"Orthodox Fundamentalism" Discussion on Ancient Faith Today

Awhile back I wrote a response to an article by Dr. George Demacopoulos on "Orthodox Fundamentalism.

You can read his original article here: Orthodox Fundamentalism

You can read my response here: Response to "Orthodox Fundamentalists" by George Demacopoulos

Kevin Allen invited us to talk about this subject on Ancient Faith Today, and you can listen to it here: Orthodox Fundamentalism: what is it and does it exist?

Someone posted a quote that I think well sums up the problem with Dr. Demacopoulos' use of the term "fundamentalist":

"We must first look into the use of this term ‘fundamentalist’. On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a bitch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’." -Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford: 2000), pg. 245.

One additional point that I would make is with regard to Dr. Demacopoulos' assertion that anyone who uses the phrase "The Fathers say..." has never read the Fathers: Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) is a highly regarded contemporary Orthodox Theologian, and you often find him using the phrase "The Fathers say..." Just googling the phrase, I found it used by St. Dorotheos of Gaza, the Elder Cleopa of Romania, and Fr. John Romanides... and I suspect many more examples could be found. Also, at one point in the discussion Fr. Demacopoulos made the statement: "the fathers believed in the birth death and resurrection of Jesus..." So apparently we can make general statements about what the Fathers believed, and so saying that they as a group would say something is not substantively different.

Also, Dr. George quoted Paul Tillich as saying that the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty. It is true that we do not say that we believe something that we know empirically. A better way to look at this came from a sermon from a protestant minister who spoke about a husband and a wife sitting on a porch watching their children playing. He said that the wife knows that her husband is the father of those children. The husband believes he is the father of those children. Of course the husband's belief is only as good as his wife is trustworthy, but we believe that the Church is absolutely trustworthy... but while we can be certain to a high degree, we will only have complete empirical verification of that when we see Christ face to face.

Russian Orthodoxy Subreddit

For Orthodox Christians on Reddit, there is a new subreddit you may be interested in:

http://www.reddit.com/r/RussianOrthodoxy/

Response to "Orthodox Fundamentalism" by George Demacopoulos

Note: See also a further response: Fundamental Errors: A Response to "Tradition Without Fundamentalism" by George Demacopoulos.

Dr. George Demacopoulos of Fordham University recently posted an article entitled "Orthodox Fundamentalism," on the Greek Archdiocese's website. There are a number of problems with it that I think need to be pointed out.

To begin with, he doesn't really explain what he means by the term "Fundamentalist". The term, as it was originally coined, referred to those conservative Protestants that, in response to modernist tendencies, especially in mainline Protestant denominations, posited that there were five fundamental (one might even say "minimal") beliefs that Christians had to adhere to:

1. The inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture
2. The deity of Jesus Christ
3. The virgin birth of Christ
4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth

The term "Fundamentalist" was later (beginning in 1979, around the time of the Iran hostage crisis) applied to radical Moslems, and then later to just about any conservative expression of any religion. I don't think this broadening of the meaning of the term was an accidental move. It was an attempt to associate conservative Christians, like Jerry Falwell and his group "The Moral Majority" with the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden, and this was done for domestic political purposes. The term has thus really ceased to have much meaning, aside from those who wish to use it as a synonym for "stupid," and that seems to be the primary level of meaning with which Dr. Demacopoulos is using the term.

Dr. Demacopoulos makes a loose connection with the original meaning of the term when he says: "Like other fundamentalist movements, Orthodox fundamentalism reduces all theological teaching to a subset of theological axioms and then measures the worthiness of others according to them." The only problem with this statement is that he provides no examples, and the statement is simply not true. If we take, for example, the Greek Old Calendarists, which would be among the most likely candidates to fall into the category that Dr. Demacopoulos is speaking of, you could say that the Calendar issue is used by them as a litmus test issue, but it is hardly the case that they would argue that one needed to only be on the Old Calendar to satisfy their definition of fidelity to Orthodoxy. In fact, the fault the Greek Old Calendarists have, is not that they have a minimalist understanding of Orthodoxy, but that they are maximalists who take some issues which should not be matters over which one should be willing to break communion over, too far. Even among the Old Calendarists themselves they have further divided over many issues. So in fact, their tendency is exactly the opposite of Protestant Fundamentalists, who really were focusing on the minimum one had to believe. And it is actually the Orthodox modernists who typically try to reduce the "essentials" of the Orthodox Faith to the lowest common denominator, and so they are far closer to being fundamentalists in the original sense of the term.

Dr. Demacopoulos then asserts: "The key intellectual error in Orthodox fundamentalism lies in the presupposition that the Church Fathers agreed on all theological and ethical matters." This lazy straw man caricature is not what one would expect of professor of theology at a respected university. If that is the key intellectual error, I would like to find one example of a person who actually fits that description. I doubt that even the slug-nuttiest Old Calendarist that one might find would argue that "the Church Fathers agreed on all theological and ethical matters."

We are then told that "Typically, this manifests itself in accusations that individuals, institutions, or entire branches of the Orthodox Church fail to meet the self-prescribed standard for Orthodox teaching." I would be curious to know why St. Mark of Ephesus would not be considered an "Orthodox Fundamentalist," because he broke communion with those who failed to meet what St. Mark considered to be the standard for Orthodox teaching. Probably, the answer we would get is that St. Mark was not a intellectual troglodyte, but regardless, there obviously are boundaries that can be crossed that warrant such an action, and so the issue is not whether someone is a fundamentalist because they believe there are such boundaries, but rather the merits of the specific issues at stake... which we are not provided with in this article.

He then goes on to provide examples that knock down the straw man he has set up:

"Indeed, a careful reading of Christian history and theology makes clear that some of the most influential saints of the Church disagreed with one another—at times quite bitterly. St. Peter and St. Paul were at odds over circumcision.  St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian clashed over the best way to recognize the divinity of Holy Spirit.  And St. John Damascene, who lived in a monastery in the Islamic Caliphate, abandoned the hymnographical tradition that preceded him in order to develop a new one that spoke to the needs of his community."

Here again, we find careless overstatements. Where do we find St. Peter and St. Paul disagreeing over circumcision? We find them in very clear agreement on that issue in Acts 15. Most likely, he has in mind Galatians chapter 2, but the disagreement was not over circumcision... it was over St. Peter's hypocrisy while around those "of the circumcision" -- there is no indication that they had a substantive disagreement on the issue. They had a disagreement over St. Peter's behavior and inconsistency, and St. Paul called him on it, to his face, and in the presence of all (Galatians 2:11,14). There is also no indication in the text, nor in Church Tradition that this was a matter of ongoing disagreement or division between these two saints. This was rather an example of even a great saint being capable of falling into temporary error.

