Why We Left...Where We Went

Why We Left The Antiochian Diocese

And Where We Went

by Nathan Lee Lewis

Grace be to you in the name that is above every other name that is Christ Jesus our Lord and Master and the Savior of our souls.

This letter is to communicate to all who may or may not have heard of our family’s decision to leave our local Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Antiochian diocese. It is our hope that such a written statement may defuse misinformation that may arise concerning our departure. Our decision to leave is based on a measured, prayerful and lengthy evaluation of the purpose and will of God for our family and a desire to be rightly aligned with His One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church- the Orthodox Church. This is a personal account of our journey and not intended to be an argument or proof text, therefore, not all quotations are sited. We trust that all who desire to verify the documentation contained in our account will search out the easily accessible facts for themselves. Please know that we have great love and gratitude in our hearts for those who long for the truth and the fullness of the faith and who struggle as we do to find it. It is not our intent to cast judgment or indictment on those we are leaving, however, due to the conclusions that have led to our decision, we are aware that it may be formidable to expect that none will take offence at some of the content of this statement. Please forgive us, for we are sinners.

In 2006 my wife and I and our two daughters, entered the gates of the Orthodox faith at our local Antiochian Orthodox Church. We were received by economy through Holy Chrismation having been baptized by single immersion in a Southern Baptist Church. At that time we voiced concerns about the method of our reception by chrismation only. Our concerns revolved around the fact that the Southern Baptists did not consider baptism a sacrament, but simply a symbol or ordinance. They also did not consider baptism as being salvific and the list of other unorthodox Southern Baptist doctrines and practices were numerous. We did have a basic understanding of the Orthodox belief that there is neither salvation nor sacramental grace outside the church, so we struggled to understand why we weren’t being baptized. Though we had questions concerning the validity of such a reception, we accepted the word of our priest, believing him to be more knowledgeable than we concerning such things. Two years after our chrismation and the question troubling me still, I raised my concerns once again to the priest via this letter,

Father Bless,

I find myself many months after my Chrismation questioning the validity of what I have come to learn is called Baptism of Economy. One of the questions I put to you during my catechism was how, if the Baptist church is not the Church and how, if I had not been immersed three times (trinitarian) as is canon, how could I be received into the Orthodox Faith without being Baptized? Your response to me has always seemed inadequate, though at the time, by faith, I received it as one not having learned. You stated that the Chrismation "completes" or makes right my baptism and that my baptism is accepted because the church "says it is". After limited study I have strong reservations of the validity of what seems to be a new and unorthodox practice. I need clarification for my peace of mind and the salvation of my soul. Not attempting to tell you how to respond, I would ask that the preferred way to respond is to refute the contents of this *statement from Mount Athos concerning convert Baptism. I am opened to see what I am not seeing.

Father Bless,

Nathan Lee Lewis

A Sinner

[* I provided the priest with the link]

The priest’s e-mail response to my inquiry sent us into despair.

“Nathan, I pray that there has not been a gross communication in your preparation for chrismation. I never heard you say you had not been baptized by immersion three times; that historically has been the way the Baptist church baptizes. I always question someone as to whether their baptism was a triple immersion by Trinitarian formula…”

(I later realized that the priest was right in that I had never mentioned triple immersion at the time of our catechism, however, since the subject was whether or not we should be baptized at all, the mode of baptism never came up and we didn’t know at the time to inquire about it.)

Based on this communication from the priest and our concerns being confirmed, my wife and I immediately ceased to partake of the Eucharist and my wife, being a chanter, ceased her participation at the chanter’s stand. We scheduled a meeting with the priest to discuss the issue. In the meantime we receive two communications from the priest. One was via e-mail,

“…I have given you the impression that three-fold immersion by trinitarian formula is the required form for baptism prior to being chrismated. This is not the case: it is baptism with water in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the position of the Antiochian Church and other major bodies of Orthodoxy…”

Being a striking contradiction to his previous e-mail, this sent us into confusion and further despair. Subsequent to our scheduled meeting, the priest handed me some photocopied pages of a book at Coffee Hour. The pages had neither reference of authorship nor the name of the book. The content contained the writer’s view as to why converts could be received through chrismation and not baptism. The writer credited “most modern theologians” as being in agreement. The pages did not reference the question of converts who had not received a triple immersion baptism nor did it mention any method.

