A well-known and esteemed American priest recently spoke on the topic of the use of appropriate terminology for describing Orthodox clergy, both priests and bishops. Since many issues from secular society present themselves in the life of the Church, it has also become common to use secular labels (all too familiar in political discourse) to describe views expressed by the clergy. This priest was pointing out, quite wisely, that while it is certainly appropriate and necessary for the Church and Her clergy to speak to many political issues which face Orthodox faithful, the political labels of “conservative” and “liberal” do not in fact have any meaning in the Orthodox Church.
Here is the reason:
Any priest or bishop who expresses the teaching of the Church, as it is outlined in the Scriptures, the Canons, the Church Fathers, and all of Holy Tradition, is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox, following the traditions of the Church.
Any priest or bishop who does otherwise is not Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who teaches that “God created them male and female” (Genesis 5:2), that the gender and sex of the body correspond to that of the soul is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who writes articles or speaks at conferences advocating for various aspects of the LGBT agenda is not “liberal” – he is simply not Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who affirms the unity of all races through the Body and Blood of Christ in the Church, that there is a single Orthodox Church regardless of nation, in which all share Communion within the Canonical order is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who pits one nation against another, who advocates for racialist politics or advances the idea that the concept of race is fundamental to human identity is not a “liberal” – he is simply not Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who advocates that human life begins at conception, exhorts his faithful to work to preserve life in the womb, to donate their time and their money to helping mothers and their children who are at risk of abortion, and to vote for candidates who oppose abortion in law is not a “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who supports the killing of unborn children in the womb, either overtly or with veiled terms, or who launches an assault on the Image of God through deceptive language about “respecting the autonomy of women”, which confuses the faithful and allows the Lord’s innocent ones to stumble unwittingly into grievous sins – these are not “liberal” clergy or bishops – they are simply not Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who affirms and teaches that all sexual sins including same-sex attraction arose from the Fall and require struggle and repentance is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who goes to the trouble of traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to attend a conference to brainstorm ways in which the Orthodox Church might be “enlightened” to the “new psychology” of contemporary sexuality is not “liberal” – he is simply not Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who draws his teaching for moral, medical, psychological, and family decisions strictly from the Holy Tradition of the Church – the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers – is not “conservative”: he is simply Orthodox.
Any priest or bishop who gives weight in teaching on these areas to the “enlightened” teachings of the human intellect, believing them to be much more progressed than the Holy Tradition of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers is not “liberal” – he is simply not Orthodox.
The wise priest who made this important distinction has done all our clergy and faithful a great service. We might use these terms – “liberal” and “conservative” – in our informal conversations, but this Father is correct: there are not “parties” within the Church, only those who hold the Mind of the Church, the Mind of the Fathers, and those who would attack it, and try to redefine it – because they are outside it.
Inevitably, every Orthodox Christian will come across such people. Some of them will even be wearing cassocks. If and when you do, the best strategy might be to turn and run from their churches and their schools, and to warn others to do the same.
Archpriest Geoffrey Korz
“Inevitably, every Orthodox Christian will come across such people. Some of them will even be wearing cassocks. If and when you do, the best strategy might be to turn and run from their churches and their schools, and to warn others to do the same.”
Or we could stop being cowards and drive THEM from the churches and insitutions THEY have corrupted. It’s time for Christendom to regrow its cajones, put on the armor of God, and take back what has been ours since it was given to us by Christ Himself to safeguard.
Stop running away. Stand firm. Don’t give the corrupt money, but go where they are and firmly declare “REPENT” and “NOT WORTHY”, and possibly even “ANATHEMA”, so that all may know them for what they really are.
Be reminded that the feast of the triumph of orthodoxy celebrates victory against these same sorts of unrepentant people so many years ago. God willing we’ll do it again.
What Fr. Korz put forth is quite revealing; there is no such thing as “conservative” or “liberal” Orthodox, there is only that which is Orthodox and that which is not.
Ok, if it is not Orthodox, then, what is it? When you figure that out, then you know what part—if any—you might want with it.
What is the meaning of the masks as a hierarchical mandate? It means this: many hierarchs are already, have always been, will always be….masked; they are hiding who and what they really are. Their Orthodoxy is not even skin deep. For them, the Faith is a mask they put on, it is a mask they take off.
Please consider: the House of God is built with unique and living stones (1 Pet. 2) and the Tower of Babel was built with bricks. Let’s ask: what is the difference between stones and bricks? Both are building materials right? Is not one as good as the other? Not for the Church.
Building with bricks requires of each and every brick, conformity, uniformity, according to a cookie cutter template. Every single brick is not only uniform but interchangeable and therefore disposable. In building with bricks, people become a commodity, rather than living members.
All of this is manifest in how they treat the little guy, the common folk, those that pay their bills, women with children, laity and priests that don’t toe the line on non-essentials.
