Attention, Catholics! There are STILL Doctrinal Differences

The Roman Catholics ecumenists seem to conveniently never get the memo that there are still many and major points of doctrinal disagreement between them and the Orthodox Communion of Churches.  It's like a relationship that's been split up and one party still continues to insist they are boyfriend-girlfriend and the other party says no.  It is aggravating to hear Catholics on internet forums, in churches, at friendly get-togethers continuing to put forward the absolute myth that there are no major disagreements.  That's ridiculous.

I will direct you to my friend Anastasia's blog where she recalls an instance when a Roman Catholic, at an ecumenical meeting got up and made that blatantly false statement.  Her response to it is worth reading. (FYI:  I have a comment on that post)

She asks at the end How the Orthodox are supposed to have any real dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church who simply must know, must know that there are no doctrinal differences is blatantly false.  The simple answer is "We can't and we shouldn't."  If the Roman Catholics are not going to even be honest with the fact that divisions still do exist, then they are being disingenous, at best. 

The question then arises about why they do this?  They cannot plead ignorance because I believe that they are being actively taught this by their clergy and hierarchs.  I believe that the Roman Catholics do this because they know that their beliefs of being subject to the pope who has universal primacy over doctrine is completely anathema to us Orthodox.  They can't say it else the conversation is immediately ended.  So, they'll deny it to hopefully keep us talking and, when the moment is right and when the ink on the paper is still wet indicating full communion, some Cardinal will jump out of the cake and yell, "You're papists now!"

Dialogue only works when both sides approach it from absolute honesty.  Sadly, the Catholics are not being honest and when they are called on it, they cry foul.

New Year's Resolution for all Orthodox Churches in the USA: Bolt the NCC

I like to read the publications of other Christian confessions and writings of various Christian and non-Christian authors.  I often find gems but lots of crap (I'm sure the same thing can be said of my meager writings here), but I continue to do so simply because in today's world, it does no good for anyone in any faith, Christian or non, especially in a society as religiously pluralistic as ours, to remain ignorant of what others are doing or believing. 

One of the publications I read when it first hits the internet is the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, a liberal Lutheran denomination) publication, The Lutheran.  From my reading, the issues in the publication are generally more human interest stories, e.g. stories of congregations or families.  There is much advocacy for certain social justice issues, e.g. the environment, social welfare projects and some, though not a great amount, of theology.  Oftentimes, the ELCA confuses theology with social justice.  There are some stories about what goes on in other denominations.  And there is always an article submitted by the presiding bishop, who is brand new.  In short, it's not an exhaustive read, but it does give you a pretty good idea of what is important to the ELCA and how it practices and lives its brand of Lutheranism.  It is free on their website and is usually available a few days before the start of the next month.

Kathryn Lohre of the ELCA.  Former NCC President.

While reading January's issue, I read an article by Kathryn Lohre who is a member of the ELCA, its director of inter-religious and ecumenical relations and also a former president of the NCC (National Council of Churches).  People who have read my rantings over these past few years know well my hostility to Orthodox participation in both the NCC and WCC (World Council of Churches). Member churches of the NCC are generally the liberal Protestant mainline churches.  They desperately need the Orthodox to remain involved in the NCC because the Protestant mainline churches are dieing and to give legitimacy to the positions that are blatantly contradictory to traditional Christianity.  It was the NCC's unfettered support for abortion-on-demand, among other things, which caused the Antiochian Orthodox jurisdiction in North America to sever ties with the NCC in 2005.  The Greek Archdiocese and the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) still remain members as well as the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church.  I'm not sure about other Orthodox groups.  Why they do is beyond me.

With regards to the article by Kathryn Lohre, which you can read here, the same rallying cries are repeated about how vital the NCC really is.  Any Orthodox Christian who reads this article and who is honest about the faith should come to the conclusion that continued participation in this group by any Orthodox Christian jurisdiction is self-defeating and does nothing to help those who have rejected traditional Christianity to return to their roots.  Here are a couple of tell-tale snippets from this article:

Lohre:  While evangelical, Pentecostal and ethnic churches report significant growth, many of the council’s member churches have been in steady decline over the past few decades.

