Today’s Gospel reading for the daily cycle is Luke 13: 18-29.
The Lord said this parable: Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it. And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
Our Lord’s hearers wanted to know, “…are there few that be saved?” He refused to answer Yes or No, as if to say, “Numbers and percentages of other people being saved are not the point.” Instead He told them to pay attention to their own salvation: “…Strive to enter in at the strait [=narrow] gate.” What is the narrow gate? Since we desire to be saved, obviously this is an all-important question.
We may think of the narrow gate in terms of our outer and inner life. In our outer life, the narrow gate is the way of life created by unwavering adherence to the True Faith and by unceasing attempts to live the Way demanded by the Truth, characterized by constant struggles that sometimes bring victories and sometimes bring defeats followed by repentance and renewed struggle. This unremitting warfare must last until death. By the grace of God and His mercy, if we remain on this path we will have a firm hope of our salvation.
Our present circumstances are actually quite favorable to this narrow gate approach to life, because, given what is going on around us, we will find that simply in virtue of not giving up our Faith and not giving up the struggle to live according to the Faith, we will be placed among “the few.” We have to remember that fewer and fewer people – both Orthodox and non-Orthodox – are likely to understand us, and that this does not tell us that we are doing anything wrong, but rather the opposite. They will go their way, and we must go ours. We must ask the Lord constantly for the humility to accept this and in simplicity of faith to persevere on the path laid out before us without condemning anyone else or being curious about their ultimate fate compared to ours. This quiet life of faithfulness in the midst of spiritual loneliness is our narrow gate.
This brings us to the subject of our inner life. St. Theophylact comments on the protest of the damned, “…and Thou hast taught in our streets,” as follows: “Observe that it is those whom the Lord taught in the streets, that is, who only received the Lord’s teaching in public, who are rejected. But if we receive His teaching, not just in public, but also within the closeness of our contrite and compunctionate heart, then we will not be rejected” (The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke, c. 13, vss. 23-30).” Here St. Theophylact is not addressing the subject of those who are formally outside the Church but rather of those who “officially” are inside, whether, as in Our Lord’s time, inside the Old Testament Church or, as in St. Theophylact’s (and our) time, inside the New Testament Church. In other words, being a nominal Christian, or even being a regular churchgoer who nevertheless does not have an inner life of prayer, does not save. We must cherish the Lord’s teaching “within the closeness of our contrite and compunctionate heart,” and if we do, then… rejoice! – “…we will not be rejected.”
These two aspects of the Life in Christ – the outer and inner – are intimately joined. By striving to remain outwardly faithful, we will invite rejection from the world. The ensuing loneliness will drive us either into giving up entirely or into a more intense inner life of prayer. Which way we go is up to us, but that we will go one way or the other is not in doubt.
One piece of good news is that there is more Orthodox literature about the inner life available to us than ever before. In the midst of the cataclysmic destruction of Christian civilization over the past 100 years, there has yet, by God’s loving Providence, been a rebirth of interest precisely in the spiritual life, manifested by an explosion of new editions and translations of the Church services and of spiritual books, as well as the movement to return to traditional iconography and chant. It is as if the Lord is saying, “I have given you a tough job, living in these times, but I am giving you some good tools to deal with it.” There are in fact so many of these tools that the difficulty lies in choosing which ones to use. I cannot recommend precisely or comprehensively which of these spiritual tools to choose for each of you reading this; you will have to work with your father confessor on that. There are basics, of course: the Scriptures and Lives of the Saints, the prayer book, the service books, the prayer rope, and articles and books about the spiritual life intended for beginners. Ask the Lord to show you the way. Prayer teaches itself.
Let us then take heart. The Lord desires our salvation, far more than we do ourselves. He does not require from us miracles but rather “…to receive His teaching, not just in public but also within the closeness of our contrite and compunctionate heart.” This each of us can do and by so doing acquire a firm hope of our salvation.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Enter in by the narrow gate
Thanks to our donors! May the Lord reward your love with His grace! To our other listeners: please consider a gift to help me out. If you have PayPal, you can send a gift to my account at [email protected]. If you want to receive a receipt for a tax deduction, contact me at that email, and I can tell you how to donate to our parish, who in turn will pass the donation on to me and send you a receipt.
Another announcement: The Eternal Sacrifice: The Genesis Readings for Great Lent, my book of short daily commentaries on the Genesis readings at Vespers during the weekdays of Great Lent, is available at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/FrStevenAllen. It would make a nice Christmas gift for Orthodox friends. Great Lent begins on March 2nd.
I.
Background: The Russian Church Abroad
A.
Brief Chronology – Ukaz 362 of 1920, Met. Anthony,
i.
between wars in Serbia, Met. Anastassy
ii.
WWII, Munich
iii.
post WWII – New York, de-recognition by World Orthodoxy
iv.
’60’s-mid ’80’s – St. Philaret, strict confession – high noon
v.
Met. Vitaly, twilight
vi.
Met. Laurus, absorption by MP, night
B.
Review schisms – Evlogians, North American Metropolia
C.
General Features of the Russian Church Abroad – Did not fit into neat
categories of “TO” vs. “WO.” Was unique.
1. a general conservatism in theology and piety
2. outstanding liturgical life
3. outstanding spiritual figures
4. institutional stability and normalcy
5.
Russian patriotism, anti-communism
6.
spectrum of views on contemporary church situation
a.
liberal wing – ecclesiological strictness distasteful
b.
broad mainstream – unaware of non-Russian issues
c.
orthodox wing – must respond to current situation
i.
Boston and Platina: history, influence
7.
Cf. Bishop Stefan’s Life of St. Philaret; chose not to push
formal breaking of communion in 1974 at 3rd All-Diaspora
Sobor so that liberal wing would not go into schism.
8.
1983 Anathema – varying interpretations
II.
The MP Acquires Most of the ROCOR.
A. Met.
Anastassy’s prohibition and why. Cat and mouse.
B. Russia
opens up. ROCOR efforts there. Opposing views.
C. The “op” of the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
D. 2000
MP “Jubilee Council”; 2001 – Met. Laurus, letters to MP and
to Serbian patriarchate, Met. Vitaly and ROCiE
E.
Discussion of Sergianism and Ecumenism forbidden. The phony 2006
council. Lack of preconditions for unity laid down by previous
ROCOR decisions.
F. Outcome of 2007 union: Former ROCOR hierarchy now silenced; previously strongest bulwark against ecumenism destroyed.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course, Class 48: Russia and the End of the World, Part D – The Rise and Fall of the Russian Church Abroad
At that time, as Jesus taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders, And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority? And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me: The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet. And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Of course, these questioners – the chief priests, scribes, and elders – were not asking Our Lord this question because they sincerely sought the truth. Their minds were made up, and they were simply trying to trick Him. Their minds were poniro, as we say in Greek – sneaky, twisted, and evil-intended – and they could not think straight or see straight or talk straight. For them, language was a tool to get power over others, not a holy medium of heart to heart communication. St. Theophan the Recluse comments on this encounter to illustrate the difference between the mind of Faith, which is also the deep and reasonable mind, and the mind of hardened unbelief, which is superficial and unreasoning:
The priests, scribes, and elders did not believe in the Lord. In order to raise them up to faith, He offered them a question: “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?” Consider this without bias, and your reasoning will bring you to faith. What is said about John’s appearing can be said about every event accompanying the Lord’s advent in the flesh, and about His very advent, and all that comes into contact with it. Let each person consider all of this, and the conclusion will be the same: “Truly this was the Son of God (Matt. 27:54).” Various thoughts can come, confusion can arise, what seem like incongruities can be encountered; but at the end of all investigations one universal conviction will result: that it is impossible to think any other way than as is shown in the Gospels and apostolic writings. “Great is the mystery of godliness: God is manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16).” This remains a mystery, but if the mind compels itself by a spiritual need to investigate it, then this mystery will become clear to the mind – and it will confess this way, and in no other way. Unbelievers either do not investigate it at all as they ought to, or they investigate it superficially, with a mind alien to it, or they take on a miserable state of mind that is opposed to what is required by the Faith. To justify their unbelief, they are satisfied with the most insignificant trifle to refute the Faith. The words of unbelievers shake believers, who, being satisfied with simple faith, do not seek clarification of the foundations of the Faith. Those words take them unawares, and hence they are shaken. – Thoughts for Each Day of the Year, p. 268
Why are we sometimes shaken by the specious (i.e., seemingly valid but actually worthless) arguments of the faithless? It may be that we have not studied our Faith enough, but that by itself is easily remedied – the books are all out there, and we have only to immerse ourselves in the tremendous wisdom and insight of the Church expressed by Her various exponents, in order to see how the Orthodox Faith is far and away the most satisfying explanation to life’s puzzle. The underlying problem is not lack of knowledge but the lack of godly confidence caused by a passion we all suffer from, which is vanity.