Anytime you hear “conform, conform, conform”, “unity, unity, unity” from a hierarch, you know this man is building with disposable (to him people are disposable), and interchangeable bricks; his building method is after the order of Babel, not the Apostolic Fathers. (Oh, my goodness! Have we vested Nimrod?).
Under this governance, if you don’t fit in (e.g. wear a mask like us, living a masked life), then you don’t belong—“my way or the highway” In the masked society, the masked church—with masked leadership—, everything is hidden; everybody does “their own thing” no matter how deplorable.
On the other hand those wise men who build with stones, know every person is different, unique, and possessing diverse strengths and weaknesses. Allowing for this diversity within the unity of the Church IS the Body Principle; that no part is disposable, that no part is redundant, that no function is unnecessary.
It all has to do with frame of mind: how hierarchs—and all of us—view and cherish every member of the Church giving—as St Paul said—greater honor to lesser members.
Make no mistake: everything done in secret will be announced from the house tops or—worse yet— end up on this site. “Be sure our sin will find you out”. The true measure of any man is what he does when he thinks no one is watching; but God is watching and demons are watching and when the door cracks, in they go. Sin will take you further than you want to go; make you pay more than you want to pay; keep you longer than you want to stay. Make straight paths for your feet, lest they be turned out of the way, but rather let it be healed.
Every generation of Orthodox brings forth continuity as well as distinctions. Continuity with the entirety of the meta-narritive from the beginning and, of course, distinctions from the current generation. As David was different from Saul, so also the new generation of Orthodox leadership will be different than their predecessors. Things will be difference–as is in every change of generation–but, now more than ever in the modern world.
So what we are seeing is the changing of the guard. The old guard is running the final days of its tenure as a new generation of leadership is growing up.
In the future, things will be different; they must be in order for Orthodoxy in America to gain any respectable foothold. Some of the old ways–i mean unsustainable practices of current Orthodox ways of doing its business–will perish. E.g. the way of the immigrant church will perish–its a totally unsustainable platform for doing missions.Americans want and need an American Church–whatever that looks like (which rite is right?). Without identification, there can be no measurable conversion rate. It is my belief, God will give to whatever jurisdiction–foreign or domestic–who takes on the onus to win America at any cost, the distinction to be America’s Orthodox Church. While the name of the jurisdiction does not matter, the name on the sign does. Those who go after carrying out the great commission in the native land will be the American Orthodox Church, not necessarily anybody who claims to be such a thing. That jurisdiction that takes on interceding for America as if it were the last place on earth will be America’s Church. Is anybody doing that?
Does anybody have a heart for missions in redeeming America, the place all these immigrants came to? Think about it: If Greek culture is so wonderful, why did the Greeks leave to come here? If America is worth leaving Greece, Russian, Serbia, or where ever, then is not America worth saving? Where are your missions efforts? Where are your missionaries to America? Will anybody fight for America? Or will we just let it go to hell? If we imagrate back to Russia, how many English speaking parishers are there in Moscow that I can go to? Right! None! We have no option than to get serious about praying Orthodoxy into America, taking on America as our native land and going into spiritual warfare–Orthodox style–to win America as if our lives depended upon it.
If not, we are in for a rough ride.
Interestingly, what I see is a vibrant group of up comers who are violently committed to preserving the “Faith once delivered.” These are our future. The scandals have been for our benefit in revealing the real from the faux-Orthodox, to align ourselves with those who are true to the Faith.
https://www.monomakhos.com/scandals-in-the-church/?fbclid=IwAR3GqDzRywNrlmmEnVNQS2dv_CasAWe7PfBlZC6LH-6sd5q1iLZZ84l2QLY
One of the best commentaries–and counsel–I have heard regarding “scandals” in the Church:
https://www.monomakhos.com/scandals-in-the-church/?fbclid=IwAR3GqDzRywNrlmmEnVNQS2dv_CasAWe7PfBlZC6LH-6sd5q1iLZZ84l2QLY
Conservatives build families and places of worship, but liberals build taverns and brothels. However, do not be surprised if the only way the GOP gets its majority next year is the very Muslima and Mexicans Trump so disdained, and who will gladly vote to mandate stoning of perverts and abortionists. The entire Northern hemisphere is headed for demographic collapse, to be replaced (“browned” as the Economist noted in late 1988) by the southern. Byzantium and Mesoamerica collapsed from within, with self destructive ideologies making them ripe prey for their conquerors. Do you honestly think the current overly complicated and self contradictory structure can survive without Schumpeterian creative destruction?
Reply
Don’t stop there, address the real issues where the rubber meets the road regarding current confusions:
Any bishop, priest, theologian advocating for the vaccine–especially for pregnant women– is advocating uniting the members of Christ–your human body–to aborted fetal cells, confirmed poisons, and the agenda behind the shots is simply not Orthodox (See 1 Corinthians 6:15). No–no means no–Church Father would ever check off on getting the frankenshot.
