Anglican Communion Suspends the Episcopal Church

Anglican Bishoprettes

Long is the night and the day is short. Many believe (as do I) that it may very well be late in the day when it comes to standing up to the homosexual juggernaut. Certainly no one would expect anything serious from the likes of the clownettes shown in the photo above.

Thus, I was stunned when I read that the Anglican Communion suspended the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) over the issue of sodomy. After all, it’s rather late in the day all things being equal. Moreover, the Anglican Church is in no great shakes itself. Great Britain itself is decidedly post-Christian and Mohammedan births are outpacing Christian ones for the first time in that island nation’s history.

I imagine that given the paltry state of that Church, the normal thing for a Christian pastor to do is to merely keep your head down and continue drawing your salary. Not being ones to rock the boat, the default position of the English has always been niceness –“stiff upper lip” and all that.

The excommunication of ECUSA is therefore a huge thing. Canterbury has been pressured for years to do something about its American eparchy but it has always dragged its heels, coming up with any excuse whatsoever to not do the right thing.

Is it possible that when it comes to the present darkness, it is (as the cliche says) that things are always darkest before the dawn? Maybe, just maybe, Canterbury is showing the other Christian confessions a way out?

We must never despair. Help can come from even the most unexpected places.

Source: Washington Post

By Sarah Pulliam Bailey


The Anglican Church slapped sanctions on its U.S. branch for supporting same-sex marriage, averting a formal schism in world’s third largest Christian denomination. (Reuters)

 

For the first time, the global organizing body of Anglicans has punished the Episcopal Church, following years of heated debate with the American church over homosexuality, same-sex marriage and the role of women.

The Anglican Communion’s announcement Thursday that it would suspend its U.S. branch for three years from key voting positions was seen as a blow to the Episcopal Church, which allows its clergy to perform same-sex marriages and this summer voted to include the rite in its church laws.

It was also seen as a victory for conservative Anglicans, especially those in Africa,, who for years have been pressing the Anglican Communion to discipline the U.S. body.

“The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union,” the leaders of the Anglican Communion, which represents 44 national churches, said in a statement during a meeting in Canterbury. “The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.”

Although it’s too early to predict what will happen three years from now, when the Episcopal Church could vote on its response to the suspension at its denomination-wide meeting, observers say it is unlikely that the U.S. church will reverse its position on same-sex marriage. This could prompt the Anglicans to continue the suspension or make it even harsher, not allowing the Episcopal Church to fill key positions on the global body.

“I don’t believe they will be ‘kicked out’ or exiled, but they will continue to be at a distance if they don’t change their direction,” said Jeff Walton, communications manager for the Institute on Religion & Democracy, a conservative Washington think tank that is frequently critical of mainline denominations.

The decision in England will have little impact on Episcopalians in the pews, who have grown increasingly liberal after the 2003 consecration of the openly gay priest Gene Robinson as the bishop of New Hampshire. That action prompted dozens of U.S. churches to break off and declare their allegiance to conservative rival groups.


In a 2013 interview, journalist Bill Press sits with Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay, ordained bishop, to talk about the Bible’s interpretation of homosexuality (Hill Center at the Old Naval Hospital)

 

Michael Curry, the Episcopal Church’s newly-elected presiding bishop told the other primates –top bishops from each of the national churches — that the Anglican’s sanction would be received painfully by many in the U.S. denomination.

In remarks he has made available to Episcopal News Service, Curry said the Episcopal Church has a “commitment to be an inclusive church.”

“I stand before you as a descendant of African slaves, stolen from their native land, enslaved in a bitter bondage, and then even after emancipation, segregated and excluded in church and society,” Curry, the church’s first African American presiding bishop, told the primates. “And this conjures that up again, and brings pain.”

The Anglican Communion is a global family of churches that historically descended from the missionary efforts of the Church of England. Unlike the Catholic Church, Anglicans do not have a hierarchical head in a pope, but it has a leader in Canterbury that gathers church leaders together. The constituent churches, which preside over a membership of about 85 million, are self-governing.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby announced in September that he had summoned Anglican leaders to a special meeting, seen as an attempt to stop a larger Anglican schism. A spokeswoman for Welby said he will be holding a news conference Friday.

Ahead of the meetings this week, some expected the primates on the more conservative end of the church to walk out of the meetings if the Episcopal Church was not sanctioned.

Like other mainline denominations, the Episcopal Church, home to U.S. presidents and the nation’s elite, has struggled to fill its pews in recent years. It has lost more than 20 percent of its members since it consecrated Robinson, and new statistics suggest that membership continues to fall, dropping 2.7 percent from 2013 to about 1.8 million U.S. members in 2014.

Robinson declined media interviews on Thursday, writing, “Because the Primates’ action was taken in response to something done by the entire Episcopal Church, not by me, I will let our Presiding Bishop and others speak on behalf of our church.”

A request for further comment from the Episcopal Church was not immediately returned on Thursday.

The Communion has been divided globally and in the United States for years over issues from gay rights to women’s ordination to how to read the Bible. The dispute has led to multimillion-dollar lawsuits over who has the right to church properties. Episcopalians and breakaway Anglicans in Falls Church were embattled over tens of millions of dollars in property, a court dispute which the Episcopal Church eventually won.

The suspension stipulates that the Episcopal Church can no longer represent the Anglican Communion on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee or take part in decisionmaking “on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion.”

The primates on the more conservative end of the church wanted the Episcopal Church’s full withdrawal from the Communion for three years, a period during which they would not be able to be present or vote at meetings, according to a spokesperson for Archbishop Foley Beach of the Anglican Church of North America, a breakaway group of conservative churches in the U.S. The group has not been formally recognized by the Anglican Communion.

Also, the Anglican Church of Canada, which has allowed same-sex union blessings and will be voting on same-sex marriage at its general synod in July, was not included in the sanctions, which the conservative primates found unacceptable.

“The sanctions placed on the Episcopal Church are strong, but they are not strong enough. It took many steps for the Anglican Communion to come to this current crisis,” said Beach, who was included in the primates meetings. “This is a good step back in the right direction, but it will take many more if the Communion is to be restored.”

Episcopalians have been aware that the U.S. body could be penalized, said Jim Naughton, a communications consultant working largely in the Episcopal Church. “The sanctions against the Episcopal Church are trifling compared to what LGBT Christians suffer, and we shouldn’t be whining about the nature of the sanctions,” he said.

But Naughton said he believes the primates could be exceeding their authority.

“I’m just very puzzled about where they think they have the authority to require these things,” Naughton said. “This looks too much like a power grab to go down easily.”

The debate represents a larger global tension between Christians largely in places such as the United States and Europe and Christians in places such as Africa.

The active membership of the U.S., Canadian and British Anglican churches combined is less than the number the Nigerian church, which has roughly 20 million members, has added in the past 15 years, according to Philip Jenkins, historian at Baylor University.

“Most Christian denominations have the bulk of their members in the Global South, so they will be looking at this very carefully,” Jenkins said.

Comments

  1. Michael Warren says

    As far as liturgical Protestants go, our endeavor as Orthodox in witness to them should take into account the post Christian character of mainline Protestantism. We have no good business having anything to do with the Episcopal Church at this time. Instead we should be focusing our efforts on a two pronged approach:
    1). Getting sober Anglicans and Lutherans into the Union of Scranton where they can sober up from the Reformation. Eventually through dialogue with member churches of the Union of Scranton receiving them into Orthodoxy through various vicariates.