This may be surprising to some people, for they often mistake timidity for humility, and imagine that if they are mealy-mouthed this shows that they are not vain. But what is humility? It is not groveling and acting like the doormat of the human race (not acting like Uriah Heep, for you English literature fans). True humility is knowing Who God is, who you are, and what life is really about. It is accurate knowledge of reality, that’s all. If you know white is white and black is black, you would not be acting out of humility if you said that white is black, just to please a deluded person who says that white is black. On the contrary, you would be acting out of vanity and pride, because that would mean that you think you have permission to deny reality in order to avoid conflict with some other finite creature. You would be playing God.
A truly humble person is courageous. Since he knows that God in His Providence is taking care of him, that nothing can be done to him that will defeat God’s plan for his salvation, he is not afraid of those who attack his Faith or of what they will do to him if he does not go along with them.
A truly humble person is confident in the truth. Even if he does not understand every detail, even if he cannot answer every specific objection to his Faith, he knows that the Big Picture of Orthodoxy is as good as it gets, insofar as having a worldview, an understanding of what life is all about. If there is some little thing that has not been explained completely, he trusts that it is explainable to the extent he truly needs it to be, and with prayer and trust he seeks to grow in the knowledge of his Faith.
A truly humble person is meek. He does not have to snarl at someone who raises objections to his faith; he does not have to bite. With the calmness and courage born of heartfelt certainty, he can serenely and patiently ward off the powerless arrows of false objections, even when his critic is unkind to him personally.
A truly humble person is compassionate. When he sees the unbelief of the other person, he says, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Having accurate self-knowledge, he knows the capacity of his own heart for self-deception, and therefore he recoils from condemning another person who has the same problem. With true sympathy, he wants this person in front of him to be delivered from deception, for he wants what God wants, and God is He “… Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (I Timothy 2:4).”
Let us immerse ourselves in the treasures of our precious Faith’s priceless theology, pray for more accurate self-knowledge, and beg the Lord to save our neighbors who labor so painfully in the darkness of unbelief! Amen.
Thanks
to our donors! May the Lord reward your love with His grace! To
our other listeners: please consider a gift to help me out. If you
have PayPal, you can send a gift to my account at
[email protected]. If you want to receive a receipt for a tax
deduction, contact me at that email, and I can tell you how to donate
to our parish, who in turn will pass the donation on to me and send
you a receipt.
Introduction:
Our Topic, the Russian Church in the 20th Century
A.
Why “the end of the world”? Recall our previous
discussions about
i. the kathechon (II Thessalonians 2:6-7) and Orthodox monarchism
ii.
discerning our place in history – living “after the end,”
relationship of Church to society; a new catacomb age
iii. our
task of discerning “Where is the Church”? Faith comes
first.
a.
principles of discernment: the world, the sects, the Church
b.
ecclesiology – go back to Class 43. Confession of faith, union
with a true bishop.
B.
Importance of Sergianism in addition to Ecumenism
i.
term “Sergianism” – its origin
ii. importance:
Must see that Ecumenism is not to be understood in isolation,
but as one aspect of an all-encompassing Antichrist agenda.
Sergianism is the linchpin uniting theological indifference to the
creation of the appearance
of the Church without
the reality of
the Church. It creates a church organization in service of the
Antichrist New Order that will ensnare “if possible, even the
elect.”
iii. new
soteriology: “two ways” – confession or
compromise – the very
essence of the spirit of Antichrist
I.
Sources – A Reading List
A.
The Russian Golgotha,
Monastery Press 2006,
see esp. “The Sovietization of the Moscow Patriarchate”
by V. Moss 93 pp.
II.
Outline history of the Church in Russia in the 20th century
A. The February Revolution1917 : The synod betrays the Tsar
CORRECTION: The new Ober-procurator under the Provisional Government was not Tuchkov (a later, Bolshevik minster)but Prince V. N. Lvov.
B. The
October Revolution 1917 and the All Russian Sobor of 1917- 1918 :
The patriarch anathematizes the Bolsheviks
C. The
Patriarch takes a softer line 1922 – confiscation of church
valuables
D. The
“Living Church” 1922-1924
E. 1925
repose of the patriarch; three locum tenentes
F. Sergius,
the declaration of 16/29, 1927
G. Cainite-Sergianist pseudo-church vs Sethite True Church
H. Stalin’s
annihilation of the clergy and churches – 95% by 1940.
I. WWII
– the fake church hierarchy created by Stalin
J.
1948 on – WCC, MP as arm of Soviet intelligence, propaganda, and
the ongoing destruction of the church in the USSR.
K. Post-Soviet/neo-Soviet MP – the church leadership allied with Putin, now power brokers in their own right
III.
The Russian Church Abroad, the Evlogians, the Metropolia/OCA
A.
Ukaz 362 of 7/20 November: the Russian Church Abroad was never
part of the phony MP created by Stalin. It is *older* than phony
MP and, moreover, was actually a real Church.
B.
Evlogians – Paris jurisdictions, YMCA, St. Sergius Institute,
theological modernism, worldliness. Masonic “Orthodoxy”
C.
North America – 1924-1936, 1936-1946. 1946-1970. OCA.
From
former Uniates to full-blown modernists.
IV.
The MP Acquires Most of the ROCOR.
A. Met.
Anastassy’s prohibition and why. Cat and mouse.
B. Russia
opens up. ROCOR efforts there. Opposing views.
…To
be continued in Class 48!
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course Class 47: Russia and the End of the World, Part C – The Church of Russia in the 20th Century
Thanks
to our donors! May the Lord reward your love with His grace! To
our other listeners: please consider a gift to help me out. If you
have PayPal, you can send a one-time gift, or a recurring gift of x
amount per month to my account at [email protected]. If you
want to receive a receipt for a tax deduction, contact me at that
email, and I can tell you how to donate to our parish, who in turn
will pass the donation on to me and send you a receipt.
Introduction
– Apology for a Sidetrack
This
section of our course, Faith Comes First, is supposed to focus on
ecclesiological issues, especially the errors called Ecumenism and
Sergianism, the apostasy of the historical Orthodox hierarchies in
the 20th and 21st centuries, and the task of discerning where the
True Church is in our times, with a view to our being in it and
finding our salvation. Two classes ago, we dealt briefly with the
history of Ecumenism in the 20th century, chiefly in reference to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate and its leadership in the apostasy, but not
without reference to specific Ecumenistic teachings and actions on
the part of the various official hierarchies. Last week, we began
our discussion of the Russian Church in the 20th century, and I spent
a lot of time giving background, especially on the saints of the
second millennium in Russia, ending with St. John of Kronstadt.