To take the shot is to NOT rightly discern the Body of Christ. How can it be otherwise?
There are no aborted fetal cells in any of the shots, so no, your body will not be “united” to them. You are spreading falsehoods in Christ’s name.
Only one shot available in the USA (the J&J shot) was produced by growing virus in a fetal cell line, and only a small % of people are getting that shot. That makes it no different than the vaccines for chickenpox, MMR, Hepititis A, some rabies shots, etc., which 99% of church members have received or gotten for their children with only minimal controversy for decades. Claiming that anyone who supports those shots is not Orthodox is ridiculous, and clearly weaponizing secular political divisions in order to cause division within the Church. And to be clear, the aborted cells died nearly 40 years ago, the only thing used in production is produced cells thousands of generations removed from the aborted cells, and none of those cells end up in the vaccine.
It is true that some fetal line cells were used in vaccine testing/development. But that is true of the vast majority of medications and vaccines, including nearly all the most common over-the-counter meds including Tums, Preparation H, Pepto Bismol, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Sudafed, Lipitor, Benadryl, Claritin, Prilosec, Motrin/Advil/ibuprofin, acetaminophin/Tylenol, and aspirin. So if you have to refuse those to be Orthodox, then I think it’s likely that virtually all of our priests and certainly all of our doctors would find themselves outside the walls.
I do understand being ideologically against the practice of using fetal cell lines at all. It’s a controversial topic. But I have seen very few Orthodox persons be ideologically consistent on this issue rather than merely weaponizing it in obedience to secular agendas.
Hakim –
We have been aware since the beginning as to how these cells were used. See here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/an-orthodox-md-tries-to-work-out-the-biothecial-kinks-of-the-covid-19-vaccine/
We are also aware, and have publicized, that the use of aborted fetal cells is completely immoral and should never be supported. These cells were harvested from live babies, and the moral stain can never be erased.
Skip ahead to 17 minutes and listen to Fr. Alexander in this video: https://rumble.com/vsaya9-the-journey-through-pandemia-where-are-we-now-how-close-are-we-to-getting-o.html
17:00 Orthodoxy: Fr. Alexander gives an overview of his upcoming book “Let No One Fear Death” and then explains that the jabs, because of their link to abortion, are intrinsically evil. You cannot overcome that link by appealing to a “common” or “greater” good. In Orthodoxy, you cannot perform an evil act to achieve a good end. Time and distance from an evil event, such as the abortions having been a long time ago, are irrelevant. Fr. Alexander also describes how fully formed babies were dismembered while alive to provide the material for the aborted fetal cell lines. Fr. Alexander discusses why fellow theologians and hierarchs have supported the jabs.
Full guide to the video is here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/webinar-resources/#time-stamp
The Pharma companies have done everything they could for decades to cover up the use of aborted fetal cells. An Orthodox MD discusses that here:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-aborted-bioethics-of-ancient-faith-radios-fr-john-parker-dr-ryan-sampson-nash/
Then when it became necessary to defend the jabs, suddenly the supporters of the jabs did what you did here – they claimed that EVERYTHING made use of aborted fetal cells, even drugs that were developed 100 years ago.
Covered here: https://orthodoxreflections.com/answering-afr-on-covid-and-the-vaccines-with-fr-john-parker-and-dr-ryan-sampson-nash/
Fr. Alexander also addressed the question of prior use of medicines with links to aborted fetal cells:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/webinar-resources/#comment-3315
We also provided sample answers for questions from HR about prior vaccines and medicine use that might have links to abortion:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/be-careful-answering-hr-questions-about-your-covid-vaccine-religious-exemption/
Finally, we would point you to this from a Deacon:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/for-covid-vaccine-religious-exemptions-your-sincerely-held-beliefs-are-what-matter/#saints
Reverend Deacon John Grigaitis put out an even more strongly worded letter which you can find in PDF here. Information in this new letter has been used by multiple nurses and other medical personnel as part of their case for religious exemptions. The letter includes this incredible prophecy by St. Paisos:
Further, the new PDF includes the following about the demonic nature of the vaccines:
Since we received that letter, we have been told by other priests and monks that they have seen additional evidence of links between the jabs and severe spiritual consequences. It is best no one takes them who cares about spiritual health.
Hakim – there is no reason to continue supporting these jabs. They are not effective, they are dangerous, and they are spiritually damaging. It is time to get right with God and move on.
“The letter includes this incredible prophecy by St. Paisos:”
— Given St. Paisos anti-semitism, I would dismiss anything he said or wrote in any context, anytime, anywhere.
Is one, as an Orthodox Christian, automatically required to give any credence or attach any importance to what St. Paisos said or wrote?
“During recent encounters between holy men and demons, the demons have revealed that the use of fetal cell lines from procured abortion is foundational to how the demons enter those who receive these vaccines.”
