[Editor’s note: Monomakhos wishes to note that this video (which we were alerted to by StephenD) was actually made by the Media Office of the Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR. This was brought to our attention by Mr Peter Lukianov, the Press Secretary for this Diocese. We regret if we gave the impression that the StephenD was its creator and any embarrassment we may have caused him.]
Thanks to StephenD (one of our correspondents) who provided this Youtube video of highlights of the historic con-celebration between ROCOR and the OCA last Saturday.
It’s only 10 minutes long but its well worth viewing. Superb. Thank God for those traditions which kept the Liturgy inviolate and continue to celebrate it with awe. The chanting is heavenly. [Again, many thanks to the Press Office of ROCOR for making this video. –Ed.]
No one quite pulls it off like the Russians, do they?
Yes Fr, you’re right. They do have a flair for it, don’t they?
I pray for the day in which there is complete administrative unity between ROCOR, MP, and a remoralized, non-Syosset dominated OCA. Forgive me for saying so, but only praxis of this type will provide anything meaningful to America.
Me too, Mr Michalopulos—I pray, too. This is a great event!
I never thought I’d see this. I’m surprised at some of the OCA faces there, given what I have personally heard them say about ROCOR. But then I’m sure they were even more surprised to find themselves present and vested in the Cathedral of the Sign. This must be God’s doing.
Dear Mr Michalopulos:
I hope you do realize that the music which accompanies the posted video are not live; but professional recordings pasted over the video. The first selection is from the Vigil for the Annunciation, not the Divine Liturgy!
Wouldn’t it be nice if those who swoon over the Slavonic liturgy might actually understand a word of it? Wouldn’t it be even nicer if the Russian clergy allowed the Russian people to hear the Word of God in their own language just as the Serbian Patriarchate has at last allowed its people to pray in modern Serbian? Or perhaps you are unaware that Church Slavonic is nearly unintelligible to speakers of modern Russian since the system of verbs is almost totally different and much of the vocabulary has changed meaning over the years.
I remember the funny looks we had each Pascha in the old days since the words of the 3rd Paschal Ode in Slavonic: “Prriidite pivo piiem…” sound like “Come on, lets have a beer” in modern Russian.
I believe it was the Apostle Paul who said: “I would rather speak five words with understanding, that I might teach others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue”.
Father Reardon, I’d like to ask you the same questions I put to Deacon Father BP Mitchell. You observed:
Now, in liturgical show biz and holy glitz, my own communion (the RCC) is no slouch, either, God knows. But with respect to integrity and holiness in ecclesiology and praxis, well . . . One would like to wish and hope that Moscow offers a compelling, genuinely holy, patriarchal alternative, and that its daughter church the OCA was honorably and canonically born. But many of us are not too sure on either point, given the histories, and the fruits, of them both.
I asked:
“. . .It’s hard at a distance to keep up with which subgroups of ROCOR/ROCA etc. are in, or out of, communion with the schismatic/heretical graceless or non-schismatic/non-heretical grace-filled.
Does your own ecclesiology hold that the current tenant of the MP is the undoubted choice of the Holy Spirit? Is it borderline heretical even to entertain questions about this, do you think? I am very confused.
I’m curious whether, in your learned ecclesiological view, the Holy Spirit condones the elevation of KGB operatives to the “renewed” patriarchate of Moscow — in the latest case, one made rich from an intimate association with the import and duty-free sale of tobacco, alcohol and, some claim, even guns, under the non-taxable exemption of the ROC, into Holy Mother Russia, “for humanitarian purposes”?
Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these questions.”
I’m very interested in your thoughts, too. I’m sure many would be.
Mike Myers asks, “I’m curious whether, in your learned ecclesiological view, the Holy Spirit condones the elevation of KGB operatives to the “renewed” patriarchate of Moscow — in the latest case, one made rich from an intimate association with the import and duty-free sale of tobacco, alcohol and, some claim, even guns, under the non-taxable exemption of the ROC, into Holy Mother Russia, ‘for humanitarian purposes’?”
I hold fast to Saint Augustine of Hippo on this point:
Petrus baptizat; Christus est qui baptizat.
Paulus baptizat; Christus est qui baptizat.
Judas Iscariotes baptizat; Christus est qui baptizat.
Well, thanks for this. I suppose that principle does simplify most questions ecclesiological in a convenient way.
I note, however, that you’ve declined to really answer any of my questions. The one I am most interested in having light shed on is whether the Holy Spirit chose MP Kyril, and if so, why, on earth. If that isn’t too presumptuous a question. Then there’s the closely related one, whether the authority of the MP, and therefore its daughters, is built on rock or sand.
Maybe His Grace Archbishop Tikhon would reflect on these questions and care to weigh in. I ask in the deepest sincerity, feeling sometimes, with respect to fellowship, like a bit of an orphan of the Spirit in this dirty old world. Everywhere you look, it’s nothing but corruption and folly and hypocrisy. Or so it seems.
Mike says, “Everywhere you look, it’s nothing but corruption and folly and hypocrisy. Or so it seems.”
You made me think of Ecclesiates. Now there is an existential book.
JR, I should say little but instead of nothing but. Maybe even that’s unfair.
Mike, I just read your reply. Hadn’t seen it before. I think it is ‘little but” instead of “nothing but.” I don’t know any of the people who contribute here personally, but I do know that the people I am with every day are the opposite of “corruption, folly and hypocrisy.” I can’t honestly get my thinking around what you are saying sometimes, but other times I hear you totally. I figure the folks who contribute here are all different, from all over the country, and with all kinds of experiences and levels of faith and understanding, which makes for an interesting mix. I don’t try to lump people into large groups and don’t think it’s useful to start out speaking negatively to a person, and then, when they speak negatively to you in return, to take offense. George is who he is. He’s not a bad guy. You are so insulting sometimes, it’s hard to know how to respond. Could you be a bit less off-putting? You can’t put yourself in their shoes, but you can say to yourself, “I think he’s trying to do the right thing, so even if I don’t like what he’s saying, I’ll respect that in him and start there. Maybe I can get him to see where I’m coming from.”
Well, I don’t know how old you are, but have you hit fifty yet?
Take it easy, and take care.
I’d be very interested to see even one instance where I was insulting or spoke negatively to anyone first, unprovoked in some way, which is what I read you to be claming. What’s your evidence for saying that, if it’s what you meant? Let’s see it, please. If asking for evidence to support assertions isn’t asking too much here.
Recall that I was here in the late spring as Mike, as I noted in an earlier post, and George and I have a history prior to this latest series of bouts. He pissed me off then continuously then, too, for the same basic reasons.
This place has buzzed with insults and negative speaking most of the year, at least since this spring. I’ve found it can be amazingly tricky to take the high road amid the general tone here. I’ve tried, and though I guess I could try harder, it takes two to tango as they say.
Hi Mike, I wasn’t saying you started it. As for examples, you can read your own comments.
I dunno Mike. Maybe when you get to Heaven you can ask the Holy Spirit yourself.
Everywhere you look, you find sinners, but not everything they do is sinful and blameworthy. We are not Donatists. We do not believe that a pastor’s sins deprive him of all grace or “authority.” Neither does the RCC.
Does the Holy Spirit choose sinners to lead Christ’s Church? You bet. Why did the Holy Spirit choose this particular sinner to head the Russian Church? Any number of reasons, most of which we will never know. Is he less of a sinner than you or me? I wouldn’t bet on it, or even dare say.
How pious, Father Deacon, and how humbly submissive to unquestioned (and unquestionable?) “authority” and “power.” Thanks. I suppose that one should be deferent, as this particular pious pronunciamento comes from a published author on authority and power such as yourself.
I maintain that your remark begs the question. To be clear: is it a matter of faith that an Orthodox Christian must believe that the Holy Spirit chose this man for this throne? Sine qua non?
I think it would be a mistake to read infallibility into the common formulation “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us….” In our personal lives, the Holy Spirit is present to the degree that we purify ourselves and allow Him to have his way in us. In our corporate church life, I think it works much the same way. In all branches of Christianity – Orthodox, Catholic, etc – there have been times when the process of selecting leaders has been anything but spiritual, being tainted by corruption, lust for power, etc. I think it would be naive to believe that, in all jurisdictions and at all times, the most worthy spiritual leaders have always been chosen. Nevertheless, this does not compromise the integrity of Orthodoxy or of any particular patriarchate or jurisdiction. Throughout history, aberrations have existed in limited geographical areas for limited periods of time, whether they be in the form of aberrent doctrine, practice, or leaders, but in the long run, the Spirit always corrects these aberrations and restores the church to pure, apostolic faith, practice, and spiritual leadership.
God gives authority and power to whom He will for His own purposes. That’s true of all fathers, kings, presidents, and priests. It doesn’t mean we owe them “unquestioned” or “unquestionable” obedience. It means we owe them such obedience as is consistent with the Faith until God wills that someone else take their place.
God doesn’t always choose the best to be president or the holiest to be priests. Only a child work expect that. There does seem to me something childish in your cynicism. You start with the naive assumption that hierarchs must be holier than thou, and then are bitterly disappointed when it turns out they are not. Sorry, but that’s life in the fallen world. Grow up a little.
