not to mention entire communities.
Priests and Metropolitans are called upon every day to make judgment calls for what they believe to be the best in their flock and their communities. And Fr. John Touloumes made his judgment call to make Holy Trinity an unwelcoming place for anyone whom he doesn’t agree with, or anyone who doesn’t fit the cookie-cutter image of what he believes a good Orthodox Christian should be.
Since this story went public, I have received more than two dozen invitations from Greek Orthodox priests and two bishops, all of whom welcomed me into their churches to serve me the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Are they wrong? Will they be breaking canon law? Is Fr. John better than them for applying his perception of the letter of the law?
But you know what— I don’t want to go there. I shouldn’t have to go elsewhere. Because for me, receiving Holy Communion is an experience I prefer to share with my family, with my mother, waking up in the morning and saying to her while I kiss her hand, “forgive me for I am a sinner”— the way Fr. Michael Sfanos of blessed memory taught me to do. It’s something I deserve to experience where I feel most comfortable and with the people I feel most comfortable with.
But Fr. John’s actions have stripped me of this opportunity. And Fr. John’s actions have also shattered the very foundations of my entire family— members of the Holy Trinity Community who are questioning their very involvement in the parish because of his lack of judgment, compassion and love.
I have to ask, was he thinking of my mother when he warned me not to approach the chalice? Was he thinking of my brother, his wife, or my three nephews?
I also have to ask, why now? And why did Fr. John approve the sacrament of baptism—and sign his name on the certificate– when I became a godfather (for the third time) a few years ago?
What was he thinking when he signed his name on that baptismal certificate, allowing me to be the godfather? And what about my repeated stewardship payments to his parish? Why were the checks of a sinner not worthy of communion who is not in canonical order with the Orthodox Church accepted and cashed?
More importantly, what prompted a call to the Metropolitan by Fr. John Touloumes to ask specifically about me? Was I the only sinner in the entire parish community of Holy Trinity that was keeping Fr. John Touloumes up at night?
Certainly he has known me, my family and “who I am” for the past twenty-one years that he has been pastor at Holy Trinity. My homosexuality was no secret to him.
Why didn’t he call my spiritual father in Chicago, whom he knows personally, to ask if I was worthy to take Holy Communion? He made this about me, after all—so why not fulfill his priestly obligation to me—instead of using canon law as an excuse to back his own Metropolitan into a corner and receive the answer that he, himself wanted to hear, so his own alleged bigoted and personal agenda be fulfilled.
Clearly, I don’t need to answer these questions, as you all know the answers.
Fr. John Touloumes had an opportunity to be a leader, to show love, decency and compassion, and to truly attempt to imitate Christ. Instead, he became a self-righteous authoritarian, selectively imposing what he believed to be the letter of the law, but not applying the same letter of the law to others who might be in violation of church law.
He showed his true character— or lack of it— and his ultimate goal of cleansing the Holy Trinity community of anyone he perceived to be different or unworthy.
Incidentally, I have received almost two-dozen messages from former parishioners at Holy Trinity— former GOYAns that I grew up with and people whose grandparents and parents are buried on the hillside in Allison Park. These people too, were turned away for one reason or another.
I have to ask the esteemed members of the Parish Council— is this the type of community you want to have at Holy Trinity, where we care more for the shiny iconography and the beautifully adorned new edifice in the North Hills than the people who have been turned away?
We constantly hear about the success of the “new converts” to the faith and the new members of the community— but do we hear about the losses? Do we hear about those turned away? Do we hear about those who were warned not to approach the chalice? Or do we brush all of this under the rug and shine the dome of our new church so that it sparkles from the outside.
The best message I received was from someone who served the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and parishes nationwide for many years and one of the most respected Greek Orthodox Christians in this country. I will keep his name anonymous at his request, but his message should resonate with every single one of you.
“I was very grieved to hear about your experience in your home parish and I am not only deeply saddened by this, but very troubled by the apparent rationale, rationalization and just plain prejudice. It’s one thing to have its own standard and values, quite another to be so Pharisaical about it. When was love trumped? When did the responsibility to lead by example become an excuse for sanctimony? And when did those called to imitate Christ decide it was the better to follow Pilate? I am very sorry indeed this happened to you, and even more sorry for the Church. Let’s hope that such ill-conceived edicts are short-lived.”
To the parish council of Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church:
Take a long, hard look around. Take a look at yourselves, your children.
You might be surprised to know that some of your own children are homosexuals and might be struggling with the very matter right now. You may also be surprised to know that amongst yourselves, some of you are adulterers, some of you masturbate and even worse, according to the existing canons of the Orthodox Church, some of you might even be in the medical care of a Jewish doctor.
Ask yourselves what kind of a community do you want.
Do you want “witch-hunts” to have a place in a community that is supposed to be compassionate and welcoming? Is this the Holy Trinity you want to serve and build? Is it more important to have a shiny dome with a rusted, rotten core, or a welcoming place for all who seek Holy Trinity’s comfort with as much beauty on the inside, as there is on the outside?
I won’t be back to Holy Trinity as long as he is the pastor of the parish. And unfortunately for Holy Trinity, this isn’t an isolated incident. Since this issue has gone public I have received more than two-dozen messages from former Holy Trinity parishioners who have shared similar experiences with me of their own dealings with Fr. John Touloumes—parishioners whose families built this church.
So the decision is yours to make.
I won’t be back to Holy Trinity because Fr. John Touloumes’ lack of compassion, judgment and love has forced me—and many others— away from the community that my grandparents helped build, my parents dedicated their lives to, my brother and I were nurtured in, and now—the fourth generation of Pappases, my nephews are a part of—Four generations of Pappases at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Pittsburgh.
Because of one man’s personal agenda to create what he perceives to be a pure moral and righteous environment, love was trumped. Compassion and human decency were thrown out the door and a community that boasts a shiny new dome in the North Hills of Pittsburgh is suffering. People have been hurt; families have been torn away from their beloved Holy Trinity.
Only the parish council of the community can act now—if they, themselves, have the courage to do so. And of course, so can the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh.
I guess I will wait and see.
A point of clarification to your eloquently written piece.
Whoever your “Greek-American friend” is who knows me “personally” who told you “flat-out” that I am “going to go to war with the whole Greek Orthodox Archdiocese” is not only a liar, but a slanderer. That is, of course, if he even exists. Amateur bloggers like you with no real sources always make up sources to attract clicks and attention or to further drive home a point– as you have tried to do. The truth is, I have never said such a thing to anyone, nor do I plan to wage any kind of “war” against a Church that I have faithfully served and supported my entire life and continue to love. So if you want to be respected as a real voice, reveal your source– if there even is one. Unlike you, I don’t hide behind anonymous (or fictitious) sources to prove my point when I write. So the choice is yours– you can be “The National Enquirer” and TMZ of the Orthodox Church media, or you can step up and stop slandering and using anonymous or fictitious sources. Furthermore, just wondering why you didn’t ask me for a comment about my so-called “war” that I am planning to wage? That is usually standard practice in responsible journalism. But when we have a personal agenda to promote, sometimes the “other side” would negate or refute what we are trying to impart on our readers– right?
“Struggle” or “conflict” then, rather than “war”? Your piece was quoted in full, so your intentions are not in doubt, and all can draw their own conclusions as to how they are to be characterized.
Inasmuch as George has printed your entire screed, you can hardly complain of his objectivity and sources.
Axios! Gregory, many of us are proud of you. You are our brother.
I would like to ask Mr. Pappas a very simple, clear question and invite a reflective answer: why is it OK for **you** to quote the alleged comments of your purportedly eminent and empathetic, unnamed supporter, but not OK for George keep a source’s name private?
I think this is what is called “special pleading” – not holding yourself to the same standard you wish to impose on our host.
Dear Greg,
Χριστός Ἀνέστη! Christ Is Risen!
I don’t know you personally, and as a rule I don’t like to discuss sensitive matters like this in public as if they were generic rather than personal because at the core of every issue is a person, like yourself, who is created in the image of God, not merely a controversial topic. In truth, we are all in need of Christ & His spiritual hospital, which is His Church.
However, having said that I feel compelled to make a few remarks since this has made its way into the public square already.
Since I don’t have any first hand knowledge about to this particular situation I’m not qualified to agree or disagree with your interpretation of the pastoral impropriety / insensitivity of how Fr. John handled the matter of telling you not to approach the chalice for holy communion. Maybe you are right. Maybe he is right. Maybe neither of you are right. Maybe you’re both half-right & half-wrong. What I do know is that there are always at least two sides to every story, and as a journalist this isn’t news to you. Most of us are spiritual infants or adolescents, and we are dealing with a perception of reality constructed of our own thoughts & feelings since we have not yet been purified & enlightened and therefore lack spiritual discernment. Accordingly, my comments are directed at other statements you made.
The clergyman administering communion, not a person’s spiritual father, is responsible before Christ for the person’s soul that he is administering the eucharist to. Our tradition is clear about this. If a priest knows, or has good reason to believe, that a person is living in unrepentant sin he is obligated to withhold the eucharist until that sin is acknowledged, and efforts are made to repent. (Same is true for serving as a godparent so I don’t know what happened there.) Personally, some years back I was prohibited from recieving communion for a period of time as part of a penance when I confessed a heterosexual pattern sin that I had fallen into. This is therapeutic not punitive. It is not a cruel gesture, but an act of mercy. When a priest does this he is not failing to be inclusive or being unwelcoming; in your case you were not asked to stop participating in the life of the parish or to stop attending liturgy. Rather the priest is attempting to make us aware of our need to repent because if we receive the body & blood of Christ in a state of unrepentant sin it is to the detriment of both that communicant & that priest. Our recognition of our sins & active repentance is what makes us “worth” of communion. The task of the clergy is to constantly call us to repentance.
Homosexuality is not uniquely sinful. However, it is a sin, but it is just one of an infinite number of ways to “miss the mark”. If one is sexually attracted to people of the same sex that is not in and of itself sinful, but if one feels that that is okay, willfully thinks about same-sex sexual activity & engages in same-sex sexual activity then those things are sinful. Same-sex sexual attraction is a sinful passion to be purified & healed (a cross to be borne), just like every other passion: other forms of lust, anger, gluttony, greed, pride, etc.
There is no doubt that you didn’t choose to be attracted to other men, but that does not mean that it’s a good & healthy aspect of who you are as a unique person anymore than another person’s strong inherent propensity to alcoholism, violence, power, money, heterosexual lust & even pedophilia etc. is a good & healthy aspect of who they are. (No, I’m not saying homosexuality & pedophilia are the same thing – clearly they are very different -, but my point is that pedophiles don’t necessarily want to be sexually attracted to children, yet they are – it’s pathology.) The biological aspects of homosexuality are likewise not proof that same-sex sexual attraction is good & healthy anymore then the biological aspects of alcoholism, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc are proof that they are good & healthy. We live in a fallen world & sin has corrupted not just our hearts & minds but also our bodies, even our DNA (as a physician I’m acutely aware of this). The world is broken & so are we, every one of us, and Christ assumed our broken humanity then died, rose from the dead, ascended & sent the Holy Spirit in order to offer us a chance to become whole. God has done everything that can possibly be done, and the rest is up to us to respond to Him.
Yes, the Church has accommodated certain aspect of society as the times & cultures have changed, but these canonical alterations were done in an effort to remain true to the theology of the Church in a changing world. The Church changed in order to stay the same. There is no way to change to the canonical requirement that marriage is an exclusive & life-long relationship that the Church blesses between one man & one woman without changing the theology, which was divinely revealed and not logically derived or based upon contemporary cultural consensus. If one is looking for those type of accommodations there are plenty of heterodox Christian communities that they can be found in, but if we are looking for Orthodox Christianity we need to let it change us, which is to say heal us, rather than struggling in vain to change immutable things.
I’m not judging you as a person. How can I? I don’t even know you, and even if I did it is not my place to judge you. Judgement belongs to Christ alone. “Let him who is with out sin cast the first stone.” However, calling sin sin is not judging a person, but rather articulating an observation that is unequivocally stated not just in the letter of the scripture, but more importantly, in the spirit of the scriptures, as well as 2,000+ years of the other aspects of the Church’s Holy Tradition, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
You are my brother in Christ, and I’ll pray for you & ask you to do the same for me. I wish you a blessed Pentecost!
~Timmy from the GOA Metropolis of Boston
Excellent pastoral response.
Yes, very well stated, Tim.
Thanks be to God for this eloquent response, Tim.
Mr. Pappas, I have a question.
I haven’t read all of the posts yet, but I don’t want to until I know the answer to my question.
The question in my mind is what is the meaning of “open homosexual”?
If it means that one admits openly to an attraction to members of the same sex while continually struggling against the temptation to submit to that attraction, that’s one thing.
If, on the other hand, it means one admits openly to an attraction to members of the same sex while submitting oneself to the temptation to engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex or being willing to enter into such a relationship, that is quite another.
Will you say, Mr. Pappas, which of those definitions describe you?
Nearly 50 positive votes for Mr. Pappas’ post at the head of this thread… why do I have the feeling that Inga Leonova’s Queer Coven has arrived to vote en masse?
Well, I suppose I could ask you who your anonymous sources are. I could also ask you why you didn’t go together with Fr John when you went behind his back to see the Metropolitan. No less than Jesus Himself gave us directions on what to do when a brother offends us. There’s a protocol for this.
Gregory,
I’m happy to see you’re on here. I was confused about your decision to accuse the priest in question of practicing selective moral judgement by paying undue and special attention at those who are “homosexual”. It seems that by doing so you are conceding that “homosexuality” (however you are using/describing it) is a sin. Is this the case?
If you’re argument is simply that we are not consistent in our adherence to the canons regarding personal sin, it would behoove us all to understand this with as much clarity as possible so as to not muddy the discussion.
(If your issue is that the priest in question lacks pastoral discernment in your eyes, this issue quickly stops being an issue for the majority of us in Michalopulos-land.)
Oh good grief. If I had a scorecard for the sin you guys like to talk about the most-it would be homosexuality. From what I’ve understood about Orthodoxy most of my life-it is a religion where we focus on repenting from our own sins, but I digress. Not sure why homosexuality gets discussed so much here… There was one poster who suggested homosexuality was worse than murder. The guy belongs in a Sharia law nation.
Daniel,
You have been quite public about your ignoring the gay couple of Mark Stokoe and Steve Brown, who openly lived their homosexual life in full view of you and your priest, Fr. Ted Bobosh in Dayton. You then have shown that you don’t think there was any problem with them communing, serving in church administration and being icons of Orthodox life. They both felt there was nothing to repent of, and you don’t either. So why don’t you just put a sock in it. Really, you don’t have any shred of credibility to talk about this issue. You have made your peace with it but the Church and Holy Scripture says otherwise.
“All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men…. The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions [of the homosexuals] satanic, but their lives are diabolic….. So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body….. There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV, in J. McNeill, op. cit., pp. 89-90)
The “poster” merely offered a quote from Chrysostom, which really should tell you a lot about the Orthodox faith and about your own attitude: Church Fathers = shariah.
Here are some more choice quotes from our early “mullah’s”:
“Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.” (St. Gregory the Great, Commento morale a Giobbe, XIV, 23, vol. II, p. 371, Ibid., p. 7)
“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in iron chains, condemned to six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship … with young people.” (St. Basil of Caesarea, in St. Peter Damien, Liber Gomorrhianus, op. cit. cols. 174f.)
Sarcasm on
But Misha, we know so much more now and are so much more sophisticated. Obviously such expressions were merely a product of the times and the general scientific ignorance that prevailed. We are so much more enlightened now. Surely we have progressed to the point that we can be more compassionate an loving that that.
Sarcasm off
Michael,
Some people are baffled as to why progressives want traditional churches to “change from within”. They sincerely ask them, “Why don’t you just start your own churches (like Metropolitan, UCC or OCCA) and do what you want?”
Here’s the thing: They’re on a mission from the evil one. They want to take over the traditional churches in order to silence their moral witness. The fact that they will cause these new progressive entities to go bankrupt and become a laughing stock is beside the point. Tradition neutralized, platform for progressivism founded, at least temporarily, and tremendous amounts of funds diverted to progressive causes.
Then, when the tent folds because progressives don’t believe in God or at least the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition and thus progressive Christianity has very, very limited appeal, they think they have done good.
Orthodoxy has seemingly avoided this because of the confusion regarding ethnicity. The Left does not want to attack non-Westerners. However, if a person of Greek heritage leads the charge, well, that’s different.
Indeed. The experience of traditional Protestant churches in Europe demonstrate this quite well. The first wave of ‘reformers’ hit in the 70’s, changed the church’s traditional posture on many moral issues, and then after their “work” was done, they —— simply left, leaving only the aged grandmothers alone in the pews.
A church that does not enforce it’s own beliefs is not a church worth attending.
‘Zactly,
Also, did you see that someone hacked and shut down GOARCH’s website this week? Wonder if there is a connection to the whole Pappas thing?
Actually, in a great many cases they did not leave, they kept the church, and the grandmothers and great-grandmas in the pews are still there, because they’ve been there for decades and generations and they don’t want to go anywhere else. “This is my church” they say, stubbornly, despite whatever else is going on.
Their parents and husbands and friends were “buried” there, and that’s where they are going to be buried, too. I know many of these fine people, and understand them very well. The Episcopal and Presbyterian pews are full of them.
You are talking about leaving churches where you were baptised, your children and grandchildren were baptised, where your kids were married, where grandparents’ and parents’ memorial services were preached, and on and on. Not just the “denomination”– the very church building itself.
When I left, I left the very church I had been baptised in in 1948, and in which all of the above things had taken place with respect to my own family. At the end, it was not very hard for me, because I had a long personal connection with the Orthodox church for over 30 years, and, among other things, I am reasonably combative and am 66, not 76 or 86.
It’s a sad situation.
It long ago ceased being about personal sin and I think you know it. It is about heresy.
May the Archbishop hold firm!
If he doesn’t there will be a split in Orthodoxy–with a sharp decline in membership with those churches who accept this sin as “normal”.
Colette, what will most likely happen is that Fr John will be forced to write and/or communicate an apology to Mr Pappas. At first I thought that Fr John would be reassigned to a lesser parish but the heat has been turned up too high. (I could be wrong though.)
If this happens, and if Fr John agrees, the result of this apology will be the neutering of Fr John’s ministry in that he will not be bold ever again. I would bet that every other priest in that diocese will likewise become milquetoasts as well.
As for Savas, he will withdraw his directive and never try to vex the wealthy Greek-American contingent ever again.
Under these circumstances, the Gay Cabal will have won another major victory.
The only question at this point as far as I’m concerned is why did Savas pick this fight? My guess is that he was feeling the heat from the conservatives, especially the other non-GOA bishops on the EA, as well as the heat he’s taken from traditionalists on this and other sites.
What’s sad is that he doesn’t have to back down. As a Metropolitan, they can’t fire him willy-nilly, no matter how many rich Archons would want him sacked. Unless of course the Archons are far more powerful than we thought. Then the GOA has big problems.
I hope Fr. John refuses to sign anything of the sort! All the Orthodox Bishops in this country need to stand together on this. It’s the only way to save the Church. Because if this sin becomes “ok” then so are the rest.
Me too. He’s a good man and a good priest.
colette:
Collette, reread the original post. The Archbishop said there was no directive. Whatever words were exchanged to lead the priest to believe that he should deny communion, the Archbishop denied that he meant to convey that specific meaning. He invoked the priest’s canonical privilege. No Orthodox bishop, anywhere in the U.S., who is in his right mind, would dare to formally and categorically insist on denying communion to gays, even if he personally subscribed to the notion. That would indeed split the church, and the church can’t afford it. To put it cynically, they need the money. The generous interpretation is that the church can and must apply the principle of oikonomia when dealing with ALL sinners (like you and me). Many Orthodox churches are gay friendly, and the deans and bishops cannot and will not put an end to that. The intolerant are going to have to live with these facts. Otherwise, they will run out of churches to run away from.
“No Orthodox bishop, anywhere in the U.S., who is in his right mind, would dare to formally and categorically insist on denying communion to gays, even if he personally subscribed to the notion. That would indeed split the church, and the church can’t afford it. To put it cynically, they need the money.”
Lord have mercy.
Gays or sexually active gays?
Ah, yes here we go….”the intolerant…..”.
And whom precisely do you have in mind?
All are welcome who wish to live a life of repentance in accordance with the truth revealed in the Church.
There are many other places where no such requirements exist.
The Church can and must not commune anyone living in public sin or who is convinced that they are not in sin. Period. It is for the individuals own spiritual health. But it is also for the spiritual health of the whole parish. This priest does this for the love of the individual and the care of his parish.
Economia has been used too liberally in America to the point that people think the economia is the norm. that leads to confusion-And that is all you will get here if we go down that path you put forward. If we are in this faith it is because we believe it. It has a system that is for all of our salvation. But the only way to get there is to follow the Churches practices. What I hear from you is disbelief.
I know so many priests who have turned people away from the chalice and for this very sin. It’s a difficult thing, but they do it and follow up with the person and their churches are thriving. People want the truth.
The split in the Church will be what it has always been: those who serve God and those who serve mammon.
Jesus calls all to repentance while standing ready to forgive everyone everything.
It is common to nurse a favorite sin, walling it off from His grace. That can be dealt with pastorally.
When anyone demands that we join them on the battlements to help protect there favorite sin then they are demanding that we participate in their refusal. I will not hate t
I have been angry for as long as I can remember. I could easily contend that I was born angry, there may even be a genetic predisposition to anger.
Still it is a sin that is indicative of a disordered will I must take into confession.
A head-on, direct attack is best. I pray there will be wise and serious refutation by persons in authority in the church.
While the immorality of homosexual acts aren’t a matter of “canon law” origin, this onslaught, like many to follow, will employ the dubious provisions of many canons as a point of attack. We have seen this elsewhere with the “we don’t sacrifice animals, we don’t have concubines” arguments against Old Testament prohibitions.