— How do we know those men were holy? How do we know they encountered demons? Is such private “revelation” in any way binding for Orthodox Christians?
Going to need you to define anti-semitism before we discuss what you think St. Paisos is guilty of. Anti-semitism, extremism, racism – these words are used these days as general purpose slanders. If you can define anti-semitism, then we can at least know what you are talking about.
That is a question for prayer and consultation with your spiritual father. We have talked to priests who take these prophecies very seriously, others that believe we may be misinterpreting them, and others that won’t discuss them at all. Like many things in Orthodoxy, the best person to explore these prophecies is with a spiritual father. What we don’t recommend is dismissing them out-of-hand. If you have looked at them, prayed, discussed and for you they hold merit, they are another reason to apply for a religious exemption rather than getting the jabs.
There are multiple testimonies circulating. Some are from exorcists, which tend to be the most holy and spiritually mature among the clergy. Roman Catholic priests and Orthodox priests routinely report having conversations with demons. Other stories are of Athonite Monks. These are warnings. If you have questions about their validity, or applicability to you, then pray and seek counsel from a spiritual father. What we don’t recommend is simply dismissing them out of hand. As for private revelation, that not really what this is. A “private revelation” would be like the time the Mormon ruling prophet, under pressure from Coke, suddenly had a revelation that cold caffeinated beverages were good but coffee was still bad. Saying that taking experimental medical products with links to abortion can be spiritually harmful isn’t new. Saying you heard it in the context of a discussion with a demon adds a new dimension to it, but many priests and bishops never heard anything from a demon on the subject and still say the same things.
“Going to need you to define anti-semitism before we discuss what you think St. Paisos is guilty of.”
— Distraction. There is no need to define that.
“Anti-semitism, extremism, racism – these words are used these days as general purpose slanders.”
— True. And unfortunately, there are certain instances where they are right on target.
“ ‘Is one, as an Orthodox Christian, automatically required to give any credence or attach any importance to what St. Paisos said or wrote?’
That is a question for prayer and consultation with your spiritual father. We have talked to priests who take these prophecies very seriously, others that believe we may be misinterpreting them, and others that won’t discuss them at all.”
— That does answer the question in the negative, doesn’t it?
“Roman Catholic priests and Orthodox priests routinely report having conversations with demons.”
— I have never heard neither speaking of such conversations, nor speaking of priests who have such conversations. And why would anyone converse with demons?
“Saying that taking experimental medical products with links to abortion can be spiritually harmful isn’t new. Saying you heard it in the context of a discussion with a demon adds a new dimension to it …”
— Indeed it does. For those of a more sober bend, it will not add any credibility to dissenting voices in the “vaccine” discussion (quite the opposite), among those susceptible to such stories of demons, it will add an additional burden for those who, being misled, misinformed or under pressure, received the injections (possibly suffering from them) or , worse, those who, being misled, misinformed, under pressure, themselves misled, misinformed and put others under pressure — and the talk of demons will not accomplish anything beneficial in that context.
Of course there is. If you are using a classical definition of anti-Semitism, then we might have some kind of fruitful discussion. However, there is a penchant in the modern world to label any criticism of a person with even a small amount of Jewish heritage or any criticism of Israel or any criticism of any of the varieties of Judaism as anti-Semitism. Criticize Soros and his charities? Anti-Semitism! Same with criticism of Zelensky, even though he was raised not practicing any religion, and criticism of him has nothing to do with anything other than his being an awful, corrupt politician. Criticize treatment of Palestinians or the violations of the national sovereignty of Arab states near Israel? Anti-Semitism! Criticism of the way, for example, ultra-Orthodox treat their wives and often rely on welfare to support their lifestyles? Yep. That is also Anti-Semitism.
If that is your attitude, Manfred, then there is no productive discussion to have on this topic. None. No need to even try. So figuring out what you mean by anti-Semitism is step 1.
That remains to be seen. No definition, then how do we know whether you are on target or not even in the same province?
Not sure what that means. This is one example of a priest discussing the relative importance of such prophecies:
https://rumble.com/vsaya9-the-journey-through-pandemia-where-are-we-now-how-close-are-we-to-getting-o.html
Timestamp 1:27:49 Orthodoxy: Fr. Seraphim addresses the oft discussed prophecies of St. Paisios and other Athonite elders concerning the vaccines.
Such prophecies are warnings, and are meant to be prayed over and discussed with your spiritual father.
Watch any number of videos of Roman Catholic exorcists discussing what they do for a living:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEg5M1Qk_M8
They seem to be more outspoken than our own Orthodox exorcists. If you recall, Jesus is recorded as having had conversations with demons in the Gospel. Particularly in the case of exorcism, the demons can be quite talkative, though what they say could be intentional lies.