Answer my question. It’s a very basic and simple one, to which ISTM one can say either Yes, or No. To be an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the Church, must one believe that the Holy Spirit selects the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches? Is this one of the cardinal tenets of your faith, or not?
I address the question to anyone who professes an understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. I am genuinely interested in an honest answer to what I regard as a perfectly simple question.
Father Deacon, if it were true that I assumed a suitable hierarch must be holier-than-thou (as that is conventionally understood), then I’d campaign zealously for you, wouldn’t I? You’d certainly be right up there in that contest.
But that’s not true, and I don’t assume it nor have I ever given the least reason to think I did. I’m here wondering: do these straw man fallacies with which you are so facile usually work out for you? You and Fr. Jacobse have been very instructive in the tactics of dishonest argumentation, and I’m not ungrateful for your tuition. But nevertheless it does sometimes strikes me as unseemly.
Maybe you’re deploying once again your private lexicon of word meanings, and this is the root of our disagreement. You may recall that I’ve noted this tendency of yours before. In any case I’m beginning to suspect that you and I have radically different notions about holiness. If so, that would explain a lot.
Not stumping for Donatism. Stop straw manning me, please. The issue I raise is a simple one: doesn’t it seem to y’all more like a mockery than anything else that a guy who resembles some sorta “holy” gangsta should be picked for this post? Get real.
That is of course if you know for a fact that he is some type of “holy gangsta.” I hardly think you have anything of the sort.
Well, a guy (an archimandrite and then archbishop, and then mitropolit, yet!) who rakes in hundreds of millions — if not billions, eventually, via his seed money — undercutting the lay Russian competition in cigarettes and booze by selling these edifying items to the faithful, under the tax-exempt auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church, at “bargain” prices . . . What noble service rendered to the Russian nation! What’s that, George?
And they make “Mikhailov” His Holiness? A very, very grotesque sort of holiness, if you ask me. More like a mockery of Christ and His Church. But go ahead, live on in your weird little dream world, y’all. And let tears of joy fill your eyes because your very own primate, whose authority derives from this highly questionable clique’s, concelebrates with the local made godfather, now in communion with said clique.
I wonder who would have wound up murdered if he had admitted the truth at that time.
What’s unchristian about alcohol and tobacco? “Drinking is the joy of the Rus.” – St. Vladimir of Kiev.
Sounds like New Skete.
Now Helga–You know, or should know, that both alcohol and tobacco cause a lot of harm. While it may have been legally permitted to import them and to sell them, I do think that it is most unbecoming for a clergyman to get himself and his Church involved in such an endeavor. For one think, it is almost like selling poison at cut rate prices,
Secondly, drinking is indeed the joy of Rus and it is doing a marvelous job in breaking up families, contributing to rape and criminal domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, alcoholism, and the reduction in life span amongst men. You might as well have some joy in your short life anyway, no? And, with only 2-4% being active Christians, I would say the odds are that some of the remaining 96-98% are not going to be counted among the sheep. I also do not think the Lord is going to thank anyone increasing the number of the goats.
Finally, there are canons against this sort of thing: Apostolic Canon VI says, for example, “Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, undertake worldly business; otherwise let him be deposed.”
Then there is this jewel: “Apostolic Canon Canon XXX. (XXXI.) If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him.” It seems to me that this is a canon that has been overlooked in our history, but I would think that it would have caused the deposition of many a bishop, including patriarchs, in the Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Soviet Union, as well as in any Church that officially “functioned” under any Communist regime.
Mike says it’s not okay for a bishop to be power-hungry and money-hungry, but it is okay for a bishop to be gay.
Actually, didn’t say that, but what’s the point of responding to all the ditzy noise around here? Congrats to George though for laying his little cornerstone of an instructive tower of cyberbabel. He might be well-advised to wonder a bit more than he seems to about the sort of witness he gives of the OCA he purports to represent and serve.
“…what’s the point of responding to all the ditzy noise around here?”
Actually Mike Meyers, Joseph, Ted Logan, Anonymous Because It’s All the Rage, etc., you say that or something similar every few months just before you vanish, only to return like bad case of shingles a month or two down the road.
Just a few observations: it is nice that this time you admitted to being RCC and not Orthodox at all (albeit on the Orthodox Forum you did flirt with converting a few years ago); and, unlike your use of numerous pseudonyms, it is reassuring to see that over many incarnations you have remained steadfast in your defense of homosexuality.
Ciao until your next drive-by appearance.
You’re delusional. I’m just me; I was Mike here, in the late spring this year, and I’ve never posted on the Orthodox Forum. These other names you list are other people or other pseudonyms of other people, they’re not me. I think maybe it’s you who suffers from an identity disorder; is it really lost on you what a joke it is that an anonymous caricicaturist/slanderer such as yourself should accuse another, who posts under his real name, of your own cowardice? Project much?
Most of all, ISTM, you suffer from the delusion that you’re a Christian. I have yet to see much evidence of that. What you seem like most of all is a shallow, bullying punk. I know 6-year-olds more mature than you are. It fascinates me to hear that you were actually considering the seminary. God help the church you’d serve in.
Actually it was here where I said that I was a cradle, lapsed RC but had been considering converting to Orthodoxy. And in my case, unlike whoever it was you’re confusing me with, it was no “flirtation”— my process of discernment has been going on for nearly three decades. Maybe it would please you in a creepy way to learn that you and your reception on this blog are among the main reasons I’ve ruled out the OCA. And I seriously doubt I’m the only one you’ve repelled.
I don’t know anything about these other posters you’re on about, but I myself defend human beings suffering from passions, who have the right to a healing place in Christ’s Church, from vicious wolves in sheep’s clothing like you. And I ain’t going nowhere.
Ha! The image of “Inga’s Cackle” really got under your skin didn’t it. Just curious, how are things on Leonova’s demonic site since she and her coven fled from the light of public scrutiny?
Anyway ABIATR, Ted Logan, etc. – you protest way too much – even the most cursory examination of your postings under various nom de plume on this and other sites (Orthodox Forum, GayPatriot, etc.) reveal your abiding disdain of Orthodoxy anf the faith in general. Cloak it as you may, your, ah, wit & charm shines through.
Mike Myers–I assure you that Heracleides is not representative of the folks in the OCA. His strange (and ugly) sense of humor ise unknown to most Orthodox folks, period.I doubt that any regular person would even admit to have looked at his sophomoric, mean, ugly, and evil cartoons. Frankly, I am starting to doubt your own sanity and probity if you allow this clown to sway your opinion on Orthodoxy or the OCA.
Heracleides, as usual, your graphic talents are mucho appreciado but I really like the idea of “drive-by appearances.” I figger MM’s doing recon for Leonova. I think they retreat inwards for a couple of months after having their heads handed to them, commiserate and come up with some newer talking points, and then come back in.
You know, let’s explore this shall we? Why all of a sudden this new-found concern for Russia, the ROC, and its supposed corruption? Why not go after Serbia or Greece? Or Antioch or Alexandria? Trust me, there’s way more corruption in other churches.
I think PtDnJ pointed us to the answer: it’s because the ROC is the only Orthodox Church with any standing in the world. The Coven is part of the zeitgeist, it’s not a conspiracy per se but “birds of a feather flock together.” The secularist set recoil from Christian Tradition.
I’m not on Facebook, so I couldn’t be in Leonova’s group by definition. I have never had any contact in any way with a single one of them, aside from one or two posts to M. Stankovich here. l have heard a few names bandied about on your cyberbabel libelfest, but I know well how reliable that source is. So, so much for this speculation. From what I’ve heard about them and the fact that so many here libel them so obsessively and maliciously, I think they must be pretty good eggs, though, overall. Considering the source. And Heracleides, I’d never even heard of “gaypatriot.com,” FYI. Hang out there much, do you?
Your delusion about ever having handed me my head is a pretty rich one, George. If you meant to suggest that.
The simple, honest truth about my concern with the scandal of this choice for MP is that I just learned about it. It shocked me for many reasons. There are a few people here whose opinions I respect. I assumed they must have known more about it, and I hoped to hear their take. It sort of traumatized me, to tell you the truth. Now I have to reconfigure a lot of my thinking on Orthodoxy. One more deep disappointment.
So I’m offended by all this creepy speculation and paranoia. When I say some of you worry me, I really mean it.
I’m picturing Patriarch Kirill in his white koukoulion and a polyester suit that matches the green of his mantle. “Come on down to Kirill’s Sin-porium! Nobody can match these low, low prices!”
It is not sinful to drink alcohol, nor is it sinful to smoke tobacco. What is sinful is the overindulgence in these things. Patriarch Kirill is no more responsible for alcoholism and cancer than a gun manufacturer is necessarily responsible for a massacre. He’d only be responsible if he somehow encouraged people to become addicted.
The first canon you cite could just as easily be used against priests who have to work a secular job for whatever reason. Don’t you know any priests like that? Have you duly informed them of their violation of the canons. Patriarch Kirill happened to become very wealthy from his secular business. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy. If Patriarch Kirill is a monastic, he obviously has approval from his spiritual father, so it’s not really anybody else’s business.
The second canon you cite, while it’s certainly something that has been overlooked in recent centuries, is not something you have proven applies to Patriarch Kirill. It is monstrous to accuse a bishop of such a thing without proof.
