Fr. John Whiteford's News, Comments, & Reflections

The Approaching 5th Anniversary of Reconciliation

2012-01-25T21:23:00.000-06:00

Patriarch Alexei of Moscow, and Metropolitan Laurus

Next Sunday (February 5th n.s.) is the commemoration of the New Martyrs of Russia, and this year will mark the 5th anniversary of the reconciliation between between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia.

Here is a homily I gave on the Sunday of Orthodoxy Vespers, sponsored by the Orthodox Clergy Association of Southeast Texas, March 16, 2008, the day of Metropolitan Laurus repose. I had been asked to talk about the significance of the reconciliation which had happened the previous May, but the passing of one of the two persons most responsible for that taking place put things into a very different light:

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/houston/houclergy_001_pc.mp3

Review: A Practical Handbook for Divine Services

2012-01-22T16:09:00.000-06:00

I recently finished reading "A Practical Handbook for Divine Services" by Fr. Gregory Woolfenden. This is a book that is primarily written for the benefit of priests and deacons, and gets into the details of how the services are actually done on a level that you usually do not find in service books or books on the rubrics of the services. The practice it reflects is largely the same as what is typically found in ROCOR, but there are differences. The author is a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, serving in Great Britain, and is based on material published in Russian which is published by the Moscow Patriarchate. Nevertheless, in those areas where there are differences, it is useful to be aware of other practices that are out there, and in most cases, the practices are essentially the same. This book fills a gap in the material that has been available in English. I hope that one day we will see something like this published from someone who details the practices found in ROCOR in a similar fashion, or perhaps a future edition of this book that enhances the footnotes in that direction (though the footnotes are quite extensive as it is). I found it very helpful myself, just to review some of the fine points, and where the book differs from what I have seen, it has prompted me to ask questions of other clergy to see what is normally done in their experience.

As Bishop Jerome says, when speaking of various liturgical differences, there are seven ways to do everything, and there are seven ways to do each of the seven ways. A book that detailed all of these variation might be a bit cumbersome, but at least you will find one of the seven ways laid out in detail in this book. Diversity of liturgical practice is a healthy thing, but hopefully this book will help fight differences that are just matters of sloppiness or ignorance.

Laymen who are interested in better understanding the services will also benefit from this book. The services function on many different levels, and this book will help the laity better understand a dimension of the services that often happens out of their view. A great deal of the symbolism of the services are found in the liturgical actions of the clergy, and all Orthodox Christians should seek to better understand them.

St. Innocent of Rome on the Death Penalty

2012-01-20T23:02:00.000-06:00

St. Innocent I, Pope of Rome (ca. 405):

"It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister (Romans 13:1-4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority." Ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, PL 20,495.

Lazar Puhalo spouts blatant heresy... again

2012-01-15T18:53:00.000-06:00

We have already noted Lazar Puhalo's advocacy of transgenderism, homosexuality, and his hostility to the Old Testament, but now he has espoused a new heresy. In his latest video, at about the 13:00 minute mark, he states that the Bible is "a book that was written by men that was sometimes inspired by God and Sometimes not." This is an incredible statement.

St. Paul, on the other hand was of the opinion that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

One has to wonder how long the OCA will allow him to present himself as a retired OCA bishop, and thumb his nose at the Tradition of the Church.

The Inerrancy of Scripture

2012-01-14T00:27:00.000-06:00

Recently, in a lecture given by Fr. Thomas Hopko, which has been posted on Ancient Faith Radio, Fr. Thomas made an argument very similar to things I have heard him say previously. He asserted that the Bible is full of contradictions, but that this is no big deal for us as Orthodox Christians, because we don't have to worry about how to reconcile them. As an example of such contradictions -- in fact the clearest example, according to Fr. Thomas -- he pointed out that the four Gospels all have different inscriptions on the Cross of Christ. Here are what the four Gospels actually record:

"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew 27:37)

"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark 15:26)

"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke 23:38)

"JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John 19:19)

And he concludes his comments on this question with the statement "So much for historical accuracy."

Does this example prove that the Bible contradicts itself or is in error? No. For one thing, if someone gives an approximate quotation of something, and another person gives a more precise quotation, and these two quotations essentially agree, but the more precise quote provides more detail, have they contradicted each other? No... they have corroborated each other.

If someone asked you to tell them about one of your parents, you would probably tell a series of stories, and in those stories there would be no doubt some quotations. The stories would probably not be in chronological order, and the quotations would probably not all be exactly verbatim. Now would it be just or fair if someone who knew that parent jumped up and called you a liar or a spreader of misinformation because your stories were not chronological, or because your quotations were approximate quotations? No. You had no intention of providing a precise chronology, or to provide a Dictaphone account. You were asked to tell what your parent was like, and you did so, selecting the most meaning stories that communicated who they were, and providing quotes that were substantively accurate.

A parent's obituary may be true and their child's recollections may also be true. The obituary may be more precise and more strictly chronological, but the child's recollections are not less true... in fact they tell you a lot more about the person. An obituary has one purpose and the remembrances a child may share have another purpose.

The Gospels do not have the intention of providing a strict chronology, they have the intention of telling us who Jesus Christ was, what he did, and what all that means. If they fulfill that intention accurately, to hold up standards that they did not intend to fulfill is wherein lies the error.

Aside from all of that, we are told in two of the Gospels that the inscription on the Cross was written in three languages: Greek, Hebrew, and Latin:

"And an inscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke 23:38)

"Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin" (John 19:20).

Furthermore, we are told who wrote the inscription -- Pontius Pilate (John 19:22).

Now if Pontius Pilate wrote this inscription in three languages, we can be sure that he was not equally conversant in all three languages. There would have been very little reason for him to have mastered Hebrew or Aramaic, for example. Therefore, it is quite likely that the three inscriptions were not precise translations of each other. Gleason Archer, in his book "The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties", suggests the following texts (which I am putting in English, though he puts them in Aramaic, Latin and Greek, respectively) based on a number of factors he details:

Aramaic: This is Jesus, King of the Jews.
Latin: This is the King of The Jews
Greek: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

I cite this, not because there is any way we can be sure that this is how the inscription was actually written, but simply to point out that there are number of plausible ways to explain the differences we find in the Gospels, and there is absolutely no basis for taking something like this, and dismissing the historical accuracy of the Gospels.

There are two basic problems with making the concession that the Scriptures contain actual errors:

1. The Fathers never make such a concession. You will never find a single Father of the Church that concedes that there are real errors or real contradictions in the Scriptures. When they encounter things that on surface appear to be contradictions on some level, they always explain how they are not contradictory rather than concede that they are real contradictions.

2. Once you go down that road, it does not stop with inconsequential errors. If you have followed some of the recent discussions about homosexuality that have been going on, particularly within the OCA, you will see that people are suggesting that St. Paul was a misogynist 1st century Jew, who had a limited understanding of sex in general and homosexuality in particular, and so perhaps some of his statements on the subject just got it wrong, or perhaps we was only talking about homosexuality in negative terms because he associated it with paganism. Had he only understood what a loving committed homosexual relationship could be, perhaps he might have come down differently on the question. This is the fruit of those who teach that the Scriptures are full of contradictions.

This is also a fundamental denial of the real inspiration of the Scriptures. If the Scriptures really are entirely inspired by God, then by that very fact, no error could be contained in it, because God does not err. If you allow that the Scriptures contain real err, then you are allowing that the Scriptures are not completely inspired, and then the question is, what parts are inspired, and what parts are not.

Now, we have to ask: In what sense the Scriptures are inerrant? The Scriptures contain quotes from the Devil, which are not truth, but truly quoted. There are differences between passages of Scripture that are not contradictory, but provide different details.

We believe that Scripture does not contain any error in anything that it intends to convey. I think St. Augustine put it about as well as anyone has:

"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it" (Letter to St. Jerome, 1:3).

St. Gregory Nazianzus also wrote;

“We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation” (NPNF2-07 St.Gregory Nazianzen, Oration II: In Defence of His Flight to Pontus, and His Return, After His Ordination to the Priesthood, with an Exposition of the Character of the Priestly Office , ch. 105, NPNF2, p.225).

The Fathers would never attribute error to Scripture, but unlike the Fundamentalist Protestants, they did not feel the need to be able to explain everything in Scripture. There are questions one can ask about Scripture, particularly with reference to apparent contradictions, and affirm that the Scriptures are without error, but not claim to know with any certainty how to explain a given problem.

That the Scriptures are the inspired word of God is a faith affirmation for which we can give reasons and evidence, but which is incapable of empirical verification of falsification. And so for example, I do not have to reconcile Genesis 1-2 with the current science of the day. I can try, but since I am not inerrant, my conclusions on that may or may not be accurate. But I can confess with St. Augustine that "...if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it." The Truth of Scripture does not depend on my ability to fully comprehend it, but to be faithful to the Orthodox Tradition I must confess that the Scriptures are fully inspired, without error, and that it is I who need to be corrected by the Scriptures, rather than the Scriptures that need to be corrected by me.

Now some contemporary Orthodox writers accuse anyone who says that the Scriptures are without error of being Protestant and/or Fundamentalist. The problem with this claim is that the position these people espouse has no basis in the Orthodox Tradition, but rather is itself a position taken wholly and uncritically from Protestant Liberalism... and Protestant liberalism and Protestant fundamentalism both have much more in common with each other than either has with the Orthodox Tradition.

As St. John of Kronstadt put it:

"When you doubt the truth of any person or event described in Holy Scripture, then remember that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” as the Apostle says and is therefore true, and does not contain any imaginary persons, fables, and tales, although it includes parables, which everyone can see are not true narratives, but are written in figurative language. The whole of the word of God is single, entire, indivisible truth; and if you admit that any narrative, sentence, or word is untrue, then you sin against the truth of the whole of Holy Scripture and its primordial truth, which is God Himself. “I am the truth,” said the Lord; “Thy word is truth,” said Jesus Christ to God the Father. Thus, consider the whole of the Holy Scripture as truth; everything that is said in it has either taken place or takes place (St. John of Kronstadt, My Life in Christ, trans. E. E. Goulaeff (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1994) p. 70).

I should also state that I respect Fr. Thomas Hopko. I have heard him say things that were so insightful that I have regularly quoted him to others. However, I could not disagree with him more on this question.

Two sermons on the need to study the Scriptures

2012-01-12T05:28:00.000-06:00

The Patience and Comfort of the Scriptures (Romans 15:4), given on 7/31/2011.

Rich man / Poor man (Colossians 3:16), given some time in 2010.

The Very Most Retired "Archbishop" rants again

2012-01-05T06:59:00.001-06:00

I've mentioned this odd man and his odd views previously. In his most recent rant on YouTube he makes a number of ridiculous statements. He begins by talking about recent examples of the abuse of women in the Islamic world, but then quickly shifts into an attack on the Scriptures and the historic Christian view of morality.

He asserts that women were not legal persons until the 1930's and were not allowed to manage their own property previously. Women in the United States gained the right to vote in 1920, with the passage of the 19th amendment to the Constitution. Most adult women gained the right to vote in the United Kingdom in 1918, and all who were 21 and older gained it in 1928. And it is simply untrue that women were not seen a legal persons prior to that time, nor is it true that they had no right to manage their own property prior to that time.

Puhalo also asserts that the treatment of women in Islamic countries -- such as the torture of a child bride whose in-laws were attempting to force her into prostitution -- was not much different than the way women were treated in the Old Testament. He asserts, for example that a woman who was raped in a city was put to death, and a woman who is raped elsewhere was charged with adultery. Here is the actual passage in question:

“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you" (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

First of all, it should be noted that this passage does not say anything about a woman who is raped being put to death. It speaks of a woman who is betrothed to one man, but who has sex with another man in a city. The question of whether she was raped or not is the question that this law addresses, and it says that if she resists, she was being raped, and so is innocent, but if she does not resist, she was not being raped.

This is made clear by what follows those verses:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

Note that this passage says nothing about the woman being charged with adultery. It says "You shall do nothing to the young woman, because she is innocent, just as in the case of person who is innocently murdered. Now you might ask about other scenarios, such as a man you gags a woman in a city and rapes her with a knife to the throat... this law lays out some general principles, but obviously there are always exceptional cases that change the picture, and both Jewish and Christian tradition are full of discussions about such exceptions... and so there is no reason to believe that additional facts that pointed to the woman's innocence would be ignored.

What laws like these definitely accomplished is that they prevented women from being put to death when they clearly had been raped, unlike what you find in Islamic law.

Puhalo then goes on to rant in his support of transgenderism. No one has suggested that when you have people who are born with phyical abnormalities that they should be denied corrective surgery. What has been denied is the idea that a man who believes he is trapped inside a woman's body, or vice versa should have a sex change operation.

Once again, here are the conclusions of the Russian Orthodox Church on the matter:

Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one's belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one's sex (transsexuality). One's desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one's further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

Transsexuality should be distinguished from the wrong identification of the sex in one's infancy as a result of doctors' mistake caused by a pathological development of sexual characteristics. The surgical correction in this case is not a change of sex.

One has to wonder how long the OCA will allow a "retired Archbishop" to rant publicly against the teachings of the Church and the Scriptures, without some sanction.

The other talks from the 2011 St. Herman's Conference, Houston, TX

2012-01-02T14:57:00.000-06:00

1). The Life Beyond:A talk by Fr. Dcn. Innokenty Reichert on the Orthodox view of death,
given on 12/24/2011.

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/stherman2011/talk_death.mp3

2). On the Study of Holy Scripture: A talk by Fr. John Whiteford on why and how we should study the Scriptures,given on 12/25/2011.

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/stherman2011/bible_talk.mp3

The handout that is mention is essentially the same as what is found here:

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2009/01/simple-approach-to-reading-entire-bible.html

The Bible Gateway is here: http://bible.gospelcom.net/

And the Church Fathers online can be found here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

3). Title: The History of Ss. Constantine and Helen Orthodox Church in Galveston, Texas: A talk by Mimo Milosevich on the history of the second oldest Orthodox Church in the lower 28 states on the U.S., given on 12/26/2011. You also hear comments from Fr. Serge Veselinovich, the rector of the parish.

http://www.saintjonah.org/podcasts/stherman2011/galveston_talk.mp3

The article that Mimo Milosevich mentions is posted here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theoclitos_%28Triantafilides%29

You can see photos from the conference here:

http://chicagodiocese.org/stherman11.html

Bishop Peter (Loukianoff)'s remembrances of St. John of Shanghai

2011-12-27T02:15:00.000-06:00

Bishop Peter (Louikianoff) gave this talk on December 26th, 2011 at the very end of the St. Herman's conference here in Houston:St. Herman's Conference 2011, Houston TX:

Remembrance of St. John of Shanghai

He alludes to an essay he wrote on the same subject in 1991, which you can read here:

http://www.roca.org/OA/108/108e.htm

Handel's Messiah as an aid to Scripture Memorization

2011-12-21T06:35:00.002-06:00

Handel's Messiah is a classic oratorio that consists almost entirely of passages of Scripture put to music. It tells the story of the two comings of Christ from the Old Testament prophecies, to the final consummation of all things. Listening to this is a great way to memorize some of the most important passages of Scripture.Most people are familiar with the Hallelujah Chorus, but that chorus has much more meaning when heard in the context of the entire composition.

The best CD version that I am familiar with is by the London Philharmonic Choir and Orchestra, which can be ordered here:

http://www.amazon.com/Messiah-George-Frideric-Handel/dp/B000062T9E

Here are a few examples on Youtube:

Here are the actual lyrics:

Handel's MessiahGeorge Frederic Handel (1695-1759)

Part I

(1) Overture

(2) Comfort Ye

Isaiah 40:1-3
1. Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. 2. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned. . . .
3. The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

(3) Every Valley

Isaiah 40:4
4.Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low, the crooked straight, and the rough places plain.

(4) And the Glory of the Lord

Isaiah 40:5
5. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together:for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

(5) Thus saith the Lord

Haggai 2:6,7
6. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts; Yet once, a little while and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; 7. And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come
Malachi 3:1 1. The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:Behold, He shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts.

(6) But who may abide the Day of His Coming?

Malachi 3:2
2. But who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner's fire.

