DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO

   ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WITNESS (USPS 412-260)

is published monthly by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Church, 10300 Ashworth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington.
Presbyter Neketas S. Palassis, Editor

NOVEMBER. 2001
Vol. XXXVI, No. 3 (1510)
IN THIS ISSUE
SPECIAL: PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE ST. GREGORY OF SINAI MONASTERY AND THE ST. PETER THE ALEUT MISSION ARE INCLUDED IN THIS INTERNET EDITION OF THE O.C.W.

1.  OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS FROM METROPOLITAN EPHRAIM

    a. Elevation of Bishop Moses to Metropolitan of Seattle.
    b. Newly received or newly ordained clergy
2. ORTHODOX MUST TAKE CARE OF THEIR LITURGICAL     INHERITANCE
3. FACES IN THE CONGREGATION
4. THE GAY GENE
5. STUDIES INDICATE ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL WRITTEN IN A.D. 66.
6. THE DISTORTED GOD
7. MOMMY, WHY AREN’T WE JEWS?
8.ON HARDENED HEARTS AND SOFTENED BRAINS
9. BOOK REVIEW: THE NON-ORTHODOX: THE ORTHODOX TEACHING ON CHRISTIANS  OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
10. FALLING IN LOVE WITH THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
11. EXCERPTS FROM THE DIARY OF ST. DIMITRY OF ROSTOV.
12. DONATIONS
13. NEW ITEMS AT OUR PRESS AND BOOKSTORE SITE
_______________________________________________________________________

My beloved Fathers and Brethren:

Christ is in our midst!

     It is my pleasure to announce to you some very good news. A meeting of the Holy Synod was held on Tuesday, September 26/October 9, 2001.  At this meeting, thanks be to God, many important resolutions were made. First of all, His Eminence Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto, as locum tenens of the Church in Athens, Greece, was canonically elected President of the Holy Synod. Second, His Grace, Suffragan Bishop Moses of Roslindale was made a ruling bishop, with the title: Metropolitan of Seattle. He will have his residence at the Monastery of St. Gregory of Sinai in Kelseyville, California, and his office in Seattle. As president of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Makarios will preside at the installation of the Metropolitan-elect in Seattle in the near future, on a date as yet to be determined. God willing, I hope to be present also at this historic moment.
     Third, it was resolved to make the Holy Orthodox Church in North America an Eparchial* Synod of the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece. This Eparchial Synod will consist of the Metropolises of Boston, Toronto, Seattle, and of any other dioceses that may, with the help of God, be established in the future.

     Further, it is the fervent hope of your hierarchs that the election and consecration of more bishops be accomplished in the near future. Therefore, I ask you to pray that our Saviour enlightens us to make the right choices in this matter.

     This is the information that I wanted to convey to you at this time. I ask you to pray that our Saviour will continue to help us establish in a manner pleasing to God the Holy Orthodox Faith in our temporary homeland here in North America, so that we in turn may be in a better and stronger position to assist our Orthodox brothers and sisters in other lands also.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
 

+ Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston

Christ is in our midst!

 In my letter to you of October 5/18, 2001, I told you of the Holy Synod’s resolution to raise His Grace, Bishop Moses, to the rank of ruling bishop with the title, Metropolitan of Seattle.

 Recently, I have been informed, that, God willing, the date of his installation in Seattle will be Sunday, December 17/30, 2001. Since this is only a few days before new style New Year’s Day, it would be a good idea for those of you who are planning to be there to purchase your tickets and make your arrangements from now.

 Three other new developments that will be of interest to you are:

1) Father Damian Hohol has been received into the Metropolis of Toronto. Father Damian has come to us from the Ukrainian jurisdiction and will be serving in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan., Canada

2) Father Peter Farnsworth of Worcester, Massachusetts has been assigned to the mission in the San Francisco Bay Area. God willing, he will take up his duties there in the late spring or early summer of 2002.

3) Father Theodore Williams, a former clergyman of the Antiochian jurisdiction and long-time member of our Church, was received into the order of the priesthood by cheirothesia, and is now serving at our diocesan headquarters.

More details about these developments will be published in due time.

As always, we ask your continued prayers.

             Sincerely yours in Christ,

              + Ephraim, Metropolitan
_________________________________________________________________________

Holy Fathers of Optina
10/13 October, 2001

Dear Fathers and Brethren:

There was one important omission in yesterday's communication to you from the diocesan headquarters, St. Philaret's House.

In a few weeks, Father Sergius Pellegrini and his family will be moving from New Hampshire to Salt Lake City, Utah. There, he will assume his duties as pastor of Saint George's Orthodox Mission.

As soon as we know Father Sergius' new address and telephone number, you will be informed.

This, by God's grace, constitutes yet another mission parish that has received a clergyman. With God's help, we hope that within a couple of years, all our mission parishes will have clergy to minister to their spiritual and sacramental needs.

Please continue to pray that this be accomplished for the spiritual profit of all our faithful.

Sincerely yours in Christ.

+Ephraim, Metropolitan
_________________________________________________________________________

     “The Orthodox of America must be very careful not to make the same mistakes  that the Western Christians made many years ago. Before the ninth century the liturgies and customs of both East and West were so much alike that a Latin priest visiting the East could  very easily take part in the Greek and Syrian liturgies even though he did not know the languages. Both Eastern and Western Christians recognized each other as Orthodox.

     However, after the ninth century the Western Church underwent various changes and many old customs dropped out while new ones cam in. Because of the severance of relations with the West the Eastern Christians were not aware of the so many gradual changes which were taking place in the West. The Romans had changed so many things that little similarity remained between East and West.

     Many so-called modern Orthodox writers condemn the arguments and clashes which arose between East and West as trivial and petty. They claim that the real reasons for the split between East and West were more political than anything else. This is a very dangerous misunderstanding which shows clearly that many people who call themselves Orthodox do not realize what Orthodoxy really is.

     In America the Greek Church has already changed parts of the Liturgy and many priests do not perform complete services in order to save time. Gradually the various prayers left out at different services will be completely forgotten by later generations. Thus in a few hundred years Orthodox visiting America from other parts of the world will be embarrassed and amazed at the differences which exist between American Orthodoxy and other Orthodox. If the number of such differences grow, all this may lead to serious complications. It happened before and it can happen again.

     Every word and every prayer in Orthodoxy has its place and purpose. Instead of cutting things shorter let us learn what they mean."

This article was taken from:

Editor's comments: In going through books and pamphlets in my library I ran across this pamphlet which had been prepared for the Junior G.O.Y.A.in 1953. Fifty years later it's a real revelation to read these comments. There was a different spirit and understanding of the Church among the leadership. It would seem that the author was prophetic. The auhtor's name is nowhere to be found. However, as I recall it was Xenophon Diamantopoulos, the director of the Greek Archdiocese Sunday School department at that time.
_________________________________________________________________________

    Savvas and his wife Panayiota have been treasured members of our small parish for nearly 20 years. This 0issue of “Faces in the Congregation” is dedicated to them.

    Savvas was born in 1922 in the village of Kalifitas in Northern Greece, near the Bulgarian border. His parents were refugees, having just fled from their ancestral home in the rugged plateau region of Anatolia, in Asia Minor. That region was once the heart of the Byzantine Empire and was yet known to the Greek people as Cappadocia.

    As a child, Savvas' life was hard. From an early age in Kalifitas, he worked alongside his father as a laborer in the tobacco fields and in factories. He would have preferred to be in school but this was not possible. There were seven children to feed and clothe. It was a struggle simply to survive.

    Often he heard of the wealth and comfort that his family had formerly known in Cappadocia. In the town of Kayseri where they had lived, they had land and a comfortable home. They had owned a meat packing plant and were prosperous. However, when they fled, they left everything behind, save an icon of the Theotokos, which his mother had carried, carefully wrapped in a tablecloth.

    At the age of 16 Savvas left home. He traveled north to Bulgaria. This was the beginning of WWII and there was widespread famine. He hoped to find work and send money home to his family members who were starving. Unfortunately, conditions were nearly as bad in Bulgaria. He could not find work and, himself, suffered greatly from cold and hunger. In recalling this experience, he says that he would have perished but for the kindness of a Bulgarian Orthodox family who took him in and nursed him back to health.

    Three years later, he returned home to Kalifitas. He searched for his family but they were gone. Someone said they had moved to Thessaloniki.

    He set out after them, but never reached his destination. Traveling south as far as Micronos he stopped at the farm owned by the Athanasoglou family. He inquired about work and was immediately offered a job. Fifteen-year-old Panayiota Athanasoglou explained that her father had passed away seven years earlier. There was far more work than they themselves could handle. The family was in need of a strong, hard working, young farm hand.

