Orthodox America Has a Lost Cause Problem

[FULK NERA]

Public Orthodoxy on Philip Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship: Orthodox America Has a Lost Cause Problem December 3, 2021 by Aram G. Sarkisian

For more than a decade, researchers have excavated the fascinating story of Philip Ludwell III, an Anglo-American convert to Orthodox Christianity who lived in colonial Virginia during the mid- to late-eighteenth century. A friend to Benjamin Franklin, cousin to Martha Washington, and a member of one of Virginia’s most established and well-connected planter families, Ludwell was also a distant relation of Robert E. Lee. Recently, a group of Orthodox Christians from the American South have drawn on this story to establish the Philip Ludwell III Orthodox Fellowship, a group devoted to “nurturing the roots of Orthodoxy in Dixie’s land.”

Text shortened to conform to forum rules. -- Ainnir

 

[FULK NERA]

Text removed to conform to forum rules. -- Ainnir

 

[FULK NERA]

Michael Sisco of WV has a YouTube channel devoted to related topics. Here is his recent meandering unedited live stream with Dissident Mama on the specific subject of Nurturing Orthodoxy on Dixie’s Land

 

[Katechon]

"Public Orthodoxy" lmao.

 

[Ainnir]

So what's his solution?
Also, wheat and tares.

 

[Ainnir]

And wasn't Heimbach excommunicated for his views?

 

[recent convert]

I believe what is often lost in these deep concerns over Southern tradition is that it seems everything they cherished is being rendered as something uniquely evil. There are probably many southerners who are not racist, admire Robert E. Lee, drink mint juleps, watch “Gone With the Wind”etc. and would be good, faithful Orthodox.

I respect Russia’s great struggle in the Great Patriotic War in WW 2. Still, this struggle was fought under a flag that was far more barbarous than the Confederate stars and bars. To censor the Soviet flag from this particular point of history would dishonor millions of Russians, Ukrainians etc. who died fighting Hitler.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

As someone living in the northern midwest but know some Orthodox from Virginia and Texas, I have not noticed this trend of a "lost cause" phenomena in American Orthodoxy as a whole. Certainly I've seen there are some alt right Orthodox redditors/discord users and such who come to the Church, but as a whole, the majority grow out of it and moderate, and if not they leave the Church to go find what they were looking for for. (Usually it seems to be neopaganism or some other ilk).

I'm not a fan of the Orthodox alt right culture at all, but we should acknowledge that it does help some people come to Christ despite the flaws of this movement.

Even if this Phillip Ludwell Fellowship really is as much a bunch of racist dogwhistling as the article fears, I don't think everyone who's a part of it is a lost cause neo-confederate. Where I live (which is about as far north into Yankeedom as you can get) some people (mostly farmers) have confederate bumper stickers and such, and it's almost always because they're libertarians, and not because they have any sympathies with the South. It's just a symbol of rebellion. Likewise these people in the south are probably libertarians who like their cultural "Southern identity", as mythical as it may be. I would be surprised if they seriously believe in an actual lose cause belief in succession and reinstating of segregation.

I don't like the lumping of Fr. John Whiteford into this movement, unless there is more evidence to suggest he is a neo-confederate.

 

[rakovsky]

As someone living in the northern midwest but know some Orthodox from Virginia and Texas, I have not noticed this trend of a "lost cause" phenomena in American Orthodoxy as a whole.

I agree.

 

[rakovsky]

Public Orthodoxy on Philip Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship: Orthodox America Has a Lost Cause Problem December 3, 2021 by Aram G. Sarkisian

About a week ago I complained about the old Orthodox Dixie documentary and Fulk Nera posted the link to the Ludwell Southron society website. And then within a few days on 12/3/21 the Fordham Public Orthodoxy page wrote an article on the Lost Cause supporters among EOs. Was the Fordham author reading our OC forum threads, I wonder.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't like the lumping of Fr. John Whiteford into this movement, unless there is more evidence to suggest he is a neo-confederate.

