Just when it was becoming inconceivable to me that the GOA could not possibly plumb any further the depths of intellectual mediocrity, they now discombobulate me further by throwing the remainder of their moral authority into the abyss with the following press release:
A powerful message and historical insights by Archon Bill Tragos.
-Fr Alex
Germany’s Fingerspitzengefühl Deficit Risks World Crisis
The Huffington Post
By Bill Tragos
Wikipedia defines that wonderful German expression as “describing a great situational awareness, and the ability to respond most appropriately and tactfully.”
Imagine prostrate Greece thinking she deserves kid glove treatment considering her political leaders,’ all parties, lying for decades. Her upper echelon citizens demonstrating no patriotism, cheating their government.
Why should the Greeks be granted any leeway?
The country’s crushing history.
Skip over the first 1500 years of Greek civilization, we get enough of that from our museum visits or reading what Nietzsche thinks is owed the Greeks; forget stopping the conquest of the west by a despotic Persian empire outnumbered 9 to 1 at Marathon; let’s not bother with how Greek culture absorbed Rome’s eastern empire making it a Greek-speaking Byzantium that lasted over 1100 years; or how their Christian brothers of the west sacked the Christian capital of the east,Constantinople, hastening her fall in 1453, sparking the exodus of her scholars to western Europe. The happy coincidence of the appearance of Guttenberg’s press that same year igniting the renaissance.
Forget Socrates and Alexander and the Parthenon. That’s so long ago as to be irrelevant history, right?
Let’s get to modern times.
The Greeks were the first to cast off the yoke of 5 centuries of Ottoman enslavement of southwest Europe.
We recognize the damage to a black man’s psyche in America after 200 years of slavery. Imagine what 400 years did to the Greeks, how normal, necessary lying and cheating and bribing were to survival.
Greece fought against the Kaiser’s Germany in WW1 while Turkey did not, and at the Paris Peace conference was awarded much of the 3000-year Greek lands in Turkey. Which she promptly lost because the dumb, vain king (German) went for more at the urging of Lloyd George and Clemenceau.
Greeks haven’t talked about their genocide at the hands of modern Turkey. They lost hundreds of thousands in those well-documented Armenian death marches. And then there was the destruction of 700,000 Pontic Greeks on the Black Sea, and hundreds of thousands on Turkey’s Aegean coast.
As recently as 1955, thousands of Greeks were ethnically cleansed out of Istanbul.
World War Two. Greece’s demolition of Mussolini’s attempted invasion gave the Allies their first victory.
Then the Greeks fought the Germans to the death all the way to Crete and held up Hitler’s invasion of Russia, The Russians know, as does the German military how that contributed to Hitler’s failure in Russia.
Greece paid for that dearly. One-eighth of her population starved to death or was executed in reprisals for her relentless resistance. Payback the other way, in the form of German reparations payments for her destruction of that country never materialized. Maybe Greeks should consider the Euro bailout led by Germany as an installment payment on Germany’s debt?
And even as Greece was being liberated from the Nazi occupation, the Communist-led civil war broke out lasting 3 years, killing many more thousands.
Greeks didn’t stop fighting after that fratricide ended, sending the first foreign military contingents to join the Americans in Korea.
And all through those years her young people emigrated to chance building a better life as had so many throughout her history. To Germany as gastarbeiters, America as greasy Greeks slinging hamburgers or working on the railroads, or Australia as wogs. And yet look at the accomplishments of the children of these diaspora Greeks in each country. Matched only by the diaspora Jews.
And still her western allies think Greece petty when she fights to lose no more of her heritage. There was no Slavic language or people at the time of Alexander. He and his court spoke Greek. His teacher was Aristotle. Greeks are supposed to think it’s OK to give the name of Alexander’s kingdom to a non-Greek state?
Greece has been forced to spend the highest percentage of her GDP on defense of any country in the world, because she cannot be sure of her NATO allies help in the event of a Turkish invasion. Remember another batch of dumb Greek politicians and their Cyprus fiasco, and how Kissinger saw to it that Greece’s most important ally, the USA, sat on her hands and did nothing?
And yet Greek and Turkish friendship is not a hard sell to the young people of those countries. Check out college campuses in the USA, Canada, England or Germany, in which foreign students room together, are best friends, Greek and Turkish. We need to understand why that happens and why that must give hope, despite their long, tragic shared history.
You want to cut Greece’s deficit? Start by cutting defense spending by 90%.
Give the remainder to Israel and let her station her troops in Greece. Both are prisoners of their geography. Cutting defense would mean she doesn’t buy three more German atomic subs or 20 more French built ships. Dumb/corrupt Greek politicians? Or is it a form of blackmail?
Greece needs Europe to be as brilliant and generous as America when the Truman Doctrine saved that country and Turkey from Communism. Because Greece’s road to recovery will be long and painful.
Greece needs the strongest economy in Europe to remember its own history, not so beautiful: two world wars and a vicious holocaust.
Germany needs to remember that her economic recovery was not achieved by Germanic frugality and work ethic alone (the average Greek workweek is 33% longer).
Germany owns the record as the default champion of Europe, despite being bailed out after the second world war by its conquerors.
Germany, the country that cost the world so much pain and suffering and loss needs to copy American/Allied attitudes of generosity and compassion in dealing with Greece.
Greece’s pain inflicted on the rest of us today could be described as what in comparison to Germany’s?
There is no stain in the millennia of Greece’s history.
In fact it is that track record of accomplishment over 3500 years that encourages her people. And should make it possible for Germany and Europe to be as sensitive in the coming years as if possessing a little fingerspitzengefühl.
Only dumb politicians ignoring history would bet against this old, stubborn, proud people. “The Greeks took Troy because they never stopped trying” – Theocritus 254 BC. Nothing has changed. It’s a character trait to be admired and respected.
Words fail me.
This drivel is breathtaking in its stupidity. To try and dispute it would cause my head to explode. It was obviously written by some left-winger who either did not graduate high school or is off his meds. It looks like the GOA couldn’t find some decent academic from Holy Cross to write it. Heck, the universities are clogged with Greek-Americans and none of them could be dragooned into writing this piece of bovine feces. As to why a first-rate blog like The Huffington Post (with which I am almost never in agreement with) would let its editorial judgment lapse to such a degree is a matter for another day. (I suspect that they used the offices of Frank Schaeffer, who’s most recent oeuvre is just as febrile and in-your-face as that of this author’s.) I guess Paul Krugman had nothing hysterical to write that day so they had to make do with something lunatic from a less notable figure. Think of it an affirmative-action hire. Besides, Progressives are always on the lookout for the next Official Victim Group and pickings have been awfully slim for the NPR crowd what with Muslim fanatics going berserk over burned Korans. Besides, if you’re a nation who threw away your sovereignty for a mess of pottage and Euros, you might get some slack by playing the Victim Card. Hey, it’s worth a try. It’s worked for other Oppressed PeopleTM so why not give it a go?
This however is neither here nor there. It is beyond ridiculous to presume that Greeks worldwide are victims. Our concern is more immediate, and that is why would the GOA put this out as a press-release? The answer may very well be that it didn’t really want to. If you will notice at the top, it was released in the name of the GOA by Fr Alexander Karloutsos, the Macchiavel who functions as a sort of papal legate within the GOA. In reality, he is the man who really runs the show. Yet another legacy of the Culture Club that is the post-Iakovon, new and improved, ethnocentric GOA. (In fact, it was he who engineered the removal of Iakovos in 1996.)
This brings up important points.
- First and most obvious one being that in commandeering the press office of the GOA and signing his name to this hysterical screed, Karloutsos was signifying something important to all who know how to read the tea leaves. Think of it as a shot across the bow.
- Second, there is a confluence between his interests and those of the Archon/Leadership 100 class. Several of these men have vital interests in Greece (full disclosure: I do as well). With Greece going down the tubes, they stand to lose significantly to the Germans who are already buying up prime real estate at rock-bottom prices.
- Third (and most nefarious) the Greek government is leaning on the GOA and its surrogates to help bail them out pronto. Make no mistake, it is the Patriarchate of Constantinople which unleashed Karloutsos on the GOA and it is the Greek government which leaned on the Phanar to do so. Lest anyone think that this is preposterous, he would do well to remember that the leaden hand of the Greek government on the GOA is not a novel proposition. Indeed it is par for the course. As is well-known, it was the Greek government which leaned on then-Metropolitan (now Patriarch) Bartholomew to turn away the leaders of the Evangelical Orthodox Church when they visited Istanbul some twenty-five years ago. The reason of course was to maintain the ethnic purity of the GOA.
Please understand, the people of Greece are really suffering. That they threw away the inheritance in exchange for riotous living paid for by Euros is no reason for us to be judgmental. Like the Prodigal Son, they will spend time in the pigsty, even going so far as to envy the husks that the swine eat. I fear that that we here in America are about to do the same thing with the reelection of the incumbent president (who thanks to vote fraud, illegal immigration, and liberal white guilt will be granted another four years at the White House, allowing his dependents to continue to feed at the Federal trough). If such proves to be the case, then our own comeuppance is inevitable as well.
We have a season however of relative calm before the storm hits. I suggest that if you are a Greek-American or a Philhellene, that you send whatever you can to a person in Greece whom you know, be it friend, relative, or trusted acquaintance. If they don’t need the money, perhaps they know someone who does. This is important because if you cut a check to some national organization (whether Greek or American), there is a real possibility that it might not get there. The kleptocracy in Greece would merely line their own pockets or send it directly to their Swiss bank accounts. As for the GOA, their books are (how shall we say it?) notoriously opaque. And we must never forget that “fees” are always collected at every stage of the transaction.
Ultimately of course, this brings us to the elephant in the room which we here in America are always averse in talking about: that the Assembly of Bishops was nothing but a ruse to stifle American unity and autocephaly and, failing that, to permanently tether the American Orthodoxy to Istanbul and its cult of Byzantine nostalgia. The exposure of Karloutsos in this affair however was a gaffe, a desperation move on the part of Istanbul. Being the puppet-master of the GOA, he has always worked best behind the scenes, lurking in tthe shadows, otherwise the jig would be up and we would know what the real pecking order is. It’s very probable that the GOA wasn’t on board with the whole idea so Karloutsos was forced to take matters into his own hands. Regardless, the situation in Greece is so dire and the GOA’s response so lackluster, that he had to expose himself, consequences be damned. It’s important to remember that he doesn’t have a real title and he isn’t anywhere in the organizational flow-chart of the GOA. It’s just a fact of life that he’s Patriarch Bartholomew’s boy and it is through his offices that power really flows.
In the event, the fact that he had to show his hand will prove to be a bracing corrective for those who have heretofore been optimistic about the immediate future vis-a-vis the Assembly of Bishops. Like a splash of cold water on an ardent suitor, this most recent, maladroit step by a rogue element within the GOA will hastily set things in their proper perspective. For those who were wondering when the follow-up on the recent communique from the Assembly regarding the tyrannical dictates of the Dept of Health and Human Services will come, they need look no further. That statement was a one-off, hastily put together by the Assembly because the embarrassment was too great. It was a good first step but it was followed by two steps back. And for those within the GOA who think otherwise, Karloutsos and his ilk will always be there to remind them what the real purpose of the GOA is: to serve as paid political agents of the Greek government and their handmaidens in the Leadership 100. Everything else is window-dressing.
Oh, one last thing. I know some German too: Wienerschnitzel!
I am an Orthodox Christian of German descent (yes we exist). Looking at what is happening in Greece, the Orthodox in me shakes his head in disbelieve and the German asks for Greece’s credit card to be immediately cancelled. Both parts of me are saddened to the bottom of my heart by this disgraceful spectacle.
My prayers go to God for all my Greek friends. May the Lord have mercy on us all…
One additional thing I forgot: “The above press release is beyond pathetic…” ‘nough said!
Interesting development and I do not mean the article itself, which is an incoherent mess. I looked all over the GOA site and I could not find Father Alexander’s office. I did find in a news article about the meeting between the Archbishop and the President of Turkey, that Father Alexander was “Assistant to the Archbishop for Public Affairs.” I also saw at his parish web site that Archbishop Justinian of the ROC and his clergy visited Father Alexander’s church and served a DL entirely in Church Slavonic. He is in pictures with important political leaders, etc… So, why even bother to hide him in plain sight, when he is plainly an important person? He is not even in the belly of the horse, he is leading it on by the reins! So, why is Constantinople playing this sort of a game? It seems to me that the message is that the GOA is not to be trusted without a nanny.
ADDED: Looked up Bill Tragos: He is the co-founder of the worldwide advertising agency “tbwa,” which has been ninth largest agency in the world with $9 billion in billings and over 100 offices in 62 countries with more than 12,000 employees. I now wonder if the “incoherent” article had an advertising angle buried there somewhere.
Just as an aside; “wienerschnitzel” is technically Austrian and means roughly “schnitzel (a boneless cut of meat) as prepared in Vienna” , the German language name for that city being “Wein” . Despite my last name I am 3/4 German and grew up with German-American culture as my baseline and so I feel a need to defend this dish as both not a potential expletive and very delicious outside of Lent. The German language does have, if you should so choose, a variety of very powerful and useful expletives if you find the need but I will not post or suggest any as its not my place.
Fr John Chagnon
Correction is needed on the name of Vienna. It is Wien not wein (which means wine).
Danke schoen, Vater!
As an aside, I originally thought that this screed was ghost-written by someone to embarrassed to put his real name to it but only did it because Karloutson lean on him. The name “Bill Tragos,” means “Bill the goat” (as in “billy goat”). That he’s a real person and a successful businessman to boot embarrasses me even more.
Lord have mercy.
Well, you know, sometimes a guy has just got to represent. It’s just how we German types roll. : )
In truth I do understand the ethnic circle the wagons thing when crisis hits. It’s part of humanity since the beginning. We all do it, even Americans. Three generations removed from Germany (Prussia) I have little attachment to a “fatherland”. If I had close family and friends it would be a different story. What happens in Lebanon and Syria, for example, is not abstract from people in the parish I serve because they literally have brothers and sisters back there and when things happen it happens to people close to them. Its the same when we have people close to us in this country and natural disasters or other events affect them, it becomes personal to us because they are.
What I think becomes problematic is when a kind of unhealthy nostalgia sets in and we forget why our families came here in the first place. Mostly it was because life “back there” was unbearable in some sort of way and the way to have a better life was to leave. People here in Minnesota go gaga when, for example, the Swedish or Norwegian royal family members pay a visit but they forget that people like these royalty were part of the reason it was better to flee than stay. When people make an idol of a heritage or a nation it never seems to end well.
Fr John Chagnon
Nothing to be embarrassed about. You write well and articulately. This man writes desperation in defense of the indefensible by being incomprehensible in his defense. All this shows is the dysfunctional state of administration and communication in this church.
The Archdiocese message is very clear. Don’t see us as we really are. See us only as we see ourselves and as we tell you to see us. Looks like to me they are running out of lies that can be believed and that their history does not work in keeping them from looking bad in the present. Its all they got left to hold onto as their righteousness. Only salvation by Christ righteousness can be our righteousness or we self righteously fail by what we make as our righteousness outside of God.
Self righteousness is a puffed up pride bubble and the Greek church and state bubble are going POP! Self righteousness is highly proud and arrogant and if you really understand it Christ righteousness is humbling in the extreme.
Proverbs tells us pride goes before the fall.
In other words, pride goes before the expose’ of self righteousness in yourselves. God uses the most unique and unexpected things to expose this and the Archdiocese has just been exposed AGAIN by God. This self protection is protecting the image of the leadership who leads the false image projected and that leadership is now found out for who and what are its true God. They are the idol gods whose image must be protected.
This proves a great spiritual lesson not learned by most Orthodox who take great pride in superiority by claiming to be Gods only alone right and one true church. The lesson is that your claim is not your righteousness before God and if you try to use it to self righteously self protect it will back fire right in your face. You will be found spiritually bankrupted by false righteousness that is not the righteousness of God that is not our own, but given to us as we are IN CHRIST.
Orthodox, IN CHURCH righteousness is not IN CHRIST righteousness and if you make the church and its leadership your righteousness by its image and claim you will surely be exposed by God for that self righteous sin and the expose’ will not be nice or pretty, but it will be the real world image exposed. Truth in Christ righteous alone exposes the lying idol image of self righteousness. Get it?
When you are found spiritually bankrupted by self righteousness you are also found corrupt, failed, irrelevant and demising. When your righteousness somehow becomes Gods righteousness you make yourselves idols and you do not see how that you do. Self idolatry is probably the most deceptive of all deceptions. The evil one being my best example of that.
In their attempt to cover themselves all they are doing is pulling the covers back. That reveals how disconnected from reality and out of touch with rational thinking they are.
About 4 years ago the GOA Archbishop told the church that in the previous 10 years the church had grown by 1 million. Incomprehensible claims and exaggerations is the state of this church. It is incomprehensible that this church could have grown by a million. That would make the average size of the parishes about 2400+. Every parish then has attained the Orthodox bishop American dream of them all becoming MEGA PARISHES by their outstanding work with mission and evangelism to the society outside of the church. This is the legacy the Archbishop in his self delusion wants to leave the GOA.
Now the lies fabricated are further exposed by known corruption called the Archdiocese and the Greek laity will let this one slide right past them like all the other lies told to them and believed by them.
How the Greeks can believe that past greatness translates into current expectation of being treated differently or respected in the modern world is incomprehensible. All their marble cannot pay off their socialism and church/state debt. And, marble is about all they got left.
The Germans want people in country and on the ground holding the Greeks to the bail out deals they made. Western rational and logical Germans who are highly disciplined in rule over the irrational and out of control Greeks is the Greek people’s consequences. The last thing I would want holding a gun to my head is a German Chancellor Merkel. She is not afraid to pull the trigger.
Not to worry, the GO Patriarch who provides explanation and solution recently has solved the Astoria, NY sex addict and pedophile monk problem. Certainly, his spiritually mature role model and example is going to bring about a spiritual revival in Greece as they are humbled economically. He will lead the Greek people in the owning of their sin and taking responsibility for it by working through the consequences with God.
He will do this because this is the life he lives out in transparency and accountability before the entire Greek church that holds itself transparent and accountable. Gods only alone right and one true church is Gods only alone most transparent and right accountable true church.
Self protection of humbled pride, arrogance and superiority is most fascinating to watch unfold. No matter what self protection it tries to hold up nothing works when the reality of this situation is undeniable. All this represents is the feeble, shallow and transparent attempt of mans carnal and corrupt flesh in self centered ego trying to protect its corrupt and failed image from looking corrupt and failed.
Orthodox, no holding up of any of your past is going to stop truth of your present state from being exposed. No one can stop the expose’ God brings to expose corruption. Anyone who tries is only exposed himself. That is exactly what is going on here.
I believe I have mentioned in the past how the entire church is made a manipulated PAWN on the hierarchy game board of corruption and this is just one more example of that. Like the author of this post the Orthodox are unaware of the various and subtle ways they are manipulated to self protect the corruption inside the church.
‘Remainder of moral authority’ By the state of this church I would say they ran out of moral authority a long time ago. This is just a continuing symptom coming out of the cause of the moral authority collapse that is the GOC. What you see today is a facade of moral authority. It wears a mask of holy Christ over its face, but when you take off the mask evil is the face behind the mask. Many are fooled by the plastic mask by believing it is of God and when what comes out from behind that mask is evil other than God.
A corrupt church will use any means possible to self protect its IMAGE. Protecting the image of the church makes all of you expendable to that self protection. You the people of God are not the priority. The false and plastic image is. That corrupt image will lie, cheat, steal, con, intimidate, threaten, hide, cover up, spin and keep secrets to avoid having the true FACE behind the mask exposed.
This is not church leadership come under the church to raise it up by transparency and accountability that leads to truth as church.
This is church leadership come pressing it down and holding it back by its lying spin of indoctrination that does not tell the truth in transparency and accountability. When the Archdiocese sends something like this out it is INDOCTRINATION of the worst kind and by the looks of it most GOA believe it.
They only have authority of any kind that the laity gives them by being indoctrinated into believing that is the kind of authority that you give them. The Greek laity has handed absolute authority over the Patriarch and his crony corrupt bishops.
The self righteous are highly self protective of their self righteous image.
The mask comes off the and the Archdiocese of image self protection shows itself for what it truly is by trying self protect itself from what it truly is.
Perfect.
Ashley Nevins
Hello Fr. John,
Wien is the capital of Austria
Wein is what I like to drink, preferably made from Riesling or Sylvaner grapes. Although, just a week ago I found a wonderful wine made from the rare Siegerrebe and made, of all places, here in the Lower Mainland of BC.
Wein(en) is what we do when reading the article and looking at the mess that is Greece….
Forgive me, but I am also a compulsive and actual teacher… 😉
Joseph did this, not Jioseph. I do not know who Jioseph is, although it seems he lives in my key board
JO-seph
He was found out and extirpated…
I mean Jioseph the intruder…
It would be nice if there was a way to edit ones replies…
Thanks
Joseph
There used to be, and it was very good and helpful.
“There is no stain in the millennia of Greece’s history. ” Might want to check in with the Maccabees about that, among others. The truth is that no nation is without its stains which is why a version of our liturgy admonishes us not to put out trust in “princes or sons of men.” We always attach the church to a nation at our peril because nations are transitory and if these transitory arrangements are the source and support of our Church then we become their servants.
Fr John Chagnon
Yet, priest, the laity does put its trust in the princes and sons of men.
Who and what you trust in determines a church outcome.
How a church thinks by what it puts its trust in determines its outcome.
If your theological mindset is church and state as one in divine right of church and state kings there is simply no way that church will not put its trust in the princes or sons of men over placing that trust in God alone.
The Orthodox theological DNA is not separation of church and state. The church is the state and the state is the church. When you merge Christ with the Roman dictatorship state you are trying to turn God into rule of princes and men who have absolute power and control. You are making God the state ruled over by the princes of men and when that is found as the church the church is found corrupt to its core by the princes of men who tell you they are appointed by God to rule over you as God.
How a church thinks by this thinking determines its outcome in the real world.
This thinking results in a corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying church that lives in its past and cannot paradigm shift with God to present relevancy in the real world. Such a church cannot cast a future forward vision for it living in a left behind by God paradigm that God paradigm shifted right past to bring salvation relevancy to a modernity world that can understand the Gospel when communicated to it by a modernity relevancy church.
What, the GOC and ROC are the paradigm shift of God’s salvation relevancy in the modern world?
If so, what is their mission and evangelism strategy to the largest mission and evangelism field of our century in CHINA? Is it go there like you came here as ethnic ghetto in diaspora and then wait 200 years for the bishops to define you as mission and evangelism?
I would say God in the NT has defined all Christians as mission and evangelism 24/7/365 and where ever they are found. However, the princes and the sons of men bishops will define you differently than Christ in the Gospels defines you and you will fall for that lie by placing your trust in them and over God. Belief in the lie has consequences that are the outcome of your church in the real world of modernity.
How a church thinks by LIE or TRUTH determines its real world outcome.
Ashley Nevins
“There is no stain in the millennia of Greece’s history. ” Those of us who lived under the Sultan’s henchman, the ethnarch and his episcopal cartel, beg to differ, along with those Slavs who have made up the population of Macedonia for the preponderance of its history.
Oh and speaking about stains in Greece’s history, how about the fact the Greece has a extremely high abortion rate and below replacement birthrate. Greeks are killing themselves, their history and their culture.
The economic crisis is probably not helping that birthrate, either.
There’s practically no Orthodox country that doesn’t have an appalling abortion rate.
Greek denial is surprising? Greek incoherence is surprising? Greek enmeshed church and state corruption and failure is surprising? The Greek ethnocentric mindset and egocentric attitude is surprising?
Past contributions to the world are important. Present and future contributions are more important. We cannot go back to the past as our righteousness when we live in the present reality that tells us what living in the past results in by consequences. God alone in our salvation by Christ is our only righteousness and it was given to us by mercy, grace and truth. Anything else is just false pride that is the set up to get knocked down flat on its face in the mud by Gods humbling power.
If you live in the past and not the present you will have a very difficult time creating a prosperous future.
I would say that the Greeks are being humbled and that they are not responding well to being made humble. I would also say that the Greek state failure looks very similar to the Greek church failure. I believe there are direct and undeniable connections between these two failures.