    Over the next year a romance blossomed between Savvas and Panayiota. When he was 19 and she was 16, they were wed.

    Like Savvas' family, the parents of Panayiota were also from Asia Minor. Their ancestral home was in Brusa, on the broad coastal plain south of the Straits that divide the Aegean Sea from the Black Sea. They too had immigrated to Greece in 1922 in the face of Muslim oppression.

    Panayiota was born after her parents had fled to Greece. She was born and raised in Micronos, a small village north of Thessaloniki. She was the youngest of four children. In Micronos her father, who in Turkey had owned and operated a silk factory, became prosperous raising cows and sheep.

    After marrying, Savvas and Panayiota remained in Micronos for the next 20 years. Savvas took over the responsibility of running the Athanasoglou farm. This period saw the birth of their 5 children: Zoe, Photini, George and twins Petros and Dimitra.

    In the early 1960's, due to economic hardship and political turmoil in Greece, it became impossible for the family to remain on the farm. Savvas, Panayiota and their children (with the exception of Photini) moved to Frankfurt, Germany. There both Savvas and Panayiota worked in the kitchen of a large hospital. They attended the beautiful Greek Cathedral of Aghia Sophia in Damstadt.

    In 1976, with all of their children married, Savvas and Panayiota moved back to Thessaloniki. Two years later, in 1978 they came to America. Their papers had been arranged by their daughter Photini who herself had immigrated to America when she was 14 years of age.

    Savvas and Panayiota settled near Los Angeles. In time, they were joined by all of the members of their family. Since then, that family has grown. Savvas proudly boasts, "We have 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren!"

    Like their parents, the Politis children are hard working and industrious. This industriousness has paid off! They own and operate a number of good restaurants, including the growing "Bravo Burger" fast food chain. And, like their parents, they remain humble and pious.

    The question remains: what caused Savvas and Panayiota, in their old age, to leave the prosperity of the Greek Archdiocese and join our small struggling community? Moreover, why have they remained?

    When I asked them this question, they did not have a ready answer: They mentioned their cumbaros, Marika and Demetrios Mavromatis, dear friends who preceded them in leaving the new calendar Greek Archdiocese; they spoke of Father Nicholas, for whom they have profound respect. Yet, clearly was there something more. What was it?

    As we spoke, their deep remembrance of the spirit and conviction of their parents came alive and dominated the conversation:

    "I remember conversations with my father when I was a child," mused Savvas.

    “Why couldn’t we have stayed in Cappadocia?” I would ask.

    "My son," he would reply, "the land of our fathers is no longer called Cappadocia. They call it ‘The Republic of Turkey’ and it is a Moslem state."

    "But why did we have to leave. Couldn't we have stayed?"

    "Yes, we could have remained," Savvas’ father would explain. "We could have stayed and kept everything we had, our home, our lands, the meat packing plant..."

    "Then why didn't we stay?" I would protest. "Look at us now. We are barely surviving."

    "To have stayed we would have had to have given up our Orthodox faith. We would have had to deny Christ and become Muslim,” his father would answer.

    "This is something we would never do. Our Orthodox faith is more precious than all of our possessions. It is more precious than life itself. We were born Christian and we will die Christian."

    Panayiota, too, has her recollections, stories recounted to her by her parents of their final days in Brusa, before they fled to Greece. "There came a point when all of the Orthodox Churches were forced to close," she recalls. "Christian worship was forbidden. The penalty, if they found that you were attending an Orthodox service, was death."

    "Although everyone was terribly frightened, my family and others like them were determined, particularly at that point, to come together and pray.”

    To do this they searched and found a basement in an abandoned building. It had an earthen floor that would muffle any sounds. Using candles, they could read the Services and have communion.

    “But there was a big worry," she explains. "They had no water.” How could they bless holy water, do baptisms, or prepare communion without any water? They dared not do anything that would arouse suspicion. If someone saw them carrying large containers of water into the building, or going in and out of it to get water, that person might immediately contact the authorities and all would be lost.

    Nonetheless, because they had no other choice, they went ahead and used the basement.
Then the unexplainable happened: There, in the dusty dirt floor of the basement, pure water began to seep gently from a miraculous spring. That sweet water took care of all their needs. Moreover, it gave them courage. They knew that they were not alone. They knew that God was with them.

    This, then, is the answer: In leaving the new calendar Greek Archdiocese and joining our small struggling community, Savvas and Panayiota have been guided by the spirit and conviction of the fathers who ? like the Desert Fathers described by St. Ephraim the Syrian ? laid aside houses, wealth and property so as to gain the Kingdom above.

     From the bulletin of St. Demetrios Press, Vol. 2, Issue #3, the parish bulletin of St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Pomona,
_________________________________________________________________________

    METROPOLITAN MOSES WITH THE MONASTIC COMMUNITY AND PILGRIMS DURING A RECENT VISITATION TO ST. GREGORY OF SINAI MONASTERY IN KELSEYVILLE, CALIFORNIA. ABBOT SERGIUS WITH HIS SYNODEIA IS TO THE METROPOLITAN'S LEFT IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.

    GRACE AND PEDRO VARGAS THE TWO CHILDREN OF READER TIMOTHY VARGAS OF HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA ARE IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE METROPOLITAN.

    The group is standing in front of a tent which is the guest quarters of the Monastery.What looks like snow in the left hand corner of the picture is actually a small view of the 110' long "long house" which is now (Nov 1) nearly completed.

.

BISHOP MOSES PREACHING AT THE ST. GREGORY OF SINAI MONASTERY WITH
FR. SERGIUS, ABBOT IN THE BACKGROUND.

Pilgrim David Ryan standing by the Holy Cross at the highest elevation of the Monastery's Property. It is here where, GOD WILLING, the fathers hope to build their church.
_____________________________________________________________________________
4.  The Gay Gene
By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
(This is a follow up to Linda Bowles' article, New Study Shows Homosexuals Can Change published in the October, 2001 issue of the Orthodox Christian Witness)

    Did you enjoy Linda Bowles’ column in the June 7th issue of The Wanderer?  I did. But then I always enjoy and profit from her work. I would place her among the top five conservative columnists in the country today. So I do not welcome taking issue with her. But I think it is necessary. The theme of that column could come back to haunt her and those who rely on similar reasoning.

    The column was devoted to the implications of the work of Dr. Robert Spitzer, the psychiatrist who argues that practicing homosexuals can change their behavior and transform their lives through psychiatric counseling. He holds that there is no “gay gene” — that is, some specific inborn biological marker — that compels anyone to be a homosexual. There are enormous stakes to Spitzer’s proposition. Bowles correctly notes that “homosexual activists and the popular media have aggressively promoted the idea that the homosexual is unchangeably what he is from the moment of conception”; that “God made them” what they are and that they cannot “be judged for being that way.”

    If, however, Bowles continues, “it is not true that homosexuals are hapless pawns of their biology” and that “no child is born to be a homosexual,” then the campaign to normalize homosexuality loses much of its persuasiveness — the push to force the military and the Boy Scouts to permit open and practicing homosexuals within their ranks, to repeal sodomy laws and legalize homosexual marriages and the right of homosexuals to adopt. And what is my problem with this line of thought? Not much. I too do not want the homosexual lobby to be given free rein to use some notion of an inborn homosexual orientation to further their agenda. But here is where I think Bowles has overstated her case: I think it unwise to base our position on the notion that homosexuals can change their sexual longings by an act of the will, whether through psychological counseling or prayer. I am not sure that they can. My guess is that for every Dr. Spitzer we come up with, the homosexual lobby will come up with a dozen “experts” who disagree. Building our case against the homosexual revolution on the preponderance of modern scientific opinion on this matter looks like a loser to me.

    Moreover — and this is the key — whether or not the attraction to homosexual sex is inborn is largely irrelevant. Modern psychiatry may be wrong about a lot, but there is little disagreement any longer that a psychological disorder brought on by experiences early in life can be as powerful as anything rooted in chemical imbalances in the body. We must not lose sight of the fact that the discovery of some inborn DNA marker in homosexuals would be of interest only to the extent it demonstrates that homosexuals cannot control their sexual longings; that it is not a free choice.

    Bowles argues that “Homosexuals are made, and they can be unmade.” I hold that this goes too far. I see little evidence that homosexuals in significant numbers can “turn off” whatever it is that makes them sexually attracted to members of their own sex. It does not matter if the origin of their sexual urges is in some “gay gene” rather than in psychological experiences in their formative years. If they can’t control it, they can’t control it.