Fr. Whiteford, in the balance, goes out of his way to be anti-racist. Here are some of his articles and posts:

Interracial Marriage and the Orthodox Faith

Charlton Heston and Esther Brown, playing the Prophet Moses and Princess Tharbis of Ethiopia in the movie The Ten Commandments Th...

fatherjohn.blogspot.com

Fixing Matthew Heimbach - David J Dunn

Why did Matthew Heimbach happen, and what can we do to make sure this sort of thing never happens again? Let me sum up the situation for those who do not know it. Matthew Heimbach is a white nation…

www.davidjdunn.com

(Fr. John writes against racism in the comments section in the above post on the David Dunn website.)

A Statement Concerning the Sin of Racism

The Holy Apostle Paul, in his speech on the Areopagus in Athens, unequivocally asserted that God “hath made of one blood all nations of m...

orthodoxclergy.blogspot.com

Sam Houston on the Civil War

Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, but let me tell you what is coming....Your fathers and husban...

fatherjohn.blogspot.com

Stonewall Jackson's Black Sunday School Class

General George S. Patton III grew up in California, but in a family that came from Virginia and was quite Confederate. His Grandfather,...

fatherjohn.blogspot.com

The Public Orthodoxy blog would be using Guilt by Association if it complained about him for just writing posts on the Monomakhos blog, I write on Monomakhos myself as a commentor.

 

[FULK NERA]

As someone living in the northern midwest but know some Orthodox from Virginia and Texas, I have not noticed this trend of a "lost cause" phenomena in American Orthodoxy as a whole. Certainly I've seen there are some alt right Orthodox redditors/discord users and such who come to the Church, but as a whole, the majority grow out of it and moderate, and if not they leave the Church to go find what they were looking for for. (Usually it seems to be neopaganism or some other ilk).

I'm not a fan of the Orthodox alt right culture at all, but we should acknowledge that it does help some people come to Christ despite the flaws of this movement.

Even if this Phillip Ludwell Fellowship really is as much a bunch of racist dogwhistling as the article fears, I don't think everyone who's a part of it is a lost cause neo-confederate. Where I live (which is about as far north into Yankeedom as you can get) some people (mostly farmers) have confederate bumper stickers and such, and it's almost always because they're libertarians, and not because they have any sympathies with the South. It's just a symbol of rebellion. Likewise these people in the south are probably libertarians who like their cultural "Southern identity", as mythical as it may be. I would be surprised if they seriously believe in an actual lose cause belief in succession and reinstating of segregation.

I don't like the lumping of Fr. John Whiteford into this movement, unless there is more evidence to suggest he is a neo-confederate.

Whiteford said openly that slavery behooved Blacks. Dissident Mama interview

 

[Katechon]

As someone living in the northern midwest but know some Orthodox from Virginia and Texas, I have not noticed this trend of a "lost cause" phenomena in American Orthodoxy as a whole. Certainly I've seen there are some alt right Orthodox redditors/discord users and such who come to the Church, but as a whole, the majority grow out of it and moderate, and if not they leave the Church to go find what they were looking for for. (Usually it seems to be neopaganism or some other ilk).

I'm not a fan of the Orthodox alt right culture at all, but we should acknowledge that it does help some people come to Christ despite the flaws of this movement.

Even if this Phillip Ludwell Fellowship really is as much a bunch of racist dogwhistling as the article fears, I don't think everyone who's a part of it is a lost cause neo-confederate. Where I live (which is about as far north into Yankeedom as you can get) some people (mostly farmers) have confederate bumper stickers and such, and it's almost always because they're libertarians, and not because they have any sympathies with the South. It's just a symbol of rebellion. Likewise these people in the south are probably libertarians who like their cultural "Southern identity", as mythical as it may be. I would be surprised if they seriously believe in an actual lose cause belief in succession and reinstating of segregation.

I don't like the lumping of Fr. John Whiteford into this movement, unless there is more evidence to suggest he is a neo-confederate.