Response:  At least she's honest, but she doesn't  say why the evangelical, Pentecostal and ethnic churches (i.e. Orthodox, I'm sure as well as other churches that still have some nationality component, e.g. Croatian/Italian/Irish churches) are growing and the mainline churches  are declining.  Of course, she can't come right out and say what the reasons are (liberal social advocacy issues, among others), but that's a big reason, if not the predominant reason.

Lohre:  Many churches, like other institutions, are turning away from top-down approaches and embracing their roles as that of convener.

Response:  This is typical.  When you have a problem, rather than identify it, simply give it another name.  For her, the church is not a place of salvation, a hospital for sinners, but a place to bring people together.  Now, there's nothing wrong with that, but when you make the church only responsible for bringing people together with no particular goal, then is it any wonder why you have 30,000 different interpretations of what God's revelation is to mankind?  Also, notice the slight towards hierarchy.  The ELCA still has bishops, but they don't function with the same kind of oversight that a bishop in the Orthodox Churches has.  The implication is that the church should not only bring people together but be democratic about what it should believe.

Lohre:  Without a doubt, seeking unity in Christ holds renewed purpose in today’s multireligious society where people of other faiths and no faith are our neighbors, co-workers, family and friends.

Response:   What does unity in Christ have to do with what our non-Christian or atheist friends believe and think?  Actually a lot.  There is a divided witness in the world. But she fails to lay out what unity in Christ is.  It is NOT unity of administration, but is Unity of the Faith.  The ELCA are no different than other mainstream liberal Protestants:  whatever you believe is fine. Doctrine is unimportant.  Just believe in god and liberal social advocacy issues and that's enough.    If you believe, though that marriage is between one man and one woman, then you are threatened with excommunication because Jesus would never have said the same thing (sarcasm alert).

Lohre:  A compelling Christian witness that promotes God’s justice, peace and the healing of the world is very much needed in an era of competing voices and visions.

 Response:  God's justice, peace and healing of the world?  Read liberal social values such as gay marriage, no fault divorce, abortion on demand, forced welfare, radical environmentalism, anti-capitalism, etc.    Nothing about Christ's incarnation, death and Resurrection to restore man to God; it's all about liberal advocacy.

Lohre:   But the age-old church-dividing issues, including eucharistic sharing, haven’t been resolved.

 Response:  Yes, it has been resolved.  It's been resolved that Unity of the faith and the unity of schismatics and heretics to the una sancta must happen first before any common reception of the eucharist.  The liberal Protestants just don't get this.  They see unity as merely some joint statement without the underlying unity of the faith.  It's a unity built upon sand.  But they keep insisting they need Eucharistic unity with the Orthodox and Roman Catholics because they know that their churches are dieing.  They know the Orthodox and Catholics have a high theology of the Eucharist.  To get them to break on this issue would be the first domino of many other issues to come.

Lohre:   The council’s future will be defined by how effectively it engages as convener and co-convener of people in local, regional and national settings — weaving a compelling narrative of the movement for Christian unity in all of its expressions and contexts “so that the world may believe” (John 17:21)

 Response:  Again, notice the use of "convener."  The churches are simply buildings to get people together, that's all.  Unity in all its expressions is code for unity of the diversity of opinions.  In other words, all beliefs are tolerated and accepted as Christian, that Christianity represents a widespread diversity of beliefs.  These same people probably view the early councils at Nicaea and Ephesus and Chalcedon as intolerant.  As the Orthodox Church is the Church of the Fathers the emphasis on diversity of belief as acceptable would be a total non starter in any discussion.

Now I will concede that Lohre does not have the time to go into the theology behind a lot of what she has said and I will admit that I am not 100% accurate of what I think are her justifications for writing such general statements.  However, I know Lutherans (I used to be one) and I know ELCA Lutherans and though they are not as monolithic as one might assume them to be, when it comes to ecumenism and the faith, they are not friends to traditional Christians and not to the Orthodox.  I know how they think.