    Do I have proof of this? No. I am not a psychiatrist, not even close. But common sense tells me that too many homosexuals go through too much distress because of their homosexuality for it to be something they would not change, if they could. Fr. Bruce Ritter comes to mind. The founder and longtime director of Covenant House went from the heights, as a widely honored and esteemed priest, to the depths of shame. He resigned his position at Covenant House to live out his life in seclusion in a small town in upstate New York after testimony became overwhelming that he had engaged in sex with young men under his charge.

    I can also remember reading of a police officer in a town north of Manhattan, who committed suicide when evidence surfaced that he had done the same. Probably most readers of this column can relate similar stories from their own experience. Even the high odds of contracting AIDS has not deterred many homosexuals from sexual profligacy. You may argue that this behavior indicates a serious psychological disorder, but the corollary is that the disorder is one that they cannot easily purge through an act of the will, in or out of counseling.

    Do not misread me. I am not saying that homosexual sexual activity is “right” for those who cannot help their yearning for it. I am not proposing moral relativism or situation ethics. My point is something different: that it does not matter if homosexuals cannot dispel their longing for sex with members of their own sex — regardless of whether that longing is inborn or the result of childhood experiences. The behavior is still immoral. Homosexuals are as obliged to struggle against their temptations to sin as any other sinner.

    We must focus on a teaching that is central to the Christian understanding of moral responsibility: Just because we experience a temptation that is not of our choosing does not mean that we are morally free to satisfy its lures. Even if homosexuals can do nothing — absolutely nothing — to end the passions that beset them, they still have to say no to them, to fight them off. Let us keep this matter in perspective. Maybe I run in the wrong circles, but just about every married man I know will admit — in the right company at the right time of the evening — that he is strongly attracted to adulterous sex.

    What makes a married man virtuous, rather than a sleep-around lounge lizard, is not the absence of these temptations, but his successful moral effort to overcome them, out of his love and loyalty to his wife and to the Lord. We expect married individuals to withstand their attraction to extra-marital sex, regardless of whether the attraction is inborn or shaped by their life-experience.

    Sexual temptations are not the only examples that can be used to make this point. Probably most of us experience a temptation to steal when we think we can get away with it (when filling out your income tax forms, maybe?), to engage in calumny to gain the upper hand over business rivals, to sleep late rather than attend Sunday Mass. We know the scars of Original Sin and man’s fallen nature. A homosexual is no different than any other human beset with the temptations of the flesh. His obligation is to struggle to maintain his virtue, not join some movement to rename his particular temptation an alternative lifestyle.
_________________________________________________________________________

Recent studies on the famous "Oxford papyri" containing fragments of the oldest copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew strongly support traditional teaching that the Gospel was written before the Fall of Jerusalem, probably in A. D. 66.

In a June 6 report that appeared on the Cincinnati-based christian newstoday.com Internet web site, Benjamin Hartman revealed that top scholars working in Israel who have studied the handwriting on the ancient manuscript can pinpoint almost to the day when the text was composed.Jerusalem historian Dr. Ory Mazar says that the new research on the fragment of the New Testament "may well shatter the conventional wisdom."

The "Oxford papyri" consist of three tiny scraps of text discovered in the library of Magdalen College, Oxford, by Dr. Carsten Peter Thiede, containing verses from Matthew, chapter 26, describing Jesus' anointment in the house of Simon, the leper at Bethany, and His betrayal to the chief priests by Judas Iscariot.

"Intrigued," wrote Hartman, "[Thiede"] instituted an extensive study of the papyri and consulted with other scholars. 'It soon became clear," says Dr. Mazar, 'that here was a revolutionary discovery which may be considered equal to the finding of the original Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947'." The passages found on the fragments of text are:

Matt: 26:7-8: ". . . poured it on His head as He was at the table. When they saw this the disciples said indignantly . . ."

Matt. 26:10: ". . . Jesus noticed this and said, 'Why are you upsetting the woman? What she has done for me' . . . "

Matt. 26:14-15: ". . . Then one of the Twelve, the man called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, 'What are you prepared to give' . . . ."

Matt. 26:31: ". . . Jesus said to them, 'You will all fall away from me tonight, for the Scripture says'. . . ."

Matt. 26:32-3: ". . . 'I shall go ahead of you to Galilee.' At this, Peter said to Him. . . ."

Matt. 26:22-3: ". . . They were greatly distressed and started asking Him in turn, 'Not me, Lord, surely?' He answered, 'Someone who has dipped his hand into the dish with me' . . . ."

Among the scholars analyzing the texts was Jerusalem archaeologist A. Cohen, who told Hartman:

 "Certain writing techniques were used during certain time periods. By studying the writing styles, the exact date can be ascertained, sometimes with striking precision, in which these papyri were written. . . .

"Additionally, scholars were assisted with the dating of these fragments by the discovery of other small fragments written in the very same style. These are now kept at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, France.

 Texts bearing identical writing held by both the Oxford and Paris libraries were found in Egypt, he continued. "This is significant because among the Paris fragments was one dated document dealing with a business transaction. A farmer named Harmiysis appeals to the Roman authorities in his town in Upper Egypt for a permit to add seven more lambs to his herd."

The farmer proclaims: "I declare, in this the twelfth year of Nero Klaudius, Caesar Sebastos Germoanikos, the Autokrator, at the above-mentioned [town of] Phthochis, that I have [now] twelve lambs in my herd of animals. . . ."

"Translated into modern chronology." Harman continue, "this twelfth year of Nero's reign is A.D. 65/66. The three officials, who attest to this declaration, are more bureaucratically precise. They confirm the addition of seven new lambs with their dated endorsement in, 'the year 12 of Nero the Lord, Epeieph 30.' In the Gregorian calendar, which is commonly used today, this corresponds to July 24, A.D. 65/66, said Cohen. 'This provides us not only a year but an exact day.'

 "Since both these fragments were found in the same location and their writing styles and materials match, they can both be dated to a period prior or concurrent to the year A.D. 66.

 " 'It is hard to be indifferent to such a finding.' Says Dr. Mazar. The fragments clearly show
that Matthew's Gospel was written and in use only a generation or less after Jesus' crucifixion. These papyri could have been read and handled by at least a substantial number of the 'five hundred brethren' (1 Cor. 15:6) whom Paul asserts saw the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes.

 " 'This discovery has fascinating implications on our appreciation for the accuracy of
Matthew's Gospel account.' Says Dr. Mazar. 'It's intriguing to consider the possibility that these very fragments may well have been used and read by men and women who themselves knew Jesus and saw the fruits of His ministry on earth.'

 " 'In light of these findings.' concludes the historian, 'the testimony of Matthew as recorded in his Gospel takes on a much greater resonance'."
_________________________________________________________________________

     Paraphrasing portions of Kalomiros’ The River of Fire, Fr. Philotheos writes the following:
 It is no wonder that modern Western man hates and wars against God so passionately, because the God he knows is detestable. The God Western man knows is capricious, furious, and a hard and merciless tyrant, who torments and punishes harshly, even for the pettiest misdeed. He considers man’s disobedience such a horrible insult against Himself that He demands an equally horrible revenge. God must kill someone of equal dignity so that His revenge equals the insult. Therefore He kills His own Son to satisfy His vengeance. There was no other way for man to appease God for his awful crime. Even if God wanted to release man from the punishment, He could not, because He is compelled to satisfy His justice.   . . .

    Man has been tyrannized for centuries by this monstrous being—the God presented by Western theology. [Using “theology,” the devil slandered God in man’s eyes. By introducing only a slight alteration in theology, which then grew until Christianity became unrecognizable, he convinced man that God does not really love us, but accepts us only if we behave as He wants.] Man endured, not daring to resent this horrific terrorism. How could he, a weak creature, stand up to an uncontested and omnipotent ruler, not only of earth, but even of heaven; not only of this life, but even of life hereafter? The only thing man could do was to succumb and pay unfailingly the tax of prayer. If he failed in this, the tyrant would send his heavenly guards with their swords of flame to torture him in this life with every kind of tribulation and, finally, to take him to eternal hell.