Besides St. John’s spiritual character and theological
traditionalism, I also referred to his hardcore positions on
nationalism and monarchism. These are two subjects that properly
belong to our later sections on Family and Society, but since I
brought them up, and since they may be controversial (I have already
received questions about it), I would like to say a few things about
these topics right now. So today we are going to have two excursus
(side-trips), on Monarchism and Nationalism.
By
the way, I apologize (in both senses) for my getting carried away
last time in talking about St. John of Kronstadt’s and New
Hieromartyr Vladimir’s positions on monarchism. I apologize in the
American sense of “Forgive me if my emotion or strong
expression offended you”; I certainly have a way to go in
acquiring the discretion to use just the right words to convey truth
without getting aggressive. But I also apologize in the original
sense, that is, to make a reasoned defense. I must defend my freedom
to speak on controversial issues prior to becoming a passionless
elder, which probably won’t happen until my final illness and
deathbed (I hope). If I – or any sincere truth-seeker and
truth-teller – get emotional or say rough things, that’s a lot better
than cowardly silence, which is the problem today: The incensive
power has been neutered, and men on the right side of life-and-death
issues are shamed into silence by effeminate whiners who claim to be
offended by hyperbole or rough language. So anyone out there who was
offended by my quoting St. Vladimir the New Hieromartyr of Kiev
saying that only a monarchist could be a good priest: If you happen
to be a liberal democratic priest listening to my talk somewhere out
there, I assure you that I do have charitable thoughts about you, and
I don’t blame you or say I know that you, in our real life situation
in 2019, are a bad priest. I ascribe your position on political
theory to ignorance, not malice, until you prove otherwise.
It’s
important to remember that you cannot isolate Orthodoxy as purely a
theological position or Church membership as something divorced from
the rest of one’s life. Orthodoxy does not only have a theology –
Orthodoxy is concerned with the whole man, and therefore also with
anthropology, domestic life, sociology, politics, and all the rest.
There is no subject that is essential to understanding man’s life in
this world that is foreign to the Church’s concerns, because She was
founded by Christ to save people as they are, not people in the
abstract. When people say, “The Church should not get involved
in politics (or the arts or education or the family or medicine, or
anything else besides having beautiful rituals and constructing
magnificent church buildings),” what they really mean is that
Satan should rule in man’s life, not Christ. There is no
“value-neutral” position on how men live their lives: You
are either with Christ or you are against Him. There is an Orthodox
way of looking at everything.
As
I have said before, “politics” is not a dirty word. It
means something very specific, which is the science and art of
arranging life in the greater community beyond the family hearth,
which is essential to a truly human life. Aristotle calls it the
highest level of ethical philosophy, because it incorporates all of
the ethical wisdom involving smaller units – the individual, the
family, and the clan – and brings it all together in a comprehensive
vision, just as architecture is the queen of the visual arts, because
it incorporates all of them in a microcosmic ensemble. Of course,
God Who loves mankind would be interested in how man arranges his
life, and God’s Church would have a position on this. This should
not surprise or offend anyone, especially an Orthodox Christian.
So, since I wandered into these topics last time and probably aroused
a little controversy, today we will put our chronology of the
Russian Church in the 20th century on hold and make two excursus into
these sparky topics of monarchism and nationalism. They are not
inapplicable, of course, to our understanding of the spiritual
meaning of the Church’s history in recent times, and what we learn to
today will help us understand the ecclesiological issues we are
dealing with. We will, of course, get back to the specific
ecclesiological topics of Ecumenism and Sergianism, because that’s
the focus of the current section of our course.
Excursus
A – Monarchism
A)
Theological Aspect – We did a course on this at St. Irene based on
Vladimir Moss’s study, Politics
from Cain to Constantine (See
Appendix below). Link to book:
ii.
The nation is part of the great hierarchy of being.
iii.
The monarch is an image and representative of divine authority
iii.
Biblical precedent
iv.
historical precedent
(Q:
Does monarchism justify the full-blown papal ideology? A: No,
because of the latter’s tendency to chiliasm. BTW, Fr. Fahey’s books
are great, except for the papism – See Fr. Denis Fahey, The
Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World and
The Mystical Body of
Christ and the Reorganization of Society).
B)
Historical role in protecting the nation
i. Dr. M.R. Johnson on monarchy’s restraining oligarchy. See his articles in rusjournal.org, Also see Michael Hudson’s book on debt and monarchy vs. oligarchy: And Forgive Them Their Debts Very relevant to today!
ii.
King is living embodiment of national tradition. He is free to
protect and rule, unlike politicians, who are controlled by
financial elites.
C) Monarchism and America: Can you have an Orthodox republic?
i.
Aristotle’s model: Theoretically
there are three forms of
good government.
Good Form Bad Form
Monarchy Tyranny
Aristocracy Oligarchy
Democracy Ochlocracy
A
true king will die for his subjects, as a father dies for his family.
A true aristocrat is born and bred to cultivate virtues (he is
aristos
– excellent,
virtuous) and lives for the service of the nation. Example of
corrupt aristocracy – Masonic and liberal Russian aristocracy who
brought about the 1917 February Revolution. See Moss cc. 32 and 33 of
The
Rise and Fall of the Russian Autocracy,
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/591_THE_RISE_AND_FALL_OF_THE_RUSSIAN_AUTOCRACY.pdf
ii.
Examples of successful republics: limited size, homogeneity,
aristocracy
iii.
Problem of republic’s natural tendency to commercialism; the
bourgeois culture and its inherent incompatibility with the Gospel.
See Christopher Dawson’s “Catholicism and the Bourgeois Mind”
in Dynamics of World
History (ISI Books,
2007). Tendency of commercial elites to cosmopolitanism (see
below!) and therefore disloyalty to nation. Tie of money is
unnatural and encourages vice. (Fathers say that avarice is the only
completely unnatural vice. Aquinas: In a society where the
commercial dominates, the growth of vice is inevitable.) Ties of
blood, soil, religion, and culture are natural and encourage virtue.
iv.
America
a. Founders’ intention: Aristocratic and peaceful republic of one race and one religion based on virtue and learning. In the early republic only 5% of the population voted (hat tip to MRJ) – free male heads of household who owned property, paid taxes, and were not on public assistance. That they were literate was a given. Importance of yeomanry and small farms.
b. Today’s reality: Multicultural empire owned by anti-Christian and anti-white oligarchs, based on vice and ignorance.
c. The Orthodox monarchist living under this regime obeys the laws that do not conflict with God’s law, but does not adopt the reigning ideology.
Excursus
B – Nationalism
A)
Matthew 28 – μαθητεύσατε
πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
: Make disciples of all nations. Discipleship as encompassing the
whole of life. The nation as a natural unit of spiritual identity.
Actual church history: National churches in one form or another,
whether within empires or in national polities.
B)
Patriotism and nationalism – two aspects of love of one’s own, each
reflecting the masculine and feminine principles respectively.
Patria – the
fatherland, the homeland . Natio
– the people sharing the
same birth. The patriot’s motto is non
sibi sed suis.
C)
Distortions – militarism, xenophobia (real
xenophobia), etc. False accusations of xenophobia, “fascism,”
etc.
We began this mini-course in
response to the turmoil in current political life. It is essential
that Orthodox Christians look beyond the chaos of contemporary life
and understand the timeless truths that our Faith teaches, including
truths about political authority and the organization of society.
Our vocation in the current
situation is to rise above political passions and witness to the
timeless truths of the Faith, in order to help our neighbors.