Orthodox hierarchs, priests, monks and laity involved in any discussions with the ELCA or any other liberal Protestant confession who is a member of the NCC should be well aware of the heresy and schism that the NCC member churches openly declare for.  The NCC is nothing more than common statements affirming such heretical views.  The Orthodox Church, to them, is like the tribal elder that the young ones need approval from even though they despise that elder and speak ill of him when he's not around.  Continued dialogue with the NCC or its member churches is futile and should cease.  They're not interested in the Orthodox position on anything. They only want our name affixed to their organization to give them legitimacy.  Their fruits have betrayed them.  So, for this new year, I beg the other Orthodox Churches to end their relationship with the NCC once and for all.  Get out now.

Lutherans warn Vatican--Do not create a "Lutheran Ordinariate"

The creation of the Anglican Ordinariate by the now, former Pope of Rome, Benedict XVI allowed the Roman Church to extend an olive branch to conservative Anglo-Catholics in England and beyond who were discontent with the hierarchy's loosening standards on women's ordination, ordination of homosexuals, homosexual weddings, etc.  Those Anglicans who were received into this ordinariate were allowed to retain their liturgical customs and praxis.  I'm not sure if they were forced/invited to recognize the headship of the Pope in spiritual matters, but there were definitely those who took the offer and didn't look back.

Now there are rumours that the Vatican may attempt to entice conservative Lutherans in the same way, by creating an ordinariate for them.  This prompted a slew of accusations and polemic from primarily liberal Lutheran groups (mainly in Europe) who said that such a move would "send wrong signals" (whatever that means) and would be a damaging blow to ecumenical relations.  You can read more of the reaction here.

First of all, I think the liberal Lutherans should calm down.  Conservative Lutherans are those who adhere to a quia subscription of the Confessions which means they would never enter into any kind of arrangement which would  require them to acknowledge the headship of the pope.  Any Lutherans who would do that are probably more Catholic than Lutheran anyway and would probably convert and swim the Tiber entirely rather than just take a dip in the kiddy pool version.

Secondly, what does this say about ecumenism?  I've been long of the opinion that ecumenism, as it exists now, simply seeks to unify churches administratively without regard for what the true faith is.  They call it diversity and that strengthens the church rather than hinders it (I'm sure that the confessors of the faith who died for the orthodox doctrine would disagree, but I digress).  True and good ecumenism is not about uniting the churches, but having these disparate confessions unified to the Una Sancta which already exists.  There's no harm in talking to people, but you must wonder why we continue to talk to people who have so consistently and unapologetically discarded the traditions of the faith.  And you must also wonder why we continue to talk with them who insist that diametrically opposed points of doctrine are somehow both valid.

This reaction by this group of Lutherans simply betrays that the ecumenism practiced today by the mainline Protestants is NOT about a true unity of the faith, but a unity of agreeing to disagree so let's all commune at the same altar.  And the Church has never tolerated heresy and schism in its midst for a great long time before it was able to throw it out.  At the same time, their reaction underscores that, even for liberal Lutherans, beliefs do matter, even if they officially continue to taut their preference for "diversity of beliefs" within a church.

The liberal Lutherans want so much for their perverted doctrines to be recognized, particularly by Rome.  But Rome won't budge. That's what they mean by this action being a damage to ecumenical relations: Rome insists that the Lutherans are deficient in many doctrines and practices and will insist on its faith as the norm and standard from which unity is born.  How dare they continue to be Catholics!  Of course, if the situation were reversed and the Lutherans announced a "Catholic Ordinariate" (not going to happen), there would be no hypocrisy on their part.

Ecumenism, as it is practiced now, is dangerous for precisely this reason.  The Orthodox are best to withdraw themselves from these frivolous dialogues and wastes of time. 

Ecumenism done right

Fr. Z has a great post on ecumenism on his blog. I encourage you to read it.  I've never been one for ecumenism simply because, as Fr. Z shows, it would require Orthodox and traditional Catholics to concede to mainline Protestants and renegade Catholics validity to innovations in the catholic tradition which we simply cannot concede.