    Once time a “Christian” psychiatrist said to an unfortunate young man, whom he had diagnosed as a schizophrenic, that if he wanted to see his sufferings eliminated, he should pray unceasingly. He warned him that if he should ever leave his house without having prayed and a car hit him in the street, it could be God’s punishment for the omission of prayer. This psychiatrist—who was the personification of craziness and perversion—also said to that wretched young man that he should be delighted for his suffering because if he was not tortured in this way, another member of his family could fall into a mortal sin. God, in His infinite philanthropy, was probably using this torture to intimidate the other members of his family and thus to protect them from corruption.
 Besides His heavenly guards, the hard-bitten God had also his earthly ones, like this “Christian” psychiatrist and in earlier times, or—why not even now—those who were collecting for Him the material tax and who drank the blood and sweat of the simple people. All the while those “God-appointed” oppressors and exploiters were building their palaces, filling their treasuries, keeping their harems, and living a life of scandalous luxury.

    Man submitted to the oppression, but inside himself, even deeper than his subconscious—because the tyrant was entering into it unchecked—the hatred was accumulating, until it became so huge that man felt it as an enormous power which gave him the courage to stand up and rebel against the oppressor. From this point begins the phenomenon of the “theomachy” [i.e., warring against God] of modern man.

    But is that horrible monster of the scholasticism of the West and the pietism of the East, the God that Jesus Christ revealed to man? Definitely not! Therefore those who are really Orthodox do not regret the assassination of this monster, and they feel sympathy for those who have fled the torments.

    The God that Jesus Christ revealed is not just, as the concept of God’s justice is understood in the West. [Perhaps the evil one began propagating the error regarding God’s justice using both the understanding of pagan justice and a misunderstanding and mistranslation of the Hebrew words tsedaka and hesed in holy Scripture, which mean, respectively, “the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation” and “mercy, compassion, love.” The Church Fathers understood God’s justice in this way.] “Do not ever say that God is just. Because if He were just, you would be in hell. Only reckon on His…injustice, which is mercy, love, and forgiveness,” says St. Isaac the Syrian. He continues: “How can you call God just when you read the passage on the wage given to the workers… How can man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal Son, who wasted his wealth in riotous living, and yet only for the contrition he showed, his father ran and fell upon his neck, and gave him authority over all his wealth?  Where, then, is God’s justice, for whilst we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!”

    In the parable of the vineyard, Christ states emphatically that God is not the pawn of His justice. “I choose to pay the last man the same as you,” He says to him who worked from the beginning, and He adds, “Am I not free to do what I want with my own possessions? Or are you responding to the fact that I am good by being wicked?” (Mt. 20:14-15). St. John Chrysostom responds to this with the memorable expression, “The master being generous receives the last like the first. He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has worked from the first hour. And he shows mercy upon the last and cares for the first, and to the one he gives and upon the other he bestows gifts.” (Catechetical homily of St. John Chrysostom)
 It is not possible for God to be just and even to be vindictive because:

    Compassionate and merciful is the Lord, long-suffering and plenteous in mercy; not unto the end will He be angered, neither unto eternity will he be wroth.

    Not according to our iniquities hath He dealt with us, neither according to our sins hath He rewarded us.
   For according to the height of heaven from the earth, the Lord hath made His mercy to prevail over them that fear Him.
   As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our iniquities from us.
   Like as a father hath compassion upon his sons, so hath the Lord had compassion upon them that fear Him; for He knoweth whereof we are made, He hath remembered that we are dust.  (Ps. 102:8-12)

    St. Isaac the Syrian, developing the view that mercy triumphs over judgment, says: Mercy and justice in the same soul is like the man who worships God and idols in the same temple. Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is the return of the equal, because it returns to man that which he deserves, and it does not bend to one side or show respect of persons.  But mercy is sorrow that is moved by grace and bends to all with sympathy, and it does not return harm to him who deserves it, although to him who deserves good it gives a double portion. And if mercy is on the side of virtue, justice is on the side of wickedness; and as it is impossible for hay and fire to exist in the same house, so it is impossible for justice and mercy to be in the same soul. As the grain of sand cannot be compared with a great amount of gold, so God’s use of justice cannot be compared with His mercy. Because man’s sin, in comparison to the providence and mercy of God, is like a handful of sand thrown into the sea, so the Creator’s mercy cannot be defeated by the wickedness of His creatures.

    Men tend to project onto God their own passions and their own pettiness. But as St Anthony the Great writes, God is good, passionless, and immutable. If a man accepts it as right and true that God does not change, yet is puzzled at how [being such] he rejoices in the good, turns away from the wicked, is angered with sinners, and shows them mercy when they repent, the answer to this is that God does not rejoice and is not angered, for joy and anger are passions. It is absurd to think that the Deity could be helped or harmed by human deeds. God is good and does only good; He harms no one and remains always the same. As to ourselves, when we are good we enter into communion with God through our likeness to Him, and when we become evil, we cut ourselves off from God, through our unlikeness to Him. When we live virtuously, we are God’s own, and when we become wicked, we fall away from Him. This does not mean that He is angry with us, but that our sins do not let God shine in us, and that they link us with the tormentors—the demons. If later, through prayers and good deeds, we obtain absolution for our sins, it does not mean that we have propitiated God and changed Him, but that through such actions and our turning to God we have cured the evil in ourselves and have again become able to partake of God’s goodness. Thus, to say that God turns away from the wicked is the same as to say that the sun hides itself from those who lose their sight.
_________________________________________________________________________

READER TIMOTHY VARGAS AND FR. NEKETAS AT THE
ST. PETER THE ALEUT MISSION CHAPEL.

Fr. Neketas with some of the mission's children.

       Members of the mission and visitors Demetrios and Mia Mirras from
  the parish of the Nativity of the Theotokos in Portland, Oregon.
______________________________________________________________________________________

7. "MOMMY, WHY AREN'T WE JEWS?"

     In one of his writings, Moishe Rosen, the author of the book, Y’shua – The Jewish Way to Say Jesus (which book, by the way, we recommend highly),  records a conversation he had with his mother when he was still a little boy. Like many Jewish children before him, Rosen asked his mother, “Mommy, why are we Jews?”  And, according to Rosen, his mother answered, “Because we are not Christians.” Naturally, this answer raised more questions in little Moishe’s mind.

     Believe it or not, his mother’s response was and is, to a great degree, the standard reply (and, according to some Jewish sources, the traditional reply) to Rosen’s question. As Rosen writes in Y’shua, “Among Jewish traditions there is probably none so firmly ingrained as the one that says Jews are not supposed to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.”

     This, then, explains the title of our article, “Mommy, Why Aren’t We Jews?” We believe the answers to this question are certainly more positive, edifying and spiritually advantageous than the answer Moishe received from his mother.

    In some circles it is not considered ecumenically polite to believe and confess that Christianity superceded Judaism as the one and true faith that God has given for the world's salvation. But, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem points out, "The Holy Spirit, Who in unison with the Father and the Son has established the New Covenant in the Catholic Church, has set us free from the burdens of the law grievous to be borne… For the Apostles, who were here at Jerusalem, by a written injunction set free the whole world from all the legal and prefigurative observances (of the Mosaic Law). They wrote: 'For it hath seemed good unto the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication' (Acts 15: 28, 29); showing evidently by what they wrote that, though the writing was by the hands of the Apostles, yet the decree is universal from the Holy Spirit: which decree Paul and Barnabas took and confirmed throughout all the world" (Catechetical Lectures, 17:29).

      Having this in mind, we publish here a humorous piece taken from First Things (May, 2001), simply to emphasize what we are taught about the Old Testament by the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers of the Church. As the editor of First Things observes: "This whimsical item of anonymous authorship floated in on the email. It purports to be a letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a popular radio and television giver of advice. I publish it not to mock Dr. Schlessinger and certainly not to make light of scriptural authority, but as a reminder that the case against same-sex relations cannot be sustained by cherry-picking biblical passages [at random]."1

    In addition to being quite witty, the letter addressed to Dr. Laura Schlessinger demonstrates the sterility of following the Mosaic Law "to the letter," especially after the coming of Christ our Saviour, Who as perfect God and perfect Man, fulfilled all the Law in Himself. Here is the letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger:

  Dear Dr. Laura:
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have   learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific
laws and how to follow them:

    1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an ab0omination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    8.  Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-9 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14)

    So much for the observances of the Levitical law! Truly, as the Prophet Jeremias foretold, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda: not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more" (Jeremias 28:31-36).

    God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, initiated this new covenant at His Mystical Supper when He said: "Take, eat, this is My Body" and "Drink ye all of it; for this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:26-28).

    And St. Paul puts the final touch on "the letter of the Law" of the Old Testament when he tells the Corinthians, "God has made us able ministers of the new covenant: not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (II Corinthians 3:6).