I. The nature of legitimate
authority:
A. All legitimate authority
derives from above, from God, and not from below (the “people”).
This is extremely important to remember in light of our country’s
political philosophy being so influenced by the 18th century idea of
the “sovereign will of the people.”
B. We see right from the
beginning, in Genesis, that God established earthly authority in the
persons of Adam and his consort, Eve, as possessing a delegated
authority over creation.
1. Adam, as head of his
family, is the prototype for all earthly rulers.
2. We see here, then, that
godly authority derives from God, and is hierarchical, patriarchal,
and familial.
II. False Models of Authority
A. The pagan god-king
i. arose after the corruption
of the human race
ii. not only is all civic
and priestly authority vested in one man, but he is worshipped as a
god or The God.
iii. invariably involved with
human (usually infant) sacrifice and immoral sexuality, connected to
demonically distorted ideas of fertility and material success
B. The Utopias of the
Philosophers
i. Plato and Aristotle had
many important insights, but ultimately their vision was flawed
because of incomplete understanding of human nature, the reality of
sin, and, of course, their lack of knowledge of the true God.
ii. Their valuable insights,
however, still shed light and can be incorporated into an Orthodox
Philosophy of Politics. Examples include Plato’s Allegory of the
Cave as an illustration of the need to be ruled not by the most rich
or powerful but by the most wise, and his theory of the Tripartite
Powers of the Soul; as well as Aristotle’s explanation of three forms
of legitimate government (monarchy, aristocracy, and politeia [res
publica]) and their corresponding corruptions (tyranny, oligarchy,
and mob-rule).
III. True Models of Authority
A. Sacred Kingship in the Old
Testament Church
i. Key figure is David, who
was called by God precisely because of his personal holiness. He is
the archetypal image of the Good King.
ii. The sacerdotal and
kingly powers are separate.
iii. The king is not God,
and his rule is not arbitrary, but bound by the law of God.
iv. The king protects the
Old Testament Church structure (the temple, the priests, etc.), and
they are loyal subjects of the king, not rivals to the king.
B. Sacred Kingship in the New
Testament Church
i. Key figure is St. Constantine. ii., iii, and iv above are all present.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course, Class 46: Russia and the End of the World, Part B – Monarchism and Nationalism
Class
45: Faith Comes First, Session 4.
20th Century Apostasy, Part II. A Third Rome Has Arisen, and a
Fourth Shall Not Be. Russia and the End of the World, Part A
Request
for Donations
Thanks
to our donors! May the Lord reward your love with His grace! To
our other listeners: please consider a gift to help me out. If you
have PayPal, you can send a one-time gift, or a recurring gift of x
amount per month to my account at [email protected]. If you
want to receive a receipt for a tax deduction, contact me at that
email, and I can tell you how to donate to our parish, who in turn
will pass the donation on to me and send you a receipt.
Introduction
– The Russian Church, Big Subject!
The
more I’ve tried to prepare this talk, the more I realized that we
have to take a long time with it, and therefore this section is going
to consist of several talks. It’s just too big a subject! The
title of this section refers to the famous expression of Monk
Philothei of Pskov in a letter to Ivan III early in the 16th century:
“So
know, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms came to an end and
came together in a single kingdom of yours, two
Romes have fallen, the third stands, and there will be no fourth.
No one shall replace your Christian Tsardom …”
Intro
to Russian history: Need a good book in English! Need for Dr.
Talberg’s book to be translated. His papers are archived at
Jordanville and on microfilm at the Hoover Institute at Stanford:
http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/hoover/talberg.pdf
Any volunteers?
Secular
books: James Billington, The
Icon and the Axe (read
for data, not for interpretation). Suzanne Massie, Land
of the Firebird (sympathetic
intro to Russian culture by a sincere Russophil.) But remember,
these are neither Orthodox nor culturally traditional sources. Read
only to start your study…much will have to be corrected.
Brief
outline of Russian history:
A.
Kievan Rus’ – Primary
Chronicle – Pagan
pre-history; conversion, early centuries
B. Rise
of northern city-states – Novgorod, etc.
C.
Tatar disruption
D. Rise
of Muscovy – St. Sergius and monastic colonization
E. Time
of Troubles, emergence of the Romanov dynasty
F. 17th
century, early Romanovs, Patriarch Nikon and the schism
G.
Peter, the 18th century Westernization, bifurcation of Russia
H. 19th
century renewal, but bifurcation intensifies; revolutionary activity
I.
The 1905 and 1917 revolutions, civil war >> Soviet Union
J.
1990’s – Yeltsin, Post Soviet Russia 1.0
K.
2000’s – Putin, Post Soviet Russia 2.0
I. The
Place of Russia in Sacred History
A.
We are part of the sacred history begun in the Old Testament and
extending through the New Testament and in the history of the Church
until now. A fundamental principle of our Orthodox Survival Course
is that we have to understand all history through this lens.
B.
Whatever have been the failings of the related Russian peoples in
general and the Muscovite state in particular, the big picture is
that, after the fall of Constantinople, Moscow really did function as
the Third Rome, the center of the Orthodox Empire. This does not mean
that the Russians are the holiest or best Orthodox people in some
absolute sense – there are saints in every nation, and every nation
has its faults. But it does mean that providentially Russia
functioned as the great temporal power in the Orthodox world. We
did not emphasize this in our earlier survey of the second
millennium, because our main concern from the High Middle Ages to the
Enlightenment period was with developments in the West. As we
arrived at the 19th century, however, we returned to the East and
discussed, in particular, the spiritual renewal of Russia that began
with St. Paissy Velichkovsky and his disciples in the 18th century,
and the dramatic bifurcation between the Petrine secularized society
and Holy Russia.
C.
The fall of Orthodox Russia ended the Constantinian period of world
history, in which the Christian Church was the dominant influence in
European society. Many holy men, both before and after the
Bolshevik revolution, saw this as a prelude to the reign of
Antichrist. We do not know
that the Antichrist and
the Second Coming are imminent. We are
commanded by the Lord to
read the signs of the times, and it is obvious that whether or not
the world is going to end in the near future, the dispensation of the
“Reign of the Saints” has at least been decisively
interrupted and given way to a period of history dominated by a
Luciferian elite. Russia’s past, present, and future are
providentially at the center of this great drama, and we would do
well to discern what is going on in the Church of Russia, both in the
Russian land and in the diaspora.
II.
The Hidden History of the True Russia – The Life of the Soul
We
know that our warfare is not against flesh and blood, as St. Paul
writes, but against the fallen angels. So the more important part
of the history of the Church, of the world, of every Christian
nation, and every soul is actually the invisible history of spiritual
life. As a background to understanding the significance of
Muscovite Russia in history, then, we have to see its outward history
in light of its spiritual history, which is the history of its
saints. I recommend that you do a course of reading on this
spiritual history of Russia that consists of these books, which cover
that history in chronological order:
The
Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia by
I.M. Kontzevich – The roots of Russian civilization in the
hesychastic tradition of the Greek Fathers as passed on to the great
Russian ascetics. The bridge between Byzantium and Holy Russia.
Very hard to find hard copy. Online:
https://www.scribd.com/document/363911471/Acquisition-of-the-Holy-Spirit-in-Ancient-Russia
The
Northern Thebaid – translations
by Fr. Seraphim Rose of lives of northern Russian ascetic saints.
This covers the 14th century, beginning with St. Sergius of Radonezh,
to the mid-17th century. These lives demonstrate in action what
Kontzevitch was describing in theory. Also, introduction by Fr.
Seraphim is a short substitute for Kontzevich’s book, if you can’t
get a copy. Available from St. Herman Press.