For instance, ecumenical dialogues between Orthodox/Catholics and Protestants always have to bring up the issue of women's ordination.  Orthodox and Catholic participants are more or less required to concede that such "is just the way they do things" and we should move on.  Never are the Orthodox and Catholic participants allowed to insist that the Protestants stop their practice or insist that Protestants stop using their properties and churches to insult what Catholics and Orthodox hold dear.  The double standard is obvious--Protestants can tell Orthodox and Catholics what to do about Catholic and Orthodox theology and rites, but should an Orthodox or Catholic prelate tell the Protestant to stop meddling in our affairs, that prelate is dubbed "anti-ecumenical" and someone is sought out with a "cooler head."

Fr. Z would like modern ecumenism to start out by his criteria.  I like that, but it will never happen. I believe that modern ecumenism is dangerous and it really serves no purpose.  For that reason, I believe that none of the Orthodox Churches should be involved in it on any level.  I've said it before and I'll say it again but true and faithful ecumenism is NOT about uniting the churches; it is about having the confessions of Christianity unite themselves to the una Sancta Ecclesia.  Those are two entirely different approaches. The former is more about administrative unity and agreeing to disagree while the latter requires a rejection of heresy and all other errors and being obedient to Christ and His Church.  This is not to say that I am for cutting off all contact with other confessions of Christianity, but like Patriarch JEREMIAS II said to the Lutheran theologians at Tuebingen, with whom he had dialogue, we should be in contact for the sake of friendship and nothing else.

Emphatic "NO" to common date for Pascha

Here's yet another entry in the now (in)famous "I've said it before and I'll say it again" series. I think we're on part three now.

As Orthodox Christians and Western Christians celebrate Pascha yet again at different dates, it is of no surprise that there are many articles on the web and in the other media explaining why the same event has to be commemorated twice. There are instances of ecumenical bodies that are calling for, even demanding, some sort of new system, though I've yet to see any really this year, contrary to years past to set a common date for Pascha.

Regardless, Orthodox Christians should not bend on this at all, not least because Orthodox Christians would be the ones giving up the most.

The most frequently posted reason as to why all the churches should have one common celebration is because Christians are giving a divided witness. The fact is that even if our celebrations were to coincide, our message of Pascha is not the same as that of the Western Churches. Granted, many of them have elements of the truth, but that truth they do have is often outweighed by the heresies that the Western Churches have embraced in both the past and the modern era.

Why celebrate with churches who ostensibly and clearly teach that Jesus did not rise from the dead or teach that His Resurrection is only symbolic? If the Christian faith is mere symbolism, what's the point? If there is nothing beyond this life, what's then keeping us from being crazed maniacal hedonists?

Why celebrate with other churches who hold on to the disgusting theology of Anselm's Satisfactionary Atonement which teaches that God's honor was so wronged by Adam's sin that justice demanded that He be satisfied only by taking it out physically on someone? My honor was wronged the other day by a fellow parishioner's kid who told me to kiss his butt so I guess I should have killed one of his sisters to obtain satisfaction? It's sadistic, pure and simple. And that has no place in Christian theology.

Why celebrate with churches who hold only to a forensic justification as the central point of Christ's Resurrection? The key word is only. Forensic justification does have its place, especially in the Pauline epistles, but to make that the ONLY purpose of Christ's Resurrection diminshes the incarnation and leaves no room for transformation and change. It's like being charged for a crime and the judge pronounces a "not guilty" verdict. Sure, you're free to go, but have you been changed at all to grow in the image and likeness of God? No.

Why celebrate with churches that routinely deny that Christ was really God? Why celebrate with churches that routinely deny that Christ was really Man?

A unity of a common date for Pascha does not translate to a unity of confession. And it's clear the Western churches are not going to change so why pursue this?

Again, not all Western Churches hold all of these, but many of them cling to one or several of these false theologies. My question is why the Western churches are so much more interested in having a common date than the Eastern Churches? I'm going to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I honestly believe it is because the Western churches who are in charge of such "ecumenical" bodies like the NCC and WCC hate the Orthodox and want us to modernize. They realize that many of the denominations they represent are dead and/or dieing and that many are fleeing towards Orthodox communions for the true faith. Since they seem incapable of stopping this emigration since people are fleeing their false doctrines, they have to change the churches that they are fleeing to instead. The common date of Pascha is but the first hurdle to clear. Again, with any kind of common date for Pascha, it will be the Orthodox who will be the ones giving up because the Western churches think they've got it right though they are clearly the ones who have abrogated the Canons from Nicaea.