    So, if your child asks you: "Mommy, why aren't we Jews?", your response should be: "Because, my child, we are Orthodox Christians under God's New Covenant."
_________________________________________________________________________

    There are conservatives, and then there are conservatives. The Spectator of London frequently reflects a nutty brand of Tory conservatism, as in an article in support of eugenics by Terence Kealey of Buckingham University. Mr. Kealey is all over the place. He appears to quote favorably Chesterton's observation that "Eugenicists have discovered how to combine hardening of the heart with softening of the brain." And he terms "horrific" the statements of earlier eugenicists such as the Social Darwinist H. G. Wells, who said in 1901: 'The swarms of black, brown, dirty white, and yellow people have to go. It is their portion to die out." He also notes that in the early twentieth century, Germans and others admired the forced sterilization of the "unfit" that was widely practiced in the United States. Then, of course, there was that other unpleasantness: "Eugenics has never recovered from its associations with Hitler and the Nazis. Nor should it." That being said, Mr. Kealey proceeds to argue for the rehabilitation of eugenics. "It is essential, surely, to winnow out good eugenics from bad eugenics, to separate the science from the abuse." He is especially enthusiastic about cloning human beings and related efforts to improve the quality of the species. There is, to be sure, the cautionary tale of Nazism. "Where did it go wrong? Why was Nazi science so perverted?" Mr. Kealey asks. "The answer, surely, lies in one man and his odious movement." And since Hitler is dead and none of us are Nazis, what's to worry? Surely (as Mr. Kealey is prone to saying) the danger is not with science run amok. "It is usual for historians of science to claim that Hiroshima witnessed the death of innocence for science. Actually, one can make a good case for Hiroshima as a humanitarian solution to the Second World War." (See above on hardening of the heart and softening of the brain.) Based on his reading of Matt Ridley's Genome, Mr. Kealey assures us that "today's eugenics is potentially safe." A nice phrase that, "potentially safe." He allows that `we are entering a worrying new world where some people will be cloned while others will be rendered immortal and yet others will have their intelligences and appearances tweaked." "If applied with discretion, these are benign technologies," he observes, noting the benign benefits of the present practice of aborting unborn babies with disabilities. As to who will be in charge of the department of discretion in his brave new world, Mr. Kealey says it must not be the government. That is what went wrong with Nazism, he says. (So apparently the problem was not just "one man and his odious movement.") "To guide us through the new world of eugenics, we will need institutions that are independent and disinterested." What a very good idea: independent and disinterested institutions that will guide us in deciding who gets cloned, who gets tweaked, and who gets killed. Eugenics needs no state funding, he writes. "It needs state vigilance and a separation of powers." Without funding, control, or regulation of research, the state should nonetheless exercise vigilance. Now what about that don't you understand? Mr. Kealey concludes by urging that we bypass the Nazi unpleasantness and return to the eugenics project of a century ago. "The possible benefits are huge. As long as we can reserve the scientists their freedom but allow them no power, then we should extract the maximum benefits from the minimum of risks." So that's clear now: scientists should be free to do what they want but not have the power to do what they want. The management of this neat trick will be left to unspecified "institutions that are independent and disinterested." Well, just as long as somebody is in charge. The writer is Terence Kealey, the magazine is The Spectator, the disposition is called conservatism.

    In this study of the possibility of the salvation of the non-Orthodox, Mr. Barnes states forthrightly that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church of Christ. The corollary of this statement is also taken seriously. He affirms that heresy, i.e. beliefs and practices differing from those of the Church, is important since it separates from the Church. To suggest anything else is false. He declares that anyone who should do so, either out of a desire not to offend, or from ecumenistic convictions, displays a lack of true love for the heretic by keeping him in ignorance. The Church is the sole ark and vessel of deifying grace; outside of her there can be no salvation.

    Pursuant to his topic, in Chapter Two he gives a concise explanation of grace leading to salvation. There is a grace of the Holy Spirit which calls all men to salvation, and then a grace which incorporates men into the Church making them sons of God. Of course, this is the simple iteration and application of the Church’s doctrine that God is simple in His essence but multiform in His operations. His divine operations (or energies) are both eternal and uncreated; yet they can have both a beginning and end in their effect, since that which is effected is created and temporal. The divine operations depend upon God’s will. God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:4-5).

    The Church is a definite, visible, and discernible historical Body, and its boundaries are formed by initiation into the Church, i.e., by Baptism; and on page five, Mr. Barnes states, “a consistent Orthodox position is definitely discernible if only one resorts to a careful examination of Holy Tradition, and specifically Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Sacred Canons.” This is his stated method in demonstrating a truly Orthodox position concerning the non-Orthodox in order to alleviate the confusion upon the subject because of the inroads of the Ecumenists.
His discussion of akribeia and oikonomia are clear and helpful to one unfamiliar with Orthodox terminology and practice. Oikonomia, leniency, never contradicts the truth that only the Church of Christ can baptize. A ceremony by any heretical assemblage, even if it should mimic the Orthodox Baptism to the letter, is void, for it does not join him who was baptized to the Body of Christ. Leniency may be shown because of a person’s weakness or the exigencies of the times, so that full baptism may not be required of a man who desires to attach himself to the Church if he has undergone a supposedly Orthodox ceremony such as described above. Nevertheless, leniency never implies that the heterodox ceremony is a true baptism, granting rebirth in the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is an empty ceremony, “a common bath,” as that courageous woman of Rome said*, void of the Holy Spirit’s grace.

    So far, Mr. Barnes has helpfully summarized the Church’s position. However, certain statements concerning the sacraments of the non-Orthodox seem to be fudging this position and backtracking. On page sixty-six, he considers it proper to say, “Heterodox rites have a certain ‘charismatic quality’.” This statement begs definition. Mr. Barnes had established that only in the Church, the ark of salvation, and only there, can true Baptism, true rebirth be found. Only in the Church is there true communion of the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, the Eucharist. He also stated that the grace of God sustains the life of the world and calls all men to the true and eternal life in Christ, found only through the Church. Do the heterodox rites grant rebirth and divine communion? Previously, he had correctly stated no; but he now introduces an ambiguity, a third condition which while participating in Christ’s Church somehow, is yet not of it. Considering his stated principles, how could such a strange rebirth be described or what would be its real condition? A premature birth or a miscarriage? An in vitro Christian?

    We cannot see why Mr. Barnes should muddy his prior delineations which were clear and in harmony with the mind of the Church. God’s grace calls all men to Him, using any circumstance in their life to awaken them to consciousness of His call. Our Lord is a humble God and does not even disdain sin as a means to spark repentance. The earlier apologists claimed that some pagan practices were an anticipation of Christ and of the Christian Mysteries, e.g., those of Mithras. They considered them, however, to be mockeries of Christian doctrines or rites inspired by the devil in order to deceive men. The apologists admonished the pagans to leave off the shadows and come to the reality. Any “charismatic quality” these rites possessed was the recognition of their falseness and the consequent acknowledgement of Christianity.

    The Fathers have often referred to Saul as an example of how God can draw a man through humble means. Saul went seeking his father’s lost asses but instead found a kingdom. We have another example in the murder of the Egyptian by the great Prophet-seer and Lawgiver Moses. The Fathers often comment that this murder—acknowledged as being a grave transgression—became a cause of salvation to Moses, since by fleeing to the desert afterwards, he encountered God. We would have to acknowledge, therefore, that this murder had “a certain charismatic quality.” For Moses personally, it did, since God managed through this means to draw Moses by grace to salvation. Yet it was true only for Moses, since it is not possible to argue that murder must have some intrinsic grace, for we know that God does not abide with sin.

    Our Lord uses every spiritual and material means to awaken in a man’s soul the desire and longing for God so that man’s will might be engaged to seek after God. This intention incited in the soul by God is precious in His sight and is cultivated by means and events significant for that person so that it comes to fruition: the spiritual and material refashioning of that man through the rebirth found only in the Church.

    A participant in heterodox baptismal rites most likely has some intention for virtue or for knowing God springing from the operation of the natural, teleological impulse planted in our nature when God created us. A man may either fully accept and be satisfied with the deviant theology of his sect, or God’s grace might awaken questioning within him so that he seeks further since he remains unsatisfied. His disposition which sought God in the vain ceremonies of the heterodox will be rewarded when he encounters in the Church the reality of those mimicking shadows.
The Church, then, also honors the intention and calling which the candidate for Baptism has demonstrated since in his search he has abandoned what is false. Therefore, if for various reasons—personal or the exigencies of the times—economy is judged necessary, the Church can accept a heterodox rite similar to the Church’s Baptism as fulfilling the material and bodily ceremonies of the Church’s laver so that when hands are imposed upon the candidate and he is sealed with the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit, he is regenerated, body and soul.