    And/or

    2). Creating various vicariates to absorb Protestant denominations, church them, while receiving individuals as well.

    Unfortunately, the post Christianity of an agendized, intolerant liberal hate group like this only empties churches and further secularizes an already amoral and selfish culture. Quite a few Renovationists in our midst share this ecclesiastical gay pride parade’s vision of post Christianity. They will be stopped. We have to be on our guard and watchful of the antichrists among us.

    • Gregory Manning says

      The Russian Orthodox Church and, presumably, ROCOR suspended relations with the ECUSA back in 2003. I doubt anything has changed.

      • Michael Warren says

        It isn’t about the ECUSA, but about continuing Anglicans and liturgically traditionalist protestants and welcoming them into Orthodoxy either by steps or as groups.

        • The first order of business IMHO would be to commence dialogue, through those who converted from the Evangelical Orthodox Church into canonical Orthodoxy, with the Charismatic Episcopal Church. Met. Johah had the right idea with the ACNA. However, I think this group, if it is still around, could give the OC a better insight into the whole Pentecostal/Charismatic movement than anyone else for the purposes of witnessing Orthodoxy. Just the dialogue would be beneficial. Of course, we never compromise Orthodoxy under any circumstances. But some type of dialogue, short though it may be, might be fruitful. Patriarch Jeremias had the right idea for the first steps in his correspondence with the early Lutherans.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_Episcopal_Church

          At my own initiative, I’m trying to begin such a dialogue with a former CEC parish, now in the ACNA.

          • Michael Warren says

            Charismatic Episcopal Church? There are many more catholic minded entities out there. Ones which don’t engage in mediumism.

            Even the Antiochians use their AWRV to entice Episcopalians. I believe the EOC architecture was dissolved in the Antiochian church and became the Ancient Faith ministry. That’s what the cancelling of Again magazine and Handmaiden magazines was about and the transition from Conciliar to AFR.

            Strange, you don’t mention your own ROCOR Western Rite initiatives.

            I mentioned the Union of Scranton in light of +Metropolitan Jonah’s overtures to ACNA, which sparked some debate among continuing Anglicans who seemed to:
            1). Reject the historical claims of Orthodoxy.
            2). Condmn Orthodox understandings of Mysteriology, Soteriology and ecclesiology as “unscriptural.”
            3). Refuse the Orthodox conception of Tradition.
            4). Comit to Protestant ideas of authority in the Church.

            A body such as the Union of Scranton could help them sober up from the Reformation as a means to preparing them for dialogue with Orthodoxy. But, of course, direct Orthodox dialogue of witness should be part of the model. My conception for this was within the framework of the canonical, North American church, the OCA, as an initiative to pursue.

            • “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one . . .”

              The distance between us and the CEC and the fact that they encapsulate a sort of rough fusion of hierarchical/liturgical practice, evangelicalism and a sort of charismatic/pentacostalism – that is the point of commencing dialogue with them. In dialoguing with them, you dialogue with most all of Christianity which can be salvaged. Obviously I believe the fullness of the faith is in Orthodoxy and that the Orthodox Church, and only the Orthodox Church, is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. That is our faith.

              However, the truth to one degree or another echoes in different Christian denominations, even in other religions. It is just that they think they know a lot of things, things which in reality happen to be false. Yet they do have pieces of the truth. To cast the widest possible net in some type of constructive dialogue, that would be my aim. However, I think this should not be done at the hierarchical level but by laymen firmly grounded in the faith who have no power to commit their church to anything. These joint statements are a menace because all too often the Orthodox who sign them are willing to compromise the faith or are simply ignorant of the particulars of the faith.

              Just my humble opinion.

              • Michael Warren says

                That’s great (and John Lennon sang of no religion advocating secular humanism in his song), but there are more promising prospects for dialogue as I mentioned.

                Dialogue as witness, yes. Ecumenism for social justice, maybe. People of faith should unite and find a common religious sentiment espousing liberation possibly, but without any compromise of Orthodox life and teaching.

                I concur with St. Justin of Chelje that ecumenism is a pan heresy. I lend credence to such statements that ecumenism is a religion of antichrist. I believe ecumenists represent ecumenism and not Orthodoxy and that most should be removed, replaced, then canonically disciplined.

    • I used to read AO faithfully every Monday monirng, and occasionally contributed to the coffers. I greatly admire the charitable tone the staff consistently takes. But it’s been forever since I’ve spent any time there. They only come out once a week. They don’t have an RSS feed. Their forum, viz., weekly publication of email letters to the editor, is simply not workable for blog-style conversation. Most importantly, the rise of the Anglican blogosphere has spawned many competitors (including thee and me) for AO readers’ time and attention.AO needs either (1) to seriously rethink their approach, or (2) to prayerfully consider closing their doors, with the gratitude of their many readers, as having honorably served their purpose and completed their mission.

  2. No one was suspended.

    The Episcopal Church in the US was merely asked not to attend or vote the various Anglican get-together. There is no mechanism in their entire Communion which allows for one member church to be suspended i.e. the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Uganda can still be co-presiding at the Anglican service with the American Presiding Bishop and take communion.

    It’s not like we have in Orthodoxy where ecclesiastical ties are cuts.

    • I guess it’s a good thing the ECUSA wasn’t genuinely suspended. Where’s the Anglican Communion going to get its laughs??

  3. Kirill Berinov says

    I took my walk on the Episcopal Church twenty-eight years ago, over this very issue. The corker for me was when, one day, the Dean of the Cathedral stood up and happily proclaimed, “Today we welcome into our communion a group called Integrity of Harrisburg,” and gestured toward two pews filled with obviously “unusual” (to use a charitable word) appearing males of all ages, from septuagenarians to teenies. Not confirmed Anglicans at all, but just made part of “our community” because of their agenda. We were raising three sons in the church at that time and did not want them around such an “agenda.” That was my last service in, and my last contribution to, an Episcopal church. It was one of the hardest things I ever had to do. But now, after almost three decades of healing and reflection, the only thing I miss is the grand and profoundly beautiful music. The destruction wrought by the clowns and clownettes is a perduring wickedness beyond compare, and they accomplished it in only four decades. I still wonder how they pulled it off and who habilitated and orchestrated the hijacking.

  4. Archpriest John W. Morris says

    It is worth noting that the American Eastern Orthodox Churches ceased formal dialogue with the Episcopal Church back in 1976 when they voted to ordain women. Despite please from the Episcopalians, SCOBA and its successor the Bishop’s Assembly has refused to resume dialogue with the Episcopal Church.

  5. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    Headline:

    IMPROVED SEWAGE SYSTEM INSTALLED IN SODOM

    • Nicholas Chiazza says

      As Orthodox Christians, we pray every day that God quell the heresies in the Church. But this is done out of love, not hatred. Yes, I know the Episcopalian Church is wide off the track and probably will never find its way back to the true Church. But I believe God can move mountains. So I live and pray in hope.

  6. Actually, there are many dioceses in the Anglican Communion that have not been in communion with the American church for several years.