What is the financial connection between the Greek state and the Greek church in Greece?
Can anyone here outline or bullet point by comparison what are the common denominators between socialism as government and church/state as government?
As you see the Greek state financially demise you will see a direct and correlating demise of the Greek church in the world. You saw similar in ROC Russia in 1917 by the direct connection between the church and the state. The fall of the ROC in 1917 reminds me of the God in the OT using the Assyrians to discipline Israel. God can be quite ruthless when provoked by corruption that turns His church into evil that enslaves. He brings serious consequences to all who enable the corruption of the Gospel, salvation and the NT.
Mock God and He will exponentially mock you in public for the entire world to see. He will not be polite in how He speaks consequences to you. He can be quite harsh and uncompromising when it comes to dealing with systemic church sin that refuses to repent for how self righteous it sees its power and control. He destroys what is made an idol that replaces Him as God in the church. He hates the corruption idol when it rules over a church. Anyone or anything that stands in Gods way when He delivers discipline will get run over and God will stop at nothing to stop what stops Him. A corrupt church is a church stopping God.
God is speaking to the Orthodox in many ways and the Orthodox are not hearing Him. The real world outcomes of the various jurisdictions is telling the Orthodox something about themselves they are in denial of. Emperor Orthodoxy is wearing no cloths and it believes it can hide behind its royal church robes.
I promise the Orthodox are not hearing God in ways that will reverse their corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying state and all of my promises to the Orthodox come true. All of them.
When a church cannot hit bottom and reverse its course that means that church bottom is its death.
The death of a church does not necessarily mean it ceases to exist. It also means it accepts relevancy to be living in a corrupt and failed state of survival existence that has no real solution that can turn that state around and into church relevancy.
Anyone with eyes can see what the demise trend of the GOA and greater GOC is. In one generation not much is going to be left, and just enough will be left that it exists in a irrelevant state of survival existence.
The paradigm of the real world where God exists in modernity has paradigm shifted right past the EOC and left them behind in a dying paradigm of survival existence. What cannot paradigm shift with God gets left behind by God. What cannot paradigm shift from corruption to holiness receives consequences from God.
Orthodox, God moves forward with those who move forward with Him. God leaves behind what refuses to hear Him and therefore refuses to move forward with Him. Anyone who understands this about God can also come into the understanding of what kind of consequences a church faces when it refuses to hear Him and move forward with Him.
The Word of God in the NT tells us that our sin finds us out.
Orthodox, what are the church sin(s) that are demising the EOC and are are being found out for all in the world public eye to see? Is the GOC in denial of what is seen or is it found in broken and humble repentance that is transparent and accountable confessing of its sin and seeking Gods forgiveness?
Orthodox, are your bishops telling you what the consequences of not hearing God and moving forward with God are??? Are they outlining to you what a church faces by consequences for not hearing God and moving forward with Him? Do the bishops tell you what a church living in such consequences looks like?
Ashley Nevins
Although their origins were in northern Germany, the Greek royal family was actually Danish. King George l, the first monarch of the modern Greek royal family was the son of King Christian IX of Denmark. His sister, Damar was the Tsarina of Russia and the mother of Nicholas II. His family had a long standing conflict with the rulers of Germany, the House of Hohenzollern.
Wasn’t Otto a prince of Bavaria? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_of_Greece
King Otto was a German. He was the son of King Ludwig I of Bavaria. However, he was overthrown in 1862. Then George I, a Danish prince became King of Greece and founded the dynasty that ruled Greece until the overthrow of Constantine II in 1973.
King Constantine of Greece (the reckless monarch scapegoated here) was married to Princess Sophia of Prussia, sister of the Kaiser. She infuriated her imperial brother, however, by converting to Orthodoxy, and not paying any heed that she was told by the Kaiserin that she would be barred from the German Reich by her brother as Kaiser, and that in his role as head of the Evangelical Prussian Church, she would would end up in hell. I’ve never seen it explained how the alleged pro-German sympathies of the Greek royal family played out when the Ottomans fought openly on the German side.
Isa, thank you for pointing this out. I’m still suffering heart palpiations from Tragos’ screed. So much so that I can’t give it the time that I need to take it apart. I’m hoping my readers can do it for me.
I will say this however: not only are you correct about Princess Sophie, but Constantine I deserves much praise for trying to keep Greece neutral during the Great War. This was probably the most unnecessary war in history, effectively ending Christian civiiization in Europe. For those who don’t know (and Tragos –if that is really his name–obviously doesn’t), Constantine ruled over and expanding Greek nation. His father, George I, doubled Greece’s territory throughout his long reign. In fact, Greece was the ONLY country in the Balkans to not only not lose territory, but grow during his and his son’s reigns. Bulgaria lost territory, Turkey lost territory, Yugoslavia lost territory, etc.
To add insult ot injury, it was the pro-Western “Entente” bloc led by Eleutherios Venizelos which forced Constantine to abdicate and replaced him, not with the Crown Prince (who would later be George II) but his younger brother, Alexander for the express purpose of forcing the Greek people into a war in which they did not need. It was after Alexander’s untimely death that Constantine was brought back from exile and forced by the Venizelists and Parliament to prosecute a fruitless war against Turkey, one which ended in catastrophe for Greece.
Venizelos, in the spirit of liberals everwhere, left Constantine holding the bag. As in all liberal enterprises, they force “progress” then when things turn to ashes and dust, as they inevitably do, they go off and perform other good deeds.
Don’t forget Venizelos’ best friend:Metropolitan in Crete turned Archbishop of Athens (neither Venizelos nor his friend were Greek subjects when they took control of the Kingdom of Greece and the Church of Greece) turned Ecumenical Patriarch (despite being canonically deposed and defrocked) Meletios, who spent his time in the US fanning flames, provoking the Turk by deluding the Omogeneia to assUme that the Allies would back Greece’s actions.
Isa, let us also not forget that both Venizelos and Metaxakis were Freemasons.
I.e., Gnostics
He used the word “dumb” four times. It’s probably just me, and I might be too picky, but the more an adult uses the word “dumb” the more he sounds like a petulant teenager with a limited vocabulary.
The notice was indeed appalling junk. But I’m not at all clear on the following declaration by our George:
“It was obviously written by some left-winger who either did not graduate high school or is off his meds.”
Please explain the left-wing slam. I can’t find anything remotely to the left in that chauvinist screed, written by a prosperous businessman who probably avoided paying taxes in Greece.
Good question, Your Grace. Usually such chip-=on-the-shoulder claiming of victimhood status is associated with the liberal/left.
“Chip-on-the-shoulder claiming of victimhood status?” As in Ron Paul and his supporters?
As a Ron Paul supporter, I’m HURT and scandalised by that comment! It’s the only time you’ve mentioned him, or me for that matter!!!
😉
Or all those people on the Right complaining that the Government is stealing from them when they make them pay taxes?
Hang on a minute. This doesn’t seem to be posted on the GOA web site. I wonder how it, with the GOA logo, got into general circulation?
goarch.org/news/releases
Art imitates life… Greek crisis gives Germany something to sing about
“There is no obvious clear happy ending.”
Okay, now I my German side is embarrassed. An opera? (btw I love opera, REAL opera)
That should solve any monetary difficulties Greece is facing… especially a “meaningful” opera cobbled together by an art-industry that is wholly government (German taxpayer) financed. They should have send that good money after the bad directly to Greece instead of wasting it on productions nobody is paying to see… The Germans are not even good at wasting their savings in an effective way. That opera will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, the Greeks will hate them for a much longer period… They could have had more bang for their Euros so to speak?
And poor Christo who is asked by “boorish” Germans if he can pay for his cappuccino, is of course just another victim of all of this..never mind that he was also short changed when the Lord handed out ” a sense of humour”. It seems everyone is a practitioner of the art of victim-hood these days. However, some are better at it than others…
The handiwork of a real professional of this art can be admired as the lead-in of this thread……
This is getting really tiresome… maybe I should go back into hibernation.
George, you wrote:
Are these “fees” the same as the tax free “gifts of love” parishes provide their bishops when they visit?
a word from the desert
Many in the church are afraid to lead a better life, but not afraid to continue in the quagmire of their inertia. Because they consider themselves to be sinners, they tremble to approach the way of sanctity, but they are not afraid to persist in their vices.
St. Gregory Dialogos (the Great), Pope of Rome 590-604
D.C. archdiocese: Denying Communion to lesbian at funeral was against ‘policy’
By Michelle Boorstein, Published: February 28
Deep in grief, Barbara Johnson stood first in the line for Communion at her mother’s funeral Saturday morning. But the priest in front of her immediately made it clear that she would not receive the sacramental bread and wine.
Johnson, an art-studio owner from the District, had come to St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg with her lesbian partner. The Rev. Marcel Guarnizo had learned of their relationship just before the service.
“He put his hand over the body of Christ and looked at me and said, ‘I can’t give you Communion because you live with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin,’ ” she recalled Tuesday.
She reacted with stunned silence. Her anger and outrage have now led her and members of her family to demand that Guarnizo be removed from his ministry.
Family members said the priest left the altar while Johnson, 51, was delivering a eulogy and did not attend the burial or find another priest to be there.
“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”
The priest’s action has also triggered an uproar among gay rights activists and enlivened some religious conservatives. It came just days after the Maryland Senate approved legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state; Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) is expected to sign it this week.
“Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has been thrown under the bus for following Canon Law 915!” wrote one Catholic blogger in the archdiocese. “The issue here is not the priest but Barbara Johnson.”
Archdiocese officials would not comment. Instead, they issued a short statement saying that the priest’s actions were against “policy” and that they would look into it as a personnel issue.
“When questions arise about whether or not an individual should present themselves for communion, it is not the policy of the Archdiocese of Washington to publicly reprimand the person,” the statement said. “Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.”
Messages for Guarnizo and other parish staff were not returned. Neither he nor other parish leaders were at the church or the rectory Tuesday night.
Active Catholics in the Greater Washington region said they could not recall another recent occasion when a priest had refused to administer the sacrament to a gay Catholic. Guarnizo’s refusal, they said, seemed at odds with the strong stand against denial of Communion to Catholics enunciated by the archbishop of Washington, Cardinal Donald Wuerl.
Wuerl said he did not believe in denying Communion because it is impossible to know what is in another person’s heart. The issue took off during the 2004 presidential campaign, when some conservative Catholic leaders said that Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, should be denied Communion because of his pro-choice views.
Aw, she wants to live with her lesbian parter, but she wants communion too. Aw…. 🙁
Hey, Diogenes, maybe you could post this article on “We are Their Legacy”? I think it’s right up their alley. Here’s some contact information.
“In a written statement, the Archdiocese of Washington conceded that Father Marcel had acted improperly, saying, ‘Any issues regarding the suitability of an individual to receive communion should be addressed by the priest with that person in a private, pastoral setting.’
Yes, in other words, throw the priest under the bus for being the spiritual father of the community and for guarding the sacrament. If you have to give the sacrament to someone who is openly living in sin, dismissing the discpline and moral tradition of the church, and flaunting it to the entire community, better to openly give the sacrament to them than to openly hurt their sensitivies. It all make sense to me now.
Diogenes, could we trade Fr Denis Bradley (of the OCA) for Fr Marcel? The latter sounds like a stand-up guy.
Father Denis would not walk out of a funeral. There is no human decency in this situation.
I have changed my name from “Anna” to Anna Rowe. That is my real name. I am no longer in the witness protection program like many who post. Sometimes you’ll see Anne instead of Anna if you look me up.
I have a feeling that the article does not convey the entire story. I can’t imagine the priest walked out simply because this woman was a lesbian and wanted communion. There’s information missing here. Maybe she didn’t stand in “stunned silence”? Maybe she threw a fit? Maybe she ‘demanded’ communion?
In any event, it would probably take a lot for any priest to walk out of a service. But to me, it’s backwards. If Ms Johnson threw a hissy-fit after being denied communion, the priest was crazy to walk out. No priest should abandon ship like that. He should have escorted Ms Johnson out of the church, then finished the service.
I know Ms. Johnson. You are out of line.
Aparently Fr. Marcel was sick. Read more below . . . ..
http://awashingtondccatholic.blogspot.com/2012/02/update-on-fr-marcel-guarnizo.html
http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/
I see you carefully selected links to posts. I’ve knowm Ms. Johnson for 38 years. These accounte are not quite how things went.
I posted earlier changing my name from Anna to Anna Rowe. Anna is sometimes Anne if you look me up for whatever reason.My real name. For some reason they were not posted. They weren’t long posts like some versions War and Peace I’ve read here.
So we now face a Rashomon type situation? By all means, please tell us how things went.
What for? Minds are made up.
Anna Rowe
Anna, the Orthodox Church’s mind is made up.
Anna, do you know what the statement “The mind of the Orthodox Church is ‘made up'” means? Do you think it should change? How? How can the Orthodox Church change when it comes to homosexuality? What would you like to see happen?
This isn’t about personal opinion. We are talking about the “mind” of the worldwide Orthodox Church from Pentecost to the present day. The Orthodox Church is not like other churches. Individual opinions about homosexuality don’t matter. Individuals, even big shots, don’t get to decide. It is not going to change.
In some parishes in the OCA, bishops, priests and deacons are presently communing active homosexuals (themselves and lay people) at the chalice. In the OCA there are homosexual bishops, priests, deacons, and actively, openly homosexual lay people who are serving at the altar, and being given Communion, and there are heterosexual bishops, chancellors, priests, deacons and lay people in positions of power who not only accept it, but are pushing for it to become the norm within Orthodoxy.
If it gets to the point where homosexuals are regularly communed in OCA parishes all over the country; in other words, if it becomes the norm, with gay marriage being the next step, the OCA will cease to be Orthodox. It will be its own church.
JR,
I was not speaking about the the mind of the Orthodox Church. Pay attention. I was responding to Carl’s request for my account. I chose not to as “minds were made up” meaning those minds of those who enjoy cyber bullying without facts. For goodness sake this was at a funeral. I appreciate the Sunday School sermon.
Anne Rowe
Anna, I misunderstood. No sermon intended.
Here, in the WP story, are all the facts one needs to know, from Johnson herself:
The facts are: Barbara Johnson grew up in the Catholic church, went to Catholic schools, even taught at a Catholic school, yet at her mother’s funeral (of all occasions) she showed up with her lesbian partner, introduced her to the presiding priest, dared to approach the Body and Blood, and cried crocodile tears when she was turned away because “here I was letting [her mother] down because there was a scene.”
Yes, there was a scene, and it was all of Barbara Johnson’s making.
According to Orthodox teaching the priest is the guardian of the Chalice and has an obligation to deny the Eucharist to anyone he knows is unworthy. A practicing lesbian is certainly unworthy. Just the fact that this woman has made such a public case of this shows that she lacks the proper humility to receive the Sacrament. If she had the right attitude, she would have gone privately to the local bishop and not to the press.
I am afraid that Orthodox and other Christians are beginning a period that will test our faith and subject us to great pressure to compromise our most sacred beliefs. Let us be faithful and not surrender to the forces of evil that dominate our society.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Is “Ms.” Johnson in any way related to “Ms.” Matovic??? Enquiring minds, etc.
Another demonic voice speaks. Shame.
My bad Carl. I guess I should have asked if “Ms.” Johnson is in any way related to “Ms.” Kraeff.
You seem perpetually offended about one thing or another Carl. I have to wonder – at your age do you have any hair left or did you go bald decades ago?
P.S. Nice to see you’ve not engaged in the farce of “giving up blogging” for the fast this time around.
See.
Anne Rowe
Anne–Do not pay attention to Heracleides.
Why not, Carl?
Diogenes–Why did you post this article on this thread? As I read the article, I had four opinions forming in my head.
1. The priest was right in denying communion to Ms. Johnson.
2. The priest should have followed the diocesan policy of not rebuking publicly.
3. IF it is true that it is the policy of the diocesan bishop not to deny communion to gay persons, then the priest, as the agent for the bishop, should not have denied communion.
4. Ms Johnson should not have presented herself for communion, unless she was relying on diocesan policy.
BTW, please overlook Spasi’s rude and uncharitable comments.
Carl, your 4 opinions are contradictory. Is that what your intended?
I do not believe so. If you read my third point, you will see that it is conditional. I formed those opinions based on the story that Diogenes posted. Since then, new facts have emerged. So, my opinions now are:
1. The priest was right in denying communion to Ms. Johnson.
2. The priest followed the diocesan policy of not rebuking publicly.
3. IF it is true that it is the policy of the diocesan bishop not to deny communion to gay persons, then the priest, as the agent for the bishop, should not have denied communion.
4. Ms Johnson should not have presented herself for communion, particularly because she was told ahead of time not to do so..
Added: If it is the policy of the diocesan bishop not to deny communion to active homosexuals, he should be defrocked–Cardinal or not.
Syria Hit List Targets Thousands
EXCLUSIVE: A detailed document obtained by Mother Jones appears to identify a vast group of Syrian dissidents targeted by Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
—By Hamed Aleaziz | Mon Feb. 27, 2012 8:01 AM PST
23
Syrian protesters in May 2011 Syria-Frames-Of-Freedom/Flickr
A 718-page digital document obtained by Mother Jones contains names, phone numbers, neighborhoods, and alleged activities of thousands of dissidents apparently targeted by the Syrian government. Three experts asked separately by Mother Jones to examine the document—essentially a massive spreadsheet, whose contents are in Arabic—say they believe that it is authentic. As Bashar al-Assad’s military continues a deadly crackdown on dissent inside the country, the list appears to confirm in explicit detail the scale of the regime’s domestic surveillance and its methodical efforts to destroy widespread opposition.
Read more about what’s happening in Syria including the role a US firm played in the Assad regime’s cyber crackdown.
The document does not contain any identifying government markings. But the experts consulted agree that its organization and content—which they say is striking in scope—are characteristic of lists used by intelligence services in the Middle East. A link to the document, which surfaced in mid-January in discussions about Syria on Twitter, was provided to Mother Jones by a self-described hactivist who tweets frequently in Arabic and English and whose identity is unclear. A redacted sample of the document is below; Mother Jones is not publishing the full document or revealing the names of individuals in it because we cannot definitively confirm its authenticity nor predict how the document might be used if more widely disseminated.
But the experts who examined the document say it shows what many observers have strongly suspected: In addition to relentless bombing of cities such as Homs and Hama, the Assad regime is tracking down thousands of its own people for interrogation, coercion, or far worse. Joshua Landis, a scholar on Syria who has consulted for the State Department and other US government agencies, said he thinks the document merges the records of several Syrian intelligence agencies in order to better coordinate the crackdown. “This is what a secret service does,” he said. Actions allegedly taken by individuals in the document—such as setting up a roadblock near Homs or issuing instructions about how to attack a Syrian military outpost—are “the kind of thing that people get whacked for all the time, or at least tortured for.”
“They put me face down on the floor, and started beating me with a cable on the soles of my feet, my legs and back. They were asking, ‘Why did you go to the demonstration?'”
According to Ammar Abdulhamid, a Syria expert and fellow at the conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the document contains the names of people wanted by the government’s military and security services. It lists many of them with specific information—the year of their birth, names of their relatives, and descriptions such as, “he leads rallies in the Sakhaneh neighborhood.” The list also includes military defectors and their units and ranks, Abdulhamid said. “This kind of info on this scale cannot be available to the general public, or faked.”
The hactivist who alerted Mother Jones to the online document said that it was posted by members of an activist organizing committee inside Syria, but declined to provide any details confirming that, citing security concerns. It’s conceivable that the document involves deception by the Syrian regime or counterintelligence operations by its adversaries; the United States, Israel, and other Western powers are known to have run sophisticated covert operations against Syria and Iran for many years.
Andrew Tabler, a Syria expert and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, agrees that the list appears to be authentic, despite that there is no way to know for sure. “The way it’s organized looks similar to other documents I’ve seen,” he said, citing a hit list he saw when he was in Syria in 2006. (That list, he said, also did not contain identifying government markings.) “It organizes people in such a way that it would allow the security services to be able to track them down.” Tabler also said the document is longer than any he’s previously seen; it allows the Syrian government to “more effectively round up these folks and choke them off as part of the crackdown.”
Here is a sample from the top of page 1 of the document, which was translated from the Arabic by Abdulhamid.
(The English above corresponds to the headers and content of line 1 below; the columns are flipped, as Arabic is read from right to left.)
A Syrian student living in Europe who actively supports the opposition movement also examined the document and said that it is “very encompassing” and includes details on “activists who make things happen on the field and military defectors.” A note above a section near the end of the document, he said, suggests that the names of the people it contains were extracted through confessions.
The infamy of Syria’s Mukhabarat intelligence service is well known. For the past year, reports of it rounding up and torturing Syrian activists have steadily trickled out of the country. “When they took me in, they put me face down on the floor, and started beating me with a cable on the soles of my feet, my legs and back,” a Syrian protester told Human Rights Watch last year. “They were asking, ‘Why did you go to the demonstration? Who paid you to go? Who made you go?’ They just wanted me to confess to something, did not matter what.”
“I have seen lists that had hundreds of names listed in the same manner,” Abdulhamid said. “Some were published on the web by activists to warn people. Others included names of people who were later arrested or killed. Activists have reported since the early days of the revolution that when loyalist security forces came to their neighborhoods, they indeed carried a list of names in their hands and were looking for specific people, in addition to making random arrests or arresting relatives of the people whose names they had.”
“It’s way out of control. All of a sudden these large networks of people who were connected through this new technology, it overwhelmed the regime.”
He added: “It is possible that some of these lists have been leaked intentionally and that they contain names of pro-Assad elements to be used as bait for catching activists. The dynamics of the revolution have become very complex—there is active cyberwar going on, intelligence and counterintelligence, propaganda and counterpropaganda, and the regime tends to have the upper hand in these fields.”
Landis, who also runs the influential blog Syria Comment, says he thinks the scale of the document highlights “how overwhelmed the security forces clearly are with this uprising. They’re trying to keep track of leadership and who’s in the opposition, and it’s reaching into the thousands upon thousands.” Even for a regime as systematically brutal as Assad’s, it’s an immense undertaking. “They have to go out and find these people’s homes and interrogate their families, and then try to track these people down.”
Landis believes that the Arab Spring and the rise of social networks have weakened the iron grip that the regime has had on the country for more than four decades. “It’s way out of control…it’s on Facebook, it’s using all these technologies they don’t understand and were not up to speed on,” he said. “All of a sudden these large networks of people who were connected through this new technology, it overwhelmed them. It wasn’t people just making phone calls on the old hard lines the government had completely wired.”
Still, ever since the uprising began last March, the regime has shown that it will go to extreme lengths to crush the opposition. The situation turned particularly grim this month: There have been reports of hundreds massacred, including women and children, the US shut down its embassy in Damascus, and Western journalists have been killed. (For more details and essential background, read our updated Syria explainer.)
Advertise on MotherJones.com
Western countries, in cooperation with several Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Morocco, pursued a UN resolution calling for an end to Assad’s rule. It failed in early February, with Russia and China vetoing. On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other international leaders gathered in Tunis, calling for humanitarian aid and a UN peacekeeping force to be allowed into Syria. President Obama also weighed in, saying, “We are going to continue to keep the pressure up and look for every tool available to prevent the slaughter of innocents in Syria.” But as the violence goes on, options for a coalition of outside governments to intervene appear to remain limited.
Editorial Fellow
Hamed Aleaziz is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. RSS | TWITTER
Father Patrick and Met.Phillip have sure been quiet about Syria…
Diogenes, Anna, et al: this is all well and good but this post was about the embarrassing screed put out in the GOA’s name by Fr Karloutsos. There’s more than enough fodder in that letter and my response to it to keep things hopping. I’d rather we drop all references to the Lesbian denied Communion by Fr Marcel as well as what is happening in Syria.
any comments about these can be linked to earlier posts (i.e. Fr Patrick Reardon’s account or my article on “The Dumping Ground,” or others too numerous to mention).
Thanks
geo
I didn’t see your post until after my last comment went up. Will do, George.
Ok….I couldn’t find Father Patrick’s Syrian Travelogue to attach my comment to..Sorry
My apologies.
Anne Rowe
George,
In the spirit of full disclosure, and maybe you have already done so somewhere on Monomahkos, but may I ask, is there some “bad blood” between you and Fr. Alex that is the basis for this story? Are you working out some “unfinished” business from your days in the GOA?