I have known Fr. John Touloumes for roughly a quarter-century.
He is a very fine priest and pastor.
It is a disgrace that someone would speak of his “lack of compassion, judgment and love.”
I do hope his Metropolitan will give him proper support in this matter.
The tenor and personal nature of the attack on the priest makes the agenda of the author very clear. The priest in a most pastoral and considerate way privately informed Mr. Pappas that he should not approach the chalice. This became a “humiliation” to Mr. Pappas, that he then decided to make public (I suppose so he can claim to be even more “humiliated”).
Mr. Pappas has a new rule for all Orthodox priests. You are no longer responsible for guarding the Holy Mysteries. Forget all that talk when you were ordained. Now each parishioner can decide their own worthiness, and as long as they have some Father somewhere, that person has the only ecclesiatical standing to turn someone away from the chalice held in another’s hand.
Had Mr. Pappas desired resolution, he would have met with Fr. John privately outside of services, offered him all these same arguments, and maybe made a joint call to the Metropolitan so they could all be on the same page, since Mr. Pappas seems to imply that Fr. John was lying to him. But that wouldn’t serve the agenda. That wouldn’t make you the focal point, Most importantly, it wouldn’t let you get what you really want.
Mr. Pappas wants vengeance. He wants Fr. John gone and he is threatening to remove himself, his money, his family’s money and everything and everyone he can from the parish until that happens. He is an angry man. He is filled with pride. His heart is set on revenge and it seethes through every line in his blog post. Some insightful priest might suggest that until Mr. Pappas can overcome that passion, he probably shouldn’t approach the chalice, regardless of with whom he shares his bed.
Oh yes, the lending and Jewish doctor cards are on the table! See the pretty bird? Look at that silly bird! Don’t look at me, look at the bird! Yes, Mr. Pappas, you are so clever. Everyone will be sure not to consider the actual issue, because you’ve brought up some silly old canons that nobody really pays attention to. So if Guido the shark converts and brings is 250% interest charging self to the chalice, we can commune him too! Hooray, you have made the Church more inclusive! Mission accomplished!
Few things:
1. Fr. John is the person to decide whom to commune, not the would be communicant’s “spiritual father”. Fr. John has an obligation to use his best judgment in this matter. If he knows that Pappas is both homosexual and sexually active, he could not in good conscience give him communion.
2. Pappas did not mention whether he only had a homosexual inclination or was sexually active. If the latter, he has only himself to blame; if the former, despite all his canned, boilerplate, liberal rhetoric and histrionics, he may have a point. However, I doubt that is the case since he openly identifies as gay/homosexual. Usually those who do so are not only open but active. The inclination is not a sin, the activity most certainly is.
3. Homosexual sexual activity is an abomination and comparing it to masturbation or having a Jewish doctor is disingenuous. It is condemned as incompatible with salvation by St. Paul. Pappas can either repent and remain celibate and hope to inherit eternal life, or die in his sins. The choice is his alone, and it is a choice. One may have an evil inclination but whether to act upon it is ones own choice – the same as the choices presented to pedophiles, bestialists, etc. A person may be born with an attraction to children or to animals (though I seriously doubt it, just as I doubt anyone is born homosexually inclined). Regardless, there are those born with extra chromosomes as well which predisposes them to some anti-social behaviors. The fact that these inclinations must be restrained does not reflect poorly on God or indicate that the person is not created in His image. The fact that my heterosexual appetite must be constrained within certain bounds, as should my ambition, does not mean that I am not made in the image of God. Pappas has been deeply confused by the enabling rhetoric of the homosexual rights movement.
Mr Pappas also neglected to mention that the decision of Father John—as he declared at the time—was not based on matters of private behavior, but on Pappas’s quite public act of attempting an official union with someone of the same sex.
Why in the world would Pappas expect Father John to follow the counsel of some other priest here in Chicago?
“Pappas’s quite public act of attempting an official union with someone of the same sex.”
and yet we are told it is there “right to privacy”:the state has no right to go into their bedroom-except to force everyone accept what goes on in their bedroom.
Equal Protection means that no one can resist what the majority can be convinced of.
As a person who struggles with this passion, and by the grace of God has acquired contentment in celibacy (by letting go of desires for something I knew I couldn’t have) your assessments are spot on, Misha.
This tyrade smacks of self-righteous pride that is rank within places like the ruins of the Episcopal Church. God save our churches from that fate.
Mr. Pappas, coming from one who shares this struggle, you have two simple choices. If you are celibate, stop integrating your sinful passions—chosen or not—into your identity, because you’re only making it harder for yourself to let go of that which you cling to. If you’re not celibate, you should know you’re not to commune and anyone who says otherwise is a wolf, no matter how white his wool may appear to be.
I wouldn’t normally inquire about your private activities, but you and all other homosexual people who wear their passions on their sleeves—a form of pride, by the way—opened that box yourself.
The gay acceptance movement only makes it harder for those of us who are serious about working out our salvation. It cheapens our struggle because those who should be encouraging and helping us instead buy your tripe and say, “Ah, who cares? So you’re gay, that’s no different than swimming with Jews.” Grow up, sir.
Your abundance of street cred is charming, but your standing in judgment of the church is way out of your league.
Thanks, Ages, for your insightful comments from the ‘inside’ of the crucible of resistance. May your struggle bear you a crown.
Mr. Pappas’ letter speaks volumes of the current sad state of GOA church life, where every parish needs 3 chalices with which to serve Holy Communion to all and sundry (and I mean sundry) who approach and consume the Gifts weekly. It’s great that they come, but is the success of the GOA ‘all receiving, all the time’ policy really a victory for Christ? Is it really helping to save the people? Many come forth who are just visiting, not even Orthodox. And it’s hard to imagine that people who come in at the Chreubikon have done anything by way of preparation for Holy Communion. Some even form the habit of taking communion after the Liturgy is over, by special request.
What it adds up to is a spirit of entitlement to the Mysteries, a belief that they deserve to commune. Mr. Pappas says so clearly that Fr John is no one to deny him what is his by right. THis is nothing less than the spirit of Mammon, which forms the lifestyle of the man, who can afford to make every choice between the good things in life. Pappas applies the consumerist principle, his daily habit, to the hour (if that) that he spends in church every week . Mr. Pappas writes like a spoiled child who has never been disciplined to accept disappointment, who refuses to learn anything from his private pastoral consultation with Fr John. He sees the priest as an upstart employee lacking deference to his wealthy
parishioneremployer.This does not come as a surprise to me. Many, many priests have lost their jobs at the behest of powerful laymen who pressure weak hierarchs. Probably many wealthy homosexual men have done the same thing, only sub rosa. What may distinguish this case is that Mr. Pappas benefits from the contemporary atmosphere that removes most public shame from homosexuality. He attempts to shame the priest as ‘intolerant’, vastly more worthy of censure than the public sinner. Pappas is betting that secular mores have already invaded his grandparent’s church and that this is the time to put them on the bishop’s throne.
I wonder what the real response of the people will be – will they accept Pappas’ ratiocination or will they still grasp the common morality which the Church has promoted all these centuries? If they side with Pappas, confused by sentiment, they will no longer be Orthodox, but merely Eastern Rite Episcopalian.
A rather scurrilous comment. What is your proof that ordained clergy in the GOA are regularly communing non-Orthodox people?
I am very glad to see GOA priests reading this thread and speaking up.
Scurrilous? No, I write from experience serving GOA parishes. Proven, no – but with a strong suspicion. When a communicant comes up from a line of several hundred, and betrays that he has no knowledge of what to do (simply say his Christian name) when he is about to receive, then gives a name unknown to our cannon of Christian names given at baptism (e.g. a Hispanic, Catholic name, and the informal, diminutive form of it) I have a basis to suppose that he may not be Orthodox, but only following the convention. As guest priest of no rank, I comply without comment and commune the poor man. I write this as it weighs on my own conscience.
The context of my statement is the problematic convention of entitlement to Holy Communion: that everyone always receives, even if they can’t (bother to) make it to the service in time to here the Gospel, or make it at all until the dismissal. Maybe this doesn’t obtain at Fr John’s parish as he has scruples to prevent it.
Pappas, son of Greek-American privilege, plays true to type, and bridles at Fr. John’ s unusual pastoral intervention preventing his communion, regardless of the fact that he stands in heresy and is self-excommunicated (whether he abstains from the chalice or no), by virtue of his having taken marriage vows outside the church and living in an arrangement proscribed by Church law. Fr John is merely doing his job to prevent his parishioner Gregory from being damaged through pastoral neglect. Too bad he could do nothing to dissuade him previously from endangering his soul by ‘marrying’ another man.
I stand by my experience as priest that I feel lay people in very large parishes are abusing the ‘system’ that militates against effective pastoral oversight of communion. Probably overlarge parish size makes other dimensions of pastoral care impossible as well.
Yes, scurrilous.
Based on your limited experience and your own ineffectual guardianship of the Holy Chalice, you accuse an entire jurisdiction.
It should weigh on your conscience, since IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to guard the chalice from which you are communing the faithful. The fact that you are such a weak-minded priest that you commune people you think are not Orthodox is no one’s fault but your own.
Pappas writes regarding our kind host: ” So if you want to be respected as a real voice, reveal your source– if there even is one.”
That’s about as disingenuous a statement as most of his rant…oops! I mean, Open Letter. There he speaks of his un-named “spiritual father” who supports him and then speaks of his contact by “one of the most respected Greek Orthodox Christians in this country. I will keep his name anonymous at his request.” So it’s O.K. to keep his contacts anonymous, but not George, I guess.
But then, the Open Letter is comprised of so many disingenuities that it would take more time than any of us would likely care to invest in order to demonstrate the falsity of the claims.
One point does, however shine rather brightly: it’s not likely that the adulterers, thieves, masturbators, nocturnal emissionists (I guess that can be a word!), non-fasters, non-confessors, and menstruators do so in such a way as to be *public* about it. If so, any Priest would be just as much forbidden to Commune them as Priest John is forbidden to Commune *any* openly practicing homosexual or anyone else practicing a sin without repentance. The Priest is the guardian of the Chalice.
Mr. Pappas,
Since you are all for full disclosure, we would like to know the following:
1. Who is your spiritual father in Chicago?
2. Who are the two dozen priests and bishops who invited you to their parishes to receive Holy Communion?
Because,
Everyone knows who his Spiritual Father is – Bishop Demetrios, the chancellor of the Metropolis of Chicago.
The whole bit about the Spiritual Father says it is ok to receive Communion is the same shtick that the priest at Chicago city parish endured when the same bishop insisted he commune an active homosexual for the same reason – his spiritual father said it was OK.
Obviously that is the good bishop’s viewpoint on the subject.
And if that is the “good bishop’s viewpoint,” I think we should respect that and even admire that, because it is just and good. It is good society is changing its view on this, i..e. gay marriage in many states and that we have Bishops who believe the same.
Greg, Stop whining!
1. We don’t get to heaven on our forebears coattails. Each one of us is personally responsible for working out our own salvation. You can not rely on what your ancestors did.
2. The parish, Episcopal, that my father gave 40 years of his life to, is now closed and for sale, mainly because when the people with the homosexual agenda took over, they drove out all who disagreed with them. Only a small group was left who could not sustain the grounds. Not only that, they spent the entire endowment which had been left to the parish. Leaving nothing.
3. I watched as my beloved Episcopal Church followed your type of advice, and I see parishes floundering and failing. God does not tolerate sin.
4.. You need to learn what true love really is. God calls it sacrifice. Have you read in the OT about the prophets who called God’s people back to his law? Most of them sacrificed their lives. Have you read the lives of the Apostles who loved Jesus enough to go where He sent them, suffer all kinds of conditions in faith, and most of them to die an untimely death?
5. What are you willing to sacrifice in your life for Jesus?
Lina, if I may exposit on your first point: too many ethnic Orthodox believe exactly that, that you can coast into heaven on your Yiayia’s and Papou’s piety.
I call this type of ethnopiety “Drezhloism.” Jesus called it “the Synagogue of Satan.”
well said …………..
Since we all enjoy mixing metaphors: There is no jihad. No hens are coming home. They are roosting quite comfortably and have been doing so for a long while. The sense of the Orthodox faithful in America is one of tolerance. See the evidence here. Only the Catholics and mainline Protestants are more liberal about homosexuality. Imagine that. One could group Orthodoxy with the (dare I say it) Episcoplian church on the liberal end of the spectrum regarding homosexuality. Much to the chagrin of the regular contributors here, I dare say. If it’s gay-bashing you like, join the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Metaphors? Gay-bashing?
Sin is sin, the practice of homosexuality is sin….. Being genetically homosexual is very debatable. If my church makes a practice of serving communion to openly practicing homosexuals, then I will find another church. I don’t know whether to refer to Gregory Pappas as Mister Pappas or Madame Pappas, but he/she has the same option, move down the road to where his so-called spiritual father is located, go ahead with his gay sex, take unholy communion and answer at the judgement seat of Christ. Any bishop or priest who communes such types is as unholy as the person they serve. And in answer to the gay-bashing statement of Other other Mathew, if it is homosexual sex that you like, join the openly gay Episcopal group (they are not a/the church).
A person can be involved in lots of good works (usually with an agenda), can be a nice person to all around them, can be very faithful in church attendance, can know all of the right people, can have the Archbishop throw his arm around him, and still be an out-and-out sinner who should not receive Holy Communion.
A practicing homosexual is the “workshop of the devil” along with other sinners engrossed in their “it is okay” life, for God will forgive me. It is interesting what St Simeon Metaphrastes states in one of the twelve prayers of preparation before Holy Communion, “in my works I have practiced fornication, adultery, arrogance, imposture, railing, blasphemy, foolish talking, drunkenness, gluttony, greediness, hate, envy, avarice, cupidity, graspingness, self-love, self-vaunting, robbery, injustice, covetousness, jealousy, slander, lawlessness . . . For every work of evil, and every guile, and craft of Satan, corruption, instability, effeminacy, seduction, remembrance of wrong, counsel toward sin, forced laughter, and a thousand other passions beside have I not put aside from me.” The list could go on and on and homosexuality is one that Paul lists in one of his litanies.
I have repeated below some of my favorite quotes of our beloved saints. These are only a few of hundreds to the same effect. Pope Francis perhaps summed up all of these quotes in one beautiful sentence. “Who am I to judge?” If it was not the place of the saints to judge, if it is not the place of the Holy Father to judge, then whose place is it? Clearly that is the place of the One Just Judge alone. As Saint John Climacus says in The Ladder, ” To judge others is a shameless arrogation of the Divine prerogative.” Only God knows what is in Greg’s heart, and perhaps his Father Confessor.
Perhaps I am prejudiced because I have seen the good works that Greg has done in our community. I have seen the money he has raised for soup kitchens and homeless shelters in Greece during the crisis. I have seen the money he has raised for scholarships for deserving children who families do not have the means to give them every opportunity. I was there when Archbishop Demetrios wrapped his arms around Greg at a charity fundraiser he organized in our local community and told him to continue his good works.
May God have mercy on us all, and keep us all, from the highest bishop, to me, the chief of sinners, from judging our brothers and sisters.
“A man can know nothing about the judgments of God. He alone is the one who takes account of all and is able to judge the hearts of each one of us, as He alone is our Master. Truly it happens that a man may do a certain thing which seems to be wrong out of simplicity, and there may be something about it which makes more amends to God than your whole life; how are you going to sit in judgment and constrict your own soul? And should it happen that he has fallen away, how do you know how much and how well he fought; how much blood he sweated before he did it? Perhaps so little fault can be found in him that God can look on his action as if it were just, for God looks on his labor and all the struggle he had before he did it, and has pity on him. And do you know this, and what God has spared him for? Are you going to condemn him for this and ruin your own soul? And how do you know what tears he has shed about it before God? You may well know about the sin but do you not know about the repentance?”
SAINT DOROTHEOS
“To judge sins is the business of one who is sinless, but who is sinless except God? Whoever thinks about the multitude of his own sins in his heart never wants to make the sins of others a topic of conversation. To judge a man who has gone astray is a sign of pride, and God resists the proud. On the other hand, one who every hour prepares himself to give answer for his own sins will not quickly lift up his head to examine the mistakes of others.”
SAINT GENNADIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE
“A discerning man, when he eats grapes, takes only the ripe ones and leaves the sour. Thus also the discerning mind carefully marks the virtues which he sees in any person. A mindless man seeks out the vices and failings … Even if you see someone sin with your own eyes, do not judge; for often even your eyes are deceived.”
SAINT JOHN OF THE LADDER
“If you see your neighbor in sin, don’t look only at this, but also think about what he has done or does that is good, and infrequently trying this in general, while not partially judging, you will find that he is better than you.”
SAINT BASIL THE GREAT
“Why do we judge our neighbors? Because we are not trying to get to know ourselves. Someone busy trying to understand himself has no time to notice the shortcomings of others. Judge yourself — and you will stop judging others. Judge a poor deed, but do not judge the doer. It is necessary to consider yourself the most sinful of all, and to forgive your neighbor every poor deed. One must hate only the devil, who tempted him. It can happen that someone might appear to be doing something bad to us, but in reality, because of the doer’s good intentions, it is a good deed. Besides, the door of penitence is always open, and it is not known who will enter it sooner — you, “the judge,” or the one judged by you.”
SAINT SERAPHIM OF SAROV
Mr. Kosmas:
Adultery is a sin, correct? Is homosexual activity a sin? Or is it not a sin? This is in truth the question that is being put.
Judgment on a sinner is not what any of this controversy is actually about. If we agree with our Church of 2,000 years that homosexual activity is a sin, then it all thereafter comes down to the things your quotes are about. But this issue cannot be obfuscated, which is what all of the push for its acceptance is about.
It is hard to see this casuistry, the fallacies, the misdirection on this subject now invade the Orthodox Church. We have seen it going on, endlessly, in other churches for a generation now.
I came to the Orthodox Church because it is the church that will never apostacize. I have come to be very thankful that most of Orthodoxy is outside of our country, beloved to us as it still is. This is going to prove a great bulwark, indeed.
Tim writes:
Tim, I sense “buyer’s remorse.” As a new convert you may have been misled. There are absolutist/fundamentalists in every church. They like to impose their narrow exclusive interpretation of tradition on others. They don’t represent Orthodoxy in the U.S. or in any country. Orthodoxy is a big tent.
No, Orthodoxy is the narrow way that leads to salvation which begins with: repent for the kingdom of God is at hand and continues in a life of repentance, prayer, service, obedience and worship. It does not include following the ways of the ways of the world. Certainly there are sinners here of whom I am chief. But the Church herself will not aposticize. Some jurisdictions may have their candlestick removed and be vomited out of our Lord’s mouth as well as some people but the Church will be preserved. God willing, we get to be one with her. Many trials await.
May God strengthen you Edward.
I have no buyer’s remorse. I’m 66 years old, have been a believing Christian most of my life, and have about 35 years of a lot of “fellow-traveling” with Orthodoxy. I have no illusions and my eyes were and are wide open. I entered the Church as a refugee, not as a zealot. I might have been one if I had joined up 30 years ago, something that I deliberately chose not to do.
My comment is that the Orthodox church is just a little behind this curve. The stuff in Mr. Pappas’ rancorous manifesto has been boiling in much of Protestantism for a very long time. It does make one heave a sigh, and I am very confident that, unlike in many other places, this business will be unsuccessful.
I am also not a “convert”, and thus not a “new convert”. The term, often used here, is convenient, but very simplistic. But that’s a discussion for another time.
One reason I feel quite secure that Orthodoxy will not apostacize, in addition to Michael’s comment above regarding the fact that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, is that Orthodoxy is not centered in the United States or even in the West in general. That is tremendously significant.
Rome can walk a tightrope of telling everyone in a very nuanced fashion exactly what they want to hear in order to keep Peter’s pence flowing. They feel like they have to.
However, most Orthodox are Slavs. And the vast majority of Orthodox live in countries where homosexuality is barely tolerated and where things like women’s ordination are simply not an issue.
What this actually means is that the Church is not centered in the part of the world that constitutes The Problem, at least from an Orthodox perspective. So some little factions may break off. Blind eyes may be turned. Wolves in sheep’s clothing may talk out of both sides of their mouths. Openly active gays may be accepted in some cosmopolitan Greek/OCA/etc. parishes in America, but unless they want to be excommunicated by the rest of Orthodoxy, the bishops will not become advocates for this filth.
This is a very good point, Misha. Is it worth considering that we are now on the cusp of a civilizational divide? With the West becoming pagan and the East becoming the Sacred Remnant?
Misha says, “Rome can walk a tightrope of telling everyone in a very nuanced fashion exactly what they want to hear in order to keep Peter’s pence flowing.”
Here is a charitable warning to Misha: Cynicism destroys purity of heart.
“As the Church has always taught . . .”
I’m sure you’ve heard that witty observation Fr. Patrick? No? If Rome decided to allow women’s ordination or any other fashionable nonsense, the encyclical would begin with those words. Take a look at the article on the death penalty in the Catholic Encyclopedia from the turn of the 19th-20th century. Sounds a bit different than Pope John Paul II’s explication, doesn’t it? Ever read William F. Buckley’s or Antonin Scalia’s articles regarding the Pope’s new doctrinal fiat?
Social justice is the same way. You do know that popes in the 19th century characterized “liberalism” and “Americanism” as heresies, don’t you? Now things are a bit . . . otherwise.
You got to tell them what they want to hear to keep the money flowing. Sadly, we are becoming the same way. Lord have mercy.
Tim, you are absolutely right. Sometimes the converts see things better than the ‘baptized as babies’ bunch. My question to many who question the ‘rules’ of the church is, “have you ever read the bible – cover to cover?” The answer is usually “No, but – – – .”