(7) And He shall Purify

Malachi 3:3
3. And He shall purify the sons of Levi. . . that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

(8) Behold A Virgin Shall Conceive

Isaiah 7:14 (Matthew 1:23)
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name EMMANUEL, God with us.

(9) O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion

Isaiah 40:9
9. O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up into the high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, and be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
Isaiah 60:1
1. Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee.

(10) For behold, darkness shall cover the earth

Isaiah 60:2,3
2. For, behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. 3. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

(11) The people that walked in darkness

Isaiah 9:2 (Matthew 3:16)
2. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
For unto Us a Child is born
Isaiah 9:6
6. For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

(13) Pastoral Symphony

(14) There were shepherds abiding in the field

Luke 2:8
8. There were shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. Luke 2:9
9. And lo! the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

(15) And the Angel said unto them

Luke 2:10,11
10. And the angel said unto them, Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

(16) And suddenly there was with the Angel

Luke 2:13
13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

(17) Glory to God

Luke 2:14
14. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

(18) Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion

Zechariah 9:9,10 (Matthew 21:5)
9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee. He is the righteous Savior. . 10. . . And he shall speak peace unto the heathen.

(19) Then shall the eyes of the blind

Isaiah 35:5,6
5. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing.

(20) He shall feed his flock like a shepherd

Isaiah 40:11
11. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; and he shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
Matthew 11:28, 29 28. Come unto [Him], all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and [He shall]give you rest. 29. Take [his] yoke upon you, and learn of [Him]; for [he is] meek and lowly of heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

(21) His yoke is easy

Matthew 11:30
30. [His] yoke is easy, and [his]burden is light.

Part II

(22) Behold the lamb of God

John 1:29
29.Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.
(23) He was despised
Isaiah 53:3
3. He is despised and rejected of men: a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. . . Isaiah 50:6 [He]gave [His] back to the smiters, and [His] cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: [He] hid not [His] face from shame and spitting.

(24) Surely He hath borne our griefs

Isaiah 53:4,5
4. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. . . . 5. . . He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:the chastisement of our peace was upon him,

(25) And with His stripes we are healed

Isaiah 53:5b
5. and with His stripes we are healed

(26) All we like sheep have gone astray

Isaiah 53:6
6. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

(27) All they that see him laugh him to scorn

Psalm 22:7
7. All they that see [him]laugh [him] to scorn: they shoot out their lips, they shake their heads, saying:

(28) He trusted in God

Psalm 22:8 (Matthew 27:43)
8. He trusted [in God] that he would deliver him:let him deliver him, if he delight in him.

(29) Thy rebuke hath broken His heart

Psalm 69:20
20. [Thy] rebuke hath broken [his] heart; [He is] full of heaviness. [He]looked for some to have pity [on Him], but there was none; neither found [He] any to comfort [Him].

(30) Behold, and see if there be any sorrow

Lamentations 1:12
12. Behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto [his] sorrow. . .

(31) He was cut off out of the land of the living

Isaiah 53:8b
8. he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of [Thy] people was He stricken.

(32) But Thou didst not leave His soul in hell

Psalm 16:10 (Acts 2:27)
10. [But] thou [didst] not leave [his] soul in hell; neither [didst]thou suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption.

(33) Lift up your heads, O ye gates

Psalm 24:7-10
7. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. 8. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. 9. Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of Glory shall come in. 10. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory.

(34) Unto which of the angels said He at any time

Hebrews 1:5 (Psalm 2:7)
5. For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?

(35) Let all the angels of God worship Him

Hebrews 1:6b
6. "Let all the angels of God worship Him."

(36) Thou art gone up on high

Psalm 68:18 (Ephesians 4:8)
18. Thou art gone up on high, Thou hast led captivity captive, and received gifts for men; yea, even for Thine enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them.

(37) The Lord gave the word

Psalm 68:11
11. The Lord gave the word: great was the company of [the preachers].

(38) How beautiful are the feet

Romans 10:15 (Isaiah 52:7)
15. How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

(39) Their sound is gone out

Romans 10:18 (Psalm 19:4)
18. their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words unto the ends of the world.

(40) Why do the nations so furiously rage together?

Psalm 2:1,2 (Acts 4:25-26)
1. Why do the heathen rage, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? 2. The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Anointed,

(41) Let us break their bonds asunder

Psalm 2:3
3. Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yokes from us.

(42) He that dwelleth in heaven

Psalm 2:4
4. He that dwelleth in the heavens shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in derision.

(43) Thou shalt break them

Psalm 2:9
9. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

(44) Hallelujah

Revelation 19:6
6. Hallelujah! for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Revelation 11:15 15. . . the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ: and He shall reign for ever and ever. Revelation 19:16 16. . . . KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS.

Part III

(45) I know that my redeemer liveth

Job 19:25, 26
25. I know that my redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand on the latter day upon the earth: 26. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. 1Corinthians 15:20
20. [For] now is Christ risen from the dead. . . the firstfruits of them that [sleep].

(46) Since by man came death

1Corinthians 15:21,22
21. Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

(47) Behold I tell you a mystery

1Corinthians 15:51,52
51. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep; but we shall all be changed, 52. In a moment, in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet;

(48) The trumpet shall sound

1Corinthians 15:52b-53
52. the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

(49) Then shall be brought to pass

1Corinthians 15:54b (Isaiah 25:8)
54. then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, 'Death is swallowed up in victory.'

(50) O death where is thy sting?

1Corinthians 15:55-56 (Hosea 13:14)
55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory? 56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

(51) But thanks be to God

1 Corinthians 15:57 57. But thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(52) If God be for us

Romans 8:31, 33, 34
31. If God be for us, who can be against us? 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is at the right hand of God, who makes intercession for us.

(53) Worthy is the Lamb

Revelation 5:12, 13
12. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. 13. . . . Blessing, and honour, glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. Amen.

Does God care how we worship?

2011-12-19T20:46:00.000-06:00

Homily on Leviticus 10:1-7: Does God care how we worship? Given 12/18/2011.And to see what I am referring to, check out these videos:Tekno Mass:Halloween Mass:Clown Masses, and worse:Rock Concert worship:Christmas Eve Service at the Fellowship of the Woodlands:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2011-12-19T20:00:00.001-06:00

A sermon on the First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me", given on 12/11/2011 n.s.

Homily on the Feast of the Prophet Malachi

2011-12-14T19:24:00.002-06:00

A homily on the Feast of the Prophet Malachi, January 3/16, 2011. The sermon covers the highlights of the book of Malachi, including having a proper attitude towards worship, divorce, tithing, and the coming of the Forerunner.

Woe unto them that call evil "good:"

2011-12-12T20:16:00.002-06:00

Sermon given on St. Mary of Egypt Sunday, April 10th, 2011, on the refusal to recognize sin for it is.

The Religion of Peace Strikes Again... thanks to the help of the Obama administration

2011-12-11T15:10:00.001-06:00

Arab spring... Christian nightmare.

2012 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar back from the printers, and ready to ship

2011-12-09T21:28:00.001-06:00

The 2012 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar is back from the printer. For those who have pre-ordered, you should be getting your copy soon. If you want to order a copy, click here: http://stinnocentpress.com/products/liturgical_calendar.html

We have added some new features in response to feedback from last years calendar, and we have a new appendix on the celebration of Patronal Feasts.

Also, we are posting a draft translation of the Typikon sections that this appendix is based on:

http://www.saintjonah.org/rub/templechapters.pdf

The appendix boils down this information, and presents it in a chart format that should prove useful, and it also includes detailed notes.

2011-12-08T19:27:00.001-06:00

Homily on 2 Kings 4:1-7 & 2 Kings 6:24-7:20, Given on the feast of the Prophet Elisha, 2010.

This sermon actually began with a general introduction to who the Prophet Elisha was, and what his connection with Elijah was, but it got cut in half in the recording, and so this recording begins just after that introduction.

Homily on the Services and Feasts of the Church

2011-12-06T06:21:00.001-06:00

A homily on the Services and Feasts of the Church (mp3).

What does St. Paul mean by "the works of the Law"

2011-11-30T21:12:00.001-06:00

Recently I was asked about a supposed contradiction in the writings of St. Paul.

In Romans 2:13 St. Paul says "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified..."

However, in Galatians 2:16 he says "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

So is there a contradiction here? No.

A doer of the Law is one who actually fulfills the law. But the Law, and the "works of the Law" are not the same thing. St. Paul uses the phrase "the works of the law" only once in Romans, and four times in Galatians.

That St. Paul makes a distinction between the Law and "the works of the Law" is made clear in Romans 9:31f:

"Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law."

Obviously the Law of righteousness is something to attain to, and the works of the law are a means... and a means incapable of attaining the end.

But what do the Fathers say? Again we see the distinction between the moral and ceremonial law of the Old Testament, and they also emphasize the need for faith:

"Some say that if Paul is right in asserting that no one is justified by the works of the law but from faith in Christ, the patriarchs and prophets and saints who lived before Christ were imperfect. We should tell such people that those who are said not to have obtained righteousness are those who believe that they can be justified by works alone. The saints who lived long ago, however, were justified from faith in Christ, seeing that Abraham saw in advance Christ's day." - St. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2:16, Migne PL 26:343C-D, (quoted in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. VIII, p. 30, emphasis added)

"The necessary commandments of the law were taught even by nature. That is, "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, honor your father and mother, and the rest of this kind." But the commandments about the sabbath and circumcision and lepers and menstruation and sacrifice were peculiar to the [Jewish] law, since nature taught nothing about these matters. These are what he now calls works of the law. The transgression of these is sin, yet the mere keeping of them is not the way of maintaining perfect righteousness. For these were symbols of other things. Nonetheless they were appropriate to the Jews in their due time. -Blessed Theodoret, Commentary on Galatians 2:15-16 (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 31)

"Here he begins to demonstrate in what sense the grace of faith is sufficient for justification without the works of the law.... But so that this question may be carefully treated and no one may be deceived by ambiguities, we must first understand that the works of the law are twofold; for they reside partly in ceremonial ordinances and partly in morals. To the ordinances belong the circumcision of the flesh, the weekly sabbath, new moons, sacrifices and all the innumerable observances of this kind. But to morality belong "You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not bear false witness" and so on. Could the apostle possibly not care whether a Christian were a murderer and adulterer or chaste and innocent, in the way that he does not care whether he is circumcised or uncircumcised in the flesh? He therefore is specially concerned with the works that consist in ceremonial ordinances, although he indicates that the others are sometimes bound up with them. But near the end of the letter he deals separately with those works that consist in morals, and he does this briefly, but he speaks at greater length regarding the [ceremonial] works... For nothing so terrifies the mind as a ceremonial ordinance that is not understood. But when it is understood it produces spiritual joy and is celebrated gladly and in due season. It is read and treated only with a spiritual sweetness. Now every sacrament, once understood in this way, is applied either to the contemplation of truth or to good morals. The contemplation of truth is found in the love of God alone, good morals in the love of God and the neighbor, and on these two precepts depend the whole Law and the Prophets." -St. Augustine, Commentary on Galatians 3:2, Migne PL 35:2117, (ACCS, NT, V. VIII, p. 36, emphasis added).

What St. Paul means by the "works of the Law" is the attempt to be justified by works, and in particular by the ceremonial law of the Old Testament, and his point is that we are not saved by works alone, our works must be joined to faith, and that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament is not obligatory for New Testament believers. He does not for one moment suggest that the Moral Law is optional, or that one may violate it with indifference and expect to be saved. Christ said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15). And St. John said "He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:4).

Lutheran Satire

2011-11-14T20:51:00.002-06:00

Some of these videos are incredibly funny....

Just three examples:

For more, click here.

Occupy Wall Street Anthem

2011-10-31T06:11:00.002-05:00

The Continuing Validity of the Moral Law of the Old Testament

2011-10-29T13:34:00.011-05:00

One of the earliest heresies that the Church had to confront was the Marcionite heresy, which taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was evil, whereas the God of the New Testament was good. Consequently Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament, as well as much of the New Testament. The Church decisively rejected Marcion's view, and emphatically affirmed that the Old Testament belongs to the Church.

Since Marcion's time, echos of his disdain for the Old Testament have continued to reverberate. Recently, Lazar Puhalo, has voiced such disdain. Lazar Puhalo was a deacon in ROCOR, who was deposed in 1981. From 1981 until he was received as a "retired" bishop by the OCA, he was in a series of vagante jurisdictions where he was ordained a priest, then a bishop, and then raised to archbishop. He is referred to as a retired OCA bishop, but this gives the false impression that he was once an active OCA bishop, when in reality, he has never been an active priest or bishop of any legitimate Orthodox jurisdiction. However, now that he has the air of legitimacy about him, he has used this platform to promote all sorts of strange ideas, including his view that transgenderism is acceptable. He is a regular contributor to a pro-homosexual Facebook group, where the only views he sees a need to criticize are the views of those who defend the traditions of the Church which condemn homosexuality. It is this advocacy of moral perversion that lies behind his desire to dismiss the moral law of the Old Testament.

In this video, Lazar Puhalo claims that the moral law has been "done away with". He claims, for example, that Christ "absolutely contradicts" the law against breaking the Sabbath, but what do the Fathers say? St. John Chrysostom says "Did Christ then, it will be said, repeal a thing so highly profitable [the laws concerning the Sabbath]? Far from it; nay, He greatly enhanced it" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 39:3). He misquotes Colossians 2:14 as saying "The manuscript of the Law was been torn up". What that passage actually says is "Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross, and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it" (Colossians 2:14-15). In Lazar Puhalo's version, the suggestion is that the text of the Law of Moses is done away with, whereas in the actual citation, it is the sentence against us that is blotted out and nailed to the cross.

Expressing his disdain for the Law, when speaking of the woman caught in adultery, he says that the law called for the woman to be stoned, but for the man to just pay a fine. The law actually called for both the man and the woman to be put to death: "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10).

Of course, there are differences between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant anticipated the New Covenant, and was given to people who were at a very low level of spiritual understanding. The harsh penalties that are often found in the Old Testament law were due to this. St. John Chrysostom, commenting on the law which condemned Sabbath breakers to death, said that it was "Because if the laws were to be despised even at the beginning, of course they would scarcely be observed afterwards" (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 39:3). But while the harsh and immediate penalties for the violation of the law are relaxed in the New Testament, the strictness of the laws themselves are not only not relaxed, but are rather enhanced. Just as you spank younger children, but expect less of them, and expect more of older children, without spanking them, the Old Testament dealt with the Israelites where they were, but brought them gradually to a higher level of spiritual understanding.

St. Paul states clearly the value of the Old Testament:

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And when St. Paul speaks of "doctrine" he does not limit doctrine to abstract theological concepts, but also to question of orthopraxis (right living):

"...that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

It is clear that for St. Paul, applying the moral law of the Old Testament to moral issues, such as fornication or sodomy, is entirely appropriate.

It is true that liturgy of the New Testament has changed. We are not saved by the works of the law, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4) -- it was not possible in the Old Testament, and it is not possible in the New Testament. The saints of the Old Testament were saved by faith in Christ just as the saints of the New Testament are. The Old Covenant Ceremonies pointed forward to Christ, and our services point to the Christ that has been revealed to us. As St. Augustine put it, "The New Testament in the Old is concealed; The Old Testament in the New is revealed." "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry [liturgy], inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises" (Hebrews 8:6). But it should be pointed out that it is in the Old Testament that we first read "The Just shall live by Faith" (Habakkuk 2:4).

St. Paul never suggests that the moral law of the Old Testament is done away with, in fact he states just the opposite: "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law" (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). And what is the Law of Christ? Lazar Puhalo answers this question by citing the two great commandments, but fails to recall that they are found in the Old Testament:

"And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deuteronomy 6:5).

"...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).