It is also clearly excessive to claim that St. John of Damascus "abandoned the hymnographical tradition that preceded him". What was the hymnographical tradition that preceded him? The way older aspects of the services have generally ended up being sidelined was not usually by them being replaced by new hymns, but rather by being supplemented with newer hymns, and then as time went on, some of the older texts were generally omitted. If you take the introduction of the texts we use now for the canons at Matins, these hymns were originally sung with the Biblical Odes, which were the older texts that preceded the composition of those hymns. Only as time went by did the practice develop of generally omitting the odes, and retaining the troparia that were composed to be sung with them (though the older practice is still followed to some extent on the weekdays of Great Lent). So to suggest that St. John tossed out all that preceded him is simply contrary to fact.

Also, there is a wee difference when a holy man, such as St. John of Damascus, introduces some new liturgical practice, than when a committee of cigar smoking "theologians" does so. For example, the Greek practice of saying "With the fear of God and with faith and love, draw near" is clearly a change from the original form of "With the fear of God and with faith, draw near". But it was, I believe, introduced by the Kollyvades Fathers. I was told by someone who is a good source on the matter that St. John of Shanghai also followed this practice. I am inclined to bow to the wisdom of these saints, but think it is right to be skeptical of changes that are introduced by someone who may be very intelligent, but who is not in the same league as these saints.

We find even further hyperbole when Dr. Demacopoulos asserts: "It is important to understand that Orthodox fundamentalists reinforce their reductionist reading of the Church Fathers with additional falsehoods.  One of the most frequently espoused is the claim that the monastic community has always been the guardian of Orthodox teaching.  Another insists that the Fathers were anti-intellectual.  And a third demands that adherence to the teachings of the Fathers necessitates that one resist all things Western."

While it is true that monastic communities have generally been bulwarks of Orthodoxy, I don't know of anyone who would say that this has always and invariably been so. I doubt a single example could be produced of anyone who would seriously argue that the Fathers were anti-intellectuals. And the closest example of one who argues that the teachings of the Fathers necessitates that one "resist all things Western" would be Fr. John Romanides, and his admirers... but not even they would make such a sweeping statement as is made here, and I don't think Fr. John Romanides was an anti-intellectual.

And when Dr. Demacopoulos makes the assertion that "By repurposing the tradition as a political weapon, the ideologue deceives those who are not inclined to question the credibility of their religious leaders", it would be helpful if he would provide some examples and name some names so that we would have some idea of who and what he is referring to.

Furthermore, I am not so sure that "The significance of the Fathers lies in their earnest and soul-wrenching quest to seek God and to share Him with the world." If that were the case, I am not sure how they would be any different than Lao Tzu, Gautama Buddha, Socrates, or Muhammad. Their significance is in how they explained, articulated, passed on, and earnestly contended for "the Faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3). They were not just smart men who were earnest, but holy men who received the Faith of the Apostles, and passed it on without alteration -- and in doing so, in the face of new challenges to that Faith, enriched the Church with their words, their faithful lives, and their examples. We understand the Faith better because of them, but we do not now have a new faith or a different faith.

And he closes with this call to action: "It is time for Orthodox hierarchs and lay leaders to proclaim broadly that the endearing relevance of the Church Fathers does not lie in the slavish adherence to a fossilized set of propositions used in self-promotion." But I don't see how Orthodox hierarchs or lay leaders can answer his call, even if they were inclined to do so, because Dr. Demacopoulos gives us no indication exactly who or what he is talking about.

If someone can be pointed to that is fairly described by the descriptions found in this article, I would certainly think such a person was worthy of criticism. But let's talk specifics, rather than tossing around meaningless terms that would have us believe that there is real line of philosophical agreement between the average conservative Evangelical Protestant, some unspecified group of Orthodox Christians, and Jihadist terrorists that are beheading and stoning those they disagree with.

Update: Someone referred me to the conference that Dr. Demacopoulos was apparently referring to. There was a conference (entitled "Patristic Theology and Post-Patristic Heresy") held in Piraeus, Greece, on February 15, 2012, which was at least in large part in response to the Volos conference he mentioned. Among its speakers were Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Professor Emeritus of Athens University, and Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos). Are these really the "Orthodox fundamentalists" who claim that the Fathers were anti-intellectual, and agreed on all points of theology and ethics? You can read their papers, among others, in a pdf format, by clicking here and clicking here.

See Also: Fundamental Errors: A Response to "Tradition Without Fundamentalism" by George Demacopoulos

Spanking: What Saith the Scripture?

In a recent post on the Orthodox Christian Network, Christina Pessemier makes the case that Orthodox Christians should not spank their children. She does not address any of the Scriptures that actually talk about disciplining a child. She only cites Matthew 7:12, which says: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Here are some passages of Scripture that actually do speak directly to the question:

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24).

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15).

"Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14).

"The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame" (Proverbs 29:15).

When I cited these passages in the comments as being what the Word of the Lord had to say on the question, I ran into a sad phenomenon that I have encountered with some regularity: the scoffing of an Orthodox Christian at the idea that the words of Scripture might be of significance... particularly when they come from the Old Testament. This is not how Orthodox Christians approach Scripture, if the Fathers of the Church are any guide.

In the New Testament, St. Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

"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."

Here he was clearly referring specifically to the Old Testament, because the New Testament was not written when St. Timothy was a child. And it says that all Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for every need a Christian might have in living a Godly life.

Let's consider what some of the great fathers of the Church have to say on these passages:

"Spare the rod and spoil the child (Proverbs 13:24). Here there is reference to the people who appear to love their children, but in fact do not; so spoiling is the result of sparing -- not of not sparing. Having children is a matter of no little import: we are responsible even for their salvation. On that reasoning Eli would not have paid a severe penalty. Whereas those who love them correct them diligently -- not casually, but diligently: since nature bids us be sparing, he makes no mention of excess. Hence he says, I instilled affection in you, not for you to harm your loved ones, but for you to care for them; so refrain from inappropriate affection" (St. John Chrysostom, Robert Charles Hill, Trans., Commentary on the Sages, Volume 2, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 2006,  p. 133f).

"The corrections of the father who does not spare the rod is useful, that he may render his son's soul obedient to the precepts of salvation. He punishes with a rod, as we read, "I shall punish their offenses with a rod" (St. Ambrose, Letter 45, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. IX, J. Robert Wright, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 96).

"For in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the undisdained son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great fruits as the result; for he says, "Thou shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell;" and elsewhere he says, "He that spareth the rod hateth his son." For, give us a man who with right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of his heart, "My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God:  when shall I come and appear before God?" and for such an one there is no need of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or imperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing to cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in its attainment.  But yet, before the good sons can say they have "a desire to depart, and to be with Christ," many must first be recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives" (St. Augustine, Correction of the Donatists, 6:21).

"As small children who are negligent in learning become more attentive and obedient after being punished by their teacher or tutor, and as they do not listen before the lash, but, after feeling the pain of a beating, hear and respond as though their ears were just recently opened, improving also in memory, so likewise with those who neglect divine doctrine and spurn the commandments. For, after they experience God's correction and discipline, then the commandments of God which had always been known to them and always neglected are more readily received as though by ears freshly cleansed" (St. Basil the Great, Homily on the Beginning of Proverbs 5, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. IX, J. Robert Wright, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 147).