  7. Feminists envy male privilege and hate the males who have it. Hardly a good attitude for female clerics to have.

  8. Kirill Berinov says

    I took my walk on the Episcopal Church twenty-eight years ago, over this very issue. The corker for me was when, one day, the Dean of the Cathedral stood up and happily proclaimed, “Today we welcome into our communion a group called Integrity of Harrisburg,” and gestured toward two pews filled with obviously “unusual” (to use a charitable word) appearing males of all ages, from septuagenarians to teenies. Not confirmed Anglicans at all, but just made part of “our community” because of their agenda. We were raising three sons in the church at that time and did not want them around such an “agenda.” That was my last service in, and my last contribution to, an Episcopal church. It was one of the hardest things I ever had to do. I still feel as if I were “sold out.” But now, after almost three decades of reflection, the only thing I miss is the grand and profoundly beautiful music. The destruction wrought by the clowns and clownettes is a perduring wickedness beyond compare, and they accomplished it in only four decades. I still wonder how they pulled it off and who habilitated and orchestrated the hijacking.

  9. Texan Orthodox says

    Wow, George, that picture you have of the 5 Episcopal bishopess-es at the top of this post looks like a bunch of middle-aged women dressed up for a Halloween party. They look amazingly and exceedingly silly. And the colors — it looks like my toddler went crazy on their costumes with his crayons.

    Do Episcopalians ever see the silliness? I am quite serious. Is there any Anglican/Episcopalian who reads George’s blog who thinks that the above photo of the 5 female fearless leaders looks preposterous — like they are posing to get their photos plastered all over a deck of cards? Like they are vying to be the Queen of Diamonds?

    I realize my post probably comes across as insulting, but the absurdity of the situation is so overpowering. A risible organization like the ECUSA merits a ludicrous post. I certainly do realize there are strong, faithful Episcopalians out there who are committed to their faith in Christ. I admire them for sticking it out through such absurdity, in what must be a daily uphill battle.

    Another point, George: Many think that the ecclesiology in the Anglican communion is similar to what exists in Orthodoxy. It is not. There is *no* unity of faith in Anglicanism. Episcopalian/Anglican faithful in the former WASP stronghold of main line Philadelphia or in London may believe in a faith that is polar opposite to the faith of Episcopalians here in Texas, in the Bible belt, or in Africa. Many Bible-belt and African Episcopalians, for example, have beliefs that are quite similar to Orthodoxy. There is no unity of faith across the Anglican communion. As such, “suspensions” part of the Anglican communion do not happen over faith beliefs or practices. There is no such thing as “breaking communion” in Anglicanism, since they do not believe that being in communion requires a unity of faith to begin with.

    Orthodox faith, however, does not change dependent on the cultural moods of where that Orthodox church resides. Orthodox Christians in San Francisco, Africa, Russia, and Scotland all believe the same thing. Orthodox churches certainly would break (and certainly have broken) communion with other alleged “Orthodox” who begin to teach heretical dogma.

    • Yes, those five look like they’re the cast of some parody or comic opera. I feel like singing Judy Collins’ “Send in the Clowns.” Rather amusing and pitiable at the same time.

    • I must admit those outfits look ridiculous, no hideous. Almost like new outfits for Bozo the clown. However, if one were to look at a photo of a gathering of Orthodox Bishops, one might assume that they were auditioning for a position as Darth Vader in the next version of Star Wars. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

  10. Mark E. Fisus says

    If this is true …

    Great Britain itself is decidedly post-Christian

    … then post-Christian births have been outpacing Christian births for some time already.

    Mohammedan births are outpacing Christian ones for the first time in that island nation’s history.

  11. Nicholas Chiazza says

    Your forgot one thing, George. Those Anglican bishops are married, not drawn from the monastics like ours.

    Scandalous!

    • Nicholas–11 of the 12 apostles were married. Read the Pastoral Epistles where several times it states the “Bishop is to be the husband of 1 wife.” I guess you view the New Testament as scandalous.

      • Michael Warren says

        Then there is the Council of Trullo for all except the Renovationists.

      • Marriage is not scandalous because it is ordained by God and is a sacrament of the Church. It is only because of the influence of various gnostic groups in the early Church that the attitude towards marriage changed. All of the great men, the Patriarchs of the Jewish nation, were married. Furthermore, Jesus did not use celibacy as a criteria for choosing his disciples.

        • Michael Warren says

          Spoken like a true protestant. JESUS empowered the Holy Apostles with the responsibility to bind and loose.

          • Michael–have no idea what binding and loosing has to do with marriage and celibacy but I guess you do. Furthermore, when one, as you seem to do, minimizes, marginalizes or even discredits one referencing the authority of the Scripture when discussing any issue, I believe that to be heterodox. And to label someone who uses scripture to support a point as Protestant is ridiculous. You would have to eliminate the majority of the Fathers of the Church. One can not even begin to understand the Fathers without a thorough understanding of the Scriptures.

            In fact, if referencing Scripture is Protestant and not Orthodox, of course Orthodox according to Michael Warren, I proudly accept the label.

            The Fathers of the Church read interpreted and lived the Scriptures and encouraged others to do so.

            • Michael Warren says

              Stop embarassing yourself by showing your lack of an Orthodox formation. What the Holy Apostles “bound and loosed” resulted in the infrastructure of the Church. One of those products of this infrastructure was the Canon of Scripture decided at the Council of Laodicea. Another was the Council of Trullo which did away with a married episcopate.

              Now, it is customary to REFER to the Church’s understanding of Holy Scripture by READING THE HOLY FATHERS’ interpretation of it OR learning it from Orthodox sources, episcopate, spiritual father, services, etc. That way you don’t end up with your Protestant “the gods must be crazy take on Holy Scripture.”

              The reasons for a monastic episcopate being mandated by the Council of Trullo are manifold, but the fact is the Church in binding and loosing made it so for the People of GOD. Presumably, if you are Orthodox, that includes you.

              Your argument breaks down to you have the right to quote scripture taken out of context to undo the Apostolic Order of the Church, the Holy Tradition, without any understanding of the concept of the Mind of CHRIST. That is sectarian Protestantism and shouts you never became Orthodox. The Holy Scripture is not at odds with the Church but her written Word. The Holy Tradition is her unwritten Word. I know in places where Renovationist mutations of Orthodoxy happen they don’t teach you that. But until you get it, don’t presume to teach either the Church or Orthodox Christians formed in Orthodoxy. You have been bequeathed a gift by the Church, clergy and laity. Don’t presume to teach the Church or scoff at the treasure you have been given. Don’t use some Neo Calvinist template to vandalize Holy Scripture for your sectarian purposes: it smacks of a Scriptural iconoclasm. You don’t know more than the Mind of CHRIST. Without reference to the Mind of the Church, you have no business tossing about scripture like some ersatz Pentecostal televangelist.

              You are not Orthodox, not even by your own definition because you neglect the SPIRIT in the Church which speaks through Scripture in the Church as her voice of life, but never as your Protestant voice of rebellion and Reformation.

              I am sorry for you that no one ever shared with you the Orthodox understanding of how Holy Scripture is interpreted in the Church. You, sir, are a captive of heresy in need of humility and an Orthodox spiritual director who has an Orthodox formation he can share with you. Because right now you are just an Eastern Rite (presumably) Protestant.