My wife and I met with the priest a few days following. Again, deferring to his pastorate and the fact that he was more learned than us, and that we are also given to the constraints of human frailty, we initially accepted his claim when he said, regarding his first e-mail,

“I don’t know what I was thinking”.

That, together with the fact that he had shown his customary humble and self-depreciating attitude in the second e-mail,

“Again for the confusion I have caused, I am sorry; I am so muddled in my speech sometimes I feel like a Moses in need of an Aaron”,

satisfied us enough to return to the life of the church.

In subsequent weeks, however, I set about to sort out the confusion of the event. The priest had graciously extended to us the liberty to do so when he wrote regarding his baptismal explanation,

“Of course, you will have to decide if you accept that.”

One question I could not get away from was,

“Why, if triple immersion is not required for entry into the church, would the priest find it necessary to ‘always question someone as to whether their baptism was a triple immersion by Trinitarian formula…’?”

Another question was,

“Why, after 20+ years as a priest, would the priest be confused about something as vital as the proper mode of baptism in relation to converts?”

There seemed to be something more in play here than a simple momentary lapse in communication. With a desire to

“Be diligent to present yourself approved unto God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”,

I sought out answers through research sources and materials which consisted of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the Canons of the church, the Ecumenical Councils, statements from all major Orthodox jurisdictions concerning baptism, personal and written communication with priests of the Antiochian jurisdiction and other jurisdictions and not least, the Holy Scriptures. Without exception, not one source could be found which condoned or even mentioned the mode of single immersion as a valid Orthodox baptism. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. Triple immersion was almost always specified using the word “triple” or “triune” followed with the word “immersion”, as the standard, proper, Orthodox mode of baptism and is used synonymously with the term “Trinitarian Formula”. Further, single immersion is specifically condemned in the canons and in the history of the church as often and as vehemently as is sprinkling,

“If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions (literally,“three baptisms”) in making one baptism (literally “one initiation’), but (sc. only) a single immersion (literally, “a single baptism”), that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed (sc. from office). For the Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

“…concerning the three immersions…without them not only is a Baptism incomplete, but it cannot even be called a baptism at all.”

The priest had also explained in his letter to us that the practice of not Baptizing or of accepting the Baptism of Southern Baptists was

“…based on canons borne out of the Donatist controversy in the early church.”

In looking at the Donatists controversy, I struggled to see how it had led to the current “…position of the Antiochian Church and other major bodies of Orthodoxy…” as the priest had proposed. I learned that the Donatist controversy revolved around the apostasy of believers under the Roman persecution. Under persecution, the believers had renounced their faith. Once the persecution subsided, they wanted back into the church. The Donatists took the position that the apostates were no longer believers and thus should be baptized, their first baptism being of no account. Others said that they were fully baptized believers and should be allowed into the Church through confession, repentance and chrismation. In either case, the Donatist controversy dealt with those who had already been correctly baptized into the Orthodox Church and were returning to the faith. It had nothing to do with heterodox who had never been baptized by, into, or in keeping with the mode the Church. The interpretation of the Donatist controversy to conclude that a single immersion baptism by a Southern Baptist Church was acceptable, raised the obvious question,

“How could the practice of not baptizing heterodox be ‘borne out of the Donatists controversy, and why had this interpretation seemingly been considered only recently in the history of the church?”

I recalled another thing the priest said to me in a conversation in his office. As he held up a copy of the Canons he said,

“Don’t read this, it will just confuse you.”

Desiring to know if the priest’s own confusion concerning the sacrament of baptism was a result of the “confusing canons” and wanting to discover why the Canons of the Church would be confusing, I set about to research. While I found that some of the Canons were considered guidelines with moveable interpretations based on the necessity of economy and an individual Bishop’s discernment in their use, and opinions varying greatly from parish to parish, there were others having to do with doctrine and the application of the scriptures, sacraments, and safeguards against encroaching apostasy, that were unmovable. I saw for the first time that some in the modern Church considered flexible even that which was not historically flexible. I sought to find the answer as to why this was so. It was at this time in my study that I was introduced to the concept of Ecumenism in relation to the Orthodox Church.

Ecumenism: “A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.”