When a priest has a secular job to feed his family because the is not being recompensed enough by his parish, this is surely a different situation than a Archimandrite and Bishop (monk by definition) amassing a fortune. I am surprised that you resorted to that tired argument. I think that you, of all people here, know that before a canon is considered, the principle behind it must be considered. Regarding the second canon, up until recently, many folks made that argument; that is why you had three Russian jurisdictions, two Bulgarian ones, etc..
Carl, I think we all get it. Helga does as well. As for monks “amassing fortunes,” I think we should be careful throwing that phrase around. I for one, cast a suspicious eye at what I read in the MSM about Orthodoxy and Russia. I’m sorry, but there’s just too much banging on war-drums for my tastes. And besides, as to your point about “fortunes,” I know of monks and nuns who are the sole support of their families (elderly parents, disabled siblings, etc.)
Would I prefer that every monastic live in a monastery and take a strict vow of poverty? Yes, but we don’t have luxury in America as yet, do we? It barely existed in Russia until recently. (Actually, Russia has had a more difficult time maintaining monasteries because ever since Catherine II, the Romanov dynasty was actively hostile to monasticism, viewing it as a waste of time.)
And let’s not forget, that over in the GOA, where there are some vibrant and growing monasteries, the secular elites are doing their best to marginalize them. That’s a tragedy: in just one monastery alone (St Antony-of-the-Desert) there are as many monks living in actual poverty as there are bishops in our Episcopal Assembly. But just try nominating one of them for an opening in the GOA and the fur will fly.
Carl, if I may echo Helga, one of the most important canons specifically condemns priests who have jobs in the secular sphere. Fine, let’s get rid of them. We’d have to close 40% of the churches in the US. Ready for that?
Another canon says that we should tithe. I’m still waiting for that one. And the one about being a drunkard or a sodomite…oh never mind.
How about this: let’s stop playing canon roulette. Let’s look at those patriarchates which are actually doing good things (like Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them”) instead of being sanctimonious asses and accusing those of whom we know next to nothing.
We could tend to our own knitting but then we here in America can’t decide seating arrangements at the Episcopal Assemblies.
Hey, I have no problem with what happens after the ordination. I figure at that point the Holy Spirit must have at least allowed the process to go on (see previous postings). I was just trying to warn against a cavalier attitude about bad things that some of our leaders have done. Do you think that any of the Patriarchs in the Ottoman empire did not buy their position? Of course they did, as the Sultan required it. Do you think that bishops in a Soviet system particularly those who advanced, did not compromise and literally obtained their position with the aid of a temporal power? If you do not think so, I weep for the future of Conservatism in the country as you are a leader but exhibit horrible naivete.You are right about Canon Roulette but it is much worse to make silly excuses just because these folks are powerful Orthodox churchmen.
I am perfectly able to accept Patriarch Kyrill as a legitimate primate (from a purely theoretical stance, as it is really none of my business) NOT because he could not have done bad things, even things that should have prevented him from being elected, but because he is accepted by the entire Church as the Patriarch of Moscow. I figure that the Lord and the Holy Spirit must be at the very least neutral or perhaps +Kyrill is a new man through the Sacrament of Penance. That is what I was trying to convey to Mike but I felt that your defense of indefensible actions was actually bringing discredit to Orthodoxy.
Well, leaving aside the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal products, it seems that the other things reported here makes him sound quite progressive (in a good sense): use of the Russian language in the services, worked for disarmament, working with the West in ecumenical circles, etc.
I wonder if we looked at the portfolios of American bishops (of all denominations) what we would find.
If he can get Russians to worship in Russian, who cares if he makes millions selling cigarettes!
Right you are, Deacon. It’s not like we’re Baptists.
Embarrassing. You continually amaze me. It’s almost like your job is to incarnate a parody.
The life expectancy of Russians is among the lowest in the world. Didn’t Jesus say that he came to give life, and to give it more abundantly? Should those selected to be his highest representatives have gotten filthy rich off of defiling the flesh and doing serious damage to the temple of the Holy Spirit? Is that sort of thing now considered a good work meriting elevation to the highest positions in the kingdom of heaven? Are you people even serious?
I worry about you.
They are being defensive. If you had been more questioning and less accusatory, the response may have been different. You pushed and they are pushing back.
Exactly!
No worries about me Mike. And I’m glad to be the source of amazement. What do you want me to do about Russian life expectancy? Wave my wand and make it all better? I’m sorry that the health of the Russian people exercises you so. I expect you take an equal interest in the life expectancy of American homosexuals who have been decimated by AIDS. Or the life expectancy of Latinos in the barrio and blacks in the ghetto, where men dying peacefully in their beds past the age of 40 is an unknown phenomenon.
Mote. Beam. Your own eye.
George, I’m done with you. You’re a dishonest hack.
The short life expectancy of Russians is due largely to alcohol and tobacco abuse from what I understand. The man the ROC chose as Patriarch of Moscow got very, very rich taking advantage of the tax-exempt status of the ROC to import and then sell at very high volumes these poisons to the Russian people.
You desperately need to get a clue.
FYI, my amazement and worry in this particular case had to do with Deacon Mitchell, mainly and his ludicrous special pleading. Your interlocutory narcissism and the dull thuds from that echo chamber in your own head are vividly on display, as so often. You make it obvious to me once again that trying to have a coherent and meaningful discussion with you is a fool’s errand.
OK, Mike, if you can’t take the heat, I understand why you want to get out of the kitchen. BTW, weren’t you on this blog about 2 monthts ago promoting the homosexual agenda? If so, it’s clear that you’re really just a back-biter who’s always looking to find the flaw in any argument rather than living a faith-abiding life.
It’s rather lonely life to always be looking for the faults of others in order to justify your own sins.
Come back whenever you want. It’d be good if you did so say after you come to belief in Christ. It’s liberating.
May I say what a shining example your discourse is of the faith-abiding life!
You’re pretty funny, George. Specious blather, buzz words and limp cliches galore, but you might want to reach for a bit of substance and coherence from time to time, too. Just a suggestion.
Geo Michalopulos says:
December 15, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“BTW, weren’t you on this blog about 2 monthts ago promoting the homosexual agenda?”
Well then, it seems pretty clear to me that MMs negativism toward +Kirill is really a disguised attempt to discredit him as much as is possible so as to get him “dethroned” because he is the leading obstacle to the Gay Right’s agenda for the Orthodox Church.
PtDnJ, interesting point you bring up there. Outside of +Jonah (whom they also tried to take out), HH +Kirill is the only obstacle in the Orthodox world towards the homosexual’s world-wide agenda, isn’t he? Wouldn’t it be grand for MM’s, Leonova’s, Larry Kramer’s of the world if a major bulwark of traditionalism was taken down because of some “corruption.”
I guess we should be looking for more journalism from the MSM about how terrible things are in Russia. You know, really good journalism, like the kind that assured us that Iraq had WMDs. Remember what a “slam dunk” that one was? It’s delicious in retrospect to cough up all those old New York Times’ headlines from the 1990s on about the imminence of Iraq’s nuclear program.
Then when things turn sour, neo-liberals and neo-cons can always pull an Andrew Sullivan and talk about how terrible war is.
You know, every now and then I like to put on my health professional hat. This is one of those times.
Regarding the life expectancy of Russian males, ostensibly due to tobacco and alcohol, several facts stand out:
1. Japan has the highest tobacco consumption per capita in the world. They also have the highest life-expectancy rate in the world.
2. Greece has the highest tobacco consumption per capita in Europe. Their life expectancy is higher than Russia’s.
3. France has the highest alcoholism rate per capita in Europe. Again, their life expectancy is higher than Russia’s.
Do I have an explanation? No, but a reasonable man would have to consider genetics.
Mike Myers…Talk about purple prose! “Those who got filthy rich defiling the flesh,” etc.
Have you ever seen an American magazine called “Vanity Fair?} This year is ran a big expose on a Mt. Athos monastery and a couple monastic denizens of it who have accumulated and continue to accumulate BILLIONS of dollars through mostly, but not entirely, real estate dealings, venture capitalist feats, and so on. Those who belong to “Occupy Wall Street” should be getting visas to go “Occupy Mount Athos.” Oh, if the Russian Church, the resurgent Russian Church, the MP, only had a couple monastics like those Athonites, just thin what they could do! it must really frustrate Chancellor Merkel and Sarkozy to be struggling to find as way to “bail out” Greece when they know that monks on the Holy Mountain could do so much to “bail out’ Greece, but they won’t. Candle, vodka, and tobacco royalties in Russia are petty cash tot the Financial Moguls and wizards of the Holy Mountain!
But Your Grace, the MMs of the world aren’t concerned with what happens in churches that are in countries in demographic free-fall. It’s the Russian Bear which terrifies them, and the fact that the ROC is serious about Orthodoxy and evanglism.
You’re a raving maniac and a liar. Do you know what libel is? You and Heracleides and PdnNJ have a florid fantasy life, but I honestly think you need professional help. This joint is clinical.
As if the issue were just the money. I give up.