This is from an Orthodox priest about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqToYIQ4W8Q
Demons often torment / attack the holy. They will lie, of course, or sometimes they tell the truth if it is even more disturbing than the lies. That is why discernment is necessary. If there are any questions, then talk to your spiritual father.
This is an intra-Orthodox discussion and from our perspective, it is focused around options for getting a religious exemption for those that need it. If writing for an audience outside Orthodoxy, and not concerned with religions exemptions, then we wouldn’t bring this up at all. That is why it came up first at 1 hour and 27 minutes into our Pandemia discussion, where as Dr. Paisos was at 15 minutes in.
Here’s how we wove it into HR questions on religious exemptions:
1. Please describe your sincerely-held religious belief, practice, and/or observance that is preventing you from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
Voluntary, informed consent should be more than enough to provide us with the right to refuse experimental treatments. However, it has not been. Free will should be enough. it has not been. The lack of safety and effectiveness of the jabs should be enough, along with the fact that there is no “approved” vaccine available (just EUA). So we end up having to justify our refusal to take the jabs not on legal and scientific grounds (which are ignored), but by appealing to our faith. Since these testimonies are out there, they are fair game to use as part of the case for a religious exemption.
These discussion are not meant for the non-Orthodox world, though we have no issue with them knowing that they are occurring. They are for Orthodox Christians who have a spiritual father and experience in the Church. For those outside the Church, we would never put the emphasis on this aspect of the jabs. In fact, this is not even the most important part of the whole jab controversy even within the Church. The medical carnage caused by the jabs is more than enough. Not to mention the garden-variety grifting, corruption, self-dealing, and sloppy science.
“If you are using a classical definition of anti-Semitism, …”
— Now your distraction gets longer; it is still a distraction. If you make it three times longer in your next reply, it will still remain a distraction.
You accuse a Saint of the Church of a thing that you will not define. You just lost a lot of respect in our eyes, Manfred. Perhaps you could relate then what you consider to be the Saint’s anti-Semitism. Right now, you won’t tell us what you consider to be anti-Semitic, or what you think Saint Paisos is guilty of. Not impressive.
“Right now, you won’t tell us what you consider to be anti-Semitic, or what you think Saint Paisos is guilty of. Not impressive.”
— For example this one:
“In the end the Jews will pronounce the Antichrist messiah in this rebuilt temple. The rabbis know that the true Messiah has already come and that they crucified Him. They know this, and yet they are blinded by egotism and fanaticism.”
That is certainly antisemitism, by any definition and by any measure.
Source:
http://christconquers.blogspot.com/2010/06/elder-paisios-against-zionists-and.html
Now, this seems to be a translation from a translation, and I myself do not know any Greek word except “Rehagel”, but I do not see any reason right away to assume that St. Paisios’ “message” has been distorted here.
What you are quoting is a prophecy that builds on Revelations, which is usually interpreted as leading to a battle at the plains of Armageddon and which usually involves an interpretation of the Jews accepting the anti-Christ as the Messiah.
Above is the definition of anti-Semitism from Wikipedia. Did the Saint call for persecution of the Jews? Did he call for violence against the Jews? Did he rally an army to stop the Jews for enacting this prophecy? Did he call for Jews to lose civil liberties? To be put in jail? To be harmed? Did he say that he hated the Jews?
No. At the end times, this was what the Saint expected to happen, based on the book of Revelations and the historical fact that Hebrew leaders in the 1st Century wanted Christ dead because he was a threat to them. At the same time, the early Christian Church was comprised of all Hebrew converts to the new faith. At the End Times, the Saint expects those Jews now ruling the state of Israel to align with the anti-Christ.
Are we at the End of Times? If the Jews at the End of Times did embrace the anti-Christ, would you be okay with that?
You want to put this on the same level, Manfred, as what? Nazism? You can’t say fascism because that is an Italian term and the Italians did not have issues with their Jewish citizens until Germany took control of their policies via their alliance. St. Paisos is talking about a time in this prophecy, and events, which have not yet happened while calling for zero actions or hatred against Jews walking around today.
If that is an issue, then do you have an issue with Orthodox praying for the conversion of the Jews? Is that anti-Semitism as well? We can pray for the conversion of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, but not Jews? Is that your opinion?
You refuse to define anti-Semitism, then you accuse a Saint of what is actually not it. That is why definitions matter.
“What you are quoting is a prophecy that builds on Revelations, …”
— Is there to be any prophecy that builds on Revelations?
“ 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, …”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&version=ESV
“Above is the definition of anti-Semitism from Wikipedia. “
— Always the first address to go to.
“Did the Saint call for persecution of the Jews? Did he call for violence against the Jews? Did he rally an army to stop the Jews for enacting this prophecy? Did he call for Jews to lose civil liberties? To be put in jail? To be harmed? Did he say that he hated the Jews?”