There are civil laws and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament that do no longer apply to us directly, though they continue to have instructive value to us. But the moral law of God is unchanging:

"For all things that, according to the Law, went before, whether in the circumcision of the flesh, or in the multitude of victims, or in the keeping of the Sabbath, testified of Christ, and foretold the grace of Christ. And He is “the end of the Law,” not by annulling, but by fulfilling its meanings. For although He is at once the Author of the old and of the new, yet He changed the symbolic rites connected with the promises, because He accomplished the promises and put an end to the announcement by the coming of the Announced. But in the matter of moral precepts, no decrees of the earlier Testament are rejected, but many of them are amplified by the Gospel teaching: so that the things which give salvation are more perfect and clearer than those which promise a Saviour" (Sermon 63:5, St. Leo the Great).

"There are two distinguishable parts in Moses' law: the religious-moral and the national-ceremonial which was closely tied with the history and way of life of the Jewish nation. The second aspect is gone into the past for Christians, that is, the national-ceremonial rules and laws, but the religious-moral laws preserve their force in Christianity. Therefore, all the ten commandments in the law of Moses are obligatory for Christians. Christianity has not altered them. On the contrary, Christianity has taught people to understand these commandments, not externally - literalistically, in the manner of blind, slavish obedience, and external fulfillment, but it has revealed the full spirit and taught the perfect and full understanding and fulfillment of them. For Christians, however, Moses' law has significance only because its central commandments (the ten which deal with love of God and neighbors) are accepted and shown forth by Christianity. We are guided in our life not by this preparatory and temporary law of Moses, but by the perfect and eternal law of Christ. St Basil the Great says, "If one who lights a lamp before himself in broad daylight seems strange, then how much stranger is one who remains in the shadow of the law of the Old Testament when the Gospel is being preached." The main distinction of the New Testament law from that of the Old Testament consists in that the Old Testament law looked at the exterior actions of man, while the New Testament law looks at the heart of man, at his inner motives. Under the Old Testament law, man submitted himself to God as a slave to his master, but under the New Testament, he strives toward submitting to Him as a son submits to a beloved father" (On the Law of God, by Metropolitan Philaret (Voskresensky), Translated by Hieromonk Varlaam Novakshonoff).

The Old Testament allowed some things due to human weakness. For example, divorce for any reason was allowed in the Old Testament. Slavery within certain bounds was allowed in the Old Testament. However, the law did not mandate either. It allowed them. In the New Testament, when Christ confronted the woman caught in adultery, he did not impose the death penalty on her. However, he did not say, "Go, it is a sin no more". He said "Go and sin no more." How did she know what was a sin and what was not a sin? She had the moral law of God to guide her. Christ did not weaken the law on the question of adultery... he enhanced it. It is more strict in the New Testament, not less. And so why would we assume that the New Testament would lessen the law on the question of Homosexuality? There is no basis for doing so... not to mention that the New Testament specifically condemns homosexuality in several places.

Socialist Utopianism confronted with Socialist Reality

2011-10-25T20:48:00.001-05:00

2012 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar

2011-08-22T20:45:00.004-05:00

You can now place your orders for the 2012 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar. In addition to providing liturgical rubrics based on the Jordanville Calendar (Troitskij Pravoslavnij Russkij Kalendar), and the liturgical color chart as with last year's calendar, this year we will be adding an appendix on the celebration of patronal feast days.

The cost is $29.95. Bookstore discounts are available based on the quantity ordered.

To order, and for more information, see: http://www.stinnocentpress.com/products/liturgical_calendar.html

The bottom line in the current debate

2011-08-21T16:32:00.008-05:00

There was a recent exchange on a Pro-Homosexual Facebook group that I think highlights where the rubber meets the road on the debate about homosexuality that is going on in the OCA.

A discussion was prompted by the posting of an editorial by an Antiochian priest that was attempting to be irenic on the subject, but at the same time affirmed the moral stance of the Church. Many of the people in that group found it encouraging. However, Inga Leonova, one of the founders of the group made this statement:

"I think the point of the article is crystal clear even though the author is very careful in actually NOT spelling it out. He addresses the perception that gay people are "persecuted" by the Church in being required to live celibate lives by saying that everyone is called to transform their lives by the ascetic ordeal of Christian life. This is yet again a very clever way of dismissing the question of gay companionship."

One contributor to the group then asked this question:

"?"gay companionship"? What is that, may I humbly ask? Like David and Jonathan? Not sexual? Why call it "gay"? I get so confused on what people are saying in these groups. Forgive me."

Inga has thus far ignored the question. The reason for this is simple. To come right out and say that she meant homosexuals should be allowed to have active sexual relationships with people of the same gender is clearly contrary to the moral Tradition of the Orthodox Church. If the people who hold such views would state them clearly, they would necessarily provoke their bishops to respond firmly in opposition to them. So their strategy is to hint, suggest, and question, at this point. Get the camel's nose into the tent, and allow time and cultural decay to do the rest. They know that they will not have openly homosexual clergy or the blessing of gay marriage today, but they want to start the snowball rolling. However if one needs to use deception to promote a view in the Church, that should tell you that what you are promoting is contrary to the Truth... or dishonesty would not be necessary to promote it.

I have had some experience in dealing with people who struggle with homosexuality, and I know the struggle is very real and difficult for them. I can also understand the temptation to rationalize a justification for a sin that you don't want to give up. Most of us have done it ourselves at one time or another, and just about everyone has had the temptation if they didn't succumb to it. However, while rationalizing away the clear teachings of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church may successfully fool some people, and may even allow you to fool yourself -- God is not fooled. Indeed "God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes" (Ecclesiastes 7:29). And St. Paul warns that we should "not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life (Galatians 6:7-8).

If you really believe in God, and if you really believe that the Orthodox Church is what it claims to be, than you have to be willing to submit to the teachings of the Church, even when they are hard to submit to. And all of us have some area that is hard for us, and presents us with a struggle. If we submit to the teachings of the Church and struggle, even feebly, God will honor that, and we will find grace and mercy. If we thumb our nose at the Church, and refuse correction, we have already separated ourselves spiritually from the Church.

Let us "no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting" (Ephesians 4:14); but rather "seek God, and your soul shall live" (Psalm 68/69:32).

As for the legitimate desire for companionship, I think that a group of Orthodox Jews are on to something. There have have some pious Jewish men who are struggling with homosexuality, and they have some pious Jewish women who are struggling as well. They are matching them up, and encouraging them to marry each other. Each party goes into the marriage aware of the other person's struggles. Both of them obviously have the ability to be supportive and sympathetic, because they have similar struggles. And it seems to be working out pretty well so far. See: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/14/a-different-kind-of-gay-marriage/

No one is saying that they have to live alone. No one is saying that they have to live as celibates for the rest of their lives. They can get married, just like anyone else... to someone of the opposite sex, and hopefully someone who is understanding and supportive. But they cannot engage in sex with people of the same sex, which is inherently in contradiction to the teachings of the Church, and expect the Church to say it is "OK".

A Response to an Open Letter on Homosexuality

2011-08-15T06:04:00.014-05:00

In response to the debate about homosexuality that is currently going on in the OCA, there is now an "Open letter to OCA Holy Synod from college students and young adults" that has been sent to the bishops of the OCA, and is making the rounds on the internet.

This letter is a classic example of the use of politically correct arguments to shut down those whom liberals disagree with, rather then deal with the actual substance of the question. This tactic is not by accident. When you can't deal with the substance of an issue, complaining about the tone of those you can't answer will do, in a pinch.

In short, the letter complains about the tone of those who say homosexuality is a sin, without unequivocally stating what the correct teaching of the Church actually is on the subject. There is no acknowledgment that statements that are morally ambiguous might be of any legitimate concern, only condemnation of those who seek to make clear what the teaching of the Church is.

The Open Letter states that "On public and easily accessible Internet postings, Orthodox clergymen -- including OCA priests -- repeat disgusting and discredited theories about the etiology of same-sex attraction; liken gay people to “old perverted men who love little boys”; tell Orthodox Christians that homosexuality “should make our stomachs turn and make us vomit”; call for “spiritual warfare” against those in the Church who advocate a more restrained pastoral approach; and accuse those who speak up for gay people of being “homosexual activists,” publicly expressing hope that they will leave the Orthodox faith."

Of course, the "more pastoral approach" is from those who openly question the historic position of the Church on the subject. The mean people are the ones that stand for the Tradition of the Church. But if you actually examine the "unpastoral" words that they have in mind, and then compare them to the 4th Homily of St. John Chrysostom on the book of Romans, you will see that St. John Chrysostom was apparently not very pastoral either.

The last line here seems to be in reference to my own words. It is hyperlinked in the original version to an article about Bishop Matthias's letter, and the first comment is my own:

"Everyone should ask their bishops to issue a similar statement… with one additional point that needs to be made very clear: clergy or laity who publicly teach contrary to the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Church — on this or any other issue — should understand that there are canonical disciplinary consequences that will be enforced for the protection of the flock. The job of a shepherd is not just to feed the sheep, but also to chase away the wolves."

Now, this is hardly an expression of hope that people who struggle with homosexuality will leave the Church. This is a very Biblical reference to the Bishop's role as a shepherd of his flock (John 10:1-16; Acts 20:28), and those who would lead the flock astray are often spoken of as "wolves" (Acts 20:29), even "wolves in sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15). The Fathers of the Church likewise use such imagery. St. Gregory Nazianzus wrote:

"..the good shepherd who laid down his life for the sheep has not even now left us; but is present, and tends and guides, and knows his own, and is known of his own, and, though bodily invisible, is spiritually recognized, and defends his flock against the wolves, and allows no one to climb over into the fold as a robber and traitor; to pervert and steal away, by the voice of strangers, souls under the fair guidance of the truth." "Oration XVIII: On the Death of his Father."NFPF2, vol. 7, p. 255f.

St. Didymus the Blind, commenting on Acts 20:28, wrote: "...it not only says that bishops must pay heed to themselves but also to the flock that the Savior acquired by his blood. And just as he will not fall if he is attentive to himself by taking care for both the requisite virtues and his faith... so also he must take care for the flock by turning away from it the wolves who are falsely called apostles and who, being ravenous, live on the ruin of the flock.... Now he turns away these wolves, if he, established by the Holy Spirit to oversee the church, is a good shepherd" (Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 20:28, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, vol. 5, p. 254f).

Of course any verbal image can be pressed too far. Obviously, though we speak of those who would lead the flock astray as wolves, unlike actual wolves, such people can repent, and rejoin the flock as real spiritual sheep. No one wants to see anyone leave the Church, but when a heretic refuses the correction of the Church, he is ultimately caste out of the Church for the sake of the flock, as anyone who has ever listened to the services which commemorate the Holy Fathers of the 7 Ecumenical Councils would know.

The open letter continues: "Words like this can inflict grave spiritual harm, as some of us know from personal experience. Fortunately, many Orthodox Christians who struggle to acknowledge, understand, and deal with homosexual feelings are blessed to encounter wise priests and laypeople who do not resort to abstract moral formulas but counsel them as individual persons."

Apparently saying unequivocally that homosexual sex is a sin is an "abstract moral formula". We have a number of abstract moral formulas in the moral tradition of the Church, for example: "Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Should we toss these out? Of course anytime we deal with a murderer, a thief, or an adulterer, we deal with them as individuals too, but we have to deal with them as individuals based on the "abstract moral formulas" of the Scriptures and the Traditions of the Church.

Open Letter: "Such an approach was endorsed, we believe, by the Holy Synod’s 1992 affirmations."

This letter begins with a quotation from this 1992 "affirmation":

“Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.”

Based on this one quote from that document, you might come away with the impression that what was affirmed by the OCA Synod in 1992 was homosexuality, but this quote is taken out of context entirely.

Let's consider the whole approach of the 1992 OCA Synod's statement on Homosexuality:

Created to know God’s divinity and power through creation, human beings have refused to acknowledge God, to honor and thank Him, and to obey his divine teachings. Through their rebellion "they became futile in their thinking and their senseless hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:21). Therefore, as the apostle Paul continues to teach, "God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Romans 1:26-27).

Homosexual acts, like adulterous and incestuous behavior, are condemned in the law of Moses. Those who do these things, both men and women, are, according to God’s law of the old covenant, to be put to death (Leviticus 18:6-23;20:10-21).

According to the apostle Paul, those engaging in homosexual acts, with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Christians come from all these categories of evil doers who have, voluntarily and involuntarily, been caught up in the sin of the world. They are those who through their personal repentance and faith in Christ, their baptism and chrismation, and their participation in Holy Communion, have been "washed… sanctified… and made righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Orthodox Baptism and Chrismation Service).

Jesus teaches mercy and forgiveness for all sinners, but the Lord does not justify sin. When the Son of God pronounces divine pardon to those caught in evil he always charges the forgiven sinner to "go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

Convinced of these God-revealed truths, we offer the following affirmations and admonitions for the guidance of the faithful:

Homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God, and so against its own nature and well-being. It is not to be taken as a way of living and acting for men and women made in God’s image and likeness.

Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings.

People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.

Persons struggling with homosexuality who accept the Orthodox faith and strive to fulfill the Orthodox way of life may be communicants of the Church with everyone else who believes and struggles. Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them.

Assistance is to be given to those who deal with persons of homosexual orientation in order to help them with their thoughts, feelings and actions in regard to homosexuality. Such assistance is especially necessary for parents, relatives and friends of persons with homosexual tendencies and feelings. It is certainly necessary for pastors and church workers.

So let's see here... "Homosexual acts, like adulterous and incestuous behavior, are condemned in the law of Moses. Those who do these things, both men and women, are, according to God’s law of the old covenant, to be put to death (Leviticus 18:6-23;20:10-21)." This is the more pastoral approach that these young adults wish us to adhere to? And saying that "those engaging in homosexual acts, with fornicators, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and robbers, will not inherit the kingdom of heaven" is not affirming an "abstract moral formula"?

It seems the authors of this open letter only wish to focus on the one statement that "Men and women with homosexual feelings and emotions are to be treated with the understanding, acceptance, love, justice and mercy due to all human beings", which I would of course also agree with, but wish to ignore the rest of the statement, including the admonition that "Those instructed and counselled in Orthodox Christian doctrine and ascetical life who still want to justify their behavior may not participate in the Church’s sacramental mysteries, since to do so would not help, but harm them."

Open Letter: "This is why we find the recent adoption by some in the Orthodox Church of overheated and destructive language from the current secular “culture wars” to be a dangerous departure from Orthodox pastoral tradition."

Me: What is more overheated about the recent statements that is not also found in the 1992 statement which they claim to endorse? The 1992 statement talks about unrepentant homosexuals being put to death in the Old Testament, and not inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven in the age to come. That's putting it pretty bluntly by just about any standard.

Open letter: "It is certainly not our purpose to advocate for “homosexual rights” (none of us has a “right” to salvation), to question Orthodox doctrine, or to justify sinful behavior. Nevertheless, we cannot accept that the only alternative is purging the Church of gay people who, like the rest of us, are endeavoring to live the most godly life they are able to under the guidance of a spiritual advisor. Many for whom these issues are a daily reality are also integral members of our parishes, and their absence would do injury to the Body of Christ."

Of course no one is advocating purging the Church of gay people who are striving to live a godly life. Christ said to the woman caught in adultery "Go, and sin no more" -- not "Go ahead, it is a sin no more." If they want to live a godly life, that of necessity means turning from their sin; and having people who are either mealy-mouthed about whether or not it is a sin, or who outright deny that it is a sin, does not encourage them on that path.

No one is advocating being unsympathetic or unsupportive of those who are actually struggling against homosexuality and are repentant. What is being debated here is whether or not they need to struggle or repent, or whether we just need to be more open minded and understanding, and accept them as they are, with no questions asked... and perhaps the formal blessing of the Church at some more enlightened date in the future.

And if it is not the purpose of the signers of this letter to question Orthodox doctrine, then why do they later talk about a need for a dialogue in search of the truth of the matter?

Our faith compels us to undertake an earnest search for what is true and right, under the guidance of our hierarchs, theologians, and pastors. We implore you to help nurture a spirit of respectful, loving discourse about this issue on the Internet and in our dioceses.

Do we need to undertake an earnest search for what is true and right on the question of pedophilia, spousal abuse, or drunkenness? Should our theologians, hierarchs, and pastors have a respectful dialogue to find what the Church's position is on these issues? No. We might need to talk about how to combat those sins, but there is no discussion necessary about whether or not they are sins in the first place. The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and when it comes to questions of sin, and what we need to do about it, the Church does not need to seek a truth it does not yet know -- we need to humbly submit to the Truth that the Church has always taught, and ever will teach.