I honestly wouldn't dare to take this article serious in terms of it's content, it is just a way to paint Orthodoxy as part of the common hoax "white supremacy domestic terrorism" threat, to make it's persecution "justifiable". I would take this article serious as an example typical for the work of intelligence agencies though, this should alert people.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Whiteford said openly that slavery behooved Blacks. Dissident Mama interview

On Fr. John's website he said slavery is an evil as a result of the fall, not endorsed by God, and praises the Christian abolitionist movement. He further has several articles, some listed above by rakovsky, in support of interracial marriage, and another one I found that condemns racial separatism is an evil heresy. He's also signed an anti racism document in common with other Orthodox clergy. What is the context for this supposed quote for him saying slavery behooves blacks?

@Katechon
I'm not taking it too seriously. It's mostly just paranoid slander. People like Matthew Heimbach are a problem but I think a very uncommon problem.

 

[FULK NERA]

On Fr. John's website he said slavery is an evil as a result of the fall, not endorsed by God, and praises the Christian abolitionist movement. He further has several articles, some listed above by rakovsky, in support of interracial marriage, and another one I found that condemns racial separatism is an evil heresy. He's also signed an anti racism document in common with other Orthodox clergy. What is the context for this supposed quote for him saying slavery behooves blacks?

@Katechon
I'm not taking it too seriously. It's mostly just paranoid slander. People like Matthew Heimbach are a problem but I think a very uncommon problem.

Well he said it plain as day in the interview with Dissident Mama that slavery was a good thing for Blacks. He can’t unsay it.

 

[Ainnir]

Well he said it plain as day in the interview with Dissident Mama that slavery was a good thing for Blacks. He can’t unsay it.

This podcast?
Disclaimer: I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but there is political content in this; I am not encouraging political discussion here, and we can split these posts to Politics if need be. I simply wanted a specific reference so we all have some context.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Well he said it plain as day in the interview with Dissident Mama that slavery was a good thing for Blacks. He can’t unsay it.

Do you happen to remember a timestamp or general location of where he said this on the podcast? I want to look into this but don't want to waste an hour and 10 minutes looking for this quote.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

"Public Orthodoxy" lmao.

@FULK NERA
Not sure why you reacted negatively to this depiction of Public Orthodoxy. Public "Orthodoxy" is a bastion of heresy that calumnates against the teaching of the Church. It supports a "reevaluation" of Orthodox teaching and practice on homosexuality, blasphemously had an article suggesting the liturgical texts of the Church support non-binary gender theory, promotion of universalist crank theories that are so narrow in evidence that it is clear they ignore the Fathers to scratch their own itching ears, suggests that heresy is a "word that belongs in the history books" and that the non Orthodox can be saved apart from the Church, insulting those who believe the patristic formula of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "neo-traditionalists" as if the Church teaching was some sort of fanaticism. That's just the tip of the iceburg among other things that the Church has clearly condemned.

 

[Ainnir]

Do you happen to remember a timestamp or general location of where he said this on the podcast? I want to look into this but don't want to waste an hour and 10 minutes looking for this quote.

I don't blame you. I'm about 30 minutes in now, and the only thing so far that could be construed that way was he said that black people were worse off in the South as freemen than as slaves, though I don't see it as necessarily endorsing slavery. Just that emancipation didn't magically make life better in a practical sense.

And having heard, in person, the argument that slavery was justifiable because post-emancipation life was so hard, I can say Fr. Whiteford did not at all come across as making that argument. BUT, we'll see how the rest goes, when I have time/bandwidth.

 

[rakovsky]

This podcast?
Disclaimer: I haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but there is political content in this; I am not encouraging political discussion here, and we can split these posts to Politics if need be. I simply wanted a specific reference so we all have some context.

So far no one on the thread is agreeing with slavery or Confederacy or getting heated at each other, fortunately.
Thanks for posting the video! I feel the same way as you do about listening to the whole clip!

Peace.