And in the New Testament, St. Paul alludes Proverbs 3:11-12, and says:

"For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons" (Hebrews 12:6-8).

If God, who is love, deals with us this way, it obviously is not unloving for us to emulate him in how we deal with our children.

So there is really no scriptural or patristic basis for rejecting corporal punishment for children. St. Benedict, in his rule, actually called for it as a means of disciplining monks, under some circumstances.

It is only in our times, when parents often have only one or two children, and a lot more leisure time on their hands than past generations, that not spanking children could even be possible. My mother raised 5 boys... mostly, by herself (my parents divorced when I was about 6), and she did not have the time to sit and have 30 minute conversations with us every time we acted up. When you have lots of kids, you have to have swift and sure punishments when they do not behave. But even when parents have only one or two children, not spanking often results in children (particularly boys) who are out of control, and who terrorize their parents... because they were never taught to respect their parents.

I remember when I was 13, my mother gave me a whipping with a belt, and was hitting me on the legs, which I didn't think was quite fair... and by this time I was a lot bigger and stronger than she was. I took the belt away from her. However, because she had instilled a healthy fear and respect for her, she talked me into giving her that belt back, and finishing the whipping. On the other hand, I once had a woman in my office (in my secular job) who had a toddler who was the most defiant child I had ever seen. He kept acting up, and finally, she lightly tapped him on the hand to express her disapproval. He pointed back at her with anger, and shouted "That bad!" Then she asked me what she should do about her 17 year old son, who she said often beat her up. That was one problem my mother never had... not one out of five boys ever dared raise a hand against her, because she used the rod of correction with liberality, as Scripture suggests we should.

While one is free to think that they might know better than the Scriptures, and are wiser than all the generations that preceded them on how children should be raised, the decline in our culture since these modern approaches came into vogue do not indicate that these approaches have thus far been very successful. And in the schools today, when children misbehave, they are now often taken to juvenile court for matters that were once handled by a few swats on the behind. I fail to see how it more loving to put children into the criminal justice system for behaving like children always have, than it is to spank them, as saith the Scripture.

The Wisdom of Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) has this to say on the matter:

"He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. He that chastiseth his son shall profit by him, and shall boast of him among his acquaintance. He that teacheth his son will make his enemy jealous: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. When his father dieth, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not grieved. He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends. He that maketh much of [i.e., spoils] his son shall bind up his wounds; and his bowels will be troubled at every cry. An horse not broken becometh headstrong: and a child left to himself will be wilful. Cocker [i.e. pamper] thy child, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he will bring thee to heaviness. Laugh not with him, lest thou suffer with him, and lest thou gnash thy teeth in the end. Give him not liberty in youth: beat his sides while he is still young, lest becoming stubborn, he disobey thee. (And overlook not his ignorance. Bow down his neck in his youth.) Train up thy son, and work with him, lest by his looseness thou be offended" (Sirach 30:1-13).

Update: As for the often repeated claim that spanking is harmful to children, I would recommend the following article: Spare the Rod? New Research Challenges Spanking Critics.

Further Thoughts on the Ancient Faith Today Discussion: The Pope and the Patriarch

Pope Francis, preparing to execute a Judo throw on Patriarch Bartholomew

On Pentecost, I was on Ancient Faith Today, which is hosted by Kevin Allen, and was on the show along with Fr. Matthew Baker, to discuss the recent meetings of the Pope and Patriarch Bartholomew. You can listen to that show by clicking here. I would have posted on this sooner, but the following day my wife and I headed to the Holy Land ourselves, for a year late 25th anniversary vacation, and we just got back early Tuesday.

Was it Fair?

I have heard some people who thought that Keven Allen was unfair, and that he gave more time to Fr. Matthew than he did to me. This is the fourth time I have been on Kevin Allen's show, and I have gotten to know him a bit by e-mail and phone conversations, and I have no doubt that Kevin was trying to be fair -- in fact he wouldn't have had me on the show at all, if he was not trying to present a balanced perspective on the question. I think Fr. Matthew did more talking than I did because this is an area of his expertise, he is a sharp and well educated man, and he had a lot of information that he was trying to convey to make his nuanced case for a balanced approach to ecumenical activities. I was more focused on bottom line practical reasons why we should be concerned about Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement, and so my points were generally made in less time. Three out of four of the times Kevin has had me on his show, I have been on with another guest, and it is, I am sure, a tough job to balance two guests, phone calls, and to also keep the discussion moving. We could have spent the entire two hours going back and forth on just one issue, but Kevin kept the discussion moving, we covered a lot of ground, and I think it was a good show.

Is Fr. Matthew a Modernist or a Heretic?

I would also say that Fr. Matthew did not at all strike me as a modernist. And I only wish Patriarch Batholomew was as clear on his ecclesiology as Fr. Matthew was in this discussion. We did have a number of points of disagreement, but I think we agreed a lot more than we disagreed.

Nevertheless, there were certainly some points I would have liked to have made, some expansions on some points, and then of course there are always things that you think of after the fact that you wish you had said, and so here are some additional comments on that discussion.

Is Patriarch Bartholomew Responsible for False Impressions His Words and Actions May Leave?

Early in the show, Fr. Matthew suggested that the Ecumenical Patriarch should not be held responsible for the false impressions his actions and statements have left with both non-Orthodox and Orthodox alike. I think he is responsible... particularly when the current Ecumenical Patriarch continues to add to those false impressions, and does very little to dispel them. In fact, he seems to engage in studied ambiguity on a somewhat regular basis. Christ said in the Gospels, "light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (John 3:19-21). If the agenda that the Patriarch is pushing is good and Orthodox, I think it is reasonable to ask why he is hiding that agenda in the shadows of ambiguity. For example, what is he trying to accomplish by saying that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the two lungs of the Body of Christ? Clearly, such statements are confusing at best.

The Prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

On the question of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch, you can read some more detail here:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Prerogatives_of_the_Ecumenical_Patriarchate

You can also read St. John (Maximovitch)'s report to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR in 1938, "The Decline of the Ecumenical Patriarch," in which he says among other things of note:

"In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power -- represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople."

Unfortunately, St. John's assessment of the decline of the EP has become all the more accurate as time has gone on. This is a real shame, because the EP could be a real source of unity, if he would simply stand clearly for the Faith, and unite the Orthodox world behind a clear and unambiguous expression of our Tradition.