It wasn’t until I saw him go all to pieces with “You’re a raving maniac and a liar”, followed by (hilariously!) “Do you know what libel is? ” (I know, it’s calling someone a maniac and a liar), that I realized that I KNOW that name. It’s Austin Powers! Who woulda thunk it?
WRT “The views expressed here are his own.”
Does that mean that it is just/only his “personal opinion” and conclusions”?
BTW, which of today’s world leaders and persons in positions of high authority do not have their very vocal critics/opponents about their actions and backgrounds? (I even noticed somewhere that the late Serbian Patriarch Pavle+ of blessed memory, who would most closely fit MM’s criteria of what a Patriarch should be, had critics.) President Obama himself refuses to release some important information about his personal “history,” so I’ve heard. May not Patriarch Kirill be using the “unrighteous mammon” he is being accused of personally accumulating to fund the present large scale spiritual and physical rebuilding program of the ROC? Oh well, “The views [and questions] expressed here are [only my] own.”
I hope you are not saying that the righteous use of the allegedly ill-begotten mammon is wiping the slate clean? That we should forget how he came upon the allegedly ill-begotten mammon, which he was also forbidden to do under the penalty of deposition?
I will draw you a parallel that should resonate with many on this blog
mammon is OK if it is used to do good deeds.
publishing personal emails is OK if used to expose a miscreant..
Carl, I think you are correct in using the word “allegedly,” but your use of it seems to make your argument rather pointless.
Also, I understand that the funds to build Agia Sophia in Constantinople were the results of the “spoils of war” from Theodosius’ recapture of the Italian provinces. Am I wrong about that? If not, what do you think about it?
Carl,
I have not always agreed with you, more often agreeing with Helga or George, but in this matter I think you are correct. While Mike Myers’ accusatory tone suggests more malice than inquistiveness, some of the responses have been just plain embarrassing.
The defensiveness that has led to statements such as “If he can get Russians to worship in Russian, who cares if he makes millions selling cigarettes!” is most unfortunate.
Patriarch Kirill apparently (I say since I don’t know that much about him) has both virtues and faults. No surprise. Please folks, stop letting yourselves be baited by Mike Myers.
Dear Mr Myers:
The answer comes from Our lord, Himself, where he said: “Have I not chosen all of you, and one of you is a demon?” The Gospel says that Lord spoke this word since He knew that Judas was to betray Him.
You are entirely correct in stating that Patriarch Kirill is a tool of the Russian State security apparatus. For more on that you might want to see my responses to the “Resurgent Russia” post.
Sadly, the primary victims of this false Apostle are fellow Orthodox Christians, the victims of genocide, religious persecution, and ethnic cleansing in occupied Georgia. The enormity of these crimes cries out to Almighty God. “What have you done. your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!”.
Sadder still, is the fact that self appointed, un-informed “Orthodox” propagandists are willing to turn aside from the suffering of those that Our Lord called “these the least of my brethren” in order to carry on with their own delusional fantasies of a conquering “Orthodox Empire”.
Although it does seem that he is what you and many others have claimed, I didn’t make that particular claim. Others say he is or was a KGB operative. What seems objectively indisputable, however, is that he got obscenely rich off of high volume sales of cheap poisons to his own people, one of the shortest-lived and most disease-ridden in the world, while serving as an archbishop or archimandrite in the ROC and while taking advantage of tax-exemptions granted to Russian non-profits to do it. Then he sought the patriarchal throne, or evidently his peers elected him to it, or submitted to consent to it, for whatever reasons — one hears stories about that. There’s a lot more than the appearance of evil here. And clerical blessings on the weapons of war used against fellow Orthodox Christians is another abomination. Abominations are overspreading these days, though. I’m afraid we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Around here, on Michalopoulos’ list, they rend their garments over rumors of gay bishops. That is what sets these peoples’ hair on fire — but they are very anxious about what the aforementioned Mother Church thinks about their petty cliques and its cat fights. All the while careful to trumpet their own allegiance to another Empire, busily conquering the world in hoc signo (of the Almighty Dollar — dunno the Latin for this.) A nauseating spectacle.
No, we don’t care about what one particular Mother Church may think of us, but what all Sister Churches think of each other. We are here for all of us.
But since you brought it up, if we assume that bishops who are in the stock market are doing something negative, can we also not assume that homosexual bishops (and drunkards, embezzlers, etc.) are engaged in nefarious activities as well. Or do you believe that sodomy is OK but selling tobacco is not?
Should Saakashvili bear any of the blame for that?
Of course he should. Mr Frost is a Georgian apologist. Whether he is a neo-con war-hawk is another matter. (See my most recent blog posting.) I am not a ROC triumphalist but neither do I beat the tocsin of war based on the wishes of American imperialists who wish to get us into another war. Mr Frost on the other hand has been whitewashing Georgia’s role in this and is at best oblivious to the consequences that would follow should we heed his victimology.
Mike Myers’ question would have been quite appropriate for an Agnostic or Atheist to ask. Conversely, I would not think that an RCC member would dare start such a tit-for-tat argument. That said, my reply (coming as it is from a mere layman) would have been “One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.”
Well, what can I say. That’s one way to try to dispose neatly of my questions. Ad hominem, though.
It’s obvious that I’m profoundly agnostic with respect to ecclesiology and Church authority — any Church, these days — given their history and fruits lately, East and West. I’m not agnostic or atheist with respect to the authority of the Holy Spirit or of Jesus Christ, even though the accounts of His words are refracted through a highly dubious human institution. I’m not an atheist. I’m not a statist.
I may have inadvertently misspoken earlier and therefore misled you. I’m in communion with the RCC only in the sense that they haven’t thrown me out yet. I imagine they would say I had excommunicated myself, since I haven’t communed there in nearly 20 years. I’m very far from contending for Rome, as I think should have been obvious from my post. There’s deep corruption everywhere.
Well, thanks for that to you, too. I agree, but that’s also very far from being any sort of answer to my questions about the MP.
In our Divine Liturgy, that response is to the Priest lifting up the Body and Blood of our Lord and exclaiming: “Holy things are for the holy.” None of us holy and yet we come forward reminding ourselves once again that only the Lord if holy and that we can only ask him to have mercy on us.
What I was inferring here was a reminder to you that the Lord saves even the greatest of sinners, even at a few minutes before the end. Who are we to say that popes or patriarchs, priests, monks, deacons, lay folks are not saved in spite of their sinfulness? Who are we to say that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in any given church?
Metropolitan Philaret was once asked whether heterodox (Protestants, Roman Catholics and the like) were going to heaven. He said “”It is self evident, however, that sincere Christians who are Roman Catholics, or Lutherans, or members, of other non-Orthodox confessions, cannot be termed renegades or heretics—i.e. those who knowingly pervert the truth… They have been born and raised and are living according to the creed which they have inherited, just as do the majority of you who are Orthodox; in their lives there has not been a moment of personal and conscious renunciation of Orthodoxy. The Lord, “Who will have all men to be saved” (I Tim. 2:4) and “Who enlightens every man born into the world” (Jn. 1.43), undoubtedly is leading them also towards salvation In His own way.”
It is His way and His mercy that are definitive and the only time that we accuse anyone of sin in a sure way is when we approach Him as the sinner, the one who needs grace and forgiveness.
Said none of these things, in case you’re suggesting I had. I asked, why on earth was the man Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev Kyrill chosen to be the Patriarch of Moscow? By the Holy Spirit? If so, what does this mean? If a bishop should be above reproach,
shouldn’t a Patriarch be even more so? Anyway, ever since Sergei, the “renewed” MP patriarchate seems under a dark cloud, to put it mildly. As its progeny must be.
It seems to me that Mike Myers has the same problem as Ashley Nevins, expecting perfection in an imperfect world where the gap between “what is” and “what should be” is bridged by repentance which the Holy Spirit can work with.
The issue is fitness for holy office and real holiness, obviously. Spare me the trite claptrap —grimly amusing as y’all’s desperate responses may be.
Spare us the sanctimony Mike. As I asked Ashley Nevins several times (but which he would not answer): “what church do you belong to?” There comes a time when your cards have to be put on the table, what hand do you have?
You have truly prodigious talents for missing the point and for making risibly dishonest and lame arguments.
My “hand” as you put it ought to be perfectly obvious. Nearly all the evidence available points to an inescapable conclusion: it is improbable in the extreme that your hierarchy is selected by the Holy Spirit. It borders on mockery to think it is, given the facts available for consideration.
Well, Mike, maybe you don’t believe in the Orthodox God.
“That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil” (Isa 45:7-7):
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1).
“Grant us, O Lord, Thy strength and protection; make the evil good and preserve the just in their righteousness. For Thou canst do all things and there is no one who may oppose Thee; for when Thou desirest, Thou savest, and no one resists Thy will” (from the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great).
Of these three citations, only the first one from Isaiah is really relevant. And with respect to the discussion it could catalyze, well . . . “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” is all I’d care to say about that. Lead me not into temptation. I’m reminded however about a warning in St. Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians about God sending a strong delusion, in judgment.