The
Life of St. Paissy Velichkovsky – Another
out of print book from St. Herman Press. Find one wherever you can.
I cannot find an online version. St. Paissy in the 18th century
was the key figure in reviving the hesychastic tradition that brought
about the 19th century spiritual flowering in Russia. Also see the
teachings of Elder Basil, who was St. Paissy’s starets
– Available
from St. John of Kronstadt Press.
Life
of Elder Zosima of Siberia – out
of print, copies available for sale online. Valuable not only for
the witness of Elder Zosima, but also for portrait of his family.
The
Conversation of St. Seraphim with Motovilov on the Aim of the
Christian Life http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspxHere
St. Seraphim, who reposed in 1833, restates the fundamental wisdom
described by Kontzevich, lived by the lives of the Northern Thebaid
saints, and recovered by St. Paissy. Various versions of the life
of St. Seraphim, including a good short and readable version in Dr.
Cavarnos’s series on modern saints and a collection of his sayings
published by St. Herman Press in their Little
Russian Philokalia series,
are readily available.
Lives of
the Optina Elders – Mostly available from St. Herman Press. Lives
of Elder Joseph and Elder Moses from Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
Optina was not the only center of holiness in 19th century Russia,
but it is the best known and most influential, and what happened at
and because of Optina is a microcosm of what is best in the entire
period. The latest elders – Sts. Nectary and Nikon – were holy
confessors and martyrs of the Bolshevik period.
Also,
recall that we recommended A
Man Is His Faith, the
book by Fr. Alexey Young about Ivan Kireyevsky, the 19th century
Slavophil philosopher who worked closely with St. Makary of Optina to
publish Orthodox spiritual literature. Available from St. John of
Kronstadt Press.
The
Love of God – Life
of Elder Gabriel – St. Herman Press. A novice from Optina whose
monastic life goes on to illustrate a great deal that was right and
wrong with the 19th century Russian Church. An amazing book. He
reposes in 1915, which brings our historical path right up to the era
of the revolution.
All
writings of Sts. Ignaty Brianchaninov (new series now being published
by Holy Trinity at Jordanville) and Theophan the Recluse. They are
an epitome of the spiritual and theological achievement of the 19th
century Russian Church.
St.
John of Kronstadt – My
Life in Christ. Life
of St. John by Sursky, available from HTM in Boston. Study by
Nadieszda Kitsenko, A
Prodigal Saint. St.
John of Kronstadt is an apocalypse – a revelation – in himself. The
“last and greatest prophet” to warn of the revolution.
Combined strict spiritual life with apostolic mission and
miracle-working. Was a completely consistent monarchist and “far
right” nationalist, member of the Union of the Russian Nation
(Soyuz
Russkogo Naroda).
He was also a confessor, having been tortured by revolutionaries,
in an episode revealed in Sursky’s book.
You
have to immerse
yourself thoroughly in
the lives and teachings of these saints in order to have the right
lens through which to view Russian history in general and the events
of the revolution and the 20th century and 21st century Russian
Church divisions and controversies. If you really acquire their
mindset, it will be obvious to you that only a thoroughgoing
monarchist, nationalist, and patriarchal political, social, and
family philosophy, combined with uncompromising traditional
Orthodoxy, expresses a comprehensive vision of the true Holy Russia.
(Holy New Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev said that all the good clergy
were monarchists and that a republican could not be a good priest.)
Any other synthesis is a distortion created by a pick-and-choose
approach of modernists and secularists who serve the spirit of
Antichrist.
III.
Understanding the Bolshevik Revolution
A.
Recall that in our Survival Course, we have characterized the entire
period from 1789 and the beginning of the French Revolution, until
now, as the Age of Revolution. You could also call it the Age of the
Spirit of Antichrist, which followed the Age of Constantine. Fr.
Seraphim explores the roots of the revolution especially in his
Lecture Six, on the French Revolution. He does not shy away from the
role of the secret societies, etc. The Bolshevik revolution is the
pivotal moment in the ongoing revolution (the pivot from the end of
the Constantinian era to the beginning of the unfettered rule of the
globalist Luciferian elite), because it removed the greatest Orthodox
power, the katechon
– that/he which restraineth (II Thessalonians 2: 6-7).
B.
Right now, in our Faith Comes First section, we are focusing on the
Church. Later we will return to Bolshevism when discussing Family
and Society. Now we are trying to discern “Where is the
Church,” and therefore our focus will be not on Russia as a
whole but specifically on the Moscow Patriarchate/ Church Abroad (MP
and anti-MP)/ Catacomb Church, etc. But to discern “Where is
the Church?”, to understand the divisions in the Russian
Orthodox ecclesiastical sphere, we do have to have a basic
understanding of the Russian – or, rather, anti-Russian – revolution
and its spiritual significance.
C.
As a general principle of discernment, we can adopt this approach:
To discern where the true Church of Russia is, you have to discern
which hierarchy or hierarchies most thoroughly reject the Revolution
whole and entire without compromise, in all of its manifestations and
throughout all of its history until now.What
is going on now in mainstream Russian conservatism is not a thorough
rejection of the Soviet period in all of its manifestations but a
synthesis of Orthodoxy with Sovietism. This is shown in the
ecclesiastical realm by the supposed reconciliation of the Sergianist
approach with the confessional approach to the Soviet power, and in
the political reading of 20th century history dominated by the Great
Patriotic War ideology. I am not talking here about judging anyone
morally–
Who knows how each of us would have responded to the pressures of
Soviet life? God alone judges. (Critics of the uncompromising
anti-Sergianist position try to disable discussion by saying, “Who
are you to judge? You would have compromised also.”) I am
talking about our forming intellectual, moral, and theological
positions
on
the basis of which to make informed choices. For example, you can
say, “Metropolitan Sergius’s statement on 16/29 July 1927 that
the joys and sorrows of the Soviet power are the joys and sorrows of
the Orthodox Church” is a profound error without saying, “I
know that Sergius was condemned by God to eternal punishment for
making this statement.”
D.
Reading List on the Church and the Revolution: Above we gave a
course of reading about the Russian Church leading up to the
Revolution. To read about the Church and its response to the
Revolution, the first must-read book is Russia’s
Catacomb Saints by
I.M. Andreyev and Fr. Seraphim Rose. This book was published by St.
Herman Press in the early 1980’s and has never been reprinted. The
present management at St. Herman has to re-write the book to justify
their belonging to World Orthodoxy, and therefore they have not
re-issued it. When it does come out in a new edition, expect them to
omit or distort a lot of the authors’ original statements about the
Catacomb Church vs. the Soviet Patriarchate. It’s hard to find
actual copies of the book, but you can find links to downloading it
online from two different sites at
https://russiascatacombsaints.blogspot.com/
.
We’ll
continue our reading list during our next class! But do get started
on Russia’s
Catacomb Saints!
Next time we will discuss Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson and Dr. Vladimir Moss’s contributions. Their role in giving English speakers access to Russian sources.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course, Class 45: Faith Comes First, Session 4. 20th Century Apostasy, Part II. A Third Rome Has Arisen, and a Fourth Shall Not Be. Russia and the End of the World, Part A
Thanks
to donors. To our other listeners: please consider a gift to help
me out. If you have PayPal, you can send a one-time gift, or a
recurring gift of x amount per month to my account at
[email protected]. If you want to receive a receipt for a tax
deduction, contact me at that email, and I can tell you how to donate
to our parish, who in turn will pass the donation on to me and send
you a receipt.
I.
Introductory Remarks
Remember,
I am only giving you a general introduction to all of this. You have
to do your homework!
A.