Joint Prayer

On the question of joint prayer with the non-Orthodox, I wrote about this in an article entitled "What should Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?" I mentioned on the show that when I picketed abortion clinics, I have often found myself praying next to Roman Catholics who were also praying, but that we were not joining in prayer, and then Fr. Matthew interjected that I was doing the same thing as the Ecumenical Patriarch. That interjection threw me off a bit, and when I said, "Yes, in this case..." I was referring specifically to the prayers for peace that took place in the Vatican earlier that same day. When I said that, what I had in mind was that so far as I had noticed during the service, the Patriarch did not get up to pray in that particular gathering. He only read from the prophecy of Isaiah. What I would say is that this was actually not at all like what I was referring to, because this was a scheduled prayer meeting, the Patriarch was invited to it, attended it, and participated in it. He did not get up and vocally pray, which would have made it worse, but he should not have lent his authority to an event that involved Muslim Imams, Jewish Rabbis, and Catholic clergy, joining in a prayer service together. Also, when the Patriarch met the Pope in Jerusalem, they did pray together. On other occasions, the Patriarch has prayed at pan-religious services, that involved every stripe of paganism. He has had the Pope commemorated as if he were an Orthodox bishop when the Pope has visited the Phanar. He has often blessed the faithful side by side with Roman Catholic bishops who joined him in blessing the people. There is no precedence in the history of the Orthodox Church for behavior of this sort, it raises serious questions about what the Patriarch believes about the nature of the Church, and there is really no defense for it.

Fr. Matthew mentioned St. John (Maximovitch) being present at the consecration of an Anglican bishop in Shanghai. He also alluded to St. Tikhon of Moscow who attended the consecration of an Anglican bishop in the 1920's wearing a Mantia. Wearing a Mantia is not what I would call being vested, because in a hierarchical liturgy, this is simply what a Bishop wears on his way into the Church, and on his way out. All of us who live in societies in which we are surrounded by non-Orthodox people have to deal with situations where you are invited to non-Orthodox services on special occasions. For example, I attended the funerals of both of my parents, and two of my brothers, and in each case, I declined the opportunity to participate in the actual service, but helped carry the coffin, and was present as a matter of respect. The same goes for weddings of family members. And if you had a good relationship with the local Anglicans in Shanghai, and one of them was being consecrated a bishop, you would probably feel the need to attend to show respect too. I think it was a mistake for St. Tikhon to wear his Mantia at the consecration of an Anglican bishop, but I think this came from a naivete about what Anglicanism was among many Orthodox, at that time (see for example, this article about St. Raphael (Hawaweeny) of Brooklyn). He was not glorified as a saint because he once wore a Mantia at an Anglican service. St. Mark of Ephesus, on the other hand, was glorified in large part for his refusal to compromise with the false union of Florence.

The reason why our canons forbid us to pray with heretics, schismatics, and non-Christians, is that praying together implies a unity of faith that does not actually exist. We do not pass judgment on them. We are not saying that we are better than they are. We are simply not giving a false impression that we are in agreement, when we are not. Now there are many sticky situations that arise at times. In the Bible, we have an example of this, in 2 Kings (or 4th Kings in the LXX) chapter 5, where the Syrian commander Naaman is healed by the Prophet Elisha, and comes to believe in the God of Israel, but he presents Elisha with a pastoral problem: "In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing." Naaman was not going to the temple of Rimmon to pray for peace with his master -- he had an obligation to be there, because he was the commander of the Syrian army. And Elisha simply said "Go in peace." There are other examples that could be discussed where one might wonder what is the best way to handle it, and reasonable Orthodox Christians might reach different conclusions on how best to deal with it -- that is another question. Those situations are quite different, however, then when you intentionally put yourself into a joint prayer service, and participate fully with the non-Orthodox in a service you helped make up, such as for example occurred at the Holy Seplechre in Jerusalem, on May 25th, 2014 with the Pope and Patriarch Bartholomew:



I watched this video for the first time yesterday, just a week after I was at the Holy Sepulchre myself, for the first time. Being able to venerate the place where Christ died for us, and the place where He rose from the dead was one of the most moving experiences of my life. Watching this holy place used as a backdrop for this Ecumenical theater turns my stomach.

It should also be noted that prior to the 1960's the Roman Catholics also observed this tradition, and according to their interpretation, they would allow for private joint prayer with the heterodox, so long as the prayers were Catholic, but they would not allow public joint prayer because of the confusion such things create.

In this video you can hear Pope Benedict being commemorated as if he were an Orthodox bishop at the Phanar in Constantinople, ahead of the Patriarch of Constantinople:



And unfortunately, these ecumenical dog and pony shows get much worse:


And then there's this:



And unfortunately, there is a lot more where that one came from.

Why have the Orthodox Not Established their own Pope of Rome?

I think there are two simple answers: 1) for most of the history that has elapsed since the Great Schism, this would not have been tolerated by the powers that be in Italy; and 2) if we established an Orthodox Pope of Rome, then we would presumably have to recognize him as first in the diptychs... and this would have created an unnecessary set of problems.

Intellectual Ascesis

Fr. Matthew made the point that there are certain things that one cannot learn simply by praying with their prayer rope, and spoke of an "intellectual ascesis". There are a couple of problems I have with this statement. For one, it suggests that people like St. John (Maximovitch) or the Elder Paisios were uneducated... which they were not. St. John was a seminary professor at Bitol, Serbia, before he became a bishop. The Elder Paisios did not have the same level of formal education, but the kind of education he did get as a monastic was not simply a matter of saying the Jesus Prayer. And while one would not likely learn Latin simply through the grace of the Holy Spirit, one of the Elder's level of spirituality does learn a level of spiritual discernment that is far beyond that of most of us, and so if he advises caution when it comes to "ecumenical dialogue" one would be foolish to ignore it.

This reminds me of something from the sayings of the desert fathers, regarding St. Arsenius the Great, who was one of the most educated men of his time:

"One day Abba Arsenius consulted an old Egyptian monk about his own thoughts. Someone noticed this and said to him, "Abba Arsenius, how is that you with such a good Latin and Greek education, ask this peasant about your thoughts?" He replied, "I have indeed been taught Latin and Greek, but I do not know even the alphabet of this peasant" (Benedicta Ward, translator, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, The Alphabetical Collection (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1975, 1984 revised edition), p. 10.

Also, we should remember that on the feast of Pentecost we sing:

"Blessed art Thou, O Christ our God, Who hast shown forth the fishermen as supremely wise, by sending down upon them the Holy Spirit, and through them didst draw the world into Thy net. O Lover of mankind, glory be to Thee."

If the grace of the Holy Spirit could make the fishermen supremely wise, even though they were unlearned men, then we have to believe that the Holy Spirit can still make unlearned men supremely wise. That of course does not mean that we do not value formal education. In fact, it is a blessing to the Church to have scholars of the caliber of Fr. Matthew in the Church, but having a Ph.D. does not make one a reliable guide on spiritual matters, but attaining theosis does.

Also, just as the Holy Spirit revealed to St. Peter that the time to receive the gentiles into the Church had come (Acts 10:1-48), if the "dialogue" with Rome was going in a God-pleasing direction, the Holy Spirit could and would reveal this to even "unlearned" saints.

Also, I don't think the phrase "intellectual ascesis" has any basis in the Tradition of the Church... though if I am wrong, I hope someone will show me where to find a precedence for it. I think it is generally advisable to not coin new theological phrases without very good reasons for doing so.