Since the kings of the earth are not at issue here, the second doesn’t seem particularly germane to our discussion. The kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and that of the princes of this world are distinct, I think, if somewhat in tension. Anyway, that’s how I read what Jesus and Paul claimed, and I believe it and think it is factually the case, based both on faith and its instrument and servant, reason. Do you believe it? Someone said that the Western churches have gradually lost their heart (cf. Calvin) and the Eastern churches have gradually lost their mind, since the Great Schism. This remark resonates with me. A church that had completely lost them both would be a truly grim development.
The third, from the Liturgy of St. Basil, seems perfectly innocuous with respect to any of my contentions. We know from the gospel that God’s will is that all be saved. The issue here isn’t anyone’s salvation but the criteria for holding high Church office. Obviously.
I think this fellow is on another one of his fishing trips. ***** yawn…..*****
I think you’re right, Jane. He doesn’t really want answers. Best to ignore him.
That would of course mean that you truly do know what is in the Holy Spirit’s mind. I do not, but I must assume you do given your certitude. Please illuminate us as to what criteria you possess to be able to lord it over us in such a way. (I pray you know the definition of blasphemy.)
And no, this is not a mockery.
George, do you know what it means to beg the question? To assume what requires demonstration? I am not claiming to know the mind of the Holy Spirit. It seems obvious that it is y’all who are making that claim. But I’m not sure, thus my questions. I am trying to determine whether you are doing so on the basis of what you are willing to admit is just a human tradition or on what you would assert is a Revealed truth of ecclesiology that one must believe to be an Orthodox Christian.
I am willing to stipulate that is possible that the hierarchs of the Orthodox churches are indeed chosen by the Holy Spirit. What I said was that it seemed extremely improbable, given the evidence, and that it’s reasonable to be quite dubious about this proposition — that’s not certitude, obviously. So your assumption is baseless.
Is anyone going to answer my question, or not? Is it Revealed by God that the Holy Spirit selects the hierarchs of the historical Orthodox Church? Is this a revealed dogma, or kerygma, of the faith? Yes, or No?
I do know what it is to beg the question. In a debate though, we have to know what the terms are. Otherwise there can be no debate. I freely acknowledge that I’m a sinner. For the salvation of my own soul I must stop there. However since “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” I can reasonably assume that HH +Kirill is a sinner as well, as I can assume you are as well. I don’t presume to worry about your sins however therefore I must look askance at your preoccupation with +Kirill’s supposed sins.
I will for the sake of argument ask you again: what is immoral about owning stocks in legal commodities? Do the pastors of mainline denominations draw big salaries? Or those of the mega-churches? How much does the presiding Bishopess of the Episcopagans make? Or T D James?
As for your other questions, you “stipulate that it is possible that the hierarchs of the Orthodox churches are indeed chosen by the Holy Spirit.” Why do you stipulate that? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Based on what evidence? (I’m sorry but it is you who is begging the question –we really must settle on first principles.)
As for the final question, the question about whether it is “revealed” or not was answered by our Lord when he said to Peter “thou are Peter, and up on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” At the risk of belaboring the point, yes, it was revealed that the bishops of the Orthodox churches are chosen by the Holy Spirit.
Now, What does this mean?
1. That the Church is physically immortal (even though the people in it are not).
2. That Peter showed the type of faith (rock-like) upon which our Lord would build this immortal institution. Ergo,
3. men of such rock-like faith (bishops, clergy, even laymen) would not only be part of this institution but would lead it. (This is necessary because all institutions are hierarchical.) And of course as Jesus said in another parable, there would be weak men in it, some of whom were leaders as well. (The parable of the three stewards for example –the last steward was niggardly with the talents given him.)
Really, it’s just simple logic.
I will also point out that the Vatican runs its own bank.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, based among other things on my personal experience of His presence.
For the sake of argument, I stipulate that it is possible that He chose each and every hierarch of the Orthodox Church. I do it because I suppose that just about anything, however improbable, may indeed be possible. For another example, I’m willing to suppose, for the sake of this not at all promising argument, that it is possible, for the first time, that I might have a rational, evidence-supported, edifying and meaningful dialogue with you. It is most improbable, but hope springs eternal.
OK, then tell me what it means. Give me an example.
You must stop there, must you? Who do you think you’re kidding George? What else do you do almost non-stop here but sit in judgment on others incessantly? Others who are usually never around to defend themselves, I notice.
You’re safe in this particular assumption about me. Let’s agree together to stipulate its truth and facticity. I am similarly perfectly willing to accept the probable truth and facticity of your self-confession above.
For the moment, let’s leave Vladimir Gundyaev’s alleged sinfulness, as such, before his elevation, out of it, to a certain extent. Because I think it’s best to build a reasoned discussion upon a foundation of mutually agreed upon, rock-solid facts, and we can only theorize about his alleged sinfulness, based on reports and rumors. My questions in this case all have to do with the issue of weighing fitness for high Church office on the basis of a man’s works. In other words, it’s about judging works, not souls — obviously. I’m interested in what sort of standards you people are willing to countenance.
I’m not eagerly seeking, or sitting upon, a Patriarchal throne. I’m simply trying to grok how you people think, get some sense of your criteria for moral and ethical reasoning. This constitutes a very mystifying puzzle to many of us, believe me. What you wink at, and what causes you to rend your garments. Trust me on this.
Whether you like it or not there are rules laid down in the NT about high office in the Church. You people treat them as if they were some sort of joke, with your specious casuistries and bizarre winkings at and pooh-poohing of extremely grave and serious matters. It’s unseemly.
This is the sort of crap that makes me so pessimistic about the prospects of any meaningful engagement with you. When did I ever say anything about his stocks? The author of the piece mentioned that as an aside, not me. Are you just willfully pretending not to grasp what I’m calling attention to, or does some sort of block in your consciousness prevent your seeing the elephant in the room?
Please allow me to point it out again, for your reference:
“I’m curious whether, in your learned ecclesiological view, the Holy Spirit condones the elevation of KGB operatives to the “renewed” patriarchate of Moscow — in the latest case, one made rich from an intimate association with the import and duty-free sale of tobacco, alcohol and, some claim, even guns, under the non-taxable exemption of the ROC, into Holy Mother Russia, ‘for humanitarian purposes’?”
“The life expectancy of Russians is among the lowest in the world. Didn’t Jesus say that he came to give life, and to give it more abundantly? Should those selected to be his highest representatives have gotten filthy rich off of defiling the flesh and doing serious damage to the temple of the Holy Spirit? Is that sort of thing now considered a good work meriting elevation to the highest positions in the kingdom of heaven? Are you people even serious?”
Mike Myers has obviously forgotten (or maybe has never known) the meaning of the spiritual lesson taught by our Lord in His parable of The Publican and the Pharisee.
Rather than leave me in suspense, charitably illuminate me. I’m all ears for this one.
OK, here goes: the Pharisee was scrupulous in his ethics and observance of the Law. He was in every way a blameless man. Righteous too. You could trust your wife with him. Jesus was explicit in His description of him. He didn’t say “the Pharisee was a hypocrite,” or “the Pharisee only feigned righteousness.” No, he really was righteous. And the Pharisee’s description of the Publican was spot on. One man was definately good, the other most definately a sinner.
Unfortunately, the Pharisee was prideful as well. And like Lucifer before him, his pride deceived him into thinking that he knew the mind of God, that he could in fact be God. Because that’s what men do who judge others. They act in the stead of God. That’s blasphemy. The sinner on the other hand knew that he was a sinner.
Rather than respond immediately to your preposterous explication, George, I’d prefer to wait for PdnNJ to illuminate me in the light of his meaning — if he can, and if this wasn’t just another in his string of trademark drive-bys.
George, you nailed it! I need to nail that to my forehead but tape would probably be better.
I know what the parable means. What I don’t know is what it has to do with this discussion.
Seriously? You don’t know?
OK, I’ll be fair. I remember hearing a story about one of the Desert Fathers (forgive me, I can’t remember his name). Anyway, he lived a long life, a righteous man, miracle-worker. Never said an unkind word, never harmed a flea. A life of ascesis, repentance, and prayer.
Anyway, as he lay dying, his brethren were gathered around him and he kept muttering something to himself. They asked him: “what are you saying brother?” He said “I need more time.” “Time for what?” they asked. “I need more time to repent.”
If it’s so clear, explain it. Let’s hear it.
Jesus constantly protrayed the Pharisees as petty, legalistic hypocrites who were clueless about the weighty matters of the Law: justice, proper judgment and mercy. If you seriously intend to suggest that the gospels present him as regarding them as definately (sic) good or even merely righteous men, you are gravely mistaken. You simply don’t get it. They were socially acceptable, honored and well-thought-of hypocrites, whited sepulchres, frauds of the Spirit. Actors who merely represented or pretended to be something that they weren’t, inside.
To pride oneself on not being a murderer, usurer, adulterer or extortioner is just ridiculous. To pride oneself on ostentatious displays of giving of the proceeds of one’s covetousness, and on fasting, is ridiculous. A good and righteous man is not defined, negatively, by refraining from doing obviously wicked deeds, or more positively by scrupulous observance of ceremonial niceties for their own sake. And above all, he doesn’t pray to himself.
Now you’re saying something.
Mike, Orthodox Christians know exactly what it means and we are remainded of it each year just before the beginning of the Great Fast. It’s meaning is that the humble repentance of the Publican was accepted by the Lord whereas the selfrighteous pride of the Pharisee was rejected by Him. So Mike, now that you’ve been illumed, which of the two can you most closely identify with?