I have a few questions for the signers of this open letter:

1. Do you believe that St. Paul was "unpastoral" when he instructed the Church in Corinth to excommunicate a man who was living in sexual immorality, and that they not associate with him until he repented (1 Corinthians 5)?

2. Do you agree with the teachings of St. Paul that those who are practicing homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9)?

3. If you agree that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God, why would you think being unclear about that is a more loving approach to those who struggle with that sin?

A parent sometimes has to say and do things to their children that may hurt their feelings in the short term, but are for their ultimate good. It is not loving to avoid correcting a child. In fact, the Scriptures say that that such a parent hates their children (Proverbs 13:24). They may not feel hate for their children, but the effect is just the same as if they hated their children like their worst enemy and sought to destroy them. True love always "rejoices in the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6), even when the truth hurts a bit on the front end.

Sanctity of Marriage Sunday

2011-08-06T10:48:00.008-05:00

The OCA Cathedral of Washington, D.C. has posted a resolution that they will put forth at the OCA's All-American Council this fall:

Sanctity of Marriage Sunday

WHEREAS the Orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, 2000 years of Church tradition, and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of one man and one woman, and that authentic marriage is blessed by God as a sacrament of the Church; and Whereas neither Scripture nor Holy Tradition blesses or sanctions adultery, fornication, or a union between persons of the same sex;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Sixteenth All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America strongly commends the efforts of Orthodox bishops, clergy, and laity to bear witness to the sanctity of marriage in the public arena; commits the Orthodox Church in America to continued witness and defense of the authentic marriage of one man and one woman; strongly reaffirms the Orthodox Church’s opposition to same sex marriage, and that it does so on theological and moral grounds; and stresses God’s will that marriage be a lifelong commitment, monogamous, and heterosexual;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Sunday in September falling on or after the Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist will be called Sanctity of Marriage Sunday and on this Sunday: an annual letter from our Metropolitan will be read in all OCA Parishes during the Divine Liturgy affirming the Orthodox understanding of marriage; and each parish priest will declare his availability to counsel individuals or couples desiring to be married or already married; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orthodox Church stresses that all persons tempted to act contrary to the Orthodox Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality, and all those who succumb to such temptations, are to be offered pastoral guidance and cared for with the same mercy and love that is bestowed by our Lord Jesus Christ upon all of humanity and that all persons are called by God to grow spiritually and morally toward holiness.

Why do we need this resolution?

— Our culture’s view of marriage over the last few decades has departed from a traditional Christian understanding (Scripture and teachings below), and has especially accelerated in the last two years with the advance of same-sex marriage laws. The District of Columbia and six states–Iowa, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts–have already passed same sex marriage laws. Maryland is planning on voting on it in January, 2012. Do we go and preach the Gospel to all nations or isolate ourselves?

— Some clergy and laity appear to not understand, are not familiar with, or wish to ignore the Church’s clear teaching regarding marriage, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and same sex unions. They may also ask for dialogue. Thankfully, dialogue has already been provided to us over the past 2000 years as can be clearly seen in the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

For more, click here.

The Bible the Church and Homosexuality: Obscurantegesis vs the Truth

2011-07-28T20:15:00.016-05:00

When it comes to the interpretation of the Scriptures we speak of "exegesis" (which refers to bringing the correct meaning of the text out through proper interpretation) and "eisegesis" (which is reading an incorrect meaning into the text of Scripture that is not in fact there), but in the case of the recent article "Orthodox Pastoral Response in the Past to Same-Sex Behavior", written by an anonymous author we have to coin a new term to describe its peculiar approach to Scripture: "obscurantegesis" (which is the intentional obscuring of the meaning of a text or texts of Scripture). It is clear that the anonymous author is not interested in what the Church has actually taught or what the Scriptures have to say about homosexuality. The author is only interested in dismissing and obscuring them both.

The basic argument against Tradition that is put forth is that there are canons of the Church that have taught things that we no longer adhere to, and so therefore, anything goes:

Many times the Church has clearly proclaimed a standard for behavior or belief but then developed a pastoral response to accommodate changing social realities. One example of this involves the charging, or payment, of interest on loans.

Here is the argument: Sure, the Church says that this or that is inherently wrong, but that does not mean that what was inherently wrong yesterday is inherently wrong today. Everything is up for review. Anything can change.

It is certainly true that as times and circumstances change, how the Church applies principles to different situations will vary... but that does not mean that the principles are up for grabs. In the case of charging interest, the Church was opposed to charging interest... in the context of a society that had currencies that did not inflate in value (being based on things like Gold, silver, and copper that tended to either retain their value or increase in value over time), and in which individuals lent money to people without regulation, usually at exorbitant interest, and in a context in which debtors who could not pay their debts ended up in prison or being sold into slavery (and quite likely their wives and children along with them). In our current context, in which the value of our money decreases with inflation, money is lent in a regulated fashion, in a context in which people who cannot pay their debts can walk away not only without paying the debt but in many cases without losing all that they have purchased with the money they borrowed, and without any fear of jail or slavery, things are just a wee bit different. In the former context, to lend money to the average person with interest was exploitative, and could lead to their complete and utter ruin. In our current context, when a bank refuses to lend to someone because the bank doubts their ability to repay the debt, this is considered to be an injustice. Anyone lending money at no interest today will not only not have the use of their money in the mean time, but will be repaid with money that is worth less than it was when it was lent in the first place. To argue that the fact that the Church does not treat these different circumstances in the same way therefore means that gay sex may not be a sin is not an argument made by a person who desires to illuminate the truth -- it is the argument of one who willfully obscures the truth.

The same thing is true of the argument regarding Christians holding secular office. There are no canons which forbid this. There are no teachings in Scripture which present universal prohibitions against it. Only some quotes from early Christian writers which stated that in the context of a pagan Roman state which was persecuting the Church, and in which pagan worship was part of the package deal with being an official, Christians should not accept such offices. In Scripture we find many officials who were believers and commendable. And when you had Christian kingdoms there was no reason to believe that the Christians would need to employ pagans to rule over them to avoid violating some fundamental principle of the Christian Faith. Again, what we have is the willful obscuring of the truth, rather than a sincere attempt to seek it out or explain it.

The anonymous author then turns to the question of divorce, and remarriage. Rather than allowing the red herrings to further divert us from the real purpose of this article, suffice it to say that the Church's principles on those issues have not changed. Those who divorce and remarry are still penanced. Divorce is still discouraged. But as with all the canons in general that prescribe penances, the Church does not normally impose the same degree of strictness that it did in during the earliest centuries of the Church. It is also no doubt true that too many in the Church have a lax view of the seriousness of divorce, and one could question the level of economia that is given in many cases. But pastoral application of penances is one question -- principles are another. Remarriage is not inherently sinful, though it is inherently less than the ideal... which is why it is still the case that clergy may not be ordained if they have been married more than once, and clergy who are widowers are not allowed to remarry and remain clergymen.

"In terms of “gay sexuality,” the historical practice of the Church is far from what many modern people might expect it to have been. Even the Bible is not always as clear as we would like it to be. Although the epistle to the Romans clearly condemns those men who have sex with other men, in the pastoral epistles (I Timothy 1) the condemnation is of malakoi (the “soft” or “effeminate,” those who resemble insipid, weak-willed, easily beguiled women rather than those who are sexually penetrated) and not “homosexuals” as some modern English translations of the Bible read."

The anonymous author apparently did not bother to look up the Greek text of 1 Timothy 1:10. The word in that passage is not "malakoi" (effeminate) but "arsenokoitais", which is a word without a non-Jewish or non-Christian prehistory in Greek. It is a word that is derived from Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." The word in the Septuagint text here for "man" is "arsenos" and the word for "lie" is "koiten" and so the term rather directly refers to a man lying with another man for the purpose of having sex, and the Scriptures clearly and unambiguously state that this is inherently evil. There is nothing about two men having sex today that has fundamentally changed between today and the time that the Scriptures were being written. To suggest that there is anything ambiguous or unclear here is simply a disingenuous attempt to obscure the truth.

Now the author attempts to muddy the waters further:

"The pastoral application of these biblical injunctions has varied considerably over time. Although many canons condemn various sexual acts it is important to see how those canons also condemn other behavior in order to see which sins are considered more serious than others."

What the anonymous author means when he speaks of pastoral application here is unclear, and that is not by accident. The principle in Scripture and Tradition is that that homosexual sex is inherently sinful. How one pastorally deals with a homosexual who acknowledges his sin, and wishes to repent of it is an entirely different question. Whether the priest will tell him that he needs to repent, or tell him that homosexuality is natural and that he can go on engaging in homosexual sex is a question of the basic moral principles of the Christian Faith. Any priest who suggests that homosexual sex is not inherently sinful, and must be repented of is in fact a heretic... a man who slams the doors of repentance in the face of sinners, and seeks the damnation of those who wishes to persuade.

The anonymous author asserts:

Meanwhile St. John the Faster suggests a penance of only 80 days for the sin of male-male sex “between the thighs,” i.e. face-to-face which he certainly considers less serious than heterosexual fornication (two years penance) or adultery (three years penance).

Here is the actual text of the 9th canon of St. John the Faster:

"As for sexual intercourse of men with one another, such as practicing double masturbation, it received the stated penance of up to eighty days."

This canon references the preceding canon, which states:

"Anyone having committed masturbation is penanced forty days, during which he must keep himself alive by xerophagy and must do one hundred metanias (prostrations) every day."

It should be noted that the canon for double masturbation is precisely twice the penance prescribed for solo masturbation because, as St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain notes: "each of these offenders is not only hurting himself, but is also hurting his brother, and this makes the sin a double sin" (The Rudder, p. 938).

Canon 18 of St. John the Faster states:

"It has seemed advisable to exclude any man who has been so mad as to copulate with another man from Communion for three years, weeping and fasting, and towards evening confined to xerophagy, and doing two hundred metanias. But as for one who prefers to take it easy, let him fulfill the fifteen years."

So where is the ambiguity here? There is none.

The anonymous author attempts to score some points for sodomy with this argument:

"Furthermore, even though a second-third marriage came to be permitted to heterosexual couples, such marriages still had a penance attached, which indicates that such marriages were more problematic for the Church than even arsenokoetia."

This is complete nonsense. As St. John indicates, the full penance for homosexual sex was 15 years... three years of weeping and fasting and 200 prostrations a day was pastoral leniency. The full penance for a second marriage is 1 or 2 years. The full penance for a third marriage is 2 or 3, but there is no mention of doing daily prostrations or strict fasting or exclusion from standing with the faithful. Thus to argue that the canons treat homosexual sex as less serious than a second or third marriage is simply based on either an astonishing degree of ignorance, or more likely, a willful desire to obscure the Truth of the matter.

The reference to the rite of Brotherhood shows the agenda of the anonymous author. He alludes to the argument of the homosexual scholar John Boswell, who sought to argue that this was some sort of same sex marriage rite, which was based on nothing other than his own imagination and specualtion. The fact that a later Patriarch found that men who had gone through this rite had in some cases used it as a cloak for their sin is hardly evidence that the Church intended to facilitate such aims... and the fact that the Church discarded this rite because of such abuses is proof positive of just the opposite.

Grasping even more desperately for straws, the anonymous author states:

Although the canonical literature is the normative source for what behavior is “allowed” or “punished,” sermons are often sources to be considered as well. It is interesting to note that virtually none of the Fathers preach on same-sex behavior, even when commenting on biblical texts that mention it.

If the anonymous author had any actual sense of what it means to be pastoral he would not find it odd at all that the saints of the Church where hesitant to discuss sodomy in their sermons. One can find even fewer references to incest and bestiality in sermons, but that does not mean that this is because the Church has an ambiguous stand on those questions -- rather it means that in a congregation mixed with men, women, and children, one has to be careful about what it said in a sermon.

The anonymous author then seeks to dismiss St. John Chrysostom with specious arguments about the ban on Jewish physicians. In the ancient world, there was no such thing as secular medicine as we know it today. Non-Christian Jewish doctors mixed their beliefs with their practice of medicine and so it was a religious issue for a Christian to go to such a doctor... but the anonymous author no doubt knows that, he simply finds it a convenient smoke screen for the moment.

St. John Chrysostom is the exegete of exegetes in the Orthodox Church, and so his homilies on Romans 1 are very significant, and no one who had ever had an Orthodox thought in their life would seriously believe that St. John's interpretation was some aberrational take on the question of homosexuality. But any doubt on the position of the Church on this question is removed when one looks at the canons embraced by the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. St. Basil's canons were affirmed specifically at the 4th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical Councils, and his 7th canon states:

"Sodomists and bestialists and murderers and sorcerers and adulterers and idolaters deserve the same condemnation, so that whatever rule you have as regarding the others observe it also in regard to these persons. But as for those who have been for thirty years penitent for an act of impurity which they committed unwittingly, there is no ground for our doubting that we ought to admit them. Both the fact of their ignorance renders them worthy of pardon, and so do also the voluntary character of their confession, and the fact that they have been exhibiting good intentions for such a long time; for they have surrendered themselves to Satan for nearly a whole human generation, in order to be educated not to indulge in shameful acts. So bid them to be admitted without fail, especially if they have shed tears that move you to compassion, and are exhibiting a life that deserves sympathy."

His 57th Canon states:

"As for any man who uncovers his nakedness in the midst of males, he shall be allotted the time fixed for those transgressing in the act of adultery."

The canons are clear, as are the Scriptures:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (malakoi), nor sodomites (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:26-27).

But there are none so blind as those who will not see. The teachings of the Scriptures and of the Church are abundantly clear. Only those who choose to deny history can argue otherwise. Now if you wish to say that you simply reject the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church, at least you are being honest with yourself, but please don't patronize us by pretending these teachings are not clear.

What is also clear is that we have a small group of modernists who for whatever sentimental reasons like to dress up in Orthodox vestments, and sing some of the hymns of the Church, but who love neither truth, the Church, nor its Tradition. Our bishops need to speak up, and need to speak up clearly to rebuke such people. Today it is a small but nevertheless serious problem. Eventually, this problem will lead to division and confusion and a grand scale, if we simply hope that the problem will go away without confronting it head on. And the fact that the person promoting this nonsense, Mark Stokoe, is a member of the Metropolitan Council of the OCA, and that he has several OCA priests advancing the same homosexual agenda is something that should concern all Orthodox Christians, but especially the bishops of the OCA.

For more on the meaning of the Biblical texts related to homosexuality, see:

Dr. Robert Gagnon - What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality? from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert A. J. Gagnon

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 1)

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 2)

The Bible and the 'Gay Marriage' Question (Part 3)

A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality, by Dr. Thomas R. Schreiner

Homily for Holy Thursday, by St. John Chrysostom

2011-07-19T06:52:00.005-05:00

Compared with some of the great spiritual "luminaries" of our own time, this may seem a bit unpastoral, but nevertheless, just as St. John has a homily for Pascha, he has a homily for Holy Thursday. Unfortunately, this homily is not heard by nearly so many people, because this service is not nearly so well attended, and it is often not read even for those who do attend... though it should be.