              • Thank God we have you around as the true voice of Orthodoxy. If you are right, why do so many Fathers encourage their flock to read the scriptures. Chrysostom says” the cause of all evil is not reading the Scriptures” and then says” one should not start the day without first reading from the Scriptures because they are medicine for the soul.” Obviously, we are not all Popes and the final authority in understanding the Scriptures is the living tradition of the Church but to prohibit Christians form reading the Scriptures is heresy. I guess your brand of Orthodoxy does not agree with St John Chrysostom’s advice.I reject your brand of Orthodoxy and am thankful that my “formation” is different from yours. May our Lord bless you in the forthcoming Lenten journey. Remember–God wishes to soften the heart more that he wishes to sharpen the mind. A quote form a Father, but being the patristic scholar you are you will know the source.

                • Michael Warren says

                  I suggest you reread and try to understand what has been written for you instead of attempting to lie to yourself and deceive others with inaccurate presentations of its content. When you do such things you scream the points I have made are true and you can only resort to ad hominem lies to maintain your error. I guess you neither understand St. John Chrysostom nor myself. Neither of us say that one should not read the Scriptures. I, respecting St. John Chrysostom and other Holy Fathers like St. Cyprian of Carthage state that reading the Holy Scriptures is accomplished within the Church and NEVER in rebellion against its good order. Seems you neglected to include that part of St. John Chrysostom’s exhortations to reading Scripture. Orthodox read the Scriptures within the Church and interpret them by the Mind of the Church. Sola scriptura is not Orthodoxy. Neither is your reformational mindset Orthodox. If you lack the Mind of the Church in interpreting its Scripture or the teachings of the Holy Fathers, you aren’t accepting things in an Orthodox way. You are just being an Eastern Rite Protestant preaching yourself, your errors, your rebellion in the place of the Church and sacriledgiously decontextualizing whatever you can grasp at to put your Protestant idol of yourself in the place of the Icon of the Church.

                  So I guess you just shouted again you are a Protestant and have no interest in an Orthodox formation. The Holy Scriptures do not exist in rebellion from the Church which speaks through them. I hope that you find an Orthodox spiritual father one day to bring about your conversion to CHRIST and HIS Church, because your mindset is that of a Protestant heretic.

                  There are no Scriptures outside of the Church. There are no Scriptures outside of the Tradition. Both Scripture and Tradition (and the Holy Fathers) speak in the Church expressing the Mind of CHRIST and not your ersatz mind of Calvin.

                  Reread what has been written for you instead of reflexively stating that your Protestantism is correct. When rebellion, error and clear lack of Orthodox formation are stridently used to contradict the teaching of the Church as you do, the only responsible way is to answer and to deny all legitimacy to your heretical viewpoint. When you become Orthodox you will understand that decontextualizing Scripture or the Holy Fathers for your own sectarian ends to preach rebellion not only cavorts with blasphemy, it darkens your noetic faculty with pride and estranges you from the Truth of CHRIST: at the outset your point was to assert your beliefs in the place of the Truth of the Church. Instead of humility and testing your ideas before the Church’s witness, you prefer an idol of your pride and witness of yourself. That is the principle critique of every heretic, Protestant and otherwise. You are your own christ and that is the christ you preach in the place of CHRIST. We are instructed by Holy Scripture to reject other christs.

                  • Please let me know where Chrysostom says to ” read the scriptures within the church and never against its good order.” I suspect you made that up. Let me know the source. Not that I disagree with the premise but question whether he made that statement. I await the reference.
                    Furthermore you present a straw man argument when you mention Sola Scriptura. Never once have I used that term and do not believe in it. In fact, if you read my last statement you will see what I said, not what you said I said, about interpretation of Scripture. Also, you mentioned the mind of Calvin. I in no way support the 5 points of Calvinism. Another straw man argument.
                    You remind me of the pharisee in the story of the publican and the pharisee. Nevertheless, I consider it a blessing to be called a heretic and a Protestant from someone with your mindset. Thank you!!

                    • Michael Warren says

                      Read ANY of St. John Chrysostom’s commentaries on scripture or on his condemnation of heretics. Educate yourself about the Mind of the Church. Since you claim you don’t disagree with the premise, then this is you simply trying to engage in argument to save face and obfuscate. In that vain, thank you for conceding that my premise is correct.

                      Now a straw man argument is made constructed on a premise and then polemicized by associating it with a given foe inaccurately to be easily knocked down. You made the contention that you can pick and choose whichever verse of scripture or fragment from a patristic writing without referring to the Mind of the Church to advance defiance of her Holy Canons, her good order, and putting your sectarian understanding in her place. Repeatedly first in stating a Scripture in defiance of the Council of Trullo, then redacting St. John Chrysostom and posing him against the Mind of the Orthodox Church. That’s accurately John Calvin biblical exegesis. So no straw here. It is properly phariseeism, premised on you knowing more than the Holy Canons and grounded on your personal redactions to assert your sanctimony and rail against the Church’s order, “knowing better.” As far as Pharisees are concerned, you project that you came in to the Orthodox Church to teach and not to learn maintaining a Protestant understanding of Scripture, the Fathers, your approach to authority in the Church. Precisely with the same approach to authority in the Church as John Calvin or Luther and the Reformers at Wittenberg: take your pick. Citing sources for you is a waste of my time because you will then go done rabbit holes of “proof texting” and moral equivalence. But to beat you to the forthcoming Protestant punchlines of Scripture versus scripture, father versus father and ad hominem baiting, I will refer you to works where you will find Scripture and St. John Chrysostom (and others) cited explaining the Orthodox understanding of Scripture and authority in the Church. Here you go “The Lost Scriptural Mind” by Fr. GEORGES Florovsky, available on Fr. ALEXANDER Mileant’s page gratis. Then there is the Mind of the Orthodox Church by +Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos). Read them. (They aren’t on a Renovationist’s banned literature list). You will find all the unpleasant , annotated critiques, both Patristic and dogmatic, of your Eastern Rite Protestant worldview there. Please pass this literature to whomever has been responsible for your lack of an Orthodox formation. Enlighten your heretical renovationism and end your phariseeical sectarianism. After you have read these pieces, if you still need me to find quotes from St. John Chrysostom (ignoring those provided in the literature) stating that Holy Scripture is not to be read to engage in rebellion from the Church and to support doctrines alien from her, then I will oblige you but only with the proviso that you never again abuse Scripture as an Eastern Rite Protestant. And I will demand an apology from you and whatever spiritual authority you answer to. And don’t glibly answer you have read these works when they contradict your understanding of everything you have put forward so far. Show you have read them. Then we can discuss them with annotations further if need be.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Chapter I, “The Lost Scriptural Mind,” in VOLUME ONE in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Nordland Publishing Company Belmont, Massachusetts, 02178, 1972.

                      Chapter V, “The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church,” in VOLUME ONE in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Nordland Publishing Company Belmont, Massachusetts, 02178, 1972.

                      Chapter VII, “St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers,” in VOLUME ONE in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Nordland Publishing Company Belmont, Massachusetts, 02178, 1972.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Somehow, the explanation for the
                      3 citations above got deleted by me… Try, try again. I had said I too would love to see the citation for the comment from St. Chrysostom. It was St Paul who said, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Cor. 14:40), “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace–as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” (1 Cor 4:33) St. Chrysostom makes no direct commentary on 4:33, but he does comment directly on 14:40, which you may read here. While he offers commentary on many things, he makes no mention whatsoever regarding the undertaking of the reading of the Holy Scripture, orderly or otherwise. A bad sign… And unless the author is relying upon an untranslated citation from Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, such a discussion does not exist in the English translations of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Another bad sign…

                      There seems to me a further misunderstanding of the intricate relationship between the Holy Spirit, the “community” (i.e. the Body of Christ which is its faithful), the Patristic Fathers, and the interpretation of the Scripture. And who better to explain it than Fr. Georges Florovsky, as noted in the citations above.