 

[rakovsky]

@FULK NERA
promotion of universalist crank theories
that the non Orthodox can be saved apart from the Church,
[vs.] the patristic formula of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

I am open to these teachings, as the EO Church doesn't seem to be dogmatic on the topic. St. Augustine said something once like "How many wolves" in the Church, and "How many sheep" outside it.
We have a small number of saints in the EO calendar who were outside the EO Church. We have a thread somewhere on the forum of OO saints who are in the EO Church, for example. Some cases like St Isaac of Nineveh are not clear, but other cases are not clear. I think it would be hard to imagine a dogmatic stance on the topic, as if RCs like St. Francis of Assisi are absolutely excluded from the Afterlife.

But to get back to your main point, Public Orthodoxy is associated with the Orthodox project at Fordham University, which I recall has some things about P. Bartholomew's powers as head of the CP that don't match Orthodoxy.

 

[rakovsky]

the only thing so far that could be construed that way was he said that black people were worse off in the South as freemen than as slaves, though I don't see it as necessarily endorsing slavery. Just that emancipation didn't magically make life better in a practical sense.

I agree that the claim that sharecropping was worse than slavery is not necessarily racist, although I would want to be careful where the speaker was going with that argument.
Probably there are certain ways that slavery was "better" than some kind of brutal wage-slavery. One is that the owner has to take care of his investment because otherwise, he has lost money. Theoretically, if a wage slave gets injured and can't work, the hirer can just hire another person. But in the case of slavery, the owner is stuck caring about the slave's functionality.
I think that this fact could be used either way - to criticize failings of wage slavery or to mistakenly endorse slavery.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I am open to these teachings, as the EO Church doesn't seem to be dogmatic on the topic. St. Augustine said something once like "How many wolves" in the Church, and "How many sheep" outside it.
We have a small number of saints in the EO calendar who were outside the EO Church. We have a thread somewhere on the forum of OO saints who are in the EO Church, for example. Some cases like St Isaac of Nineveh are not clear, but other cases are not clear. I think it would be hard to imagine a dogmatic stance on the topic, as if RCs like St. Francis of Assisi are absolutely excluded from the Afterlife.

But to get back to your main point, Public Orthodoxy is associated with the Orthodox project at Fordham University, which I recall has some things about P. Bartholomew's powers as head of the CP that don't match Orthodoxy.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. Extra ecclesiasm nulla salus doesn't mean that all non Orthodox will be damned but that to be saved in Christ means to be in His Body.
Augustine did say that some outside the visible Church would be saved, but that they would be mysteriously united to it. He said outside the Catholic Church one can have sacraments, sing alleluia, etc but not have salvation.

When the Fathers speak about someone outside the Church being saved, they do not mean saved without or apart the Church, but by and through the Church even though we don't know how that works.

This is what public Orthodoxy said:
"Neo-traditionalists would have us believe that profession of the one true faith is the necessary key to the Kingdom of Heaven, the “membership card” automatically acquired by members of the Orthodox Church.[2] But what does this membership card mean when few Orthodox card-holders can identify or express Orthodox doctrine on key issues? Yes, all Orthodox can recite or sing the Nicene Creed, but beyond its actual words, how many can articulate correctly even major Orthodox dogmas and teachings?

Does this mean that those who hold non-Orthodox beliefs (including non-Christian, even superstitious beliefs) are not Orthodox, maybe even “heretics”? This category may include a large majority of baptized and practicing Orthodox. Can they be saved despite their erroneous beliefs? “Heresy” is a powerful, emotionally-charged accusation which is best left in history books rather than being applied to our contemporary brothers and sisters in Christ, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Salvation is based on more than beliefs and formal membership in a particular Christian body."

Some of My Best Friends Are Heretics: What Do Orthodox Really Believe? - Public Orthodoxy

by Paul Ladouceur | Ελληνικά | српски Orthodox pride themselves on belonging to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” founded by Jesus Christ—and with good reason. Orthodox point to the loftiness of Orthodox theology, the beauty and solemnity of its liturgy, its mystical spirituality...

publicorthodoxy.org

Heresy is spiritual death, not something just for the history books. Salvation is more than belief and Church membership, and certainly I believe God works through the heterodox, but that doesn't mean we can preach salvation exists anywhere outside of the Church.