Homily of our Father Among the Saint, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, for Holy Thursday

O my beloved and greatly-desired brethren who have gathered in the Holy Church of God, in order to serve the Living God in holiness and righteousness, and, with fear, to partake of the holy, most-pure, and immortal, awesome Mysteries of Christ: Hearken unto me who am lowly and unworthy. For it is not I who am speaking to you and instructing you; rather the grace of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit; for I speak not from myself, but as I have been instructed by the divine canons, and the God-bearing Fathers, as the Church received instruction from the divine Apostles who received their wisdom from God, so do I myself speak, who am lowly and least of all. I know not your works; I consider not that which you have begun; and so, as one who fears God, I give counsel to everyone among you, whether man or woman, whether great or small, to anyone of you that may be guilty of sin, convicted by your own counsels, that first you must repent and confess your sins, that you may dare, considering yourself unworthy, to approach and touch the Divine Fire Itself. For our God is a consuming Fire, and they, therefore, who with faith and fear draw near to the God and King and Judge of us all, shall burn and scorch their sins; and It shall enlighten and sanctify their souls. But It shall burn and scorch with shame, the souls and bodies of them that draw near with unbelief. Therefore, many among you are ill and sleep in sickness, that is, many are dying unconfessed and unrepentant. And furthermore, my brethren, I beseech you, and I say: no one that swears oaths, nor a perjurer, nor a liar, nor one that finds fault with others, nor a fornicator, nor an adulterer, nor a homosexual, nor a thief, nor a drunkard, nor a blasphemer, nor one that envies his brother, nor a murderer, nor a sorcerer, nor a magician, nor a charmer, nor an enchanter, nor a robber, nor a Manichean, shall, unconfessed and unprepared, approach, touch, or draw near the dread Mysteries of Christ, for it is terrible to fall into the hands of the Living God. For the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the joints and marrow and bones, and thoughts and hearts. See, therefore, my brethren, that no one approach, unrepentant or unprepared or unworthily, to partake of His dread and most-pure Mysteries. For He Himself saith: I am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill, and I make alive; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand; for I, Myself, am King forever: to Whom is due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen.

See "˜The Great Book of Needs," Volume II, St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 1998, pp. 332-333

The Orthodox Church on Homosexuality and Gay "Marriage"

2011-07-16T13:10:00.005-05:00

Not surprisingly, a certain transsexual blogger who styles himself both a woman and Orthodox is unhappy with comments I have made about homosexuality. He asserts: that my position on this issue is "that not only are homosexuals sinners, they’re pariahs." This is of course completely untrue, but anyone familiar with the the hateful nonsense that is posted on his blog would know that distorting the facts and falsely accusing people are no novelty for him.

Homosexuality is a sin, but like any sin, it can be repented of. St. Paul said:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

That is the position of the Church on the matter. But St. Paul goes on to say:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11).

So contrary to those who today claim that homosexuality is some intrinsic characteristic that defines a person, it is not. It is a sin. A person who struggles with such a sin, but does not yield to it is not a homosexual... at least not in the way the Church understands the term.

The Russian Orthodox Church has an official statement on the matter that is part of the Social Concept Document approved in the 2000 All Russian Sobor, and it states:

XII. 9. Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Church unequivocally deplore homosexual relations, seeing in them a vicious distortion of the God-created human nature.

«If a man lies with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination» (Lev. 20:13). The Bibles relates a story about a heavy punishment to which God subjected the people of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-19) precisely for the sin of sodomy. St. Paul, describing the moral condition of the Gentiles, names homosexual relations among the most «vile affections» and «fornications» defiling the human body: «Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise the men, leaving the natural use of women, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet» (Rom. 1:26-27). «Be not deceived: neither effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind… shall inherit the kingdom of God», wrote the apostle to the people of corrupted Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The patristic tradition equally clearly and definitely denounces any manifestation of homosexuality. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, the works of Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa and Blessed Augustine and the canon of St. John the Faster — all express the unchangeable teaching of the Church that homosexual relations are sinful and should be condemned. People involved in them have not right to be members of the clergy (Gregory the Great, Canon 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Canon 4; John the Faster, Canon 30). Addressing those who stained themselves with the sin of sodomy, the St. Maxim the Greek made this appeal: «See at yourselves, damned ones, what a foul pleasure you indulge in! Try to give up as soon as possible this most nasty and stinking pleasure of yours, to hate it and to fulminate eternally those who argue that it is innocent as enemies of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and corrupters of His teaching. Cleanse yourselves of this blight by repentance, ardent tears, alms-giving as much as you can and pure prayer… Hate this unrighteousness with all your heart, so that you may not be sons of damnation and eternal death».

The debate on the status of the so-called sexual minorities in contemporary society tends to recognise homosexuality not as a sexual perversion but only one of the «sexual orientations» which have the equal right to public manifestation and respect. It is also argued that the homosexual drive is caused by the individual inborn predisposition. The Orthodox Church proceeds from the invariable conviction that the divinely established marital union of man and woman cannot be compared to the perverted manifestations of sexuality. She believes homosexuality to be a sinful distortion of human nature, which is overcome by spiritual effort leading to the healing and personal growth of the individual. Homosexual desires, just as other passions torturing fallen man, are healed by the Sacraments, prayer, fasting, repentance, reading of Holy Scriptures and patristic writings, as well as Christian fellowship with believers who are ready to give spiritual support.

While treating people with homosexual inclinations with pastoral responsibility, the Church is resolutely against the attempts to present this sinful tendency as a «norm» and even something to be proud of and emulate. This is why the Church denounces any propaganda of homosexuality. Without denying anybody the fundamental rights to life, respect for personal dignity and participation in public affairs, the Church, however, believes that those who propagate the homosexual way of life should not be admitted to educational and other work with children and youth, nor to occupy superior posts in the army and reformatories.

Sometimes perverted human sexuality is manifested in the form of the painful feeling of one’s belonging to the opposite sex, resulting in an attempt to change one’s sex (transsexuality). One’s desire to refuse the sex that has been given him or her by the Creator can have pernicious consequences for one’s further development. «The change of sex» through hormonal impact and surgical operation has led in many cases not to the solution of psychological problems, but to their aggravation, causing a deep inner crisis. The Church cannot approve of such a «rebellion against the Creator» and recognise as valid the artificially changed sexual affiliation. If «a change of sex» happened in a person before his or her Baptism, he or she can be admitted to this Sacrament as any other sinner, but the Church will baptise him or her as belonging to his or her sex by birth. The ordination of such a person and his or her marriage in church are inadmissible.

Transsexuality should be distinguished from the wrong identification of the sex in one’s infancy as a result of doctors’ mistake caused by a pathological development of sexual characteristics. The surgical correction in this case is not a change of sex.

I agree with this position entirely. I have the greatest sympathy for people who struggle with a passion of this nature, but who recognize it to be a sin, and are striving to live the Christian life. But to tell someone that a sin is not a sin, and they have nothing to worry about when the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church says otherwise is not only unloving and unpastoral, it is heretical and a sin against the unity of the Church and the souls of those deceived by such nonsense.

The Rapture

2011-05-21T22:09:00.010-05:00

A 1970's movie about the pre-tribulation rapture

The opening scene of "A Thief in the Night"

The scenes showing the rapture, and a 1970's conception of the Mark of the Beast

For those wondering what the Orthodox view of the Rapture is, I would recommend this two part article by Sister Anastasia (now Mother Agapia) (Stephanopoulos) on the subject:

Will you meet the Lord in the "Rapture", Part I

Will you meet the Lord in the "Rapture", Part II

Many Protestants take this doctrine as a given, and are unaware that prior to the 1850's, no one had ever conceived of such a thing.

They should have listened.

2011-05-11T18:11:00.001-05:00

The Presbyterian Church USA (the largest, but also most liberal branch of the Presbyterians in this country) ratified a change that had been proposed at their general assembly in 2010 to approve the ordination of practicing homosexuals. The change had been passed by previous general assemblies, but failed to gain the approval of a majority of the Presbyteries around the country (which are roughly equivalent to a diocese). This time, a majority has approved the change.

This is just the latest example of the ongoing slide of Protestantism as a whole towards theological and moral liberalism. It is sad to watch, because these denominations, while obviously heterodox, nevertheless did stand for basic morality, and as such had some positive influence on the culture. On the other hand, this slide has the effect of forcing those who are sincere in those denominations to reassess their theology, and in many cases it has led them into the Orthodox Church... as it did in my case.

At the general assembly last year, there was an "ecumenical" representative of the Byelorussian Orthodox Church. In this case, it was an admirable example of how we should "dialogue" with the heterodox. He thanks them for the charitable help they have provided to Byelorussia, and comes across in a kind and loving way, but nevertheless schools them on the nature of Christian morality, and why their discussion about changing their moral standards brings them further away from authentic Christianity:

This clip from the opening ceremony of their general assembly shows that they are well on the path to a paganized and truly lame version of Christianity that has lost almost all contact with real Christianity:

New Psalter from Jordanville

2011-05-04T06:23:00.003-05:00

I have just gotten my hands on a copy of the new Psalter published by Holy Trinity Monastery: "A Psalter for Prayer", edited by David James. The translation is based on the Coverdale Psalter, which is what you would find in an older (traditional) edition of the Book of Common Prayer, but is corrected with the Septuagint. It also contains a great deal of instructional material and additional prayers found in Slavonic editions of the Psalter, but not in the Boston Psalter or most other editions published in English to date. For example, it has prayers at the end of each kathisma, and it has instructions on how to read the Psalter over the dead, with the prayers that are said according to Slavic practice in conjunction with that. The quality of the printing is very high... the paper and binding are of similar quality to the Boston Psalter, but the cover looks better, the size is a bit larger, and it has two marker ribbons sewn into the binding. The translation is well done and beautiful, and I would say that it is worth having just for the additional material that it contains, and for those who have wanted an alternative to the Boston Psalter, here it is.

Paschal Services at Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow

2011-04-25T11:18:00.001-05:00

Mt. Athos on 60 Minutes

2011-04-25T11:09:00.002-05:00

This was an especially well done piece:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Behind the Scenes:

Planned Parenthood Exposed... again

2011-03-30T22:29:00.001-05:00

The von Whiteford Family Singers: Let my prayer arise

2011-03-27T15:23:00.002-05:00

A new generation discovers Youtube.

This was recorded after last Friday's presanctified. Another version was done at the service. They like this version best.

Calamity Jamie

2011-03-24T06:42:00.002-05:00

Has Jamie Gorelick ever had a job in which she has not been an unmitigated disaster? Why does she keep turning up like a bad penny?

MSNBC Anchor takes Evangelical Pastor to task for watering down truth

2011-03-15T23:16:00.003-05:00

When a secular journalist comes across as someone who takes truth more seriously than an Evangelical Pastor, you know that the great Evangelical Disaster has reached the meltdown stage:

Update: Here is an even more insightful interview Martin Bashir did with a Christian Radio Host about the interview above.

"I'm a scorpion. It's my nature"

2011-03-03T06:26:00.004-06:00

"I'm a scorpion. It's my nature"

Many have called attention to the irony that a Kosovo Muslim would attack and kill US troops when it was the US military that came to their aid against the Serbs. Strangely enough, while Hollywood fiction is replete with Serbian terrorists, the Serbs that Clinton bombed without mercy or justification have never committed a terrorist act against the United States, but the Muslims of Kosovo have tried to do it before, and this time they were successful.

Click here for the report from the Daily Mail.

Click here for the report from BBC.

Click here for the report from Aesop.

Patristic quotes on refraining from judgment

2011-02-17T06:29:00.006-06:00

We must speak the truth about what sin is, but when it comes to judging the state of another person's soul, that is something about which the Fathers have a lot to say:

(Except when otherwise noted, all these quotes come from the Evergetinos, Book III, Hypothesis II, pp. 9-32.:

“…it sometimes happens that we know about the sin of one who has committed fornication or fallen into some other transgression, since it was done openly, but are unaware of the repentance which he has performed in secret, such that he whom we condemn as a fornicator has been purified by God and is now living prudently.” –St. John the Merciful

“Many people who sin frequently in the sight of others, and then confess in secret to God, have been forgiven by him and, being well-pleasing to Him, have received the Holy Spirit. Those whom we reckon to be sinners (of whose repentance we are unaware) are justified in the sight of God. This is because we see the sins which they have committed, yet we know nothing of the good deed which thy have performed in secret. Hence, we should not condemn anyone, even if we perceive him sinning with our very eyes. For as soon as the sinner has taken ten steps away from us, we are not in a position to know what he has done in secret or what God has done for him. Toward the evening of Great Thursday, Judas the betrayer was with Christ and the Disciples, whereas the thief was in the company of malefactors and murderers. But when Friday came, Judas departed for the outer darkness, because he had betrayed the Lord, whereas the thief, because he repented on the Cross, went to dwell in Paradise with Christ. In view of such sudden changes, it is good not to judge a man until Christ comes, for He knows the mind of men and reveals the secrets of our hearts.” –St. Anastasius the Sinaite.

“We and our brothers are dual images: whenever a man is attentive to himself and reproaches himself he finds his brother to be virtuous; but when he thinks that he himself is good, he finds his brother to be evil in his sight.” –St. Poimen

“On seeing someone sinning, a holy man wept bitterly and said: “He has fallen today, and I will surely fall tomorrow; he will surely repent, but as for myself, I am not so sure.”

“Busy yourself with your own faults, and not with other people’s and the workshop of your mind will not be despoiled.” – St. Mark the Ascetic.

St. Anastasius of Sinai recounts:

“A certain monk wasted his whole life in heedlessness and idleness. Then he fell gravely ill and his end drew near, but he showed no fear of death. Instead, he was merry, and prepared for his departure from the body joyfully praising and thanking God. Gathering at his bedside, the abbot and the other monks said to him, “Brother, we are witness to your inattentive life. How is it that you are so calm and happy now, when the dread hour is at hand? May our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you, so that you can rise and explain this mystery, and we may glorify God’s greatness.” “Lifting himself up a little, the monk replied, “Reverend fathers, what you say is true. I have thoughtlessly squandered the days of my life, and a moment ago God’s angels appeared to me and read a list of all my evil deeds. “Do you admit to this?” they asked. “Everything is true,” I conceded, “but you must take into account that since I renounced the world and was tonsured, I have judged no one and held no grudges. Christ said, Judge not, that ye be not judged, and If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. I pray that these passages be applied in my case.” No sooner had I spoken these words than the angels tore to pieces the scroll on which my transgressions were recorded. Now you know why I am please be leaving this temporal realm.” With this, the brother peacefully surrendered his soul into the Lord’s hands” (The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, by St. Dimitri of Rostov, March, P. 435f).

Hammer and Sickle -- Death and Hunger

2011-02-08T22:50:00.006-06:00

Серп и молот, смерть и голод

My wife's Godmother, who lived through the worst of the Soviet period told me about this bitter play on the phrase "hammer and sickle" in Russian, which came out of the soviet famines of the 20's and 30's. It sums up well the pretense and the reality of socialism. "Serp i molot" (sickle and hammer) "Smert i golod" (death and hunger).

Planned Parenthood Staff exposed

2011-02-02T06:27:00.000-06:00

An open response to a troubled blogger

2011-01-28T05:29:00.003-06:00

There is a blogger whose blog styles itself Orthodox, but which is full of the most venomous rants you will find anywhere, complete with hierarchs being called names and ridiculed because of their weight. A few months ago, this blogger began alluding to things on my blog in a negative way. Since this blogger had previously identified me on several occasions as one of the few converts to Orthodoxy that met with his approval, I e-mailed him privately to explain the issue, thinking I might get somewhere based on those earlier opinions. At first we had a relatively pleasant exchange in which I was assured that I would never be criticized by name, because he knew it was hard enough on clergy and their families. However, when I explained my position on welfare, I discovered that I had stepped on a personal landmine for this person, and received a very angry letter in which it was asserted that my view was not Christian. I have certainly commented on political issues and expressed my opinion, but I have never suggested that if you disagree with my politics, you are not a Christian. However, in this persons view, if you disagree with him, you disagree with all that is holy and good in the world. When I responded back with specific facts that showed that this person had their facts wrong (because I worked with welfare programs for 13 years, and thus have some familiarity with the actual laws and programs involved), I did not get any further private replies. However, this blogger became obsessed with my blog, and began a steady stream of attacks on me personally, for such crimes as my not thinking that Sarah Palin was an evil person, and not agreeing that communism is really not all that bad, or that a good Christian must needs be a socialist. I think I sent probably two more e-messages privately to him, in response to things he was saying publicly about me. At a certain point, I decided to google his name... at least the name he uses on his blog, because I wanted to talk with his priest about it (which is what the Gospels say is to be done in such cases). The name the blogger uses is actually a woman's name, and he identifies himself as a woman. I discovered that this blogger that I had assumed was a "she" had been born a "he". I e-mailed this person one more time, referring to him by his given name, and asked him what parish he belonged to. I received no reply. I tend to doubt that he actually does belong to a parish at present, but if someone who is familiar with this happens to know otherwise, please let me know... because I would still like to speak to his priest, if he indeed has one.