Background: Faith comes first. To deal with the Culture War,
first we have to be in the Church, and that starts with confession of
Faith. Love has to be based on truth and the struggle for the good.
See Excursus B below for the connection of the powers of the soul
to the virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love.
B.
Summary of our last class. Ecclesiological principles.
1.
Making the true confession of faith ontologically changes people.
Denying the confession of faith also ontologically changes people.
2. One
must have the correct and saving confession of Faith to be in the
Church.
3.
People who deny the confession of Faith and are therefore not in the
Church cannot be bishops or priests.
4. To
be in the Church one must be united in the Holy Mysteries to a bishop
and his clergy who themselves have the saving confession of Faith and
are in the Church.
II.
History of the Apostasy of Ecumenism in the 20th Century and Up till
Now
Let’s
start with situation now and then go back to see how we got here.
This will give us a framework within which to understand the
details/data of the history starting in the early 20th century. So
important to have the framework, because otherwise the data can
confuse you, and there are ill-intentioned people who want
to confuse you.
A.
Current Situation: Atlanticist
Establishment/Anglo-Zionist cabal vs. “Russia” or
“Eurasia.” Cold Warriors’ delusions: “West”
are the good guys. “Holy Russia” groupie delusions:
“East” are the good guys.” My experience of watching
that YouTube of the MP consecration of that church and then Putin’s
talk to the ROCOR-MP hierarchs. Two great pincers of the same
monster. Take your pick: Satan or Antichrist. Illustrated in the
Ukraine imbroglio. Is the opposition real or faked? Doesn’t
matter: The demons in hell fight each other.
Summary:
1. All
the big players are in the WCC or in communion with those in WCC.
2. All
the big players have some kind of deal with the pope. Lifting of the
Anathemas, Balamand Agreement, the EP’s constant prayers with popes,
Kyrill’s Havana Statement.
The WCC
is obviously in the service of Antichrist. The pope is obviously in
the service of Antichrist (or just out and out Satan – cf. the
Amazonia Synod going on now in the fall of 2019). So where does
that leave the “Orthodox” who cooperate with them? They
steadfastly refuse to leave the WCC and steadfastly refuse to
denounce the pope and have nothing to do with him. St. Cosmas Aitolos
says, “Curse the Pope!”
If you
are in a WO group, ask your priest, “Why is our jurisdiction in
the WCC?” See what he says. Ask yourself if the answer is one
that an intelligent adult with a conscience would swallow.
B.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ecumenism
Intro:
To organize our discussion, we’ll use the headings “Ecumenism”
and “Sergianism.” Again, see The
True Orthodox Church and Heresy of Ecumenism –
http://hotca.org/pdf/TrueOrthodoxOppositionEcumenism.pdf
for a concise explanation of these two terms. The two “big
boys” are the EP and the MP. Both are ecumenist and sergianist,
but the former is more obviously ecumenist and the latter is more
obviously sergianist. Today we’ll talk about the EP.
1.
The EP does not really have a flock any more. So it had to
position itself as some kind of global papacy for the Orthodoxy.
Read St. John Maximovich on this problem at
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/decline.aspx
2. It
is well-known that the leadership of the EP has been involved in
Freemasonry at least since the patriarchate of Meletios Metaxakis in
the 1920’s. Patriarch Athenagoras and Harry Truman, etc, etc. So
the EP is an instrument of Anglo-Zionist, Atlanticist global
strategy. I don’t think I need to explain to our audience that you
can’t be a Christian and a Freemason at the same time. And it is not
that the EP leadership is only covertly Masonic. Rather their
aggressive leadership of ecumenism puts the Freemasonic philosophy –
“brotherhood of man,” etc. – into action. The latest
manifestation of this is Pat. B’s obsession with being the “Green
Patriarch.”
3. Timeline: Reminder – Read the book by St. Edward Brotherhood, Christian Union? An Orthodox Christian’s Guide to Ecumenism: Past, Present and Future by the St. Edward Brotherhood
1990
– Chambesy Agreement – denies the 4th Ecumenical Council and approves
monophysitism – on the basis of this there is practically
sacramental intercommunion nearly everywhere
with the monophysites, and officially
with the Antiochians.
1993 –
Balamand Agreement – O and RC “sister churches” with
ontologically identical sacraments
See
the Excursus below on “Joint Statements”. Boiling the frog
slowly: Say they are only “study documents” to give
plausible deniability.
Since
then Patriarchs Demetrios and then Bartholomew have stayed on the
same path. No repentance whatsoever, and, moreover, punishing or
threatening those who oppose them. The commemorators of Mt. Athos
and those like them are controlled opposition and their witness is,
well, not a witness.
More
recent years: Open liturgical commemoration of Pope Benedict at the
Phanar, staying buddies with Francis the Satanic apostate, ascendancy
of Zizioulas, “First Without Equals” ecclesiology. 2016
Council of Crete. It’s really getting crazy.
C.
How to Respond? One’s practical situation: Discernment
As
we go along, the question one should ask is “How do I respond to
all this?” To give a head start on your study of this question
I suggest some further reading:
Further
Reading:
Two
essays by Hiermonk (now Bishop) Maximus, “Why the True Orthodox
are Truly Orthodox” and “The Problem of the Conservative
New Calendarism”
1. A
World Orthodox believer has this realization: I’ve gotta get outta
here! But to where?
2. Be
patient, investigate, pray. God wants your salvation more than you
do.
3. Fr.
Anthony Gavalas story. My practical conclusions – Bishop must be O,
not in communion with non-O, have apostolic succession, trying not to
be a schismatic, and not crazy. And you have to be able to work with
him, and he has to be someone who won’t destroy your family or your
parish.
In
closing: Let
us have the good zeal and love one another. Discerning good zeal vs.
bitter zeal or zeal “not according to understanding.” i.
Always confess vanity. ii. Ask forgiveness if you go over the
line. iii. But you can’t wait till your perfect before you fight
for the Faith.
Let us
prefer nothing whatever to Christ; and may He bring us all together
to life eternal. Amen. (cf. Rule of St. Benedict, end of Chapter
72).
Excursus
A: On the Powers of the Soul; the True, the Good, and the Beautiful;
and the Cardinal and Theological Virtues
Hippy
dippy Orthodox who don’t want to deal with tough questions about
confession of faith quote Dostoevsky and say that “Beauty will
save the world,” by which they (not Dostoevsky) mean that
Orthodoxy is all about aesthetics and emotions, while to be concerned
about the dogmas, the canons, etc is “unloving” or “Latin”
or “legalistic” and so forth. As long as we have icons,
beautiful services, etc, all is well. But of course this isn’t
true. The contemplation of the Divine Beauty, and its concomitant
virtue, which is Love, are
the consummation of our
spiritual journey, but they are not the foundation. Let’s do a
review to set this straight.
Following
Plato (in The Republic)
and the Fathers, we understand there are three powers of the soul,
that these three powers of the soul each have their respective
objects and the cardinal virtues corresponding to these objects (see
Wisdom 8:7) , and that three of these cardinal virtues correspond to
the three theological virtues of I Corinthians 13:13). The chart
below shows how they relate to each other:
Power of the Soul—>Object——>Cardinal Virtue——>Theological Virtue
Epithymia (desire)———–>the Beautiful–> Temperance———> Love
The
vision of divine beauty is the highest state, the goal, but you have
to start with the knowledge of the truth, which motivates your
courageous fight for the good, which leads upwards to the vision of
the divine beauty. Yes, beauty can motivate the
beginning of your struggle (as with the emissaries of St. Vladimir at
Hagia Sophia), but you cannot attain
the ultimate vision of beauty without the previous steps.