As for St. Isaac and such, it is not clear. If I recall St. Paisios or another of the athonites taught that St. Isaac was not a Nesotorian emphatically. I also believe that certain RC saints are in heaven, but this is because they were members of the Church from without, not because the RC Church is saving.

 

[rakovsky]

I also believe that certain RC saints are in heaven, but this is because they were members of the Church from without, not because the RC Church is saving.

I think that your words reflect that it is not a simplistic, categorical, absolute doctrine in Orthodoxy that those who die outside the Church must not be saved.
In any case, I'd like to return to the main topic. There are clearer things to criticize the Fordham U. project over. Although I am glad that their university has an Orthodox center, I note that their co-director published the following article:

THE HERESY OF PAPISM
by George Demacopoulos

The three-way dispute between Ukrainians, Russians, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the possibility of Ukrainian ecclesiastical independence is shaping up to be the greatest challenge to Orthodox Christian unity of our generation. From a purely political perspective, Ukrainian autocephaly would represent an unmitigated disaster for the Russian Orthodox Church. ...

Even a cursory understanding of Orthodox Christian history or canon law reveals that there is nothing inherently heretical about the papacy. Many saints of the Byzantine era, including John Chrysostom and Theodore the Studite, recognized the administrative seniority of the bishop of Rome and appealed to the super-jurisdictional authority of the popes of their day.
...
Although I would not do so, one might make the case that the Ecumenical Patriarch is overstepping his authority. Or, one might contend that it is not pastorally prudent for the Ecumenical Patriarch to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church at this time. But neither of those positions would be akin to the slanderous accusation that the Ecumenical Patriarch has succumbed to the heresy of papism. ...

In all of this, perhaps, we should not lose sight of the difference between the millennium-long Orthodox critique of an expansion of papal supremacy that began in the Middle Ages and the rather recent appropriation of the phrase “heresy of papism” as an inner-Orthodox accusation, which is designed to delegitimate the authority of an Orthodox bishop.

George Demacopoulos is the Fr. John Meyendorff and Patterson Family Chair of Orthodox Christian Studies and Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University.

The Heresy of Papism

by George Demacopoulos | ελληνικά | ру́сский The three-way dispute between Ukrainians, Russians, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the possibility of Ukrainian ecclesiastical independence is shaping up to be the greatest challenge to Orthodox Christian unity of our generation. From a...

publicorthodoxy.org

In other words, the author is indirectly saying that the CP has "super-jurisdictional authority" over all EOs, and that the CP is not overstepping his authority in Ukraine. Further, he is complaining that accusing the CP of "heresy" (false teaching) on this issue is directed at "delegitimating" the CP's supposed "super-jurisdictional" authority.

I am curious whether before 2018, members of GOARCH who went through catechism classes were taught that the CP has "super-jurisdictional authority" over the whole Orthodox world. My information before the 2018 disaster was that the CP is purely "first among equals", without the ability to rule over his "brother" patriarchs.

 

[FULK NERA]

@FULK NERA
Not sure why you reacted negatively to this depiction of Public Orthodoxy. Public "Orthodoxy" is a bastion of heresy that calumnates against the teaching of the Church. It supports a "reevaluation" of Orthodox teaching and practice on homosexuality, blasphemously had an article suggesting the liturgical texts of the Church support non-binary gender theory, promotion of universalist crank theories that are so narrow in evidence that it is clear they ignore the Fathers to scratch their own itching ears, suggests that heresy is a "word that belongs in the history books" and that the non Orthodox can be saved apart from the Church, insulting those who believe the patristic formula of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "neo-traditionalists" as if the Church teaching was some sort of fanaticism. That's just the tip of the iceburg among other things that the Church has clearly condemned.

so the Church clearly condemns Public Orthodoxy? That's rich.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

so the Church clearly condemns Public Orthodoxy? That's rich.