Most recently, he has posted something on his blog that suggests that I have been harassing him with private e-mail. This is not true, and he knows that it is not true. I give him my permission to post every e-mail I have sent him, so long as they are posted in full, and without editing. His latest post says he just wants to be left alone. I have no objection to obliging him. I would just ask for the same courtesy. A good start for him would be to stop attacking me in about every third post on his blog. If you know who I am talking about, and search this blog for his names (either of them), you will not find them.

I did discuss this blogger by name on a forum in which someone else brought up his name, along with mine, and wondered why it was that I had once been one of the few good converts to Orthodoxy, and was now public enemy number 1. And I simply referred to him by his given name, using masculine pronouns (because I do not believe it is possible to change your sex, no matter how much surgery you have or how much estrogen you may take), and said that I did not think any Orthodox Christian should be promoting his blog for the aforementioned reasons. His blog may be entertaining, but it is entertaining for reasons that do not promote the salvation of anyone. I have never met this person, I wish him well. I don't know the whole story behind his changing his sexual identity, beyond what he previously posted about it on the web. But if he has not already been reconciled to the Church, there is no one alive who is beyond the possibility of such, and I hope he seeks it. If he has been reconciled to the Church formally, I would encourage him to read the Scriptures and the desert fathers, focus on his own salvation, stop viciously attacking bishops... or anyone else for that matter, and focus on those things that lift up his readers rather than only serve as a source of temptation.

Media Malpractice at March for Life

2011-01-24T20:43:00.002-06:00

h/t Get Religion:

What influenced the Arizona Shooter?

2011-01-13T05:51:00.004-06:00

Let's think about this a few minutes here...

Sarah Palin is to blame, even though the shooter became fixated on Gabby Giffords before Sarah Palin became a national figure. But she used a bulls-eye on her website, and this "obviously" pushed this guy over the edge... even though there is no evidence that this is the case.

Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are to blame -- just because they're mean old conservatives -- despite the fact that the shooter's best friend says he never listened to talk radio, paid attention to the news, and voting records show he was registered as an independent and did not bother to vote in the last major election.

But the shoot'em up movies, video games, and death metal music (which surprisingly focuses on death and killing) that he entertained himself with all the time... could that have been a factor?

Here are the words to the song that was playing on his favorite Youtube video, in which someone (perhaps him) burns an American flag:

Let the Bodies hit the floor:

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Beaten, why for (why for)
Can't take much more
Here we go here we go here we go, now

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Now!

Push me again (again)
This is the end
Here we go here we go here we go, now

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Skin to skin, blood and bone
You're all by yourself but you're not alone
You wanted in and now you're here
Driven by hate, consumed by fear

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

One, nothing wrong with me
Two, nothing wrong with me
Three, nothing wrong with me
Four, nothing wrong with me

One, something's got to give
Two, something's got to give
Three, something's got to give
Now!

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor
Let the bodies hit the floor

Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!
Hey... Go!

Naa... to suggest that this sort of thing might have influenced him is just crazy talk! But a bulls-eye on a website, let's pass a law against that. Let's bring back the fairness doctrine to shut up conservatives... but ban death metal music, or video games where you blow people away for fun all day... you would have to be a kook to suggest such a thing.

The Climate of Hate on the Left

2011-01-10T05:39:00.002-06:00

Michelle Malkin gives a summary of the hateful and violent rhetoric of the left in the past 10 years: The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.

She also points out all the evidence that the shooter in Arizona was a leftist wacko, rather than any kind of right wing extremist: Truther. Pothead. Creep. Nihilist. Psycho.

Byzantine, Texas: The Soviet Story

2010-12-29T19:43:00.002-06:00

Byzantine, Texas: The Soviet Story: "For more on the film, see here."

The Soviets and the Nazis had a lot more than a passing similarity.

Another Chapter in the Bloody History of Communism: Mao's Great Leap to Famine

2010-12-16T05:45:00.003-06:00

Mao's Great Leap to Famine
By FRANK DIKÖTTER
Published: December 15, 2010

HONG KONG — The worst catastrophe in China’s history, and one of the worst anywhere, was the Great Famine of 1958 to 1962, and to this day the ruling Communist Party has not fully acknowledged the degree to which it was a direct result of the forcible herding of villagers into communes under the “Great Leap Forward” that Mao Zedong launched in 1958.

To this day, the party attempts to cover up the disaster, usually by blaming the weather. Yet detailed records of the horror exist in the party’s own national and local archives.

Access to these files would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago, but a quiet revolution has been taking place over the past few years as vast troves of documents have gradually been declassified. While the most sensitive information still remains locked up, researchers are being allowed for the first time to rummage through the dark night of the Maoist era.

From 2005 to 2009, I examined hundreds of documents all over China, traveling from subtropical Guangdong to arid Gansu Province near the deserts of Inner Mongolia.

The party records were usually housed on the local party committee premises, closely guarded by soldiers. Inside were acres of dusty, yellowing paper held together in folders that could contain anything from a single scrap of paper scribbled by a party secretary decades ago to neatly typewritten minutes of secret leadership meetings.

Historians have known for some time that the Great Leap Forward resulted in one of the world’s worst famines. Demographers have used official census figures to estimate that some 20 to 30 million people died.

But inside the archives is an abundance of evidence, from the minutes of emergency committees to secret police reports and public security investigations, that show these estimates to be woefully inadequate.

In the summer of 1962, for instance, the head of the Public Security Bureau in Sichuan sent a long handwritten list of casualties to the local boss, Li Jingquan, informing him that 10.6 million people had died in his province from 1958 to 1961. In many other cases, local party committees investigated the scale of death in the immediate aftermath of the famine, leaving detailed computations of the scale of the horror.

In all, the records I studied suggest that the Great Leap Forward was responsible for at least 45 million deaths.

Between 2 and 3 million of these victims were tortured to death or summarily executed, often for the slightest infraction. People accused of not working hard enough were hung and beaten; sometimes they were bound and thrown into ponds. Punishments for the least violations included mutilation and forcing people to eat excrement.

One report dated Nov. 30, 1960, and circulated to the top leadership — most likely including Mao — tells how a man named Wang Ziyou had one of his ears chopped off, his legs tied up with iron wire and a 10-kilo stone dropped on his back before he was branded with a sizzling tool. His crime: digging up a potato.

When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, the local boss, Xiong Dechang, forced his father to bury his son alive on the spot. The report of the investigative team sent by the provincial leadership in 1969 to interview survivors of the famine records that the man died of grief three weeks later.

Starvation was the punishment of first resort. As report after report shows, food was distributed by the spoonful according to merit and used to force people to obey the party. One inspector in Sichuan wrote that “commune members too sick to work are deprived of food. It hastens their death.”

As the catastrophe unfolded, people were forced to resort to previously unthinkable acts to survive. As the moral fabric of society unraveled, they abused one another, stole from one another and poisoned one another. Sometimes they resorted to cannibalism.

One police investigation from Feb. 25, 1960, details some 50 cases in Yaohejia village in Gansu: “Name of culprit: Yang Zhongsheng. Name of victim: Yang Ecshun. Relationship with Culprit: Younger Brother. Manner of Crime: Killed and Eaten. Reason: Livelihood Issues.”

The term “famine” tends to support the widespread view that the deaths were largely the result of half-baked and poorly executed economic programs. But the archives show that coercion, terror and violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward.

Mao was sent many reports about what was happening in the countryside, some of them scribbled in longhand. He knew about the horror, but pushed for even greater extractions of food.

At a secret meeting in Shanghai on March 25, 1959, he ordered the party to procure up to one-third of all the available grain — much more than ever before. The minutes of the meeting reveal a chairman insensitive to human loss: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”

Mao’s Great Famine was not merely an isolated episode in the making of modern China. It was its turning point. The subsequent Cultural Revolution was the leader’s attempt to take revenge on the colleagues who had dared to oppose him during the Great Leap Forward.

To this day, there is little public information inside China about this dark past. Historians who are allowed to work in the party archives tend to publish their findings across the border in Hong Kong.

There is no museum, no monument, no remembrance day to honor the tens of millions of victims. Survivors, most of them in the countryside, are rarely given a voice, all too often taking their memories with them to their graves.

Frank Dikötter is a professor at the University of Hong Kong, on leave from the University of London. His books include “Mao’s Great Famine.”

Reductio Ad Nativitatum

2010-12-09T19:23:00.004-06:00

The Ghost of Christmas Past

In recent years I have been struck by the fact that types of music and great musicians who were once huge eventually fade away to the point that you never hear them on the radio or in other public forums, except at Christmas. It is now almost the only time you will hear traditional Protestant hymns -- even in many Protestant Churches. You even hear old Latin hymns, like "O Come, O Come Emmanuel."

Pop musicians fare no better. Perry Como, for example, is almost never heard anymore, except at Christmas time. As time goes on, more musicians join the legions of the ghosts of Christmas past. The Beach Boys will soon only be remembered for their "Little Saint Nick"... which is certainly not the best song they ever produced. John Lennon, who once said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ, will ironically only be remembered for his song "And so this is Christmas" ... also, not the best song he ever sang. The day will no doubt come when the only Beyonce songs you will hear will be from her Christmas albums.

Believe it or not, Burl Ives really did sing something other than "Holly Jolly Christmas":

It's nice to hear these old and otherwise forgotten sounds from the past at least once a year, but it is a shame that all else is eventually forgotten.

Roosevelt's Declaration of War on Japan

2010-12-07T21:06:00.002-06:00

The day the world changed, 69 years ago:

The Bloody History of Communism

2010-12-02T20:20:00.007-06:00

In Dostoyevsky's prophetic book "The Possessed" he vividly unmasked the evil face of socialism. Among other things, one of the characters advocated the "hundred million heads theory", which was that to make real progress in the establishment of a socialist utopia, 100 million heads would have to roll. At the time, I am sure many criticized Dostoyevsky for being over the top. As it turned out, he underestimated how bloody they would actually be.

Every time socialist utopians have attempted to establish their utopias they have in fact established hells on earth. The Communists killed about 100 million people in China alone, and it has only ceased to be less of a hell hold to the extent it has departed from Communism.

To watch the additional parts, double click on the video to go to youtube.

The video is done by a Muslim Group, and so ignore the occasional insertion of their beliefs, but the footage tells the story.

See also these videos of the desecration and destruction of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow:

One of thousands of Church so desecrated and destroyed.

Peter Hitchens on Anti-Christian Intolerance in Britain

2010-11-30T06:08:00.000-06:00

The times they are a changing

2010-11-01T22:22:00.002-05:00

Oh, the irony:

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

How liberal do-gooders criminalize the poor

2010-10-30T22:34:00.003-05:00

Here is an old forum post of mine that was written in 1995, in response to someone who asserted: "The GOP is criminalizing all poor while helping BIG BUSINESS get richer." At the time, I was working in the Food Stamp, Medicaid, and TANF (then AFDC) programs, and HUD subsidies were less than they are now.

*************************************************************

Let me tell you how Liberal regulators are "criminalizing" the poor. First off HUD housing subsidize for welfare recipients raise the rent on the honest working poor. In Houston, HUD pays $500 a month to subsidize a two bedroom Apartment -- usually for a dump that most people wouldn't live in if they were paid $500 dollars a month to do so. Now if you are an Apartment owner, and the Government offers you $500 dollars a month Guaranteed -- would you rent the same apartment to a poor working
man who could only afford $350 dollars a month?

Secondly, even in Houston, the public transportation system is not good enough for someone to depend on it to get to and from work, unless they are willing to spend several hours a day doing so. As a result people generally must depend on their own transportation -- and in rural areas, there is no choice but to do so. Liberal regulators have made owning a car and running it legally prohibitively expensive for
many borderline working poor. For one thing, they must have insurance, they must have a current inspection sticker, and they must have a current vehicle registration. And had the Democrats won the Governor's race last year, the cost of an inspection in Houston would have climbed from about 15 dollars to possibly $400 dollars. Most working poor folks, with families to take care of, cannot afford all this. As a consequence they simply drive uninsured vehicles.

In Texas, you can just count on getting a traffic ticket every so often. But if you don't have insurance, or an inspection sticker, or a valid registration sticker -- you get a ticket for each. Now this poor stiff has several hundred dollars in fines to pay, but if he could have paid the fines, he could have paid the insurance and all that other stuff. So consequently he doesn't pay the fine. Next time he gets stopped he has warrants out for his arrest -- of course he could pay the bail, but
if he could have paid the bail, he could have paid the tickets. Instead, he sits in jail for a couple of weeks. But now he is unemployed, because he missed two weeks worth of work without a good excuse.

You know where this guy goes from here? He comes to my office to apply for food stamps, Medicaid, and AFDC (if he can get it). I've seen this happen to a number of honest hard working citizens that found themselves in my office for the very reasons outlined.

Furthermore, government regulations also cost Jobs. Whereas once upon a time, poor people could start there own businesses and make their own jobs -- now due to all the red tape, this is impossible. The only free-enterprise available for poor people, is illegal.

That's how Liberal's criminalize the poor. They have made it extremely difficult to be poor and honest in this country. Your parents and mine may have been poor, but they were at least allowed to be honest and make a living.

The German Mind and Biblical Scholarship

2010-10-04T18:08:00.008-05:00

I ran across a very interesting section of "War and Peace" last year when I finally picked the book back after my first attempt 20 years previous, and there was a very insightful comment about the national character of Germans that is relevant when you ponder much of the German Scholarship on the Bible. In this section, Tolstoy is talking about a German strategist (Karl Ludwig von Pfuel) who was serving in the Russian Army:

"Pfuel was one of those hopelessly and immutably self-confident men, self-confident to the point of martyrdom as only Germans are, because only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion— science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that all he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knows nothing, and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth— science— which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth."

I discussed this with a parishioner who is German, and he agreed that it was an insightful observation. Of course, as with any generalization, it is only generally true, and not always true in any given case. Nevertheless, keep this in mind as you read about such scholars as Bultmann, Wellhausen, and Schweitzer. There is a sense you get from these scholars that the mysteries hidden from the ages were waiting for Drs. Rudolph Bultmann, Julius Wellhausen, and Albert Schweitzer to come along and unveil them. All previous generations had been fooled, but not these clever fellows.

This arrogant rationalism is to be found to one extent or another in most Western European and American thinking since the so-called "Enlightenment".

I should note I am not sure whether I am more German or more English genetically, but it would be a close call... so no slam on Germans intended.

And by the way, if you have picked up the book War and Peace, only to put it back down after losing track of who is who, I would encourage you to get the Soviet era multi-part movie (Russian title "Voina i Mir") by director Sergei Bondarchuk.
It is one of the best movies ever made, and is surprisingly respectful of the book, and of Orthodoxy -- though Orthodoxy is somewhat downplayed compared with the book. Watch the movie, and then read the book.

This clip will give you an idea of the scale of the production:

This clip has a scene with a processional moleben, that is done without any attempt at the mockery that one might expect from a Soviet era film:

The movie is available with English subtitles.

2011 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar

2010-09-29T06:17:00.003-05:00

If you've wondered why I have not posted much lately, it is because I have been finishing up work on the 2011 St. Innocent Liturgical Calendar. This calendar is based on the Jordanville Calendar, though it will of course be in English.

Now that I'm done, I can relax for a week or so before starting on the 2012 calendar.

The facts about the Koran

2010-08-01T19:29:00.003-05:00

Answering the Skeptics

2010-07-01T05:52:00.005-05:00

The White Horse Inn is a Protestant radio show that often says many things that I would take issue with, but they recently have done a series of shows in which they have Christian scholars answering the skeptics, and these discussions will be very helpful. In our time we have many people who attack the Christian Faith on the basis of historical nonsense that get's passed off as fact. These discussions lay out the facts, and are well worth a listen (click on the links):

Jesus and Modern Scholarship: a discussion on the historical Jesus with New Testament scholar Craig A. Evans, author of Reinventing Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, and the Holman QuickSource Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Corroborating Evidence: A discussion about extra-biblical, 1st century evidence for Jesus Christ, with Paul L. Maier, author of In The Fullness of Time, and editor of Josephus: The Essential Works.