Fr Alex makes no bones about his support of the EP. He is upfront in his role and what he does. No one who knows Fr. Alex would be surprised by his support for the EP and his loyalty in Pat. Bartholomew. His role is to support the work of the EP here in the USA. You may not like his role and you are free to disagree, but your loaded language (Macchiavel…..papal legate) sadly reminds me of similar language used by a now defunct website to whip his followers into action against Met. Jonah.
As for your assertion (and most nefarious) about the GOA helping the Greek government, the GOA has a very transparent donation button on its homepage. Frankly, I don’t think that there is enough money if all the Archons gave all their money to bail out Greece. If people want to help those suffering in Greece, as the Russian Orthodox Church has also done, I don’t see obvious “nefarious” motives. However, if you can produce such dark motives, then you should.
How this all plays out in terms of Orthodox Unity in the USA may be another story, but that is not what you wrote about. Are Greeks interested in administrative unity in the USA? Maybe they are, maybe not. But at this point the Greek Archdiocese is spearheading the work of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America. They are keeping the work going and active in making sure that, for example, the content of the ACOB is fresh so that people can learn more, and in particular, listen to the members of ACOB, the bishops, in their own words. They are riding herd on the ACOB committees to make sure they are doing their work in preparation for the next full meeting of ACOB.
As you know, I have been a supporter of this site in its efforts to provide balance and other points of view when such opinions were silenced by another site that is now defunct and its webmaster being sued. I just think that your not so subtle reference to Fr. Alex as a “Godfather” figure stems from a deeper history and thus colors your portrayal. If I am wrong, please forgive me.
Good question, Jacob. I don’t know Fr Alex and wouldn’t be able to spot him from a line-up. My information for him comes from my time in the OCL and my numerous GOA priest-friends. While I can’t say that he’s a nefarious fellow I have never heard anything of a positive nature about him from anybody in the GOA.
As for helping out the people in Greece, I have no problem with it. In fact, I mentioned that my readers should and gave them information on how best to do so. (Kudos to the ROC for doing so as well.)
Yes, you are right: there’s not enough money in the GOA/Archon/etc. to bail out Greece. But you know what? There’s a Church in Greece, it’s wealthy and it can help the Greek people (as it’s doing). Know what else? There are tens of thousands of people suffering in this country. If the GOA is really the “Archdiocese of America” then it should direct its philanthropy to the people who live in this “America.”
If what you say is true, that the GOA is “riding herd” on the ACOB and its committees to get things done, then I will congratulate them. Let me repeat: if I am wrong about the motives of the GOA then I will apologize. One way they could prove me wrong is to correct Met Savvas of Pittsburgh for his sabotoging of the Catholic bishops and the ACOB’s own press release regarding the HHS dictates.
Please understand, the record of the GOA’s “enthusiasm” for American unity and autocephaly is spotty at best. They have a high hurdle to surmount which is why it’s easy for critics such as myself to call them out.
Again: if I am wrong in any way, I will apologize. (It’d be very easy to prove me wrong btw.)
Jacob, I believe I was too glib with my answers. Your points deserved more thoughtful responses. Here goes:
Your assertion that Fr Karloutsos is being “loyal” to the EP needs to be dissected. Shouldn’t he, as a priest in the GOA be loyal to his bishop (in this case Arb Demetrios)? In bringing this up, you inadvertently bring up the central problem of the GOA, and that is that it is merely an eccesial colony of a foreign patriarchate. That this patriarchate is controlled by a hostile power is bothersome as well but this argument is not central to the point at hand but merely tangential.
My sources in the GOA tell me that not only was he instrumental in getting rid of the former archbishop, but that anytime one of the Leadership 100/Archons complains about a bishop, he goes to bat for the Archon(s) and forces the bishop to back down. And Bartholomew always backs up Karloutsos.
BEsides the intellectual vapidity of Tragos’ screed, I was offended by the fact that Karloutsos used the GOA’s letterhead to put this out. Even though this is not on the GOA’s website, this proves to me that he operates essentially as a rogue element, doing what he wants when he wants.
If nothing else, this does not display the “good order fo the Church.”
In terms of your assertion about being loyal to his Archbishop, Demetrios, I believe the proof is in the pudding. He has one of the fastest growing churches in the GOA in the Hamptons on Long Island. In fact, they have outgrown their old church (not that old) and are embarking on the construction of a new temple.
No doubt he relies on his son-in-law Fr Constantine to do a great deal of the day-to-day running of the parish, but also no doubt that Fr Alex and Presbytera Xanthi are two of the hardest working priest and priest wife couples I have ever seen. Most would buckle under such a schedule. I don’t think that anyone who attends his parish feel cheated because his first love and first calling is standing in front of the altar he has been assigned to and to serve and be a pastor to his people.
Is he tough? When he needs to be. He is good at what he does? Yes he is. He is disliked? You bet because he doesn’t take any crap, especially from bishops. Sadly, critics of Fr Alex all to often react out of envy. I have seen it firsthand and it is too bad.
I have also seen Fr Alex give of his time, talents and own money to help scores of people. He has a myriad of contacts and he has used those contacts to help people get jobs, get into colleges, and help those who need help. He does this without fanfare and thus to portray him as this “nefarious” character is just not accurate.
As we all know, bishops sometimes do stupid things, even illegal things, and as we also know, some of them never think that they ever make a mistake nor change their ways. So when a person, even an Archon objects to something, and that bishop is in the wrong, would not we all enjoy an advocate for what is right.
As to your conclusion about the GOA being eccesial colony of a foreign patriarchate it is also true that the Greek Archdiocese is out front with the ACOB. Whether it will finally bear the fruit of a administratively united Orthodox Church in the USA, no one knows. But if it were not for the GOA now, ACOB would be no better than SCOBA, but ACOB has already surpassed SCOBA in its visibility and potential, and this is because those foreign patriachates decided that the Church in those parts of the world in a confused canonical situation need to get their act together, start meeting and start setting their own agenda. Remember, if this ACOB here in the USA and CA say we want to be independent, then the ball is put right back into those foreign patriarchate’s lap. We have never had this opportunity before. To me that is an important step.
Enough. I don’t want to rival AN with posts so long that no one bothers to read them……hint, hint AN. Thanks, George.
Administrative Unity = Pan Orthodox Unity = More Centralized Corrupt Power and Control.
Decentralization, independent modern authority structure, bottom up laity centered and an inclusive open system is the solution that will break the circular without solution cycle of a church that is corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying.
The move away from a steep top down and centralized hierarchy structure of authority to a flatter authority structure is the modern structure that works and it is relevant to our society. The flatter authority structure results in the raising up of the laity from the bottom up. The bottom up laity involvement in the church by the leadership and the laity coming into a better balance of shared church authority will result in greater transparency and accountability and that will eventually lead to a more relevant church.
The God Father photo is the perfect analogy description between highly centralized and top down secular organized crime organization and the organized religious top down crime organization.
What do they share in common?:
1. Lack of transparency and accountability
2. Corrupt by absolute power and control.
3. Based in top down centralized totalism power and control.
4. Coercive and intimidating.
5. Self centered and self protective.
6. Believe they are above the rule of law.
7. Closed and exclusive system and structure of organization.
8. Irrational by being unethical and immoral.
9. Lies, cheats, steals, covers up, keeps secrets, cons and spins.
10. Sees you as a pawn to be manipulated to its corrupt end.
This is the short list. By thinking for yourselves you can think through other points you can add to the list.
No one needs a deeper history that thus colors their portrayal of this church in the reality of the modernity world to see what is the cause of the corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying state of church. All you have to know what to do is compare. There are other comparison that can be made between Christ in the Gospels to the Sanhedrin and then compare both of those to the structure and system and state of the EOC in the real modernity world of today.
Bottom up and open system thinking that thinks for itself is the solution. Top down and closed system that thinks for you is failure. Christ did not fail to be relevant to the generation He came too. He was the paradigm living and dynamic shift to relevancy and away from dead tradition based religion that had by that tradition turned itself into self idolatry, spiritual abuse, religious works to salvation, spiritual abandonment and religious performance as righteousness. That is an easy comparison.
Comparison is what Christ was all about in the Gospels. He did not come to us as a Roman church ruler who was a part of the Roman dictatorship state of church and state of top down totalism power and control. He did not come to rule as the church hierarchy of a Roman King dictatorship church and state. If you try to meld and merge Christ and the Roman dictatorship state together as one you will corrupt Christianity and the clear observation in the reality of the real world will be that corruption indefensibly and undeniably seen.
Our own sin is enough to corrupt any church without the exponential corrupting element of the Roman dictatorship state of MAN KINGS made Christ and salvation one with the corrupt secular state that USES religion to its corrupt ends. That is a sick symbiotic relationship that leads to religious addiction and religious codependency upon that religious addiction. It makes the church highly political and not highly spiritual. Of course, anyone with eyes can see that Orthodox hierarchies are highly internally political in how they rule jurisdictions. Thus, the crony corrupt rule the church!
The more internally political the church the less internally spiritual the church. Thus, the more corrupt is that politically based church that is no longer spiritually based. That is a simple comparison.
Welcome, Orthodox, to the modernity paradigm shift of God in our modernity generation and that is the relevancy of God to our modernity generation.
That is an easy comparison. You can’t compare to paradigm shift to innovative relevancy change if you believe you are Gods only alone right and one true church. Orthodox think this statement through to its logical conclusion of what it means for your relevancy to our modernity generation.
Those left behind in a dying paradigm of irrelevancy stay in that paradigm by trying to use solutions in that archaic paradigm and that do not work in the new paradigm. They go CIRCULAR WITHOUT SOLUTION by the failed solutions that no longer work applied. Anyone can make that comparison if they are open system open minded to see it. If you are closed system closed minded you will never see it and that will be the logical end result of your irrelevancy in modernity.
The Sanhedrin had the exact same problem by comparison. They were left behind in a dying paradigm and as Christ paradigm shifted right past them. The Sanhedrin believed they were Gods absolute standard of spiritually correct measure that all before them were measured against. They did not have to paradigm shift to change to innovation to relevancy. They believed in their orthodox minds they were all of those things incarnate by claiming to be Gods only true salvation and structure and system of Gods authority on planet Earth.
The Sanhedrin tradition based dead religion tried to put God into its closed, exclusive, isolated and subjective box of religious totalism power and control and it did nothing but turn God into works, performance and spiritual abuse by that totalism power and control. It turned God into a corrupt, irrelevant and dying failure by trying to control God inside of its closed box of absolute tradition control. No one, including God, could tell them they were destroying God and salvation. They refused to listen for how right they believed they were.
Is it any wonder why Christ was highly SARCASTIC with the orthodox? Do any of you when you read the Gospels see that sarcasm, what it is directed at and what the response to that confrontation by the confronted orthodox was?
It is undeniable and indefensible to believe that Christ did not leave them to die in their dead tradition religion paradigm by paradigm shifting right past them with radical REFORMATION. It is undeniable and indefensible to believe that Christ came to set up a similar structure and system based upon tradition and that results in a similar logical conclusion Sanhedrin like state of church.
Reformation is a word that is like old chalk on an old chalk board to the Orthodox.
The Sanhedrin orthodox felt the same way and saw it the same way.
The loud and shrill sqreeeeech on the old chalk board of dead and corrupt tradition based religion is the paradigm shift of God in modernity. It is Gods one true and alone right paradigm shift found in the Gospels and it is still paradigm shifting to relevancy today in the same ways.
Christ is REFORMATION to innovation to change to relevancy in the generation He is found in. Where He is found not to be that the church is found in failure and decline. It is either found in a stagnant sewer farm pond water state or it is found in a buried six feet under state. Either way it all reeks of rot and decay.
Ashley Nevins
One last thought in regards to my last post…
The orthodoxy of Christ in the Gospels is His paradigm shift to innovation to change to relevancy and that never stops being that relevancy in the generation it is found in.
The orthodoxy of Christ in the Gospels is not dead tradition based orthodox religion that cannot paradigm shift to relevancy change by being irrelevancy that refuses to paradigm shift to relevancy change.
Orthodox, Christ in the Gospels is a new form of orthodoxy that can paradigm shift to change relevancy in the generation it is found in.
The old paradigm He replaced was exclusive tradition based and it was found in a state of corrupt and failed irrelevancy and dying by pride, arrogance and self righteousness.
Orthodoxy defined as tradition is pure failure and that is the Sanhedrin in the Gospels.
Orthodoxy defined as change away from tradition failure is Christ in the Gospels.
Orthodoxy defined as reformation to innovation to change to relevancy is the modernity relevancy church whose orthodoxy is paradigm shift to relevancy change in the generation it is found in.
Yes, I know, I have brought forward in previous posts on this site and what could be construed as a contradiction in regards to orthodoxy and its definition and when in comparison to what I state here. It is not a contradiction if you can think for yourself by open system thinking that sees Christ’s orthodoxy in the Gospels as bottom up and open system paradigm shift to change.
Bottom line, if you see the orthodoxy of Christ in the Gospels as tradition you will never change to relevancy in our modernity generation.
Orthodox, you see the orthodoxy of Christ in the Gospels as being based in tradition and that is why you are a tradition based church in failure by that view of Christ as tradition in the Gospels.
There is nothing really wrong with tradition or orthodoxy unless you turn them both into self idolatry by claiming to be Gods only alone right and one true church based upon tradition and orthodoxy that cannot change to relevancy in the generation your church is found in. When that is the case you can no more change to relevancy in our generation as the Sanhedrin compared to Christ in the Gospels could change to relevancy in the generation it was found in.
Orthodox, what you base yourselves upon determines your outcome in the real world.
Orthodox, what Christ based Himself upon determined His outcome in the Gospels.
He did not base Himself upon TRADITION or church/state power and control.
Ashley Nevins
One last thought to my last thought….
Christ came to us as structural and system change away from the structure and system of tradition based dead religion. He came to us opposite to what He confronted to make the stark and undeniable comparison. He came to us as least expected and He was expected to come back as what by the orthodox Jews?
He came as bottom up and open system modernity paradigm shift that replaced the archaic, closed and top down system of the Sanhedrin. He came as humility and service from the bottom up. He did not come as power and control from the top down.
Orthodox, unless you have a structure and system paradigm shift change away from the structure and system of tradition based church irrelevancy your church will continue to remain irrelevant in the generation it is found in.
You will remain an organized corrupt religion based upon dead tradition that cannot paradigm shift to Christ relevancy change in our generation of modernity or to any future modernity generations. Christ is the continual modernity paradigm shift unless you turn Him into orthodox tradition that kills paradigm shift to modernity relevancy.
How Christ came to us in the Gospels is a direct warning by God not to turn ourselves into what Christ paradigm shifted us away from or outcome will be the same. If you cannot see the warning maybe you should consider reading and evaluating what it is telling you about your irrelevancy corrupt failure in modernity?
If you do not heed the warning your outcome will prove that you refuse to hear the warning and therefore you will refuse to hear the solution to your corrupt and failed state of church.
All of you think my warning is harsh, interfering, bitter and even evil. Check this warning out in John 8:31-59 and I am child play playing with tinker toys in comparison. That scripture is a direct comparison to modernity paradigm shift Christ to dead tradition that refuses to paradigm shift away from dead tradition paradigm to the living Christ paradigm shift.
God in Christ and by the Holy Spirit never stops that confrontation and comparison and He doesn’t because God is all about confronting what will not paradigm shift to relevancy change by it being based upon dead tradition that leads to works, legalism and self righteousness.
For instance, the Sanhedrin believed they were right worship and right belief and Jesus Christ called that LEGALISM. It tried to define God by the power and control of the closed system box and God is an open system who defines Himself. God exists outside of the tradition as God and as defined by the closed tradition box. If tradition is the definition of God then God is dead. It tradition is our salvation then salvation is dead. If church is tradition based then church is dead. Do the dead ‘get it’ about this? Those Christ confronted did not get it about this.
Tradition stops the comparison, the confrontation and the paradigm shift to change. Do you see the arguments to Christ the orthodox tradition raises in those Scriptures? You can clearly see it in the reaction that the tradition basis had in reaction to the Christ basis in those Scriptures. They are the same arguments the EO raise when confronted with similar. Stop comparison, confrontation and paradigm shift by tradition and you will stop your church dead in its tracks and it will not be able to move forward.
Orthodox, do you see the problem and the state of church it is creating for you in modernity?
What, you can’t see the confrontation comparison in those scriptures and between Christ modernity relevancy paradigm shift and the tradition based legalistic who could not be wrong or paradigm shift for how right they believed their tradition was? You can’t see the tradition basis of their refusal to paradigm shift to the relevancy of Christ brought to their generation? You can’t see that any church based upon what they advocated is sure failure?
Christ paradigm shifted right past them and He left them in their paradigm of failure. He was not based upon what they were based upon and that being TRADITION. He did not base His church on what He confronted them over and that confrontation was directed at TRADITION.
He told them they had made those things their god and salvation and then He told them who that god of their salvation really was. Their reaction is obvious and highly predictable if you really understand the tradition alone is right mind set basis they operated from.
It is obvious that had Christ agreed with them and made what they advocated and were His basis He would have been made a corrupt failure.
What does John 8:59 tell you was the basis of their reaction and what was their reaction in verse 59? In the end the best argument they could come up with was rock throwing. That is how spiritually bankrupt by dead tradition that they had become. Throw Christ out and while you are at it stone Him. Make the messenger and the message the problem and don’t face the real problem. Kill the solution for believing we alone are Gods only right solution. Use Orthodox tradition to solve the Orthodox tradition problem and see where that takes you. It will take you circular without solution.
Any church with a same or similar tradition basis mindset is the set up for church failure to the degree that mindset rules over them. Orthodox, the failure will be in direct correlation to the degree that mindset is held. They correlate by degree and the DEGREE can be CLEARLY SEEN, get it?
He held the tradition mirror right up in their faces and showed them who they really were. They were not shown to be beautiful tradition in glorious orthodoxy.
Orthodox, if you don’t get it you will get the logical conclusion of your tradition based church instead. You will get your present state as your future state. I do not believe any of you want the current state of your church to be the future state of your church, but it will be if you do not paradigm shift your structure and system to modernity relevancy to our generation. Don’t believe me that it requires a structure change that will then result in a system change and then die by disbelief in what is necessary to save your church from a slow, ugly and painful irrelevancy death.
Any OCA looking in need to realize that what Jonah has envisioned for the OCA is not the necessary structure and system change that will bring your OCA into modernity relevancy. It is simply not radical paradigm shifting enough to remotely bring the relevancy change the OCA desires. As long as your OCA remains structurally and systemically enmeshed with the rest of the sick and failed tradition based jurisdictions nothing is going to change and the OCA will experience their same failure. I promise and all of my promises to the Orthodox come true. All of them.
If you cannot see the common denominator systemic cause of the various jurisdictional failures you will continue to fail by your failure to see the common denominator corrupter. The common denominators are simple to see: Tradition, structure and system and we alone are Gods only alone right and one true church claim. The problem is inside of those three things and the solution is outside of those three things.
I await the typical orthodox tradition based reaction. I will not be responding. I will simply leave for now and come back sometime in the future and when the Orthodox corrupt failure provides more undeniable proofs and evidences of the cause of its corrupt failure in modernity.
Yes, I know, how can a heretic to Orthodoxy know what the cause of the corrupt failure is and what the solution to the corrupt failure is? How could anyone outside of your church know either? Read John 8:31-59 for your answer to the two questions and see who stood outside of their corrupt failure and called it for what it is. I know what He knows by Him telling me what He knows by reading the NT outside of tradition that He was confronting. I am looking at it and seeing it like He sees and looks at it. Simple is this.
Yes, I know tradition will tell me I got it wrong. It told Jesus the same.
Ashley Nevins
Ashley….I fear you are incapable of “one last thought”.
Do you have racing thoughts? Flight of ideas? Inability to concentrate on one subject as a time? Tangential thinking?
Add “obsessive” to all the above and you’ve nailed it!
Some kind of championship here, Ashley!
Someone mentions your name, and there you are!
I think you must have thought ahead and got this ready to post, hoping
that your name would come up. But it’s the same old stuff, all the time.
Misconceptions in the Orthodox Church
1) The Orthodox “Diaspora” extends all over the world.
—The truth is, there is no diaspora. A diaspora by definition indicates that people living somewhere, BELONG elsewhere. Although people from different parts of the world may have brought Orthodoxy to Australia, N. America, Europe, etc., the people of these countries (territories) do not BELONG elsewhere. The Orthodox of N. America aren’t going back to the countries where their ancestors came from. Furthermore, when the Holy Disciples brought the Church to foreign lands, they did not tell the people they were now part of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, etc. No, the Orthodox in these countries became a “LOCAL CHURCH” deciding their own destiny, choosing their own bishops and ordaining their own priests without foreign interference.
2) The Bishop of Istanbul (Constantinople) is “the first among equals” and therefore has precedence over ALL the Orthodox world-wide.
—The concept of “first among equals” is exactly what it says. According to Orthodox Canon Law, the responsibilities of this title are clearly outlined. First, the Patriarch with this title is the “Chairman when the other Patriarchs meet.” He is the coordinator of the meetings with the other Patriarchs. He was also given the responsibility to keep the church records of “the Empire.” And, to solve disputes between the Patriarchs. NO OTHER POWERS OR RESPONSIBILITIES. Anything else has been fabricated. He cannot interfere in the operations or decisions of churches outside his immediate territory. Bishops may appeal to him for rulings
in disputes, but originally this was only reserved for the Patriarchs themselves.
3) Autocephaly can only be granted by the Pat. of Istanbul (Constantinople).
—The truth is, there are no canons in the Orthodox Church stating who can and who can’t grant autocephaly. Going back to the Holy Apostles, they established churches in territories, consecrated their first bishop and then left them to operate on their own with periodic instruction. Most current autocephalous churches in a “particular territory” just announced their own autocephaly. For people to say that the Pat. of Istanbul MUST agree to every claim of autocephaly or it isn’t so, is just ridiculous. The Kiev/Rus Church, after the Council of Florence where the Pat. of Constantinople and all the ancient Patriarchies fell into heresy confirming their union with Rome, announced their own autocephaly to remain Orthodox. The Pat. of Constantinople refused to accept the Kiev/Rus autocephaly for over 100 years and only after the Kiev/Rus paid much money to Constantinople for recognition.
4) Canon 28 of Chalcedon gives the Pat. of Constantinople authority over the entire world.
—The truth is this particular canon ONLY gave Constantinople authority over certain barbarian lands around the Black Sea.This canon was not written nor can it be interpreted properly as giving the Pat. of Istanbul authority over the entire world. This interpretation is ridiculous at best!
5) Unity of all the Orthodox Churches in North America can only be achieved via the Pat. of Istanbul
—The truth is that the Pat. of Constantinople/Istanbul has always been the prime obstacle to unity in North America. In 1961 when SCOBA was formulated, one of their prime objectives (from minutes) was to work toward a united, autocephalous, Orthodox Church in North America. The minutes even state the title of this church should be, “The Orthodox Church in America.” SCOBA was committed to this end with the agreement that all attendees would become members of this entity. In 1970, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, was able to negotiate the granting of autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church for it’s daughter church and the original Orthodox Church in America, the Metropolia. The name adopted for this new church was, “The Orthodox Church in America.” The idea was for all the Orthodox bishops to join this church, as Orthodox Canon Law dictates, leading their own faithful and sitting on a Council of Bishops to run the church. They in turn would choose their own Metropolitan to lead the council. Many in SCOBA joined this new church, but the Antiochians and Greeks did not. Istanbul immediately began it’s rhetoric of why this autocephaly was non-canonical. All reasons lacking any real theological credibility.The Greeks and Antiochians reneged on their former agreement to join a united, autocephalous church. In 1994, at Ligonier, PA, SCOBA tried to seriously re-start the attempt to form a united Orthodox Church in America. After this meeting, the Pat. of Istanbul retired + Iakavos, leader of the Greeks in N. America, and emasculated all the other Greek bishops in N. America. Istanbul decided that there was not going to be any unity in N. America except under the Pat. of Istanbul. Only under him and with him as head.