As someone pointed out, straight is the gate and narrow is the way to salvation; some of the folks should read the old Protestant classic, “Pilgrims Progress”, there are lots of categories of ‘types’ in the text. Check it out at: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/pilgrim%20progress.pdf
Mr Kosmas, since we’re talking about the horrors of judgmentalism, may I ask what you would call Mr Pappas’ critique of Fr John and the Orthodox moral tradition?
I thought proof texting was a Protestant activity? That’s what I hear from Orthodox who roll their eyes at 1 Corinthians 6:9.
The Church and her ministers certainly have the standing to judge (“rightly divide the word of truth”). A person who is soberly pursuing salvation (like the fathers quoted above were) does not throw tantrums on the world stage when they are corrected by a priest, that’s for sure. They humbly thank God for it.
On the Pope Francis quote, will people PLEASE read what the Bishop of Rome actually SAID?
Full transcripts are out there. He is talking about repentant Catholic priests who are struggling with this issue, yet are trying to remain faithful. The judgement at that point belongs to God.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2014/01/journalists-editing-pope-francis-who-are-we-to-judge/
Mr Kosmas,
Tomorrow we celebrate Pentecost. In the conclusion to his homily on Pentecost (#24) St Gregory Palamas says the following:
This isn’t about the judgment of man — mine, that of any other reader of this blog, Father John’s, or indeed the Metropolitan’s — it’s about the judgment of our Lord.
Hard words perhaps, but there it is.
Thank you, Saint Gregory Palamas is an impeccable source. The key term here that relates to this subject is “bodily impurity” and Saint Gregory categorizes bodily impurity such as homosexuality as “revolting filth.”
Mr. Kosmas says: “Only God knows what is in Greg’s heart” Really, seems to me he has done an excellent job of loudly broadcasting exactly what is in his heart.
He has made it a public issue. He seems to be quite clear as to what he wants and why. It can no longer be a private issue of pastoral care.
He does not wish to live in the moral and spiritual manner of the Church yet wants the Church to endorse his sinful, even heretical choices.
There should be no debate, simply a polite but firm no every time he presents himself for communion. If he then departs from the Church physically as he has already done spiritually, then he will suffer the consequences. If his demands are met, all of us will suffer the consequences.
There are perhaps more important things for us to attend to and if the bishops would do their job and not rush to the waffle line, we would not have to attend to these things.
It appears that Met. Savos has already caved BTW.
We would do better if we took the same stance for all fornicators and adulterers not just the homosexual ones.
Chastity and celibacy before marriage. Chastity and faithfulness after marriage. Marriage is a blessed union between one man and one woman with Jesus Christ at the center
Anyone who denies these basic, simple moral and spiritual precepts is in rebellion and without repentance should not partake of Holy Communion which is a gift, not a thing to be taken by force.
Now, the question is whether or not Mr. Pappas is being denied simply because he suffers from same sex attraction or because he identifies with his sin and no longer sees it as such.
He apparently wants the Church to validate that capitulation.
RE: “We would do better if we took the same stance for all fornicators and adulterers not just the homosexual ones.”
Mr. Bauman, His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah did precisely that in the summer of 2011 in two archpastoral letters–one in June to the priest-confessors of the OCA’s Archdiocese of Washington and the other in July to all of the faithful of that Archdiocese. Those, at once, pastoral and prophetic proclamations are worthy models for other bishops, including Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh, to emulate.
He did at that Fr Alexander. Looking at what Syosset did to him, I am now more convinced than ever that the leaden foot of liberalism has been winning for quite awhile now.
We’ll see how Metropolitan Savas Zembillas handles this kerfuffle.
Yes, Father. A good thing. Now the rest of us need to do it.
Michael, your list of sins is only a beginning, we all need to constantly check ourselves, repent, and confess before receiving Holy Communion. The church frowns on communion without repentance and confession (before a priest who follows the moral guidelines of the church) and on those who think that their sin is okay.
Since I cannot list all of the sins, even my own, I limited the list to the few I felt most germaine. Romans I has a more comprehensive list. But generalities without specifics tends to excuse everybody of everything.
Lusts of the flesh, even if only temptations keep us from the Kingdom. Lust if power too. Seems the latter is more in play here.
In any case if we were all to practice chastity of mind, soul and tounge
then it really wouldn’t matter.
Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD says:
“Pastoral” and “prophetic” are a bit overstated. Some would say “boilerplate.” Nobody paid them any mind.
OOM, I’m sorry but your animus towards HB blurs your reasoning skills. HB’s encyclicals to the clergy and laity of his diocese were eloquent and pointed. And yes, they probably helped do him in.
George:
There’s no animus towards HB, at all. Father Alexander claimed a pastoral and prophetic spirit in those letters. What’s his evidence? The mere fact that Father Alexander approved of the sentiments he found there?
It’s all well and good to exhort the bishops to write eloquent and pointed letters. The test of whether an encyclical is truly prophetic is whether it transforms the church and the lives of those within the church. I submit that HB’s encyclicals had NO impact on the church, at all. No one who does not already subscribe to the cult of personality surrounding HB is paying attention to him. That’s not personal hostility towards the man. It’s a sad state of affairs, really. The bishops write missives about church teaching – HB is not the only one – and the church at the ground level (parishes, priests, laity) pays no heed. Archpastoral letters are folded into church bulletins, and just as quickly wind up in recycling bins. The bishops are just farting in the wind.
Well you see that is precisely what was/ is so tragic about what happened. People in disagreement or who just never thought about the issues were challenged by the letter and in general by many of his speeches. People who had glazed over had a reaction, others were excited, others just turned their head a little. It was a first in many many years. HB had people’s attention, but because he was not supported-not only not supported but attacked for speaking up he himself was shut down and that window of opportunity to embolden the Church was squashed. That was stupid on the part of many. Now there is a kind of hypocrisy about the OCA because of the many scandles. They people are even harder to reach.
Like everything that occurred in the “first four years that were a disaster,” these letters were written in reaction to the “disaster” that were the events in Met. Jonah’s own cathedral. The “pastoral and prophetic spirit, eloquent and pointed,” bear the unmistakable mark of Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky, who undoubtedly wrote them. And as Other other Matthew, notes, without a voice of moral authority, they are so may words on some obscure, unread webpage in the ether, joining more of the same. By mid-2009 it was as clear as day where the “gay agenda” was headed. With the CA Supreme ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional and the appeal headed to the 9th Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals, the sponsors and funders of the appeal were absolutely transparent as to there mission and process of taking the matter to the SCOTUS. Met. Jonah’s “prophetic words” were two years yet in the making, and I had posted warnings twice already (“Get your ya-ya’s out!”). And so it goes…
On the other hand, Mr. Michalopulos, grasping at straws, too little too late, you cannot prevent yourself from turning Other other Matthew‘s observation into “animus,” and transforming Met. Jonah simply stating the “Truth” of the Faith into another Chrysostom (ironically written by someone who supposedly “did him in”), he “sealed his own fate,” suggesting the “confrontational” power of the words sent his enemies “reeling”: “Destroy him or be destroyed!” Seriously, the letters, while indeed pastoral (one was a directive to priests), are remarkable for being forgettable. If I had something to hide, I would have feared Julie Drehr, not Met. Jonah. As near as I can tell, she is the only person with the demonstrated power to humiliate him to action… once.
Mr. Michalopulos: “I want the truth!”
Other other Matthew: “You can’t handle the truth!”
MS: (sigh)
Do not presume that because you do not live a homosexual lifestyle, your sins are any more palatable to God. They’re not. All sin is an abomination. I truly fear for those of you who think you are worthy to partake. None of us are “worthy” and you should think about that each and every time you step up to that chalice. It is a gift. Not something you earned.
Gail, and your point? I was given a penance several years ago that involved a time away from the cup. God be praised. If I was turned away tomorrow, I would not even ask why. I would go back to my pew and attempt to pray for contrition while giving thanks to God. I don’t find that attitude in what Mr. Pappas.
That anyone should expect, much less demand communion is a great sorrow indicative of the spirit of the world.
BTW, to me this exposes the perniciousness of the idea of a “spiritual father”. Most such are not anything but spiritual enablers.
My point is that I agree with you. Sin is missing the mark. It doesn’t matter by how much or by what means. Sin is sin. The presumption is that we will try to overcome it and therein lies the rub: if you live a gay lifestyle, you have no intention of overcoming it. May God forgive us all.
oops-that was meant as a positive vote not a negative one . . . .
There are two fallacies here.
First, Gail, you (and several other commentators) conflate judging personal sanctity with maintaining clarity in regards the teachings of the church. But these are two entirely different things. We are not to judge sinners as persons (including ourselves) but rather become aware of our own sinfulness (not the sinfulness of others) and repent of it. On the other hand, if we are to be capable of even seeing our sinfulness, we must meanwhile insist on complete fidelity to the teachings of the Church, and cling to clarity about them, rather than dissolve them all into some vague, amorphous pool of sinfulness in general.
Second, you (and Mr Pappas, and a number of other people here) fall into the fallacy of moral equivalence. Yes, all sins are sins, just like Kias and Maseratis are equally cars, toenail fungus and lung cancer are both equally diseases, and littering and murder are equally crimes, but anyone would happily trade cancer for toenail fungus, and murder is clearly more grievous than littering. We are not told in Scripture that all sins are “abominations,” as you imply, but only certain sins. This is reflected in the canons of the Church, which while not constituting rigid “rules,” certainly indicate the patristic consensus on the relative seriousness of the sin. And in the Canons, homosexual acts (and especially certain male homosexual acts) are subjected to extremely harsh penalties, much more severe in fact than fornication and adultery!
This is the science of the soul handed down to us by the Fathers, a precious gift that we scorn at our own peril. It does no one any good to pretend that all sins are equal, nor is this the teaching of the Church. It is abundantly clear that, according to both Scripture and the teachings of the Fathers, some sins are worse than others. But again, this is not to say that any sin is justifiable or trivial..
Granted, as you seem to suggest, personal piety will lead us to focus upon the heinous character of the least of our own sins, so that we may repent. But it is silly and confusing and not conducive to salvation to suggest that lesser and greater don’t apply here.
There are two fallacies here.
First, you (and several other commentators) conflate judging personal sanctity and maintaining clarity in regards the teachings of the church. But these are two entirely different things. We are not to judge sinners (including ourselves) but rather become aware of our own sinfulness (not the sinfulness of others) and repent of it. On the other hand, if we are to be capable of even understanding our own sinfulness, we must at the same time insist on fidelity to the teachings of the Church, and clarity about them, rather than dissolve them all into some vague, amorphous pool of sinfulness in general.
Second, you (and Mr Pappas, and a number of other people here) fall into the fallacy of moral equivalence. Yes, all sins are sins, just like Kias and Maseratis are equally cars, toenail fungus and lung cancer are equally diseases, and littering and murder are equally crimes. Yet any sane person would happily trade cancer for toenail fungus, and murder is obviously more grievous than littering.
In fact, we are not told in Scripture that all sins are “abominations,” as you imply, but only certain sins. This is also reflected in the canons of the Church, which while not rigid “rules,” certainly indicate the patristic consensus on the relative seriousness of the sin. And homosexual acts (and especially certain male homosexual acts) are subject to extremely harsh penalties. It does no one any good to pretend that all sins are equal, nor is this the teaching of the Church.
As you seem to suggest, personal piety will lead us to focus upon the heinous character of the least of our own sins, so that we may repent. But it is silly and confusing and not conducive to salvation to suggest that lesser and greater don’t apply here.
This is an important point. Making homosexual acts “equivalent” to sinful heterosexual acts is part of the making of homosexuality equivalent to heterosexuality, but dressed up in theological terms. Out of a sense of “fairness”, Christian folks will often enter these discussions with a disclaimer that they want it to be understood that they regard adultery, fornication, etc. as equally grievous sins to homosexual activity. And of course, this is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole story.
If you find that the priest or the parson has had an adulterous relationship with a grown woman, does it feel the same as if you find that he has had one with a grown man? No.
If you and your wife of many years are walking down the street of the city, and you see a young man and woman in love, holding hands– your heart is lifted and you remember your own young love, and the love you still share. If it is a same sex couple, is your heart lifted, and do you feel that joy?
No, but our new culture wants to insist on that very thing, and thus call our very nature into question.
Who would downvote this post? Dear God.
Ages asks, “Who would downvote this post/”
I, for one.
Gail voices the truism according to which “all sin is abomination.”
Sorry, but this will not do.
According to Father John Touloumes, this man was denied access to the Chalice, not because he was a sinner, but because he publicly contracted an official sexual union sanctioned by the State of Illinois.
That is to say, the man committed an act of public heresy by proclaiming a theology of marriage different from that contained in the Gospel once delivered to the saints.
If heresy doesn’t deprive you of access to the Chalice, then the fat lady should start warming up.
Now that is interesting? Didn’t Fr. Thomas Hopko come out in favor of civil unions a while back? Wonder what he would have done?
Marriage can be a civil union, but a civil union is not a marriage. Marriage sanctified by the Church is the only form of union acceptable to God.
Anything else may serve as a legal contract in the eyes of the state and therefore may be useful for the acquisition and disposition of property, as well as the assignment of insurance benefits, but that’s about it.
The raison d’etre for the so-called civil union is purely legal and secular and from that standpoint may have some justification. The result is unsavory and uncomfortable, but as a “business entity” if you will, it is reasonable to permit its existence. However, the idea that this arrangement must be sanctified by the Church (or any ecclesiastical body for that matter) and accepted as a Christian marriage by her faithful is chauvinistic and intolerant–the very traits these people accuse us of. What hypocrites they are!
The trouble with Hopko is that despite his excellent preaching skills, he’s thrown in his lot with the secularist/ecumenist agenda of Lefty Kishkovsky and the Phanariotes.
Hopko has to be one of the most overrated so-called Orthodox theologian in the USA. His work is shallow and self-centered. Worse, his self-appointed status as some sort of “elder” to clergy is dangerous. He is a troubled person who was a disaster as Dean of SVS. He almost ruined the place and his departure under the guise of retirement was a gentle way to show him the door. One can only hope that AFR will muzzle him because listening to his stream of consciousness podcasts can be dangerous to your spiritual health.
Yep, can’t argue with that! No experience with the podcasts! No inclination whatsoever … Same with his “forbears,” S&M !
“Yep, can’t argue with that! No experience with the podcasts! No inclination whatsoever … Same with his “forbears,” S&M !”
Toeing the party line, that is to be expected.
The facts exonerate Schmeman and Meyendorf. If your judgement is any indication, they will exonerate Fr. Hopko as well.
George, I truly object to this gratuitous and anonymous slur on Father Tom Hopko, apropos of nothing.
You’re right Fr. I should have withheld my tongue.
Hello friends:
As I write this message the thumzupper tally for the Hopko? post of June 8 at 2:20 p.m. stands at +5 from 17 votes. How sad!
This one, average-sized paragraph contains 10 successiv, sweeping, railing judgments on Fr. Thomas – his theology, performance as Dean, psycho-spiritual state, and pastoral skills.
Let’s count the evidence adduced by our anonymizer: zero. A literal broadside of judgment and negativity ***completely*** unsupported by a shred of evidence.
And what of “Hopko?’s” credentials for making these damning judgments about Fr. Thomas? Well actually there’s no mention, let alone evidence, of those either.
Let’s take a look at the list of professional skills one would hope or expect a good and intelligent, not to say sincere and mature, Orthodox Christian, to possess before making such conclusions public.
At least a doctorate in theology to justify the complete negativity about Fr. Tom’s theology. A medical degree with specialty in psychiatry and/or decades as a starets in order to pronounce Fr. Tom “troubled.” (i know, I know – no ethical psychiatrist would make such public pronouncements about a patient, even anonymously, and no starets would do so in this way either, which points out that our poster lacks both a) the professional & and spiritual credentials and b) the ethical integrity such people would have.) Also an advanced degree in educational management in order to devalue his seminary deanship.
I have several pieces of bad news for the poster “Hopko?” 1. Jesus Christ has promised to judge him by the same standards he uses on Fr. Hopko. 2. His slip is showing. Fr. Thomas was widely quoted in the months before Met. Jonah’s resignation as calling him “troubled.” This is the very word the poster uses to devalue Fr. Thomas in this post. Seems to me a clear indication of possible tit for tatting by someone aggrieved by the role he feels Fr. Tom played in Met. Jonah’s resignation …and wishes to give payback. It is to the shame of George M. that he hosts such garbage. 3. This kind of overblown, unsupported judgmentalism is simply transparent character-assassination to anyone with experience, a brain and a little juice to run it. 4. It is often supposed that people who pronounce such unsupported judgments on others from ambush are unintentionally revealing their own flaws in the accusations they make, such as a liar saying someone else does not tell the truth. In this case shallow, self-centered, troubled and spiritually dangerous are what he has accused Fr. Thomas of. And for the theory that he is really listing his own shortcomings, our poster “Hopko?” has furnished a great deal of evidence indeed!
Fr. Tom may or may not have been right in his evaluation of Met. Jonah and the support he gave or withheld from him. I started to raise the topic with him once at a public buffet dinner where he was momentarily sitting alone, but others in the line came along to sit down and I never got to follow up. Even if he was wrong, nobody purporting to be a well-informed and mature-enough Orthodox Christian to formulate such opinions should ever vomit them out in such a poisonous way. Shame, MUCH shame, on this cowardly,imposter poster.
pointedly,
Fr. George
I’m not sure about Father George’s resort to credentialism, wherein he demands ‘at least” a doctorate in theology of anyone who is completely negative about Protopresbyter Hopko’s theology. It seems to me that it would take only a high school diploma at most to discern that the “rainbow” series of books on Orthodoxy on the high-school or Readers Digest level is blatantly objective about the Faith, the Church, and its teaching. Where a Church Father might say, “It is true that….” or “WE believe that…’ the Protopresbyter goes for the “The Orthodox, however,’ or “on the other hand, the Orthodox.” Never “We Orthodox.” I admit I never felt I had the time to page through that entire series—-what I’ve now written is basically a repetition of Archbishop Dmitri’s comments on it.
Further, insomuch as theology is LiFE and is LIVED rather than being a collection of doctrines about God requiring approval of an academic magisterium, I feel that the most objective evidence of the quality of Protopresbyter Hopko’s theology is not his rainbow books or podcasts or seminary lectures, but a TELLING letter he published on the Monday of the First Week of the Great Fast within 24 hours of the Office of Forgiveness Cheesefare Sunday evening. I won’t rehearse its content. We all know it.
Father George, it only takes a Christian heart and ‘phronema’, such as had Vladyka Dmitri, to discern the quality of the man’s theology. Any resort to credentialism does not adequately address the note by ‘hopko?”.
I would recommend to any catechumen, rather, in preference to anything produced by Protopresbyter Hopko, “The Law of God’ by Father Seraphim Slobodsky, and ‘Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.
It occurred to me today that my reference to the subject as ‘The Dalai Lama of Protopresbyters’ was a little off and unfair to Buddhists. The Protopresbyter’s Lenten letter urbi et orbi was actually the sort of thing that some Grand Ayatollahs produce, that is ayatollahs like the late Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. . The Protopresbyter’s letter was actually nothing but a “fatwah’ JUST like the fatwah Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued on Salomon Rushdie. A biographer might title a chapter; “The Priest as Ayatollah the Saga of a Protopresbyter’s Public Excoriation and Condemnation of Fr. Joseph Fester.’
Well we still owe him respect. He has contributed to American Orthodoxy in ways ….and I’m not sure about civil unions. . . I’ve never heard or read him say this.
It’s in his book on same-sex attraction, if I’m not mistaken.
http://www.brianpatrickmitchell.com/2012/10/02/thomas-hopko-on-same-sex-attraction-speaking-the-truth-with-love/
My point regarding Hopko was this (and George got it):
Fr,. John refused communion to Pappas because he contracted a civil union. However, a noteworthy priest in the OCA, Fr. Thomas Hopko, approved of civil unions. This sends, at best, a mixed message. Perhaps that civil unions are ok for the goyim but not for us chosen people? Who knows.
Of course, George is right about Fr. Thomas. Approving a legal designation designed to accommodate an abomination is in itself advocacy of evil.
Misha, would you please quote Fr Hopko in approving of civil unions? I’ve read his “Same Sex Attraction” book, and did not find him approving of them at all. I’ve also had the privilege of sitting under his inspiring and very competent teaching at St Vladimir Seminary, and never heard him supporting civil unions. And, I’ve gone to many talks of his –including hosting him in my mission parish– and I’ve been instructed, convicted and encouraged, but I’ve never heard him defend homosexuality at all. Where do you get your conclusion that Fr Hopko has said or written such an unOrthodox thing?
http://www.brianpatrickmitchell.com/2012/10/02/thomas-hopko-on-same-sex-attraction-speaking-the-truth-with-love/
Brian Patrick Mitchell quotes the book and analyses Fr. Thomas’ views at the website above.
“If Hopko teaches acceptance of homosexuality implicitly in his chapters on church community, pastoral care, counseling, and religion, he does so explicitly in his chapter on civil rights, which begins with the declaration that the civil rights of all homosexuals must be ‘guaranteed and safeguarded.’ This means the same rights to ‘housing, employment, police protection, legal justice, tax benefits, and visitation privileges’ that everyone else enjoys. It also means ‘civil unions’ with all the ‘social and legal benefits’ of marriage. He grants that Christians can’t quite consider same-sex unions ‘marriages,’ but he advises against resisting the same-sex use of the word marriage, calling such resistance ‘unreasonable and counterproductive.’
Hopko names three reasons for extending legal and social recognition and protection to homosexuality—justice, safety, and fear. He writes that (a) ‘Orthodox Scriptures and saints unanimously witness that justice and charity are to be extended to all human beings, without condition or discrimination’; (b) ‘the safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection’; and (c) the denial of recognition and protection is ‘almost always’ understood ‘as an expression of hatred and contempt.’ Each of these reasons is highly suspect, to say the least.”