Religion on Trial: a discussion on Christian Apologetics with Craig Parton author of Religion on Trial and The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer's Quest for the Gospel.

Christianity -- A Faith Founded on Facts: a discussion with Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, author numerous books including History & Christianity, and Faith Founded on Fact.

Dr. E. V. Hill preaches at his wife's funeral

2010-04-12T19:06:00.005-05:00

This image links to a biography of E.V. Hill, the videos are below:

This is a very touching eulogy:

The Recent History of Looney Left Violence in America

2010-03-30T21:22:00.006-05:00

Recently The Commie Zombies are trying to paint the Tea Party Protesters as violent racists. They claim that a black congressman was called the n-word, and spit upon during a march through the protest that was filmed from multiple angles... none of which verify the claim in question. In fact Andrew Breitbart is offering $10,000 to anyone who can provide proof of this claim... and so far no takers.

However we have recently seen a protest in which a black was called the n-word, and beaten up... and we have it on video tape. The only problem is that the people using the n-word and beating the black man were Obama supporters from the SEIU union:

Then we have the gun toting white woman who shot up the University of Alabama and killed three people of color. The only problem is that she is a leftist Obama Zombie.

Then there was the guy who flew a plane into the IRS... the only problem, he was a democrat who hated George Bush, Christians, Capitalism, and thought 9/11 was an inside job:

Then there was the guy who attacked the pentagon... the only problem, he was a democrat who hated George Bush, Christianity, and thought 9/11 was an inside job.

Then there was the protester who bite off a man's finger because he disagreed with him. Problem is that it was a liberal Obama supporter who bite off an old man's finger who was protesting against Obamacare.

Then there were the jack-booted thugs who were intimidating voters in the last elections... the only problem is that they were the Black Panthers, supporting Obama, and intimidating voters at the polls in Philadelphia:

The United States Government took them to court, and had a default judgment against them, but when the Obama administration came in they took the unprecedented move of asking the court to withdraw the judgment:

And this is just the recent stuff.

Quotations from the Ladder of Divine Ascent on Prayer

2010-03-14T17:13:00.001-05:00

"If we wish to stand before our King and God and converse with Him, we must not rush into this without preparation, lest, seeing us from afar without weapons and clothing suitable for those who stand before the King, He should order His servants and slaves to seize us and banish us from His presence and tear up our petitions and throw them in our face." Step 28:3

"During prayer and supplication, stand with trembling, like a convict standing before a judge, so that, both by your outward appearance as well as by your inner disposition, you may extinguish the wrath of the just Judge; for He will not despise a widow soul standing before Him burdened with sorrow and wearying the Unwearying One." 7:11

"The work of prayer is one and the same for all, but there are many kinds of prayer…" 28:6

"Before all else, let us list sincere thanksgiving first on the scroll of our prayer. On the second line, we should put confession and heartfelt contrition of soul. Then let us present our petition to the King of all. This is the best way of prayer, as it was shown to one of the brethren by an angel of the Lord." 28:7.

"Do not be over-sophisticated in the words you use when praying, because the simple and unadorned lisping of children has often won the heart of their Heavenly Father." 28:9

"If you feel sweetness or compunction at some word of your prayer, dwell on it; for then our guardian angel is praying with us." 28:11

"Oil and salt are seasoning for food; and tears and chastity give wings to prayer." 28:14

"Try to lift up, or rather, to enclose your thoughts within the words of your prayer, and if in its infant state it wearies and falls, lift it up again. Instability is natural to the mind, but God is powerful to establish all things. If you persevere untiringly in this labor, He who sets the bound of the sea of the mind will visit you too, and during your prayer will say to the waves: Thus far shall ye come and no further. Spirit cannot be bound; but where the Creator of the spirit is, everything obeys." 28:17

"Constantly wrestle with your thoughts, and whenever it wanders call it back to you. God does not require from those still under obedience, prayer completely free of distraction. Do not despond when your thoughts are plundered, but take courage, and unceasingly recall your mind. Inviolability is proper only to an angel." 4:92

"Do not admit any sensory phantasies during prayer, lest you become subject to derangement." 28:42

"Ask with tears, seek with obedience, knock with patience. For thus he who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." 28:56

"Always let the remembrance of death and the Prayer of Jesus, being of single phrase, go to sleep with you and get up with you; for you will find nothing to equal these aids during sleep." 15:54

“Flog your enemies with the name of Jesus, for there is no stronger weapon in heaven or earth.” 21:7

"Let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath, and then you will know the value of stillness." 27:61

"War proves the Soldiers love for his king; but the time and discipline of prayer show the monks love for God." 28:33

"Your prayer will show you what condition you are in. Theologians say that prayer is the monk’s mirror." 28:34

Texas Welfare Fiasco comes full circle

2010-03-14T16:45:00.002-05:00

Unbelievable. I have not commented on this mess in a while, but it has not gone away. And now the guy who started it all is getting paid to clean up the mess.

Exclusive: State privatization champion gets contract to help clear up welfare mess

11:59 PM CST on Saturday, March 13, 2010

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – A former state official who played a major role in the state's biggest privatization fiasco is now making money trying to help Texas fix the problems that resulted.

Gregg Phillips was the state's No. 2 social services official several years ago, and he led a push to hire a private company to evaluate applications for public assistance.

Now his Austin-based company, AutoGov Inc., has received $207,500 since November to help the state eliminate errors in deciding whether an applicant gets food stamps or other aid and how much recipients get. AutoGov was hired without other companies having a chance to bid for the work.

Health and Human Services Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said that the agency's commissioner, Tom Suehs, and his predecessor, Albert Hawkins, agreed that the company's software might alleviate the problem.

"They both faced the same problem – high error rates – and thought it offered a potential solution," Goodman said.

State laws on former employees lobbying or contracting with agencies would not prohibit such an arrangement, given that Phillips had been off the state's payroll for several years. But critics of the deal say it's troubling that a former employee is getting paid to try to fix problems spawned by an idea he helped hatch.

A leader of a state employees union complained that Hawkins and Suehs – both appointees of Gov. Rick Perry – again have sought high-tech, low-cost fixes for the loss of experienced state workers.

Mike Gross, vice president of the Texas State Employees Union, also said he's troubled that Hawkins approved a vendor subcontract with two of his former aides – Phillips and AutoGov's chief executive, Rose A. Hayden, Hawkins' former chief of staff. The company is paid as a subcontractor to the larger firm that the state hired to run the system.

"The whole thing smells very bad," Gross said. "We're now hiring the guy who got us in the mess in the first place. It is absolutely stunning."

Call not returned

Phillips couldn't be reached by phone or e-mail to answer questions about the contract. A receptionist at AutoGov said Hayden was in a meeting and would not be able to return a call.

Hawkins said AutoGov was the right choice because it had experience doing similar work for the Texas Youth Commission and in other states' social programs. He said he saw no conflict of interest or appearance problem.

"Both of them had been gone from the agency, what, four or five years?" Hawkins said. "So I certainly didn't perceive it as being any kind of conflict-of-interest concern."

Hawkins said he didn't put the work up for competitive bidding because "it was within the scope of a contract that was already in place."

He was referring to an interim deal under which Texas pays Reston, Va.-based Maximus Inc. $134 million a year to run eligibility-screening call centers, enroll youngsters in the Children's Health Insurance Program, and assign them a doctor.

It's unclear whether the state could have found a better deal by seeking bids for a contract. Hawkins suggested that had he tried, Maximus might have sued the commission. When pressed, he said: "It at least would have required some contract discussions with Maximus."

Lisa Miles, vice president for investor relations for Maximus, declined to discuss the company's hiring of AutoGov. She referred all questions to Goodman, the state spokeswoman.

Goodman said Suehs, who formally approved Maximus' hiring of AutoGov as a subcontractor on Nov. 10, showed no favoritism toward his former colleagues.

"Played no role in the decision," she said in an e-mail.

Phillips, a former Mississippi state official, served under Hawkins in 2003-04. He headed Perry's 2004 investigation of ineptitude at Adult Protective Services before resigning for health reasons in September 2004.

Hayden was Hawkins' $125,000-a-year chief of staff at the commission and played a role in the agency's help with legislation in 2003, Hawkins said. Earlier, the two were colleagues in Gov. George W. Bush's budget office and at the Legislative Budget Board. Hayden left the state in October 2004.

Phillips helped former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth, R-Burleson, fashion a 2003 legislative requirement that privately run call centers be used to help process applicants for Medicaid, CHIP, food stamps and cash assistance. He testified before lawmakers on the idea.

Hawkins says the state's key misstep came two years later, when lawmakers ordered a 40 percent reduction of state eligibility staff. But his critics have said he didn't stand up to the state's GOP leaders and demand enough money and time to adequately support and test the proposed public-private screening system.

It was launched in late 2005, after a large outsourcing company, Accenture, won an $899 million, five-year contract. But soon after the state notified its own workers that they might lose their jobs and shifted duties to Accenture – and its main subcontractor, Maximus – the project went sour.

Call centers were jammed, people were wrongfully cut from benefits, and it took months for services to begin once Texans applied.

Most infamously, applicants for a time were given a wrong fax number for sending pay stubs and other private documents. It belonged to a Seattle warehouse that had no part of the deal. That company shredded and threw away the paperwork after unsuccessfully trying for weeks to alert Texas that something was amiss.

By mutual agreement, the Accenture deal was terminated, state workers were rehired and Maximus mostly took over a scaled-down contract. In June, the commission tentatively chose Maximus' bid to continue the work. However, the two sides are still negotiating and haven't settled on a proposed three-year contract, Goodman said.

Delays continue

For Texans hammered by the recession, problems persist. Long processing delays for food stamps and Medicaid have continued for a year.

A Feb. 25 report by the commission shows the state overpaid or underpaid food stamp recipients 7.3 percent of the time in August, compared with a national rate of 4.3 percent. And it wrongly denied people benefits in 14.3 percent of cases that month, while the nationwide error rate was 8.2 percent.

Celia Hagert, a social programs analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low- and middle-income Texans, said that between 1999 and 2005, Texas received federal bonuses each year for having low error rates in food stamp processing.

She called it "ironic" that Phillips has re-emerged as fix-it man.

His computer software, no matter how good it may be, is no substitute for hiring back enough state workers "who know what they're doing," Hagert said. "That's the key. The system we have now is neither accessible nor accurate."

Goodman stressed that the commission has no obligation to retain AutoGov if it doesn't meet expectations. The company has billed the state an additional $62,500 but hasn't yet been paid.

"There's no obligation for additional payments beyond those if the tool isn't proven effective during testing," Goodman said.

She said that the commission is exploring whether "similar services are available through DCS," a vendor that checks industrial payroll databases and automobile ownership records to spot applicants who make too much or own too much property to qualify.

Meanwhile, a March 4 AutoGov news release suggested that Phillips and Hayden intend to take their software to terrain even more troubled than Texas.

It said the company recently won contracts from the University of Miami's Project Medishare and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to "implement the software in Haiti's central plateau."

St. Jonah's is ready to build, but needs your help

2010-01-07T16:34:00.005-06:00

Our parish voted a few weeks ago to go forward with a contract to build our Phase II Church.

This link is an appeal for your help:

http://www.saintjonah.org/appeal_phase2.htm

In short, we have raised a bit more than $100,000.00 to construct this building. The actual costs are going to be about another $50,000.00.

We are starting the permit process, and hope to begin construction in February. If you can help, we need to hear from you before the end of January.

Our parish is the only parish in the world dedicated to the memory of St. Jonah of Manchuria. Our goal is to have a Phase III Church built in time for the centennial of his repose in 2025... but to get to Phase III by then, we need to get to Phase II now.

Your prayers and support are greatly appreciated.

Click here for more donation options and suggestions.

Lord Monckton rocks

2009-12-11T20:23:00.005-06:00

If all the British aristocracy were like this guy, I would be in favor of apologizing to the Queen, and submitting once again to the British crown.

And in this video he confronts some young liberals who are clearly incapable of engaging in a rational discussion:

You can see the Hitler Youth in action here:

Update: Lord Monckton continues to take it to the other side at Copenhagen:

Global Warming Hoax Unraveling

2009-11-30T06:01:00.002-06:00

I am lifting these videos from the ROCOR United blog. Particularly in the the light of now exposed fraud in the recent Climategate scandal, arming people with the facts to ward off the drive to destroy our economy is extremely important.

Famous Protestants on the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Theotokos

2009-11-25T14:30:00.003-06:00

Martin Luther: “It is an artcle of faith that Mary is the Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Works of Luther, V. 11, pp319-320; V. 6, p 510) See also this article.

John Calvin's Commentary on Matthew 1:25: "And knew her not This passage afforded the pretext for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called first-born; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin. It is said that Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son: but this is limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers. Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

John Wesley: "I believe that [Christ] was... born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

Letter to a Roman Catholic, July 18, 1749.

Dear Congressman Kennedy

2009-11-10T22:01:00.002-06:00

It is not often that you will see more favorably citing a Roman Catholic Bishop, but this letter is certainly one that deserves to be read.

Dear Congressman Kennedy
BY BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN
11/12/09

Dear Congressman Kennedy:
“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

The Kursk Icon arrives in Russia

2009-09-12T13:06:00.000-05:00

Our 2009 Icon Exhibit

2009-08-15T14:53:00.003-05:00

You can listen to the talk given by Fr. James Early about his conversion to Orthodoxy, by clicking here. He has just published the book he mentions in his talk From Baptist to Byzantium.

You can listen to John Lickwars Lecture on Icons, and see the Slide show, by clicking here.

You can listen to the musical presentation made by our choir, by clicking here.

And you can listen to my lecture on why we venerate the saints by clicking here.

What does this inscription mean?

2009-06-28T19:04:00.004-05:00

Of course most Orthodox people know, IC XC NIKA means "Jesus Christ Conquers".

Sin Bozhie = Son of God.

Tsar Slavie = King of Glory.

K T = Kopie and Trost, which means "Spear and Reed"

M L R B = Mesto Lobnoye Raj Byst', which means "The place of the skull became paradise."

G A = Golova Adam, which means "The Head (or Skull) of Adam".

Capitalism, Socialism, and Orthodox Christianity

2009-06-26T18:38:00.004-05:00

Dr. Amir Azarvan and I were guests on the Illumined Heart Podcast, and had a discussion about the role the government should have in social welfare programs, and what we as Orthodox Christians should think about it. You can listen to it by clicking here.

You can read more of my thoughts on welfare, here.

The incredible Hutzpah of the Left on Gay Marriage

2009-05-03T15:18:00.009-05:00

Click here to see the "controversial" answer of Miss California.

Click here to listen to some of the obnoxious abuse that has been heaped on Miss California (warning, it is offensive).

By now, most people are aware of the fact that Miss California was asked by an obnoxious gay activist judge whether she thought every state should legalize gay marriage, and she gave a very non-confrontational answer in which she apologetically stated her own opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and quickly stated that it was not her intention to offend anyone by saying so.

Her answer has been called controversial, despite the fact that her opinion happens to be the opinion shared by all of human history since the dawn of time up until very recently. Her opinion happens to also coincide with the stated opinion of President Obama, but I think the Gay activists give him a pass because they know he doesn't really mean it.

Even the ancient Greeks, many of whom held the opinion that a homosexual relationship was superior to a relationship between a man and a woman, never imagined calling a homosexual relationship "marriage". Marriage can only be between a man and woman because only a man and woman can produce offspring. We have laws that govern marriage because human societies have always seen the importance of identifying who a child's parents are (DNA testing is a very recent phenomenon), and what responsibilities the parents have to each other, to the children and what responsibilities children have to their parents. We have spousal benefits, because of the fact that having children and raising them requires that certain accommodations be made to facilitate that.

Two gay men do not need spousal benefits, because they can both work. If one becomes disabled, there are disability benefits available for him. There is no need to define their relationship legally, because they cannot produce children. If they want to provide for property rights for their gay lovers, there are legal means available for them to do so.