On its face, the definition of Ecumenism seemed to be a diplomatic way for the Orthodox Church to, “as much as possible be at peace with all men”, in cultures and countries across the world in an ongoing effort to evangelize, bringing all men to the Faith of the Fathers, the Orthodox Church. I was startled, however, to learn that there was actually an organized Ecumenical Movement which included all of the major religions of the world, both “Christian” and “non-Christian” and that the “unity” being promoted was not a simple attempt at cultural and national peace among human beings but a clearly defined goal of legitimizing all religions as equal paths to God. The participation of the Orthodox Church in Ecumenism over the years had ultimately brought them to issue an edict which forbade the evangelization or “proselytizing” of any non-orthodox person or group for the sake of this Ecumenical “unity”. Concurrent with that was the evolution and eventual promotion by participating Orthodox Hierarchs, of the ideology that the use of the words “God” and “Spirit” by all religions had merit in truth and were in fact synonymous with the Orthodox meanings of the words, and that the ultimate result and destination of all religions was equal to that of the Orthodox faith-salvation and eternal peace with God. The evolving ecumenical language and practice of these “Orthodox” participants in the Ecumenical Movement made clear that they no longer believed the words of Jesus,

“I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father except he comes by Me.”

Rather, the Orthodox Ecumenical participants say,

“Brothers and Sisters, the watchword of the Holy Orthodox Church today is unity…we must pursue unity with all the children of God…Roman Catholic and Orthodox, Protestants and Jews, Muslims and Hindus, Buddhists and Confucians: The time has come not only for rapprochement, but for alliance and joint effort. We have within our grasp the vision of the Psalmist, ‘Behold how good and pleasant it is or brethren to dwell together in unity!”

“Because we have seen and experienced goodness, truth and holiness among followers of other paths and ways than that of Jesus Christ…, we find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”

With volumes of public speeches and documents of “Orthodox” participants of the World Council of Churches, which I discovered was the hub of the Ecumenical movement, it was not hard to discover which groups within the Orthodox Church were in “full communion” with this ecumenical, unorthodox, and unscriptural ideology. Because of their concerted effort to move toward a One World Church by their membership in the World Council of Churches, all member churches of SCOBA had the distinction of belonging to, what non-ecumenists Orthodox referred to as, World Orthodoxy.

Since entering the Orthodox Faith, I have often heard the phrase “in full communion” and felt satisfied that I was in one of the “major” or “official” Orthodox jurisdictions that were in ‘full communion” with the others. The other groups that called themselves “Orthodox” were thought of as schismatic, troublesome, second-class or heretical but most often were referred to as “uncanonical”. In my continuing research I found that a subtle redefining had occurred concerning the concept of canonicity. I found that the current, common use of the word canonical had been influenced by ecumenical ideology that had involved to an emphasis on a hierarchical structure mirroring that of papism. Rather than individual Bishops pastoring their churches in their regions and united in effort by a local Synod, Ecumenism stressed that if you did not comply with the wishes and dictates and authority of a certain hierarchy, you were considered un-canonical. It mattered not that you were an authentic bishop, perfectly adhering to the scripture, the canons and the faith; you were uncanonical, out of communion and held to a minimum of disdain and a maximum of threats against life and property. I found a glaring example of this in my extensive research into the Moscow Patriarchate. Those Russian churches and Bishops who refused to submit under the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow, installed by the atheistic communist government of Stalin, were derided, politically oppressed, confronted with violence, had their properties seized and were forced to go underground. The same occurred in Greece to those who refused to alter the calendar of the Church that had been used for 1600 + years, when one influential Greek Bishop decided to change it. The full force of the Greek government was released on the Orthodox Bishops who refused to change with the ecumenical times and they were denounced as heretical and uncanonical.

Along with the attack on those deemed uncanonical by the Ecumenists, I discovered that the rulings of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were also under attack. Church Fathers, who participated in them, were referred to as being “out of touch”, “behind the times”, or simply having ruled in ignorance and prejudice. I discovered this to be the justification used by those such as Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch as he rejected the decision of four of the Ecumenical Councils which condemned as heretical the Monophisites, who deny the dual nature of Christ. Advancing the belief that the Monophosites were just misunderstood and the problem was semantics, the leader of the Antiochian Orthodox Church issued an encyclical allowing concelebrating with those whom the church as a whole had consistently called heretics. The same was true on other fronts as I discovered that the World Orthodox Churches have been in official communion with the Roman Catholic Church for years, having dropped the 1054 anathemas and ignoring major unresolved doctrinal, ecclesiastical and canonical differences, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople saying,

“It is the ‘fundamental ecclesiological truth’ that Orthodoxy and Papism constitute the two lungs of the Body of Christ.”