6) Foreign bishops have authority in North America
—According to Orthodox Canon Law, foreign bishops have NO authority over territory not in their own “local” jurisdiction. In N. America, everyone knows the Orthodox Church history. The Russians came to N. America via Alaska when no Orthodox Churches existed or were established in this territory. The Russian Orthodox Church established churches in Alaska, South along the CA coast to San Francisco. Then to NYC. Other Orthodox also arrived in N. America in Florida, New Orleans, etc., but it was clear, the Russian Orthodox Church established the territory of North America initially and had authority over the territory (Canon Law)
All priests and bishops arriving in N. Am. recognized that the ROC had prime authority over the N. Am. territory and this was not disputed. After the Russian Revolution, church authority from Russia fell apart. All ethnic Orthodox in N. Am. turned to their own foreign bishops and patriarchs for support. Thus, the rise of many foreign bishops, priests and dioceses from overseas. In 1970, the Russian Orthodox Church granted the original Orthodox Church in N. Am., it’s daughter church the Metropolia, autocephaly. According to Orthodox Canon Law, when a local, indigenous, autocephalous church exists in a territory, ALL Orthodox churches must come under it’s omophor (authority). Thus, the reason Istanbul rejects the OCA’s autocephaly. A non-canonical
reaction by Istanbul and all the churches affiliated with her. According to Orthodox Canon Law, foreign bishops have NO authority in N. Am. nor anywhere else outside their own local territory.
7) Orthodox clerics MUST wear cassocks all the time, be unshaven, not cut their hair and wear kamalavkas in church and in public.
—Cassocks, or that which resemble a cassock, is the basic garb of men in the Mid East from the earliest times. In the 1500’s on through the 1800’s, it was also the primary garb in Russia, Greece, etc. Eventually, with Western influence, the business suit became the basic garb. Today, in Iraq, Pakistan and other Eastern 3rd world countries, the cassock (resemblance) is the men’s basic garb. Clerics wore this basic garb with a cross to distinguish them from laymen. In the Byzantine court and even the Emperor were clean shaven and cut their hair. Only the MONASTICS wore long hair and were unshaven. When the Muslims conquered the Byzantine Empire, they insisted that ALL Orthodox clerics wear KAMALAVKAS to distinguish them from Muslim clerics. In other words, kamalavakas were imposed by Muslims and weren’t Orthodox. Today, we have American bishops INSISTING that clergy wear cassocks all the time; encouraging unshaven clerics with long hair and pony tails and kamalavkas in church and in public. This is nothing more than Orthodox FUNDAMENTALISM!
8) Orthodox bishops must wear crowns, the sachos, dress in the church and encourage much pomp and ceremony. “Eis polla Ieti Despota” should always be sung for bishops.
—Orthodox bishops NEVER wore crowns. Crowns were only worn by the Imperial Court of Byzantium by the Emperor. The “sachos” was the outer dress of the Emperor. Much pomp & ceremony in church was carried out only when the Emperor was in attendance (Constantinople). Eis polla ieti Despota is interpreted as, “Many years to our DESPOT” was only sung for the Emperor. When Constantinople fell to the Muslims, the bishops adopted all the characteristics of the Emperor. A true aberration of the bishop who should emulate Christ in all of His humility. The bishop ALWAYS served as the “1st priest” and not as the Emperor!
Now tell us somthing we don’t already know.
The price of eggs in China has decreased!
Diogeneric might be saying the price of China has no eggs, or the Chinese chicken has no cackle, or the Chinese can finally afford eggs, or the rest of the leaders of the Orthodox Church world wide can go lay eggs if they don’t like what we (Eric, et al) are doing with the OCA (Orthodox Christians for Accountability) which means, we don’t care what you think of us, we are going to do what we want, which means,“You’re not the boss of me now, and you’re not so big.” (Life is unfair.) Maybe. I’m just saying.
Where’s the darn ‘Like’ button when you need it?
Yep, the the vision “back in the day” was to be the middle finger of Orthodoxy to the rest of the Orthodox world. Happy days are here again for the current crew in Syosset (and the movers and shakers behind the scenes), but this time with nothing to back it up but memories and dreams of days long past. Heady stuff.
That’s OCA wisdom-of-the-day, late Crestwood style, par excellence as it is understood by Eric. There’s no point in addressing what has been iterated and addressed ad nauseam with no effect whatsoever, save preening by those who utter it and congratulations by sympathetic ideologues. There’s some truth in it, to be sure; however, it’s about time someone pointed out how Unapostolic it is to inveigh against the foreign, or foreign control or against foreigners,etc. etc. etc. We are all strangers and foreigners. The very first verse, tellingly, in Eric’s epic iteration of the truth as he knows it, just HAD to contain the ‘foreign” signal.
There’s a good line in Heinrich Boell’s novel, Gruppenbild mit Dame (Group Portrait with Lady), when the young heroine ,while having her morning rolls and coffee and reading the newspaper, exclaims, “Why is it always the foreigners?”
A word to the wise is sufficient.
Orthodox Fundamentalism and “Insufficiently Converted Orthodox”
By An Orthodox Observer
There is a certain sort of Orthodox convert from Protestantism who has
been insufficiently converted from the outset. The “fundamentalist”
mindset was received and nurtured from his Protestant days, and
indicates a deep epistemological and theological/spiritual problem. Such
a person has never really converted to a full-fledged Orthodoxy, with
all that that entails in obedience and how one decides issues as an
“Orthodox Christian.” They have not accepted the Orthodox faith in its
entirety, in faith and submission, yielding up their private judgment
(that is, a system of “authority” whereby the individual ultimately is
the arbiter of truth over against a Christian institution or
God-ordained Christian leaders) and believing that God uniquely guides
the Orthodox Church and protects Her from error by the Holy Spirit.
I hasten to add that I am not claiming that such persons are not
technically Orthodox at all. I am saying, rather, that they haven’t
properly learned how to think and believe like an Orthodox (or have
learned that but refuse to consistently abide by the Orthodox
understanding and outlook). They didn’t fully enter into the “Orthodox
mind.” One can, for example, be too intellectual in a “leftish” way;
leaning towards liberalism or atheism, or religious indifferentism, or
in a goofy, wacko “far right” way.
Fundamentalism in these “half-converts” is cultivated from within what
they falsely think is the “Orthodox” paradigmatic framework (and in
Protestantism prior to that). The Orthodox so-called “traditionalist”
who is also a convert generally wasn’t brought to fundamentalism as an
Orthodox; he already was a “fundamentalist” because that is a mental
outlook and way of interpreting information and knowledge and factual data.
This “fundamentalist” mentality or mindset occupies some common “mental
ground” between Orthodox and Protestants because it is prior even to
theology. It is a shortcoming in one’s philosophical outlook and how
those who disagree are regarded. Yet it is much more psychological than
theological at bottom. Hence the ubiquitous paranoia, conspiratorialism,
consignment of everyone to the left of them to “liberalism” or
“Neo-Orthodoxy,” etc., etc. These types of individuals are sort of the
modern-day Pharisees. The particular brand gets added to the
pre-existing psychological mixture. These “half-converts” bring their
“mix” to Orthodoxy.
Protestantism and fundamentalism are two different things, but with much
overlap in practice (i.e., sociologically). Protestant ideas flow from
the inherent principles of Protestantism (sola Scriptura, private
judgment, sola fide, et al). The fundamentalist psychological mindset,
on the other hand, is not inherent to Protestantism, but brought to it,
and is logically or mentally prior to it (even though in practice it is
characteristic of and largely confined to a large sub-group of the
“conservative” or “traditionalist” Protestants). It is (ultimately or
immediately) anti-intellectual and psychologically paranoid, with a huge
fortress mentality (similar to right-wing wacko stuff or quack science
or secular versions of conspiratorialism).
The “fundamentalist mindset” in either Protestantism or Orthodoxy (but
especially in the latter) is an aberration and a foreign element. It
doesn’t logically or conceptually flow from the intrinsic principles of
either system. But it is much more typically characteristic (i.e., it
coincides or co-exists with), a certain sort of Protestant (derived
historically from the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the late
1800s up through the Scopes Trial in 1925 and beyond). “Half-converts”
usually learn this type of outlook in a Protestant environment, as far
as its precepts go.
I think fundamentalism is at bottom a psychological malady and a failure
of the intellectual imagination (a difficulty in understanding the
criteria of plausibility, credibility, and in building or espousing
intellectual systems; theological or otherwise). The hyper-dogmatism
often observed in the insufficiently-converted Orthodox
fundamentalist/”traditionalist” is a combination of both the private
judgment principle and (usually) some sort of radical, profound
psychological insecurity (characteristic of many anti-Orthodox as well).
To truly understand and convert to magisterial, Orthodoxy would be the
end of such nonsense and over-reliance on and extreme overconfidence in
one’s own opinions. After all, Orthodoxy has real authority: canons,
councils, bishops, catechisms . . . So the Orthodox fundamentalist ends
up being a typical “cafeteria Orthodox.” This is why I’ve always argued
that both Orthodox liberalism and “traditionalism” have the same liberal
root of “pick-and-choose” and private judgment: the deadly combination
of what is worst in both liberal theology and Protestantism (insofar as
it is heretical and non-Orthodox).
It’s like Communism and Naziism. If you go too far left or right on the
political spectrum, you come around full circle: it is a matter of
extremes vs. the “center” (Orthodoxy). So the further right one goes
theologically or ecclesiologically or in their formal principles of
authority, the further left they also go. Liberals question the judgment
and authority of bishops; so do Orthodox fundamentalist “traditionalists.”
One camp is nominalistic and spiritually bankrupt; the other is
prideful, legalistic, and has lost faith in the guidance of Holy Mother
Church by the Holy Spirit. The liberals are against sound reason and
rationality (cf. Francis Schaeffer: Escape From Reason); so are the
fundamentalist/”traditionalists.” Both factions lack faith and spiritual
vision.
It all comes out basically the same in the wash. One is either Orthodox
or extreme, and the extremes tend to meet and have common ground, as a
result of their fringe nature. Orthodoxy is like the center of the earth
(or perhaps the equator). Liberalism and “traditionalism” are akin to
the north and south poles; they are a world apart geographically but
there isn’t a whole lot of difference between them in terms of climate
and landscape.
In today’s Orthodoxy we have many converts. Many in the laos, priests and bishops. So, how does this fundamentalism manifest itself? Those in the laos believe they can only be “real” Orthodox if they follow a monastic way of life or try to emulate it. The hair grows long, their beards become long and straggly, they stop sleeping with their wives, women begin to look like peasants from 18th century Russia, etc. Priests grow pony-tails, long beards, wear cassocks all the time – parading in public and doing 30 plokons at every icon, etc. Bishops are even worse! These convert bishops take their model from 18th century Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. They have no idea what Orthodoxy is in the 2011. Compounding this by being celibate and they are divorced from normal marital life. They enforce their priests to hold 3 hour services, they require their priests to always wear their cassocks (as if we lived in 18th century Russia, etc)., they believe all their priests should wear Muslim enforced liturgical head gear, etc. It goes on and on!
So, how do we get beyond this? Fundamentalism in Orthodoxy must be exposed! They must be confronted with their views and pharisaical actions. They must understand that Orthodoxy in 2011 does not have to look like 1800. Orthodoxy is a “living” faith which transforms societies and people. (Read Lossky) Orthodox don’t have to look like monastics. Priests need to look like they belong in 2011, not 1800. Bishops who wish to rule as if they are abbots, need to return to a monastery. Leadership belongs to those who REALLY understand the Orthodox world in 2011!
“Lord, I thank thee that I am not like those Orthodox Fundamentalists with their beards and ponytails…”
It’s pure Wheeler-cant.
True enough. The word “fundamentalist” has lost all meaning. It’s just an epithet for “I’m a moderate but that guy over there, he’s a ‘fundamentalist’.”
This is cut and pasted from ocasloughs.
…rhymes with “slews.”
Thanks JR for posting to that thread. If you notice, the first entry is chewing me out for defending +Jonah.
“Leadership belongs to those who REALLY understand the Orthodox world in 2011!”
And who, dear “Orthodox Observer”/Diogenes, are they?
I for one believe that they are “great thinkers” such Archimandrite Sophrony Sakarov of blessed memory. (See “His Life Is Mine,” SVSPress.)
PdnNJ, don’t you know who “they” are?
Father Robert Arida HERE: “Indeed, the Church has never sailed these uncharted waters. But our history teaches us that what is new need not compromise Christ who is the “same yesterday, today and forever.”
Father Alexei Vinogradov on HERE: “The canons are related to history and to time; they are not immovable pillars, and so their place in Church life will also have to occupy a major place in the coming discourse. The vertical, the unpredictable, the Spirit’s free blowing, has yet to show us much in our present age which the martyred priest Alexander Men’ called the infancy of the Church.”
Father John Jillions (Chancellor of the OCA and Diogeneric’s/Eric Wheeler’s brother-in-law) HERE:
“I am especially interested in:
– how divine guidance, discernment and decision-making are understood
– interpreting Christian faith to those with little or no religious background
– 20th c. émigré Russian religious thought and theology (the Paris School in particular)
– how Orthodox relate to the “other”
– how the insights of conflict studies might be used in ecumenical and interfaith contexts
– the relationship between North American culture and Orthodox Christianity
– newness, change and reform within the Orthodox tradition
-the experience of Orthodox clergy (and their wives)
– the experience of sexual minority groups within the Orthodox Church
– Orthodox churches and the defense of human rights ”
And, all together, with photos, HERE: ” If we, indeed, possess the gift of a “living and evolving” theology, we are assured that the Truth is unchanging and eternal, but “life” and “evolution” are how it is “shown forth” (φράζω), in and by its articulation. We will listen, we will consider, and we will attempt to discern.”
PdnNJ, don’t you know who “they” are?
Father Robert Arida (courtesy of ocanews): “Indeed, the Church has never sailed these uncharted waters. But our history teaches us that what is new need not compromise Christ who is the “same yesterday, today and forever.”
Father Alexei Vinogradov (from ocanews): “The canons are related to history and to time; they are not immovable pillars, and so their place in Church life will also have to occupy a major place in the coming discourse. The vertical, the unpredictable, the Spirit’s free blowing, has yet to show us much in our present age which the martyred priest Alexander Men’ called the infancy of the Church.”
Father John Jillions (Chancellor of the OCA and Diogeneric’s/Eric Wheeler’s brother-in-law. From his web site):
“I am especially interested in:
– how divine guidance, discernment and decision-making are understood
– interpreting Christian faith to those with little or no religious background
– 20th c. émigré Russian religious thought and theology (the Paris School in particular)
– how Orthodox relate to the “other”
– how the insights of conflict studies might be used in ecumenical and interfaith contexts
– the relationship between North American culture and Orthodox Christianity
– newness, change and reform within the Orthodox tradition
-the experience of Orthodox clergy (and their wives)
– the experience of sexual minority groups within the Orthodox Church
– Orthodox churches and the defense of human rights ”
And, all together, with photos, (Wearetheirlegacy.com): ” If we, indeed, possess the gift of a “living and evolving” theology, we are assured that the Truth is unchanging and eternal, but “life” and “evolution” are how it is “shown forth” (φράζω), in and by its articulation. We will listen, we will consider, and we will attempt to discern.”
They all sound like each other, don’t they?
(this didn’t post earlier because there were several links. Reposting it without the links.)
That list is also called the “How to Impress the Heterodox who hate to hear about Orthodoxy an sich.”
This shows WONDERFUL RESULTS: A mid Manhattan Lutheran church generously stocked with the most esthetically correct icons ever, scores of Protestant Episcopal and Anglican ministers wearing three-barred crosses and bishops sporting panagias. Anthems in mid-service which are all the warhorses of the standard turn-of-the-century Russian national School, such as Gretchaninov’s Creed (this was a favorite in my uncle’s Scotch presbyterian choir’s repertory with paid soloist, of course).
It’s also sometimes called “Orthodoxy for the Connoisseur.”
A list of coffee-table books for such is also easy to come up with…
Jane Rachel says:
March 2, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Father John Jillions (Chancellor of the OCA and Diogeneric’s/Eric Wheeler’s brother-in-law. From his web site):
“I am especially interested in:
– newness, change and reform within the Orthodox tradition
“Newness, change, reform,” sounds like Protestant Reformation mantra to me.
What I think we “insufficiently converted Orthodox” really want is RENEWAL of Orthodox Tradition (notice capitalized T) in North AmerIca according to Holy Scripture as taught by our God-bearing Apostles, Fathers, and Saints.
(BTW, I am “cradle” Orthodox.)
If I’m not mistaken, Mrs. Denise and Father John Jillions both are products of the old CEOYLA mileu which nurtured Mrs. Mark Stevens.
Well, there’s all that. But what would ‘Diogenes’ (‘child of Zeus’ in Greek) have us do?
Does he want us to dress and think and believe and behave as the RC and protestant clergy and laity do? That’s a non-starter. Especially since he places great emphasis on clerical dress and grooming, perhaps — rather than just criticize what he doesn’t like — ‘Diogenes’ ought to suggest (in his estimation, at least) better ways of doing things. We can then discuss his alternative propositions.
I agree that we — especially the laity — shouldn’t try to appear as characters out of a Dostoevskiy novel, but I’m here to tell you that distinctive clerical clothing is a great missionary tool.
On the other hand, there’s still a canon on the books which says that monks living in the cities ought to cut their hair. I have no idea where the custom of married (or at least non-monastic) christian priests’ not trimming their hair or beards originated, but I suspect that it’s some sort of misapprehension, and it ought to stop.
Of course, Monk James, your ways are the best ways, as always, as pertains to head and face hair..
How much money does the average OCA priest who shaves spend on razor blades, cream and after shave? (I didn’t ask if any of them use just soap and water and a straight razor, but I’m sure a couple of them do, sometimes). And how much does a trip to the neighborhood barber cost these days? Is it better to spend money on having one’s hair coiffed and arranged every two weeks, or to let it go and tie it if it gets in the way?
It’s like not eating meat: think of the money you can save for alms!!!!
Anathema!!!
Dear Protodeacon. I notice with pleasure that your posts are getting pithier, to the point of a one word exclamation. I am looking forward to further progress.
I learned a long time ago that it is fruitless to discuss, debate, or argue with fools.
So, why are you responding to me instead of proceeding with your pithiness?
pithy |ˈpiθē|
adjective ( pithier , pithiest )
1 (of language or style) concise and forcefully expressive. See note at terse .
Note from “terse:”
terse |tərs|
adjective ( terser , tersest )
sparing in the use of words; abrupt : a terse statement.
If you don’t like to mince words, you’ll make every effort to be concise in both your writing and speaking, which means to remove all superfluous details
Terse can also mean clipped or abrupt (: a terse command), but it usually connotes something that is both concise and polished (: a terse style of writing that was much admired).
A pithy statement is not only succinct but full of substance and meaning.
Meant for
Diogenes says:
March 2, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Orthodox Fundamentalism and “Insufficiently Converted Orthodox”
By An Orthodox Observer
Dear Diogenes:
You forgot the ‘ph’ word: phronema! I was looking for it but couldn’t find it.
Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
Sunday of Orthodoxy
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Rejoicing today in the triumph of Orthodoxy on this first Sunday of Lent, we joyfully commemorate three events: one event belonging to the past; one event to the present; and one event which still belongs to the future.
Whenever we have any feast or joy in the Church, we Orthodox first of all look back — for in our present life we depend on what happened in the past. We depend first of all, of course, on the first and the ultimate triumph — that of Christ Himself. Our faith is rooted in that strange defeat which became the most glorious victory — the defeat of a man nailed to the cross, who rose again from the dead, who is the Lord and the Master of the world. This is the first triumph of Orthodoxy. This is the content of all our commemorations and of all our joy. This man selected and chose twelve men, gave them power to preach about that defeat and that victory, and sent them to the whole world saying preach and baptize, build up the Church, announce the Kingdom of God. And you know, my brothers and sisters, how those twelve men — very simple men indeed, simple fishermen — went out and preached. The world hated them, the Roman Empire persecuted them, and they were covered with blood. But that blood was another victory. The Church grew, the Church covered the universe with the true faith. After 300 years of the most unequal conflict between the powerful Roman Empire and the powerless Christian Church, the Roman Empire accepted Christ as Lord and Master. That was the second triumph of Orthodoxy. The Roman Empire recognized the one whom it crucified and those whom it persecuted as the bearers of truth, and their teaching as the teaching of life eternal. The Church triumphed. But then the second period of troubles began.
The following centuries saw many attempts to distort the faith, to adjust it to human needs, to fill it with human content. In each generation there were those who could not accept that message of the cross and resurrection and life eternal. They tried to change it, and those changes we call heresies. Again there were persecutions. Again, Orthodox bishops, monks and laymen defended their faith and were condemned and went into exile and were covered with blood. And after five centuries of those conflicts and persecutions and discussions, the day came which we commemorate today, the day of the final victory of Orthodoxy as the true faith over all the heresies. It happened on the first Sunday of Lent in the year 843 in Constantinople. After almost 100 years of persecution directed against the worship of the holy icons, the Church finally proclaimed that the truth had been defined, that the truth was fully in the possession of the Church. And since then all Orthodox people, wherever they live, have gathered on this Sunday to proclaim before the world their faith in that truth, their belief that their Church is truly apostolic, truly Orthodox, truly universal. This is the event of the past that we commemorate today.
But let us ask ourselves one question: Do all the triumphs of Orthodoxy, all the victories, belong to the past? Looking at the present today, we sometimes feel that our only consolation is to remember the past. Then Orthodoxy was glorious, then the Orthodox Church was powerful, then it dominated. But what about the present? My dear friends, if the triumph of Orthodoxy belongs to the past only, if there is nothing else for us to do but commemorate, to repeat to ourselves how glorious was the past, then Orthodoxy is dead. But we are here tonight to witness to the fact that Orthodoxy not only is not dead but also that it is once more and forever celebrating its own triumph — the triumph of Orthodoxy. We don’t have to fight heresies among ourselves, but we have other things that once more challenge our Orthodox faith.
Today, gathered here together, Orthodox of various national backgrounds, we proclaim and we glorify first of all our unity in Orthodoxy. This is the triumph of Orthodoxy in the present. This is a most wonderful event: that all of us, with all our differences, with all our limitations, with all our weaknesses, can come together and say we belong to that Orthodox faith, that we are one in Christ and in Orthodoxy. We are living very far from the traditional centers of Orthodoxy. We call ourselves Eastern Orthodox, and yet we are here in the West, so far from those glorious cities which were centers of the Orthodox faith for centuries — Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow. How far are those cities. And yet, don’t we have the feeling that something of a miracle has happened, that God has sent us here, far into the West, not just in order to settle here, to increase our income, to build up a community. He also has sent us as apostles of Orthodoxy, so that this faith, which historically was limited to the East, now is becoming a faith which is truly and completely universal.
This is a thrilling moment in the history of Orthodoxy. That is why it is so important for us to be here tonight and to understand, to realize, to have that vision of what is going on. People were crossing the ocean, coming here, not thinking so much about their faith as about themselves, about their lives, about their future. They were usually poor people, they had a difficult life, and they built those little Orthodox churches everywhere in America not for other people but for themselves, just to remember their homes, to perpetuate their tradition. They didn’t think of the future. And yet this is what happened: the Orthodox Church was sent here through and with those poor men. The truth itself, the fullness of the apostolic faith — all this came here, and here we are now, filling this hall and proclaiming this apostolic faith — the faith that has strengthened the universe. And this leads us to the event which still belongs to the future.
If today we can only proclaim, if we can only pray for that coming triumph of Orthodoxy in this country and in the world, our Orthodox faith forces us to believe that it is not by accident but by divine providence that the Orthodox faith today has reached all countries, all cities, all continents of the universe. After that historic weakness of our religion, after the persecutions by the Roman Empire, by the Turks, by the godless atheists, after all the troubles that we had to go through, today a new day begins. Something new is going to happen. And it is this future of Orthodoxy that we have to rejoice about today.