The thing that Fr. Hopko seems not to want to face is that by recognizing homosexual sexual relations as a basis for civil unions, he is putting an abomination on par with marriage. There’s no way around it. If you extend all the legal benefits of marriage to a person because of the fact that they commit homosexual sodomy with a particular other person, you are equating that relationship with marriage. “Gays” already have the same civil rights as “straights”. If they marry someone of the opposite gender, their spouses would have the same rights as those of a heterosexual couple. What civil unions propose is that rights be allocated on the basis of a homosexual sexual relationship. This is unthinkable from an Orthodox mindset since homosexual sexual relations are an abomination. Poodles don’t get visitation, nor do daughters or sons get conjugal visits.
Yes, he approved of extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples through civil unions, and that is quite unorthodox.
Misha deserves kudos for citing us to actual facts and direct quotes.
Where’s the direct quote? All I read is a misunderstanding of Fr Hopko’s book on the Godliness of genuine brotherly love.
With great respect for Misha, please note that all she quotes is Fr Hopko’s critic, not his book, in her comment above. And Fr Hopko’s critic, please notice, draws his own (errant, I believe) conclusions (not in quotes) on the topics he puts in quotes –in other words, he uses Fr Hopko’s words only to open the subject, and then uses his own words to mischaracterize Fr Hopko’s teaching.
Of course, I could be wrong. I will try to soon re-read and reflect more deeply on this, but through 25 years of reading and knowing Fr Hopko personally, I have never heard in any of his teachings or lectures, nor read in any of his writings (and I’ve read them all), nor do I believe that Fr Hopko endorses same sex civil unions.
Please also note that in his book, Fr Hopko very clearly teaches:
+ Both Scripture and holy Tradition teach that homosexuality is an abomination and completely unacceptable
+ God does not make people homosexual
+ People are not naturally homosexual
+ Same-sex attraction is a result of man’s rebellion against God
+ Homosexual sex is a “betrayal” of the love God intends for us
+ Sodomy can never express divine love
+ Same-sex sexual activity is “incapable” of edifying souls
+ Acceptance of homosexuality today is the general madness prophesied by St. Anthony of the Great: “A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad, you are not like us.”
+ Those who publicly affirm and promote homosexual behavior (like those who publicly advocate abortion) cannot be communicants in the Orthodox Church
+ Those openly propagating homosexuality should be excluded even from church gatherings to prevent harm done to others, especially the young
Again, with respect (we are on the same side!), I think that before anyone states what Fr Hopko believes, unless it is explicit in his own words (and this charge is NOT), one should speak to the good father himself and ask Fr Hopko how we are to understand his defense of brotherly love.
–and brotherly/sisterly love must be defended, if we are to present the Gospel fully. (This confusion and unfulfilled genuine need is why the deceived point out biblical examples of brotherly/sisterly love, such as King David and Jonathan, and mistakenly conclude they were homosexual.)
Part of healing is recognizing this God-given need all of us have –that’s the deceiving part of the psychosis! And part of the healing process is to form genuine relationships of Godly brotherly/sisterly love with a “mentor in Christ” member of the same sex. Until we affirm, along with the truth that what the homosexual does is a “grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered,” that what s/he is striving for may be a genuine need, then not only will we never have the ears of those who suffer from same sex attraction, we will not be communicating the Gospel truth about human relationships in Christ.
Fr Mark
+
Nonsense, the quotes from Fr. Thomas’ book are the ‘quotes within quotes’ in the excerpt from the blog I posted above. Those are Fr. Thomas’ words from the book itself. I leave it to you to find them in the book. I do not see a free copy of the book online from which to quote and I don’t own it.
Hopko names three reasons for extending legal and social recognition and protection to homosexuality—justice, safety, and fear. He writes that (a) ‘Orthodox Scriptures and saints unanimously witness that justice and charity are to be extended to all human beings, without condition or discrimination’; (b) ‘the safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection’; and (c) the denial of recognition and protection is ‘almost always’ understood ‘as an expression of hatred and contempt.’ Each of these reasons is highly suspect, to say the least.”
If advocating the “legal and social recognition and protection” of homosexual relationships is not an endorsement of civil unions, well, that’s silly, it obviously is.
Here is Hopko in his own words:
This is the opening paragraph of chapter 19, “Same-Sex Attraction and Civil Rights,” of Hopko’s Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction (Conciliar Press, 2006).
And here is my previously published judgment on this particular chapter:
So, Fr. Mark, what do you think of our celebrated doctor of the Church now?
I have already referred to this imbecilic commentary as a sandbagging in that they are taken totally out of the context of the time in which they were written. Unlike today, in 2006, “civil unions,” though limited to certain states and certain “progressive” employers & corporations, were frequently the only available means of securing affordable health insurance and housing for same-sex couples with children, specifically when they did not qualify for public assistance, yet they could not afford to purchase such services themselves.
Years earlier in NY, when I was a psychiatry resident, I had a patient who was the abuse victim of a Christian minister who was the mother of seven children, who were also victims of his “discipline.” When she finally got the courage to leave him and entered a same-sex relationship, he came, broke in, and savagely assaulted all of them, sending them to my hospital, and her to my care. Her husband had fled, but returned and pleaded with the court that he had been driven to act through humiliation as a minister, blah, blah, blah. My patient was granted an order of protection – which is, in effect, a meaningless gesture to someone intent on harm – and he was ordered to pay child support and provide health insurance, which he never did. I was advized by my mentor at SVS – not Fr. Hopko – to do exactly as as Fr. Hopko advizes in his book: protect their union as the only manner by which to provide safety (secure housing) and necessary societal protection and services (health insurance & school) under the law. You call this “an endorsement of civil unions” contrary to Orthodox theology? I call it utilizing the only available resource at the time to protect seven children.
The only reason you are able to raise this point time and again is because you lack the fundamental compassion necessary to appreciate why and how an Orthodox pastor could look upon a fellow human being, and despite the enormity of their “abomination,” weep with the angels at our fallen human nature. And as long as you are asking Fr. Mark what he thinks of Fr. Hopko now, why not ask him to evaluate his prophecy of the two of you, nearly ten years in the making: “Those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active, almost always understand a denial of such public recognition and protection as an expression of hatred and contempt toward themselves and their families.”
Thank you, Deacon Brian.
This has been public knowledge for quite sometime. I’m surprised anyone would challenge that he wrote it.
Interesting phrase: “those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active.”
These words demonstrate Hopko’s tendency to limit his condemnation of homosexuality to “genital sexual actions,” which would pretty much allow homosexuals to live as they please within the Church, as long as they don’t copulate in public. Copulating in private is no problem, because no one will see them and, as Hopko says, it’s nobody’s business but their father-confessors—men like Hopko—whom Hopko says we have no choice but to trust.
Really now. This is disastrous teaching—grossly irresponsible for a man of Hopko’s learning and stature (at least the stature he had before he wrote such nonsense).
For those who need proof, I have added the opening paragraph of Hopko’s chapter 19, quoted above, to my critique of his teaching on my blog.
Misha, would you please quote Fr Hopko in approving of civil unions? I’ve read his “Same Sex Attraction” book, and did not find him approving of them at all. I’ve also had the privilege of sitting under his inspiring and very competent teaching at St Vladimir Seminary, and never heard him supporting civil unions. And, I’ve gone to many talks of his –including hosting him in my mission parish– and I’ve been instructed, convicted and encouraged, but I’ve never heard him defend homosexuality at all. Where do you get your conclusion that Fr Hopko has said or written such an unOrthodox thing?
Wow, Mr. Pappas left that fact out.
Well, Father, there is a reason no one takes me too seriously. I remember in a logic class a teacher telling me, “Gail, I don’t know how you do it, but you manage to reach the right conclusion applying no logic whatsoever.” I clearly come at things a little differently. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong. What I said is true. All sin is an abomination to God, but there is sin and then there is challenging the Church. Seems to me you’re making the distinction and I agree with you. “These are fighting words” (speaking of the blog), as my Irish grandmother used to say. Withholding the Chalice may be an act of mercy, as threatening the teachings of the Church could be construed as grounds for expulsion. – Greg, St. Paul’s words are a thorn in our collective sides for a variety of reasons. We all struggle, mightily. But what an honor it is to struggle for something you love. Truly. . .
Gail, don’t every change. You’re a sweetheart and your heart’s in the right place. That’s why you usually come to the right conclusion.
I agree, Father, but I was commenting on Michael’s post, “We would do better if we took the same stance for all fornicators and adulterers not just the homosexual ones,” etc., not Gail’s. I just wanted to clarify that.
Ages, I believe that the church does take a similar stance on all sin, but we are dealing with a specific case here, one that is rather odious and threatens the life of the church. This man is apparently practicing open homosexuality and has contracted with a same-sex partner in a civil marriage. He will ultimately answer to God and without repentance before his death, I would fear the results.
This reminds me of a wonderful Baptist pastor that I studied under in my undergraduate studies. He told the story of counseling a woman, a very prominent, important woman, who was desiring his approval of her breaking up her marriage and the marriage of another church couple so that she could have the other woman’s husband. She was very insistent that the pastor approve of her satanic plans. The pastor kept quoting scripture to her every effort to obtain approval; she finally got fed up with the godly opposition to her plans, slammed her hands down on his open bible and said, “I am tired of all of the bible ….!” The pastor calmly stated, “Madame, you have made a big mistake, you have ignored godly counseling and cursed this bible.” She went ahead with her plans and died on her so-called second honeymoon with the new husband. The wages of sin is death.
In Our Most Holy Orthodox Church, it does not matter what I believe or think, what is correct. What you believe or think what is correct. Me and you have many Evil and Sinful Passions, and definitely we are not guided by the Most Holy Spirit. The Holy and Saintly Orthodox Fathers of Our Most Precious Orthodox Church are ALWAYS guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Fathers call Homosexuality, one of the Most Evil, Satanic, Demonic, Worst of All Passions is the Lust between Men. ABOMINATION of DESI-CREATION. Total Destruction of Both SOUL and BODY. The Wrath of the Almighty GOD comes upon that person who by choice becomes a Homosexual (Gay).
Our Lord and Savior JESUS CHRIST and His Bride the Holy Orthodox Church is the Same in the Past, Present, and in the Future. He does not change for our Modern Times. The Bible has been around for over 2,000 years speaking How Evil Homosexuality Is. Do you think JESUS and His Holy Orthodox Church is going to change for your Demonic, Satanic, Lust for other Men. ” REPENT THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND”
Who ever corrects himself to the framework of the Holy Scriptures is a True Orthodox Christian. He, who fights them, finds himself outside the rule of the Holy Faith. And if this deceived person comes to tell you that Holy Scripture teaches what he believes, then, tell me, have you no mind of your own or reasoning ability.
(Saint John Chrysostomos)
The Bible consistently tells us that Homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that Homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, GOD “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from GOD. 1Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of GOD.
GOD does not create a person with Homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that people become Homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to Homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with Homosexuality.
The Holy Fathers in Our Orthodox Church describe Homosexuality a “Greater” SIN than any other. All sin is offensive to GOD. But Homosexuality Brings about the Wrath of GOD. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, GOD’S forgiveness is just as available to a Homosexual as it is to an Adulterer, Idol Worshipper, Murderer, Thief, etc. If that person repents (tears of True repentance are shed for that Abominable Great SIN) and confesses that Grave SIN to a Orthodox Spiritual Father. GOD also promises the strength for victory over sin, including Homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13), and repent and confess their Sins.
Saint John Chrysostom Denounces Homosexual Acts as being Contrary to Nature. Commenting on the Epistle to the Romans (1: 26-27), he says that the Pleasures of Sodomy are an Unpardonable Offense to Nature and are Doubly Destructive, since they Threaten the Species by Deviating the Sexual Organs away from their Primary Procreative end and they Sow Disharmony between Men and Women, who no longer are inclined by physical desire to live together in peace.
The Holy Saintly Brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople employs most severe words for the vice we are analyzing. Saint John Chrysostom makes this strong argument: “All Passions are Dishonorable, for the Soul is even more Prejudiced and Degraded by SIN than is the Body by Disease; but the WORST OF ALL PASSIONS IS LUST BETWEEN MEN…. The Sins against Nature are More Difficult and Less Rewarding, since True Pleasure is only the one According to Nature. But when GOD abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their Passions [of the Homosexuals] SATANIC, but their lives are DIABOLIC….. So I say to you that these are even worse than Murderers, and that it would be Better to Die than to Live in such Dishonor. A Murderer only separates the SOUL from the BODY, whereas these Destroy the SOUL inside the BODY….. There is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing more MAD or Damaging than this Perversity.” (St. John Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Romanos IV, in J. McNeill, op. cit., pp. 89-90)
“And the Great Issue now of Homosexuality in your Country, that shall be on the balance that Michael holds. Unless this balance is evened by removing this EVIL from your Country and bringing in Just Laws to prevent the spread of Homosexuality, you cannot be saved; your Country cannot be saved. Because I repeat again, as I have repeated in the past: When a Country has given itself over to Immorality and all Pleasures of the Flesh, and Abominations of the Flesh, then that Country will FALL! If you do not believe Me, My children, I say: You will read your history books, and you will find out that there was a Sodom and Gomorrah. And what did We do to that Abominable city, Sodom? We Destroyed it! And what did We do to Gomorrah? We Destroyed it! And We Destroyed all who did not follow the plan for their redemption.”
Where is the last paragraph quoted from?
I googled. They seem to come from Veronica Lueken–some private revelations from some RC lady from Bayside, NY.
Independent of the ethical merits of the case made, Ms. Lueken is, simply put, widely held to be a nutter. Why not stick with Paul, Chrysostom, and a host of other commentators, all of whom make the same case biblically, ethically, and in a thoughtful, reflective fashion, rather than with unnecessary, overblown rhetoric?
Greg,
I have a question. Is this a personal issue or a cause? If it is a personal issue, why are we all in on it? Seems to me this could easily be resolved with a simple phone call from your spiritual father to Fr. John. I’m sorry, but I have to question your intentions. I’m hearing a lot of justification, which is usually a sign of the ego trying to establish turf. Is this about approaching the Chalice or furthering some other agenda? So far, I can ‘t help but think it’s the latter. If this is only about working out your salvation, I shouldn’t be reading about it in a blog.
A struggle, with repentance, against a personal sin vs. the celebration of a cause is PRECISELY the line that Pope Francis was drawing.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2014/01/journalists-editing-pope-francis-who-are-we-to-judge/
It is my understanding that homosexual orientation is not a sin. I am a straight heterosexual female. But if I had a gay homosexual orientation, why on earth should I be denied to receive Holy Communion? After all, wouldn’t that be only integral in staying on the path? Because someone has same sex attraction and honest about it, they are denied to partake of the Holy Eucharist? Many of the Bishops are known to have this tendency, and are NOT honest about it, yet they are examples for the laity? Who are we kidding here…. There are heterosexuals who approach the Chalice weekly who are known in the community to be co-habitating before marriage, yet are not rejected to receive. NOBODY is worthy to receive, yet all of us sinners approach the Chalice.
This type of judgement has no place in the Church. I have been witness to several suicides in my own community alone, by teens who know they have homosexual tendencies, but knew they would be rejected by their family and their Church for their orientation. Is this what our Lord wants?!?! Loving and accepting a homosexual brother/sister as a fellow sinner like all of us, worthy to receive Communion, is very different from allowing the Sacrament of Marriage to a gay couple in the Orthodox Church. I am saddened that the adolescents in the community have to question their own existence and self worth based on the opinions expressed on this forum of those who claim to be Orthodox Christians.
You should read the post above yours-and below and well, there are several here . . .
The most recent studies have shown that suicides are happening because or rejection from their lovers and not rejection from the parents.
I’ll try to find the article.
Stacey, your are wrong and confused. If Mr. Pappas were not committing sinful acts he wouldn’t have been called to repentance. I have had the experience of being under penance away from the cup. It was a loving and healing time during which I grew significantly. It is neither judgemental nor a punishment.
Read the post by Ages. Read the book: Washed and Waiting.
Stacy,
“Homosexual orientation” is a myth. There is no such thing as homosexuality. There are, however, human persons who have severely disordered passions and commit perverse acts with persons of the same sex (or desire to do it). When those disordered passions become a custom and habit, that person begins to IMAGINE that the passion to which they have willfully bound themselves is the identity of their person and call themselves homosexuals. It is, however a trick of the devil to lead such a person away from the possibility of redemption in Christ, who can heal them of the disordered passion and make them WHOLE and sexually NORMAL. Committing perverse sexual acts is ABNORMAL behavior, contrary to the divine will and His created order.
The notion that logismoi that suggest acts of perversion (sexual or otherwise), entertainted and considered are not sinful is WRONG. Homosexual desire is an expression of the entertainment of logismoi and therefore sinful.
Hello Father,
I agree in everything you say, but my wife points out that there is a huge increase in what have called ‘girly-boys’. She says that our food is changing many because of the hormones. For instance soy is full of estrogen and we are a soy-eating nation. She continually mentions chemical-imbalances as a contributing factor in many of the social and health problems that are rampant in our nation and now the world, for that matter.
We have a philosophical disagreement in this matter once in a while.
Stacy,
You cannot be entirely faulted to misunderstand the import of the Pappas affaire, as his writing to Fr John, et.al. and here on the blog do not fully disclose the situation he created. Mr Pappas was disingenuous in his writing, leaving out the salient fact that he is ‘married’ to another man by civil union and feels that he has a ‘right’ to Holy Communion by virtue of his role in the Greek community. He conveniently left this out of his letter, instead accusing Fr John, who refused communing him, of ‘intolerance’. Mr Pappas is guilty of category error, reconstruing his breach with Orthodoxy into a matter of mere interpretation of various (absurd) canons.
Fr John does not discriminate against the man. He is only holding thew line against heresy – equivalence of homosexual union with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Heresy means Mr. Pappas chose this view and consequent action, and by it, has excommunicated (alienated) himself from the Body of Christ which is made present in Communion.
I feel bad for and pray for Gregory Pappas — it seems like he’s going through a lot these days — but his counseling and therapy should be done in private, not in a public forum.
The chief problem with Mr Pappas’s complaint as he wrote is, in essence, it screams “I deserve.” He deserves holy communion, for what? For being a loyal Greek American? For using our fallen human logical reasoning skills to deduce that he knows better than the church, that he “deserves” holy communion?
Come on man, you know it ain’t so.
Like Mr Pappas, I’m of Greek descent, but I left the GOA long ago because the parishes I grew up in preached Greekness over Orthodox Christianity, and for young Americans struggling in our spiritually barren secular society, we need Christ preached first and foremost — we need to be instilled with the Holy Spirit. Greekness *must* be a very distant second, if it is encouraged at all.
Who needs GOYA but our parents lamenting the departure from a country many of us will never see.
And I’m sorry, but what business does a 17-year-old have being on a parish council? Christ never even began teaching till he was about 30 years old — and so we should not have leadership positions (especially in the church) until we are at least 30 years old. Mr Pappas, your priest failed you in allowing a 17-year-old on the parish council. I hope you can forgive him.
I left the GOA long ago, and for me it was wonderful for my spiritual growth. Small English-speaking mission parishes comprised of at least half adult converts teach you most about the faith.
The future of Orthodoxy in America belongs to the converts and to those born in the faith who keep faithful to it in humility, who deserve nothing but who receive all by the grace of Christ.
I’d advise Mr Pappas to leave the GOA, start attending a small, English-language-only mission parish, to go to vespers, liturgy, and confession regularly, to not discuss his sexuality with anyone except his priest, and to make “Greekness” an entirely secondary issue in his life, if it plays a role at all. In time, Christ will make Himself known.
Again, Christ and His Church belong to all who seek Him in humility and love, not to those who are of a certain ethnic group.
The problem is that the sin that Gregory is trying to get his priest to overlook is still a sin, and the new English-language mission parish will not help him a bit if he does not give up his reported sinful lifestyle.
Pappas seems to like to throw his weight around. His presence as a man in civil union with another man would not be salutory in a small mission parish and if the priest would commune him – self-excommunicated by his heresy – it would destroy the mission through scandal. Any Bishop worth singing “Eis polla” to would suspend any priest who would commune Pappas.
just throw the bible away ………………..
disgusted with this whole mess………….
Do not loose heart. We all feel that way sometimes. It is pretty simple if you just do what is right. My grandmother from Crete always knew where where the Church was. The bishops need a grandmother to straighten them out. If you told my grandmother that homosexuality was an alternative lifestyle a ok with the Church, she would have hit you with a pot!
I like her.
Me too.
I don’t know her, but I love your grandmother! She likely understood it is not a woman’s place to coddle the males in her family. It sickens my heart to read some of the posts by women who wish to coddle and enable such sin because they fear the young males will commit suicide. Ladies, raise your sons to be men, not to be pseudo females…..
Three cheers for Yiayia!
(Scarcasm on) Don’t you understand? We have evolved brother, I say we have evolved! We now know in our superior modern knowledge and science that the teaching of the Church is wroooong, brother. Wroooong I say!
Let me here you say it!
You won’t say it? Then you must be cast out! Cast out in humiliation and tears to eat dust all the days of your life for you deny the modern prophets! (Scarasm off)
Who is judgemental? Who is unloving? Who is divisive? Who has the spirit of anger and coercion?
Not the Church.
Yes, and more. To have sweet old Christian men and women called “haters” because they adhere to what they and the church of Christ have always believed; to have local elected public officials call particular churches “hateful” in public because they have not “evolved”; to have a local church building committee raising money for a new sanctuary roof have their fund-raising venue withdrawn because of boycott threats instigated by local “progressive clergy”….. it goes on and on and it’s just getting started.
I wonder if anyone has yet thought of boycotting the Greek festivals? Maybe Mr. Pappas can get that organized if he doesn’t get the response he wants!
But the saddest thing of all is watching the people just go along with it, and then start repeating it themselves. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, indeed…..