— No. He said that they will pronounce the antichrist and that the rabbis are blinded by egotism and fanaticism.
“You want to put this on the same level, Manfred, as what? Nazism?”
— No, and nowhere did I say so.
“You can’t say fascism because that is an Italian term …”
— Thanks for the history lesson.
“If that is an issue, then do you have an issue with Orthodox praying for the conversion of the Jews?”
— No, I have no issue with that.
“You refuse to define anti-Semitism, then you accuse a Saint of what is actually not it.”
— There was no need to define that.
The interpretation of Revelations that the Jews will be duped by the Anti-Christ, along with pretty much everyone else, and will rebuild the temple is standard. There are rabbis right now calling to rebuild the temple and restart animal sacrifice.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/284423
So you have Rabbis trying to rebuild the temple, but getting opposition from their own government. In Christian understanding of prophecy, rebuilding the temple is done under the auspices of the Anti-Christ. This looks quite a bit like preparing to accept the Anti-Christ in exchange for getting the temple.
In any case, not only Jews will be deceived. Plenty of Gentiles are doing much to prepare the way for the Son of Perdition as well.
“The interpretation of Revelations that the Jews will be duped by the Anti-Christ, along with pretty much everyone else, and will rebuild the temple is standard.”
— So it is not a “prophecy”, as you said earlier, but an “interpretation”, as you say now? What is it, a prophecy or an interpretation? And what kind of standard? Who has established that standard, under what authority? Standard where, among whom?
“Plenty of Gentiles are doing much to prepare the way for the Son of Perdition as well.”
— And they will be hard pressed not to be outdone by Orthobros.
Revelations is a book that contains prophecy, but it probably needs more exegesis than any other book in the Bible. What St. Paisios is providing is the exegesis.
As for standard, none of us have ever read an exegesis that did not include the rebuilding of the temple:
https://orthochristian.com/106805.html
As we understand the term “Orthobros”, that is a Twitter thing and we don’t really take it seriously. Those who weaken the Orthodox Faith in academia are of much more concern than Twitter.
But again, distraction.
The quote by St. Paisios:
“In the end the Jews will pronounce the Antichrist messiah in this rebuilt temple. The rabbis know that the true Messiah has already come and that they crucified Him. They know this, and yet they are blinded by egotism and fanaticism.”,
is clearly antisemitic, by the very definition from Wikipedia that you yourself used (replace “Jews” by “Orthodox Christians”, “rebuilt temple” by “Hagia Sophia” and “rabbis” by “priests” in that quote, and then claim with a straight face that that is not hostile or prejudiced …), and that doesn’t get mitigated by citing an example of earlier antisemitism.
And again, there is the clear admonition at the end of the Book of Revelation not to add anything to the prophecies contained there. Have some Church Fathers or modern Anthonite monks been exempted from that? How? By whom?
Are St. Paisios’ … what? prophecies? interpretations? in any way to be taken serious and “prayerfully considered” by the Orthodox faithful? Can any “spiritual father” impose that, or not impose that, on his “spiritual children” according to his own whims and personal taste?
Now you are just being obtuse. There is no prophecy in the book of Revelations that Hagia Sophia, which did not exist in the 1st Century, will be rebuilt at the end of times. It won’t be an Orthodox Church ever again. Or if it is, then we don’t have any prophecy that it will in the book of Revelations. No one has added to the book of Revelations. There prophecy is there that the Temple will be rebuilt at the end of times. Enough of this from you about it. If you don’t agree with the interpretation that is your right as a person, but that is not the interpretation of Orthodox Church Fathers who have written on this topic. Therefore, it is simply a personal opinion which is at odds with the Fathers of the Church.
And that is quite enough about St. Paisios. You have absolutely nothing to say, as far as we can tell. You have quoted this and, yet, we have told you that St. Jerome, St. Ephraim, and others have had the same to say. This is not in dispute. We have even provided links to prove that Rabbis want to rebuild the temple. The answer is no if you believe that a Saint can impose his own whims on anyone. First of all, such a person would not be recognized as a saint. Second of all, what St. Paisios said was the same exegesis as multiple Orthodox saints before him.
Distraction? Please. It is entirely the point. St. Paisios said, actually, nothing new. We have provided quote from the 4th Century when the term “anti-Semitism” had not yet been created. The Orthodox Church will never be anti-Semitic if that means denying basic human rights, as we cannot be so cruel to fellow humans made in the image of God. Nor, however, will we ever be so pro-Jewish as most modern Germans and modern Protestants. 1) Orthodox did not perpetrate the Holocaust. The Red Army ended it. 2) Orthodox have roots in Israel and our fellow co-religionists are under severe persecution by Jews. 3) The Orthodox Church does now, and will always, see itself as the true Israel – the continuation of the covenant of God. So while religious minorities in our own countries deserve tolerance, the nation of Israel is not holy to Orthodox Christians, and it certainly does not get a pass for its cruelty to Arabs and other Christians within its borders.