We can already have a vision of that future when, in the West, a strong American Orthodox Church comes into existence. We can see how this faith, which for such a long time was an alien faith here, will become truly and completely universal in the sense that we will answer the questions of all men, and also all their questions. For if we believe in that word: “Orthodoxy,” “the true faith”; if for one moment we try to understand what it means: the true, the full Christianity, as it has been proclaimed by Christ and His disciples; if our Church has preserved for all ages the message of the apostles and of the fathers and of the saints in its purest form, then, my dear friends, here is the answer to the questions and to the problems and to the sufferings of our world. You know that our world today is so complex. It is changing all the time. And the more it changes, the more people fear, the more they are frightened by the future, the morethey are preoccupied by what will happen to them. And this is where Orthodoxy must answer their problem; this is where Orthodoxy must accept the challenge of modern civilization and reveal to men of all nations, to all men in the whole world, that it has remained the force of God left in history for the transformation, for the deification, for the transfiguration of human life.
The past, the present, the future: At the beginning, one lonely man on the cross — the complete defeat. And if at that time we had been there with all our human calculations, we probably would have said: “That’s the end. Nothing else will happen.” The twelve left Him. There was no one, no one to hope. The world was in darkness. Everything seemed finished. And you know what happened three days later. Three days later He appeared. He appeared to His disciples, and their hearts were burning within them because they knew that He was the risen Lord. And since then, in every generation, there have been people with burning hearts, people who have felt that this victory of Christ had to be carried again and again into this world, to be proclaimed in order to win new human souls and to be the transforming force in history.
Today this responsibility belongs to us. We feel that we are weak. We feel that we are limited, we are divided, we are still separated in so many groups, we have so many obstacles to overcome. But today, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we close our eyes for a second and we rejoice in that unity which is already here: priests of various national churches praying together, people of all backgrounds uniting in prayer for the triumph of Orthodoxy. We are already in a triumph, and may God help us keep that triumph in our hearts, so that we never give up hope in that future event in the history of orthodoxy when Orthodoxy will become the victory which eternally overcomes all the obstacles, because that victory is the victory of Christ Himself.
As we approach the most important moment of the Eucharist, the priest says, “Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess….” What is the condition of the real triumph of Orthodoxy? What is the way leading to the real, the final, the ultimate victory of our faith? The answer comes from the Gospel. The answer comes from Christ Himself and from the whole tradition of Orthodoxy. It is love. Let us love one another, that with one mind we may confess . . . confess our faith, our Orthodoxy. Let us, from now on, feel responsible for each other. Let us understand that even if we are divided in small parishes, in small dioceses, we first of all belong to one another. We belong together, to Christ, to His Body, to the Church. Let us feel responsible for each other, and let us love one another. Let us put above everything else the interests of Orthodoxy in this country. Let us understand that each one of us today has to be the apostle of Orthodoxy in a country which is not yet Orthodox, in a society which is asking us: “What do you believe?” “What is your faith?” And let us, above everything else, keep the memory, keep the experience, keep the taste of that unity which we are anticipating tonight.
At the end of the first century — when the Church was still a very small group, a very small minority, in a society which was definitely anti-Christian when the persecution was beginning — St. John the Divine, the beloved disciple of Christ, wrote these words: “And this is the victory, our faith, this is the victory.” There was no victory at that time, and yet he knew that in his faith he had the victory that can be applied to us today. We have the promise of Christ, that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. We have the promise of Christ that if we have faith, all things are possible. We have the promise of the Holy Spirit, that He will fill all that which is weak, that He will help us at the moment when we need help. In other words, we have all the possibilities, we have everything that we need, and therefore the victory is ours. It is not a human victory which can be defined in terms of money, of human success, of human achievements. What we are preaching tonight, what we are proclaiming tonight, what we are praying for tonight, is the victory of Christ in me, in us, in all of you in the Orthodox Church in America. And that victory of Christ in us, of the one who for us was crucified and rose again from the dead, that victory will be the victory of His Church.
Today is the triumph of Orthodoxy, and a hymn sung today states solemnly and simply: “This is the Apostolic faith, this is the Orthodox faith, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith that is the foundation of the world.” My dear brothers and sisters, this is also our own faith. We are chosen. We are elected. We are the happy few that can say of our faith, “apostolic,” “universal,” “the faith of our fathers,” “Orthodoxy,” “the truth.” Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church. Amen.
Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann
These are the proverbial pearls.
Fr. Hopko on: “The Triumph of Orthodoxy” March 4th
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_triumph_of_orthodoxy
Archbishop Dmitri Royster+ of blessed memory, “The Kingdom of God,” (SVS Press), the real “Triumph of Orthodoxy.”
By posting Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann on: “Sunday of Orthodoxy” and Fr. Hopko on: “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” Diogenes must be convinced that all of us who don’t agree with him are “Insufficiently Converted Orthodox.”
How sad that instead of seeing solid Orthodox teachings you see only digs at yourself.
Deacon: This is the faith of the apostles! This is the faith of the fathers! This is the Orthodox faith! This faith has established the universe!
Furthermore, we accept and confirm the councils of the holy fathers, and their traditions and writings which are agreeable to divine revelation.
And though the enemies of Orthodoxy oppose this providence and the saving revelation of the Lord, yet the Lord has considered the reproaches of His servants, for He mocks those who blaspheme His Glory, and has challenged the enemies of Orthodoxy and put them to flight!
As we therefore bless and praise those who have obeyed the divine revelation and have fought for it; so we reject and anathematize those who oppose this truth, if while waiting for their return and repentance, they refuse to turn again to the Lord; and in this we follow the sacred tradition of the ancient Church, holding fast to her traditions.
To those who deny the existence of God, and assert that the world is self-existing, and that all things in it occur by chance, and not by the providence of God, Anathema!
All: Anathema! (…and after each exclamation.)
Deacon: To those who say that God is not spirit, but flesh; or that He is not just, merciful, wise and all-knowing, and utter similar blasphemies, Anathema!
To those who dare to say that the Son of God and also the Holy Spirit are not one in essence and of equal honor with the Father, and confess that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one God, Anathema!
To those who foolishly say that the coming of the Son of God into the world in the flesh, and His voluntary passion, death, and resurrection were not necessary for our salvation and the cleansing of sins, Anathema!
To those who reject the grace of redemption preached by the Gospel as the only means of our justification before God, Anathema!
To those who dare to say that the all-pure Virgin Mary was not virgin before giving birth, during birthgiving, and after her child-birth, Anathema!
To those who do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and apostles, and by them taught us the true way to eternal salvation, and confirmed this by miracles, and now dwells in the hearts of all true and faithful Christians, and teaches them in all truth, Anathema!
To those who reject the immortality of the soul, the end of time, the future judgment, and eternal reward for virtue and condemnation for sin, Anathema!
To those who reject all the holy mysteries held by the Church of Christ, Anathema!
To those who reject the Councils of the holy fathers and their traditions, which are agreeable to divine revelation and kept piously by the Orthodox Catholic Church, Anathema!
To those who mock and profane the holy images and relics which the holy Church receives as revelations of God’s work and of those pleasing to Him, to inspire their beholders with piety, and to arouse them to follow these examples; and to those who say that they are idols, Anathema!
To those who dare to say and teach that our Lord Jesus Christ did not descend to earth, but only seemed to; or that He did not descend to the earth and become incarnate only once, but many times, and who likewise deny that the true Wisdom of the Father is His only-begotten Son, Anathema!
To the followers of the occult, spiritualists, wizards, and all who do not believe in the one God, but honor the demons; or who do not humbly give their lives over to God, but strive to learn the future through sorcery, Anathema!
—————–
That all seems very straightforward to me.
Indeed,it is,Fr.Protodeacon.As I recall,back in 1976,the year that I graduated St.Tikhon’s,these anathemas were eliminated,at least on a local level;i.e.the Diocese of Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania.
I recall this quite well because we were in a class being taught by Fr.Rodion Kondratick.I and all of my classmates(except one) couldn’t see any justification for this.As I recall,during the break,Fr.Kondratick went to get the late Archbishop Kiprian to have him come and address the class.The Archbishop raged at us saying that “we had no right to question his authority.”
Now,if I were into blind papal obediance,I would be in the existing Ukrainian Catholic Church,or perhaps be a “Russian-Rite Byzantine Catholic” or else part of some other Uniate organisation,but since I’m not a Papist,the late Archbishop’s remarks pushed me over the edge.I left the OCA for ROCOR as soon as I graduated in June of that year.
I grant you I was a foolish and rather immature young man back in that spring of 1976,but with all due respect to the memory of the late Archbishop,indeed we do have to question those in authority.That’s why I respect Metropolitan Jonah for standing up for the Faith,despite the fact that doing so has made him a target for those who appear to have an agenda.
It seems that to carry forward these revealed truths we must continue to fight against all forms of iconoclasm–a heresy which is especially prevalent in modern society.
Such thing as any ideology that denies the essential goodness of man and our central place in the creation; any ideology or belief that elevates sinful passions over the the struggle of virtue or denies forgivenesss to those who actually do struggle; any ideloggy that elevates man and his actions to salvific status whether that idology is political,economic or swathed in pseudo-Christian language.
Most of the so-called cultural issues with which we are presented these days have their root in a form of iconoclasm. Whether it is the fake environmentalism that wants to condemn humanity as a disease; failure to recognize the primacy of the male-female interrelatioship as esssential to the well being of both mankind and the rest of creation; the various forms of death dealing from abortion to euthanasia; statism, or its flip-side individualism that denies the neccesity of community; plus all the more historical problems of lust of power, idol talk and failure to repent of our own sins while condemning others.
Fortunately, Jesus Christ is still fully man and fully God both wholly unknowable and fully transcendent and intimately with us in all things in the most profound and personal way; fortunately the Holy Spirit is still blowing in the Church and He needs no updating, no modernization, only more of us to submit to the love of God and be guided and conformed to His will.
The way of the Church is to repent; fast, pray, worship and give alms. Nothing the bishops, the politicians, the economists do or do not do can take that away. If there are problems in the world we are taught by the Church to first seek forgiveness for our own sins, to pray and give of our own sustenance to assuage the problems as we can. If we are also called to speak and act prophetically, it is God’s will we seek in fear and trembling, not our own arrogance to be imposed on others, even if it is ‘right’.
Greece’s biggest problem is tax evasion and failure to tax for the spending. To suggest other reasons avoids the ugly truth.
That’s true that tax evasion is a big problem.
Fundamentalists, usually converts to Orthodoxy, love these Sunday of Orthodoxy “ANATHEMAS.” It’s like the ex-smoker who condemns smokers violently. Silly. By the way, don’t monks according to Orthodox Canon Law belong in monasteries? Why do we have them posting here? Why aren’t they all in monasteries? Just what kind of real monks are they? We find more & more roaming around the Orthodox Church unattached to any REAL monastery.
I can see that the spirit of the Lenten spring is fully blooming in you. May you find peace. You are in my prayers.
Yeah, what are we going to do with all those Fundamentalists who foisted that silly Synodicon on us? You know, the ones we call the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (842-843 AD) which was convened by Empress Theodora and presided over by Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople? Crazy fundies, all of ’em!
“To those who reject the Councils of the holy fathers and their traditions, which are agreeable to divine revelation kept piously by the Orthodox Catholic Church, Anathema!”
C’mon, don’t be silly. That’s so 9th century!
Yeah, what are we going to do with all those Fundamentalists who foisted that silly Synodicon on us? You know, the ones we call the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (842-843 AD) which was convened by Empress Theodora and presided over by Patriarch Methodius of Constantinople? Crazy fundies, all of ’em!
I can’t believe what I just read from Diogenes!
It could not have been written by an adult; a rebellious teanager maybe, but certainly not by any adult.
Diogenes, I don’t doubt you hold your conviction about the anathemas. However, I know that your conviction is wrong
even though it is held by those near and dear to you. I believe you are wrong. i have to admit that the first time I, as a Bishop, together with then Archdeacon Vincent Peterson, served the full unabridged, unbowdlerized Office of Orthodoxy here in Los Angeles, I was a little nervous that some of the Faithful might feel that I was acting in an obscurantist or antiquarian way which would offend the sensibilities of our quite educated parishioners representatives of families that had been Orthodox for generations. i assure you, being liked or being approved by the Faithful was never something I sought or thought i should seek. You can’t imagine my surprise when, in the parish hall after the Liturgy, where our Sisterhood always serves a full buffet dinner on Sundays and Great Feasts, the mother of Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky, Sophia Grigorievna Ulitina came up and said that the Service was wonderful, especially the anathemas. She was joined by her husband Vladimir (same patronymic, Grigorievich) Ulitin. They were simply beaming, both of them. They both had careers on the staff of Clairmount College in Russian language and history.
They were NOT, Diogenes, either fundamentalists or converts.
I feel the real virulent opposition to the anathemas of the Office of Orthodoxy is driven by no motivation of rising above fundamentalism or arriving at authenticity at all. No. It is just their Sacred Cow, “Our VISION of the Church”, which is basically Yuppie Parishes and child-centered ones, which finds the office of orthodoxy to be outside It.
I don’t see any connection at all between 1) yuppies 2) children and 3) abridging the Office of Orthodoxy.
In my part of the world yuppies skip church and “do” brunch.
Children actually like those few opportunities to say things loudly in Church.
The people who I find most want to shorten the services are old-timers who show up late, light their candles and then leave early (if they enter the nave at all) but are fixtures in the hall afterwards.
Hi. No need to characterize yuppies or children: I didn’t. As for the old folks bothering one, I say, get a life!
Read my post again. I characterized those who WANT a Yuppie-style parish, and those who insist on a “child-centered” style parish. Far be it from me to disdain yuppies or kids the way CA disdains old-timers!!!!
I offer disdain for no person or group, Your Grace, but that doesn’t mean i won’t make an honest observation. I happen to like and laugh with those old-timers who tell me the litanies are too long and who complain about the length of time communion takes…I just don’t agree with them.
It is possible to disagree, you know, without being disdainful.
You have again stated that you find …those who WANT a Yuppie-style parish, and those who insist on a “child-centered” style parish…. to be a problem for Orthodoxy. I’d love to understand what you mean by that, exactly.
Your Grace,
Perhaps, CQ is confused by your yuppie-style and child-centered parish comments because the two seem mutually exclusive. Yuppies, with their kayaks on hybrid SUVs, are too busy working and enjoying life to have children. They might have a dog or two, but kids would cause a stir at the local St. Arbucks every Sunday morning. It’s best not to have them.
However, I read your comment as yuppie-style parishes OR child-centered parishes, depending on the fecundity of the parishioners (yuppie in urban areas and child-centered in the burbs). CQ also wants to know how such parochial tendencies relate to the anathemas. My guess would be that “lifestyle” Christianity — the liturgy only as a social and cultural practice — isn’t that interested in matters of truth, whereas the anathemas are declarations of correct doctrine through condemning false doctrine.
I’m afraid I don’t know anyone who converts to Orthodoxy for “lifestyle” Christianity. Quite the opposite, actually, generally seeking more than “lifestyle” Christianity has to offer.
Is your experience different?
CQ,
Not everybody converts to the Church (yeah, yeah, spare me the sage rejoinder), and not everyone born into it makes a conscious decision to swim against the currents of our post-Christian, secular culture. It’s not surprising that many folks (and mostly all of us to a certain extent) live in two worlds. People choose (or remain with) their religions for many different reasons. I suppose, but do not know, that the bishop was being critical of parishes where the focus is community rather than the gospel. Hence, the comments about “yuppie” and “child-centered” parishes. Be it far from me to judge the spiritual state of others, but I have visited many parishes, especially in certain jurisdictions, where the fellowship aspect of the parish was its heart. One parish close to where I live rarely has more than twenty people at the liturgy, though hundreds show up for the social gatherings. I think that fellowship is important, and I do not knock that aspect of parochial life. Yet, it should be secondary to worship (and probably to charitable service, as well, though we do require social respite in this wicked world).
I suppose, but do not know, that the bishop was being critical of parishes where the focus is community rather than the gospel….One parish close to where I live rarely has more than twenty people at the liturgy, though hundreds show up for the social gatherings.
I get your point, but haven’t actually seen that in practice in the OCA. I’ve been in OCA parishes that were awash in families with children, (most memorably a parish in Georgia where the practice at the homily was for families to sit quietly in groups on the floor as if it were a picnic, or the Feeding of the Five Thousand) but they were engaged in the worship and teaching.
But, like you, I did take the bishop to be critical of …those who WANT a Yuppie-style parish, and those who insist on a “child-centered” style parish…. and I’m still wondering what he’s really getting at.
I for one, would love to attend an Office of Orthodoxy and hear the anathemas!
What stops you from doing so? I heard them where I attend and everyone participated and seemed to understand and appreciate the anathemas. I know that I did.
As I read Diogenes’ posts I always keep in my mind what we (now) know about Eric Wheeler. The “vision of the “vibrant and new” Orthodox Church they want is justified with the Scripture verse, “…which seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” and we know what they mean by that. (I wish they would come right out and tell us.) Then I get the impossible image in my head of Orthodoxy Sunday at St. Mary’s OCA in Minneapolis with people from every Orthodox Church in the area attending, listening those long anathemas, and a gay wedding planned in the Church for the upcoming Saturday. Abridging the anathemas is not about shortening the time spent standing on that day, but about the meaning of the words.
Why is Diogenes being coy about Monk James?
I can’t believe my eyes! What “wedding?” Who? When, exactly? What priest is officiating and what bishop authorized this? What parish? What text is being used for the occasion?
This is a grave accusation that demands a decisive response by ecclesial authorities if true. If such a service is actually taking place, then the OCA is no longer Orthodox, and it needs to be publicly anathematized. And I must go elsewhere immediately.
Surely not, right?
Impossible image? Try a nightmare of your own creation Jane,
Daniel, part of me wants to reply and part of me wants to say I just don’t care any more. It’s not worth the bother. It seems less hypocritical to me to allow gay marriages in the Orthodox Church than for the Church to allow homosexual couples living together to take Communion as an accepted practice.
Or… the OCA allowing homosexual clergy living together to take Communion as an accepted practice (i.e. Christ the Saviour Cathedral, Miami Florida)
Hercleides, that’s what I’m saying. But gay marriages in the Orthodox Church? Heaven forbid! Never!
Father Alexander, it would really be something to talk about if it really happened, but as far as I know, it hasn’t. Of course, we do have civilly married homosexuals couples in the Orthodox Church who were not married in the Church. Does that mean they are not married?
In other words, who really cares? It’s been going on for decades in the OCA. Things are calm, the Metropolitan’s wings, according to Diogenes, have been “clipped,” bishops are doing their “job,” the parishes are growing in Washington, same ‘ol same ‘ol. Nothing to talk about here folks, move along. Shut up, Jane Rachel…
(I think it’s ironic that after all the comments he’s made over the years, Daniel Fall calls a gay- marriage-in-the-Orthodox-Church scenario a “nightmare.” It seems some people can’t see the forest for the trees around here)
So you intended the “impossible image” as merely a hypothetical scenario? Ok. Got it.
Yep.
You all need to stop worrying about gay folks. Let’s just call this a failure of leadership, We all know how our leaders impacted Heracleides….
Less hypocritical?
A greater hypocrisy is fasting from beef during Lent. Times have changed since the old days when seafood wasn’t desired and considered trash. Shhh, don’t say this too loudly-a bishop might hear, but seafood is expensive and by the way, so is tofu. Always found it so bizarre because I love seafood, too.
Didn’t Christ suggest our sins could be forgiven if we repent? That is my recall on the subject. I had a non-Orthodox friend who found it convenient cuz he figured we could just plan to do bad stuff and get forgiven. I suppose you might suggest a gay person plans on continuing being gay. As for me, I’d love to never curse again, but I expect I will even when I’m under the cloth….damnit I wish I could stop it.
Sorry for picking on you Jane, but I got married at St. Mary’s and my wife and I enjoyed a great reception there, too, The choir was beautiful, by the way, and Resa Ellison (memory eternal) directed. And I don’t like it when people pick on gay folks. When you falsely create the image of a gay wedding in the church; it is just mean. It was just too much for me to not speak; feel free to have the last word if you wish.
Ah yes – those poor “gay folks” – always picked upon by those nasty ‘straight folks’ cramming their Christian agenda down the throats (*gag*) of an unrepentant minority. When will it end? Who will ‘break the silence’ of the holocaust these hapless sodomites suffer from within Orthodoxy? Pass me a box of tissues Inga…er, Daniel.
I have gay friends I would trust with my life. I don’t get to decide whether they can become Orthodox and continue to live together as civilly married couples. It’s already on the books. They can’t. It’s Impossible… Oops, I guess they can… others do, at least, in the OCA, and they are Orthodox., and their bishop doesn’t seem to mind, or at least, some of the bishops, or the bishops in the past.. or at least, some of them….. or can’t they? Or, is it okay for them to be civilly married, but not married in the Orthodox Church… because the Orthodox Church, after all, doesn’t “do” gay weddings, and especially not during LENT…? I’m confused. Who’s on first?
Really? Fasting from beef during Lent is a greater hypocrisy than allowing urepentant homosexuals to openly have relationships and to commune in the church, and for gay clergy to openly have relationships and be clergy at all?
And all because seafood and tofu are expensive… Where does it say you must eat seafood or tofu? Beans and rice are cheap if you can’t afford anything else. You won’t die.
That’s as bizzare as what a Roman Catholic told me once, that Cathlics HAD to eat fish on Friday becasue the Pope had made a deal with Italian fishermen.
And as far as stopping being gay, we all have our crosses, don’t we? What happens when they find the genetic cause for serial killers or child molesters? Do we give them a pass too? What about bank robbers? They’re not really harming anyone. (In fact, maybe they’re actually doing society a favor, stealing from the rich and all…)
Anyone who wants to find the discipline of the church bizzare, will. I’ve always wondered why those who find the teachings and practices of Orthodox disagreeable don’t just become Episcopal. I mean, there’s a lot more of them than there are of us, and they’re more fun too. Plus, they’re endowed to the gills, so they’re not going away. Sounds like a simple fix.
Spasi, the folks who find Orthodox discipline and doctrine bizarre and uncomfortable and wrong don’t become Episcopal because the nilhist spirit of which they partake demands the destruction of all that is good, beautiful and holy.
Wow, let me recap the responses to make sure I understand your positions well and I think that is a good pun following Heracleides pen.
Bauman suggests I wouldn’t become Episcopal because it would be too good for my nilhist spirit.
Spasi goes back to the invalid comparison of child molesters and gays.
Jane can’t get off the no gays in the ORTHODOX church kick. So if a gay Orthodox person gets married in a civil ceremony, they are obligated to report their illicit marriage and stop being Orthodox. I learned it here.
And Heracleides is just a worthless pen name of a literal hack that got the words holocaust, sodomites, unrepentant, Christian, gay folks and straight folks into a single paragraph with a graphic sexual reference too boot. That was pretty cool I gotta admit. If you could only turn that passion for the pen into income, or perhaps I’ve got the order reversed. I dunno, I’m just a dumb redneck from the Midwest.
The problem has never been about gays in the church. The problem is the unnecessary response.
Sorry I went back on last word Jane; too many others got into it.
The problem is that the gays, etc. are trying to change the moral tradition of the OC (that which was delivered once for all to the saints) to suit themselves.
How are they changing it? You only think that now gays are in the church because you know about them. They have always been there. As Jack said, “You can’t handle the truth”. I suppose you are upset finding out about gay Metropolitans? I gotta admit; it is a barn burner, but we don’t let them marry, and so…so…so…
I’m sure this is just a neo-modern phenomena. Yeah, right. That’s what Jane thinks, too.
How are they changing it?
By trying to rewright/reinterpret Holy Scripture, the Sacraments, to suit themselves.
I wonder: How do gays understand the story of St. Mary of Egypt read in Great Lent?
IMHO, here are some of the reasons homophobia reigns supreme on Monomakhos:
1. Many folks here used this as a strategy to defend +Jonah. I think their reasoning went something like: His opponents do not have any good reason to criticize him so they must have an agenda. Why, it must be and it is the homosexual agenda!
2. Some folks here are genuinely concerned that we can eventually turn into another American Episcopal Church.
3. Some folks here genuinely hate homosexuality to the point of being unable to distinguish between same-sex attraction and same-sex sexual behavior.
Mr. Kraef: you discredit your argument and yourself when you choose to scatter puerile, ideological, knee-jerk epithets such as “homophobia.”
Carl has decided to pick up the “homophobia” club again and beat us on our heads with it some more.