Liturgical Chaos in Rome

We also spoke about the liturgical decline of the Roman Catholic Church, post-Vatican II. For some of the videos I was referring to see Unfortunate Trends in the Roman Catholic Church. One further observation I would make is that the tendency to want to have rock and roll praise and worship in services that are oriented towards the youth is an example of the Roman Catholic Church emulating some of the most destructive novelties the Protestants have come up with in recent years. I remember growing up in an Evangelical Protestant Church around the time that the idea of "children's church" began to become popular. In the regular services, we sang the old hymns that Protestants had long sung... which at least have some substance to them, even if flawed. In children's church, we sang happy clappy songs that dumbed everything down (fortunately, my time spent in those kinds of services was only on rare occasion). The problem is, when children who grew up in children's church became adults, the adult services started becoming like children's church.... and that is what you now see in most protestant churches today. Give it another generation, and the kind of services you see at "World Youth Day" will become the norm in most Roman Catholic parishes.

"Ecumenist" Saints:

Fr. Matthew spoke of St. Mark of Ephesus as an "ecumenist." Now if you define being an ecumenist as anyone who is willing to sit down and talk with a heretic or a schismatic, in hopes of bringing them back into the Church, then that would be true, but that is not how most people use the term. St. Mark's words on his death bed about the Unionist Patriarch of Constantinople, with whom he broke communion because of his false union with Rome, clearly shows that he was not an ecumenist, in the more usual sense the term is used:

"Concerning the Patriarch I shall say this, lest it should perhaps occur to him to show me a certain respect at the burial of this my humble body, or to send to my grave any of his hierarchs or clergy or in general any of those in communion with him in order to take part in prayer or to join the priests invited to it from amongst us, thinking that at some time, or perhaps secretly, I had allowed communion with him. And lest my silence give occasion to those who do not know my views well and fully to suspect some kind of conciliation, I hereby state and testify before the many worthy men here present that I do not desire, in any manner and absolutely, and do not accept communion with him or with those who are with him, not in this life nor after my death, just as (I accept) neither the Union nor Latin dogmas, which he and his adherents have accepted, and for the enforcement of which he has occupied this presiding place, with the aim of overturning the true dogmas of the Church. I am absolutely convinced that the farther I stand from him and those like him, the nearer I am to God and all the saints, and to the degree that I separate myself from them am in union with the Truth and with the Holy Fathers, the Theologians of the Church; and I am likewise convinced that those who count themselves with them stand far away from the Truth and from the blessed Teachers of the Church. And for this reason I say: just as in the course of my whole life I was separated from them, so at the time of my departure, yea and after my death, I turn away from intercourse and communion with them and vow and command that none (of them) shall approach either my burial or my grave, and likewise anyone else from our side, with the aim of attempting to join and concelebrate in our Divine services; for this would be to mix what cannot be mixed. But it befits them to be absolutely separated from us until such time as God shall grant correction and peace to His Church" [as quoted in The Orthodox Word, June-July, 1967, pp. 103ff, emphasis added].

It is true that St. Mark went to the Council of Florence, and given that the Orthodox bishops had agreed to go, it makes sense that he would have as well, however, the results of the Council of Florence do not indicate that it was a good idea for the Orthodox generally to have agreed to go. It ended with a false union, and further division, which weakened the East Roman Empire at a crucial moment prior to its final destruction.

St. Philaret of Moscow and Grace in Other Churches

Fr. Matthew suggested that St. Philaret of Moscow "recognized grace" in other Churches. I think he had in mind his statements about valid sacraments, which we discussed on the show, and which I mention in an article on the question of "corrective" baptism. Again, if I am mistaken, I would like to see the quotes, but I don't believe he ever spoke of the grace of the Church being present in heterodox sacraments. This of course does not suggest that those who are innocently outside the Church have no relationship with God, and that all that they do for God is without meaning to Him... it just means that this is a matter we leave in God's hands, because it is outside of the Church.

The Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism

Fr. Matthew mentioned the question of the "Pan-Heresy of Ecumenism". The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has anathematized the heresy of Ecumenism as follows:

"Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"

I suspect that Fr. Matthew would agree that anyone who would affirm what this anathema describes would be affirming a heresy. I think it is important that we speak clearly on this question, because there are, in fact, many in the ecumenical movement who do affirm precisely what is anathematized here.

See The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism, by Metropolitan Vitaly

See also The Word "Anthema" and Its Meaning," by St. John (Maximovitch)

Uniatism and the Soviets

One final point that I wanted to address was the reference made the the confiscation of Uniate churches in the Ukraine under the Soviets. No religious group in Russia suffered more under the Soviets than the Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church was hardly calling the shots for the Soviet government. It certainly was regrettable, but hardly worthy of being compared the the official and long standing policy of forced unia on the part of the Catholic Church.

Conclusion

We always focus on what we disagree on, but we should remember what we agree on as well. I enjoyed the discussion, and was glad to hear Fr. Matthew Baker's clear affirmation that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I am also grateful that Ancient Faith Radio provided a platform for us to have this discussion.

For Further information, I would recommend the following pages:

Ecumenism Awareness

False Union with Rome

You can also listen to a sermon I gave on this same topic: True and False Unity.

And you can listen to Fr. Thomas Hopko's comments on this topic by clicking here.

Update: Here is a Roman Catholic assessment of the state of contemporary Roman Catholicism:

Prayer to the Holy Pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia of Murom

The following is a prayer to Ss. Peter and Febronia of Murom recently approved by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church for their commemoration (and for the emphasizing of the importance of Christian marriage) that was previously approved for the Sunday prior to September 19th n.s., which was previously approved in December 2012 (along with petitions for the augmented litany).

The original text of this prayer is posted here: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3005167.html

This translation was graciously provided by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, with a minor tweak from Fr. German Ciuba.

Prayer to the Holy Pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia of Murom

O ye who have greatly pleased God as all-wondrous miracleworkers, pious Prince Peter and Princess Febronia, intercessors of Murom, protectors of honorable marriage and zealous prayerful intermediaries for all of us to the Lord!

During the days of your lives you showed an example of piety, Christian love and faithfulness to one another even to the grave, and thus you glorified lawful and blessed marriage.

For this we turn to you and we pray with firm zeal: lift up for us sinners, your holy prayers to the Lord our God, and beseech for us all that is good and profitable for our souls and bodies: true faith, good hope, unhypocritical love, unshakeable piety, success in good deeds*, and, especially, through your prayers grant to those who have been joined in the bond of marriage chastity, love for one another in the bond of peace, oneness of mind and body, a bed undefiled, a blameless life, long-lived seed, the blessing of children, homes filled with all good things, and, in eternal life the unfading crown of Heavenly glory.