Jews can be citizens of our states with full protections of the law. Russia has, for example, four state recognized religions – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. The state and the Church are not the same entity.
At this point, we are being patient with you but this is seriously going too far.
“The Orthodox Church will never be anti-Semitic …”
— I never claimed that “the Orthodox Church” as an entity is anti-Semitic. What is the point of stressing the opposite of a claim that has not been made?
“No one has added to the book of Revelations.”
— Not to the book itself, but to the prophecy contained in that book, and that is what the book warns against.
You publicly asked questions, I sent you the answer; there was nothing objectionable in the answer.
Who publicly asks questions should be enough of a man to publicize the answer, too.
No intent on censoring you, but everyone has been busy last few days and no time to review and respond. Sometimes there is a delay, depending on what everyone has going on.
The problems is not anti-semitism in the Church, but rather anti-Church among the Jews. Keep in mind, in the beginning, the Church was totally consisting of Jews who saw Christ as the fullfillment of the prophesies. Yet, there was a divide. Many–the old guard authorities– never made the connetion and became anti-Church. Jews were the first persecutors of the Church, the first heretics if you will. During the early years, the Faith spread through the synogogues until those in control saw their power base erroding by Christ followers. It was the Jews who stoned Stephen, it was the Jews who threw St Paul out of the synagogues forcing him to preach to gentiles.This form of Judaism is/was anti–Christ and anti-Church. Realize the Mesoretic text was translated by Jews who sought to erase Christ from the Jewish history. This is why we often prefer the XLL. So, as Orthodox, we are not anti-semetic, but by nature anti–anti-Christ. Whatever is anti-Christ is by definition our enemy because it is the enemy of Christ no matter what people group it infects.
Just curious as to why you continue to allow MM to post his / her liberal comments on this site? Especially on this post, where his / her comments simply prove the point of the post.
It’s absolutely pathetic to see him / her slander one of the great modern Saints of The Church. But I guess those who hate The Church will do what they do
We try mightily to avoid censoring as much as possible. If Manfred is thinking this, then someone else probably is as well. Better to just see if we can deal with it. Manfred is extremely good on the Pandemic and the jabs. We have gotten a lot of useful information from him over the past two years. He seems to have a preoccupation with anti-Semitism, and sees it many places the rest of us don’t. It is sometimes worth pondering if there are not cultural communication issues here as well.
Never mind. Manfred has gone so far off the deep end, that he is officially the first person in Orthodox Reflections history to be banned from the site.
John Lee claimed that taking a COVID shot would unite the body to aborted stem cells. That is false, but you ignored it in his response and then deflected from that issue when responding to me even though it was the center of my response.
Many medications like Tylenol did not need stem cell lines to be initially produced, but they certainly have used them in testing since then. Similarly, the mRNA vaccines did not need stem cell lines to be produced, but were only tested on them during development. Obviously the mRNA vaccines were more quickly tested on stem cell lines than the earlier treatments were, but in terms of “moral stain”, that is a distinction without a difference and appears to be splitting hairs for the sake of convinience and a political agenda. For example, monoclonal antibodies have been recommended on these pages without the same warnings being made on how they were initially developed right from the beginning via testing on the HEK293T fetal cell line. Same goes for remdesivir, developed from fetal lines from the beginning. Ivermectin was tested on fetal lines once it was moved from veterinary to human use as well as repeatedly since then. Not to mention most other modern drugs. But all of this is downplayed here because it doesn’t fit the agenda.
John Lee can choose to defend his statement or not. What we focused on was that comments of your kind are used to argue that Orthodox Christians do not have a religious exemption from taking the jabs. That is our concern and we have addressed that multiple times. Whatever metaphysical point John Lee is making is his opinion, and he is welcome to elaborate on it. Our objections to your comments are more pragmatic. They read like a defense of denying religious exemptions on the basis of prior behavior. This is not a valid argument. We have put forward doctors, nurses, and priests who all said the same things 1) even prescribing physicians have been kept in the dark for decades about fetal cell use 2) because you used a drug in the past, you are not obliged to continue to violate your conscience 3) we should all be working for the end of fetal cell usage and the ethical sourcing of all drugs, not excusing their use.
As has been said in many posts on this site, there has been testing done by outside parties, not the manufacturers, of some older “clean” drugs. Until we can ban use of aborted fetal cells, a drug company can’t control what a team of researchers choose to do. From the Liberty Counsel:
The bolded part is key. Without abortion, you would still have Tylenol, Tums, and Pepto Bismol, but not the mRNA jabs. That is a massive moral distinction.