“Homophobia”? Are you serious? Do you really expect people to address your questions within the strictures of pro-gay polemics? Why should anyone even bother answering you when it is clear that your investment of the term with moral authority reveals that your own thinking is muddled?
Calling Carl’s thinking muddled is putting it lightly.
Has anyone read my “more nuanced” posting on the subject at March 19, 2012 at 10:15 am? I am just saying…
I just read it. How is it more nuanced? It is still loaded with inflammatory language (“homosexual jihad” and so forth) and it misreads the purpose of the First Amendment (the purpose is not to allow religious believers to believe what they want to believe, but to protect the religion from the long reach of government — the HHS mandates and the Catholic Church for example).
About the only concession I see is that there is such a thing as a gay lobby, and that the lobby is trying to effect changes to the larger culture in ways many people simply do not find acceptable (gay marriage and so forth). That part is correct but how does that explain your use of imprecise and loaded terminology like “homophobic”?
Dear Fr. Hans-If you take the original definition of homophobia as fear of homosexuals, I see that fear clearly in the posting of the regular contributors to this site, who in my opinion mad a mountain of a molehill with their alarm about a homosexual agenda that is attempting to take over the Orthodox Church.
If you take a later definition, and I will quote Wiki here (because I agree with this definition): “Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
As the famous sayings goes, if the shoe fits….
That’s sloppy Carl. Instead of explaining your reasoning about what the critics are alarmists (your implication), you revert instead to pop-culture terminology and declare the question is settled. It doesn’t work that way. No light here, just muddy thinking.
Carl, “homophobia” is a neologism. It’s devoid of any meaning. If you mean the normal aversion that most people feel about the mechanics of homoerotic sexual activity, then you are on slippery ground. That’s just a normal evolutionary impulse.
If you mean “gay-bashing,” then that would indicate a real pathology. The trouble is I’ve never bashed any homosexuals. And trying to uphold the moral tradition of the Orthodox Church (even if I myself am fallen) is not an illegitimate enterprise.
Glad you liked it Daniel. Decided too memorialize it just for your PC bleeding heart. The image is entitled “Total Croc” and may be viewed here: http://s1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/Heracleides/
Seems like you could have been more creative. The only whiner needing a tissue has been, errr, that leader of ours cuz he had to fight off those lavender evils. How is that for a back at you graphic reference? PC huh? I think a better cartoon would be you handing a tissue with writing on it to a crying Metropolitan looking at the supposedly gay croc. His unnecessary reiteration of Orthodox antigay rules won’t be forgotten by anyone, ever. And it doesn’t change the glaring facts some of you can’t handle. It is quite sad, that letter, because he lost the respect of a lot of people for doing it as did Bishop Moriak. In places they can never go, they will never be respected. And you and they will say it isn’t necessary for them to be respected; but it is.
I’m not afraid to post my name. Seems you have a problem with it; wonder why? Legal ramifications I suppose. All I see is George in the mirror.
Sorry George, I do appreciate the forum, but it is better when people are ahemm, shall we say, eeerrr, UP FRONT about who they are…
How about a cartoon memorializing the words ‘lavender mafia out to get me’? Seems far more entertaining and important.
Daniel wrote: “So if a gay Orthodox person gets married in a civil ceremony, they are obligated to report their illicit marriage and stop being Orthodox. I learned it here.”
What are you talking about?
No, as you learned in Sunday School, they are obligated to “report” their illicit relationship in Confession and START becoming Orthodox. This would mean, in real life, if you want to participate in the Holy Sacraments, stop living together and stop being sexually active. If you fail, go to Confession again and stop sinning again. That doesn’t mean you get to keep sinning and keep going to Confession every day. That means you stop doing it. (If you don’t want to live like that, go to another Church. But don’t expect the Orthodox Church to accept you if you keep living in a homosexual relationship. It’s not my “opinion” for crying out loud.
Try to separate that truth from this statement you made :”I suppose you might suggest a gay person plans on continuing being gay. As for me, I’d love to never curse again, but I expect I will even when I’m under the cloth….damnit I wish I could stop it.”
That thinking goes nowhere. You can’t have it both ways.
So, if they Confess being gay, it is right for the church to condemn them?
I learned condemnation was Old Testament stuff in Sunday school.
The new guy was Jesus.
And you need to wake up Jane, so does our fearful leader. Lots of gay Orthodox people. Not me. Not any of my friends either, but I know of many.
And actually Christ told us our sins would be forgiven if we repent them.
How can you Jane reconcile Jesus and Orthodoxy if you say gays aren’t allowed?
The Jesus we have been taught about, yes, in Sunday school, wouldn’t throw them out of his house.
Is the house his or yours?
I’ve enjoyed the dialogue, but if Orthodoxy is now a country club with a sign out front; I might be out. You might like me leaving, but Jesus maybe not so much. And I am as concerned about the well being of you for thinking it is okay to condemn them as them for their sins.
I don’t really follow your final paragraph at all. If you are suggesting you believe you won’t commit the same sin twice, I’ll just leave that alone.
If a gay person is gay and that is their only sin, and a straight person is a wife beater and that is their only sin; is it the Orthodox way to accept the wife beater’s Confession, but not the former?
Deep thoughts by redneck.
“if a gay person is gay and that is their only sin, and a straight person is a wife beater and that is their only sin; is it the Orthodox way to accept the wife beater’s Confession, but not the former?”
If a gay person is active sexually they need to repent before communing. If a wife beater is beating his wife, he needs to repent before partaking of communion.
If either of them thinks that what they are doing is not sinful and refuses to repent, they are out of communion with the Orthodox Church.
Daniel, repentance means, among other things, a desire and a intention to stop behaving in a sinful manner. As I and others have repeated stated, such a person could well be in communion in the Church. You are being intentionlly obtuse, IMO, by continuing to conflate those with no intention or desire to repent and those who are honestly stuggling with a sinful passion.
BTW there is no such thing as a homosexual person. When we personify and identify ontologically with our sins, we have alreay pretty much given up.
There are certainly deep, besetting sins with which we stuggle our entire lives but that doesn’t mean we are those sins.
“There is nothing wrong with society having abortion and Orthodox to view it as wrong.”
By this logic there was therefore apparently nothing wrong with idol worship in Roman society. The Christians should have left them alone to die in their sins…apparently.
“Suddenly they offended me and my wife who bore a child at 39 and then got an IUD to avoid obvious older women pregnancy issues.”
Never mind that an IUD can be an abortifacient. The important thing is that you are offended.
“So far, our bishops are excelling at offending people. These are issues that didn’t need to be addressed by them at all.”
Never mind what the truth is. Bishops who seek to correct their errant flocks must do so without offending anyone…apparently.
“As for the pastoral letter; it only needed be read to those that want to know the Orthodox churches views on homosexuality.”
This letter was read in the churches; was it not?
“A bigger question is can the church discriminate against a homosexual? That will end up in the Supreme Court someday.”
Before repentance: “For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? “
After repentance: “For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears… Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. “
“I’ve accepted Christ and as I recall, his basic membership plan was simpler than the anthropology of the church, the incarnation, nihilism. Something about repenting and forgiveness.”
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me… For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
“All our personal realities are different from the church. The church doesn’t set the speed limit. It doesn’t feed us food. It doesn’t wash our backside, should I continue?”
Is it rather not true that we choose not to abide by her limits, not to partake of her food, not to accept her cleansing?
“So if a gay Orthodox person gets married in a civil ceremony, they are obligated to report their illicit marriage and stop being Orthodox. I learned it here.”
O Lord, now as I approach Holy Communion, may I not be burned by partaking unworthily. For you are fire and burn the unworthy. I pray, cleanse me of all sin.
“Let’s see. How about a bunch of celebate men make decisions about what is right for sexually active heterosexual females?”
These ‘celibate men’ decide nothing for anyone. They faithfully hand down the Faith revealed in Christ, teaching that which is in accordance with the truth of our humanity. Those ‘celibate men’ who do otherwise will be judged severely. The choice is ours: obedience unto life or disobedience unto death.
“I learned condemnation was Old Testament stuff in Sunday school.”
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
Mr. Fall’s views demonstrate the crisis of our time, the ever increasing acceptance of the lie that belief can be separated from practice, that we can be ‘Orthodox’ in our ‘belief’ while doing whatever is right in our own eyes:
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. … And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
Mock these words if you must, but I beg of you, be not deceived.
Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;
But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
He shall be like a tree
Planted by the rivers of water,
That brings forth its fruit in its season,
Whose leaf also shall not wither;
And whatever he does shall prosper.
The ungodly are not so,
But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.
Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment,
Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Mr. Fall, the simple truth is that if one purports to be Roman Catholic it is either stupid or simply destructive to reject the authority of the Pope. If one purports to be Orthodox a similar situation exists. One either accepts the revealed tradition of the Church and attempts to conform to it in mind, heart and soul or one rejects that tradition and prefers to sustitute a personal reality that is at odds with it. To continue to retain a membership in a body when one rejects the essential beliefs and understanding of the body is either arrogant stupidity or venal destructiveness. Both are part of the nilhist spirit of the age.
The unwillingness to recognize the sinfulness inherent in the lust for people of the same sex it is not just a rejection of the moral tradition of the Church, but the rejection of the revealed reality of who we are as human beings and how we fit in God’s economy of creation. By rejecting the anthropology of the Church, one also rejects the Incarnation–hence one rejects both the necessity for and participation in salvation. That is the ultimate nilhism.
Well, Michael, we would agree that homosexuality is probably inherently nilhistic; but only because they are forgoing children for the desire to be with a MOSS. And forgive me if I butchered the usage. I’d get argument on the children thing I suppose, too, but that is kind of how I see it.
You suggest I am unwilling to recognize the selfishness of homosexuality as sin; not so.
I’ve accepted Christ and as I recall, his basic membership plan was simpler than the anthropology of the church, the incarnation, nilhism. Something about repenting and forgiveness.
Perhaps I have never been on the premium plan?
And you are wrong about personal reality being at odds with the church being a big problem. All our personal realities are different from the church. The church doesn’t set the speed limit. It doesn’t feed us food. It doesn’t wash our backside, should I continue?
Mr. Fall, it is a far cry from repentance to say “I’m gay, I’m proud now give me that gd commumion like you mean it.”
Yes, Michael, we can agree on that, but I don’t think you needed the expletive; sounds like something I’d do…not you.
Reconciling what is sin has never been easy for anyone unless the sin is hurtful to others. In a gay relationship, if you suggest it is hurtful to both, we might agree, but not many homosexuals will see it that way. Some that have been married to MOS might argue it is less hurtful than the former relationship.
And it isn’t unreasonable for us to consider the perspective of others reconciling their own sins. During Lent especially, we are supposed to mainly consider our own.
I’ve enjoyed your postings on this subject, even if we don’t fully agree.
Mr Fall, in his usual dismissive tone, can’t seem to appreciate the logical end of his own argument (that gays are born that way and can’t change) so we have to give a pass to all sinners. He was too busy giving his equally tired answer that we shouldn’t equate child molesters and gays. Can we equate any sinners with gays, any at all? Ah, apparently, we cannot. Because gay is the new straight.
At least he got his confession right about being a dumb redneck from the Midwest.
Actually Spasi, you are incorrect.
I’ll go along with homosexuality being less than ideal. I don’t understand it. I only know I find it odd, and unusual. I’ve been called gay, but never had a gay bone in my body. (Heracleides might have fun with that) I’ve decided it is inappropriate for me to judge something I don’t understand at all.
I will let Jesus do it.
If the church calls it a sin, so be it. Christ told us if we repent our sins are forgiven. The church requires Confession for Communion. I don’t see why someone can’t be gay and be in Christ’s church.
By your argument, one might infer this church doesn’t equate sinners with gays because it doesn’t have a place for gays, but it has a place for sinners. Funny how that logic is right on, but noone here will get it.
I didn’t realize it was a country club. Oh, not that sin…not here. Icky.
Daniel, do you think the Church should allow homosexuals who are openly and actively gay and living together as a couple to participate in the Sacraments? And if so, do you think it should be “on the books,” so to speak, or just done without anyone really admitting that it’s done? Also, how does your priest, or how do other priests you know, feel about this issue? Do you think the Church has always allowed openly homosexual men and women to participate in the Sacraments, or is this necessary now because times have changed? Or what?
If they accept the churches notion that it is sin, homosexuals are certainly less sinful than a wife beater; why would we accept the wife beater and condemn the homosexual? The notion pales bizarre. If we condemn the homosexual, I’m thinking deifying Christ ain’t gonna matter when we meet St. Peter.
Do you have a ‘book of sins’? I need to review it cuz I’m sure I miss some at Confession. This conversation is a little silly Jane. Did Christ have “the books”? This ‘on the books’ notion comes from our fearful leader’s “pastoral” letter and is rather humorous.
I will not speak to my priest’s positions on this matter for several reasons. First, I just wouldn’t speak for them in general. Second, if I mispoke, it could be damaging. Third, if you are trying to trick me into dispensing knowledge you can’t handle, it won’t work. Fourth, our Bishops are not trustworthy on this subject matter, so I certainly wouldn’t sell out a cleric if I knew his position was at odds with the Metropolitan. Fifth, this issue and the mishandling of it by Metropolitan Jonah has sickened many people that don’t have the cajones, courage, concern, or care to talk with you (believe me). I think I could give you a number 6, but I’m getting tired.
I don’t believe times have changed greatly. The only difference is closeted or not. If the church was kind to closeted homosexuals before, should we require them to be closeted for your white robe vision of church?
A bigger question is can the church discriminate against a homosexual? That will end up in the Supreme Court someday. The court will probably weigh and measure the science and study and there is a chance the churches will lose. On my notion alone, if the church checks the backgrounds of everyone and someone with a felony is involved in the church and a gay person not because they live with another man and have stated they are gay; I’m thinking it is not going to bode well for the church(es) and it could set precedent. Bishop Moriak might be able to kick a gay guy off the Council today, but it might be against the law in our lifetime.
Oh God, please noone respond about the Separation Clause; it really isn’t relevant, but I see how one might head down that road.
I understand the belligerence towards homosexual activists who insist all must conform to their beliefs. On the other hand, there are many homosexuals that consider this a private matter and still want to attempt a Christian life. Shouldn’t they be allowed to try and shouldn’t we be more concerned with our own attempt than others. I know it feels good to minimize one’s own failings by pointing out how someone else’s are much much worse.
Daniel, will you please elaborate further on what you are referring to as Metropolitan Jonah’s “mishandling” of “this issue”?
Daniel. I am not into “tricking” anybody into anything. Good grief. I just wanted to know what the general temperature of priests is in the OCA when it comes to this issue about homosexuality, that’s all. And, I was also wondering if parishioners just have their own views, or if their views reflect those of their priests, or what. It’s going to divide the Church someday. I’m not in as much disagreement with you as you might think, except to say that I can’t see how active homosexuality can be totally accepted without having to change the Church and write it down as accepted practice. It’s growing, and the pressure is growing. If we are talking about the future of the Church, then we have to logically assume that active homosexuals will be allowed and welcome to participate in all the Sacraments, which brings us back to the gay wedding. Listen, can’t you see what I’m saying? I’m not insulting anybody, or not trying to insult anybody, and my personal feelings don’t enter in here at all. It’s not about your opinions, or mine. It’s about the Orthodox Church.
Daniel E. Fall says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm.
Do you have a ‘book of sins’?
Yes, read the New Testament, slowly, carefully, and attentively, as explained by the saints of our Church. But you won’t find any graded from lesser to greater there. All are equally “missing the mark.”
Helga,
Metropolitan Jonah’s efforts at combating the ‘lavender mafia’ by joining with Bishop Moriak and requiring the reading of a ‘pastoral’ letter on homosexuality in the Sunday liturgy at all churches ought not require my reiteration, but alas…
I’m not working to keep the issue alive, I’m only pointing out the obvious problems with the direction taken. It wasn’t well thought out. The memory won’t be the teachings of the church, but rather the reason why it was deemed important. Separating the secular world and the church are a requirement. i.e. church and the speed limit
Unfortunately, some find this reality dualism; not so.
While I personally find homosexuality odd, the church had no need for the letter on homosexuality. To suggest the state of New York’s legalization of gay marriage or Mark Stokoe’s life are reasons to read such a letter to the entire church is petty. Someone here will certainly disagree, but at the end of the day, the Orthodox church has no reason to impose its views on third parties.
The concept of the Orthodox Church getting involved in secular life is weak at best. The church can be the church without deciding what the speed limit ought to be, or tax rates, or other government actions. That is the beauty of the church. It has recently been lost to a view that the churches law ought to be the state’s law and that it is important for the church to be involved in the political process. I always thought it was on a higher road, guess I was wrong.
Sadly, believing a culture war exists and the church needs to be in it seems to be the plan. This doesn’t build up the church; it tears it down.
There is nothing wrong with society having abortion and Orthodox to view it as wrong. When it gets nutty is when our bishops decide birth control is equivalent to abortion and involve themselves in the political process. Suddenly they offended me and my wife who bore a child at 39 and then got an IUD to avoid obvious older women pregnancy issues. Why is this important to offend me?
We don’t live in a theocracy and if the Islamists try it here, me and George will fight together, but I also don’t want an Orthodox theocracy and this is where they miss the intellectual capacities of Americans. They got involved in a political discussion about whether the church could cherry pick a health care plan. What is so horrid about a 40 year old women using an IUD to prevent a Down’s pregnancy when she has already had several children? Good grief.
I’m sure with as much as I’ve written, someone can pull it apart, disect my words to something less; hopefully they’ll remember I’m speaking to Helga.
So far, our bishops are excelling at offending people. These are issues that didn’t need to be addressed by them at all.
As for the pastoral letter; it only needed be read to those that want to know the Orthodox’ churches views on homosexuality. The churches view isn’t going to change my belief that the state can have different laws. Don’t bother offending me when it ain’t necessary, you get it?
Daniel sounds to me like he is one of those “we are your future” guys.
Daniel E. Fall says:
March 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm
….’There is nothing wrong with society having abortion and Orthodox to view it as wrong. When it gets nutty is when our bishops decide birth control is equivalent to abortion and involve themselves in the political process. Suddenly they offended me and my wife who bore a child at 39 and then got an IUD to avoid obvious older women pregnancy issues. Why is this important to offend me?
‘We don’t live in a theocracy and if the Islamists try it here, me and George will fight together, but I also don’t want an Orthodox theocracy and this is where they miss the intellectual capacities of Americans. They got involved in a political discussion about whether the church could cherry pick a health care plan. What is so horrid about a 40 year old women using an IUD to prevent a Down’s pregnancy when she has already had several children?’….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is ‘so horrid’ in Daniel Fall’s words here (emphasis added) is that an IUD (intrauterine device) causes the abortion of an embryo before or during conception (implantation), and is in effect the murder of a human being.
An IUD has no effect on fertilization, only on the conception of the embryo in the womb, where it causes an abortion.
The science is incontrovertible: only zygotes (embryos), not unfertilized eggs, reach the womb and may be conceived there..
And the morality is clear: intentionally aborting an embryo/fetus from the womb — at any stage of development — is murder.
And THAT is why The Church is involved. This isn’t a merely orthodox or even a christian or religious concern. This is a human concern which needs the help of science and religion to make its way through the politics of Feminism until civil law is in accordance with reality rather than convenient illusions.
‘Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.’
— Albert Einstein
Daniel Fall:
You sure put a lot of faith in the state Daniel. If the State decrees homosexual marriage as morally legitimate, it arrogates unto itself a moral authority that is not even bound to nature, let alone God. At that point it has become totalitarian even though events may take a while to catch up with the reality. (Totalitarianism is defined as state control over all manner of interpersonal interaction.)
To argue that both Church and state inhabit private spheres (public square and private belief), and that the Church ought not to have a voice or influence in the public square is a statist argument, one that relegates moral authority only to the state. Statists get offended when their presumptions of moral authority are challenge by those who don’t elevate the state as the final source and judge of public and private morality. Further, the statist’s protest against the offense is not sufficient reason to accept their presumptions as sound or to remain silent about them.
Re your comment, Jane Rachel: “If we are talking about the future of the Church, then we have to logically assume that active homosexuals will be allowed and welcome to participate in all the Sacraments. . . ”
We have to “logically” assume no such thing. If the scenario you propose ever came to pass in any Orthodox Church, whether ancient or national, that Church would cease to be Orthodox.
Wow, can anyone say full circle?
As usual Fr, your perspicacity cuts through the BS. It’s sad that we have to point out the obvious but if that’s what we’re called to do, then I can think of no better agonist than yourself.
Exactlly, Father. That is exactly what I am saying. It seems so obvious.
Bingo. Thank you!
It still surprises me that when a little anonymous female with no say whatsoever says something about how the Church will cease to be Orthodox when active homosexuals partake of Communion as the norm, she gets told what’s what in no uncertain terms as if she doesn’t know, but when the good priests, Father Robert Arida, Father John Jillions, Father Alexander Vinogradov, Mark Stokoe, Bishop Mark who lives with the gay deacon who still serves at the altar, and the gay bishops in the OCA talk and live exactly what you say can’t happen, no one says a WORD.
Jane Rachel,
Agreed. It sort of makes me think of the three monkeys: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Speak No Evil. Obviously, nothing can be construed as amiss in the vaunted OCA as long as one imitates that trio. And if you don’t, well then, how dare you point out that the emperor has no clothes! (Apologies for mixing metaphors.)
Father, have you not considered that the goal posts have ALREADY been moved?
At the very least, could we all please agree never to use the words “impacted” and “sodomite” together in the same thread again?
It’s lent, for goodness’ sake!
Joseph, surely one may speak of a sodomite with an impacted wisdom tooth?
RE your passing comment: “a gay wedding planned in the Church for the upcoming Saturday.” That is a very serious claim, JR. Can you elaborate and provide documentation?
Then I get the impossible image in my head of Orthodoxy Sunday at St. Mary’s OCA in Minneapolis with people from every Orthodox Church in the area attending, listening those long anathemas, and a gay wedding planned in the Church for the upcoming Saturday.
A Monomakhos reader passed on to me the surprising note above.
Well, it *is* an impossible image. If the author is suggesting that there is a gay wedding taking place at St Mary’s OCA in Minneapolis, she would be wrong on several points: there isn’t one taking place, there could not be one (we don’t do gay weddings; it is Lent), and there never will be such a thing here: the Orthodox Church, The Orthodox Church in America, the Diocese of the Midwest, and – emphatically – this priest do not do such things. Again, the image is impossible since the pan-Orthodox text used for Sunday of Orthodoxy Vespers by the Minnesota Eastern Orthodox Clergy Association has no anathemas at all in it. (For better or worse. I myself am rather fond of them, especially as intoned by a serious sort of Protodeacon)
A very naughty and mischievous bit of lenten flatulence. 🙂
AA in M
Would everyone stop and think for a moment? Of course you don’t “DO” gay weddings! Of course it is impossible! A priest comes on here and reads ONE comment from me, without having any idea what is going on or what I’m trying to say, and glibly makes a wise comment. Oh, I forget. Orthodox Priests Can’t Be Wrong.
Oh, I can’t stand this! Your bishop was gay, and other bishops are gay now, right now, in the Holy Synod, and it’s all fine with you. You accepted Mark Stokoe, you followed him, you threw out the good guys, you signed letters and petitions, you listened to Fr. Thom Hopko when he told you to support Mark Stokoe, who is MARRIED TO STEVE BROWN!!, and to shun your own Metropolitan, and to not listen to Fr. Joseph Fester, OH THE HYPOCRISY! No one spoke out then. You let all that happen, and you watched while Metropolitan Jonah was thrown under the bus over and over, without saying a word in his support, and now your Chancellor, your leaders, your priests, your deacons and your bishops want homosexuals to be communed in the Orthodox Church, because after all, “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” So what? That’s what I say, so what? ! and Steve Brown’s c
I got so mad, I didn’t even finish that before I replied. Oops.
Edit: “your bishop was gay” does not refer to your present bishop.
Which one were you referring to, I believe there have been many.
I believe she is referring to the recently reposed “bishop” with the ‘young seminarian & shaving cream fetish.’ Even a redneck like you should be able to adduce whom that individual was.
Was it a seminarian or a diocesan priest’s son, a minor?