Incidentally, the examples in my first paragraph are only from my own town in just the last few months, and are merely a selection.
This is the fight of our times. Gird your loins.
Mr. Gregory Pappas,
Since you are all for full disclosure, we would like to know the following:
1. Who is your Spiritual Father in Chicago?
2. Is your Spiritual Father a Homosexual Also like yourself ?
3. If your Spiritual Father is a Homosexual like yourself? Do you think Gregory Pappas that he is the Correct Person for you to take spiritual advice from ?
In the Holy Bible JESUS, says “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into Hell.” If they don’t repent & confess their sins, also stopping the sins that they are committing. Punishment of Sin is Eternal Hell Fire.
Jesus used “blind leaders of the blind” to refer to the “ Pharisees (High Priests at that Time) & the Scribes (Professional Interpreters of the Law)
4. Is your Spiritual Father in Chicago a High Priest (Pharisee) of the Holy Orthodox Church of JESUS CHRIST ? Telling you it is Okay to take Holy Divine Communion. The Body and Blood of Our Lord JESUS.
You wrote Gregory Pappas,
Since this story went public, I have received more than two dozen invitations from Greek Orthodox priests and two bishops, all of whom welcomed me into their churches to serve me the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Are they wrong? Will they be breaking canon law? Is Fr. John better than them for applying his perception of the letter of the law?
5. Who are these 2 Bishops that said you can take Holy Communion ?
If they said that you can take Holy Communion they should both be Defrocked as Bishops. (Removed as Bishops)
6. Who are the two dozen priests who invited you to their parishes to receive Holy Communion?
If this is True they should be removed as Priests in the Holy Orthodox Church of JESUS CHRIST.
Gregory Pappas if you want to be respected as a real voice, reveal your source– if there even is one…
Is it possible that you who are a Homosexual, and also maybe your Spiritual Father as well? Do Both of you, have a Demonic agenda to push for Homosexuals to take Holy Divine Communion in the Holy Orthodox Church of JESUS CHRIST ?
Woe to the Homosexual that does NOT Repent and Confess their Sins. The Wrath of the Almighty GOD will come upon them and Destroy them. Lust of flesh for Men with Men is one of the Worst Sins that a person can commit. ABOMINATION of DESOLATION from GOD Himself.
I Hope and Pray that you Repent & Confess and Change your Beyond EVIL Sins, that you are Committing.
The Gates of Hell will never Prevail over the Only True Orthodox Church of JESUS CHRIST, Our Almighty GOD.
Georgios Neketis
George,
I already addressed one of these questions…read above.
Unfortunately, I think I can name at least one of the bishops (but won’t).
The time for naming will come, Isa. Be patient. (Not that it’s going to make a difference, the mould is set.)
This is not the time to be patient. This is the time to name names. Those of us who have children and grandchildren want to know that we can count on a family oriented traditional parish as part of their upbringing. We can’t wait for the mold to set.
“This is not the time to be patient. This is the time to name names.”
Yes, I believe it is.
Hear, hear.
I concur, Fr. Patrick. For too long some Orthodox spiritual fathers and bishops in the United States have, with impunity, tried to cover a multitude of unrepented sins.
Patrick Henry Reardon says:
Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster, PhD says:
What is this? Some kind of threat? What do you intend to accomplish by “naming names”? Is scandal no longer a sin?
Other other Matthew says:
“What is this? Some kind of threat? What do you intend to accomplish by “naming names”?”
“Warning” is a more accurate word than “threat,” I think.
With respect to intention, well, one hopes to restore some sort of sacramental discipline to the Church.
This restoration will require the naming of names.
All in due course. Stay tuned.
And given that it is Fr. Patrick saying so, we can expect it to be the truth spoken in love by which everyone grows up in Christ. (Eph 4:15)
It is hard to know the right timing for such exercises too.
Or how to raise such an issue without getting out of balance (mistakenly making the Church into an outpost of the culture wars rather than the issues that society sees as culture war issues being addressed in perspective for what they really are, issues of the proper incarnation of Faith)
Or how to aim one’s fire to best effect …without wasting ammo by firing wildly in all directions, or (to mix metaphors very thoroughly), by setting more fires than can be tended. If it is managed by the people and methods by which so many wholesale and ill-supported accusations were hurled around here just prior to Met. Tikhon’s election, I am afraid a lot of unnecessary damage (and too little good) will result.
And to work on something as complex as to “restore” “sacramental discipline” without anointing ones’ self as “Jim Dandy to the Rescue.” Or imagining, as Elijah did in despair or self-pity in the cave, that “I, only I, am left” and they “seek my life to destroy it.” There is something so essentially American (and potentially very problematic) in the idea of being a pure restorationist, isn’t there? Tough to do w/o becoming a proud “separationist.”
And perhaps most difficult of all, heeding St. Peter’s advice to above all remain fervent (hot) in love toward one another – with love that covers a multitude of sins (I Pet. 4:8) rather than hot as in hot-tempered or hot-button or hot-shot. How very difficult!
Can the Orthodox Church in N. America be governed in a traditional, orderly, effective fashion in the internet age? One really wonders.
love,
Fr. George
Fr, with all due respect, the Church in America needs real men who believe in the Gospel in the episcopate, not expensively coiffed curators of sacred rites. Everything else (internet included) will fall into place once that happens.
One thing is certain in this brave new world: A honest, faithful Christian will not be able to avoid making enemies and suffering their displeasure. Let us not make an idol of our inoffensiveness by mistaking it for love.
Naming names… sending a warning… in due course… it all sounds rather melodramatic. Or McCarthyite. When someone decides to stand up for all that’s proper with respect to “sacramental discipline,” maybe one could start naming names to the autorities in the Antiochian Archdiocese. Remember the reception of all those Evangelical Orthodox, and the ordinations (to use the term loosely)? VERY SKETCHY. Should they all be allowed to approach the chalice or consecrate the gifts? And what about the remarried priest? Is he still serving? Not to mention the divorced priests. Then there’s the old country. They say any Tom, Dick, or monophysite can approach the chalice in some churches over there. Even “Muhammad” takes communion in some churches, if you catch my drift. They say it’s for the sake of the Christian spouses and children. But WE know better.
I know a certain khouriya who in her own way does more to build up the church than any pompous priest or bishop I ever met. Trouble is, she likes to drink coffee during the communion fast. When I want to “name names,” I know who to contact.
Some months ago, someone posited on this forum that the American Church is the future of Orthodoxy. I pray not.
What we see in this gentleman’s letter is a manifestation of the cultural necrosis that is sweeping contemporary society. The issue here is not one’s tastes and proclivities, but rather the manner in which one deals with them. No shame, no humility, no commitment to follow Truth. “Truth” is now a plastic counterfeit; one that is moulded to conform to an individual notion of reality, rather than a gold standard that one constantly strives to emulate.
The American Church is gangrenous. In two generations, she will still call herself Orthodox and still look Orthodox, but she will have entered union with progressive liberalism: a Progressive Liberal Church of the Byzantine Rite.
Has the Sacrament of Penance become a “signing off” session where one enumerates various sins, awaiting an “A-OK” from the priest, rather than a dedicated commitment after self-examination before God to change one’s ways? Has Holy Communion become a magic potion rather than a Seal of the Grace that Christ promised those who have committed themselves to Him?
One other comment/question:
Does the GOA these days ensure that its faithful practice regular confession? I haven’t worshipped in a GOA parish in almost 25 years now, but certainly back then confession was unheard of. No one did it that I was aware of, and it was never encouraged. I asked about it once as a teenager and was told that it’s “a Catholic thing.”
When I left the GOA in the early 1990s, my first orthodox parish required confession. I was terrified initially — and I’m not joking — terrified. But I forced myself through it and over the past two decades I’ve grown to realize how important the spiritual medicine of confession is to our faith.
Going to confession regularly (a minimum 4 times a year — an absolute minimum) should be the standard for all Orthodox Christians in all of our jurisdictions.
For those in the know, does the GOA encourage regular confession these days? I can’t help but to believe that this important medicine helps to treat spiritual problems. I’m not saying that it “cures” homosexual tendencies, but at a minimum it reinstills humility, crushes pride, renews our baptism, and makes us acutely aware of our unworthiness before God.
A great comment, and one that made me laugh: this is exactly how I felt two months ago– a 66-year-old ex-Presbyterian going to confession– confession!– for the first time! Terror. Because I was going to have to tell the truth about myself. This is the experience that took me out of Protestantism forever.
To think that an adult Orthodox had the same experience himself within the Orthodox church itself is cause for…. wonderment!
My new parish is GOA. Our priest strongly preaches the need for regular confession. How it is elsewhere, I have no idea at all, having only been Orthodox since Palm Sunday.
EO,
Confession is the forgotten sacrament in the Greek church. I’ve heard it from GOA priests and personally observed the attitude. The matushka at a parish I used to go to heard a call in radio show where the host asked people to call in about difference between the RC and the OC. She heard a Greek lady call in and say that one difference was confession, that it was not done in the OC.
I also know one elderly Greek lady who had surgery a couple of years ago (I mean 90’s elderly). Before she underwent it, she went to confession . . . for the first time in her life. I also heard Dr. Stanley Harakas speak once and he joked, disapprovingly, of people coming in at the last minute to receive communion “with syrup dripping from their chins from breakfast at IHOP.” Not that all Greek parishes are the same and I don’t mean to demean them across the board.
OCA, I think, encourages confession at least once a month. I don’t know about Antioch. ROCOR insists on confession at some time in the week previous to your taking communion, usually at the vespers or vigil the night before. I’m not sure that weekly confession is completely necessary, but a priest does not know for sure if we’ve fasted, or if we’ve read the canons of preparation, etc. But in parishes that require confession before communion, the priest does know if we’ve been to confession though and thus that we at least have made some effort to prepare.
With the pride and hubris demonstrated by those who defy God’s law and ridicule the canons of the Church, I repeat the question:
Has the Sacrament of Penance become a “signing off” session where one enumerates various sins, awaiting an “A-OK” from the priest, rather than a dedicated commitment after self-examination before God to change one’s ways?
If there is no shame, no embarrassment, no fear, no remorse, no commitment to change, no struggle against demons, “confession” becomes a debased rite without meaning.
Scratch the opening “With” and substitute “Sorrowed by”
Misha,
That’s not true about ROCOR. I go to a ROCOR parish now, and our priest encourages confession at least once a month — he does not require it every week or before every reception of Holy Communion.
I’ve worshipped in OCA parishes in the past where confession is required only once a year — during Great Lent.
Antiochians, from my understanding, encourage confession at least 4 times a year (during each of the major fasts).
Hmm. I also go to a ROCOR church and we have to have gone to confession within the week before communing.
Interested,
That is unusual. The local OCA priest tells me the norm is once a month. But it is a parish of converts led by a convert and they tend to take things more seriously the older ethnic parishes.
As to ROCOR, I’m sure that confession in the week before communion is the norm. Never been to a ROCOR parish where that is not the case. Not saying that it’s not possible though at this or that parish. Even at the monastery in West Virginia at their pilgrimage weekend, there were several priests there hearing confessions of hundreds of pilgrims before the hierarchical liturgy the next day.
And what if one does not commune anymore than once a year (and I’ve known ROCOR priests advocate that)?
Isa,
Well, of course you would want to confess if you only received once a year. Infrequent reception used to be the case in both the Russian and Greek churches (I don’t know about the Arab Church). The Greeks, perhaps starting in the 1970’s or 1980’s began to push their people to receive more frequently, alas, without any mention of preparation or confession. Thus the IHOP phenomenon I mentioned above.
That is perhaps the worst of all possibilities, that communion is taken for granted as a right. Of course, that’s what we’re talking about here, isn’t it?
Anyway, in contemporary Russian parishes, you see people communing more frequently, but not generally every Sunday. The ones who commune every Sunday are usually small children and their mothers. Ideally, I suppose, you would have both frequent confession and communion. As to rubberstamping sins, I think there is very little danger of that. Just admitting your sins to someone, that they are yours, and that they are sins, is a step in the right direction. A priest can always interject that a penitent needs to work on this or that harder or else refrain from communion. Again, that is what we are talking about here.
“As to rubberstamping sins,”
Did I say that?
“A priest can always interject that a penitent needs to work on this or that harder or else refrain from communion. Again, that is what we are talking about here.”
That is what I say.
Isa,
My remark about “rubberstamping” was in referrence to what Johann Sebastian wrote above. I should have been more specific since I initially addressed you in my last post above. It was this observation of his I had in mind:
“Has the Sacrament of Penance become a “signing off” session where one enumerates various sins, awaiting an “A-OK” from the priest, rather than a dedicated commitment after self-examination before God to change one’s ways?
If there is no shame, no embarrassment, no fear, no remorse, no commitment to change, no struggle against demons, “confession” becomes a debased rite without meaning.”
Yeh, who? I have been in ROCOR since 1985, knew most of the priests in the Chicago Diocese through the 90s, as well as priests in other dioceses, and never heard any priest in ROCOR advocate communion once a year! “Priests?” I doubt it. You heard this from the mouths of these “priests?” Communion once a year for all? Sincerely doubt it!
“I doubt it. You heard this from the mouths of these “priests?” Communion once a year for all? Sincerely doubt it!”
Doubt it if you like, but it still happened. Btw, I said nothing of the Chicago Diocese-nor, for that matter, the American Dioceses. The infrequency of communion (only Pascha, and/or perhaps on one’s names day) is documented well enough for a thousand years in Orthodoxy (one thing, it crops up from time to time in contrast to the daily masses the Vatican pushed, I recall a scene from “War and Peace” that presupposes such a mentality). In Russia and elsewhere. I have only heard it advocated by ROCOR priests, but have seen it presupposed by a number of other Churches/jurisdictions.
I brought it up that it led to a decline not only in Communion, but in Confession as well.
Misha saysj, “OCA, I think, encourages confession at least once a month. I don’t know about Antioch.”
It varies, I believe.
Here at All Saints the norm is simple: If you receive Holy Communion every Sunday, make your Confession once a month–more frequently if needed.
Correction:
It was a talk by Anthony Coniaris where I heard the IHOP quote. I got the names confused.
Clearly you people have no understanding of the Eucharistic practice in Orthodox Tradition. Christ told EVERYONE to receive His body & blood at every Eucharistic celebration and this was the Tradition of the Church from Day 1. Confession, a later development in the Church, was not as it has become today. Christians were instructed not to approach the Eucharist if they had hatred for their brother and should make peace with all before receiving; usually done in private. The idea of “public confession” in the presence of the entire congregation was something for serious offenses like adultery, murder, etc. Later, private confession became the norm to protect all parties. HOWEVER, confession was never regulated to a “LEGALISTIC” approach of “one confession, one reception of the Eucharist;” or “confession once a month;” or any other silly law or formula. An Orthodox Christian should go to Confession as “NECESSARY” and certainly receive the Holy Eucharist at EVERY celebration they attend.
“2. The Early Christians Communed at every Liturgy, and so should we. The present writer has never seen proof of this statement (Acts 2.42 is often quoted, but it is not a proof), but he does accept that Christians in the early centuries communed in general more often than we do now. But what follows from that fact? That we should receive more often in imitation of them? That would be true only if our circumstances were very similar to theirs, and we ourselves similar to the Early Christians.
Until the end of the first millennium, although practice varied, we still find monastic saints practising very frequent Communion, such as St. Theodore the Studite (+821) and St. Symeon the Theologian (+1022). However, St. Symeon, while Communing every day himself, did so with tears – and stressed that if one did not have tears one should not Commune. This is a “hard saying”, and in practice, the Church balances the need to Commune worthily – that is, with tears – with the need not to fall into the hands of the “spiritual wolf” through infrequent Communion.
Nevertheless, the teaching of St. Symeon on who is worthy to receive Communion, though “hard”, should be studied and pondered by all. He writes: “We should know that there are five classes of people for whom, according to the holy fathers, it is forbidden to approach Holy Communion. The first are the catechumens, as they are not yet baptized. The second are those baptized, but who fell in love with shameful and unrighteous ways, such as apostates from the holy life for which they were baptized: fornicators, murderers, usurers, extortioners, slanderers, proud persons, jealous persons, those who harbour grudges, all those who being in such a state do not feel that they are enemies of God and are in a tragic situation, because they do not repent… The third are those possessed by demons, if they blaspheme and mock this Divine Mystery. The fourth are those who have come to their senses and have repented, but are fulfilling the penance (epitimia) laid on them to stand outside the church for a certain period of time. The fifth are those who have not yet the ripened fruit of repentance, i.e. those who have not yet come to the final decision to consecrate their entire life to God and to live the rest of their life in Christ in purity and without reproach. These five classes are clearly unworthy of Holy Communion. He is worthy to commune the precious Mysteries who is pure and has no part with sin, of whom we have spoken above. But when anyone of these worthy persons is corrupted by any corruption, as a man, then, of course, he also communes unworthily, if he does not wash away by repentance that which corrupted him. And so he eats and drinks unworthily who, although he is worthy, unworthily approaches the Holy Mysteries. May we, then, be worthy and commune worthily the most pure Mysteries in Christ Jesus our Lord, to Whom be glory for endless ages of ages. Amen.”[5]
* * *
Again, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite writes: “Three days’ fasting is enough before Communion. Those who are able to fast even for a whole week before, do well.”[6]
Again, consider the following from the life of a nearly contemporary saint, Elder Barsanuphius of Optina (+1912): “I remember once how in a talk he discoursed on frequent Communion and how certain people, citing the example of the Christians of the first centuries, demand permission even now to commune, if not daily, then weekly. ‘They don’t understand that those Christians were constantly prepared for death, and were often taken to prison right from the Liturgy. Each expected that, if not today, then tomorrow his turn would come to suffer for faith in Christ. Then they lived more soberly; their life was, one might say, a continuous state of govenie [fasting in preparation for Communion]. It’s not surprising therefore, that they often communed the Holy Mysteries. We don’t live that way, and we should not equate ourselves with them. Therefore in our Monastery it is agreed upon that the brothers commune six times a year – once during each fast and twice during Great Lent and the Nativity Fast. Deviations from this rule are allowed rarely, and each time with the blessing of the Elder and the Superior, so that one time the brothers were surprised: ‘Why is Fr. So-and-so approaching the Chalice?’ And those who knew what was going on explained, ‘He went through a terrible ordeal. He saw demons in perceptible form and became quite faint. And his spiritual father blessed him to prepare for Communion.’”[8]” – Vladimir Moss, On Frequency of Communion
Tom, I think that is incorrect. 1 Corinthians 5 specifically talks about the feast (ie communion)
1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Are you a bishop sir? If you are not then clearly it does not matter what you consider the true, genuine, perfect and only way of sacramental practice.
In about 1972 or so, Fr Alexander Schmemann wrote a letter to the OCA Synod of Bishops about “frequent communion.” I have the text, if you want it. It is excellent. In it, he encouraged “General Confession,” not as a substitute for personal confession but as a temporary tool to encourage more regular personal confession. He also emphasized that anyone who communed regularly should also confess regularly.
The OCA Synod of Bishops then issued a statement, which as far as I know has never been recinded, which firmly required personal confession at least once a month, for those who commune every Sunday, and more confession if needed (by known sin).
So, although I know of no one who strictly enforces this, at least “officially” the OCA requires those who commune every Sunday & Feastdays to go to confession at least once a month.
Fr Mark
http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/confessionandcommunion.html
Fr. Alexander was considerably stricter than current OCA practice. He required a special blessing for those who wanted to receive more frequently than once a month. Also, he said such blessing should only be granted if the priest is very familiar with the person and that they are immersed in piety. Furthermore, he suggests that confession once a month for someone who wants to commune regularly is a rock bottom minimum. His ideas about General Confession are also interesting. He suggests it for those who do not go to private confession before a liturgy and mandates that it be done the evening before the liturgy.
Actually, his suggestions are closer to practice in ROCOR than current practice in the OCA, ironically. Here is a discussion of the propriety of “general confession”:
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/remarks-on-general-confession/
If the author of the above is correct regarding Fr. Schmemann’s inspiration coming from St. John of Kronstadt and the “open confession” practice of the early Church, then general confession as Schmemann described it is actually his own innovation, or perhaps borrowed from Anglicans, who also have a rite for silent confession and general absolution.
There are two consolations here, and these two consolations will not be changing anytime soon.
1. Adherents of the Patriarchate of Constantinople represent only a very tiny percentage within the Orthodox Church.
2. Adherents of “American Orthodoxy” represent even a tinier percentage.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.”
““By their fruits ye shall know them.””
How do Bolsheviks rate on your fruit scale?
I don’t have a fruit scale! Do you?
I don’t claim apples came off an orange tree, and don’t pine after the freshness of foreign produce while deriding the domestic crops as rotten. Hence I have no need of a fruit scale.
Either the Church is Catholic-Sobornost as St. Tikhon put it in his farewell to the American Church-or it is not. Either it makes it everywhere-and that includes America-or it is useless everywhere.
The Church of Russia was indeed a huge percentage of Orthodoxy, and it gave us the Bolsheviks.
Isa,
The Church of Russia gave no one the Bolsheviks. The tsar abdicated, much of the Church was monarchist, a weak, democratic government took over which was so incompetent as to let a small gang of evil vermin take over. The most liberal democracy in Europe at the time gave us the Bolsheviks.
Lenin, Stalin (the former seminarian) etc. (except Trotsky of course and a few others like Dzerzhynsky) were baptized and raised in the Russian Orthodox Church, as was Kerensky and the others in that “most liberal democracy in Europe” (a position really occupied by the Weimar Republic). Though they did not succeed as far as they wanted (i.e. a total atheist society) the collapse of Holy Mother Russia into the Soviet Union revealed that it had been carrying a lot of dead weight.
Sometimes numbers just make a louder thud.