Monoclonal antibodies appeared on this site for two reasons. The first was to highlight the war, led by Pfizer and the Federal Govt, on any possible competing treatment for COVID for the mRNA jabs. The second was that Dr. Paisios recommended them in his COVID Omicron treatment protocol, but then rescinded that recommendation because he was made aware of a link between monoclonal antibodies and abortion. See the original here https://orthodoxreflections.com/webinar-resources/#omicron
The quote below has the update where we warned about the link to abortion:
The pharma companies are playing games with us. When needed to defend the jabs, suddenly every medicine has a link to aborted cells. When they feel that it might inhibit the use of their drugs, they try to hide it. If even doctors are deceived, clearly there is a complete lack of transparency.
Our agenda is that abortion is intrinsically evil, and that Orthodox Christians should be able to follow their own consciences in deciding whether or not to take an experimental gene therapy linked to abortion. We have no issue dealing with the fact that we have, as a society, failed to police the drug companies and allowed unethical sourcing of drugs. That needs to stop. At the same time, it is not a serious argument to try and link every drug to abortion to try and undercut the rights of Orthodox Christians to religious exemptions from mandates that should not exist in the first place. Voluntary informed consent should have been sufficient.
So that is our agenda. What’s yours, Hakim?
And the use of the Paisos quote is incredibly disingenuous. The vaccines for MMR, chickenpox, hepatitis A, and rabies are all produced directly by fetal cells, not just tested on them like mRNA vaccines, so those should be far worse. And MMR in particular has far greater adoption than COVID vaccination and had been mandatory in many ways that COVID was not. Yet I can find no reference to demons having entered all of us via those MMR or chickenpox vaccines when searching before 2019 – in fact, I can’t find anyone taking about that Paisos quote before 2020 at all. And clearly it did not come to pass – there was no single vaccine everyone was required to take, and unvaccinated people have still been able to find work and participate in business dealings, and there is no system that had taken the entire global economy and made any global requirements. Is this how God’s prophecies work for you – assume inaccuracy throughout is a trait of God, ignore everything that doesn’t match, but then play up the little parts that for your agenda as if they are confirmation from God himself?
Dr. Irene wrote this post makes it very clear what we have been saying
https://orthodoxreflections.com/the-aborted-bioethics-of-ancient-faith-radios-fr-john-parker-dr-ryan-sampson-nash/
A practicing physician with decades of experience had absolutely no idea about the MMR vaccine, until the Pharma companies made it explicitly known to protect uptake of the mRNA jabs. Now we know, so what are we planning to do about it? Accept this as ethical, or are we going to demand ethical sourcing of drugs? Can we really just keep going as if we were still in the dark?
The mandates were serious business. Doctors who did not support the jabs had their licenses threatened. Medical staff were fired for refusing to take them. Across many different industries, people lost their jobs, were deplatformed, and their movements restricted. Exclusion from certain forms of travel is still occurring in Canada. The US still requires proof of vaccine to enter the country for non-citizens. Vaccine passports were real, and are still in use in places. An Orthodox young man who helps us with social media was just turned down for a coveted research job because he is unvaccinated for COVID. The military is still hounding anyone left in the service that is unjabbed. That was after having involuntarily separated thousands of able service members. So really, downplaying the significance of this is truly abominable, Hakim.
Losing your job, having your movements restricted within your own country, being barred from entering countries you may need to visit, getting kicked out of the military – that is not voluntary.
As for the prophecy, we were made aware of it by clergy and we added it to our list of reasons an Orthodox Christian can give as part of an application for a religious exemption. Is it being applied correctly to this situation? There are clergy that say it is. We know that it has been used successfully as part of religious exemption requests, so it has definitely been a good thing for many.
Why would this prophecy apply now and not to the previous MMR, for example? If you read it, the prophecy is about coercion. It is not about the jab so much as it is about demanding proof of the jab. Here it is from our site:
MMR was never mandatory for adults, and even for children getting an exemption was just filling out a form. the COVID jabs were way, way different.
Thanks to the heroic efforts of doctors and researchers telling the truth about the mRNA jabs, priests and bishops standing up, and just common, everyday people resisting – it looks as if this will not turn out to be the “mark” as prophesied by St. Paisios. But if we went this far this time, what happens next time? Prophecy is a warning, and this should be something we take very seriously. Whether you got the jab or not, Hakim, if you are an Orthodox Christian you should recognize that forcing others to violate their conscience is not moral.
“Any priest or bishop who expresses the teaching of the Church, as it is outlined in the Scriptures, the Canons, the Church Fathers, and all of Holy Tradition, is not “conservative” – he is simply Orthodox, following the traditions of the Church.
Any priest or bishop who does otherwise is not Orthodox.”
Precisely.
Excellent. A catechism for our times. But I think you should have kept the “keeping up with the Kardashians” picture that accompanied it earlier. Other than “not Orthodox,” how else would one succinctly characterize my jurisdiction’s hierarch?
We were going to use it, until a contributor informed us that he wanted dibs on it to use with an article on surrogacy.