PdnNJ: Good one. Mike: Hint: It’s a trick question.
Mike you are a twist. You don’t want answers. You just want to stir things up.
You do have a point about fitness for office. The requirements are clearly spelled out and should be adhered to during the selection process. However, once the consecration occurs, it seems to me that we cannot gainsay the Holy Mystery. As with holiness, let God judge–and he will for, as Saint john Chrysostom pointed out, the road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests and lighted by the skulls of bishops on poles. I have no doubt that Saint John’s motivation is saying this was primarily to point out that the Lord expects his priests and bishops to lead exemplary lives. The other side of that coin, of course, is the truth that all sin and come short of the glory of God. No exceptions.
If your point is that our bishops and priests, or any one of us. are not perfect, I would agree with you. If your point is that because of their imperfection we need not belong the the Body of Christ, I would have to say that is a most illogical and suicidal position. Finally, regarding the Orthodox Church in particular, we do believe that She is the True Church, the Body of Christ, not thanks to any one of us but because of the Holy Trinity who saves us all.
“I ask in the deepest sincerity, feeling sometimes, with respect to fellowship, like a bit of an orphan of the Spirit in this dirty old world. Everywhere you look, it’s nothing but corruption and folly and hypocrisy. Or so it seems.” Mike Myers
I’ll bet I’m not the only one posting here who hasn’t felt exactly like Mr. Myers at some point or another. I too have often felt like an “orphan of the spirit” with no place to lay my head. But then I remember that the only one who has a right to these words about complete spiritual homelessness is the one who uttered them, the Lord who was without sin. And I’ve been recalled from my moods of disgust and disillusionment by remembering the story of how the great author G.K. Chesterton responded to a London newspaper’s request for an essay on “What’s wrong with the world?” The usually prolific Chesterton sent back a two word response: “I am.”
Nevertheless when I factor out (or try to) those elements of pride and even demonic enjoyment of my own disillusionment, a good deal of anguish remains, and I don’t want to suggest that Mr. Myers’ questions would disappear or lose their urgency with a little dose of humility. But humility is surely the place where all Christians need to start as we attempt to come to terms with the burden of a Church and a hierarchy sometimes filled with what seem to be astonishing insensibility to—or even outright mockery of—the demands of their holy calling.
But the first look always has to be for the beam in our own eye. As the Lord said, it makes our vision much clearer to give others a hand in removing the motes from theirs.
As to the question of whether the church ceases to be the church despite wickedness in high places and low, the same Lord also told us of a field full of both wheat and tares and a sheepfold guarded both by true shepherds and hirelings. And neither the field nor the sheepfold ceased to be what they were because of these tragic facts. Whatever the Holy Spirit thinks of any patriarch on any throne (who would dare to be quick to declare the thoughts of God?), the implication of these parables seem to be that wicked members or wicked bishops can’t prevent the Church from being the Church.
I fear that Mr. Myers may see this as a kind of justification for complacency. I offer it rather as a beam of hope in the midst of disillusion: We don’t need to add to our sorrow at the Church’s sins (and our own) the additional burden of fear that God has gone back on His promise to the Church that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We may dare to believe that the Holy Mysteries, despite the unworthiness of those who administer and receive them, will continue to convey the grace of God to those who seek Him in Spirit and in Truth.
MIke,
Have you ever heard the old Russian saying, “You get the priest you deserve?”
Stipulating that all you say is true for the sake of argument, what would you propose we do about it? Especially those of us not in his jurisdiction?
I personally see nothing immoral with the stock market. Tens of millions of Americans who claim to not be “in” the market actually are, by virtue of their 401Ks. I also see nothing wrong with individuals living “off the grid,” like monks and nuns try to do (but never succeed 100%). For secular clergy (i.e. those living in the secular world –parish priests, diocesan ordinaries, etc.) there is no problem at all with being a paid a salary, investing some of the proceeds in a pension, or a bank account. Really, this thing about +Kirill being in the stock market is rather silly.
Perhaps after a century in which the ROC can finally brake off the shackles of the accumulated persecution of the Soviet state, it will have enough capital that it can maintain a residence/patriarchal complex in which the Patriarch lives like a true monastic and is chosen from men who took a vow of poverty from their youth. That situation doesn’t exist in Russia as yet. It doesn’t exist in America as yet, and that is one of the problems that has beset HB presently. The fact that he is a real monk, having taken monastic tonsure relatively young, and living on a monastery, is very much a threat to the OCA-established order of things. He voluntarily took a pay-cut of 50% to make his “employment” in the smallest diocese of the OCA viable. But had there been a fully-functioning, economically-viable monastery in DC, he could have taken a 100% pay cut. Until then, I don’t begrudge HB (or any bishop for that matter) their salary, pensions, 401Ks, bank accounts, or stock portfolios.
Neither should we begrudge foreign patriarchates their financial arrangements. Remember this: the ROC actually pays taxes to the Russian state, American churches do not.
Is that not what is called “unrighteous mammon” which our Lord tells us to put to good use?
Subjects worthy of serious, but humble, talk.
I offer this column from 2000, which contains material from the earthquake in Russia in 1991.
I still think this is a work in process.
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2000
Candlestick holders in Russia
Russians use a special term to describe the state officials who pay brief visits to the glorious liturgies that mark the holy days of Orthodox Christianity.
This politician is called a “podsvechnik,” or “candlestick holder.”
“He walks in, lights a candle at an icon, stands around awhile, makes the sign of the cross, and he usually messes that part up, and then leaves as soon as the photographers have taken his picture,” said journalist Lawrence Uzzell, who leads the Keston Institute at Oxford University, which monitors religious-liberty issues in Russia and the old Communist bloc.
“He’s paying his respects to the church, but he’s just going through the motions.”
These “photo-ops” are especially poignant when they occur during news events that offer glimpses into the Russian soul. Witness the recent funeral of Lt. Capt. Dmitri Kolesnikov, who wrote a note describing the last moments of 23 doomed sailors trapped near the rear of the sunken nuclear submarine Kursk.
The funeral was a cathartic moment for millions as they wrestled with their grief and fears about the state of their country and its military. The candlestick holders had to be there.
It’s easy to be cynical. But the truth is that the ancient symbols of Orthodoxy continue to hold great power, even if Russia and its leaders are not completely sure what they mean or why they matter so much. It’s true that 1 percent of Russia’s 146 million citizens regularly attends church, said Uzzell. But it also is true that 50 percent now claim some link to Orthodoxy.
“Russia today is much more like Sweden than America,” said Uzzell, who frequently works out of Keston’s Moscow office. “Russia still is profoundly secular. … At the same time, it’s clear that modern Russia is a nation of spiritual truth-seekers. People are asking the big questions and searching for answers. There is a sincere spiritual hunger there.”
And Russian Orthodoxy? “Serious Orthodox Christianity is a counter-cultural movement inside modern Russia,” said Uzzell.
Outsiders must remember that this is taking place only a few generations after the Communists closed 98 percent of Russia’s churches and, in one brief period, killed 200,000 bishops, priests and nuns and then sent another 500,000 believers to die in labor camps. Millions later died in Stalinist purges. KGB records indicate that most clergy were simply shot or hanged. But others were crucified on church doors, slaughtered on their altars or stripped naked, doused with water and left outdoors in winter.
The KGB records also contain the stories of clerics who yielded. Russian Orthodoxy was a complex mosaic of sin and sacrifice, during the era of the martyrs. The Keston Institute has been at the center of efforts, for example, to document the complex interactions between the KGB and the Russian church’s current leader, Patriarch Alexy II.
Many ask, in effect, if some of the church’s bishops are mere candlestick holders — or worse. Two weeks after the 1991 upheaval that ended the Soviet era, I visited Moscow and talked privately with several veteran priests.
It’s impossible to understand the modern Russian church, one said, without grasping that it has four different kinds of leaders. A few Soviet-era bishops are not even Christian believers. Some are flawed believers who were lured into compromise by the KGB, but have never publicly confessed this. Some are believers who cooperated with the KGB, but have repented to groups of priests or believers. Finally, some never had to compromise.
“We have all four kinds,” this priest said. “That is our reality. We must live with it until God heals our church.”
This analysis is sobering, but the facts back it up, said Uzzell, who is an active Orthodox Christian.
“There are signs of hope, mostly at the local level,” he said. “There are wonderful priests and wonderful parishes, if you know where to look. But you will find ice-cold parishes and others that are vital and alive, in the same city or town. … I think the Russian Orthodox Church has a glorious future, just as it has had a glorious past. But I must admit that I’m not terribly optimistic about the near-term prospects.”
http://www.tmatt.net/2000/11/22/candlestick-holders-in-russia/
Thank you Terry for directing us to this essay.
Mr. Myers, since we are called to community as an integral part of our salvation and that community is described in the Bible as hierarchical, one has to choose. One cannot be a Chrisitan in isolation or separate from a body of believers.
Men will always be sinful and the sin will often grow with the power given. That has always been the case, it will never cease being the case until our Lord comes again.