                      Fr. Georges emphasizes the point that before there was Scripture, there was the community and those who received the message of our salvation on the very lips of the Savior himself; his apostles, his disciples, and the community that formed around him before his crucifixion, after his glorious Resurrection, and following his Ascension. What is particularly important is that the Lord specifically told his disciples that he necessarily must leave in order to send the Comforter: “Now I am going to him who sent me.” (Jn 16:5) and “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. (5-11) And further, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (Jn. 13-15) And most importantly, “In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” (23). And I would add that St. Paul draws all this together amazingly in one statement

                      Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when he said all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all [τὰ πάντα, ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς [τὰ] πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] (1 Cor. 15:28)

                      It was the Holy Spirit – who we so profoundly hear of the in the Vespers of Pentecost – is “Light from Light,” “always acting, always moving, always inspiring,” and in the end, the one who guarantees that “all gifts have been given.” But the fact is, while all gifts have, indeed, been given, we do not necessarily know what has and has not been revealed in their entirety. This is the “Holy Tradition,” those dogmatic and theological principles (frequently only described to us liturgically, e.g. the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple) which the Church holds fast, yet have never been “legislated,” “declared,” voted upon, or announced by a hierarch. They have been revealed to us over time. As Fr. Florovsky notes in his discussion of St. Gregory Palamas, the Church is as vibrant and guided by the Holy Spirit – described in the Vespers of Pentecost as, “Fire proceeding from Fire,” “ever-moving, ever-invigorating, ever-inspiring” – and those who would attempt to “corral” the Energy of the Father or “limit” the movement of the Spirit – “who goes wherever he wishes” – is indeed self-righteous & foolish. And finally, the lost “Scriptural mind,” is, in fact, the lost patristic mind, for such was always the patristic role: to preach, to teach, and to interpret the Scripture within the context of the community, the Body of Christ, that began with the Apostles acknowledgement, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” (Acts 15:26), through the “Church of the Councils” in the form of the the declaration, “Joining with the Fathers before us…” yet,

                      After all, it does not make much difference, whether we restrict the normative authority of the Church to one century, or to five, or to eight. There should be no restriction at all. Consequently, there is no room for any “theology of repetition.” The Church is still fully authoritative as she has been in the ages past, since the Spirit of Truth quickens her now no less effectively as in the ancient times.

                      And this point is eminently importantly: it is not the “mind of Christ” which the Church attempts to discern – by definition, could we be more intimate than what is indicated by St. Paul “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” (Eph. 5:28) – but rather the Truth revealed by the Spirit, and explained and re-articulated by the “patristic mind” in each generation. This is not “Calvinistic,” “Protestant,” “renovationist,” nor heretical. Nor is johnkal wrong or ill-formed in Orthodoxy, but rather (I am presuming he) had the misfortune of stepping into the ill-wind of a troll who is rapidly running out of subjects yet to insult. johnkal, you did not deserve the excoriation you received, m8.

                      It was St Paul who said, “Let all things be done decently and in order,” (1 Cor. 14:40), “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace–as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” (1 Cor 4:33) St. Chrysostom makes no direct commentary on 4:33, but he does comment directly on 14:40, which you may read here, but he makes no mention of the undertaking of the reading of the Holy Scripture, orderly or otherwise.

                    • Michael Warren says

                      I don’t know where to begin to start yet another self promoting post of a liberal Renovationist sectarian who YET AGAIN is obfuscating a point to say nothing on topic.

                      Let’s recapitulate. 1). Eastern Rite Protestant X took a scripture out of context to rail against a Canon of Trullo. When said Protestant was reproved and told to a). Maintain the integrity of Scripture and avoid decontextualizing by b). Referring to the Mind of the Church, Protestant x
                      2). Self serving my redacted St. John Chrysostom to try to say I was preventing him from reading scripture and that St. John Chrysostom found that according to him it was good and proper for him to unilaterally use it to rail against the Holy Canons of the Church.
                      3). I then referred Protestant X to two works 1). Fr. Florovsky’s The Lost Scriptural Mind and 2). +Metropolitan Hierotheos'(Vlachos) The Mind of the Orthodox Church to appreciate how the Patristic Mind or phronema is a requisite part of the Church’s witness and in these works, Protestant X could find ample Patristic quotes for him to understand that decontextualizing Scripture or redelacting the Holy Fathers to pose them against the Church and her good order is a sign of Calvinist or Lutheran exegesis but inconsistent with the Orthodox understanding of Scripture which is written Tradition reinforcing the living Tradition and spoken in one Truth by the Mind of CHRIST in different times, placed and faces with consistency and not against the order the Church has ordained in the phronema. I then wrote once Protestant X had read and understood these works if he needed further discussion and quotes from St. John Chrysostom on the integrity of Scripture I would then engage this further because this fellow was doing nothing but engaging in an argument to justify his redactions and decontextualizations with the expressed purpose of witnesses himself against the canonical order of the Church.
                      4 ). This prompted a similar liberal, Renovationist troll to insert himself into this discussion and to state the Fathers I alluded to die not support my contention as far as he knew becoming an armchair database on all their writings in English and then he went on to quote a stream of Fr. Florovsky asserting that Fr. Florovsky agreed with decontextualuzing Scripture and redacting the Holy Fathers to assert a witness of the Church which rebels against her Patristic Mind citing that the Mind of the Church expressed itself in every time and epoch.

                      Now that’s where this stands to this point. St. Cyprian of Carthage in his exchanges with heretics who in a like minded fashion when they decontextualize Scripture to assert points at variance with it and the Church writes (this is a paraphrase) “What right have you to the Holy Scripture? It is the Scripture of the Church alive within her and is understood within her supporting her teachings.” St. John Chrysostom in his exchanges concerning Arians and in other places regarding other people decontextualuzing Scripture to promote heretical teaching in answers (and this is a paraphrase) “The truth of the Holy Scriptures is one as CHRIST is One and expresses the HOLY SPIRIT of the Church in her fulness as a Truth of the Church witnessing the Church’s Holiness.” In other places, St. John Chrysostom asserts that “heretics use the Holy Scripture to promote deception, rebellion against the Church to deny its Truth as a mean’s of promoting error and falsehood.”

                      Now the liberal, Renovationist Stankovich redacts Fr. Florovsky to assert that the Patristic Mind consistently renews the Church in different expressions seemingly to endorse the idea that Protestant X can decontextualize Scripture and redact the Holy Fathers to promote a witness against the Church. So much for the point of Fr. Florovsky’s essay which was that we must recover the Patristic Mind of the Church in Scripture so that we can restore a living but Patristically consistent understanding of it in our time. This point is later brought home by Fr. Florovsky in his advocacy for a “Neo Patristic Synthesis” which relies on interpreting the Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture by recovering the Patristic Mind in our time to RENEW the Patristic life and vitality of the Church in witness of her Truth in CHRIST, renewing the Church in the integrity of the Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture by living the Patristic life which expressed the Mind of the Church as received on the day of Pentecost as the fulness of Truth expressed in COMMON witness throughout different times, places, faces, making the Church a living organism of Patristic life and observance in affirmation of the Holy Tradition. Fr. Florovsky makes it clear that the Patristic Mind expresses the fulness of the Truth of the Church in all times and epochs in expressing living Tradition in fidelity and in the Life of the Church, the Holy Tradition.