Actually, from what I have heard it was both (although, to be precise, the seminarian was a few years out of seminary and well into his 20’s whilst the other was indeed a minor).
Heracleides is correct. Pokrov has a file on this
StephenD: I don’t think so.
Jane:
What anger and accusations! Step back, relax and remember one thing: the Holy Spirit guides and resides in the Orthodox Church. That which is wrong will be made right. Remember, it took the reinstatement of icons into the Church 100 years, but the Truth prevailed. Don’t get so hung up on rumors and innuendo. Pay attention, esp. now, to the one thing that is most important, “Go and acquire the Holy Spirit.” Turn your computer off until Bright Week, read your Bible, pray daily and go to church. Acquire the Holy Spirit and you will save many around you and maybe even the Church in America.
Diogenes can’t distinguish between anger and grief. Admittedly, they often go together. Diogenes, we know, preferred that his own anger and grief be worked out in a cold meal of revenge. Of COURSE wrongs will be righted when Christ is All in All. But we are engaged in combat now. It’s easy to, as you have apparently done, sit back when unjust goals have been met and counsel others to cool it.
I say, keep your computer going, continue, as always to pray morning and evening and throughout the day. The Holy Spirit goeth where He listeth. And try not to dilute the wise sayings of the Holy
Fathers by repeating them as mantras which have not worked for you. Or does “Diogenes” feel he has “acquired the Holy Spirit?” “Saving many around him?” How smug. Try following your own advice! Instead of moralizing at Jane Rachel! Sometimes it’s very painful for an seventy-nine year old like myself to participate in ANY Divine Liturgy, knowing that Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick, who enjoyed serving the Divine Liturgy more than anyone else i’ve ever met (there were rarely the altar tantrums and upsets in Syosset that were common fodder at SVS, ‘back in the day.”
Why should I be serving when Father is prevented, through the schemes of the envious and resentful men from doing so? Yes, Jane Rachel is “spot on” with her indignant and true characterizations of various dramatis personae. It was so despicable of NATO to take out after Ghaddafi.
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
March 8, 2012 at 10:30 am
“[W]rongs will be righted when Christ is All in All. But we are engaged in combat now.”
Your Grace, with your permission, may I emphasize “The Church Triumph,” and “The Church Militant”?
PdnNJ, we are one Church. We are not separate. There is no dualism in Orthodoxy!
The saints are either with us and we with them or they are in a far off heaven somewhere that can only be reached (maybe) if you die ‘saved’ or they some how drag you up there despite your self with their over-flowing extra goodies.
All forms of dualism deny the Incarnation.
I meant and believe no such dualism. Please read what I wrote strictly in context of what His Grace wrote: “[W]rongs will be righted when Christ is All in All. But we are engaged in combat now.”
And I believe that the combat we are engaged in now includes that presented in the Orthodoxbiz article reffered to us by His Grace.
WE, all of us are engaged in that same combat. The saints fight with us, although perhaps no longer for themselves. They are not nor can they ever be separate. WE are one Church in union with Christ. The Kingdom is upon us and within us. That is what we battle for.
Your expression, no matter whom it was learned from is throughly Roman Catholic and expresses the dualistic mentality of much of their theology. Sorry, you are just wrong.
Michael B: I can only be wrong if I am guilty of what you and Monk James accuse me of. And I think you both are wrong in that. To me you both seem to be thinking about it from a RC theological mindset yourselves. But I’m thinking about it with the Icon of The Ladder of Divine Assent in mind.
‘Nough said on this topic.
The RCC’s designations of The Church’s being divided into ‘militant, suffering, and triumphant’ are thoroughly alien to orthodoxy.
It’s frustrating in the extreme to see how deeply we orthodox are affected by RC theology, and not always by way of various ‘unions’.
Sometimes, we exhibit a sort of ‘stockholm syndrome’ WRT the ‘western captivity’ of The Church. We deliberately (if unconsciously) imitate their thought and the words in which they express their thought. The words sometimes seem to be the same, but the meaning of those words is so, so greatly different.
It’s time to stop all that. We must learn to use our own vocabulary, even in English, and be ourselves rather than try to be a shadow of the heterodox.
I did not learn that from the RCC or any other division of western christianity. I learned it “way back when” from Orthodox teachers who explained it correctly.
No. You absorbed it from uniatism, or from the louder and more dominant RC culture without realizing it. And the same can be said of your ‘orthodox’ teachers.
Well, Monk James, that’s a totally presumptuous and arrogant judgement on your part.
For the record, I am not a convert from the RCC, Unitism, nor any other Christian or other religion; I.e., I’m a “cradle” OC. And the Orthodox teachers who taught me are the Fathers and Spiritual Masters of the OC.
PdnNJ says:
March 8, 2012 at 9:37 pm
‘Well, Monk James, that’s a totally presumptuous and arrogant judgement on your part.
‘For the record, I am not a convert from the RCC, Unitism, nor any other Christian or other religion; I.e., I’m a “cradle” OC. And the Orthodox teachers who taught me are the Fathers and Spiritual Masters of the OC.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK. Just below I’m including three of the many hits resulting from my googling ‘church militant suffering triumphant’ — not a single one of them is an orthodox christian site; they’re RC without exception.
In all fairness to PdnNJ, it must be admitted that he did not use the word ‘suffering’ in his appropriation of the RC concept we’re discussing, but that word is an unavoidable aspect of it.
All these RC sources connect their three sections of the Church (as they think they understand it) to the concept of the ‘communion of saints’, a phrase found in the last few lines of the ‘Apostles Creed’. They misappropriate this phrase completely, thinking that it refers to people rather than to the Holy Things, the eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ.
But that’s grist for another mill. It’s interesting to observe, though, that the ‘Cathechism of the Catholic Church’ (paragraphs 646-648) tries to correct that earlier misunderstanding by reluctantly allowing the orthodox understanding of the ‘communion of the holy things’.
In any event, PdnNJ has to realize that I’m not accusing him of being under RC influence, only that he is using a RC expression which finds no corroboration in orthodoxy. He is just as influenced by that underlying fact as were the ostensibly orthodox teachers from whom he learned it. They just bought the RC position hook, line, and sinker and never knew the difference.
Here are the citations:
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura1.htm
The Church, the Mystical Body, exists on this earth, and is called the Church militant, because its members struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. The Church suffering means the souls in Purgatory. The Church triumphant is the Church in heaven. The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints.
http://www.therealpresence.org/essentials/creed/acc10.htm
The Church founded by Christ has three levels of existence. She is the Church Militant on earth, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in heaven. After the last day, there will be only the Church Triumphant in heavenly glory.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
(Ekklesia) may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
Monk James: Please be advised up front that I no special knowledge, expertise, or enlightenment on the subject at hand so anything I say further about it is purely personal.
The RC teachings you cite above are all news to me. I have never seen or heard them before and they are of no particular interest to me. The errors there are quite obvious to me. But let me ask this:
Do we reject everything the Heterodox teach just because it is heterodox, or do we make corrections where possible and important for us, such as, for instance, the RC doctrine on the primacy of Peter? And along with that:
Does the RCC have some sort of priority or copy right restriction on the use and definition of the terms “Church Triumph” and “Church Militant” so that we Orthodox can not properly define them and use them to our own benefit and purpose?
I think not in both cases.
So, let me end by saying this: Whenever and however I come across those two terms, the icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent pops into my mind and relieves me of any curiosity about them. I can’t explain that. Maybe someone else blogging here with expert knowledge of Orthodox iconography can.
From “St. Gregory Palamas, The Homilies,” (Mt. Tabor Publishing, 2009), Homily Eight, On Faith:
“[W]hat proof is there that we have a right belief in God, that we have a trustworthy and devout understanding of him?It is that we confess the same faith as our God-bearing Fathers.”
So, for all you who believe that you are more spiritual enlightened than St. Gregory Palamas, “the ball is now in your court.” All you who are at odds with him on that should “think twice” before venerating his icon at services next weekend.
“What words shall we weave as a garland, to crown the holy bishop?
He is the champion of true devotion
and the adversary of ungodliness,
the fervent protector of the Faith,
the great guide and teacher,
the well-tuned harp of the Spirit,
the golden tongue,
the fountain that flows with waters of healing for the faithful,
Gregory the great and marvellous.”
From The Lenten Triodion (STS Press, 2002), Vespers of the Second Sunday in Lent, stichera for “Lord, I have cried.”
(“We pray what we believe, and we believe what we pray.”)
Monk James wrote: “All these RC sources connect their three sections of the Church (as they think they understand it) to the concept of the ‘communion of saints’, a phrase found in the last few lines of the ‘Apostles Creed’. They misappropriate this phrase completely, thinking that it refers to people rather than to the Holy Things, the eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ.”
The misappropriation was probably connected with the translation of a Greek phrase where holy things (i.e. the eucharistic bread and wine) are in view to the Latin where grammar permitted some ambiguity because persons c ould also be in view. However, we need to be cautious about stating this is an exclusively Western or RC interpretation because in fact the earliest known creative suggestion that ‘ton agion koinonia’ referred also to persons comes from St Nicetas Remesiania, probably a Greek speaking Slav who was a bishop in what is now Serbia.
Meanwhile, the the Orthodox interpretation persisted in the West in various places well into the Middle Ages, which is apparent from various translations of the Apostles Creed from Latin into local languages, e.g. in a French version in liturgical use in the 12th C. the phrase is rendered ‘la communion des seintes choses’.
Basil wrote:
Twn agiwn could mean “of the saints,” or it could mean “of the holy things.” Greek grammar alone definitely doesn’t decide this issue.
Father James wrote:
Father, I’m not following you here. Are you saying the concept of the “communion of the saints” is unknown in Orthodoxy? That seems unlikely.
As I’ve said before, it certainly seems to me that the Orthodox are more correct about most of the things at issue between them and Rome, but is this particular point one of them? — bracketing to the side the issue of replacing the Symbol of the Faith with the innovative, later Apostle’s Creed.
Mike wrote that Greek grammar alone doesn’t decide the issue. I actually suggested that Latin grammar was the culprit, but while we’re on the Greek, and all theology begins with grammar (how can we understand God’s Words -Theologia – if we can’t parse them?), I have always understood that the genitive use of koinonia in regard to persons is rare in Greek but quite common in Latin, which, if correct, is probably sufficient to explain the RC term and belief. But we would also learn much by looking beyond normal usage to liturgical context. In the liturgy we hear “ta agia tois agiois” where “ta agia” clearly refers to the consecrated bread and wine; “ton agion” then is most likely the genitive form of “ta agia”, meaning “the communion of holy things”. This is confirmed when one considers the context of the phrase within the last para of the Apostles Creed where belief is confessed in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of holy things (the Eucharist), the forgiveness of sins (Baptism) and life everlasting. Why the need to confess the church twice? It would seem that a possible theological explanation for the advent of the phrase and belief in “the communion of saints” is the inseparable connection of the holy things with the holy people of God. This may have been where St Nicetas (if indeed he was the first to use the phrase communion of saints) started from; his modest and creative neologism was not theologically unOrthodox but Rome eventually built a superstructure on it which it could not possibly bear.
‘Koinwnia’ connotes fellowship, common sharing, too, not just “communion,” of course. I understood your point with respect to Latin grammar, but I read also an implication, at least, that this ambiguity was present just in Latin, which isn’t the case, as I’m sure you know. It’s ambiguous in Greek also. That was the point I wanted to stress.
It may be true that a construction meaning “communion (or fellowship) of the saints” would be a rare usage of koinwnia with a genitive of persons in Koine Greek, I don’t know. (Although there are lots of odd and rare usages, and words, in the NT Greek text.) But to claim as Father James did that to give it such a meaning is to “misappropriate this phrase completely” seems to overstate the objection one might have.
‘ta agia’ is clearly the consecrated gifts; but again, it’s not clear to me that an emphasis on the communion, or fellowship, of the Mystical Body of Christ — which includes the reposed as well as the living — would be unimportant or redundant, necessarily, in a Creed. “The Church” comprises only those members alive now in the flesh, on earth, right? The Mystical Body of Christ includes but is more than these persons, isn’t it? I’m asking here, I don’t know. Certainly, the sacramental center and sign of the unity of the Church is the Eucharist. And the Eucharistic communion as central Mystery of the Faith defines the Church in a very important sense; and as you note the holy people and the holy things are fused into one concept, in Orthodoxy, so I’m leaning to accepting your case here. Having said that, there is always a risk of being over-reductive and excessively analytical — a Roman tendency, and not just Roman.
Rome is gifted that way. Painting themselves into corners is another talent of theirs.
“It would seem that a possible theological explanation for the advent of the phrase and belief in “the communion of saints” is the inseparable connection of the holy things with the holy people of God.”
Not only is it a possible explanation, it would seem that it is the explanation:
“I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”
I guess I need to stress the question that occurs to me: If there is an Orthodox concept of the “communion of the saints” — bracketed off from the issue of what sanctorum communionem denoted in the Apostle’s Creed at the time) — is it related to the meaning and nature of the Mystical Body of Christ? My understanding is that in Orthodoxy, this is a broadly defined “spiritual organism” that includes all those who have reposed in the Faith. It includes the Risen Christ, I think. Is that correct?
In any case, this would be conceptually quite distinct from the Church as the visible communion of those in the flesh on earth today, professing belief, with varying degrees of sincerity, in Jesus Christ as Lord and Son of God. That the subjects of ecclesiology and Christology might merge here is important, it seems to me. If they do. I’m asking, mainly. And I hasten to add that I’m not especially confident this list is the appropriate place to pose this question.
Protestant denominations (or at least their founders) in general downplay or even condemn intercessory prayer, veneration of relics, and other related Catholic and Orthodox beliefs that seem to me to derive logically from this far richer and more substantive understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ. I’m not professing any firm knowledge here but hoping for some insights from those who do.
Mike,
I won’t claim an intellectual grasp of this, but Orthodox Christians view all things through the ‘lens’ of Christ Himself – through the mystery of His Incarnation, death, burial, Resurrection, and Ascension. Nothing is ever bracketed off in a category by itself. Everything is one. Everything has its origin, meaning, fulfillment, and unity in Him.
So while there isn’t space here to answer directly every question you posed, here are a few thoughts.
Christ’s incarnation affirms and demonstrates the inherent goodness of matter and its capacity to be united to Divinity, the capacity to share in what is proper to God by participation. “And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” “For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven… To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”
Created matter is visible, including – but not limited to – our own bodies, the relics of Saints, the glorified bodies of Christ and His Saints, and the one Bread and the one Cup of which all partake and through which all are united in the one Body of Christ.
The subjects of Christology and ecclesiology are not subjects (except in the sense of being areas of study). They have always been one and the same in the mind of the Church and should never be considered separately. One can see this clearly if one reads the Epistles (not to mention the Church Fathers) with this understanding in mind.
There is a living reality of the “communion of the Saints” in the Orthodox Church. For it is impossible for those united in Christ to be separated from Him and therefore from one another: “For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
The Kingdom of God is eschatological. It is outside the realm of time (at least as we know it). Thus the Apostle writes that Christ was crucified “before the foundation of the world” and that we have been “raised with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ.” Likewise, St. John Chrysostom in his Pascal homily says, “Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the tomb.” Such statements can seem odd to us who live in time and still struggle in this life, but they are realities in which we participate by Grace, having been united to Christ the Lord of all who raised our humanity (and with it all of creation) to the eternity of God Himself.
The Church, the Body of Christ, is visible; for Christ is visible. However, this does not mean that all who are ostensibly within the Church are the Church. The tares grow alongside the wheat as Christ says in the parable, but the wheat is visible nonetheless (“you will know them by their fruits”). An invisible Church is a denial of the Incarnation because, being His Body with Christ as her Head, she also participates by Grace in the same union without confusion of God with created matter in the Person of Christ.
I was hoping someone else would attempt a reply to you. I have doubtless not done justice to the fullness of the Truth in these brief statements. I hope our more erudite correspondents will gently correct any errors without excoriating me for my lack of intellectual prowess.
Isaiah gives us God’s words: “I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. I girded thee though thou hast not known me. That they may know from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.”
A brother asked Abba Sisois, “I long to guard my heart.” The old man said to him, “And how can we guard the heart if the tongue leaves the door of the fortress open?”
We have a hesycast blogging here!
That’s kind of a contradiction, isn’t it?
He also uses the name of an ancient Greek cynic philosopher who taught and lived the life style
of the Woodstock generation.
Here’s a link:
http://www.orthodoxbiz.com/20090228355/politics/pushing-the-gay-agenda-in-the-greek-archdiocese.html
It’s a couple years old, but there’s a Huffington Foundation Ecumenical Event coming up here in SoCal soon. It will be held at the Jesuit’s Loyola Marymount College, where a couple of OCA clergymen moonlight.
By bracketed, in this more recent case, I meant only that what’s understood within the Orthodox phronema by “the communion of the saints,” if anything, and its possible connection to the meaning of the Mystical Body of Christ, is a separate question from whatever sanctorum communionem may have denoted in the Latin Apostle’s Creed. One’s an Orthodox question in mystical theology, and the other’s a historical, philological one. That’s all. I’ve found that tedious-to-read precision can help to preempt a lot of static and misunderstanding around here. Usually.
Again, my question is about the meaning and nature of the Mystical Body of Christ as understood in the Orthodox phronema, mostly. If anyone knows any authoritative sources in the God-bearing Fathers or in recent Russian or Greek Orthodox mystical theology that would be a big help.
Thanks for your thoughts on the questions, Brian.
I’m afraid your question is well over my head. I’m a simple man. But I, too, would love to hear the answer. I’ll bet Fr. Patrick knows.
Mr. Fall, et. al:
No reasonable person, no faithful Christian wants to “kick homosexuals out of the Church” as long as they are following the directives of their priest and working conquering the passion(s) that afflict them. To do so would be beyond hypocritical, we’d have to shut everything down and leave.
Almost always in these conversations however the issue always gets conflated that way.
What cannot be allowed to happen is the remolding of the Orthodox moral and anthropological tradition so that homosexual conduct (and all other distorted and sinful sexual conduct) is redefined as perfectly normal, therefore not sinful. To allow such is a desecration of the Church.
Mr. Fall I used the explative as a way to indicate the anger of those who wish to destroy any vestage of oppobrium for their sinful way of life.
To be clear: appropriate liturgical discipline should be exercised for those who divorce, marry outside the Church, fornicate, commit adultery as well as homosexuals as a means to foster repentance and healing. The synergy between confession and the reception of the Eucharist needs to be strongly taught and practiced. Aggressively unrepentant sinners (of all types) should not be communed. To commune such people is to condemn them to hell as well as put a stumbling block in the way of the faithful.
Mr. Fall, given your upstream comment to Jane Rachel (which lacks a reply button). It seems I need to remind you that the Church is not egalitarian. There can be no ‘discrimination against homosexuals unless one buys into the heretical leaning notion that their same sex attraction is an inherent human condition. Since they are then a minority, they have ‘rights’ that need the protection of the state.
And, yes the 1st Amendment does apply. It is not the ‘separation clause, there is no separation clause. It is the free exercise clause if it is anything. What don’t you get about the words: “Congress shall make no law….”
The problem Michael is the treatment of a sinner that is gay and a sinner that is an adulterer need to be carefully considered. If a church is allowed to mistreat the gay man, but discount the adulterer’s behavior simply based on knowledge or assumption; it is probably going to be in trouble-maybe not today, but we aren’t far off.
You of all people have the intellect to find an irony in the following reality. The church willingly overlooked loose accounting (the church has now said theft I believe) by a Chancellor in order to keep things in the closet (please another cartoon Heracleides – maybe a cash register and a balloon with the caption I won’t tell if you don’t tell), and that was okay for years. One guy who may or may not be out of the closet gets a different treatment for what I would consider a far less sin-challenging some of the decisions of a Metropolitan or was it something else?. God, who can keep track?
As for the law… Congress shall make no law regarding the free exercise.. Are you suggesting ours is a religion that freely discriminates against a certain type of sinner? Handy, ain’t it?
“The church willingly overlooked loose accounting (the church has now said theft I believe) by a Chancellor in order to keep things in the closet (please another cartoon Heracleides– maybe a cash register and a balloon with the caption I won’t tell if you don’t tell)…”
Actually, I was thinking along different lines…. You claim to be a “red-neck” but based on your ongoing apologia for those embracing sodomy, I was picturing you sporting at least a mauve-neck if not an outright lavender-neck.
Mr. Fall, you continue to justify sins by your own hierarchy. Your hierachy of sins is at odds with what is revealed in the Bible and the teaching of the Church. However, no matter the hierachy we place on sins, none of them are justified except through accepting the grace of Jesus Christ in repentance.
Unless your are being intentionally obtuse about the need for adhering to the teachings of the Church rather than going by the spirit of the age, I can’t see why you don’t get that.
Which self-destructive, perverse behavior defiles us the most? Those of which we refuse to repent.
The homosexual activists are attempting to force their sin on me and make me complicit. I have enough sinfulness of my own so I say no thank you. If you wish your sin accepted, go where it is already accepted. If you agree that such sin is not sinful, go where that is the norm.
If you wish to struggle agains the demonic spirit of the age and allow the grace of God to overcome all passions in you, Please join us in the struggle.
“What matter wounds to the body of the knight errant for each time he falls, he shall rise again and woe to the wicked!”
I have to disagree with you on one point. The First Amendment gives each religion to right to practice what it believes, to include discriminating against certain people on religious grounds.Thus, there is no Constitutional right for homosexuals to be treated the same as any other group.
That said, I will agree with you that some folks here are homophobic, or pretend to be so, for various reasons, none of which are justified by Orthodox Christianity. This means that you should not draw any general conclusion about Orthodoxy based on the erroneous and often malicious opinions of a small number of folks that regularly post here in a anti-homosexual jihad. (In the interest of full disclosure, I signed the Manhattan Declaration).
All that said, the issue is mainly pastoral. I agree that communing homosexuals who openly flaunt their homosexual life style becomes a larger issue than the sin of the individuals; it becomes a matter of concern for the entire congregation. Two examples from my personal experience.
First, we had a celibate priest who was assigned to us as rector. Nobody knew of his homosexuality until after he had died of AIDS and his sexuality was revealed. It turned out that he had contracted HIV during one of the few times that he had fallen, but his choice was to get up again. Most of the congregation felt that he had struggled but failed, like all of us do, and thus could not judge him or the bishop who assigned him to us.
Second example was when one of the pillars of our congregation came out of the closet, divorced his wife and took up with his homosexual lover. We did not turn our backs for him, but we did not bat an eyelash when he ceased to take communion and eventually left the church. We did not have to talk to him to know that he was the one who had made his choice; not the Church.
So, there is a difference between private and public sinning but the difference is not that one type of sin is better or worse than the other. The difference is that, in the case of a public sin, the hand of the Church is forced. Let me use another example, some researches have estimated that Internet pornography is endemic, affecting as many as 25% of the population, thus this sin is much more pervasive than homosexual conduct (less than 5% of the population). However, use of pornography is by and large strictly a matter between the penitent and the priest, whereas homosexual behavior is much more likely, especially in the past 30 years, to be a public matter. I do not mean to diminish the culpability of those who are using homosexuality as a club to batter opponents of +Jonah, but it is a fact that homosexual activists are indeed trying to get society to accept their sinful conduct as just normal sexuality.
Calling folks to repentance is not discrimination. Even saying that anyone is ‘discriinated’ against is acknowledging the claim the homosexuals represent a distinct ontological or genetic group that deserves protection against an aggressive/hateful majority. That is wrong.
Since the practice of the Orthodox Church says that only non-sexually activey or monogomous, once married men (real marriage) are eligible for the priesthood, the cry of discrimination if allowed and government force at the point of a gun (all laws are at the point of a gun) would involve unjust and unconstitutional exercise of state power.
Mr. Fall you are once again being intentionally obtuse and attepting to conflate the reality in the agenda of those who wish to destroy the tradition of the Church. Why do you want to do that and remain Orthodox? Why do you want to destroy that which gives you life?
March 19, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Dear Fr. Hans-If you take the original definition of homophobia as fear of homosexuals, I see that fear clearly in the posting of the regular contributors to this site, who in my opinion . . . . . yada yada yada.
If you take a later definition, and I will quote Wiki here (because I agree with this definition): “Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer also to antipathy, prejudice, contempt, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.”