Ecclesial offices are a grace given to the Church for the good of our souls. When evil or intemparate men take on those offices, they unfortunately hurt many, but the grace of the office is still with them. By that grace they too may be saved and help others along the path despite themselves.
At worst we can adhere to our Lord’s admonition concering the Pharisees to do what they say, not what they do.
Officially the office of the Papacy was created by a heretical belief. Officially for the RCC, we Orthodox are schimatics yet we seem to be drawn back together.
It is not only important to believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior but in His Church too. Choose one of the flawed, sin filled repesentations (either RC or Orthodox), seek Him with fervency and consistency. He will reveal His way to you.
BTW: There is simply no need for the huffiness Carl. IMO it is a legitmate question although it can only be legitmately answered and the answer received after a commitment is made and likely much trial endured.
Mike Myers declares, “I’m not agnostic or atheist with respect to the authority of the Holy Spirit or of Jesus Christ, even though the accounts of His words are refracted through a highly dubious human institution. I’m not an atheist. I’m not a statist.”
I am completely with him on this.
I regret my inability to throw light on his initial (and very sensible) question: How is it possible that the Holy Spirit has chosen utter scoundrels to pastor the flock of God?
Right now that question is posed with respect to certain Russian hierarchs.
In former times, it was posed with respect to the Borgias and Medicis.
I suppose that it is a timely question at almost any period in Church History.
I hope Mike will not find cynicism in the following syllogism:
Hypothesis: “If the Second Person of the Holy Trinity picked his betrayer as an apostle, there is no theological problem when the Third Person of the Holy Trinity picks perfect scoundrels to succeed the apostles.”
Modus Ponens: “The Second Person of the Holy Trinity picked his betrayer as an apostle.”
Ergo: “There is no theological problem when the Third Person of the Holy Trinity picks perfect scoundrels to succeed the apostles.”
I am sorry I can’t do better than this. I am one of those guys who survive by recourse to syllogisms.
On some days, I can keep my head clear only by reciting the multiplication tables.
Thank you Fr for your bracing corrective. Whenever I think about the “utter scoundrels” who have occupied the episcopate, I do well to remember that I am quite possibly the worst man to ever be baptized. And lest any think I am a hypocrite for exposing past foibles and scandals, I reiterate: I did not start this fight and was perfectly content –and still am–to let bygones be bygones.
Patrick Henry Reardon says:
December 14, 2011 at 9:53 am
To me the answer lays within the deep mysteries of our All-good God Who loves mankind like when He says: “Your ways are not my ways; your thoughts are not my thoughts.”
Our God has spoken truth to a mad prophet through an ass. Surely He can use human scoundrels when He so chooses?
Part of the deep mystery is that sometimes God’s people get leaders that God uses to correct and chastise them. Sometimes it takes crisis to provoke fervent prayer.
‘Surely He can use human scoundrels when He so chooses?’
Undoubtedly, Father; but let us remember that Balaam was not consecrated to the episcopacy and his name became for the holy apostles a byword for the sin of avarice among the clergy.
When a bishop is privately a scoundrel it is bad enough, but when his misdeeds are publicly and widely known it scandalizes the faithful and brings disrepute upon the church in the eyes of the world.
Nevertheless, I would think it safe to say the Lord did not will for Judas to betray Him, nor our hierarchs to be utter scoundrels. May He grant them repentance leading to salvation (for many).
His counsels are indeed inscrutable (because of the presence of sin and my human limitations), but His will revealed in His Son is all-merciful and good, and that is a sure refuge.
I can’t remember who it was that said this but that Judas’ sin was not that he betrayed his Master but that he did not repent. Let’s not forget, Peter likewise betrayed his Master after a fashion. He repented.
That saying is surely too glib, George.
If Judas’s betrayal was not a sin in the fist place then he had nothing of which to repent.
Well, his betrayal was a sin, but it would be forgiven in repentance. And he did repent to a point in that he regretted what he had done. It was despairing of forgiveness and salvation that led to his real downfall.
‘It was despairing of forgiveness and salvation that led to his real downfall.’
Yes, Helga, that seems to be the case from the little we are told in the Gospels.
‘My falsehood has become a testimony,
it rises up and argues against me to my face.’
Job 16:8
The height and depth and breadth of the splendor of your vast grasp of the phronema is simply too dazzling and intimidating to me, Protodeacon. Therefore I must beg leave to humbly retire from further correspondence with you. Rest assured that I do so not without a certain awe. All the best.
Sounds like “flattery” in “Shakesperean English” to me.
(flattery |ˈflatərē| noun ( pl. -teries) excessive and insincere praise)
Thanks for this, Father Reardon. It’s reassuring to see that you and a few others here recognize the gravity of this issue.
“Unlike many here,” the “gravity of this issue” exists only in your own mind. The “many here” know that the Holy Spirit provides all that is lacking as promised in the ordination prayers. We know this because of all the grave issues, many much worse and potentially damaging than the one you allude to, that our Church has had to overcome in the last 2000+ years in order to preserve the Faith once for all delivered to the saints in spite of the sins and weaknesses of individual patriarchs, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity.
Mr. Myers,
I appreciate your posts here. Your question is a simple one: Does one have to believe the Holy Spirit “chooses” the heirarchs to be an Orthodox Christian in good standing.
I understand your frustration about not getting a straight answer. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my answer, too, will meander some what. During my catechism I was never told that the Holy Spirit goes out and singles out and “chooses” each heirarch and that I must believe that to be Orthodox. I have often held the view that this particular heirarch or that heirarch were not “chosen” by the Holy Spirit and am still allowed to commune in the Orthodox Church.
With the nativity season in mind I think, I may be wrong, that the answer lies in a hymn to the Virgin Mary. During the service of the Royal Hours we sing the following hymn:
“What shall we offer Thee, O Christ,
Who for our sakes hast appeared on the earth as a man?
Every creature which Thou hast made offers Thee thanks.
The angels offer Thee a song;
The heavens, their star;
The wise men, their gifts;
The shepherds, their wonder;
The earth, its cave;
The wilderness; the manger;
And we offer Thee a virgin mother.
O Pre-eternal God, have mercy on us!”
In the second to last line we sing “and we offer Thee a virgin mother”. The people of God have always offered up its leaders to God as a sort of offering or gift. But like Able, sometimes, and perhaps more often than not, we offer him “unworthy offerings”. In return for our half-ass offering we receive, or better said, we reject God’s gift of “abundant life”. Nevertheless, God still uses those unworthy shepherds to feed his flock, in his love for us.
Instead of “choosing”, I would say he “suffers” it to be so. The parable of the tares comes to mind.
So, “No”, in the humble opinion of this layperson, you do NOT have to believe the HOly Spirit “chooses” each heirarch to be or remain Orthodox. Hope that helps.
Thanks for a thoughtful and meaningful post. It definitely helps to know some get it.
I mean Cain.
Father Reardon, didn’t have time to add that I hope it’s obvious I’m not pretending to be a good or righteous man or better than the MP, or anyone else for that matter. Although I definitely choose not to play that repulsive Orthodox game of vying for the crown awarded to he who can most ostentatiously praise himself in inverse by decrying with the greatest eloquence his own vast sinfulness in public, I’m just another needy sinner. But then I’m not worthy of or seeking office in the Church, much less a patriarchal throne. I fail to see anything humble or repentant about zeal for such position and responsibility in the best cases, much less in this one. To answer a calling is one thing, naked ambition is something else. And asserting that the Holy Spirit chooses hierarchs is not the same thing as its being true. If this is an ecclesiological dogma or whatever, it’s one I certainly couldn’t accept in good conscience given the facts on the ground. There’s a big difference between humility and stupidity.
Where did you ever get the idea of asserting that the Holy Spirit chooses hierarchs is an ecclesiological dogma?
And the Church herself does not err, for she is the truth, she is incapable of cunning or cowardice, for she is holy. And of course, the Church, by her very unchangeableness, does not acknowledge that to be error, which she has at any previous time acknowledged as truth; and having proclaimed by a General Council and common consent, that it is possible for any private individual, or any bishop or patriarch, to err in his teaching, she cannot acknowledge that such or such private individual, or bishop, or patriarch, or successor of theirs, is incapable of falling into error in teaching; or that they are preserved from going astray by any special grace. By what would the earth be sanctified, if the Church were to lose her sanctity? And where would there be truth, if her judgments of to-day were contrary to those of yesterday? Within the Church, that is to say, within her members, false doctrines may be engendered, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism, and no longer defile the sanctity of the Church.
http://www.westernorthodox.com/khomiakov
Have been away for a few days. Not sure if the topic dealing with the SIC Report has run its course, but here is an image of my take on the matter entilted “Xing” and may be viewed here: http://s1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/Heracleides/
George, I think your unfair to Mr Frost, I didn’t support Russia’s military involvement in Georgia either. A lot of people here don’t support the US involvement in foreign countries either but are they considered anti-american here. Russia isn’t that great a country and people here are supporting it since the Orthodox Church in Russia is a counter to the influence of the Greeks. Frost is right a lot of Russians are protesting the powers to be and whether that leads to something good or bad who knows.
Cynthia, I don’t support Russia’s incursion into Georgia either. I just think the issue is far more complicated than Mr Frost lets on. However, I unequivocally don’t support America’s involvement in this dispute either. That’s my main point.