“Our Churches are recognized mutually as Sister Churches responsible together for the preservation of the One Church of God…We exhort our faithful Catholic and Orthodox to strengthen the spirit of brotherhood, which derives from a single Baptism and participation in the sacramental life.”

When I discovered the depth of this form of Ecumenism that has had 80+ years to develop, my concerns about other matters were validated. Metropolitan Philip Saliba’s consistent promotion of the belief that Islam is a friend to Christianity was consistent with Ecumenical ideology that says,

“We are deceived and we sin, if we think that the Orthodox faith came down from Heaven and that all [other] creeds are unworthy. Three hundred million people have chosen Islam in order to reach their god, and other hundreds of millions of Protestants, Catholics and Buddhists. The goal of every religion is to improve mankind.”

As early as 1989 Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria stated publicly,

"Mohammed is a prophet and an apostle and man of God,"

and that

"those who speak against Islam and Buddhism are not in agreement with God."

Not one Orthodox bishop of the World Orthodox Churches, including Metropolitan Philip, spoke out to demand a retraction. The resulting application of the evolution of the Ecumenical ideology is that,

“We respect an individual’s choice with regard to his or her faith, and we do not proselytize anyone, nor do we participate in dialogues between Christians and our brother Muslims in order to convince them to accept our faith.”

And further,

“We remind all that every form of proselytism…is absolutely condemned by the Orthodox. Proselytism, practiced in the nations already Christian, and in many cases even Orthodox…poisons the relations among Christians and destroys the road to unity.”

I was raised in the fear of God. My father, who was a Southern Baptist Pastor, taught me from an early age to love the souls of men. Old hymn stanzas such as “Rescue the perishing, care for the dying” and “We’ll work ‘till Jesus comes...”, promoted what we referred to as the Great Commission given to us by Christ Himself,

“All Authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth, go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

According to Christ His admonition to “make Disciples of all nations” was the only “road to unity” that mattered and it was exclusive,

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it.”

One of the things that inspired me as I entered the Antiochian diocese was the story of the reception of over 2000 converts in the 80’s by Metropolitan Philip Saliba. It is said that he issued this challenge to the Converts,

“Now, teach us how to evangelize.”

Realizing early on that the numbers of Orthodox of all jurisdictions on the North American continent was often grossly exaggerated, there being only around a half a million rather than the six million often claimed and only about 55,000 Antiochians, I have been ever aware of the need to evangelize. What I did not know was that simultaneous with Metropolitan Philip’s exhortation, he was actively working with the Bishops of the World Orthodox Churches to deliberately move the Orthodox churches, clergy, parishioners and converts under their pastorate, to a new World Church concept where all religions are equal and where there is no need for any evangelism,

“The Orthodox Church does not seek to convince others of any one particular understanding of truth or revelation, nor does it seek to convert others to a particular mode of thinking…”

“If the diverse peoples of a culture look to the memories of their faith traditions, whatever they may be, they will be sustained, they will be fed the food of God’s spiritual knowledge…Orthodox Christian and modernist, Protestant and modernist, Jew and modernist, Catholic and modernist: however we worship, as long as we abide in our faith and unite it to our works in the world, we bring the living and always timely message of Divine Wisdom into the modern world.”

As my wife has read the statements and research along with me, she has been astounded and exclaimed, “It is just so blatant!”. Even our teenage daughters have been astonished and disheartened by what we have discovered. All of us have wanted to believe that we were not seeing what we were seeing and took great care to make certain that we were not taking things out of context or reading in meanings that the hierarchs didn’t intend. As we searched as a family for the truth, it was not possible to come to any other conclusion than to believe that these were clearly not isolated statements but an entire body of public evidence some 80 years in the making. We thoroughly digested the lengthy books The Battle For The Russian Orthodox Church by Vladimir Moss and The Struggle Against Ecumenism- The History of the True Orthodox Church of Greece from 1924-1994 by The Holy Orthodox Church in North America, Boston, Massachusetts.