Excursus
B: On “Joint Statements”
The
patristic attitude towards meetings to clarify doctrine is summarized
accurately in these remarks by the Anglican editor of the NPNF series
II, volume XIV, on the Seven Ecumenical Councils:
The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood theirposition to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect – to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others? When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled Fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it was the traditional faith of the Church. It was not the doctrine of Leo in the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they had studied the Tome, they cried out: “This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith of the Apostles!…Peter hath thus spoken by Leo! The Apostles thus taught!…” Henry R. Percival, M.A., D.D., editor’s introduction to the Acts of the First Ecumenical Council, “Nice and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Second Series, Volume XIV
So… why do the ecumenists have these academic discussions and joint statements?
It re-opens closed questions and reframes the questions with innovative, tendentious terminology that determines the outcome.
It changes the Church’s method from confession to “scientific exploration,” which means accepting constantly changing, new conclusions.
Dialogue with error means that error has something good that truth does not have.
It gives the impression that we know something the Fathers did not.
It advances the One World Religion Agenda while at the same time providing plausible deniability.
And the reality is that all of these men involved in these dialogues really hate each other.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course, Class 44: Faith Comes First, Session 3. 20th Century Apostasy, Part I
1.
Thanks to donors. To our other listeners: please consider a gift
to help me out. If you have PayPal, you can send a one-time gift, or
a recurring gift of x amount per month to my account at
[email protected]. If you want to receive a receipt for a tax
deduction, contact me at that email, and I can tell you how to donate
to our parish, who in turn will pass the donation on to me and send
you a receipt.
2.
Response to Class 42. Style: It will probably vary. Reminder:
the notes are just an outline. You have to listen to the talk.
3.
A happy moment that illustrates an important truth: Our unity in
the Church is diachronic
– it is unity not only with those of our time but of all times and in
eternity.
4.
Review: Surviving the Great Apostasy. Church, Family, Society.
Faith (the Church) comes first. Goals for this section:
A. Give
enough background on ecclesiology and Church history to make the
present situation if not clear, then at least somewhat comprehensible
to everyone.
B.
Give an apologia
for
where I am.
C.
Confirm my fellow True Orthodox in their convictions.
D. Get
the “World” Orthodox and inquirers thinking about these
things, while providing resources for them to learn more.
Topics
for this class: Ecclesiology – study of the Church. Also, some
reflections on discernment.
I.
Ecclesiology: The Church, the Saving Confession of Faith, Union with
the Bishop
A.
You are here because, probably, you have already thought through a
lot of this. I am going to summarize some main points from Scripture
and Holy Tradition, try to offer some insight based on these, and
refer you to some reading.
B.
My goal is not to cover every aspect of ecclesiology, but to make
four main points related to the Church and our theme of Faith Comes
First:
1.
Making the true confession of faith ontologically changes people.
Denying the confession of faith also ontologically changes people.
2.
One must have the correct and saving confession of Faith to be in
the Church.
3.
People who deny the confession of Faith and are therefore not in
the Church cannot be bishops or priests.
4.
To be in the Church one must be united in the Holy Mysteries to a
bishop and his clergy who themselves have the saving confession of
Faith and are in the Church.
Confession
of Faith and ontological status
A
handy saying: Homology (homologia) begets ontology
(ontologia). Your
confession of faith changes you into something new. Denying your
confession of faith changes you back into what you used to be (or
something worse!) What you are depends on what you publicly confess
to believe.
Mark
16, Matthew 28: The great commission. Make disciples —->
baptize (Matt 28). Those who believe —> and are baptized
—> will be saved; those who do not believe will be damned. (Mark
16).
To
be Orthodox with a big O unto salvation, you have to be orthodox with
a little o. That doesn’t mean that every single layman has to
understand all of the Church’s theology intellectually, but it
certainly means that he cannot stubbornly deny Her doctrine. This
applies, obviously, even more strictly to a bishop or a priest.
To be
in the Church, you have to have the true confession of Faith.
Matthew
16: The Lord builds His Church on Peter’s confession of faith.
St.
Maximus the Confessor: The primary criterion for the status of
membership in the Church is the “correct and saving confession
of the Faith” (see On
the Life and Contest of Our Holy Father Maximos the Confessor,
section 24, Patrologia
Graeca, volume 90,
column 93D, quoted in The
True Orthodox Church and Heresy of Ecumenism –
http://hotca.org/pdf/TrueOrthodoxOppositionEcumenism.pdf
People
who deny the confession of Faith and are therefore not in the Church
cannot be bishops or priests.
This
should be self-evident, but apparently some people have such a
mechanical or superficial idea of the Church’s hierarchy that it is
not self-evident to everyone. So, let us turn to St. Gregory
Palamas: “Those who do not belong to the Truth do not belong
to the Church of Christ either; and the more so if they speak falsely
of themselves by calling themselves, or calling each other, holy
pastors and hierarchs; [for it has been instilled in us that]
Christianity is not characterized by persons, but by the truth and
exactitude of Faith.” (see “Refutation of the Letter of
Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch,” section 3, in Panagiotes K.
Chrestou [ed.] The Works
of St. Gregory Palamas,
Volume II., quoted in The
True Orthodox Church and the Heresy of Ecumenism).
The entire history of the Church testifies to this. This is not
rocket science.
To be
in the Church one must be united in the Holy Mysteries to a bishop
and his clergy who themselves have the saving confession of Faith and
are in the Church.
Nearly
anyone listening to this talk probably already believes this. If
you are not convinced of this, go to the sources: Check out Bishop
Lightfoot’s Apostolic
Fathers for the
testimony of the very earliest successors of the Holy Apostles as to
the existence of the threefold priesthood of bishop, presbyter, and
deacon, the necessity of being in union with the bishop, that unity
is in the Holy Mysteries, etc. Read especially St. Ignatius of
Antioch’s letters and St. Clement of Rome. Go to the third century
and read St. Cyprian of Carthage “On the Unity of the Church.”
You will get the picture!
Regarding
schism: The
terms “heresy” and “schism.” Orthodoxy of faith
is is not enough; you must also be in the unity of the Church.
Some remarks on this:
i.
Distinction between the organism and the organization: though not
separate, they are distinct. Prots say they are separate, RC’s say
they are the same. O: not separate but distinct. See OSC Class
ii.
Main charge today against the True Orthodox is that they are
schismatics. A brief response – more detailed response will be in
later talks.
II.
Reflections on Discernment
As
we go along, we have to remember that logic is not enough. You have
to pray for discernment, and you have to use some common sense.
Don’t get weird.
a.
Spectrum: The World <———–The Church———>Sects and
Cults
b.
The “fragrance of Orthodoxy” – You have to be praying and
leading the Orthodox life, so that both your discursive intellect and
spiritual intellect are functioning properly, and so that your heart
has the right sentiments and your will the strength to do what mind
and heart say.
c.
Don’t get frantic. The Lord wants your salvation more than you do.
Some
Reading:
To
read the Holy Fathers online, you can go to newadvent.org:
http://newadvent.org/fathers/
Also, for the Apostolic Fathers in particular, Bishop Lightfoot’s
translation is a classic. Of course, there are also the three
famous ANF and NPNF series from Eerdmans.
To do a quick primer on ecclesiology: Go to Fr. Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, chapter 7, “The Church of Christ.” Available from St. Herman Press. Also online at http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM
In
closing: Let us have the good
zeal and love one another. Discerning good zeal vs. bitter zeal or
zeal “not according to understanding.” i. Always confess
vanity. ii. Ask forgiveness if you go over the line. iii. But
you can’t wait till your perfect before you fight for the Faith.