    Grace working upon the soul of a man to turn him to repentance is the essence of the matter. The externals that conduce to repentance—sickness, fear of death, a sermon, murder, a miracle, heterodox worship, enthusiasm, pagan ceremonies, all those many ways described in the history of the Church—are peripheral. Anything can be used by God to help open a man’s soul to the truth, and its value is determined by its success. All means are of equal value if they succeed, and all are equally valueless if they fail.

    The same is true for heterodox baptism: it has no intrinsic grace or value, but its value for the participant is determined by his perception of it and the future development of his disposition. Herein is found the grace which affects man’s soul. The ceremony itself is void; any attribution of “a certain charismatic quality” to it (grace by any other name) infringes upon the boundaries of the Church.
This sudden departure from Mr. Barnes’ stated Orthodox principles was a shock which forced a keener assessment of his book. Further analysis indicates that his study of the problem is flawed in method. He has not addressed the “hard sayings” from the Sacred Canons, the Fathers, and the Scriptures which deal with the question; or, if any are mentioned, they are passed over dismissively or ignored in his conclusions. Whether this was done out of consideration for the heterodox so as not to offend them can be no excuse. Mr. Barnes himself insists that to keep one in ignorance is a false love. An honest inquiry into the topic demands, in his words, “a careful examination of Holy Tradition, and specifically Sacred Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the Sacred Canons.” He has not done it. His examination is skewed by not presenting the hard sayings of Scripture and the Fathers, or by presenting them very sketchily, so that there would be no significant counterweight to his a priori conclusion. An honest presentation with love for the Truth will not offend. Never should abuse or contumely be heaped upon ignorance; only  dishonesty deserves reproach. A skewed investigation is a disservice to both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Two thousand years of unanimity of the entire Church upon this issue cannot be ignored A true assessment requires all facts to be presented and properly weighted.

    Here are some “hard sayings” which indicate the mind of the Church.

    And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Gen. 17:14)

    Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. (John 4:22)

    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me. (John 14:6)

    Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12)

    How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; (Heb 2:3)

    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

    Amen, Amen, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice; and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which He spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. (John 10:1-8)

    But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1Cor. 10:20-21)
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

    Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matt. 7:13-14)

    Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:19-23)

    One Lord, one faith, one baptism. (Eph. 4:5)

    For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. (Acts 3:22-23)

    Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Amen I say unto you, I know you not. (Matt. 25:11-12)

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 ye 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 know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (Luke 13:25-27)

    The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Butt he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:46-48)

    Jesus answered, Amen, Amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

    That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:15, 18)

    Amen, Amen, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of condemnation. (John 5:24, 28-29)

    Then Jesus said unto them, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53)

    I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)

    But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. (II Peter 2:1, 20-21)

    He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (I John 5:12)

    “We ordain that a bishop or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?” (Apostolic Canon 46)

     “Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the ungodly, be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a distinction between the true priests and the false” (Apostolic Canon 47)

    “Whatever [sacrament] is performed by them [i.e., the heretics] is reprobate, being as it is counterfeit and void. For nothing can be acceptable or desirable to God which is performed by them.” (Canon I of Council of Carthage)

    “The baptism of heretics does not heal, it pollutes” (St. Ambrose, De Myst. IV, 23)

    The above references should have been presented and not ignored by Mr. Barnes if he wanted a balanced presentation of his topic. They are the voice and mind of the Church, and they certainly do not permit any “charismatic quality” to be attributed to heterodox rites, rather the reverse. The ancient patristic maxim reiterated by St. John Chrysostom and by all after him — The blessings of heretics are curses — cannot be overlooked and discounted.

    On page 172, his disingenuous reply to whether Jehovah’s Witnesses could be saved completely ignores the voice of the Church. Perhaps he was moved by compassion, but nothing can excuse a distortion of the truth. The Church has pronounced many and frequent anathemas upon them who do not accept or who blaspheme the Holy Trinity — which the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. A faithful son of the Church cannot state that he does not know or that he will not commit himself on the question as Mr. Barnes does. The entire Synodicon of Orthodoxy explicates these matters and requires consent if one should wish to remain Orthodox. We might refrain from judging because the future change of any soul is possible until it is sealed in the grave. However, the question can Jehovah’s Witnesses be saved plainly implies that it concerns a man who is and remains a Jehovah’s Witness. The mouth of the Lord has spoken it and the witness of the Holy Spirit has confirmed it: if a man abide in error, he is condemned.

    In this instance Mr. Barnes has preferred moderns such as Florovsky and Telepneff, who, worthy though they may be, are not authoritative voices of the Church, especially when they voice an opinion contrary to the consensus of the Fathers. And it is a consensus, for even if one voice can be found to disagree with what our references say, all the others and all the greatest of the Fathers are in concord. All the more modern voices continue the same understanding of the Church to the present day, namely, Saints Paisius Velichkovsky, Seraphim of Sarov, Hilarion (Troitsky), and Justin Popovic. Rather, it is the opinions of Florovsky and Telepneff which must be considered aberrant and not representative of the mind of the Church.

    Perhaps Mr. Barnes did not wish to offend and drive away non-Orthodox readers, which is understandable. Yet his fine dogmatic explanations would have tempered any offence, especially when bolstered with quotations of Scripture and the oldest historical witness. Also, perhaps the weight of the witness would have kept him from falling into rationalism because of his compassion for the heterodox.

    Grace is God Himself multifariously guiding each man to salvation, working with man’s free will, to bring that man to the ark of salvation. There is no need to attribute any special grace or some intrinsic “charismatic quality” to any external means used by God in this work; otherwise we descend into magic: certain materials or certain words and ceremonies must have definite results. It is “God which worketh all in all” (1 Cor. 12:6); no other attribution is necessary. The mystery of redemption cannot be reduced to our terms and level of understanding. To do so results in rationalism.
Matter is brought into physical union with the divine only in the Church, in the Body of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Christ is the only mediator between God and men (I Tim 2:5). The Incarnation of our Saviour is real and true in the physical sense, therefore no means of physical communion with the Body of Christ exists outside of the Church (which is amply proven by Mr. Barnes). The necessity of this communion is proven by the words: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:53-54). To believe that there is communion outside of the Church denies the necessity and reality of the Incarnation.

    We cannot make our own laws or doctrines, or mitigate with casuistry and quibbling those pronounced by the Church. We are bound to follow the words of our Lord in the Scriptures and the Fathers. God and they are far more compassionate than we. To ignore their words in order to appear more compassionate is a delusion and a disservice to the non-Orthodox — a fact which Mr. Barnes states and affirms, but renounces in practice.

    On page one hundred three, he states, “We know who is in the Church, we cannot be sure who will not be.” From one perspective, he is correct. We do not know the future, therefore we await and hope for the repentance of everyone until they die. The patristic commonplace “Call no man blessed before his death” sums up this view very well. Yet Mr. Barnes attempts in his maxim to extend improperly the eschatological significance of these words, so that they apply to the Church of the elect in blessedness after the Judgment, implying salvation for those outside the ark. We may know now at the present time who is in the Church, but we do not know who is saved or will be saved. That is for the winnowing of souls and the scales at the Last Judgment to determine. We only know, from many sayings of Scripture, that the wheat will be separated from the chaff, the goats from the sheep, the tares rooted out and burnt, and the wheat gathered into the barns. They who repented, were reborn in Holy Baptism, and brought forth fruits of repentance shall enter into the Bride-chamber while the others — unbelievers and unfruitful baptized members of the Church — will hear, “I know you not,” “Depart, evil servant, into the outer darkness.” Mr. Barnes’ saying, therefore, is true if we are speaking of the dispensation of this world, but we cannot apply it if we are speaking of who is saved.
Our compassionate Saviour declares of the unworthy servant who knew God’s will and prepared not himself, the Lord “will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers” (Luke 12:46). The portion of the unbelievers can only be interpreted as a miserable condition; if not a punishment, certainly no salvation and divine sonship. All those who in word and deed deny Christ’s divinity and the Holy Trinity openly, openly proclaim themselves unbelievers. Do not the words of the Lord Himself declare that the Jehovah’s Witnesses and all other unbelievers like them are not in the kingdom? Yes, St. Paul says, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom. 10:13); but he immediately appends, “How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed?” (Rom. 10:14). This verse refutes any magical use of the name of Jesus; for simply to say it without believing in the Incarnate God — which is true for most of the heterodox, both in word and actual practice — the name of Jesus confers no benefit. The case when unbelieving Jews called upon the Name to expel the demons from a possessed man and he leapt up and drove them away saying, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?” (Acts 19:15) is further proof.