Careful not to be influenced simply by the authors’ opinions, we paid particular attention to the documentations, letters exchanged, official Synod files, encyclicals, and government statements. It was not difficult to ascertain the blatantly open existence of an all out aggressive, anti-Christ attack against the Orthodox Church from within and a massive falling into apostasy which eventually included all major jurisdictions of Orthodoxy as represented by SCOBA- The Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas.

Having discovered this apostatized body of World Orthodoxy which had left the original faith of our Fathers, we also discovered True or Genuine Churches under Bishops who had suffered persecution to preserve the simple formula:

Julian (old) Calendar +

Holy Tradition +

The Seven Ecumenical Councils +

The Holy Scriptures +

The Holy Fathers =

Holy Orthodoxy.

Placing history in a nutshell, the True or Genuine Orthodox Churches in Russia were those Bishops, priests and parishioners who refused to bow to the Soviet State and the state-installed Moscow Patriarch. These True or Genuine believers went underground in fear of their lives and became the modern equivalent of catacomb Christians. They only surfaced, with bishops and parishes intact, after the downfall of the Soviet Union, only to be persecuted again by the existing Moscow Patriarchate backed by the new Russian Federation. In Greece, the True or Genuine believers were those who refused to accept the decision of a single patriarch (who was given a full Masonic burial at his death) to change the calendar by which the entire Orthodox Church had worshiped for centuries. These True or Genuine bishops, priests and parishioners were violently attacked by the Greek Patriarchate and the Greek government. Liturgies were raided, chalices thrown to the ground and stomped upon, priests arrested and parishioners beaten and killed. They were then legislated out of existence causing them to go underground. They were only recognized by the Greek government after some 40 years of endurance and persistence. Eventually the New Calendar innovation, which coincided with the Roman Catholic Church and the entire West, infiltrated all Orthodox jurisdictions splitting the church in two and setting the groundwork for Ecumenism and the One World Church.

These True and Genuine Bishops and their churches exist in America and all across the world. My research into the True and Genuine Churches, however, was not without difficult and disheartening discoveries. In fact, there was a period in our endeavor that was nothing short of despairing as we discovered ample disagreements, divisions, politics, and ecclesiastical maneuverings of some of the True and Genuine Bishops. I recently had a friend, who is aware of our journey, use the old adage “when you find the perfect church…”. Unfortunately, he used it with a sarcastic intent to show me the error of my ways so as to encourage me to stay with Antioch. I am aware that perfection will not be found where humans are involved but I am also reminded of the promise of Christ that,

“On this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The visible evidence as to where that church exists has been spoken of by the Church Fathers,

“Where the Bishop is there is the church.”

This must mean that such Bishops still exist and that I can realistically find the Bishop or Bishops who hold to the true and genuine faith of our Fathers. This must also mean that I can and MUST choose between the adherents of the false and the adherents of the true,

“Those who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel, dismissing the True Orthodox Christians because of merely human failures [not doctrinal or against canons] yet excusing the heretical activities to the ‘official’ Orthodox jurisdictions, might well bring into mind Winston Churchill’s criticism of democracy-the worst form of government except for all the others. Certainly when one considers the open betrayal of the Orthodox faith that one witnesses in the official statements and actions of bishops and clergy of ‘World Orthodoxy,”’ the divisions among the true Orthodox Christians, though lamentable, are truly “the secondary issue.”

Saint Basil the Great spoke of the viability of this action,

“A Church pure and untouched by the harshness of our times is not easily found and from now on rarely to be seen-a Church that has preserved the apostolic doctrine unadulterated and inviolate!...Beloved brethren, we are small and humble, but we have not accommodated our faith according to changing events.”

My wife and I have become convinced that as a result of the “blatancy” of their own words and actions, not one of the Bishops of World Orthodoxy can say what Saint Basil the Great said-not one. Therefore, not one priest or one parish in communion with those Bishops can either, as evidenced by the fact that they have strayed from the application of scriptural and canonical baptism and can commemorate heretical Metropolitans and Bishops in each Liturgy among other things, and still consider themselves “orthodox”.

I am also convinced that the “all churches have problems” argument, is subterfuge and smokescreen to prevent sincere believers from seeing the reality of the apostasy of the church. In a separate conversation with my priest concerning the Antiochian Hierarch’s support of Islam, he distanced himself and therefore his parish from having to face the issue of the apostasy and ecumenism of World Orthodoxy by saying,

“I need to be concerned with the people in this little valley.”