I know I’m gonna get in trouble for saying this (probably not because Putin recently said the same thing to a large gathering of Russian Jews) but the overwhelming number of Bolshevists were of Jewish descent. Lenin was the only figure of note who was not Jewish. Most all the other henchmen and functionaries were. Churchill himself noted this in an editorial he wrote in 1923. Though not an anti-Semite himself, he was genuinely shocked at the preponderance of Jews at the highest reaches of power in all branches of the Soviet government.
He warned that these numbers would “fill the breasts of the average Russian with an impossible revenge” should the chance arise. It’s possible that Stalin’s popularity to this day stems from the fact that his purges were carried out largely against the first generation of mostly Jewish Leninists.
The word is Bolsheviks, not Bolshevists. How can you say you know you are going to get in trouble and immediately say probably not? I believe that the largest group of Russians amongst the Bolsheviks were, indeed, Jewish Russians. However, the photographic record of the Communist Revolution–the destruction of churches, etc., seems to show an overwhelming majority of Asians of various sorts. Churchill–a wonderful war time leader and an accomplished writer of history, but some of his political utterances were close to being stupid and even contradictory of his own utterances at other times! Surely, as a careful speaker of English, he wouldn’t say” fill the breasts (plural) of the average Russian (singular).with an impossible revenge!’ Surely, he might opine that some breasts or other were filled with IMPULSES of revenge, rather than revenge or, better vengeful URGES.
You are astonishingly mistaken if you think any of Stalin’s purported “popularity’ today has anything whatsoever to do with his purges of anyone. It’s nostalgia for WWII not unlike American nostalgia for those days and identification of Soviet triumphs with Stalin.
i don’t like the energy behind this backdoor anti-Jewish emphasis of yours here, George. It’ reminds me of a little miscreant lifting up the edges of a circus tent to let in his cronies.
You even bragged that you were going to get into trouble (hopefully?).
Bishop Tikhon:
“Asians,” huh? What’s the implication… Muslim?
Look at this.
Read this.
No implication intended. However if that is your knee-jerk INFERENCE, it’s ok by me. As far as i am aware, ‘Other other Matthew,” natives of the former Asian SSRs were animist, Buddhist, and Muslim, no? I am not the originator of the characterization: I think the National Geogrphic Magazine of the day may have made that observation: crudely put, one might opine that they looked more like Putin than like Jews.
His Grace:
Yes, and Christian, too, after hundreds of years of colonization by imperial Russia, or didn’t you hear about that? Did it ever occur to you that the “photographic record” of the revolution showing all kinds of Asians resulted from the fact that the photographs might have been taken in Asia, where Asians live?
So, I will infer that Asians lived in Asia, and that an observation about the photographic record may have been made by a magazine previously unknown to me, to wit, National Geogrphic [sic], and I will be left to wonder what prompted you to make such a seemingly pointless comment without any additional explanation.
“Other other Matthew,” The National Geographic is a well-known monthly magazine in our culture. You may research its archives, and find photographic essays taken in Russia before, during and after the Revolution, showing what appear to be soldiers with Asiatic faces carrying icons, banners, Gospels, whatever, out of the churches of St. Petersburg and Moscow. I myself possess some issues from back then, by the way. It did not occur to me, SINCE YOU ASKED, that these photos taken in Petrograd and Moscow “might have been taken in Asia.” If anyone opined these were taken in Asia, I’d look for little men in white coats.
Lenin was actually one quarter Jewish. His maternal grandfather was Alexander Dmitrievich Blank, a Jewish physician.
I think His Grace is right about Stalin nostalgia: It’s a nostalgia for strength and glory.
In the 1990s, the joke in Russia was that the leader Russia needed was Vladimir Vissarionovich Ugarte. That’s Vladimir as in St. Vladimir, Vissarionovich as in Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, and Ugarte as in Augusto Pinochet Ugarte. In other words, a real Russian with an iron fist and pro-market ideas. And that, it seems, is what God gave them.
Lenin was certainly as much a “Real Russian” (not my language) as Putin—maybe more. What is Putin, part Kirghiz? Tatar? Uzbek? Mongol?
Putin’s ancestry is shrouded in mystery, but I believe Putin’s paternal grandfather was a chef who cooked for Lenin and Stalin at various times.
Reminds me of a Western reporter at a rally where Trotsky ranted. One of the spectators remarked “Now, THERE’s a real Russian. Not like that Jew Kerensky.”
Lenin was baptized Russian Orthodox. Stalin was baptized Georgian (which at the time meant Russian) Orthodox. Mikhail Kalinin was baptized Russian Orthodox. Nikolay Shvernik was baptized Russian Orthodox. Vyacheslav Molotov was baptized Russian Orthodox. I could go on, but hopefully the point is made.
Being baptized as a baby was normal for everyone in “Holy Russia” who was not explicitly born into another confession. For every baptized Bolshevik there were a multitude of baptized non-Bolsheviks
Again, you have no point.
“For every baptized Bolshevik there were a multitude of baptized non-Bolsheviks”
Those baptized Bolsheviks were enough to take down Holy Mother Russia from the inside, the multitudes making a thud.
Czarist Russia decayed and fell from within. Much like the US is doing.
Isa, while I do agree there was a lot of progressive ferment (corruption?) in Russian society, I think Misha hit the nail on the head: in those nations without a republican tradition and concommitant bourgeouis mentality (i.e. China, Germany, Russia), the republican state fell immediately to tyranny. That’s an interesting point and may be the key to understanding the Cloward-Piven strategy that is being put in place here in the US.
In other words, overwhelm the historic culture with hordes of illegal aliens, break the welfare system which sustains the poor white & black natives, and voila! Leninism!
It’s a thought anyway.
George, this is your greatest howler EVER: “in those nations without a republican tradition and concommitant bourgeouis mentality (i.e. China, Germany, Russia), the republican state fell immediately to tyranny.”
“Bourgeoisie” is a translation of German “Buergertum’, ;and petit bourgeois is a translation of ‘Kleinbuerger.” Bourgeois is one of those German-Frankish words with no Romance tincture whatsoever.
Did you never hear of “Kitsch”? That’s a German word along with “Biedermeier”, for bourgeois TASTE.
What country in the history of the world was EVER more “bourgeois” than Germany? It is so even today, and there was a huge bourgeois majority throughout the German lands since before the Hohenzollerns! Almost the entire German immigration into the U.S. has been bourgeois!
No “republican’ tradition, either, beginning with Rome, ever prevented any country from falling into tyranny. Were there ever greater days of tyranny in England than those of Cromwell’s parliament?
Reminds me, what’s the difference between Republican and Roundhead? “Voila” indeed!
“That Jew Kerensky”, Isa, ended up a member of the Metropolia’s St. Nicholas Church in Whitestone, New Yorkl Some of the other parishioners there at that time did not like his attendance at all.
In Czarist Russia instead of “Russian” as the nationality on one’s passport, “Orthodox” was used—you know, “Are you Polish, Estonian, Georgian, or Orthodox?” Pravoslavny was considered to be a nationality.
And I think George and his reference to “hordes”is an endearing example of the kind of American H.L Mencken used to wax eloquent about. There are always these “hordes” waiting to take over or get our money, or both, and they are usually yellow or somehow off-white!
“There are always these “hordes” waiting to take over or get our money, or both, and they are usually yellow or somehow off-white!”
Pelsoi, Reid, Warren…no, plenty of them are white.
Oh, Isa! Isa! Pelosi, Reid,Warren, are not hordes. Quit playing dumb. The “hordes” today are obviously border crossers. Duh.
“Pelosi, Reid,Warren, are not hordes.”
Their name is Legion.
“The “hordes” today are obviously border crossers. Duh.”
If you say so your grace.
“Lenin was the only figure of note who was not Jewish?” So, Iosif Vissarionovich was Jewish? Learn something new every day at Monomakhos!
Actually the West gave birth to the Bolsheviks.
“Actually the West gave birth to the Bolsheviks.”
If Mother Russia whored herself to the Marxists, can’t blame the West who resisted their charms.
Isa, I think that’s excessive. Although there was much corruption in pre-Great War Russia (especially among the intelligentsia), the fact remains that had it not been for that disastrous and stupid war, the Bolsheviks would not have been able to overthrow Kerensky (nor Kerensky the Tsar).
The Socialists were long ready, willing and able (as Dostoevsky warned): the war only gave them opportunity. It didn’t create them.
Well, obviously they were not able before the war. If they had been, they would have.
“Well, obviously they were not able before the war. If they had been, they would have.”
So, blame the Serbs?
I’m not interested in blaming anyone besides Lenin and his upper echelon, certainly not the Russian people or the Russian Church, which suffered the most.
“If Mother Russia whored herself to the Marxists, can’t blame the West who resisted their charms.”
Wow, Isa, you’re much better when writing about other subjects.
First of all, at its height, the communist party of the Soviet Union only included about 5% of the population. This was even though it was the only ticket in town to a higher place on the food chain.
Second, Marxism is a Western political philosophy cooked up by a German Jew. The Bolshevik Revolution would not have taken place without Lenin leading it. Lenin was sent back into Russia from exile by the Germans to destabilize the Russian war effort. It is also true that there were a disproportionate amount of Jews in the communist leadership, at least early on. Some got disillusioned later and were purged or hunted down.
Stalin is popular with some today because he is credited with winning WWII and with a sense of economic stability. Also, when Russians face external enemies, or foreign enemies attacking within, sometimes they lament that Stalin would know how to deal with them. But this is not romanticism regarding the purges.
Also, the West did not resist the charms of Marx. That is delusional. The New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare are all testaments to his continued influence.
The thing you have to understand about Russia is this: Lenin created the Soviet Union out of wholecloth in his own image. Marxism dictates that a society must go through stages of industrialization and reach a “capitalist crisis” in order to be ripe for a socialist revolution. This was the prevailing wisdom among Russian Marxists before Lenin arrived.
Lenin made several major changes which resulted in “Marxist-Leninism”. First, he rejected the previous doctrine that peasants would be of little or no use to a socialist revolution and that only industrialized workers would do. Lenin proposed an alliance of industrial workers and peasants since they could each be turned against the central government. Hence the “hammer and the sickle” on the flag.
Second, Lenin postulated that it was both possible and desirable to bypass the liberal capitalist phase of development and jump from feudalism and early industrialism straight to socialism. You see, in reality, according to the Marxist paradigm, Russia was one of the least likely countries to undergo a socialist revolution because of its relative lack of industrial development.
Lenin was a criminal thug who wanted power. He was bright and ruthless. His focus was always on taking and securing power for himself, thus, everything else was tailored to that objective.
So, yes, the philosophy was Western (Marxism) but, also, Lenin was the indispensable catalyst in proceedings. Yet he too was placed back in Russia by the Germans.
Had the Tsar had the cajones to execute him, Russia would either have remained a democracy (unlikely) or reverted to some type of traditional authoritarian rule (under a White Army counterrevolution overthrowing the Provisional Government).
PS:
You may not realize this, but there was actually an election in Russia in November, 1917. It had been scheduled by the Provisional Government before the Bolsheviks seized power. The Bolsheviks allowed the election to proceed and the new Duma to take office. After a few days of deliberation, when it became clear that the new Duma would not recognize the new Bolshevik government, Lenin sent in armed forces and dispersed it.
That does not sound to me like Mother Russia “whoring” to the Bolsheviks:
“The February Revolution allowed the SRs to return to an active political role. Party leaders, including Chernov, were now able to return to Russia. They played a major role in the formation and leadership of the Soviets, albeit in most cases playing second fiddle to the Mensheviks. One member, Alexander Kerensky. joined the Provisional Government in March 1917 as Minister of Justice, eventually becoming the head of a coalition socialist-liberal government in July 1917, although his connection with the party was rather tenuous. (He had served in the Duma with the Trudoviks, breakaway SRs that defied the party’s refusal to participate in the Duma.)
* * *
In the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly held two weeks after the Bolsheviks took power, the party still proved to be by far the most popular party across the country, gaining 58% of the popular vote as opposed to the Bolsheviks’ 25%. However, in January 1918 the Bolsheviks disbanded the Assembly and thereafter the SRs became of less political significance. The Left SRs became the coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet government, although they resigned their positions after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed. A few Left SRs like Yakov Grigorevich Blumkin joined the Communist Party.
Dissatisfied with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, some Left SRs assassinated the German ambassador to Russia, Count Wilhelm Mirbach. In 1918 they attempted a “Third Russian Revolution” against the Bolsheviks, which failed, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, exile, and execution of party leaders and members. In response, some SRs turned once again to violence. A former SR, Fanny Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin on August 30, 1918. Many SRs fought for the Whites or Greens in the Russian Civil War alongside some Mensheviks and other banned moderate socialist elements. The Tambov Rebellion against the Bolsheviks was led by an SR, Aleksandr Antonov”. – Socialist Revolutionary Party, Wikipedia
The SR’s were a democratic socialist party, similar to later socialist parties in Europe, though they were more violent regarding tsarist officials (as opposed to civilians).
“First of all, at its height, the communist party of the Soviet Union only included about 5% of the population. This was even though it was the only ticket in town to a higher place on the food chain.”
The Imperial Family included what percentage of the population? The Rurikids? The noble classes?
Your point?
“Second, Marxism is a Western political philosophy cooked up by a German Jew.”
So is the Erastianism (though Erastus was a Swiss Judaizer. Close enough. Btw, Marx was baptized Lutheran) embraced in the Spiritual Regulation and its abomination, the Most Holy Governing Synod and its Ober-Prokurator.
Your point?
“It is also true that there were a disproportionate amount of Jews in the communist leadership, at least early on. Some got disillusioned later and were purged or hunted down.”
So a few perfidous Jews can vanquish the might of the True Faith?
Your point?
” Lenin was sent back into Russia from exile by the Germans to destabilize the Russian war effort.”
That German state existed because of “the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg,” when the Czar of All the Russias Peter III called off the war effort and recalled the Russian troops back from Germany, allowing Prussia to stabilize into the German Empire.
Your point?
“this is not romanticism regarding the purges”
I said nothing about the purges or anything about romanticism of Stalin. I simply pointed out that he had been an Orthodox seminarian-and a Russian one at that.
Your point?
“Also, the West did not resist the charms of Marx. That is delusional. The New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare are all testaments to his continued influence.”
That they are. They, however, faced and still face a determined opposition who resisted their program and curbed their power, a problem that the Politburo did not have to face.
Your point?
“This was the prevailing wisdom among Russian Marxists”
Aren’t there a few oxymorons in there?
Your point?
“Lenin was a criminal thug who wanted power. He was bright and ruthless. His focus was always on taking and securing power for himself, thus, everything else was tailored to that objective.”
True. That, however, does not dry up his baptismal waters in the font of the Russian Orthodox Church, nor wipe her chrism off his brow, both of which will testify against him on the day of judgement.
“Had the Tsar had the cajones to execute him, Russia would either have remained a democracy (unlikely) or reverted to some type of traditional authoritarian rule (under a White Army counterrevolution overthrowing the Provisional Government).”
His Imperial Majesty’s Father had the cajones to execute his brother. Vladimir would not renounce the Faith of the Russian Orthodox Church until the death of his pious father and the execution of his brother. If Lenin was so indispensable to the Russian Revolution, then we cannot discount his nurturing in the Russian Orthodox Church.
So, your point?
“You may not realize this, but there was actually an election in Russia in November, 1917. ”
Yes, and the vast majority of the electorate was raised in the Russian Orthodox Church. The Socialist [i.e Marxist] Revolutionary Party, the “Land and Freedom” with the solid red flag, won. They too were run by the sons of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Your point (besides that Lenin may not be the necessary element of the Russian Revolution that you made him)?
“That does not sound to me like Mother Russia “whoring” to the Bolsheviks”
So she whored to Menesheviks and other Socialists, not to mention that the vast majority of those armed forces that Lenin sent were, like Lenin himself, raised in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Your point?
“A few Left SRs like Yakov Grigorevich Blumkin joined the Communist Party.”
Your point in mentioning him, and not, say, the Russian Orthodox (at least by baptism) and Russian noble Maria Alexandrovna Spiridonova, besides Yakov coming from a Jewish family?
“A former SR, Fanny Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin on August 30, 1918.”
Your point in mentioning Fanny Kaplan by name, while passing, say, the Russian Old Ritualist
Boris Donskoy, assassin of Field Marshal Hermann von Eichhorn (military governor of Ukraine, put in place by the Soviet Brest-Litovsk), except that Fanny came from a Jewish family?
“The SR’s were a democratic socialist party, similar to later socialist parties in Europe, though they were more violent regarding tsarist officials (as opposed to civilians).”
But just as Marxist and just as much raised in the Russian Orthodox Church as the Whites.
Your point?
My point, Isa, is that you wrote a malicious (in that you actually know the truth) lie about “Holy Russia whoring” to the Bolsheviks, or Marxists. Everything I wrote above points to the fact that it is simply not true. Knowing history, you know it is not true, yet wrote it anyway.
That is the point, Isa. Stick to Qatar.
Not a single lie up there. I just don’t let my Russophilia harbor any illusions about her. I avoid delusions that way.
Isa, the “misrepresentation” [for comity’s sake, I will moderate my tone] was that “Holy Russia whored” to the Marxists. That is not true, you knew it is not true, yet you said it anyway. I think you just got carried away.
Blaming “Holy Russia” for Marxism when Russians, especially Russian Orthodoxy, suffered the most under it is probably not wise. The SR’s did not embrace Marxism, although they did preach a form of democratic socialism. When asked, the vast majority of Russians rejected Marxism in any form. The assembly the Russian people elected also rejected the legitimacy of the Bolshevik government, which is why Lenin dispersed it.
There is a lot of claptrap and nonsense about monarchism and Orthodoxy having given birth to Bolshevism. It is nonsense. The monarchy had already fallen, the Church despised the Bolsheviks, and the people, in the only free election they participated in, rejected the Bolsheviks. Really, it’s no more true for Russia than it was for China. They had a republic immediately before the communists took over, as did the Germans before Hindenburg took “emergency” power in 1930.
The false narrative is designed to highlight the merits of democracy as opposed to “oppressive” monarchism. It fails. Relatively representative governments immediately preceded all of these monstrous, demonic governments.
Is there some way to deal with people who want to drag “the Jews” into these discussions? Once one starts hearing about “the Jews” on a forum, it’s really time to go someplace else…
Is there some reason that every tragedy of the east has to be seen as some as the fault of the “West” by some folks?
People who want to talk about “the Jews” without fail have something wrong within themselves. So a long life has taught me.
Why does Orthodoxy tolerate anti-Semitism? Tim is correct. These conversations seen devolve into blaming the Jews for Russia’s suffering.
Why does Orthodoxy tolerate anti-Semitism?
To quote Tom Lehrer:
It is a human temptation to look for a scapegoat. Such temptation is, in my observation quite deadly. It began with Adam and Eve: “The devil made me do it” and my favorite: “This woman you gave me…” It continues unabated to this day.
There is only one sacrificed once and for all, for the life of the world. In order to enter into that sacrifice we must repent and accuse ourselves of any sin we see in the world. Not a big stretch for me certainly.
Looking for a scapegoat is a never ending regression toward nothingness. It is destructive beyond belief in any community and in any heart.
And it isn’t the homosexuals either, not ultimately. It is the disordering of the human will to exalt itself above God. Yes, homosexuality is a sin. Yes, we must not bend to the desire of some for the Church to embrace that sin and make it OK. But the only effective way for me to do that is to recognize and address the demonic willfulness in my own heart first. Then and only then can I hope to address the issue with love and compassion. Saying NO not from a place of fear but in obedience to God’s will. I don’t have to wait until I am pure to say NO, but I do have to start in my own heart.
One of the great existential effects of sin is the isolation and loneliness it leads to. Scapegoating is a symptom of that isolation from God and from each other. Rather than placing all of the blame on the Jews even though our Lord forgave them from the Cross, it would behoove us to seek the mercy He offers. When we reject that mercy, preferring our own will we are the Jews, we are Judas.
“…we do pray for mercy and that same prayer teaches us to render the deeds of mercy….”
I don’t think it is anti-Semitic to note that Jews took an active leading role in socialism, as well as capitalism, Hollywood, etc. It’s not necessarily a negative reflection on them. The modern state of Israel itself began as a quasi-socialist project.
I think some people get nervous whenever they hear “the Jews” singled out as a discrete group and immediately equate it to “you people”. Tis not the case.
Now, of course, no one is denying that Russia, Eastern Europe, etc. have a history of anti-Semitism.
“The modern state of Israel itself began as a quasi-socialist project”
A project most Jews opposed at the time.
That is true. It’s curious, the first Zionist project in history, when Cyrus the Great emancipated the Jews of Babylon, was likewise resisted almost overwhelmingly by the Jews of the Diaspora.
“…can’t blame the West who resisted their charms….”
That’s right! The West would never fall victim to godlessness, materialism, etc…
Oh. Wait. Looks like the chickens have come home to roost.
M. Woerl,
Great consolations indeed!
Hardball . it is. A matter of time. Only. It ain’t over till it’s over.
Christ is risen, truly risen!
The main thing here — which most of our correspondents seem to miss — ,is that Gregory Pappas and other pro-homosexual activists are trying to convince The Church that they cannot help being homosexual, and that therefore, their homosexual behavior should not be considered sinful and so not exclude them from full participation in the life of The Church.
But over 4000 years of judeochristian morality (not alone among cultures ancient and modern) and more than well corroborated by the authentically orthodox catholic christian tradition, asserts and affirms that sexual activity outside the consecrated union of one man and one woman is sinful.
Just because some people experience an unrelenting temptation to sin does NOT make it OK for them to say that such a temptation somehow makes them exempt from the Law of God.
For a long time, now, I’ve been convinced that there are several demons at work among us, three in particular. They hate it when we call them out. Well, too bad for them.
One (at least) of them is working for the homosexualization of the clergy. Take a look around and see if its work is bearing fruit. How many of our priests are divorced? Why? And why are they still allowed to stand at God’s altar?