Yea, O holy wonder-workers! Disdain not our prayers, which we raise up to you with compunction, but be our eternal intercessors before the Lord and grant unto us through your intercessions to receive eternal salvation and to inherit the Heavenly Kingdom, that we may glorify the inexpressible love for mankind of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God, worshiped in the Holy Trinity, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

*if the Moleben is served for those who are about to enter into matrimony, then the prayer is read in the following redaction:

especially to those who wish to be joined in the bond of marriage grant, through your prayers, chastity, faithfulness to one another and love in the bond of peace, oneness of mind and body, a blameless life and, in eternal life the unfading crown of Heavenly glory.

Stump the Priest: Commemorations

Question: "How exactly do the commemoration lists work? I know I write the names of Orthodox or non-orthodox people I’m praying for, and then eat the Prosphora bread afterwords… But how do I get the commemorations read out during liturgy? I’m praying for a deceased friend of a friend… Also, for commemorations of the living, are those typically just the sick? Or do we do list those we’re praying for “in general”? For instance, my parents, God Parents, friends that I’m trying to introduce to the church, etc…"

Commemorations can be submitted during the liturgy by either writing out the names of those who are to be commemorated, on the sheets of paper that are placed near the prosphora, or by getting a commemoration book and putting their names in it. If you are using the sheets of paper, there are sheets with read ink that are for the living, and sheets with black ink that are for the dead. In commemoration books, the living are listed in the front section, and the section for the dead follows that.

You simply place your commemoration list with a prosphora into the appropriate basket. Only Orthodox Christians can be commemorated by name during the services. You can include the names of the non-Orthodox in your commemoration book, but they should be labeled as such, and it is best to have them listed in a separate section. For more on how one could set up a commemoration book, see "How to Set Up a Personal Commemoration Book."

It is very important that we not just submit names to be prayed for by the priest, but that when we submit those names, we first pray for them ourselves. As Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) of blessed memory used to say, we should not be like cuckoo birds that lay eggs in the nests of other birds, and leave the job of hatching those eggs to others. If we ask others to pray for someone, we should also be praying for them. By submitting a prosphora with a list of commemorations, you are participating in the proskomedia, and you are praying with the priest for those people that you have listed.

In our parish,  these commemorations should be submitted before the end of the first litany at the beginning of the liturgy.

If you have a commemoration book, you can also pray for those you have listed during the week as part of your morning and/or evening prayers. In the Jordanville Prayer Book there is a section at the end of the morning prayers in which these commemorations could be done.

It is a pious practice to take the prosphora from your commemorations, cut it up and let it dry out, and to eat a little bit each morning, after your morning prayers, and to take a sip of holy water. Prosphora should be eaten before you eat anything else that day. For those who cannot attend a daily liturgy, this is a way of participating in the liturgy to a lesser extent throughout the week (see also: Sanctified Bread, by Fr. Victor Potapov).

There are generally three places in the Liturgy in which Orthodox Christians can be commemorated aloud:

1. The Augmented Litany, at which time we can pray for people who are celebrating a special occasion, such as a names day; we can pray for those who are ill; and we can pray for those who are traveling.

2. Commemorations  are also done at the Great Entrance. In our parish, aside from the fixed commemorations, we usually only pray for the departed, but some parish also do other commemorations at this point.

3. At weekday Liturgies, apart from Great Feasts, a litany can be done for the departed. There are several Soul Saturdays during the year in which we especially pray for the departed.

If there is someone that you would like to have commemorated aloud during the Liturgy, it is best to let the priest know before the Liturgy begins. In a pinch, you could have a note sent into the altar, but again, only the Orthodox can be commemorated aloud by name during the services.

You can also ask the priest to serve a pannikhida for any Orthodox reposed you may wish to pray for. This is especially done on or near the anniversary of their repose. For the recently departed, a pannikhida is usually done on the first, third, ninth, and fortieth day of their repose. For the non-Orthodox, I would recommend that you use the Akathist for the Repose of the Departed, which is in the Book of Akathists from Jordanville. For the living, you can request a moleben to pray for any pious purpose, which would certainly include prayers for the salvation of a relative. You can also do a reader's moleben for those purposes as well.

Stump the Priest: The Prayer of the Heart

This is the first post in a new series I will be doing: Questions and answers about the Orthodox Faith. If you have a question, you can e-mail me.

Question: Often we read in the Fathers that, when we are practicing the Jesus Prayer, we should "let our mind descend into our heart." What does this mean and how do we do it? Maybe that's an easy one, but I've never understood it. 

Answer: I cannot speak to this question from personal experience, but I would recommend two books on the subject, and then will quote some excerpts from one of them, which in turn quotes from the other in answer to your question.

1. "On the Prayer of Jesus", by St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov).

2. "The Power of the Name", by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware).

Metropolitan Kallistos writes:

"The repeated Invocation of the Name, by making our prayer more unified, makes it at the same time more inward, more a part of ourselves — not something that we do at particular moments, but something that we are all the time; not an occasional act but a continuing state. Such praying becomes truly prayer of the whole person... In Orthodoxy, as in other traditions, prayer is commonly distinguished under three headings, which are to be regarded as interpenetrating levels rather than successive stages: prayer of the lips (oral prayer); prayer of the nous, the mind or intellect (mental prayer); prayer of the heart (or of the intellect in the heart). The Invocation of the Name begins, like any other prayer, as an oral prayer, in which words are spoken by the tongue through a deliberate effort of will. At the same time, once more by a deliberate effort, we concentrate our mind upon the meaning of what the tongue says. ...In more technical terms, this means that we are called to advance from the second level to the third: from "prayer of the intellect’ to ‘prayer of the intellect in heart’. ‘Heart’ in this context is to be understood in the Semitic and biblical rather than the modern Western sense, as signifying not just the emotions and affections but the totality of the human person. The heart is the primary organ of our identity, it is our innermost being, ‘the very deepest and truest self, not attained except through sacrifice, through death’. According to Boris Vysheslavtsev, it is ‘the centre not only of consciousness but of the unconscious, not only of the soul but of the spirit, not only of the spirit but of the body, not only of the comprehensible but of the incomprehensible; in one word, it is the absolute centre’. Interpreted in this way, the heart is far more a material organ in the body; the physical heart is an outward symbol of the boundless spiritual potentialities of the human creature, made in the image of God, called to attain his likeness.

To accomplish the journey inwards and to attain true prayer, it is required of us to enter into this ‘absolute centre’, that is ,to descend from the intellect into the heart. More exactly, we are called to descend not from but with the intellect. The aim is not just ‘prayer of the heart’ but ‘prayer of the intellect in the heart’, for our varied forms of understanding, including our reason, are a gift from God and are to be used in his service, not rejected. This ‘union of the intellect with the heart’ signifies the reintegration of our fallen and fragmented nature, our restoration to original wholeness. Prayer of the heart is a return to Paradise, a reversal of the Fall, a recovery of the status ante peccatum. This means that it is an eschatological reality, a pledge and anticipation of the Age to Come — something which, in this present age, is never fully and entirely realized.