Thus another question I cannot get away from is,

“If the chief shepherd of the people in the ‘little valley’ is the Bishop and the Bishop through his heresy, has become a wolf in sheep’s clothing, is not that a matter for the utmost concern? Will the Bishop/wolf, with his larger staff, not eventually lead his sheep to graze in his heretical pasture?”

One of the most disturbing and yet hopeful dichotomies of our journey is the fact that most of the sheep do not know what the shepherds are doing. It is disturbing because if the sheep remain blind to the nature of the Bishops’ apostasy and their priest’s complicities, it will be to their spiritual destruction. It is hopeful, in that if they are enlighten as to the real nature of World Orthodoxy they may give heed to the prophetic scriptures which warn,

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.”

“But we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the traditions which he received from us.”

With our decision to withdraw from those who are bringing destructive heresies, there follows the judgment of some who, rather than seeing the approaching danger, see only the comfort and familiarity of the church in which they have so long dwelled. So, rather than consider whether or not the danger is valid, they ask the “are you saying” questions.

“Are you saying that we are heretics?”

“Are you saying that you know more than we do?”

Then comes the “you must” statements.

“You must be upset over something.”

“You must have bitterness in your heart.”

The challenge in answering the “are you” and “you must” questions and statements is that the presenters have already dug themselves in to a conclusion. They are dealing in rhetoric and do not really want an answer. They, mistakenly focus on the messenger. I discovered this prior to our decision to leave Antioch, when I made the mistake of assuming a friend at church, with whom I had had many previous discussions over the years, would welcome knowing about the World Council of Churches. When I related to him my dilemma of not knowing if I could be in communion with any group who did not believe that Jesus was the “Only way, the truth and the life and that no man can come to the Father unless he comes by me”, he responded by pointing at the temple and saying,

“Nathan, I will always be at this church…”,

and then pointing to the church cemetery,

“…and I will be buried in that cemetery.”

It was a nerve that I had not intended to hit but it was a nerve none-the-less that runs deep. I discovered in a subsequent letter from my friend that the nerve was not just one of intense loyalty, but one which had at its root a much more disturbing core. The friend wrote,

“As for all of the theological and ecclesiastical issues that you present, I don’t believe that Christ is calling us to solve all of these problems. There had always been corruption, dissention and political posturing in the Church, and I don’t think this will change while we are here on this earth. The essence of the Orthodox faith is Truth, and God will deal with those that have other agendas. There are issues that may appear to be monumentally important, but if I chose to focus on these things while sacrificing my life in Christ, I am straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.”

The core of the friend’s resistance to see the reality of the apostasy of the Church was an ideology not birthed in loyalty but, rather, in jaded cynicism. His position was based in the belief that there is no imminent danger enough to warrant a reaction. This is based on the idea that the issues are out there somewhere, they don’t directly involve us and that others will deal with them. I recognized this ideology as being in harmony with the priest’s “little valley” statement. I have not been Orthodox very long, but even I recognized this as a most unorthodox position. The walls of the Orthodox temples are lined with the martyrs of the faith, who, if they had taken that stance, would never have earned their place among the great cloud of witnesses. It is inconceivable that they would take the position that Christ had not called us to “solve all of these problems” and how could we leave the solving to the hierarchs since it is the hierarchs who are the problem? I also could not justify the fact that during the Liturgy we venerate the martyrs of the faith, while at the same time honoring Bishops who teach and believe the opposite of what the Martyrs died to preserve, saying that all religions are equal paths to God!

My friend suggested that to focus on these things would be ‘sacrificing my life in Christ’ The question that follows is,

“What surer way is there to sacrifice your life in Christ than to ignore the heresy of your Bishops?

The ideology presented by the priest and my friend that says, do not “focus on these things”, is reminiscent of the scenario where a beautiful, peaceful valley is about to be flooded to make a lake. In this case, however, the people have heard the rumors that the water from the dam may be released but they remain where they are leaving their fate to the powers that be. It is also reminiscent of a scene from my favorite movie, Sergeant York. In the valley of the Two Forks in Tennessee in the early 1900’s there is one community store where all the townsfolk gather to talk and commune. One of their age-old traditions is to have the one newspaper they occasionally receive, read aloud to all gathered. As the aged reader picks up the paper, he turns immediately to the Community Page to get right to the “important stuff.” The boldface headline the reader has turned past reads, “War Breaks Out In Europe”. Little did they know that that war, miles away, would reach into their little valley and change their world.