Most people are not in favor of being mean to other people... including gay people. Most people do not think gays should be beaten up, or otherwise mistreated. However, Gay Activists are not happy with being tolerated -- they want everyone to approve of their lifestyle. But you know what? This is America, and we don't have to approve of their lifestyle... and we certainly do not have to change the meaning of marriage that has existed for all of time to make them feel better about themselves. Aside from everything else, redefining marriage will not make them feel better about themselves, and they will have to move on to some other means of being obnoxious in their never ending pursuit of the elimination of any opinion about their lifestyle that does not coincide with their own.

They say they want tolerance... but who is being intolerant here? Miss California's answer was exceedingly tolerant, perhaps too tolerant. Their abuse of her ever since has been incredibly intolerant.

And to answer the specious arguments that the definition of marriage has changed over history, because polygamy use to be allowed -- polygamy literally means "many marriages", and it refers to the practice of a man who has had multiple marriages to multiple women -- each marriage, however, happens to be between a man and a woman. The man's wives are not married to each other. A polygamous man can divorce one wife, while remaining married to the other women. Christians have always been opposed to polygamy, because we believe that the ideal is for one man to marry only one woman for life. Polygamy, however is not a thing of the past (it exists in many parts of the world), and if gay marriage is allowed, it is hard to imagine how polygamy can remain illegal in the United States for long.

Some are saying Gay Marriage is inevitable. If it is, the Islamic take over that will follow such a deterioration of our culture, is also inevitable... and they will then ban gay marriage, and cut off the heads of the gay activists who are pushing this agenda. If it comes to that, they will long for the day when the most intolerant thing they had to deal with were Southern Baptists, like Carrie Prejean.

Even Canadians find Perez Hilton's attacks obnoxious:

Should this woman have been "punished with a baby"?

2009-04-22T22:20:00.002-05:00

Pascha at Christ the Savior Cathedral

2009-04-20T13:09:00.001-05:00

Metropolitan Laurus & Fr. Damian (Hart) Remembered

2009-03-16T06:06:00.003-05:00

Fr. Seraphim Gan has written his reflections on the one year anniversary of the repose of Metropolitan Laurus, which you can read here.

Here is a video with pictures of the funeral:

Fr. Joseph Huneycutt has posted some remembrances of Fr. Damian (Hart), who was a true Southern gentleman as well as a good monk. Click here.

And Fr. Mark Mancuso has more, here and here.

Russia Today: New Patriarch

2009-01-28T05:57:00.001-06:00

Patriarch Kyrill

2009-01-27T19:28:00.001-06:00

Here is uncut footage of the announcement of the election results, the thanksgiving moleben, the acceptance speech, and the many years:

He made the inevitable... evitable

2009-01-20T22:59:00.004-06:00

Not long after 9-11-2001, I vividly recall liberal bloviator Bill Maher responding to the statements of many experts that another major terrorist attack was inevitable by demanding that President Bush make it "evitable". Like many of us, I have been disappointed by many things Bush has done in his second term, but one thing for which he deserves credit is that he did make the inevitable evitable... and no thanks to folks like Bill Maher, who attempted to undermine him at every step.

Bush's approval rates have reached their lows. As time passes, he will get the credit he is due from history.

Speaking of Sola Scriptura (Podcast on "The Illumined Heart)

2009-01-17T22:37:00.002-06:00

You can listen to a Podcast interview I did on the subject of Sola Scriptura by clicking here.

A Simple Approach to Reading the Entire Bible

2009-01-14T06:10:00.006-06:00

There are some elaborate charts that tell you how you could read the Bible all the way through in one year -- which if you followed it, would be fine. However, I wonder how many people have ever followed such a chart all the way through, because it would require that you make regular reference to the chart, and remember where you were on the chart.

On the other hand, many people simply open up the Bible at Genesis, and then get bogged down somewhere towards the end of Exodus and Leviticus, and then quit.

One method I would suggest is much simpler to follow, and if you do, you not only will read the Bible all the way through in about a year or so... but you could continue to read the Bible and get a balanced intake of the various parts of the Bible rather than hit one section that is difficult and then lose interest.

I would suggest you make 6 paper book marks with the following labels.

1) The Law (Genesis thru Deuteronomy)

2) History (Joshua thru Esther in the KJV, and one should also include the Deutero-canonical books of Tobit, Judith, the books of the Maccabees, and 1st Esdras)

3) Wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Sirach, Wisdom)

4) The Prophets (Isaiah thru Malachi)

5) The Gospels

6) Acts, The Epistles, and Revelation

Ideally you would read 6 chapters a day. However, if that was too much, you could read three from the first sections one day, and three from the rest the next. You don't need to refer to a chart... just move your book marks as you go. When you hit the end of a section, move it back to the beginning.

The Orthodox Study Bible would be particularly helpful to use in this regard, because it has an introduction to each book that will help you better understand what you are reading, along with footnotes throughout the text.

Probably the two biggest reasons that people do not read the Bible, aside from general laziness, is that they don't understand what they are reading, or that they find it boring (which is usually a direct result of not understanding the text, or as noted above, getting bogged done in a difficult section of Scripture before getting a full sense of the entire scope of Scripture).

To understand the text properly, the first thing you need to do is pick a good translations. See this article for details, but the abbreviated recommendation for the average reader would be to start with the Orthodox Study Bible or the New King James Text. I love the King James Version myself, but unless you grew up hearing it read, you should probably read the New King James first.

It is also important to have some good study tools. You can see this article for a full breakdown of the various kinds of biblical reference material available, but for the average laymen, I would recommend a good Study Bible (again the Orthodox Study Bible being the best option currently available), a good Bible Dictionary such as this one, or this one, a good catechetical text, such as the Law of God, and perhaps some basic commentaries such as "The Bible and The Holy Fathers For Orthodox" by Johanna Manley.

It's also important to understand that the more you read the Bible, the better you will understand it, and so you should not allow a sense that you do not fully understand the text to keep you from reading it. You will also find that there is always more for you to learn... you will never exhaust its meaning.

Troika by Sergei Prokofiev

2009-01-07T14:08:00.002-06:00

I often wondered about this piece of music, because it is often heard around Christmas or in movies with a Christmas theme. You can read about the movie this was composed for here.

Auld Lang Syne

2009-01-01T00:04:00.003-06:00

Since Guy Lombardo isn't around anymore... we have to go to Youtube for such things.

The Holly and the Ivy

2008-12-24T09:42:00.001-06:00

The holly and the ivy,
When they are both full grown
Of all the trees that are in the wood
The holly bears the crown
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

The holly bears a blossom
As white as lily flower
And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ
To be our sweet Saviour
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

The holly bears a berry
As red as any blood
And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ
To do poor sinners good
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

The holly bears a prickle
As sharp as any thorn;
And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ
On Christmas Day in the morn.
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

The holly bears a bark
As bitter as any gall;
And Mary bore sweet Jesus Christ
For to redeem us all.
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

The holly and the ivy
Now both are full well grown,
Of all the trees that are in the wood,
The holly bears the crown.
O the rising of the sun
And the running of the deer
The playing of the merry organ
Sweet singing of the choir

"There's no one as Irish as Barack O'Bama"

2008-12-22T05:33:00.002-06:00

So says this song. I don't know about that, but he certainly has the gift of Blarney... so there may be something to it.

Patriarch Alexei's funeral

2008-12-10T19:59:00.005-06:00

Nobody does a funeral like the Orthodox:

Patriarch Alexei II reposes at the age of 79

2008-12-05T05:46:00.004-06:00

Patriarch Alexei II reposed today. He will be best remembered for two things: 1. He presided over the revival of Orthodoxy in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and 2. He played a key role in bringing about the reconciliation of the Church in Russia with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Memory Eternal!

Homosexual Brownshirts show what liberals mean by tolerance

2008-11-17T18:23:00.005-06:00

A homosexual mob attacks a group of Christians in San Francisco. Read more about it here. You can also read Michelle Malkin's post on this.

They have also been picketing Churches... particularly Mormons, because the fact that they are outside of the religious main stream makes them an easier target. But they have also been attacking blacks, who voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. They have even invaded Church services: click here to listen to Family News in Focus on this.

Where are the liberals who always speak about tolerance and freedom of speech? Next time there is a ballot measure like this in California, I think Christians all over America need to donate for the pro-family advocates. We cannot allow these homosexual fascists to bully anyone who dares to express views which reflect traditional values.

Artful Jewish Conservative Rants (Jackie Mason)

2008-11-02T15:28:00.002-06:00

An old school Jewish American Patriot:

Artful Black Conservative Youtube Rants

2008-10-31T19:27:00.005-05:00

This guy is good.

Marxism... not the Change we need.

2008-10-27T22:44:00.004-05:00

Interesting videos from Hotair.com

Dion talks about discovering the meaning of life

2008-10-25T13:35:00.002-05:00

I happened to catch this interview on the radio, and found it very interesting.

Dion DiMucci was a rock star in the 60's, but after having acquired everything a man could want in this life, he was empty. Click here, to listen.

Obama's extreme Pro-Abortion Record

2008-10-17T06:28:00.005-05:00

I would encourage you to read the article "Obama's Abortion Extremism", by Robert George. Here is an excerpt:

"In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide."

I would also encourage you to read the non-partisan Factcheck.org article on this question. Obama is more extreme than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or Barbara Boxer on the Abortion issue. He is now trying to paint himself as a moderate on the issue, who supports banning late term abortions. But he could not even bring himself to banning "abortion" during the fourth trimester... by allowing a baby who survived a botched abortion to die... as happens on a regular basis in abortion clinics in America. He has absolutely no record of actually opposing abortion under any circumstances, when he has had to actually vote on such an issue.

Also, this Roman Catholic Video is worth watching. While we do not share the same faith, we share the same view on this issue:

Bill Ayers and his connection with Obama

2008-10-09T06:10:00.005-05:00

CNN in a rare moment of candor:

See also this interview with a man whose family was targeted by by Bill Ayers.

Also read this series of articles by Jack Cashill, aPurdue scholar, and the author of Hoodhinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture, in which he makes the case that Bill Ayers Ghost wrote Obama's "Dreams of My Father":

Part I

Part II

Part III

And you can see Sean Hannity's special on this subject on youtube:

Click here for part I.

Click here for part II

Click here for part III

Click here for part IV

Click here for part V

Click here for part VI

My favorited Podcast: "Search the Scriptures" by Dr. Eugenia Constantinou

2008-10-05T15:59:00.003-05:00

I have been listening to Dr. Eugenia Constantinou's podcast "Search the Scriptures" for some time now, and heartily recommend it.

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures

I would also recommend you read her compilation of quotes from St. John Chrysostom on the importance of studying the Scriptures.

2008 Orthodox Conference, Erie, Pennsylvania, Part 5

2008-09-30T18:19:00.006-05:00

Bishop John, presiding over his first Hierarchical liturgy

One aspect of the conference that I should mention is that parallel to the adult portions of the conference, they had youth activities as well. My children were unable to come, but those I spoke to who had children there said they enjoyed it very much. On Friday evening, after Vespers, they had a picnic at an amusement park, and the children had even more fun... and the adults had some fun too.

After the lecture on Saturday, things began to wind down as far as the Conference was concerned. Many clergy began heading home. I planned on staying through Sunday because I was originally scheduled to speak on Saturday myself. I am glad I did.

The Saturday evening vigil had some features I had not seen up to this point. For one, during the Vigil they chanted the Gospel Commentary, which is an Old Rite text that I was already familiar with (it is a great resource for preparing for a sermon on those readings). It contains homilies on the Gospel readings for Sundays and feasts. It is a lot like the commentaries of Blessed Theophylact, except these are not just commentaries, but actually homilies rooted in commentary. The text was not simply read, but chanted.

The Gospel Commentary

I also noticed more local parishioners in attendance at this service.

On Sunday morning, the newly consecrated Bishop John (Berzins) presided over his first hierarchical liturgy. The Church was very full, and afterwards we all went to the parish hall for a very large scale trapeza, at which Fr. Pimen recognized those in the parish who had helped to pull off the Conference. The Conference speakers were also given three gifts, all books published by the parish: The Gospel Commentary, a copy of the second edition of the Old Orthodox Prayer Book (which is in both English and Slavonic), and their new Old Rite Horologion. All three of these books are publications of the highest quality -- no corners were cut. The binding, the paper, the ribbon markers... I am suspect that the parish has not made a profit off of them, but as with the conference itself, sacrificially invested their resources out of love for God. The primary purpose of these texts was for their own parish use, although there is much outside interest in them.

The Old Orthodox Prayer Book

I would recommend the prayer book to any pious Orthodox laymen... and I think the contents it has should serve as a model for other prayer books. It has extensive troparia and kontakia (though not exhaustive), and many services for lay use that are not published in English elsewhere. Also, the Slavonic and English texts on facing pages is especially useful for those in parishes were English and Slavonic are used together... or where only Slavonic is used, and non-Russian English speakers happen to be in attendance.

The Old Rite Horologion

The Horologion is something that any liturgical nerd would want to have, and just to have a text with all the troparia and kontakia of the yearly, festal, and tonal cycles makes this text worth getting.

I left the conference feeling a definite connection with the community there. They are very pious folks, very hospitable, and their parish is a place that everyone should try and see for themselves.

I don't know when they might host another conference like this one... but when they do, I would recommend going.

Are we fighting a Holy War? (or... is the Media afraid of any mention of God?)

2008-09-19T20:25:00.001-05:00

They say everyone has a double

2008-08-28T18:04:00.002-05:00

Archbishop John of Cherson

My double just happens to be a Russian Bishop named John.

Why war should be avoided if it can be

2008-08-21T21:22:00.003-05:00

The recent events in Georgia are quite sad. All sides are historically Orthodox Christian peoples. The media has generally only been presenting one side, and neo-cons seem to be trying to bring back the good old days of the cold war... making Russia out to be the Soviet Union, all the while ignoring Communist China which poses a real and gathering threat to the west. But while the media is exaggerating the hurt done to one side, and ignoring the hurt done to the other, the fact is that in war incredible misery and pain are the inevitable result, and so the use of military force should always be used only as a last resort.

Shakespeare best described the horror of war with the words he put in the mouth of King Henry V, at the siege of the city of Harfleur.

How yet resolves the governor of the town?
This is the latest parle we will admit;
Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves;
Or like to men proud of destruction
Defy us to our worst: for, as I am a soldier,
A name that in my thoughts becomes me best,
If I begin the battery once again,
I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur
Till in her ashes she lie buried.
The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass
Your fresh-fair virgins and your flowering infants.
What is it then to me, if impious war,
Array'd in flames like to the prince of fiends,
Do, with his smirch'd complexion, all fell feats
Enlink'd to waste and desolation?
What is't to me, when you yourselves are cause,
If your pure maidens fall into the hand
Of hot and forcing violation?
What rein can hold licentious wickedness
When down the hill he holds his fierce career?
We may as bootless spend our vain command
Upon the enraged soldiers in their spoil
As send precepts to the leviathan
To come ashore. Therefore, you men of Harfleur,
Take pity of your town and of your people,
Whiles yet my soldiers are in my command;
Whiles yet the cool and temperate wind of grace
O'erblows the filthy and contagious clouds
Of heady murder, spoil and villany.
If not, why, in a moment look to see
The blind and bloody soldier with foul hand
Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters;
Your fathers taken by the silver beards,
And their most reverend heads dash'd to the walls,
Your naked infants spitted upon pikes,
Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused
Do break the clouds, as did the wives of Jewry
At Herod's bloody-hunting slaughtermen.
What say you? will you yield, and this avoid,
Or, guilty in defence, be thus destroy'd?

Earlier in the Play, King Henry gives gives this warning which should be considered by all who consider starting a war:

Therefore take heed how you impawn our person,
How you awake our sleeping sword of war:
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed;
For never two such kingdoms did contend
Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops
Are every one a woe, a sore complaint
'Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords
That make such waste in brief mortality.

Pat Buchanan: Blowback From Bear-Baiting

2008-08-15T07:03:00.002-05:00

Pat Buchanan is one of the few people in the media who has a consistently good handle on what is going on in Russia. He was a steadfast cold warrior too, and so cannot be pigeon-holed with the anti-American left.

Blowback From Bear-Baiting
08/15/2008

Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia's space and getting into Russia's face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost -- in Tbilisi.