I said Public Orthodoxy promotes and teaches positions contrary to the moral and dogmatic consciousness of the Church. A reevaluation of the ethics of homosexuality, universalism, gender theory, dogmatic relativism and ecumenism under that presupposition, are rejected by the Church. Public Orthodoxy, by name, has not been addressed by synod of bishops, but the content of it is condemned since it is contrary to what the Church teaches.

 

[biro]

I’ve never known the church to be in favor of any of those things.

 

[FULK NERA]

I said Public Orthodoxy promotes and teaches positions contrary to the moral and dogmatic consciousness of the Church. A reevaluation of the ethics of homosexuality, universalism, gender theory, dogmatic relativism and ecumenism under that presupposition, are rejected by the Church. Public Orthodoxy, by name, has not been addressed by synod of bishops, but the content of it is condemned since it is contrary to what the Church teaches.

A mere opinion, just as valid as the opinions of authors on PO.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

A mere opinion, just as valid as the opinions of authors on PO.

Nope, not an opinion. Homosexuality is contrary to the scripture and the fathers. Not sure how you can justify a moral reevaluation of it when St. Paul says practicing homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Universalism has never been taught by the Christ (who says few will be saved and the torment of hell forever) nor the fathers, starting from Ignatius and Irenaeus who clearly teach eternal damnation to St. Paisos who said "do not listen to those who teach all will be saved. It is a lie from Satan so that you do not struggle.", to the liturgical texts of the Church that obviously teach eternal damnation. Universal apocastasis was declared as heretical by the 5th ecumenical council and st. Mark of Ephesus, representing the entire Orthodox tradition at Florence, condemned the use of St. Gregory of Nyssa to support either universalism or purgatory.

Non binary gender theory is contrary to natural law. Paul says the effeminate will also not inherit the kingdom of God. God created male and female, and blurring that distinction is consistently condemned by scripture and the Fathers.

Ecumenism is condemned as a pan heresy of the antichrist by St. Justin Popovich. The Fathers and Scripture all teach that unity should be based on "being of the same mind" and is only found in the Orthodox Church, as well a that heresy is a devastating sin. Countless saints were martyred rather than be at unity with heretics.
Mainwhile, public "Orthodoxy" says that heresy is a word that belongs in the history books, and implies it's better to have unity with informed Protestants than uneducated Orthodox from the old countries.

 

[rakovsky]

Universalism has never been taught by the Christ (who says few will be saved and the torment of hell forever) nor the fathers, starting from Ignatius and Irenaeus who clearly teach eternal damnation to St. Paisos who said "do not listen to those who teach all will be saved. It is a lie from Satan so that you do not struggle.", to the liturgical texts of the Church that obviously teach eternal damnation. Universal apocastasis was declared as heretical by the 5th ecumenical council and st. Mark of Ephesus, representing the entire Orthodox tradition at Florence, condemned the use of St. Gregory of Nyssa to support either universalism or purgatory.

The EO Church does not formally, wholly, and affirmatively teach Universal Salvation. However, in my understanding, it is not clear that the EO Church rejects the hope and possibility that all people will be saved, and there are clues and theories in Chitch history that allow for this.

For example, 1 Timothy 2 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

While Tradition asserts that hell exists, there is not doctrinal specification of which individuals must be in it.

The RC Church has a theory of Purgatory, in which people suffer for their sins, but then are released. In the EO Church, we don't have a concept of Purgatory. However, as a theory, one could be in Hell and then released from it. Protestants and Catholics have a little argument over praying for the dead. Some Protestant logic goes that there is no point in praying for the dead, because their fate has been set by their actions on earth. Catholics pray for them, hoping that they will spend less time in Purgatory. In the EO Church, we pray for the dead, but we don't believe in Purgatory. What would be the sense of praying for them if their fate has already been categorically sealed by their actions?