The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Holy Fathers. No other church body can make that claim. The Catholics used to be until they started innovating with purgatory, papal supremacy, unleavened bread, filioque, indulgences, etc.. The Reformers threw out most of the fathers, especially the Greek ones, preferring only Augustine and even Augustine would be aghast as what has been made of his theology in the current incarnations of their churches. To throw out the fathers is to throw away the witnesses to the faith in every century. The fathers are the ones who kept the Church faithful to Christ. To jettison them is akin to cutting off an arm or a leg. Yes, we could survive but we would be diminished.

As I close, I must state emphatically that I am making no judgment with regards to the salvation of individuals of the Western churches. That's between them and God. And God saves whom he desires. I am absolutely certain that in the heavenly abodes will only be Orthodox Christians, though while they dwelt on earth they may have been Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, atheist, agnostic, animist, Buddhist or Muslim. I'm not God and those judgments are not and should not be mine. But when it comes to the proclamation of the true faith, I hold no other truth than what the Orthodox Church teaches and I will defend its doctrine and praxis tooth and nail to the end, even if it means my life, should it come to that against all who would assail it. A common Pascha/Easter sounds like an innocuous thing, but once the Orthodox Churches start giving up little things like this, how soon the rest could crumble.

Commemoration of St. Mark of Ephesus

In the late 1300s through the mid 1400s, the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. Byzantine Empire) was under constant threat from the Turks. Year after year, more and more territory was lost, church lands were confiscated by the infidels, hierarchy, priests and monastics were killed on mere suspicion of treachery against their new masters. The promises of the first Crusades were hollow resulting in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Western armies under Venetian leadership which set up a Latin Empire and a Latin Patriarchate. Three new Empires were carved out of that: the Nicaean, the Empire of Trebizond and the Despotate of Epirus. Even after the Latins were kicked out, the Nicaean Emperors were legally recognized as the Eastern Emperors but the territories controlled by Trebizond and Epirus were lost forever.

Ecclesiastically and culturally, the Empire was suffering. The Hesychast Controversy was eventually settled and St. Gregory Palamas was vindicated as was doctrine of the distinctions between energies and essence of God as well as the Hesychastic method of prayer. Still, with this triumph, there was cultural loss. Many Greeks, such as Bessarion (who later became a Catholic Cardinal) and Pletho (the foremost Platonist of his day) who were not in the Hesychast camp fled to Western Europe, often taking scholarly positions at Western Universities as well as all sorts of books and manuscripts from the ancient Greeks with them.

The Eastern Emperors, who were the only legitimate Roman Emperors, seeing the sunset of their kingdom did what they could to delay and even prevent the fall of their Empire. In the past, their skilled diplomatic maneuvers and arrangement of marriages had prevented invasions from the West and East. But time was no longer on the Emperors' side. In the past, aid was requested from the Western nations and also the Pope. But there was always a price tag attached: submission to the Pope and acceptance of various Latin doctrines.

Enter St. Mark of Ephesus. In one last ditch effort to gain military aid from the Western nations and have it sanctioned by the Pope, a council was convened at Florence in 1439. It was attended by John VIII Palaelogus, Emperor of New Rome, Pope Eugenius V, Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople, Metropoltian Mark of Ephesus, Bessarion of Nicaea, George Scholarius who would later become Patriarch of Constantinople (with the name Gennadius) amid many others. It was clear from the beginning that the Latins would have the upper hand. John VIII Palaelogus, so eager for military aid to defend his faltering kingdom, forbade the theologians in the Orthodox camp from arguing against the Latins for fear of offending them and, thus, not gaining the military hope he desperately needed. St. Mark would have nothing of it.

Despite being hamstrung, St. Mark consistently and forcibly defended the Holy Orthodox faith and decried all sorts of heresies propagated by the Roman Catholics such as the filioque, purgatory and the supremacy of the Pope. Though he was clearly getting the better of his Latin counterpart, John VIII Palaelogus silenced him and the Latin position was then, by default, proclaimed as the true expression of the faith. A decree of union was crafted. St. Mark, even in the presence of both allies and the schismatic Catholics, was the only one who refused to sign. He returned back to his See of Ephesus where he died in 1444 after a long bout with intestinal illness.