                      The requisite part of this Patristic witness omitted by liberal Renovationist Stankovich is LIVING THE PATRISTIC LIFE IN THE THEANDRIC WITNESS OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT TO EXPRESS A COMMON TRUTH.

                      +Metropolitan Hierotheos in his work amplifies what this life entails. Fidelity and ASKESIS resulting in purification, illumination and theosis. It is in illumination that the nietic faculty is purified of passions and falleness and by the HOLY SPIRIT acquires the Mind of the Church. +Metropolitan Hierotheos goes on to write that the Truth of the Fathers, of Holy Scripture of the Tradition is one for it expressed the Truth of CHRIST in its fulness, albeit in different expressions and idioms by different peoples, but is one in the HOLY SPIRIT for there is One Truth, not many truthes.

                      Fr. Florovsky and V Lossky concur in this understanding of the Tradition and acquiring the Mind of the Church. V Lossky goes so far as to write the Tradition is living scripture revealed in silence by the HOLY SPIRIT and is the work of Orthodox Christians to live as Scripture.

                      Thus, we correct liberal, Renovationist Stankovich by saying a few things:
                      1). Self serving decontextualizing of Scripture and redaction of the Holy Fathers to promote rebellion against the Church is heretical Protestantism and not Orthodoxy.
                      2). The Mind of the Church is ONE throughout all times, places and faces and may be expressed in different idiom and may even assert paradigms addressing specific needs of the times as the Tradition IS LIVED, by achieving the Patristic Mind is a matter of Illumination and life (including reading of Scripture) within the Church grounded in her witness (and not a witness of rebellion to promote reformation contradicting the Truth of the Church).
                      3). This means them to promote renewal in the Tradition we must live the Patristic Life as a living Scripture in fidelity, obedience, askesis in the Church pursuing purification, illumination and theosis. We recognize that the Patristic is one, in support of the Church, her One Truth in the HOLY SPIRIT in illumination.
                      4). We must reject interpretation of Scripture as illegitimate which does not witness the Mind of the Church in illumination whose point is to promote rebellion and a witness of oneself rather than the Holy Tradition. Such witness reflects individual falleness and estrangement from the Truth of the Church.
                      5). The Neo Patristic Synthesis of Fr. Florovsky is neither the Protestants’ notion of “continuing reformation,” what some liberal Renovationists mischaracterize it as, nor is it “a call to atavism and living archaeology in a calcified obscurantism and hyper nominalism,” what other Renovationists mischaracterized it as, not is in the slightest a paradigm of the Orthodox dispensationalism engaged in dogmatic development and the convergence of new truthes in the HOLY SPIRIT as time unfolds further expressions of Truth (Fr. Florovsky had this position anathemized when he wrote against the sophiology of the Paris School, of Fr. Bulgakov and his followers in their advocacy for a new reality expressed in Sophia, a new epoch of revelation in the Church. Fr. Florovsky in fighting the errors of the sociologists makes it clear that the fulness of the Truth was received by the Church on the Day of Pentecost and that it does not develop into greater fulness in epochs but rather witnesses One Truth in integrity to different times, faces and places in common witness of the Church as the saving Life in CHRIST. This precludes notions of new revelations, epochs, truthes of the Church as heretical). The essential point of the Neo Patristic Synthesis is to renew the Church in the Patristic Life of purification, illumination, theosis to reflect on the witness of Tradition in our times as a living Scripture of an embassy of GOD in the HOLY SPIRIT where in the Life of the Church Scripture, worship, canons, the Holy Fathers, Tradition lives renewed expressing common fidelity in local idiom and witness in the Holy Mysteries. This does not mean continuing Reformation or Renovationism or dispensationalism nor is it a call to positivist dissection of the Patristic era and its life “to glean the wheat from calcified chaff” but rather a call to receive Orthodoxy live it and guide our communities in its worship and Tradition and Scripture in renewal by the Mind of the Church, firstly by establishing Patristic fidelity then reinvigorating the Patristic Life to reflect on our inheritance from the Church to express its Patristic Life in our time in illumination, fidelity and piety, renewing “traditions” by the Tradition, not by the passions, iconoclasm and Protestant Reformation. This does not mean conservatism but fidelity and pastorship in maturation in the Patristic model of theosis, where communities support one Patristic Life in different stages as they progress in theosis. This does not mean reevaluating and reforming goals by reinforcing goals in humility and in pastoral care of the People of GOD leading them in maturation in CHRIST by theosis in common witness and fidelity of the Mind of the Church.

                    • Michael Warren says

                      I wrote this and was unsure whether it was received as I couldn’t proofread what I submitted. So I edited it off blog and broke it down in different parts to be more accessible as a response.

                      I.

                      I don’t know where to begin to start with yet another self promoting post of a liberal Renovationist sectarian who YET AGAIN is obfuscating a point to say nothing on topic, but rather simply to engage in ad hominem posturing struggling to maintain relevance.

                      Let’s recapitulate. 1). Eastern Rite Protestant X took a scripture out of context to rail against a Canon of Trullo. When said Protestant was reproved and told to a). Maintain the integrity of Scripture and avoid decontextualizing by b). Referring to the Mind of the Church, Protestant x
                      2). Self servingly and redacted St. John Chrysostom to try to say I was preventing him from reading scripture and that St. John Chrysostom found that according to him it was good and proper for him to unilaterally use Scripture to rail against the Holy Canons of the Church.
                      3). I then referred Protestant X to two works 1. Fr. Florovsky’s The Lost Scriptural Mind and 2. +Metropolitan Hierotheos'(Vlachos) The Mind of the Orthodox Church to appreciate how the Patristic Mind or phronema is a requisite part of the Church’s witness and in these works Protestant X could find ample Patristic quotes for him to understand that decontextualizing Scripture or redacting the Holy Fathers to pose them against the Church and her good order is a sign of Calvinist or Lutheran exegesis but inconsistent with the Orthodox understanding of Scripture. An understanding which is written Tradition reinforcing the living Tradition and spoken in one Truth by the Mind of CHRIST in different times, places and faces with consistency and not against the good order the Church has ordained in the phronema. I then wrote once Protestant X had read and understood these works if he needed further discussion and quotes from St. John Chrysostom on the integrity of Scripture I would then engage this further because this fellow was doing nothing but engaging in an argument to justify his redactions and decontextualizations with the expressed purpose of witnessing himself against the canonical order of the Church.
                      4 ). This prompted a similar liberal, Renovationist troll to insert himself into this discussion and to state the Fathers I alluded to did not support my contention as far as he knew (he spontaneously becoming an armchair database on all their writings in English) and then he went on to quote a stream of Fr. Florovsky asserting that Fr. Florovsky agreed with decontextualuzing Scripture and redacting the Holy Fathers to assert a witness of the Church which rebels against her Patristic Mind citing that the Mind of the Church expressed itself in every time and epoch.

                      Now that’s where this stands to this point.