It is sometimes interpreted that only a specific version of "Universal apocastasis" attributed to Origen was declared as heretical at the 5th Council. St Maxim the Confessor, as I recall, had a different theory of Restoration.

I am open minded on the topic, and it can have a separate thread, because I'd rather not derail the thread.

 

[rakovsky]

Nope, not an opinion.

Universalism

Dear Gloria,
Do you know Greek, Russian, or another of the languages commonly associated with the EO Church? Knowing Russian, I get much more information than otherwise.
Prof. Osipov is a Russian (MP) theologian who is against taking RC communion and says that the CP is following the temptation of pride in declaring himself the supreme head over all EOs like the Pope did. Yet on the topic of Universal Salvation, Prof. Osipov allowed for the possibility of someone getting out of hell. He noted that although this idea might lead one to think that sinning is OK because if you go to Hell, you can get out of it, Prof. Osipov responded that the experience of Hell would be so bad for even a short time that this way of thinking wouldn't work. When St. Paisios warns that the Devil promotes Universalism, an explanation could be that the Devil wants to encourage people to sin, and if they believe in Universalism, then their sin would seem more allowable to them. However, per Prof. Osipov's explanation, the Devil's encouragement is still shown to be harmful and addresses the problem.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

I'll reply to this in a new thread.

 

[Bizzlebin]

A whole lot of things are getting conflated in these blanket condemnations, but since universalism is already spun off into another thread, let me tackle 2 others; feel free to spin these off if you think this needs further discussion.

Non binary gender theory is contrary to natural law. Paul says the effeminate will also not inherit the kingdom of God. God created male and female, and blurring that distinction is consistently condemned by scripture and the Fathers.

Non-binary gender is *not* against natural law, but is actually the "rule". Even ignoring other species (from hermaphroditic animals to mitosis in cells to semelparous plants), the Scriptures do *not* teach that we were created "male or female" but rather male *and* female. This is consistent in the Fathers, in the canons, and throughout tradition. Be careful not to link cultural evangelicalism (particularly a certain alt-political form) with Orthodox teaching, for they *aren't related* here. And be sure to distinguish non-binary and intersex from homosexuality: the former are written into Church law, while the latter is condemned—so they're *not* implicitly linked and should not be unceremoniously lumped together.

Ecumenism is condemned as a pan heresy of the antichrist by St. Justin Popovich. The Fathers and Scripture all teach that unity should be based on "being of the same mind" and is only found in the Orthodox Church, as well a that heresy is a devastating sin. Countless saints were martyred rather than be at unity with heretics.
Mainwhile, public "Orthodoxy" says that heresy is a word that belongs in the history books, and implies it's better to have unity with informed Protestants than uneducated Orthodox from the old countries.

Ecumenism is a whole other bundle of excitement, but it should be enough to state that we should have the attitude of bridging gaps and bringing people into the fullness of faith, without imposing our particular cultural forms and customs. Any condemnation of ecumenism that is not predicated on love of all mankind, of God's freely-given grace to all people, and the firm desire to cut down our own ungodly, anti-salvific, and self-imposed divisions is just the spittle-filled sputtering of a schismatic soul. I am not sure we have much disagreement on this matter, but I think it is important to repeat what Orthodoxy teaches here, and thus to head off those who use the word "ecumenism" as justification for their own fear, anger, and delusion.

 

[biro]

There is a type of mushroom that has 36 genders.

 

[Ainnir]

There's a type of mushroom that will make you see 36 genders, too. Doesn't mean it's meant for us.

 

[biro]

Sigh…

 

[Eamonomae]

I would take this article serious as an example typical for the work of intelligence agencies though, this should alert people.

Nah. I don't think "Public Orthodoxy" is a tool of the CIA or NSA.

It's a result of political activists corroding theology faculties in East Coast universities, who are directly connected to organizations that directly encourage such activity (believe me), those organizations ultimately receiving funding by rich socialites.