History was to vindicate St. Mark. Many of the Orthodox prelates who signed the decree of union were banished by their own flock because, in their eyes, these prelates had "sold out." For example, Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, returned home to proclaim the union and commemorate the Pope during the Divine Liturgy. But the clergy and monastics, often who are the real defenders of Orthodoxy, rose up in rebellion against him and forced him into a monastery as a prisoner and had a new Metropolitan elected in his stead. The people even knew their faith was being sold out. The nature of the church being conciliar, the people are often the last defense against heresy and schism.

Thus, St. Mark's stand was the stand of True Orthodoxy. His stances were politically inconvenient and hostile to the Romans as they should have been. St. Mark should be our patron saint in our current world of ecumenism when the Orthodox are routinely called upon by other christian confessions to abandon the faith which Christ has left and has been preserved by us for the sake of unity. There can be no unity without unanimity of the faith. As St. Mark once said, "We seek and we pray for our return to that time when, being united, we spoke the same things and there was no schism between us." To be unified when so much still divides does no glory to Christ or His Church.

Holy Saint Mark, intercede before Christ's dread judgment seat that we may keep the faith as steadfastly as you!

By your profession of faith, O all-praised Mark
The Church has found you to be a zealot for truth.
You fought for the teaching of the Fathers;
You cast down the darkness of boastful pride.
Intercede with Christ God to grant forgiveness to those who honor you!

--Troparion of St. Mark, Tone 4

A solution to a problem (which is probably a pipe dream)

Nativity has come and gone. It is bittersweet. On the one hand, the hustle and bustle and delusions of Christmas with parties, gifts and family get togethers are finished. But, on the other hand, the solemn feast and the preparing fast only seemed worthy to merit an asterisk.

Though the Nativity Fast is a relaxed one and most Orthodox parishes do not have the rigorous cycle of services that are commonplace in Great Lent or even the Dormition fast, it was very difficult to pray and to stay focused on the coming of our Lord in the flesh. Even when the fast becomes more strict beginning on the 20th, that same day seems to be when every other thing associated with the Christmas season (e.g. parties, shopping, etc.) comes into full swing. Rather than given time for sufficient time to contemplate and meditate on why the Lord is coming in the flesh, I am given to other pursuits.

So, what is the solution? It's not that I didn't make an effort. I attended the weekday services at my parish; I prayed as much as I was able; I observed the fast pretty stringently. But there was always something to take me away from it. Here's my solution--and it's one that I've put forth before and I know will probably be disappointed: Return to the celebration of the Feast of the Nativity on January 7 (December 25, Julian Calendar). That's right, return to the Old Calendar.

Now, one might say: just go to a Russian or a Serbian church since they're on the Old Calendar. No. I'm a Greek Christian. I follow the Typicon of the Great Church of Christ. I read and speak the language and I comprehend the Orthodox faith through that language, the jewel of all philosophical languages. I chant according to the Byzantine method and find the Russian typewriter chant to be both silly and a bore (my opinion only). I have no desire to be a Russian or a Serb. There is no reason that I cannot be a Greek Christian and NOT celebrate the Great Feast of Nativity on January 7. After all, the Greek churches on Mount Athos still celebrate it that way. Why can't the rest of us.

This will solve a lot of issues. The bustle of the "secular" Christmas season will be gone and we can turn our thoughts more purposefully to prayer and worship. Also, and forgive me for being such an anti-ecumenist, but it will also help to destroy the illusion that Orthodox and the heterodox celebrate the same thing on December 25. Besides, why is it so important for us to celebrate our Lord's Pascha with all our Orthodox brethren, but every other movable feast not considered important? I'm sure it has to do with the ecumenical mindset of many of our hierarchs who always seem to beg for scraps from the ecumenical table in return for political and monetary favors.