Another one is working to desensitize The Church to the evil of homosexuality. Do we not realize that any earthly species which approves of homosexuality is doomed to extinction? Homosexuality eventuates in collective death!
A third demon is working very hard to undermine our confidence in the good men in our clergy and in our faithful monks and nuns so as to leave us without teachers and guides as we ‘work out our salvation in fear and trembling’.
And I’m sure there are many others whose vicious activity I haven’t identified here. Let’s never forget that ‘we are at war with Principalities and Powers’.
Please, let’s not buy in to the homosexual propaganda being offered us in the guise of christian tolerance.
“One (at least) of them is working for the homosexualization of the clergy. Take a look around and see if its work is bearing fruit. How many of our priests are divorced? Why?”
Monk James, you seem to imply that most or all divorced priests are homosexuals. Do you mean to do this?
Yes.
That’s quite a claim, and potentially slanderous. You’re sure that there’s absolutely no other reason a priest would be divorced?! See jacksson’s reply below.
I wrote nothing so extreme as that.
I was asked: ‘Monk James, you seem to imply that most or all divorced priests are homosexuals. Do you mean to do this?’
I answered: ‘Yes.’
The option of ‘most or all’ is different from ‘all’.
Now, the fact is that there are actively homosexual married priests, never-married priests, and divorced priests. But MOST of the divorced priests’ marriages failed because of the homosexuality which they originally concealed from their bishops and their wives, but which inevitably became known, usually in the most destructive ways.
Yet — in spite of a traditional requirement that a priest whose marriage fails is to be laicized — many of these men are still serving parishes.
This is wrong in itself, and sends a seriously distorted message about our regard for christian commitment and morality altogether. Is it any wonder that the heartbroken women these wicked men leave in the wake of all their human wreckage often quit The Church?
“Yet — in spite of a traditional requirement that a priest whose marriage fails is to be laicized — many of these men are still serving parishes.”
Does this requirement hold in the case of a priest whose wife leaves him, or just the other way around?
Here in North America we’ve been in canonical free-fall for a long time now, mostly because many of our bishops here are themselves out of order, morally and canonically, and so are unwilling and/or unable to ‘rightly mete out the word of (divine) truth’.
That calamity notwithstanding, the fact remains that the authentically orthodox catholic christian tradition requires that a clergyman of any rank be of good repute, not be a drunkard, be the husband of only one wife, and able to keep his family in good order.
If a priest’s marriage fails, it seems obvious that at least one and probably more of the conditions which would have excluded him form ordination in the first place must have become issues in his life, and he must therefore return to the lay state.
The underlying principle here, as traditionally understood, is that if anything which would have prevented a man’s ordination in the first place should arise after his ordination, then he must be laicized.
But in North America, as a european bishop observed to me a while ago, we have more divorced priests serving than there have been in the whole world all through these last twenty christian centuries. This is a great scandal.
It’s a great tragedy when a marriage fails, and it does no good to point fingers at one or the other spouse. It’s exceptionally rare that a divorce can be blamed on only one spouse, even in cases of infidelity. So, no, the priest is not considered innocent if his wife leaves him.
We just need stronger priests, stronger priest’s wives, stronger bishops, and seriously more loving, less critical parishioners.
I believe that Monk James was referring in general to the case of the problem with priests being divorced, not that they were homosexual, as a general statement. Divorce and for that matter, death of a wife, are extremely difficult for a married priest, the wife is usually a very important part of a priesthood.
I know at least three divorced priests and one monk and they, without any doubt, are godly men. From my observation, in general the demands and hardships of the priesthood drove the priest’s wives away from the marriage and in the case of the monk, his conversion to the Orthodox Church drove his wife away.
one can not be sure of a sin unless he commits the sin.
That doesn’t make sense; in other words one should hold up a bank or commit fornication to be sure that they are sins.
This thread seems to prove my contention that we are incapable of having a civil, productive, Orthodox, healing and conciliatory conversation in regard to homosexuality, despite the fact that we have been having the identical BS conversation – in my historical experience – for at least three years. What is new now? Nothing. No, really. It ‘s the same pattern as always: Mr. Michalopulos finds a “situation” that at once is intended to shock and disgust, portends the beginning of the end (every third homosexuality post includes the words, “nail in the coffin…”), provokes the former-Anglicans to invoke history, which inflames those motivated to “break the teeth of the wicked,” which alarms those concerned with the “primary binaries & natural law,” blah, blah, blah. And Google has made everyone an expert, from epidemiology & advanced statistics to endocrinology, post-genetic intra-uterine hormonal “cascades” that undeniably influence gender and sexual orientation. “I’ll take Sexual Orientation for $800, Alex.” “And the answer is, The Daily Double! ‘There is no homosexuality!‘”
It seems to me that we already have a prime example of what would happen if Gregory Pappas actually did “declare war” on his parish, based on the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” in the Castro District of San Francisco in November, 2013: Évacuer le navire! The 15 or so paunchy-but-dedicated “anarchists” quietly arrived to find a bevy of cops, but no Orthodox. How is it we cannot even manage to address “abominations” as human beings? There is such denial as to the extent of abhorrence, disgust, and anger regarding homosexuality in the Orthodox Church that it is shocking. Racial-slur equivalent language is continually used on this and other sites without consequence or protest.
Is there no one who can appreciate that Gregory Pappas – raised in this miasm of ethnicity, secularism, and “religion” in the worst sense – might be humiliated at being excommunicated when he sees church hypocrisy of sexuality and divorce all around him? If what he is saying is true, the bishop says, “It’s not me, it’s your priest, and his decision is different than your last priest…” And my hat is off to Pere LaChaise for his insight: “I wonder what the real response of the people will be.” Ha! Brilliant! Who knows? Given this this miasm of ethnicity, secularism, and “religion” in the worst sense, they could well rise up to support Mr. Pappas – a good, faithful son of this parish, as I read it – not because of the Holy Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Ancient Canons, or the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church, but because we have relinquished the voice of moral authority. We do not demand that the bishop in this situation rise up, set a precedent for our time, support this priest, and teach, in no uncertain terms, the saving theology of the Church, of which we are the final harbinger. Perhaps we can begin, again, to make such demands.
There are more than 100 posts in this thread, in my opinion most are comprised of empty bitching & moaning. Perhaps you might consider that, at least in the United States, the Orthodox stood by as lawyers and courts stripped us of venues of recourse, and we need to do something. I’m thinking bitching & moaning will not help.
I think the laity are equally hungry for bishops to stand up and boldly proclaim the Orthodox faith, as Metropolitan Philip once did, “We don’t discuss abominations.” Except we need that clarity in the form of encyclicals, not just private conversations.
The homosexual movement has come a long way, and quickly, and there is a generation growing up who are being told homosexuality is normal. Orthodox who struggle with this passion thus do not bring it to their father confessors, and are not helped.
However, in their absence, in true Orthodox fashion, the laity are leading the charge on this one. May another St. Mark of Ephesus appear to speak boldly to both the Church and his brother bishops who are wavering.
Ages:
Don’t make the mistake of believing to be true what you want to be true, because it is your personal opinion. The Orthodox laity in America are on the liberal end of the spectrum concerning homosexuality, and many other issues. Evidence here. There is a troika of truly liberal churches in the U.S., based on the evidence: Catholic, Orthodox, Mainline Protestant (e.g. Episcopal Church). They are all liberal in matters of faith, social issues and politics.
“The Orthodox laity in America are on the liberal end of the spectrum concerning homosexuality, and many other issues. Evidence here”
Oh no that is so not true. More so on the east coast maybe but certainly not on the west or central or south. They never poled me . . . I have to wonder who they poled.
Me:
collette:
Me:
I trust polls as far as I can throw them. None of the churches where I live are like that, and my priest is quite outspoken about homosexuality. The Arabs don’t go for homosexuality or abortion, but then, democide is a real thing in the Middle East.
I had the joy to attend Liturgy this morning, and the day’s Epistle is Romans 1:18-27. The liberals would do well to read and understand.
Thank you for pointing this out. Another correspondent got a hold of me this morning and pointed out the divergence as well. This person wasn’t sure but thought that maybe the GOA has dropped this pericope from their daily calendar.
Does anybody have any further information on this?
We probably should not leap to conclusions about any hierarch’s position on homosexuality just because Romans 1:18-27 (the appointed reading for the Wednesday after Pentecost) was not listed as the Epistle reading yesterday. June 11 is the Feast of the Holy Apostles Philip and Bartholomew. Some new-calendar jurisdictions list only one Epistle and one Gospel per day on their calendars, and it is quite common for those calendars to list the Menaion readings, rather than those based on the Paschal cycle, on such days.
Romans 1:18-27 is not on the GOARCH calendar for yesterday, but as Antiochian Friend points out, it was superseded by the reading for the Apostles. I looked at the calendar for last year, and the Romans passage was indeed on the website.
M.S. – Thanks for reminding us of the social context of Holy Communion at Greek churches – how it’s nearly unheard of to be refused, even with IHOP corn syrup clinging to one’s mustaches… What I have observed with Pappas’ writing and among GOA laymen is a strong self-assurance born of social/economic success with the attendant prerogatives of the dominant class. Yes, I write like a Marxist here (he was good at description of society) but I do believe that in the case of the GOA, we have a church which has largely failed to rise above class dialectic. The GOA is entirely bourgeois now, having traded its prophetic voice for an unctious one that reinforces the well-being of its attendees. And no one should persist in the illusion that secular-minded laymen do not call the tune on most GOA parish councils. I think a sampling of sermons (sic) in GOA temples will confirm that the role of priest in many places is now on par with cruise-ship activities director. I mean that.
Bearing all this context in mind, we might predict that a majority of ‘heavy hitters’ at Pappas’ parish may side with him, unless Fr John, having fed them better than the standard GOA theological sops, has captivated their hearts and minds with his convicted and loving devotion to Christ. We’ll see.
Pere LaChaise,
Wow…your are certainly full of invective. Please send proof of all your scurrilous claims. And since you have said “nearly unheard of,” “entirely,” and “in many places,” specifics will be helpful. Since there is over 500 GOA parishes in the US, I assume that you have the evidence to show that about 400 (75%) of nearly 550 parishes fits your description.
I hope you are prepared to defend such claims before the Glorious Throne on High when you stand before it.
GOAP,
I can see your affiliation must be defended. I have no intention of insulting anyone’s jurisdiction, I only speak from my own experience.
The point I keep trying to make is that Pappas’ case does not issue from the void – it is relevant in context of the GOA that has willy-nilly ‘created’ him, in partnership with upper-middleclass America. Yes, the GOA is socially bourgeois, and it has de-emphasized the harder teachings of the Gospel in many places.
I stand by my observations. I did not choose to convert Orthodoxy in its contemporary Greek American form, I went to what is called among G-As, “The Russian Church” (OCA, largely Carpatho) because there was a lot more of what I needed there, and a lot less of what I didn’t need, in those parishes. I still find it true, despite the much-heralded demise of the latter jurisdiction.
Sorry, I don’t mean to offend, I’m just describing from personal experience.
Mr. Pappas, in this instance, initiated the “civil conversation” with a public, highly heated and denuncatory epistle, so he at least can hardly complain that he elicited heated responses. And not only did he do so “publicly”, he did it with what amounts to an international announcement. He clearly does not fear controversy, and expects no less. “Conciliation” is not what he is seeking; at least I don’t think so myself.
Michael S., How can there be an amicable discussion when we are faced with such blatant demands that the Church change her entire belief system (yes it is that sweeping).
It would be quiet easy, if not comfortable to have a conversation with Ages and the many others like him about the matter. It is from them that we could learn the “new pastoral approach” you say you want.
We will not get it until the bishops with one voice declare as many times as necessary that those in active homosexual relationships and civil unions cannot partake of communion. If they present themselves, they will be turned away.
Until we get that, no possibility of actual discussions in humility and obedience is remotely possible.
Michael Bauman,
As I have said so many times on the AOI site, it is nearly impossible for me to think in “global terms.” I know how I would respond if I met Mr. Pappas for coffee, and I believe I know how you would respond. Where was the Lord found, Michael Bauman? Among sinners? And where two or three are gathered… Imagine!
Of course he was always found among sinners. This was one of the reasons he was tortured to death on the cross.
But he also always said, go and sin no more. Both aspects (and so much more!) are all of one Lord.
We are all rotten with sin. But if we convince ourselves that our sin is not sin, we are lost.
Is it not of infinite importance that we not come to believe that our sin is not sin, but instead is right and proper? So much is at stake.
Mr. Mortiss,
I am unsure as to the intention of this and your previous comment, and lest you misconstrue my use of the terms “conciliation” and apparently question my motivation and/or ability to confront “sin as sin.” let me assist you.
You have quite obviously missed my emphatic statements over the past three years that I never believe, teach, not tolerate anything that is contrary to the Holy Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, the Ancient Canons, and the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church; and further, I support no one, regardless of relationship or history who might do so. I have proffered some original writings in regard to homosexuality on my own site from the viewpoint of a physician, genetic researcher, and graduate of St. Vladimir’s Seminary. From the beginning, I have said that I am open to criticism and correction as to substance. If you somehow imagine that I am going to be “won over” by social conventions, movements, “highly heated and denuncatory epistles,” cultural pressure, and even the amount of anonymity-driven cynicism found on this site that would discourage the angels, Mr. Mortiss, you would be wrong.
So much is at stake, Mr. Mortiss? Seriously? It literally breaks my heart that you have already forgotten my wish for you, three or four months ago, when you indicated you had begun the process for converting. Look it up. It was about zeal. And in this case, it is maintaining zeal for the lost sheep even when they are despicable and loathsome to us. No, it does not mean convincing ourselves or anyone that sin is not sin or accepting what is unacceptable. It is merely creating a bridge leading to the Physician. And it cannot ever be built with humiliation, derision, anger, and scorn. Our Lord was confrontive, our Lord was direct, but our Lord was always loving.
All that Fr. John appears to have done is model our Lord’s directness and love toward Mr. Pappas telling him to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Mr. Pappas refused that direct invitation. If he continues in that rejection, he has no place in the community or so it would seem that Scripture and Tradition teaches.
Would you agree Michael?
The question, of course the ultimate in hypothetical projection, is how Mr. Pappas would respond. Given his response to the mercy and grace offered by his priest, it does not appear that he would as I would hope.
As I have noted often, it is difficult for me to understand the lack of what you call ‘global perspective’. While such perspective is not sufficient alone, neither is the data based approach you seem to prefer. They are an antinomy. For the data to mean anything, it has to be placed in a context. For the greater context to have substance, there has to be data giving it that substance. However, that data and the context cannot be radically at odds with one another. It is impossible to gather and collate data simply as data. There is always some context, some assumptions that are made before, during and after. Those assumptions are critical to the meaning of the data, understanding that meaning and communicating that meaning.
Perhaps we would both do better if we recognized that?
Michael Bauman,
I have heard those cynical discussions that suggest, “They’ll only use money you give them to buy more alcohol/drugs,” “They’ll sell whatever you give them to buy alcohol/drugs,” “They’ll destroy housing you give him or turn it into drug enterprises,” etc, etc. I see no admonition from the Lord to first consider, for example, what the poor, the needy, the orphans, and widows might do with the gifts you give them. Likewise, to address Mr. Farsalas’ question, “When do we shake the dust from our feet?” apparently the Lord, as in so many cases, presumed Σοφία! Wisdom! Have I been with you so long and you still don’t get it? (cf. Jn. 14:9) I keep referring to the example of the young rich man detailed in all the Synoptic Gospels because it is so profound: the Lord “knew his heart,” knew that he would walk away, yet he offered the solution.
So, Michael Bauman, I agree that Fr. John was a model of an Orthodox pastor; he literally, first and foremost, protected him spiritually from disaster, and he did so respectfully, and privately to preserve his dignity. He is not responsible for the reaction and unkind words he received by the projection of Gregory Pappas’ own shame. But is this the end of the story? Is Gregory Pappas lost? Do we label him a “very dangerous man” because of his projective outbursts and “shake the dust from our feet.” From what I read here – one priest posing as Charton Heston, another as John Wayne, and Mr. Michalopulos summonsing cowboys – I believe the answer is “yes.” The bridge to the Physician shall not be built with hatred, derision, and scorn, and apparently the message needs to be delivered by those more courageous.
Michael S . Mr. Pappas has shown no desire to repent. His ideas cannot live in the Church. If he were to repent I am sure everyone here would welcome him back.
Until then there is not much choice.
As a sinful psychiatrist, of the Orthodox faith, since childhood, I fear many do not understand the suffering, many good people go thru. Please do not judge but only love and pray. I fear most can tell me their problems (sins) but tell me they would never tell their priest. Please anyone who has not sinned, “throw the first stone”.
Ted you are not very understanding as a psychiatrist. By you telling folks here not to judge, is you judging them. The culture is in an uproar because some, very few in fact are demanding that we change our world view. No one that I know, hates or thinks of themselves as “higher” than any other person because of what sins they are not commiting. The problem is theological. What you ask is for us to disbelieve our faith. What you ask is to let the culture confuse our young-even in the church. I would think a good psychiatrist would catch that and acknowledge also that most everyone suffers. To have choice “sufferings” puts select groups over others. The only way to grow on this topic is to pray, study, and talk it over. You can contribute or you can judge. Your choice. There are always going to be people who are acting out for probably very good reasons, and will say something too harsh for you. But I would think as a psychiatrist you would catch that and be understanding.
Ted,
As someone who also works with the mentally ill, I appreciate your effort to try and communicate the level of compassion necessary for the healing of those who suffer. Being on the front line, we often need to go to some pretty dark places in order to build rapport, gain trust, and eventually help those suffering. I can’t blame anyone for not understanding. The ability to be sensitive while establishing boundaries and be rationally detached is an art few can do, and even fewer can do well. I can tell by the tone of your post that your clients are in good care.
That said, although I would agree with you that these people are good people and show time and again resilience and strength of character under unimaginable circumstances, good is not enough. We need to provide them with an opportunity to become holy. That cannot happen if we excuse behaviors that are detrimental to the soul. I would hope that you encourage (at least) your Orthodox Christian clients to go to their priests for confession. It is important that we treat the whole person physical, mental, and spiritual. The Church isn’t a place for stoning it’s a place for healing. Thankfully, it provides the structure, is essential, to help develop and cure the entire person.
Keep up the fight!
Peace
G
Being selective as to what I am allowed to post, is co intel pro. I’ll try this. Judge not lest ye be judged, is a firm admonition against condemning other people, perhaps saying Raca, thou fool to to them. Take care that ye be not deceived is a strong primary imperative to exercise discernment obtained by right thinking Christ minded people. These two different words, discernment and judging, do not have the same meaning, else wise the Christ is contradicting Himself. The almost constant mis- application of the meanings of these 2 different words is employed almost constantly by most of those who post on this blog. Right thinking discernment is condemned as judging, and harsh judgements are are accepted as valid christian thinking as discernment.This mis application is a twisting of the Gospel of the Christ backwards. Perhaps, some elegant and brilliant theological minded person might care to clearly define what is meant, by to judge, and what is meant to exercise discernment. We may then know how to view what we read, having removed a crossbeam from our own eyes.
Was the phrase “open homosexual” used in the Metropolitan’s directive? If so, it needs to be clarified.
An open homosexual, i.e. one who has “come out” and does not conceal their homosexual orientation, can still be living a Christian life, that is, by living chastely as all of us are called to do within our state of life. For the record, I do not favour the normalisation of homosexuality within society or the church, but that does not mean that I would support the notion that even an openly homosexual person cannot participate in the church’s sacramental life simply because they are homosexual. The chalice is for repentant sinners, is it not?
Having said that, a person who contracts a same sex union and extols it as the equivalent of marriage…well, that is quite evidently a more complex matter. Certainly, if sodomy is involved then they must be called to repent and denied the chalice. The same should apply to unabashed heterosexual fornicators too, lest the church leave itself open to charges of bias.
The problem is that the “coming out” process is largely about adopting a public homosexual identity and forcing oneself to become comfortable with it. It’s about overcoming the revulsion that one’s God-given conscience has for a sinful tendency. This causes many to not fight it so much. They may remain celibate, and maybe that’s a lot for some people, but doing the minimum will not effect growth.
The creation of a homosexual identity is the problem here, because now you’re subject to the tyranny of choice. Is saying this going too far? Is doing that crossing the line? Stray far from the cliff’s edge and you won’t fall over it. Dance along the edge and there’s not much stopping you.
The seal of confession should work both ways. We should not wear our sins on our sleeve as if they are badges of honor. Don’t deny we are sinners, but don’t specifically announce them to the world either, unless it’s for se relevant reason.
Ages, thank you for your input on this. The author of Washed and Waiting says that the main problem for him is loneliness–not being able to fit in comfortably even with trusted friends. However, I think a lot of his problem stems from the fact that he identifies as a homosexual even though he struggles with the overt manifestation of it.
You mentioned that you cannot take your state into the confessional. I’d be interested in knowing why that is and what, if anything, someone like me can do about that situation. If you’d care to share.
Michael, reading my post again I see I was a bit unclear on a couple of things, and what I meant to say is nearly the opposite of how it may have come out.
What I meant to say is that, like the priest cannot disclose what is discussed in confession, neither should the penitent. A homosexual certainly should receive guidance for his struggles, but those discussions should be left at the Cross. A particular passion should not be a defining characteristic of one’s life, in the sense that one is compelled to announce it to the world constantly.
As to the author of Washed and Waiting, I can only speak from my experience. But that is that isolation is usually self-imposed, especially when one is still struggling with what to do with their unwanted feelings.
“I think a lot of his problem stems from the fact that he identifies as a homosexual even though he struggles with the overt manifestation of it.”