Non-binary gender is *not* against natural law, but is actually the "rule". Even ignoring other species (from hermaphroditic animals to mitosis in cells to semelparous plants), the Scriptures do *not* teach that we were created "male or female" but rather male *and* female. This is consistent in the Fathers, in the canons, and throughout tradition. Be careful not to link cultural evangelicalism (particularly a certain alt-political form) with Orthodox teaching, for they *aren't related* here. And be sure to distinguish non-binary and intersex from homosexuality: the former are written into Church law, while the latter is condemned—so they're *not* implicitly linked and should not be unceremoniously lumped together.

This might be the most disingenuous and malicious post I've ever read on this website to such an extent that it de facto establishes the poster is in a state of spiritual death. And that's saying something considering the posts I've made on this site in the past.

By the way, let it be known that right here is a perfectly demonstrable example of the methodology that people with heterodox moral or political views use in Orthodoxy.

-<Unsubstantiated belief>
"-<Unsubstantiated belief>" is actually what the Fathers and canons teach (without actually citing anything)
-<Actual Orthodox position> is a product of Western / American Evangelical / Scholastic / Enlightenment methodology / theology, not Orthodoxy (again, no evidence)
-Therefore, in order to be Orthodox, one has to have my personal <Unsubstantiated belief>.

 

[Eamonomae]

Let's entertain this absurd position.

So apparently, the Church Fathers held to a theory of social constructionism that wouldn't be historically developed, at a minimum, until the 17th century. At a time centuries ago where medicine wasn't even invented and women weren't generally permitted to have labor roles or even come to Church during their cycle, apparently the Church Fathers all came to the realization that human gender is all a matter of perception rather than ontological reality and that human beings could change their perceived social role, despite the fact that they had no scientific knowledge to even attempt it. Despite the fact that they somehow believed human beings could change gender, they still enforced serious regulations and moral ideals for each of the genders, while also forbidding contraception generally. While forbidding non-procreative sexual intercourse, they somehow believed that with transitioning of gender roles, that this somehow supersedes that rule when it comes to marital relations. And coincidentally, there hasn't been a single canonized non-cis male priest, Bishop, or monk.

Genius.

 

[Eamonomae]

I will even grant you the concession that certain Jewish and Hellenistic esoteric praxes - that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy directly - teach that there are certain invisible "spiritual feminine" and "spiritual masculine" components to men and women, respectively. Aside from the fact that they aren't Orthodoxy, I don't think either of those concepts in their respective historical concepts had anything to do with what your positing; and in fact, they suggest that male and female gender is an ontological reality if we have opposite sides of it within us.

 

[Gloria Tibi Trinitas]

Let's entertain this absurd position.

So apparently, the Church Fathers held to a theory of social constructionism that wouldn't be historically developed, at a minimum, until the 17th century. At a time centuries ago where medicine wasn't even invented and women weren't generally permitted to have labor roles or even come to Church during their cycle, apparently the Church Fathers all came to the realization that human gender is all a matter of perception rather than ontological reality and that human beings could change their perceived social role, despite the fact that they had no scientific knowledge to even attempt it. Despite the fact that they somehow believed human beings could change gender, they still enforced serious regulations and moral ideals for each of the genders, while also forbidding contraception generally. While forbidding non-procreative sexual intercourse, they somehow believed that with transitioning of gender roles, that this somehow supersedes that rule when it comes to marital relations. And coincidentally, there hasn't been a single canonized non-cis male priest, Bishop, or monk.

Genius.

Yes, thank you.

@Bizzlebin
I'm talking about gender not sex. Of course there are hermaphrodites biologically. I'm saying there is not a gradient of a "gender spectrum" that one can change at will, which is the implication of the Public Orthodoxy article. I'm not bringing alt right evangelical politics into this. As far as I know, the Church doesn't allow one to get a gender transition. Nor for a man to act like a woman and vice versa (regarding the scripturally indicated "roles" i.e women cannot be bishops, men cannot wear head coverings in the Church, etc) not cultural concepts of male and female that may or may not be in alignment with Christian teaching.