I'm hopeful that there will be a Great Council convened sometime within the next decade or two. One of the issues that must, absolutely must, be discussed is that of the calendar. We cannot be one Orthodox communion on two calendars. It's schizophrenic. And Orthodox hierarchs should do everything possible to resist the ecumencist pleadings of prelates from the Roman Catholic communion who desire nothing more than us to be subservient to their papacy. Returning to the Old Calendar will help to divorce us from the heresies and schisms propagated by the Western Churches.

It's also been proven, many times over, that the more churches return to their tradition, they bring more people into the fold. For example, when the Pope Benedict XVI allowed for greater freedom of the use of the extraordinary Rite, many former catholics returned home. The development of the Novus Ordo (which is essentially a Protestant service; it was designed by 6 Protestants from Germany) pushed many people away. The evangelical churches are losing people in droves because that awful praise-band, anthropocentric, egocentric "worship" is driving people away and they are slowly recognizing that. Even my former church, the LCMS, Lutheran Church Missouri-Synod, has begun to purge itself of this same thing and people are coming back.

So, if returning to our roots and traditional praxis is good for the sake of the growth and stability of the Church, let's do it. Return to the Old Calendar! And keep us on it. Resist any attempts to find "common dates" of Pascha with the heterodox confessions! Dare to be Orthodox! Orthodoxia i thanatos!

One thing I am not particularly keen on for this Pascha

Xristos anesti! Alithos anesti! Kalo Pascha to all my Orthodox brethren who have journeyed long and waited for the Light and Life to burst forth from the darkness of Hades and destroyed death by death. Let us rejoice and be glad in this day since for 40 days it will be with us (liturgically, that is)!

Despite the problems with Pascha that I had (the Paschal Kanon wasn't pulled off as we had hoped and practiced, but hey, there's always next year), this was a joyous Pascha and it should always be joyous no matter what. This year, however, there's one thing that annoys me. It's that Pascha coincided with Western Easter. Now, what's wrong with that?

Regardless of whether the Eastern Pascha or the Western Easter actually do coincide, modern media always appear to need to point out Christianity's "defects", whether in doctrine, its practices, its clergy, its adherents in general (especially if those adherents take it seriously), its Sacred Scriptures or, in this particular case, its "disunity." Article after article this year remarked about how great it was that Western Easter and Eastern Pascha coincided and then wondered why this wasn't the case. Of course, even a cursory reading of history would yield the answer, but most media outlets can't be trusted to do that. Yet, it goes further. Media outlets for "Christian unity organizations" such as the NCC, the WCC and other ecumenical bodies immediately point out just how lamentable it is that Pascha and Easter coincide once every so many years (the next time we coincide is not until 2018, I think).

The lamentation that the Eastern Christians who celebrate Pascha one week later or, in some cases, a month later, is projected as stubbornness, a failure to get with the times, a failure to acknowledge the Pope as Supreme Overlord of the Church (My copy of Acts has never had the chapter where, following the death of Peter and Paul, the Christians declared that there should be a pope, as some Catholics suggest), etc..

I, for one, rejoice in the fact that the Orthodox celebrate, in general, at least a week later. The reason for lamentation, say the ecumenists, is that the Orthodox churches (and I'm including the Oriental Orthodox in this) by holding on to the calculation of Pascha using the Julian Calendar are giving a divided witness to the world. If we were to be absolutely honest, it is the various flavors of Western Christianity which are providing the divided witness. On Pascha, the Orthodox Church proclaims that death has been destroyed by our incarnate Lord bestowing on us forgiveness and the ability to change, to become like God. This is the message, the kerygma. Contrast Western Christianity.

Western Christian confessions can/will proclaim any one or more of the following:
1) that Christ's Resurrection is a mere metaphor
2) that Christ was punished
3) that Christ's Passion is a rallying cry to do more social work and love your fellow man
4) that Christ justified man kind
5) that Christ atoned for the sins of mankind
7) that Christ's Resurrection is an assurance of our resurrection
8) that Christ destroyed the devil
9) that Christ's Resurrection is so that we can be better people
10) that Christ's death and Resurrection is for everyone, regardless of whether you believe
11) that Christ's death and Resurrection is only juridical in nature and has no ontological value for man.