As for the Russians protestting the power that be, OK. That’s a good thing. Isn’t that democratic?
As for the contention that people are supporting Russia as a counter to the Greeks that’s neither here nor there. People all over the world (esp in Africa) are gravitating towards the ROC because they recognize real evangelism. I know this is a hard thing for Russophobes to swallow but in comparison to Istanbul’s efforts (which thin gruel indeed) then it’s very easy for Russia to look good in comparison.
Of course, no one has ever disputed my main point, and that is that the ROC is clearly resurgent in Russia, building new churches and rebuilding destroyed ones, setting up monasteries, making outreach to those who are hurting, criticising the government (a major unreported story which belies the Russophobic arguments of Messrs Frost and Myers), etc.
I like all of Heracleides’s cartoons; but that is not to say I don’t think any of them could be improved on!
For example, one portraying a sometime chancellor of the OCa could be improved, in my opinion.
The first time I met him a thought of a certain kind of dentist, rather than a gangster, and I think Heracleides could do much better by considering Steve Martin’s wonderful act as a dentist in “The Little Shop of Horrors.”
Here ’tis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3mrKW-Nk0
Speaking of fillings, the skit with Tim Conway as the Bumbling Dentist and Harvey Korman cracking up as the patient on the Carol Burnett Shown is classic. I’ll bet it fits somebody or other to a “T”.
… but then there’s “The Pink Panther Strikes Again” with Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau impersonating a Dentist. Oh. Oh. Oh. Makes me laugh every time I watch it.
Clouseau Impersonates a Dentist
MM in his earlier post of Dec. 13 said:
“I’m in communion with the RCC only in the sense that they haven’t thrown me out yet.”
So I’m wondering: If MM is not in the OCA, or even an Orthodox Christian, why is he even commenting, and so often, here? Why is he so vehement and persistent in his attacks on HH+Kirill and we “Traditionalists”? Why did he start off his latest round of tirades with a question insisting on a simple yes or no answer when there is no such simple answer for it? Did he contrive the question as an attempt to trap us on to his desired path of discussion, debate or argument? Why does he need so often to “show forth” his self-assumed moral, intellectual and literary superiority? If he is not in the OCA or even an Orthodox Christian, why does he need to stay “in our face”?
Oh well, on my part, to put it simply, “I smell a rat.”
Because he artfully drew this entire thread away from the original discussion of Jonah’s Con-celebration!
Ya know anything that supports Jonah can’t continue!
Here’s another example of the bizarre distortions that seem to be so at home in the climate of discourse here. Not that it’s any of my business particularly, because I’ve decided against seeking reception into the Orthodox Church via the OCA, but from a distance anyway MJ strikes me as a monk with lots of fine pastoral qualities. I don’t have any serious problem with him at all on that score. Where do some of you people come up with this stuff? Not that my support means a thing, but still, cracks like this are offensive and baseless.
Don’t some of you people realize it’s deeply immoral to accuse people of things for no good reason, without substantive cause? There’s a difference between what’s true and real and whatever off the wall static may bubble up out of the cauldrons of your imagination and logismoi, right? Where do you get off?
George often likes to run wild with the baseless slur and smear. He’s getting pretty infamous for it, but as far as I’m personally concerned this one wins my prize:
.
What the hell is this? George takes a perfectly mad leap from my very real concern about this choice of MP to unconscionable raving. What’s this weasel language supposed to mean: “the MMs of the world?” That everyone who thinks this is a seriously questionable pick for a major leader of world orthodoxy is (therefore??) “terrified” by “the Russian Bear” and the “fact that the ROC is serious about Orthodoxy and evangelism?” What the hell is a loony smear like that based on, logically speaking? A ridiculous non sequitur, just embarrassing irrational noise.
To me, at least, it seems like people aren’t successfully communicating here.
Mike Myers wrote some things here and elsewhere and some people formed opinions of him — not of his opinions — and then descended to the level of ad hominem reactions toward him. This is ignoble, illogical and unchristian and ought to stop.
We all ought to relax and be kinder to one another, giving each another just as much slack as we’d want for ourselves. Let’s engage each other on issues, not on personalities or styles of expression.
BTW: This has nothing to do with the OCA, of which I’m a monk and a communicant and which I fully support, even though our Met. Jonah is being attacked by fools and Fr Robert Kondratick hasn’t yet been reinstated as a priest.
God haste the day when these troubles are over, and our church can be at peace!
Father James, a correction: I haven’t written anything elsewhere, if by that you mean another Orthodox list. Heracleides alleged that I wrote under a pseudonym here and elsewhere, at Orthodox Forum and at “gaypatriot.com” — all completely false. Utter hallucination on his part.
Thanks for your kind and wise words.
Monk James: I take your post above as coming to MM’s defence. Is that correct?
That’s ok with me as long as he understands that your advice is applicble to him also. Otherwise we would just be coddling him.
Austin Powers wrote the other day; “Answer my question. It’s a very basic and simple one, to which ISTM one can say either Yes, or No. To be an Orthodox Christian in good standing with the Church, must one believe that the Holy Spirit selects the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches? Is this one of the cardinal tenets of your faith, or not?
I address the question to anyone who professes an understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology. I am genuinely interested in an honest answer to what I regard as a perfectly simple question.”
Answer to his questions above is NO.
One may assume, nevertheless (I hope without being identified with fatalistic Muslims) that God is responsible for everything. Isaiah, speaking for Him, says’ “I create evil.”
Now, I understand that Austin is a straightforward seeker for the Truth who has been looking at Orthodoxy after lapsing as an RC, but that he is concerned about the hierarch, Kyril (Gundyaev) having been elected First Hierarch to the Episcopate of the Russian Church. He bases this on the Patriarch, like a Roman Pope, heading a Church which controls businesses and makes money through them. He imputes great character faults to that Patriarch, and his imputations resemble in many respects the imputations once made by Roundheads and Puritans in western Europe vis-a-vis established religion. I’ve met and conversed with Patriarch Kyril when he accompanied Patriarch Aleksi II hither. i’ve also met his nephew who was, as a Deacon, attached to our Berkeley parish while studying at UC there. I believe he, Patriarch Kyril is a devout Orthodox Christian; however, I felt a certain antipathy toward him, mostly personal in nature:His voice and articulation of Russian and of Church Slavonic really rub me the wrong way. I think he is a little unbalanced about Russia and “Russkost’ “. I don’t think any Russian Patriarch or Metropolitan of Moscow has ever been the kind of nationalist he is. Nevertheless, if one is an Orthodox and must be a nationalist, Russia is not the worst choice. I feel that for most Russians, even when the USSR was at the height of its powers and prestige, there was something discomfiting about the “cosmopolitan’ character of the Party. and the Government. “Well, yes, those other communists are”Also-Russians, ” but I don’t have to like it…..” Vladimir of Minsk seemed to me to be a more attractive prospect because of his intellect and learning.
The only way Austin’s question could be answered yes would be in the sense in which one understands the often-repeated (but stupid) saying “God gives us (sic) the Bishop we deserve.”
Kyril will die. Someone else will become Patriarch. Will he be holier than Kyril?
Many joined the Church in the early centuries not because they knew Christ but because they knew His followers. According to some accounts, the hierarchs who came to the First Ecumenical Council were a totally “mixed bunch,” of whom some may have been illiterate and careless of dress and appearances.
Judas was a moral failure: It was not the Holy Spirit per Se Who chose Him—no, It was Jesus Christ.
One assumes Austin has thought all these things out for himself, but maybe not. I wonder what the folks in Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) have to say about him: he was their archpastor for quite a while. I’m in correspondence with a German Orthodox guy who finds him to be practically a St. Francis in his charitable deeds relative to young people and children.
Should the Patriarch of Moscow dedicate himself to the prohibition of vodka? The head of one schismatic outfit, Valentine of Suzdal, is famous in the international tourist industry for providing a welcome to tourists to his see city with some tumblers of ‘My Own Tea,” which is the vodka he brews himself. Perhaps the Patriarch could be persuaded to becoming a Dry by pointing out to him how it would hurt “the schismatics?”
In a nutshell, ascribing all human events to God is a denial of the moral free will with which He endowed us when He created us in His own image and likeness.
It’s pointless and unhelpful to pursue this, at least in terms of ecclesiology and theological anthropology. God is God, and we are Not God, although we share some divine characteristics with Him even now, characteristics which will — we pray — be perfected in our salvation.
BTW: Isn’t ‘Austin Powers’ a film persona of the actor Mike Myers?
No it is, then. Thank you, Bishop Tikhon. I asked here because more than one poster on this list has directly or implicitly claimed that this or that Bishop or Metropolitan was chosen by the Holy Spirit. That was not my understanding of Orthodox belief, but what do I know? Happy to learn that this is not an element of the catechism.
Quoting Archbishop Dmitri’s proclamation of the election of Metropolitan Jonah, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to this sacred council of the Holy Orthodox Church in America, to elect on this twelfth day of November, 2008, to the office of Archbishop of Washington and New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, Bishop Jonah of Fort Worth. Axios!”
Oh my. Pot. Meet kettle.