    St. Paul proceeds to make the knowledge of God more particular, enshrining it in the Church, “for faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). It comes from the faithful remnant of Israel, from the preaching of the Apostles, “and how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14). Those who would be saved, must call upon Him in whom they believed, the Redeemer of our souls. They come to belief through hearing the Apostolic preaching, the doctrine delivered by Christ to His Apostles and then by them to the whole world. It must be the genuine and untainted Faith “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), not a faith corrupted by human reasonings and passions. That faith must be truly confessed in word and deed for a man to be saved, and not only kept in the heart; and that faith must be the same as the one preached by the Apostles. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10). They who do not actually believe Jesus to be true God and true man do not believe in Him whom the Apostles preached but rather in some phantom or idol of their own devising. They have not really heard of Him since they turned their ears away from the Apostolic preaching, therefore in their hearts they do not know His name and cannot call upon Him. These are the heterodox: they who are separated from the Church. “Their portion is with the unbelievers,” according to the most sure word of the Lord Jesus. Being separated from the Church, the heterodox are denying the incarnate Body of Christ, which is to deny that Christ has come in the flesh, as all the Church Fathers declare. “Every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist” (I John 4:3). Since “the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21).

    Mr. Barnes pleads that virtue can save a man, and on pages sixty-seven and sixty-eight, he brings forward the example of Cornelius, and that Roman centurion mentioned by the Apostle Matthew (8:5) and also the Old Testament Saints as proof in our consideration of salvation for the non-Orthodox. They, however, were all admitted to the New Testament Church, for the righteous of the Old Testament were together with “Abraham [who] rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad” (John 8:56). Our Saviour opened the closed way to Heaven with His Incarnation, both for those who would come to believe in Him and those righteous before His Incarnation who had awaited His day. “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after His Resurrection” (Matt. 27:52-53).
Virtue, because it purifies the bodily and spiritual senses, gives opportunity for enlightenment. Saint Seraphim of Sarov says in his conversation with Motivilov that God will credit any virtue to us when we are baptized. But if we are not joined to the Church, it is of no eternal value and will not help us. “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath” (Mark 4:25). Moreover Saints Matthew and Luke say the same twice in each of their Gospels (Matt. 13:12, 25:29; Luke 8:18, 19:26). If we allow that those outside the Church, who have not been grafted into the Incarnate Lord, can be saved through their virtue (pp. 73-80), we are admitting meritorious works, that one merits and is due salvation through his virtue instead of through the free gift of God’s love. The Church has forever rejected such a teaching of works.

    Works show our intention and the extent of our love for God, Who accepts them out of love and rewards us for them far above their any worth. “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life” (Matt. 19:29). “And Jesus answered and said, Amen I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My sake and the Gospels, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mark 10:29-30); but “all our righteousness is as a filthy rag” (Esaias 64:6). Our Saviour Himself proclaims, “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). Each man shall receive the recompense of his deeds (Matt. 16:27) for all shall be tried by fire. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward” (I Cor. 3:11-14). But if a man be not built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, his works will be to no avail, he will be beaten with more or fewer stripes according to his ignorance and responsibility. God will judge if because of his works or ignorance his sentence deserves mitigation (Luke 12:47-48). Only by believing in Christ and being planted in Him—through Baptism and the life of sanctification—will our works have any lasting value.

    The hard sayings of our Saviour, some of which were quoted above, as well as the writings of the Fathers which are expressed in the polity and practice of the Holy Church do not arise from a dead legalism or from a self-righteous cruelty or indifference. They rather arise from an overwhelming love of the Truth and of mankind and from an utter trust in the abyss of God’s mercy and compassion. The Fathers knew from experience that God would never utter a lie or be untrue to Himself and would never forget His love for mankind. Both His truth and love are beyond our human understanding and can never be expressed with our tongues. Our mind and reason can never grasp His infinite loving-kindness. Therefore, the Church does not seek to rationalize His truth and mercy but has profound trust in Him, belief and faith in Him, for we know that Jesus Christ is divine truth and love incarnate.

    Heresy, heterodoxy, is a separation from God since it is a false doctrine and worship and it is not true. It is not the doctrine delivered by Christ, but some human conception which distorts or parodies the Truth Incarnate, Christ, and the Holy Trinity, and which leads man away from God rather than uniting man to Him. Therefore, heresy and its rites—heterodox Christians and their pious rites—are not even neutral, let alone beneficial, for they are pretences and cheats. Instead of cleansing and illuminating, they darken with falsehood. Instead of imparting the Bread of Life, the antidote to death, the medicine of immortality, as they claim, they give them powerless imitations, thus duping a sincere seeker or pacifying their adherents. In spite of their promises of healing, the disease remains unhealed because they proffer placebo sacraments, which claim to be the medicine for sin and death but are fraudulent. For these reasons, the Fathers considered the rites of the heterodox to be evil and polluting because they deceive the seeker and hinder him from finding the true Mysteries of God. Therefore, Mr. Barnes’ statement on page 134: “To affirm the ‘Cyprianic-economic’ view of the Church and Her manner of relating to the heterodox does not entail disdain for the rites of pious heterodox Christians,” diverges widely from the mind of the Church as expressed in the Scriptures, the Canons, and the Holy Fathers.

    Concerning the responsibility and sincerity of heresiarchs, their followers, and their long-time descendants who have learnt heresy as a norm, which Mr. Barnes mentions and discusses briefly, much time would be required to delve into the subject, apt as it may be. There are two inspired articles by Fr. George Grabbe (later Bishop Gregory) printed as numbers twenty-eight and twenty-nine in St. Nectarios Educational Series, from St. Nectarios Press, Seattle, Washington. The titles are “Did St. Cyprian Change the Doctrine of the Church?” and “The Unity and Uniqueness of the Church.” In brief, these articles point out that the doctrine of the Church’s unity and its boundaries are very definite and plain in all the Holy Fathers. Also, more particularly, he delves into the problem of ignorant heterodox having a mitigated responsibility. His answer is that only in the Church is humility truly found and taught. In the Judgement, man’s pride, if it has not been humbled and corrected, will cause a man to become angry when he learns that he has been wrong all his life. His pride will not permit him to beg humble pardon and his anger will cause him to reject the Prince of Peace. He repeats the sin of first-fallen Lucifer.

    Professor John Erikson’s statement that if we follow the mind of the Church, “the Pope is no different than a witch doctor” causes Mr. Barnes to become defensive and, amid his sound reasoning, he begins to ignore the mind of the Church. Actually, if one uses the Church’s criteria, the Pope would be better off if he were a witch doctor. At least he would not be guilty of perverting the Christian doctrines and pretending that his mysteries are genuine; he would simply be an ignorant idolater.
Indeed, the aforementioned writings of Bishop Gregory also introduce a consideration. On the Last Day, when all things are made clear, how will the Pope react when he learns that he is not the infallible vicar of Christ and that he is not even baptized? How many could bear such a global disillusionment? Do we not have in our present life many examples of people fleeing reality and burying themselves in the darkness of their delusions?

    Mr. Barnes has described well the boundaries of the Church and has demonstrated the danger of heresy with his usual cogent writing. Since he is writing also for a non-Orthodox audience, he would have been more convincing if he had demonstrated the Church’s position with Scriptural proofs and the historical witness. We have quoted above a few of the more obvious and well-known. These words are from the same true mouths which assure us of God’s inevitable, utter compassion, which Mr. Barnes invokes to justify his opinion. However, we cannot choose one and ignore the other. An honest assessment must take into account all the witness of the Holy Spirit in the mind of the Church, otherwise it will go astray. Although usually a careful writer, here Mr. Barnes’ unbalanced study has produced more confusion than clarification. True answers will not be found in matters of theology and doctrine unless we accept the entire witness so that with God’s help we might rise above our preconceptions and earthbound rationalism.
_________________________________________________________________________

    As a teenager in 1954 I rode my bicycle across Houston to attend my first Orthodox Divine Liturgy, at the Greek Church. But not until 1973 did I begin to think of becoming Orthodox. Before then, although I found Orthodoxy interesting, it seemed rather foreign to me. And believing in the Anglican "Branch Theory," I couldn't imagine why I should go anywhere else. But between 1954 and 1973, there were great changes in my childhood Episcopal Church. By my lights they were mostly for the worse. So I began to look Romeward.