In of themselves, save for numbers 1 and 2, which I have huge problems with and with numbers 3 and 9 which are the bread and butter for those who preach "liberation problem" and with number 10 which is the heresy known as "universalism", those things listed above are not wrong or a misinterpretation of what Christ has done. The problems lie when one stands as pars pro toto for a certain confession's theology and everything else is thrown out. If anyone is giving divided witness, it is Western Christendom. Eastern Christendom has preached the same thing from day one.

Hence, I rejoice when Pascha and Easter do not coincide--it is a chance for the world to be informed of the whole meaning of Pascha through the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. It is Western Christendom that distorts the message. When Pascha follows Easter, it is a chance for the truth to shine out instead of having it drowned out in the cacophany of praise band services and guitar masses when Pascha and Easter are on the same day.

So, unlike the ecumenists, I am a little disheartened that Pascha and Easter coincided. I am though glad to know that there is next to no chance of the Orthodox churches actually agreeing to a universal date of Pascha/Easter which would be tantamount to the Orthodox Church sanctioning of heresy.

Xristos anesti! Let us keep the feast, and its truth, with gladness!

It's that time of year again

...when the media gives us all sorts of articles and "insights" as to what really happened during Holy Week and what Christ's Resurrection "really means." More often than not, we are bombarded by scholarly opinions about how current Christian observance of Holy Week and Pascha are misguided and are mere inventions of third century totalitarian bishops (read, Pope of Rome, which is, of course a historical anachronism) wishing to impose an orthodoxy that was at odds with the beliefs and faith of MOST of the world's Christians. Also, at this time, such ecumenical groups as the National Council of Churches laments that the observance of Western Christians and Eastern Christians is, with the exception of this year and next, most often on differing dates. So, the NCC, with its obvious respect to the traditions of other Christian confessions, says that we must all observe Pascha of the Lord on the same date so as not to give a divided witness. In fact, you can read their most current press release about that very issue here.

It is no secret that I favor the Old (Julian) Calendar to determine ALL feast days of the Orthodox Church and that the adoption of the New (Revised Julian) Calendar by the Antiochians, Greeks, Romanians and Bulgarians among others, does nothing, whether in this country or in the world, to promote an Orthodox unity while respecting local traditions. The calendar issue is no small "t" tradition as many hierarchs would make it out to be. To reverse the canons as egregiously as this requires the imprimatur and approval of nothing less than ecumenical council. We all pray that such an event may happen sometime soon. Though we will use the Old Calendar to calculate the date of Pascha and thus observe with our fellow Orthodox our Lord's triumph over death, why should we not also celebrate our Lord's Nativity together or the Annunciation to Our Lady? Are those of less importance? Surely not, even though Pascha is called rightly the "feast of feasts and holy day of holy days."

As such, I must reiterate on no uncertain terms that for any Orthodox hierarch, priest or layperson to suggest that we should join with the NCC and other confessions to support a common observance of Pascha is unacceptable. The argument goes that all Christians should celebrate together because, otherwise, we are giving a divided witness. Well, news flash: WE ARE DIVIDED AND WE ARE GIVING DIVIDED WITNESS ALREADY! Celebrating on the same day does nothing to eradicate the facts that too many western confessions of Christianity give a blatantly false message of our Lord's Pascha, going even so far as to deny that it actually happened! What is the point of celebrating with christians who see Christ's resurrection as nothing more than a symbolic act or as nothing more than a metaphor instead of the reality of God's triumph over death? Why celebrate with many of these confessions who think that faith in Christ and faith in mankind are but one and the same Gospel? Why celebrate with many christians who deny the sin for which Christ even came into the world? Why celebrate with many christians who deny the Virgin Birth, deny the incarnation, the sacraments among other things? Why celebrate together the feast, the source of all Eastern theology, when that theology is merely branded as one choice of many, not holding any more truth than what a Methodist may believe? Therefore, I hope and pray that all Orthodox hierarchs, priest and laity continue to support what has always been church tradition. If it should come to it that an Orthodox ecumenical council adopts a new means for celebrating Pascha that is in line with other western confessions, fine. But, let me make it clear that until Ecumenical Council is called, there should be no deviation from Holy Tradition and practice, not now, not ever.