Precisely. If he is being faithful to the Church’s teachings and remaining celibate and working to renew his mind in Christ—though the thorn in his flesh may never be taken away—, God will give the strength to get through. That has been my experience. So, give up the romantic cultural ideas about “relationships” (which really aren’t Orthodox anyway, even for heterosexuals), walk away from the hypersexual gay culture that only wants to see you fall, and be immersed in Christ and his church in the form of friends.
I really believe that this pain comes from wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want to take the easy road and live according to your feelings, you want to be accepted for it, you want to accept yourself for it, but you also want to live obediently to Christ. But these things are opposed, so you have to choose a side. Some will try to change the Church (like Mr Pappas) and de facto leave it. Some will accept what the Church says and leave it. Others will accept what the Church says and trust that salvation is found in obedience.
But when you’re trying to live in both worlds, which are fundamentally opposed, you will be nothing but miserable. It is simply not possible to run in both circles and be happy. I know a couple of people who have driven themselves to the verge of actual insanity trying to do so. It’s sad, and it’s avoidable.
It is unfortunate, George, that the discussion thread prompted by your important message has degenerated into a a series of largely unrelated comments about frequency of Confession and so forth, along with generous contributions of psychological babble and exhortations to avoid unavoidable judgments.
When Mr. Pappas issued his challenge to the Church, I rather hoped more people would take him seriously, because he truly does appear to be a dangerous man.
Still, this exchange has been instructive, though the evidence is subtle. Judging from the number of “thumb-down” responses to my note on Father Toumoules, I would guess you have about 50 homosexual activists following this discussion pretty closely.
That’s about what I would expect.
Unfortunate but not surprising, Fr. Patrick. What passes for serious dialogue here is largely lacking in people with substantive knowledge and/or expertise, and completely free of the kind of editorship that is necessary to keep discussions on track and between people who have something besides invective and guesswork to exchange.
Fr. Patrick,
You need to explain the phrase “take him seriously, because he truly does appear to be a dangerous man,” because I obviously do not know what you mean. As near as I can tell, the entirety of your concrete suggestions to dealing with Mr. Pappas is to “name names,” of those clergy “homosexualizing the church” in your very city, though you yourself do not seem to be prepared to have at it.
Secondly, without knowing it, I as well indicated we should demand that the bishop in question support Fr. Toumoules (though I did not know his name at the time), and also received a generous offering of “thumbs-down. And here I thought it was just me, and it turns out it was “gay activists.” You live and learn.
Here’s my thought, Fr. Patrick, and you can pass it on to all 50 of of the “gay activists” who are stupid enough to pay attention to a half-assed discussion such as this: we have earned and we deserve this melodramatic “fear” and anxiety provoked by people like Gregory Pappas by our simple lack of hospitality and charity. While you would whine about “generous contributions of psychological babble and exhortations to avoid unavoidable judgments,” I see no offer to invite Gregory Pappas – obviously an intelligent man, familiar with the Scripture and the services of the Orthodox Church – to your parish hall for a cup of coffee and a discussion? Certainly he is angry. Certainly he is defiant. It may, in fact, lead nowhere. But I bet he would join you.
มี แน่นอน จำนวนมากไปยัง หาข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับ ปัญหา ผมชอบ ทั้งหมด
คุณได้ทำ .
M Stankovich,
I am all for giving someone an opportunity for reconciliation, but at what point does providing opportunity become indulgence? When do we “shake the dust off our feet”? I think a bit of (excuse the psychobabble) immediacy is in order for Mr. Pappas. He can follow the teachings of the Church, or follow his conscience elsewhere. This present state of limbo will only cause confusion and division. Now that it is public, it effects all of us. How much can we tolerate without indirectly causing harm? Looking forward to your thoughts.
Peace
G
“Discussions”, “conversations at coffee hour”: by all means! This is what the Episcopalians and Presbyterians do when the subject comes up (as it does continuously now). Yes, yes, this is a serious issue, but let’s have a “conversation”, not a “confrontation”.
Here’s a few “conversations” had at my old local Presby church just in the last year:
Gene Robinson, the gay episcopal “bishop”, talking about his latest book; Jeff Chu, gay Christian with a book on his “search”; Yasmin Monet Watkins, bisexual “performance poet”. And so on.
I have no doubt that when Mr. Pappas’ own book is brought forth, about “Search for [insert terms] in the Ancient Church”, he will get an invite during his book tour!
George Farsalas says:
By what authority does George Farsalas decide that “immediacy is in order”? What gives George Farsalas the prerogative to suggest that a baptized Christian should leave the church?
OO Matthew,
By what authority does Mr. Pappas get to decide when communion should be given? If he was misled about what the Church teaches, he should be corrected in a timely manner. Especially now that its being played out in public. Baptized or not, if he is obstinate about following the teachings of the Church (which is different from falling short of following the teachings) he is not a Christian. Regardless of what you or I have to say, that’s reality. I didn’t decide anything, his words and actions did.
I would have expected injuries and other obvious evidence,
” said Main. While they play an crucial part inside our culture these days, it is actually a bittersweet time when a person has to contact over a Criminal Defense Lawyer for their support, mainly because it commonly means that they are in a few kind of trouble. Some lawyers are difficult and somewhat complicated but clients need to determine this early on to save precious time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/12/i-was-denied-communion-because-i-am-gay/
It’s in the Post today.
Wouldn’t you know, his first sentence is a falsehood. The Roman Catholic Church ruled the charging of interest to be a “mortal sin,” but the Orthodox Church has only actually prohibited the charging of interest by clergymen. The distinction between “mortal sins” and “venial sins” is itself foreign to Orthodox thinking, only entering through Western influence.
His second sentence is also not true. Divorce is strongly discouraged, yes, but not proscribed entirely.
This only goes to show how little this man knows about the Church and how little he cares about the harm he does the Church to get his way.
Is the entire first epistle of John a “western influence”? Or just the fifth chapter?
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
Rome, as usual, is very cut-and-dried about the distinction, with exact definitions and long lists of each type. Where do we find that in Orthodoxy?
Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell says:
All over the place. Especially among clergy and many of the contributors to this blog who are trying to impose their absolutist/totalitarian vison on the church.
So now faith in the Gospel is “totalitarian”? Interesting.
No, just your twisted interpretation of the Gospel.
Here’s a novel idea: Leave us alone if you don’t like our Church. Plenty of other places for you to do whatever it is you do, whatever it is you think you need to do, or figure out just what you want to do and who you want to do it with.
You can even fill out one of those matchbook cover ads and become a minister in the Church of Anything Goes. You might even make a lot of money!
Johann Sebastian says:
The assumption underlying such an uncharitable statement is that only those who agree with you belong in the church. It’s not “your church.” The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church was established for all of us.
Which requires repentance, obedience and humility and faithfulness to the her teachings not wholesale submission to the demonic mind of the world. “Many are called, few are chosen” ; …the path is narrow; Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. and on and on and on.
It is not…”come as you are and pray in your car and pick up some grape juice and biscuits on the way out.”
Other other Matthew says:
June 17, 2014 at 11:01 am
“The assumption underlying such an uncharitable statement is that only those who agree with you belong in the church. It’s not “your church.” The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church was established for all of us.”
Only those who are in agreement with what the Church teaches, which is expounded in the Canons and corroborated by Scripture, belong in the Church.
Whether they agree with me or not is immaterial. Of course, if I accept and agree with the teaching of the Church, then it would follow anyone else who agrees with the Church would also happen to agree with me–a purely incidental matter. Your inference of my supposed assumption is rooted in absurdity.
You want to accept the teaching of the Church? Great, come on in.
You can’t quite bring yourself to accept all Her teachings just yet, but you respect the reasoning behind them, understanding that they won’t change? You’re welcome for prayer and fellowship, and certainly some discussion on the matters that you’re having trouble with.
You want to turn the Church upside down? Ain’t gonna happen. Get out and stay out.
J.S.:
This idea is found NOWHERE in the canons, scripture or tradition. It is reductive and simplistic.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw when I was at the Uber-Liberal & Secular (which, miracle of miracles, it no longer is) U of C:
“I’m a fool for Christ. Whose fool are you?
One could do far worse than letting the Gospel take over every aspect of one’s life.
U of C? University of California? University of Cambridge? University of Cincinnati?
U of C, the one and only, a Nobel place.
Iss is being coy and fishing, both.
Sure George, anything that hints at denying anyone’s desires is oppressive and totalitarian. As we all know, all totalitarians should be shot at dawn.
I would rather live under a totalitarian regime than the capricious stupidity of those who support a homosexual agenda.
We’ve emasculated our bishops with a combination of ethnocentrism and democracy ideas. We are reaping what we have sown.
I am so glad to be an Antiochian right now. Our next Metropolitan will be either Bishop Basil, Archbishop Joseph or Bishop John. I rather doubt than any of them will depart from the teaching of the Church on homosexuality and marriage.
While I would be quite sad if Bishop Basil were chosen in one sense. I would still rejoice in knowing that God is with us. Likely, it will be Archbishop Joseph but Bishop John would also be a worthy choice.
I agree. Bishop Basil is but one of a growing number of Antiochian hierarchs of whom it is said that they are not Masons. Things sometimes do improve!
Your Grace, since 27 years ago when I was entering the Church I saw a letter to all Antiochian clergy on my priest’s bulletin board from Met. Philip of blessed memory stating that no priest in the Archdiocese should commune active Masons or Shriners, I would think that all of the Antiochian bishops are not Masons.
Just sayin’
Michael, Your recollection, if accurate, applies solely to priests,, not bishops, and not to anyone outside the North American diocese of the Antiochenes. The late Archpriest John Reinhold, once a Priest of the Estonian Church (in Estonia), was attached to the Saint Nicholas Antiochian Cathedral here in Los Angeles for many years, and I believe he founded the Antiochian mission of St. Michael in the valley. I asked him if the popularity of Freemasonry did not bother him amongst the Antiochians. He said, “I really had to deal with it only once. It was when they buried Father Ofiesh, and after the Orthodox services were over at the graveside the clergy performed the Masonic burial rite!” I said, “Oh, no! You mean they put on their aprons and all that Masonic regalia over their cassocks?” He said, ‘Oh, Father Deacon, the Metropolitan does not allow wearing a cassock to the cemetery!’
Another time, a Russian parishioner approached me as the parish rector and said he had been invited to join the Masons and wanted to know if it was allowed. He said he understood that only the Russians were against Masons because they blamed the Masons for overthrowing the Tsar and making way for the Bolsheviks. I explained that it was not so simple and that in the OCA membership in a secret society made one ineligible for church office, such as being delegate to an All American Council. He listened carefully and said no more. More than a year later, I saw this man in the parish hall going through the Sunday buffet line. I said, “George! What ever happened with all that Mason stuff? ” He said, ‘Oh, I went ahead with it and was received. Father Stephan, you should have been at my initiation, you would have liked it. Father Romney came out during the ceremony wearing all his vestments! And he created quite a sensation because he mentioned Jesus Christ, and, you know, Masons NEVER mention Jesus Christ.” !!!!”
Very funny, indeed! I can see it now: the Shriners were in St. Petersburg, driving their jalopies, wearing their fezzes, and playing the portable calliope they always use at local parades. A few had even taken a nip of vodka, and fun was being had by all!
Then the Mostest Honorable Potentate saw, lying the street— power! He picked it up and handed it to the Bolsheviks.
That’s the true story, long suppressed. It’s in the KGB files. It was the Masons after all!
Tim, having once been a Mason myself, I can honestly say that Freemasonry in the English-speaking world was a different kettle of fish from what obtained on the Continent. I’m not saying that the average French, Russian, Spanish, German, Mason was a Jacobin but they sure made it easy for the Jacobins to instigate the Red Terror.
I know nothing about European Freemasonry except the mysterious condemnations by Catholics in past times, and The Magic Flute.
Why would one not commune a Shriner? In the US, “Masonry” (which hardly exists at all anymore), is a club with play rituals, like a campus Greek fraternity.
When does a “private club” become a “secret society? My sister was a Rainbow Girl in the 1960s, and went to several dances; the closest my family ever got to Freemasonry. Other than watching the antics of the local Shriners at the annual Daffodil Parade, that is…..
Many of the participants in the Decembrist Revolt of 1825 were Freemasons who wished to see a liberalisation of Russian society. This episode has no doubt become conflated with the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in the consciousness of White Russian emigres and their descendants. George is correct: Jacobinism and Freemasonry went hand in hand in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It is not so strange, then, that Freemasonry should flourish in the US, where, in a friendly environment, it took on a more benign nature.
George, do you consider that faith in the Gospel is to be identified with “…clergy and many of the contributors to this blog who are trying to impose their absolutist/totalitarian vison on the church?.”
We do find it commonly taught by the Fathers that some sins such as sodomy are more serious than others, contrary to the claims made here by others that all sins are the same. We do not find among them the clearly drawn distinction between the categories of mortal and venial such as appears among Catholics. And that’s that.
The Pedalion, the Kormchaya Kniga, the collections of Matthew Vlastares, to name a few. St. John lists mortal and non-mortal. The Orthodox canonists have a few more distinctions within these distinctions. St. Nikodemos has 7 such.
It’s nice to see a “Roman” archbishop “cut and dried” when it is necessary:
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/3194/abp_cordileone_responds_to_calls_to_withdraw_from_promarriage_march.aspx
I was privileged to be invited to some small gatherings at his cathedral when he was still Bishop of Oakland, and to have some pleasant chit-chat. The spirit of purposeful Christian firmness and gracious humanity that comes through in the letter quoted were what I experienced, albeit briefly, in person.
Timor, i think rabbis are more apt to be cut and dried than Roman archbishops, no?
Or drawn and quartered, nowadays…..
His Grace:
Or imams.
Yes, rabbis and imams would be apt to be cut and dried, but no Roman archbishops, especially Polish ones would,
Don’t ignore the fact that Reformed Jews ordain women (I think). So percentage wise tip top prize for cut and dried goes to the Muslims.
Indeed. His entire article is laced with heterodox concepts.
He has decided to take a militant approach.
He knows all this, and these kinds of comparisons are part of the tactic of undermining the doctrines of the Church; point out dead-letter canons, and exploit their desuetude as a reason why issues of serious sin should also be “updated”.
Don’t count on him knowing “little” about his Church. Those who defend her had better be well-armed!
As to the idea of a schism in the Church over this issue: It would seem given St. Basil, the Great’s et al. behavior when Arianism held sway over the Church that such a thing should not be thinkable to us. Hold to the Truth, work for the Truth and let God take care of the rest.
Masonry is a syncretistic mystery cult which teaches that all forms of faith are equally valid and so they have a relativistic generic “god” and Jesus Christ need not apply.
How much, if at all, most US masons put any stock in the mystery that masonry teaches I have no idea, but the official teachings are not compatible with any sacramental church. They offer an alternative faith.
They do many good works which we ought to be doing with or without them.
In Europe at times, masons actively worked against the Catholic Church and at various times throughout their history have been specifically anti-Christian. Ihave no doubt that masonry was highly influential in creating a secular polity. They probably contributed to the anti-Catholic bigotry that was so marked in the American mind until JFK.
The first seven Presidents of the US were all masons as were many of our founders.
To call American Masonry a ‘syncretistic mystery cult’ is really laying it on thick.
“They do many good works which we ought to be doing with or without them.” Ah, but there’s the rub, isn’t it? How many children’s hospitals do “we” have? Or hospitals of any kind, or colleges, or… and so on.
I have no personal or family connection with Masonry at all. So I have no ax to grind. But the passing of Masonry and similar institutions is a great social loss. Every good-sized city in this country has its old Masonic Temple. Tacoma’s has nine- count ’em, 9- full-sized ballrooms. While fortunately the building is still in use for receptions, military balls, and the like, it, like similar ones all over the country, is a remnant of a long-forgotten public social life; balls and dinners and soiree’s all the time, several at a time, not getting in each others’ way: you can see the old photos– a vanished way of life.
This public life was accompanied by countless eleemosynary institutions and projects. It was replaced by movies, then by television, and all the atomistic forces of modern society….alas. A great loss.
Inasmuch as Masons actively promoted the secularization of society through their worship of science, hostility or indifference toward traditional Christianity, active opposition to parochial schooling, and enthusiastic construction, extension, and maintenance of the wall of separation between church and state, they were themselves responsible for the impoverishment of public life that has done them in.
I doubt it. The same applies to all of the fraternal and benevolent organizations; just around here I think of the Slavonian Hall, Sons of Italy, and several others.
Of course, if Masons are bad, it follows that their decline is because they are bad, but that would be a good thing, right?
Tim masonry is without doubt syncretistic. The mystery cult part may no longer be taken seriously, but if you’ve ever visited a big masonic temple with a detailed replica of Soloman’s Temple complete with a “spiritual” explanation. Plus some of the even modern writings. No question in my mind that it was a mystery cult and still has those trappings. Some probably take it seriously.
Michael,
You have illuminated the wall that separates Americanism from (Orthodox) Christianity. America was founded on the Enlightenment. The notion that man is the measure of all things and that all benevolent religions are equal – good works as judged by Enlightenment standards being the criteria – is really the foundation of America, not any traditional form of Christianity. What this actually means in a practical sense is that Christians should really give up the Fourth of July celebrations as the dying remnants of an experiment in self-will which has failed miserably.
However, I have to admit that that medicine may be too strong for many even in the Orthodox Church here in America. It is completely true, but sentiment and conformity to (decadent) social norms compel many to sugar coat it and find a modus vivendi with the Spirit of ’76. I for one can live without it.
America is not only no longer a Christian country, it is actually one of the most powerful forces on earth at odds with Christ. We export an evil moral code and fund pro-progressive revolutions across the globe enticing and compelling millions with an evil social model. Make no mistake, after the demise of the Soviet Union, the focus of evil in the modern world moved to this country. Once I would have confined that movement to the Democratic Party here, but I have had to admit that the evil is systemic, not a partisan divide. Progressive liberals and conservative liberals (“conservatives” also being liberals in that they are no less children of the Enlightenment, egalitarianism, feminism [albeit a slightly softer version], etc.) both actively support “making the world safe for Western democracy”. This means nothing less than spreading an anti-Christian social model, a model which has put Christianity on the defensive and the losing end of culture conflict throughout the Western world. You would think that Christians here would be smarter than this. Alas, it is not so. Americanism and Christianity are symbiotically joined here to the extent that a strange myopia prevents Christians here from realizing that they are, indirectly, passionate advocates for their own elimination.
Misha, I have read your posts here assiduously and find your perspectives on Orthodoxy and American culture particularly intriguing and often invigorating. I would appreciate an opportunity to communicate with you “offline.” You may reach me via the contact information provided on my parish website: http://www.sthermanorthodox.org/contact.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2014/06/28/us-takes-gay-rights-global-despite-unsure-welcome?int=a6f909
Inasmuch as we are quickly approaching the Fourth of July, I think it is a good idea to remember what the good ole Red, White and Blue stand for these days and what patriotic Americans are propagating on the rest of the world when they support “democracy” and “human rights”.
“O, say does that star spangled banner yet wave, o’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave?”
Today marks the second anniversary of the falling asleep in the Lord of Professor Veselin Kesich, who died in retirement at the God-given age of 91 years of age after serving for 38 years as the Professor of New Testament at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary.
Born in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Dr. Kesich finished the gymnasium in Banja Luka and started studies at Belgrade University. At the end of the Second World War he lived in a Displaced Persons Camp in Italy until he was selected to study theology at Dorchester College in England. In 1949 he came to New York to continue his studies at Columbia University, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, and Union Theological Seminary, receiving his Ph.D. from Columbia in 1959.
From 1953–1991 he served on the Faculty of St. Vladimir’s, focusing on New Testament Studies, and from 1983–1984, following the death of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, he served as Acting Dean. His other academic appointments included: 1966–86, Faculty Member, Comparative Religion, Sarah Lawrence College; 1965–1974, Adjunct Professor, Serbo–Croatian Literature, New York University; 1962–1963, Visiting Associate Professor, Dept. of Slavic Languages, University of California, Berkeley; and 1959–1963, Visiting Faculty, Comparative Religion, Hofstra University. When time permitted, he taught elective courses in Serbian Church History, which resulted in several journal articles and essays in books: “The Martyrdom of the Serbs: The Church in the Ustashe State, 1941–1945,” “The Early Serbian Church as Described in the Earliest Serbian Biography,” “Bosnia: History and Religion,” and “Kosovo in the History of the Serbian Church.” He was the author of The Passion of Christ; Treasures of the Holy Land (which he wrote with his beloved wife Lydia as a “diary” of their exploration of the Holy Land); The Gospel Image of Christ, his commentary on “biblical criticism”; and Formation and Struggles, The Church in History, Part 1. He was also a frequent contributor to the SVS Quarterly and a guest lecturer, nationally and internationally.
There is a wonderful Opinion left of Professor, written by his son, Gregory, a reporter for the Portland Press Herald on the occasion of his 90th birthday that captures Veselin Kesich the man, and I highly recommend it. For generations of us who “shared” Professor Kesich with Gregory (and Lord forgive us if we were actually “formative” of Gregory!), there was just nothing like the surprise arm around your should, and the kind voice that asked, “So, how are you?” from someone, in all sincerity, who actually cared. And as predictably as the sun rising in the morning, at every service, rain or shine, there you would find them: two older men, Verhovskoy & Kesich, in the back corner of the chapel, always in coats and ties, seated next to each other, eyes closed and hands folded in their laps. Perhaps they are asleep? They hear something and they silently bless themselves. Perhaps not sleeping. And Fr. Schmemann, led by the Deacon, makes his way through the crowded chapel, censing the icons, pausing to occasionally cense those he passes; but he always pauses at the back corner, censes the professors once, they slightly bow, he moves on.
I am convinced that those who lived the Scripture will be remembered, foremost, as the teachers of the Scripture. And that will be said of Veselin Kesich. May he dwell with the Saints and may his memory be eternal!
May his memory be eternal.
Just read this, even the Troll was touched. How far the Church, and all of us have fallen.