Let
us prefer nothing whatever to Christ; and may He bring us all
together to life eternal. Amen. (cf. Rule of St. Benedict, end of
Chapter 72).
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Orthodox Survival Course, Class 43: Faith Comes First, Session 2
Forgive me for taking so long to record our next session. I’ve realized I have to take a different approach in order to do our Orthodox Survival Course regularly. If I continue to insist on writing formal, 3,000 word essays, our sessions will come less and less frequently, as I have taken on further responsibilities within our Church in North America. So I have to go to a different approach: We are going to treat our class as a class, in which the teacher has a few notes in front of him and then just talks based on what he knows. I shall henceforward publish my notes in outline form, with main points, reading suggestions, and links to online resources, rather than write finished essays and record them. The drawback is that, speaking off the cuff, I perhaps shall make mistakes in fact or be too rough in my style. Also, to really benefit, you’ll have to listen to the audio recording, because the notes are just that – notes, not a complete essay. The advantages will lie in being able to talk to you more frequently and at greater length, and in our enjoying the more lively style of the classroom or a radio show.
As I ask
your forgiveness for your hearing from me less frequently, I must
nonetheless humbly once again ask for your support. As I’ve said
quietly in the past, my little parish of St. Irene Chrysovalantou in
Rochester Hills, Michigan lovingly supports my family as much as they
can – I would say their level of giving per household is far above
that in average Orthodox parishes – but they cannot support us
full-time, and basically they and two other donors within our Church
in a North America underwrite everything I do for you, my Internet
audience, even though so much of my time is given to these efforts to
help those outside our parish. In fairness to them, and so that I
can go on doing this, please consider a gift to help me out. If you
have PayPal, you can send a one-time gift, or a recurring gift of x
amount per month to my account at [email protected]. If you
want to send a relatively large amount for which you would like to
receive a receipt for a tax deduction, contact me at that email, and
I can tell you how to donate to our parish, who in turn will pass the
donation on to me and send you a receipt.
Today’s
Class – Faith Comes First, Session 1 – The Need for Preliminary
Remarks
In
our last class we made the point that Faith Comes First. All the
other problems we have and will talk about must be put aside for
moment, and we have to focus on Orthodoxy itself, which, after all,
is what is most important: What is the connection between our
confession of Faith and being in
the Church? This
is life or death, for extra
ecclesiam nulla salus – outside
the Church there is no salvation. The big picture is that we cannot
combat all the woes of the nihilistic culture till we deal with this
fundamental problem of the leadership of the historical institutions
of the Church turning traitor and collaborating with the Anti-Christ
Revolution. The Church is the answer, and so we have to put the
Church first.
Last
time I concluded saying that the big question revolves around the
apostasy of the official Orthodox hierarchies in the 20th century,
and that in this class I’d give you a rundown of the history of
Ecumenism in the 20th century and where each jurisdiction stands now
vis-a-vis Ecumenism. But later I realized that I need to do some
preliminary teaching first, so that we can approach this history
lesson and this evaluation of our contemporary situation with greater
understanding. As we go along, I plan to keep referring you to
books and articles to read, both in hardcopy and online. I think
one of my main goals is to get you reading about these things, so
that you can make informed decisions about where you belong.
Preliminary
Remarks: Topic 1 – Who is listening to this? And who is doing the
talking? From
what I can deduce, y’all (my audience out there) are people in my own
jurisdiction, the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece
under Archbishop Kallinikos, those in other True Orthodox (TO)
jurisdictions, those in “World” or “official”
Orthodox jurisdictions, and those not yet Orthodox who are seeking to
learn more about Orthodoxy. So I need to accomplish several goals:
A. Give
enough background on ecclesiology and Church history to make this
comprehensible to everyone.
B.
Give an apologia
for
where I am.
C.
Confirm my fellow True Orthodox in their convictions.
D. Get
the “World” Orthodox and inquirers thinking about these
things, while providing resources for them to learn more.
Preliminary
Remarks: Topic 2 – “Don’t take this personally…” We
cannot help but take all this personally – it’s the most personal
thing of all, our eternal destiny! In particular, “World”
Orthodox might get upset about what I say about their bishops, which
by extension is also about their priests, whom they may be fond of
and regard as model clergymen, some of whom I myself know personally
and have positive regard. It’s all right to get upset about the
things that matter. That’s the way life is. If you get upset with
me, I don’t blame you!
Preliminary
Remarks, Topic 3 – Don’t get sidetracked: Keep
your eye on the ball
7 September OS 2019 – Friday of the 14th week of Matthew; Holy Martyr Sozon; S. Cassiane the Hymnographer; S. Chrysostomos the New Confessor of Florina
In today’s Gospel, the Lord commands the disciples to be silent about the most astounding miracle: the raising of the dead.
And, behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. And Jesus went with him; and much people followed him, and thronged him. While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Master any further? As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly.
And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat. And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. – Mark 5:22-24, 5:35 – 6:1
“And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.” You can imagine the scene when that young woman stood up and walked out of the room. Here is the crowded home of a great personage in a Middle Eastern village, packed with emotional relatives, friends, and dependents, many of them no doubt women. The formerly dead girl walks out the door of the death chamber into this crowd. In the middle of the indescribable hubbub that must have ensued, only the Lord Himself retains complete composure. He thinks of the child’s simple needs: give her something to eat! He commands it, just as He commanded her soul to return to her body. For Him, both are equally easy.
Why did He tell the disciples to tell no one what had happened? Obviously the word would get out: First century Galilee must have been a very small world, indeed. No doubt even the bigwigs down in Jerusalem must have gotten word through the invisible telegraph of gossip within the week. Of course, the Lord had His reasons: He always did and always does. One of them was to give us an example of humility, that we should not seek the praise of men.
St. Theophan the Recluse comments as follows:
Having resurrected the daughter of Jairus, the Lord commanded her parents strictly, that no man should know it. Thus are we commanded: do not seek glory, and do not train your ear for human praise, even if your deeds are of such a nature that it is impossible to hide them. Do what the fear of God and your conscience urge you to do, and as to what people say, act as though it had never been said. – Thoughts for Each Day of the Year, p. 187
We may often ask ourselves why we do not feel more peaceful, why we feel agitated or anxious so much of the time. One reason is that we are always unsure of the approval of other people: “What do they think about me? Do they really love me? Do they think well of me? Are they saying bad things about me?” and so forth. Because of our vanity – our false image of ourselves based on our own delusions and the opinions of other people – we have a restless, ceaseless hunger for praise, for approval, for the pat on the back, for the assurance that “I’m OK, You’re OK.” Life turns into the endless search for that perfect mutual admiration society of “friends” who approve of each other and look down on those outside the group.
Peace comes only when we put aside all such concerns and follow those two completely reliable guides to action mentioned by St. Theophan: the fear of God and conscience. One of the Desert Fathers said that one will have no peace until one realizes that in all the universe there is only one’s soul standing before God. If we walk always in His presence, what need have we of the praise of men? If we were really conscious of His presence, and really understood Who He is, and who we are, we would flee praise like fire.
Let us then, daily and frequently, beg the Lord, “Deliver me from vanity! Let me seek Thine approval alone!” The generous Lord, Who is waiting to give the truly good things to those who ask Him, will no doubt hear our prayer in good time, and He will deliver us from this passion of vanity. The world will look much different then, and we will begin to understand things as they really are. Losing one’s illusions is like pulling out a rotten tooth: it hurts while it is going on, but there is great relief afterwards.
O Lord, deliver us from vanity and all delusion! Grant us to know ourselves as we really are, to be grateful to Thee, and desire to please Thee alone! Give us the peace which Thou alone can give, and which the world cannot take away! Amen.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Flee the praise of men