                      II

                      St. Cyprian of Carthage in his exchanges with heretics, who in a like minded fashion when they decontextualize Scripture to assert points at variance with it and the Church, writes (this is a paraphrase) “What right have you to the Holy Scripture? It is the Scripture of the Church alive within her and is understood within her supporting her teachings by those reborn in CHRIST.” St. John Chrysostom in his exchanges concerning Arians and in other places regarding other people decontextualuzing Scripture to promote heretical teaching answers (and this is a paraphrase) “The truth of the Holy Scriptures is one as CHRIST is One and expresses the HOLY SPIRIT of the Church in her fulness as a Truth of the Church witnessing the Church’s Holiness.” In other places, St. John Chrysostom asserts that “heretics use the Holy Scripture to promote deception, rebellion against the Church to deny its Truth as a means of promoting error and falsehood.”

                      Now the liberal, Renovationist Stankovich redacts Fr. Florovsky to assert that the Patristic Mind consistently renews the Church in different expressions seemingly to endorse the idea that Protestant X can decontextualize Scripture and redact the Holy Fathers to promote a witness against the Church. So much for the point of Fr. Florovsky’s essay which was that we must recover the Patristic Mind of the Church in Scripture so that we can restore a living Patristic consistency understanding the Mind of Scripture in our time. This point is later brought home by Fr. Florovsky in his advocacy for a “Neo Patristic Synthesis” which relies on interpreting the Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture by recovering the Patristic Mind in our time to RENEW the Patristic life and vitality of the Church. Renewing a common witness of the fulness of her Truth in CHRIST, renewing the Church in the integrity of the Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture by living the Patristic life. Living this Life in common witness with the Holy Fathers expressing the Mind of the Church as received on the Day of Pentecost. One fulness of One Truth expressed in COMMON witness throughout different times, places, faces, thereby making the Church a living organism of Patristic life and observance in affirmation of the Holy Tradition. Fr. Florovsky makes it clear that the Patristic Mind expresses Truth in unity in the fulness of the ONE Truth of the Church in all times and epochs. It expresses a living Tradition in fidelity and in the Life of the Church, the Holy Tradition.

                      The requisite part of this Patristic witness omitted by liberal Renovationist Stankovich is LIVING THE PATRISTIC LIFE IN THE THEANDRIC WITNESS OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SPIRIT TO EXPRESS ONE COMMON FULNESS OF TRUTH.

                      III

                      +Metropolitan Hierotheos in his work amplifies what this life entails. Fidelity and ASKESIS resulting in purification, illumination and theosis. It is in illumination that the noetic faculty is purified of passions and falleness and by the HOLY SPIRIT acquires the Mind of the Church. +Metropolitan Hierotheos goes on to write that the Truth of the Fathers, of Holy Scripture, of the Tradition is one for it expresses the Truth of CHRIST in its fulness, albeit in different expressions and idioms by different peoples, but is one in the HOLY SPIRIT for there is One Truth, not many truthes.

                      Fr. Florovsky and V Lossky concur in this understanding of the Tradition and acquiring the Mind of the Church. V Lossky goes so far as to write the Tradition is living scripture revealed in silence by the HOLY SPIRIT, that it is the work of Orthodox Christians to live as Scripture, that this Life in the HOLY SPIRIT is where the Tradition and the Holy Scripture emerges by which the Patristic Mind is expressed.

                      Thus, we correct liberal, Renovationist Stankovich et al. by saying a few things:
                      1). Self serving decontextualizing of Scripture and redaction of the Holy Fathers to promote rebellion against the Church is heretical Protestantism and not Orthodoxy.
                      2). The Mind of the Church is ONE throughout all times, places and faces and may be expressed in different idiom, may even assert paradigms addressing specific needs of the times as the Tradition IS LIVED. But recovering the Patristic Mind is a matter of Illumination in the HOLY SPIRIT (including reading of Scripture) within the Church grounded in her witness (and not a witness of rebellion to promote reformation contradicting the Truth or canonical order of the Church – the Church renews its illumined Life in the Holy Tradition only by illumination in the HOLY SPIRIT, not by pride in the passions and in disobedience).
                      3). This means then to promote renewal in the Tradition we must live the Patristic Life as a living Scripture in fidelity, obedience, askesis in the Church pursuing purification, illumination and theosis. We recognize that the Patristic/Scriptural/Ecclesial Mind is One, in support of the Church, her One Truth in the HOLY SPIRIT in illumination.
                      4). We must reject interpretation of Scripture as illegitimate which does not witness the Mind of the Church in illumination whose point is to promote rebellion and a witness of oneself rather than the Holy Tradition. Such witness reflects individual falleness and estrangement in the passions, estrangement from the Truth of the Church.
                      5). The Neo Patristic Synthesis of Fr. Florovsky is neither the Protestants’ notion of “continuing reformation,” what some liberal Renovationists mischaracterize it as, nor is it “a call to atavism and living archaeology in a calcified obscurantism and hyper nominalism,” what other Renovationists mischaracterized it as, nor is it in the slightest a paradigm of Orthodox dispensationalism engaged in dogmatic development and the convergence of new truthes in the HOLY SPIRIT as time unfolds further expressions of Truth (Fr. Florovsky had this position anathemized when he wrote against the sophiology of the Paris School, of Fr. Bulgakov and his followers in their advocacy for a new reality expressed in Sophia, a new epoch of revelation in the Church. Fr. Florovsky in fighting the errors of the sophiologists makes it clear that the fulness of the Truth was received by the Church on the Day of Pentecost and that it does not develop into greater fulness in epochs but rather witnesses One Truth in integrity to different times, faces and places in common witness of the Church as the saving Life in CHRIST. This precludes notions of new revelations, epochs, truthes of the Church as heretical). The essential point of the Neo Patristic Synthesis is to renew the Church in the Patristic Life of purification, illumination, theosis to reflect on the witness of Tradition in our times as a living Scripture of an embassy of GOD in the HOLY SPIRIT. Where in the Life of the Church, Scripture, worship, canons, the Holy Fathers, Tradition lives renewed expressing common fidelity in local idiom and witness in the Holy Mysteries. This does not mean continuing Reformation or Renovationism or dispensationalism nor is it a call to positivist dissection of the Patristic era and its life “to glean the wheat from calcified chaff,” but rather a call to receive Orthodoxy in its fulness, live it, and guide our communities in its worship and Tradition and Scripture in renewal by the Mind of the Church (the Orthodox formation I have been alluding to). Lived firstly by establishing Patristic fidelity then reinvigorating the Patristic Life to reflect on our inheritance from the Church to express its Patristic Life in our time in illumination, humility, fidelity and piety, renewing “traditions” by the Tradition, not by the passions, iconoclasm and Protestant Reformation. This does not mean conservatism but fidelity and pastorship in maturation in the Patristic model of theosis, where communities support one Patristic Life in different stages as they progress in theosis. This does not mean reevaluating and reforming goals, but reinforcing goals of maturation in CHRIST in humility and in pastoral care of the People of GOD leading them in Life in CHRIST by theosis in common witness and fidelity to the Mind of the Church.

                    • Michael Warren says

                      Firstly, you are a retired Bishop of the Church whose task it is not to engage as an internet stalker. I have written several times I neither seek your contact in any form nor find it anything but unseemly.