... Orthodox writers in the last 150 years have in general laid little emphasis upon the physical techniques. The counsel given by Bishop Ignatii Brianchaninov (1807-67) is typical:

"We advise our beloved brethren not to try to establish this technique within them, if it does not reveal itself of its own accord. Many, wishing to learn it by experience, have damaged their lungs and gained nothing. The essence of the matter consists in the union of the mind with the heart during prayer, and this is achieved by the grace of God in its own time, determined by God. The breathing technique is fully replaced by the unhurried enunciation of the Prayer, by a short rest or pause at the end, each time it is said, by gentle and unhurried breathing, and by the enclosure of the mind in the words of the Prayer. By means of these aids we can easily attain to a certain degree of attention."

As regards the speed of recitation, Bishop Ignatii suggests:

"To say the Jesus Prayer a hundred time attentively and without haste, about half an hour is needed, but some ascetics require even longer. Do not say the prayers hurriedly, one immediately after another. Make a short pause after each prayer, and so help the mind to concentrate. Saying the Prayer without pauses distracts the mind. Breathe with care, gently and slowly.""

Starting a Mission and Building a Parish

This is an article I put together on lessons learned from starting a mission. For those of you who have gone through that as well, if you have some insights that you would like to add, I would appreciate the feedback:


http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/parish_building.html

Daniel and the Three Youths in a Non-Kosher Cafeteria

A sermon on how the Prophet Daniel (1:1-21) and the Three Youths learned to tame lions, and walk around in fiery furnaces by standing for God in small ways first: Click here to listen.

An Orthodox Look at English Translations of the Bible

I posted an article on English Translations of the Bible some time back, but the HTML formatting of it was messed up. I had been using Word for web pages, which usually works well enough, but what I have discovered is that if you have too many links, it is prone to these sort of formatting problems. So here is the cleaned up, and slightly revised text:

 http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/translations.html

A Pilgrim's Podvig

Someone suggested I write about why I became Orthodox in 750 words or less. Well, this is just about 18,000 words over that limit:

A Pilgrim's Podvig

I had made a few attempts at this in the past, but I always felt like those attempts only told part of the story, so this time I went big, and began David Copperfield style with "I am born", and went from there.

This article is peppered with hyperlinks, because unless someone followed a very similar path to mine, there would be too many references that would not be understood.

Orthodox in Dixie... the Movie

The Russian Church establishes a new commemoration of Ss. Peter and Febronia of Murom

What follows is a Google translation that I have cleaned up as best as I could, but there may be some minor errors. Fr. Michael van Opstall kindly provided a translation of the petitions.

JOURNAL № 129

CONSIDERED the establishment of an additional day to commemorate the wonder workers Holy Prince Peter (in monasticism, David) and Princess Fevronia (in monasticism, Euphrosyne), of Murom.

Information:

The celebration of the Holy Prince Peter and Princess Fevronia of Murom on July 8 (June 25 by the Julian calendar), falls during the Fast of Ss. Peter and Paul . In this regard, the Council of Bishops on February 4th, 2011, instructed the liturgical commission "to consider an additional date for the commemoration of the Holy Prince Peter and Princess Fevronia of Murom, referring to the desire of many Christians to be married on the day honoring these patrons of marriage" (paragraph 17, of the "On matters of internal life and external activities of the Russian Orthodox Church").In examining the issue, it was noted that an additional day of commemoration of Saints Peter and Fevronia could be installed on the 20th of January (the transfer of the relics of the saints from the Murom Museum of the Annunciation Monastery in Murom) or September 19th (transfer of the relics from the Annunciation Monastery to the Holy Trinity convent Murom.). The Commission of the Inter-Council on worship and religious art, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, discussed the issue, and recommended that in conjunction with the celebration of the memory of St. Peter and Fevronia, there also be additional petitions to be done at the augmented litany of Divine Liturgy, and that preaching on this day be devoted to the Christian doctrine of family and marriage.

RESOLVED:

1. To establish an additional day for the commemoration of the Holy wonder workers Prince Peter (in monasticism, David) and Princess Fevronia (in monasticism Euphrosyne) of Murom on the Sunday preceding the September 19 (September 6 by the Julian calendar), in remembrance of transferring their fair bodies in the year 1992.

2. In conjunction with the commemoration of Saints Peter and Fevronia, clergy preach on the subject of pious Christian family values.

3. Also on this occasion, to add to the augmented litany of the Divine Liturgy the following petitions:

Again we pray that Thy people would keep this commandment: what God has joined, let not man put asunder, and that He would give their home churches indestructible strength and increase in love unfeigned;

Again we pray for the preservation of the marriages of Thy servants, in peace and concord, piety and purity;

Again we pray that Thy people may rejoice to see sons and daughters, and that our people would multiply and inherit Thy blessing from generation to generation.

4. That the Synodal liturgical commission submit to the Holy Synod by April 1, 2013 a prayer to be read at the end of the Divine Liturgy in memory of the days of Ss. Peter and Fevronia, for the multiplication of love, strengthening of families, and the faithful preservation of the gift of chastity in those not married and to help them prepare for their entry into family life.

What should Orthodox Christians do, when there is no parish nearby?

 

The Holy New Martyr Lydia of Russia
Towards the end of the inaugural show of Ancient Faith Radio's Orthodoxy Live, Fr. Evan Armetas was asked a question: what should Orthodox Christians do, if they live in an area where there are no Orthodox Churches nearby? Is it OK to go to a heterodox Church in such a case, when you are not able to go to an Orthodox parish?

Fr. Evan's answer indicated that he knew his answer would be controversial, but he said that his own pastoral response was that it was OK. He said that they should go to those churches in order to hear "the liturgy of the word" and for fellowship. You can hear the question and his answer by clicking this link, beginning at about the 55 minute mark: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxylive/november_18_2012

I have no doubts that Fr. Evan's answer was sincere, and I am sure that he thinks it is better than any alternative. And since he was raised in the Church, I think it is partly due to a lack of time spent actually attending such heterodox churches.

I strongly disagree with Fr. Evan's answer, and for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the canons forbid us to go to Non-Orthodox houses of worship or to pray with non-Orthodox Christians or schismatics:

Canon LXV of the Apostles says: "If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon IX of Laodicia says: "Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion." 

And Canon XXXIII of Laodicia says: "One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."

All of these canons have Ecumenical authority, having been approved by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

Sometimes the counter argument that one hears to this is that the heretics at the time of these canons were much worse than the average Protestant and Roman Catholic, but the last canon referenced says were are not to pray with heretics or schismatics. Schismatics differ from us in no theological way at all, at least in the beginning, and so any schismatic group would be a thousand times closer to the Orthodox than any Protestant or Roman Catholic.

To cite a relatively recent example from the lives of the Saints, one should consider the Holy New Martyr Lydia of Russia (you can hear a sermon on her life by clicking here). She lived during the time of the so-called "Living Church" which was a renovationist schism that was established by the Soviets, and for a time it was the "official" Church -- and the only Church allowed by the Soviets to function openly. St. Lydia's own father joined the Living Church, not out of conviction, but out of fear of persecution. St. Lydia departed from her father, and we are told that she only rarely went to Church during that time, because she would not attend the "Official Church", and the Catacomb Churches did not hold regular services. So unless she was able to attend services in a legitimate Orthodox Church she stayed home and prayed. As bad as the Living Church was, it was far closer to Orthodoxy than any Protestant or Roman Catholic church. One would be far more likely to hear something approximating the "Liturgy of the word" in such a Church. But St. Lydia refused to go.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the oldest recorded Catechism of the Church, stated:

"And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church.  For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children" (Catechetical Lectures 18:26).