I think homosexuals are heterophobic.
Well, sure, but what is Wikipedia explaining other than the term is a pop-culture phenomena? The term is linguistically meaningless (“fear of man”). It attempts to impute an air of therapeutic legitimacy to a concept that has absolutely no therapeutic value. It’s pulled out of thin air, thus my assertion its only function is polemical. (This overlooks too using therapeutic language and models to make moral judgments, something that therapists that need the language are not ethically permitted to do.)
We could just as easily invent another term from the other direction. How about “heterosexually challenged”?
Carl, et.al. “Are you now or have you ever been a member of a homophobic organization?”
Daniel,
Thank you for the rapid response. To make thread reading a bit easier, I’m going to respond to this comment of yours down here.
If Metropolitan Jonah’s letter to the Archdiocese of Washington was precipitated by any specific event, he did not say so in his letter. He did list a number of factors that led him to write it:
So His Beatitude lists a number of broad and non-specific reasons for writing this letter. Mark Stokoe’s personal situation was publicly revealed on OCAT in March, four full months before this letter was written, and three months after Metropolitan Jonah resumed active administration, so if this was a personal attack, it was rather late in coming.
On the other hand, there were several other events that precipitated this letter much more closely:
– Significant progress towards the repeal of DADT (a few days prior to the letter).
– Increased public awareness of the “Breaking the Silence” group on Facebook (about 1 month prior to the letter).
– A pastoral situation in Metropolitan Jonah’s cathedral, culminating in a public incident about 1-2 months prior to the letter.
It seems fairly plausible that Met. Jonah wrote the letter because he had several pressing, local reasons to be concerned about how the Church’s moral teachings about sexuality were being dealt with in his geographical region and among members of his flock.
You write,
The Orthodox Church is not “imposing” anything on anyone. The Orthodox Church does, however, have a responsibility to bear witness to the Gospel through our lives, not merely give it empty affirmations. When the broader culture and the civil authorities not only actively embrace sin, but try to corrupt the people of God with it, it is especially important for clergy to remind us what the truth is so that we are not torn away from Christ.
Calling people out of sinful behavior is an essential part of preaching the Gospel to the wider world. Sin separates people from God, and it is our calling to show people how to root sin out of their lives. It helps for Christians to lead by example, but as Christians fall short, as we inevitably do, direct statements become necessary. Met. Jonah noted “the erosion of those moral verities within some of our Orthodox congregations,” and that’s where he addressed the letter.
There’s a very big difference between condemning the legality of morally-abhorrent practices like the murder of children, and turning the country into a theocracy.
IUDs can inhibit ovulation, but they can also cause the death of a young child.
There are highly-effective forms of contraception that do not carry a risk of killing an unborn child. For instance, you could have gotten yourself a vasectomy.
It is also problematic to regard Down Syndrome as a fate worse than death. It suggests that the existence of people with Down Syndrome is undesirable, and I would hope you could understand how that can be taken as demeaning and unchristian.
It is the bishops’ sacred responsibility to impart Church teaching. Find one line anywhere in Met. Jonah’s letter that advocates or insists upon political advocacy of any kind. What Met. Jonah was getting at was that regardless of what secular society does, the teaching of the Church remains the same. As he wrote, “These teachings are not onerous, but rather, part of the light yoke and easy burden of being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.”
Met. Jonah did not read his letter on a street corner. He addressed it to his flock, because it is his responsibility and obligation as their bishop to teach and exhort people in his diocese. He accurately described Orthodox teaching on the subject. He did not judge or condemn anyone. He only implored his spiritual children to follow Christ’s teaching for the sake of their souls, so that when we preach the Gospel, we are not shown to be hypocrites.
If you find that offensive, Daniel, you need to rethink your value system.
Helga, the clarity you bring to your response is simply amazing. Keep up the good work!
Well Helga, facts are we simply will never agree. The Metropolitan’s own words about the lavender mafia out to get him are conveniently left out of your diatribe. Most people would accept this as the reason for his letter, not your list. I’m sorry you don’t understand the reality of the situation and why I don’t think the content will be the memory.
If the ‘Orthodox Church’ finds it important to not just give empty affirmations, then why doesn’t it affirm the 10th AAC which stated healthcare should not be only for the wealthy? It would have been a timely statement, don’t you think? If the Metropolitan could get off his right wing agenda, I could go along with your other statement. Unfortunately, it holds no water when you look at the bigger picture; hypocrisy?
The Orthodox Church never told me to get a vasectomy; you found it convenient. My wife had an IUD, had it removed, bore a child, and has another IUD; we are old – get serious Helga, knowing a woman’s age is a contributor to Downs and other birth defects and you’d believe it wise for her to not use birth control because it purports to make me demean those with Downs – put some Cheez Whiz on that sloppy logic and a few might be able to choke it down! I need to hear no lectures from you on the subject. I behaved as well as any other Christian could. Shame on you and the bishops for suggesting women ought to not use birth control. Pretty convenient for unmarried bishops to make declarations about birth control (hypocrisy?) – please for another cartoon Heracleides-how about Dan standing by a guillotine with a tissue? I’m guessing the Catholic Church might frown on male birth control, too, or if not, just another nail in their coffin. I don’t think gay marriage is very neat, but I couldn’t give a darn about whether they want to get married; so why should the church when we know darn well the church ain’t gonna marry them? Isn’t this hypocrisy as well? Since when does the church care how many bluegills I keep when I go fishing? (Hint: unrelated)
I’m quite alright with my value system. And you missed my point. The state can have a different set of laws than the church. Metropolitan Jonah could have done better with a letter asking us to be good to the poor and told us they deserve healthcare, but I didn’t see that one…. Do you know why? I think I do. It is because he doesn’t believe it or if he does he was afraid to say it out of fear and you suggest I rethink my values…
Christian values are not equivalent with Republican values, nor are they equivalent with Democratic values.
Too may unexamined assumptions, Daniel. Let’s take one:
The short answer is that if the state defines homosexual coupling as a morally legitimate marriage, it defines marriage in ways contrary to nature (and for Christians, contrary to the will of God) and thereby arrogates unto itself the authority to define all manner of human relationships. This arrogation is totalitarian at its core.
You have already ceded your sovereignty to the state by bifurcating your moral reasoning into the categories of Church and State; categories that view social relationships only in terms of power and authority of enforcement (we can call that the Progressive paradigm). It doesn’t work that way. Freedom is a right that comes from the Creator, not the state. Moral precepts precede (and judge) even civil law and those who possess the authority to make them.
The Law came from Sinai, not Moses’ Council of Elders. Not understanding this results in a truncated understanding of how homosexual marriage will impact the larger culture.
Fr. Hans, you said “that if the state defines homosexual coupling as a morally legitimate marriage, it defines marriage in ways contrary to nature (and for Christians, contrary to the will of God) and thereby arrogates unto itself the authority to define all manner of human relationships.” You would see the same force at work, with the same intent, regarding the progression in easing the requirements for the dissolution of marriage?
Not sure exactly what you mean here Logan. Are you asking if easy divorce is part of this same devaluing of traditional marriage? If so, yes, I do.
Fr. Hans, yes that’s what I meant. Being a product of the 60s, I’m very sensitive to all the “isms,” but when you put in context of a broad historical sweep that includes flagging heterosexual morality as well, then your logic makes more sense to me.
Yes, I agree with this. Homosexual marriage is an outgrowth of flagging heterosexual morality, no doubt about this. That’s grounded in several developments as well, a chief one being contraception and abortion as its outgrowth which really functions as post-conception birth control.
I have a confession to make: For the life of me, I simply cannot get a handle on this homosexuality, same-sex marriage thing. If I was ever asked my opinion, I would not know what to talk about except what I can see, the obvious anatomical differences between male and female, and the reason and purposes for those differences. Is there something wrong with me?
Nope, we completely agree.
I decided long ago I didn’t get it and it wasn’t my place to try.
I know a girl that didn’t like the gender differences. I liked fishing, her not so much. I liked hunting a bit, her not so much. I liked football, her not so much. I liked mowing the yard (oops, there I go trying to feed Heracleides again). Anyhow, she ended up with another girl and I think they are into guns cuz her friend is a cop. I find the entire thing sort of ironic cuz guns are pretty much a guy thing… What do I know..
Why do I care if they want to have a civil contract or a binding relationship?
I don’t. I won’t.
My faith isn’t going to help her…my bishop pointing out Orthodox principles on homosexuality is completely worthless to me and her. Long time ago, I checked out of the dialogue. Let them do what they need to…it isn’t my life. Billy Joel song…..
As far as Fr. Hans…. where the good priest is wrong…. The church doesn’t need to set all the rules the state needs to set. The state’s rules may have a basis in other forms of law or social reasoning; not only Christianity. When one religion dominates the laws of the state, the laws can become dangerous. Look what the Iranians do to gays, for example. This notion of the Bible is the basis for all law is rather silly; juvenile even. I’m sorry; it is hard to say, but you know I’m correct. There are laws governing interest….Mitt Romney makes and made millions on interest earnings. What does the Bible say about interest? Is Mitt horrible because he made money against Biblical teachings? Now the only reason I’m going down that road is because you seem to find it so easy to label my thought processes on a political position when it is convenient. I understand interest and I’m not certain the Bible got it right, or we got the interpretation right. I’m bifurcated; completely split in two because I think the bluegill limits don’t need to reflect on Christian values to be set correctly….I’m going to need to be dismissive again…. Oh well.
?????? ????????
Daniel, you need to expand your thinking. Start here:
Russell Kirk, Civilization Without Religion?
Daniel, a brief analysis of your bifurcated confusion follows:
Nope, we completely agree. I decided long ago I didn’t get it and it wasn’t my place to try.
I know a girl that didn’t like the gender differences. I liked fishing, her not so much. I liked hunting a bit, her not so much. I liked football, her not so much. I liked mowing the yard (oops, there I go trying to feed Heracleides again). Anyhow, she ended up with another girl and I think they are into guns cuz her friend is a cop. I find the entire thing sort of ironic cuz guns are pretty much a guy thing… What do I know..
Not much, ‘cause a lot of girls and women shoot and love it including my wife.
Why do I care if they want to have a civil contract or a binding relationship? I don’t. I won’t.
The only reasons not to care I can think of are that you simply don’t care about other people much. Neither do you, apparently, understand marriage or the Bible or the Orthodox understanding of creation and our place in it. You seem to lack understanding of the functioning of culture and society. You are blasé about how and to what extent homosexual activity is sinful and that each person’s sin affects all of us. We are not autonomous individuals. Whether one acknowledges Christ or not we are made in God’s image. We are made to commune with Him and therefore with each other through Him. A central part of that communion is the male/female synergy. Counterfeit money destroys the integrity of the entire currency. Counterfeit marriage destroys the integrity of both the social marriage contract and debases the reality of marriage as God instituted it. God’s call for repentance and return to Him is for all of us. If we do not care about the salvation of others, we lack the essential charity necessary to participate fully in our own salvation.
My faith isn’t going to help her…my bishop pointing out Orthodox principles on homosexuality is completely worthless to me and her. Long time ago, I checked out of the dialogue. Let them do what they need to…it isn’t my life. Billy Joel song…..
Contrast the purveyors of the mind of the world with Galatians 5. If our faith does not impact other people, then it is of no use. If the Church is not prophetic in word and deed, then we will be thrown on the dung hill—cast out. Just as we are not autonomous individuals, neither is our faith nor our union with Christ life-giving to us alone. Remember St. Seraphim’s dictum: “Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved.” Also see the story of the paralytic that was read at Liturgy a couple of weeks ago. The man’s sins were forgiven and he was healed because of the faith of his friends who brought him to Christ.
As far as Fr. Hans…. where the good priest is wrong…. The church doesn’t need to set all the rules the state needs to set. The state’s rules may have a basis in other forms of law or social reasoning; not only Christianity. When one religion dominates the laws of the state, the laws can become dangerous. Look what the Iranians do to gays, for example. This notion of the Bible is the basis for all law is rather silly; juvenile even. I’m sorry; it is hard to say, but you know I’m correct. There are laws governing interest….Mitt Romney makes and made millions on interest earnings. What does the Bible say about interest? Is Mitt horrible because he made money against Biblical teachings? Now the only reason I’m going down that road is because you seem to find it so easy to label my thought processes on a political position when it is convenient. I understand interest and I’m not certain the Bible got it right, or we got the interpretation right. I’m bifurcated; completely split in two because I think the bluegill limits don’t need to reflect on Christian values to be set correctly….I’m going to need to be dismissive again…. Oh well.
Laws are not the issue at all as St. Seraphim’s quote alludes to. It is a hallmark of our dualistic, materialistic age that we seek comfort and order in laws rather than in the law-giver, our Creator. (You admit that you are bifurcated). It is about the Truth of who we are, how we are made and how we, and others, can move into greater union with God. I am saddened by my own sins that keep me in a darkness of my own making. I am equally saddened when I see the darkness surrounding others. I am moved to resistance when others out of hate, confusion and ignorance wish to destroy that through which we can know life. Certainly, not all good law comes exclusively from the Bible or what are recognized as Biblical principals, but if it violates those principals, revealed to us by God, the law will be destructive. The more laws reflect the reality of who we are, how we are made to interact with one another in community, culture and society, the better those laws will be. Nevertheless, in order to have good law, we must become a virtuous people, I must become a virtuous man (whole lot of work there believe me). Mercy should always season justice. The call must always be to repentance and salvation not to judgement and condemnation. However, if I or anyone else refuses to repent, the natural consequences will occur. If I or anyone else not only refuses to repent but demands that no one should because there is nothing for which to repent, that is destructive and must be countered.
Whether you will hear it or not, homosexual behavior is destructive to both the soul and the body of those who participate in it. Allowing and encouraging such behavior is destructive to culture and society and the souls of others. Allowing and encouraging any perverted sexual behavior is destructive too. It is not just homosexuals who are bound by sexual sin. Sexual sin is pervasive in our culture and therefore in all of us. That, however, should not be used as an excuse to wallow even more deeply in that sin or to acquiesce in the sins of others.
As far as the limit on blue gills is concerned, it comes from the same divine command as does the ontological distinctions between male and female: We are to dress and keep the earth. Make it fruitful and sanctify it for God. The male/female synergy that God designed in us and into the rest of His visible creation is a big part of that.
The prohibition against usury in the Bible is based on the fact that God provides. Once again the male-female synergy is a big part of that provision.
PdnNJ, natural law. The plumbing tells us something.
Fr. Hans: All I know for sure is that I wouldn’t want the brakes on my car rebuilt by a mechanic who didn’t know how to assembly the parts correctly.
test
Daniel, please provide a citation for your claim that Met. Jonah said that there was a “lavender mafia” out to get him. He has been reported as saying some group of people is out to get him, but to my knowledge he has never connected this to a “lavender mafia”.
According to Stokoe, Met. Jonah did say that there was a group of people who intended to replace him. As far as I know, though, the Metropolitan has never called them a lavender mafia. From what I read at OCAN, they were merely a group of people who took issue with Met. Jonah actually doing his job (instead of leaving it to this group of would-be prokurors).
Has Met. Jonah ever said health care should be for the wealthy? Never. Has he ever criticized helping the poor? Absolutely not. Will the Holy Synod speak out about health care? What makes you think that’s not in the works?
But at this point, I’m willing to bet that Met. Jonah, after a few years living in DC, knows better than to trust the federal government with the sacred work of ministering to the poor. We’re talking about the same goverment that gave us Amtrak, for crying out loud.
You said your wife used birth control to prevent having a baby with Down Syndrome. The clear implication is that a person with Down Syndrome is less valuable.
I didn’t say women should not use birth control. I said that there are other birth control options that, unlike the IUD, do not kill children. There are parameters within which birth control can be used by Orthodox Christians. However, it must be remembered that these are supposed to be grave circumstances.
However, an IUD can kill a child
A vasectomy prevents children from coming into existence, but in the event of failure, would not harm the child. Neither would tubal ligation, or every form of non-hormonal barrier contraception.
IUDs, on the other hand, kill people. Why do you not see the issue here?
How is that hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is nothing more than professing to hold beliefs one does not actually hold. Unless bishops actually reject all birth control while remaining celibate for the SOLE reason of not fathering children, they are not hypocrites.
Number one, with the legality of gay “marriage” in the public sphere, some are taking the opportunity to suggest that the Church should also celebrate them, as if there were anything to celebrate.
Number two, as Christians it is our duty to be concerned about the salvation of the world. When a fringe group redefines “civil rights” around itself to try to force everyone to accept their false relationships as “marriage”, and corrupt our children by divorcing sexuality from its true meaning and purpose, it is entirely the Church’s responsibility to speak up and try to call people back to a godly way of living.
They would care if you overfished, which threatens the natural balance of the ecosystem, as well as the health of the descendants of the fish left behind because of the smaller gene pool.
The government should not be a terror to good works, but to evil. A good government does not have to be a theocracy. St. Paul describes the Roman Empire in very respectful terms in Romans 13, but when a government fails in its responsibilities outlined in that passage, its persecutions and abuses must be opposed.
Metropolitan Jonah may not see a letter as necessary because no one in the Church (at the present time) is saying we need to let the sick and dying fend for themselves. But you could always ask him how he feels instead of bashing him behind his back.
I do agree with you. (Note to self: that wasn’t too difficult, no?)
Helga, I may have made a leap connecting the small group and the words lavender mafia. I don’t know the basis for that connection, although I’m certain I saw it printed somewhere as I’m not in the business of make believe.
As for the group out to get him. I think what really happened is Garklavs thought it was his job to report if the Metropolitan made any missteps in the SMPAC report. If not, then why was it so important to the Metropolitan noone ever see the report? He doesn’t suggest it be for legal or privacy concerns, etc. I think the church suffered from a classic problem. When Garklavs is reporting on his boss; he has been put in an untenable position….conflict of interest. It was probably more than that, unfortunately, the printed facts are the loudest.
I refuse to continue further dialogue with you. It is clear you are always correct. The church doesn’t set fishing laws, though, and never will. I originally somewhere here stated the church wouldn’t have gay marriage and it was someone’s nightmare, but you suggest someone is trying to get the church to do it-I didn’t ever hear about that really happening, did you?. And, no, it isn’t the churches place to save the world-sorry, that isn’t how it goes… And sometimes the Metropolitan is worthy of public rebuke; especially when actions taken are hurtful and offensive and on one side of the political football all the darn time. You can have the last word, I’m sure you will
Daniel,
The SMPAC report not seeing the light of day was more a result of a proven pattern of scapegoating by Garklavs of the Metropolitan. It was also more a case of if that report saw the light of day it would open the OCA to a real chance of legal repercussions. Thus, the printed facts did speak the loudest, too loud to be made public because they were created in an atmosphere of trying to prove the “gravely troubled” label pronounced by the a certain protopresbyter.
Was the Metropolitan always correct? No. Were any possible errors worthy of such underhanded actions by Garklavs? Well, in the new OCA it is clear that the Chancellor does not work for the Metropolitan but for the MC who actually hires him. In such a continuing atmosphere, there is now an chancery atmosphere in which the Chancellor has the upper hand. The Metropolitan either gets along with the Chancellor or he is either marginalized if he objects or simply gives in and lets the Chancellor run things.
Therefore, pretty much nothing has changed in the OCA except we have had two chancellors and interim chancellor who together do not have the experience that the last real chancellor had. Now, I know all the anti-Kondratick forces will rise up and say NEY. But consider this, is the OCA better off now than it was 10 years ago? Are we in better shape or worse? Kondratick was a strong chancellor. Some argue too strong, but we have not found as effective replacement and we are suffering in our inter-church relations.
It is a just a matter of time before there will be another showdown between the Chancellor of the MC and the Metropolitan.
And, you may wish to check into the battle now taking place inside the Contemporary Issue committee of the Strategic Plan over the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage. You might find this informative.
Finally, I am not sure how the Metropolitan’s actions were hurtful and offensive. Would you explain?
The actions of writing and requiring Liturgical reading of the pastoral letter regarding homosexuality were hurtful and offensive because they were uncalled for… Helga has tried to wiggle away from the Stokoe angle, but everyone appreciates a different perspective when they prefer. Most people I know found the letter unusual and unusually placed. I understand the echo chamber here thinks it is just peachy. Most everyone knows of someone who is gay; the Metropolitan could have chosen alcoholism for the subject and people would have received it better. Most people in MN and WI really don’t care about the laws of New York either.
It might be hard for people to hear the words I’m saying; I’m telling you the letter was not well received by a good number of people because it wasn’t needed. It came at the same time Stokoe was removed, and Stokoe’s work to bring some fiduciary reasonableness to Syosset was appreciated by many.
It was sort of an outing of grand proportion… I know it made some giddy with joy, but many people really understand how socially inept this kind of thing is at the end of the day.
Ah yes Daniel – time to break out another box of tissue for you.
I do hope you eventually recover from the deep hurt and offense you’ve been forced to endure… perhaps Mr. Fall you might want to seek intensive psycho-therapy before you slip into PTSD? Or is it already to late??? Is there a charity that nurtures the wounded inner-child of mid-west rednecks too which I might donate?
Truly a tragic situation.
Maybe he can be forced to go to SLI?
The Lavender guys continually hit neanderthals like us who actually believe the moral tradition has something to say about homosexuality with all the usual epithets: closed-minded, homophobic, socially inept etc., thinking that their invective actually carries moral weight.
But ever notice that they can’t ever let the issue go? It’s the only thing they really care about. They always come back to it.
The Lavenders believe the Church rises and falls depending on whether or not we pretend that homosexual behavior should be morally acceptable. Why don’t they become Episcopalian and spare us their grief? The Episcopalians have already settled the question to their liking.
rrr
Another assumption from Daniel: The state should do the job of the Church by ‘giving’ (money taken by force) health care to the poor. So many lies, faulty assumptions and other malodorous matter involved in that little sentance as to leave me breathless.
Another assumption from Michael: The church should do the job of providing health care for the poor.
Work that into your annual budget for 2013 and get back to me with how the council responded and how many policies you picked up…
test
fasdadfff
THAT is the assumption, Mr. Fall?
I don’t think so.
The real question is, and will be, whether each of us will find ourselves in a flock of sheep on That Day, or in a herd of goats.
Where do you see yourself?
How is having the government pick up the tab any better, Daniel? The government doesn’t have infinite money. There is already a crippling national debt. You are just shifting the burden to your descendants. Your grandchildren’s grandchildren will be stumbling under the weight.
The well runs out, eventually. And one must find another well, either near or far from the old well. Where is the other well that the government will have to go to when the current well runs out? More to the point – what is going to supply the new well?
I don’t get why we think feeding the hungry, etc. is to be “institutional”. I think most American Christians, Orthodox included, simply never involve themselves personally in any of the “causes” they regularly debate about on blogs like this.
What would it look like if every Christian spent even just an hour or two a week personally involved in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.?
We don’t do it precisely because we expect government to take care of it for us (since they have confiscated our earnings ostensibly for that purpose), or we expect “the Church” to do something, presumably in a parish council meeting, as Mr. Fall has sarcastically suggested.
Are either of those “scenarios” the response that Jesus is expecting? It does seem rather important since the criteria He gave as to who will be designated a sheep and who will be a goat could be described as actually getting our hands dirty and not just having academic conversations about it or throwing money at it via taxes or a pledge envelope during Divine Liturgy on a Sunday morning like this one.
The state has exactly zero interest in feeding the poor and the fact that many purport to do so is merely becuase of a sanitized Christianity. Ronda is right. Next time any of us sees a poor person, don’t pass by on the other side–feed them. The list in Matthew is quite clear.
Do not forget that Christianity is an intimate and personal struggle that we undertake together with our Lord, the saints and the angels. It is not something that we can fob off on someone else.
Oh, the key is not to run here and report what you have done. What was it Mary said: “Let it be done unto me according to your word.”
BTW if you thing that the politicians who constantly demogouge the issue of the ‘poor’ have any real interest in them, you are deluded. The poor are merely cannon fooder to keep the polis in power and luxury. The vast majority of federal programs merely insitutionalize the problems and the managers of the programs have every incentive to grow the problem so they still have jobs and a power base.
Don’t forget that the hardcore homeless problem was created by the government declaring impaired people had the ‘right’ not to be institutionalized and cared for.