                      Secondly, it is clear this fellow is teaching Protestant nonsense and lacks a fundamental Orthodox formation where his only goal is self serving Protestant argument. Therefore, he needs an Orthodox formation and at very least remedial study. He rips apart Scripture to justify rebellion against the canonical order of the Church then decontextualizes a Father saying he should read the Scripture to do just this saying that it is by Scripture he justifies himself in speaking against the Tradition. Then he maintains he doesn’t understand how that is sola scriptura and that I am somehow using a strawman argument against him.

                      This fellow is being argumentative to avoid acknowledging he is wrong and simply escalating to see how far he can get before he has nothing left or a sophistry to clutch at. In turn the liberal, Renovationist Stankovich, disingenuously, chimed in because my responses to him on other topics are not being posted by the moderator, nor are the responses to people who seem to dictate a capitalist only paradigm of discussion. If you don’t want to be answered and have a captive audience, it seems you can’t hold up your end in free discussion. You simply have a free pass to shout at people. For whatever reason the moderator seems to not want my answers to these people or the fraud Stankovich read.

                      I referred this Protestant fellow to works to read first where he would find all the Patristic and scriptural quotes he needed IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, where when he had augmented his formation, if he needed more texts I volunteered to engage the discussion further. I am sure you as a retired Bishop could find better time to spend reading these works as well to see I don’t need a hand but simply an informed discussion. I don’t need anyone’s help. I simply require to be able to post replies to people seeking to justify dexcontextualizing scripture and the fathers to justify their personal rebellion against the Church.

                      Of course, retired Bishops who prefer to stalk people on internet forums and write all manner of silliness and erroneous invective are only best served by people who have a problem with the canonical order of the Church. That seems to be a foregone conclusion.

                      Another foregone conclusion seems to be that when I am allowed to engage in free discussion, frauds like Stankovich and similarly Eastern Rite Protestants end up finding their positions untenable. It is the right of the blog’s owner to post what he wants, I simply ask him to post that he won’t allow me to respond to posts where people are engaging me and that he is excluding my views either for ideological purposes or that he simply does not welcome my contributions. In which case, I will be more than glad to retire from participation here and allow him to prefer a status quo which can’t stand reasonable challenge and Orthodox criticism.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      R. Michael Warren,

                      For the same reason that I know you are not a healthcare professional, I know you are not the product of a rigorous academic background: “Indeed your speech betrays you” (Matt 26:73) – literally, “δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ,” gives you away. You claim I “obfuscate,” “decontexualize,” and am a “fraud.” Yet I provide you with the specific, exact, and precise sources of my argument! Mr. Warren, I give you the rope to hang me for fraudulence & obfuscation, yet you are impotent! Mr. Warren, I said you contrived a quotation from St. Cyrian of Carthage attempting to intimidate & embarrass johnkal. I said I have read the writings of our Father Cyprian & the “quote” does not exist in English. That. Mr. Warren, is referred to as rope. I reasonably conclude you have never read our Father Cyprian, but had the cojones to say to johnkal:

                      I will oblige you but only with the proviso that you never again abuse Scripture as an Eastern Rite Protestant. And I will demand an apology from you and whatever spiritual authority you answer to.

                      WAT? My sides! You are the living, breathing image of the man “who digs a pit for others, and falls in himself.” ( Ps. 7:13). To conclude this petit-déjeuner de folie, did I actually read you correctly – as the one who fills nearly every thread with endless paragraphs of caustic & venomous insult and personal injury – criticize Mr. Michalopulos for not providing you more graffiti walls?

                      It is the right of the blog’s owner to post what he wants, I simply ask him to post that he won’t allow me to respond to posts where people are engaging me and that he is excluding my views either for ideological purposes or that he simply does not welcome my contributions. In which case, I will be more than glad to retire from participation here and allow him to prefer a status quo which can’t stand reasonable challenge and Orthodox criticism.

                      Might I hail you a cab?

                    • Michael Warren says

                      The paraphrase of St
                      Cyprian of Carthage regarding reading the Bible is not obscure to anyone who has read the Fathers as it was a standard quote used in centuries of exchanges with Protestants. Moreover, my analysis is spot on: you shouted to the world that you either don’t understand the literature and/or are intentionally redacting it to contradict what it really says to assert your heretical positions. You have done this far too long. My deconstruction of the liberal, Renovationist Eastern Rite Protestant nonsense you and et al have been peddling written in homage to your St. Vladimir’s. I am simply sifting the Orthodox wheat from the Eastern Rite Protestant Renovationist chaff they all too often produce.

                      I will have to tell the University of Michigan and Syracuse University the startling delusional nonsense you somehow maintain I never studied there. I can only anticipate the “why do you take the cranks seriously?” reply from my former professors. I don’t take you seriously. I just see you as a person who has too long cowed people with heretical nonsense. I see a train wreck where you are concerned: it is the strange image of a clown car, VW Beetle with rust, painted flowers and primer, donning a swastika decal on the hood, an Obama bumper sticker on the bumper, getting hit by the DNC express which rolls off the rails as a result.

                      Have you found that post professional journal for unemployed liberals to submit white papers for peer review yet? Try kozmsnbcconfusedandoverwhelmedsufferinghubris.com to see if like-minded unemployed liberal frauds can get you in.

  12. M Stankovitch–Thanks for defending me. I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. In reality, I attempt to love and follow Christ and find the reading and application of the Scriptures as essential to my personal spiritual growth. Please read Psalm 119 for it reflects my feelings. I live my faith in and through the Orthodox Church because I believe it is the Church founded by Christ and is the ‘pillar and bulwark of truth.” Michael, do I have your permission to quote scripture here or am I using this passage in a renovationist Calvinistic manner?

    Michael, it is interesting that you did not defend your straw man argument about Sola Scriptura nor did you forward one quote from Chrysostom as I requested. You make things up to suit your own interpretation of Orthodoxy and then label people who disagree with your interpretation. You assign to me an idea/ theology that I do not believe, Sola Srciptura, yet you do not retract your assertion.

    Again, M Stankovitch thanks for coming to my defense with a much more erudite response than I could ever present.

    • Michael Warren says

      The moderator seems to not be posting my replies to you or the liberal Renovationist Stankovich. Irregardless, you have been answered repeatedly.

  13. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    “johnkal” put a question–a request– to Master Warren. It went like this:
    “Please let me know where Chrysostom says to ” read the scriptures within the church and never against its good order.” I suspect you made that up. Let me know the source. Not that I disagree with the premise but question whether he made that statement. I await the reference.”
    I’ve looked through the aforesaid Master Warren’s messages, and it looks like he was unable to honor “johnkal’s” request! Does anyone who actually read a lot of St John Chrysostom not feel like rescuing poor Master Warren by pointing us all to the exact passage which he quoted here? I mean, the poor guy reacted like an alarmed squid squirting clouds of ink to escape harm! Have pity on him and help him out. It’s very important to him that he not be “shown up”!

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      March 7, 2016, 20:42. Master Warren STILL can’t support the quote he blamed on Saint John Chrysostom—because there is no such quote: St John NEVER SAID IT! What a terrible witness to those outside the Church!
      Mr Stankovich, what would make a person defeated in debate/argument over and over resort to a pathological erotic fantasy of being “stalked” on the Internet?

      The following is not from a Church Father—it’s from Dr Johnson, but I hope it will give Master Warren some insight, hence, help!
      “Censure is willingly indulged because it always implies some SUPERIORITY ( my caps) . Men please themselves with imaginings that they have made a deeper search, or wider survey, than others, and detected faults and follies which escape vulgar observations.”