We do not refrain from praying with heretics or schismatics because we are condemning them to hell. We refuse to pray with them because praying together implies a unity of faith that does not exist. As the Prophet Amos observed: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3).

Aside from the canons, there are two practical reasons why I think that Fr. Evan's advice should not be followed:

1). One would not hear anything close to the "Liturgy of the word" in most Protestant or Catholic churches. What one would likely encounter would range from the absolutely heretical to the mildly heretical. If one knows what to reject and what to pay attention to, there are many heterodox clergy who have edifying things to say, but the problem is that the average Orthodox layman does not have the knowledge to know what to reject and what to listen to, and so would almost certainly be led astray by regular exposure to such preaching.

2). In the history of Orthodoxy in the United States there have been many Orthodox who did exactly what Fr. Evan suggested. Some, if they eventually found their way to an Orthodox Church remained in the Church. But in most cases, such people lost their connection with the Church... and this is all the more true of their children, who in most cases grew up thinking of themselves as belonging to the group that they were raised in.

So what should an Orthodox Christian do if there are no Orthodox Churches in their area?

First of all, they should figure out which parish is the closest, and they should try to attend there as often as they can. In our time, this is made very simple by the internet. There is a very good website called "Orthodoxy in America", where you can simply enter your zip code and find any parish that is within a certain radius: http://orthodoxyinamerica.org/   The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North America also have a similar directory: http://assemblyofbishops.org/directories/parishes

Secondly, when they are not able to go to the nearest parish, they should pray at home. Every Orthodox home is a little Church, and if there are no other Orthodox parishes near enough for you to attend, then this is the Church you should be attending.

You can hear the "Liturgy of the word" by serving Typika (or Obednitsa, as it is sometimes called). I regularly update this page, where one can find the text of Typika (when served in the absence of a priest) and the variable portions of Typika for Sundays and Feast days by clicking here: http://www.saintjonah.org/typ/ You can find instructions on how to do lay services, as well as other texts for that purpose by clicking here: http://www.saintjonah.org/services/horologion.htm

With the blessing of their bishop, they may also want to advertize their services. They could do so at no cost, by setting a blog and posting information about their services. They may find that there are some other Orthodox Christians in their area, and their house Church may be the beginnings of a future parish.

As Archbishop Averky (of blessed memory) observed, many Orthodox Christians have the mistaken notion that they are almost unable to pray at all without a priest; but short of the sacraments, any Orthodox Christian can -- and, in the instances we are discussing, should, to the best of their ability -- do the full cycle of services for Sundays and Feast days. See: Comments on Reader Services by Archbishop Averky,of blessed memory.

With all that is available for free on the internet these days, it is not difficult for an Orthodox Christian to at least do some regular services in their own homes, when they cannot attend a parish. And instead of setting your children up to drift into heterodoxy, you will provide them with a vivid example of the effort that one should put forth to maintain their faith in a largely non-Orthodox culture.

Update: Someone reminded me of St. Raphael (Hawaweeny)'s Pastoral Epistle to his flock, at a time when travel was much more difficult, Orthodox Churches were much fewer and farther between. Here is the most pertinent portion to this question:

"Therefore, as the official head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and as one who must give account (Heb. 13:17) before the judgment seat of the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (I Pet. 2:25), that I have fed the flock of God (I Pet. 5:2), as I have been commissioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, and inasmuch as the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) does not differ in things vital to the well-being of the Holy Orthodox Church from some of the most errant Protestant sects, I direct all Orthodox people residing in any community not to seek or to accept the ministrations of the Sacraments and rites from any clergy excepting those of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the Apostolic command that the Orthodox should not commune in ecclesiastical matters with those who are not of the same household of faith (Gal. 6:10), is clear: "Any bishop, or presbyter or deacon who will pray with heretics, let him be anathematized; and if he allows them as clergymen to perform any service, let him be deposed." (Apostolic Canon 45) "Any bishop, or presbyter who accepts Baptism or the Holy Sacrifice from heretics, we order such to be deposed, for what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (Apostolic Canon 46)

As to members of the Holy Orthodox Church living in areas beyond the reach of Orthodox clergy, I direct that the ancient custom of our Holy Church be observed, namely, in cases of extreme necessity, that is, danger of death, children may be baptized by some pious Orthodox layman, or even by the parent of the child, by immersion three times in the names of the (Persons of the) Holy Trinity, and in case of death such baptism is valid; but, if the child should live, he must be brought to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Chrismation.

In the case of the death of an Orthodox person where no priest of the Holy Orthodox Church can be had, a pious layman may read over the corpse, for the comfort of the relatives and the instruction of the persons present, Psalm 90 and Psalm 118, and add thereto the Trisagion ("Holy God, Holy Mighty," etc.). But let it be noted that as soon as possible the relative must notify some Orthodox bishop or priest and request him to serve the Liturgy and Funeral for the repose of the soul of the departed in his cathedral or parish Church.

As to Holy Matrimony, if there be any parties united in wedlock outside the pale of the holy Orthodox Church because of the remoteness of Orthodox centers from their home, I direct that as soon as possible they either invite an Orthodox priest or go to where he resides and receive from his hands the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony; otherwise they will be considered excommunicated until they submit to the Orthodox Church's rule.

I further direct that Orthodox Christians should not make it a practice to attend the services of other religious bodies, so that there be no confusion concerning the teaching or doctrines. Instead, I order that the head of each household, or a member, may read the special prayers which can be found in the Hours in the Holy Orthodox Service Book, and such other devotional books as have been set forth by the authority of the Holy Orthodox Church."

5th Anniversary of Reconciliation

Five years ago today (May 17, 2007) , a miracle happened in the Russian Church. 70 years of division brought about by the machinations of the devil and his communist minions came to an end.

Since that time, the restoration of full communion between the faithful inside and outside of Russia has born tremendous fruit. I know of no one who supported reconciliation who has expressed the slightest regret, and I know of many who were skeptical who have come to see that their fears have not materialized.

It was a joyous occasion to witness, and it is a joy to reflect on it.

Here are my blog posts from 5 years ago:


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

Here is a reflection from the perspective of those inside of Russia:

	Five Years of the Reunified Russian Church: Reflections of Fr. Nikolai Balashov admin March 17, 2012, marks the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion by His Holiness, the late Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia (+2008), and His Eminence, the...

And here is a documentary (in Russian) about the events leading up to the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion:

The Approaching 5th Anniversary of Reconciliation

 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
 

St. Innocent of Rome on the Death Penalty

   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.

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

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