    In 1973 I spent six months at the Roman Catholic Monastery of Chevetogne in Belgium, both for "r and r," and to learn French. There among the guests, and in some of the monks, I first began to encounter ideas and attitudes in the Roman Catholic Church similar to those, which so alienated and scandalized me in Anglicanism. So, rather ironically, at Chevetogne I gradually became less inclined towards Roman Catholicism.

    At Chevetogne there are two chapels. One is for the Latin Rite, the other, for the Roman Catholic Eastern Rite. Half the community worships in one chapel, half in the other, with the focus on the Eastern Rite. But oddly, when I went to Chevetogne, I wasn't at all "wild about Eastern Christianity." I liked the Russian and Greek music, but I didn't like icons very much. I was fond of one or two, though most left me cold. By the time I left Chevetogne, however, I loved the Eastern Liturgy, appreciated icons in general, and was looking at Orthodoxy in a new way. When I returned to the States, I renewed a couple of casual friendships…

    Reading Byzantine history for hour after hour at Chevetogne, I had begun to admire the Byzantine Empire. I wasn't so naive as to believe the Byzantines had made no mistakes, but I felt that they did succeed in establishing a rich and vibrant Christian culture. In particular I found the balanced theology of Byzantium exciting….

    Several years ago I took a Haitian friend to [Orthodox] services. Afterwards he remarked "It is like a combination of Catholic and Evangelical." His perceptions were accurate, but actually it is the other way around. The modern Western churches, which diverge from each other, derive their particular emphases from the ancient Orthodox Catholic Church in the West, which held apparent opposites in balance. It is my consistent experience that the Orthodox Church still maintains that balance. For instance, to the either/or questions of the Western denominations, such as "Do you believe in preaching, or in sacraments?" or "Do you believe in grace, or in works?" Orthodoxy responds, "Yes." And the Greek adjectives used by modern Christian bodies to describe themselves, taken together describe, in the historical and Scriptural meaning of those words, the Orthodox Catholic Church (her full canonical name). With nearly 2,000 years of unbroken life, she is orthodox (we teach the unaltered historic Christian Faith), catholic (we offer the whole Faith to the whole world), evangelical (we believe in and preach the Gospel), baptist (we baptize into Christ, by immersion), pentecostal (we believe the historic Pentecost continues today, occurring for each believer at his Chrismation), charismatic (we believe that from the Holy Spirit we receive spiritual gifts), presbyterian (our parish clergy are presbyters, often assisted by deacons) and episcopal (we are shepherded by bishops).

    I0n Orthodox worship I love the feeling of mystical timelessness, and the wonderful mixture of formal grandeur and informal piety. The services today have changed little since the 300s, and are in many ways similar to the service in Revelation 4 and 5, the liturgy of Heaven described in terms of first century Christian worship. I have come to delight in the spiritual challenges of the ancient and modern Orthodox ascetics. I admire the way Orthodoxy expects each Church member to be responsible for the Faith. I love the non-legalistic way Orthodoxy expects her members to be personally accountable for their own saving activities. For instance, missing church on the Lord's Day is not merely breaking some rule: It is to lose a life-giving spiritual opportunity. Similarly, the fasting traditions are not rules, but tools for personal spiritual growth.

    None of this is to claim there is perfection on the human level within the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church is filled with fallen human beings. We fallen mortals often do stupid things. But one experiences in Orthodoxy a palpable level of sublime spirituality and ultimate truth that transcends human failings. That's why I love Orthodoxy.

    *From DOXA (Pentecost, 2001), a publication of St. Michael’s Skete (OCA), Canones, New Mexico. The article republished here has been edited slightly.

  On August 10, 1685, St. Dimitry had the following vision:

    "It seemed to me that a certain cave, in which holy relics reposed, ws entrusted to me for safekeeping. As I was examining the graves of the saints with a candle, I saw he oly great martyr Barbara supposedly reposing there. I approached her grave and saw her lying on her side and her coffin showing a cerain degress of corruption. In oder to clean it, I took out the relics and put them in a different place. Having cleaned the coffin, I came back to the relics and took them into my hands to put them back in the coffin, but suddenly saw St, Barbara alive.

    "O holy virgin Barbara, my bemefactress, obtain from God the remission of my sins," I cried.

    The Saint answered, as if in doubt: "I do not know if I can obtain it, for you pray in the Roman fashion".

    I think she said this to me because I am very lazy in prayer, and in this way am like the Romans, whose prayer rule is very short; for my prayer is short and scarce. Having heard these words of the Saint, I began to grieve, as though in despair. But in a short time the Saint looked at me ith a gladsome and smiling face and said: "fear not," and some other encouraging words, which I cannot recall."

    It seems that it would not be unreasonable to conclude that "praying in the Roman fashion: referred also to the fact that St. Dimitry read and followed the instructions on prayer by Thomas a Kempis. As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov points out, these instructions are completely wrong, for Kempis was in a state of spiritual error, and had no idea of true spirituality (see the works of Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov). In the West, however, (certainly among Roman Catholics and even among some Protestants), he is considered a classic.
_________________________________________________________________________

    The following donations have been received for the Orthodox Christian Witness and are gratefully acknowledged: R.H. Andrews, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Nicholas T. Gettis, Salem, Ma.; Anonymous, Portland, Oregon; Peter Gavas, Glenview, Il; Br. Alex Kirby, Anacortes, WA., Anonymous, Harrisburgh, PA., Harry George, Bellevue, WA.;  Nikola SRB Stepanovich, Franklin, W. VA., James P. Alexson, Pitiston, PA., Anonymous, San Gabriel, CA., Frederick Watson, Carlisle, PA., Elias Constantiniou, New Berlin, WI., Carl Nordblom, Lovington, NM., Chrstopher Manuele, Brighton, MA., Oscar Ness, St. Paul, MN.

    The following donations have been received for the St. Nectarios Benevolent Fund and are gratefully acknowledged: Oregon and San Dimas, California. (All benevolent fund donations are acknowledged as anonymous.)
________________________________________________________________________

(ACAL) ADVENT CALENDAR: A Nativity Advent Calendar for Orthodox Christians. A 10x14 wall calendar starting at the beginning of the Nativity Fast, Nov. 15, through December 25. Each day has a numbered window revealing an icon of the saint(s) of the day (with both Old and New Calendar dates).  Front is a beautiful Byzantine icon of the Nativity.  f$10.00
Order

NEW (NICP) PAPA-NICHOLAS PLANAS, The Simple Shepherd of Simple Sheep
by the Nun Martha

    The delightful account of the life of a humble priest and wonderworker of Athens in the early part of the 20th century. Contains the service in his honor. Many new illustrations.  A must-read book.  210pp. Paper  e$14.00 Order

(SQH) THE SUPPLICATORY CANON TO OUR LADY QUICK TO HEAR  Composed by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Translated by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, with a history of the wonderworking icon Quick to Hear and a full-color reproduction on the cover. Printed in red and black.  30pp.  Paper  e$6.00  Order

(SMY) SMYRNA 1922: The Destruction of a City by Marjorie Houspian Dobkin. The full story, long suppressed, of the hypocrisy and double-dealing of the western nations in the destruction of Smyrna and its Orthodox populations by the forces of Ataturk.  274pp.  Paper  e$20.00  Order

NATIVITY CARDS from St. Gregory of Sinai Monastery.  Original designs on quality card stock in full color. 16 cards + envelopes per box, $14.00/ Specify (A) 8 Asst. Icons; (B) 5 Asst. Churches; (K) Nativity (illuminated ms.)

(SGCD-A) (SGCD-B)

(SGCD-A) ASSORTMENT "A"  8 ASSORTED NATIVITY ICON CARDS Box 16 cards is d$14.00  Available only as assortment.  Order

(SGCD-B) ASSORTMENT "B" 5 ASSORTED WINTER CHURCH SCENES Box 16 cards is d$14.00 Available only as assortment.  Order
 
 

(SGCD-K) Theotokos and Christ Child. Christmas greeting card. Box contains 16 cards.d$14.00 Order

_________________________________________________________________________________________
    Whatever you may be seeking, seek it with all your strength, but do not expect your own search and efforts to bear fruit of themselves. Put your trust in the Lord, ascribing nothing to yourself, and He will give you your heart's desire.

                                       St. Theophan the Recluse in The Art of Prayer.
_________________________________________________________________________

TELOS KAI TW QEW DOXA _________________________________________________________________________
 

St. Nectarios Press