So, “are we saying” that the people in the valley are heretics? No. “Are we saying” that we know more than those who have been Orthodox longer? No. Although those things may be deduced by the reasons we have presented, we are saying only one thing,

“As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.”

To illustrate this point we carefully tailored a letter that was sent to the priest upon our departure,

Greetings in the name of the Holy Trinity, Christ is Risen!

It is with great hope for the future that we tell you of our family’s unified decision to leave the Antiochian Diocese and thus [our local church]. In our continued journey to orthodoxy and the theosis of our souls, we have found some significant differences between what is taught and believed in the Antiochian Diocese and the other Orthodox Churches who adhere to more traditional practices and doctrines of the faith. We have come to the conclusion that our hearts and beliefs are more in communion with the latter and so we must go where our conscience calls us and obedience leads us.

We are grateful for the years we have spent at [our local church] and will forever value the friendships we have made. We trust that none will perceive our leaving as an indictment of the clergy or the good people of [our local church] or a result of some interpersonal conflict for there is no motive or reason for our leaving other than that which we have here stated.

We will pray often that our Lord will “complete the good work that He has begun in you.”

In His Hope and Theosis,

The Lewis Family

So “are we saying” that the Bishops who make up the hierarchy of the World Orthodox Church and that those clergy who willingly and knowingly remain in communion with them are heretics? Yes. But as to when, how and if those clergy become so, is not for us to determine.

So what of the “you must” questions? My friend who said that I should not focus on these things also gave a thorough list as to why he thought I was doing so. He suggested in his letter that you must be “prideful”, in “deep bitterness”, personal “turmoil”, “thinking too highly of yourself” and that this is causing me to enter a “troubling transition”, whereby I am in “danger of losing my way” and going “down the wrong path”. To my friend, it was my spiritual weakness that was causing me to focus on the wrong things and to judge others.

There is a common misunderstanding of the term “judge.” We hear often quoted the scripture,

“Judge not that ye be not judged.”

This is erroneously used in circumstances to which it does not apply in order to silence or cast dispersion on any who would speak out against heresy, when it actually refers to pointing out the individual shortcomings of a brother and murmuring against him out of lofty arrogance and pride such as,

“God I thank you that I am not like other men…”

Was Timothy judging when he gave a list of sins that were prevalent, saying that some had a form of godliness but denied its power, that some were always learning and never coming to the truth and that,

“From such people turn away?”

The fact is that acknowledging and recognizing where sin is and where it isn’t is appropriate scriptural judgment. We are commanded to always judge in matters of faith and truth. Paul exhorts us to

“…flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the cup of communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”

We must judge that if anyone has left that one communion saying that there is another way other than the blood and body of Christ, he is given to idolatry. But it is actually through one’s own actions and not the attitude of another that they are judged, for they judge themselves,

“It is necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first: but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.”

We are to separate ourselves from those who refused to follow that faith. Were Paul and Barnabas being “judgmental” in this statement or were they acknowledging where the truth was and where it wasn’t, who embraced it and who didn’t? Do we any more judge when we recognize and acknowledge when a Bishop or a church or and individual has left the faith to follow another gospel? Was my friend unscripturally judging me when he listed what he saw to be my sins? I think not, for he was humbly sincere in his intent and his judgment was this scriptural kind, albeit based on a flawed assessment.

So, we are quick to rightly judge concerning the greater heresies such as atheism, but is the heresy of denying that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is the only way to heaven, any less a heresy? Is this not the heresy of heresies? Is not the incarnation of Christ the very catalyst for the gathering of the Seven Ecumenical Councils? The fact is sure that there exists absolute truth, that it is preserved in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church under faithful and obedient Bishops, and that we are commanded by God to judge as to the adherence or the straying from that truth. To judge in this manner is Orthodox. To fail to judge in this manner is to adhere to the modern Western philosophy of relativism, the heresy of Ecumenism and follow a false road to unity that leads to destruction.

It is our prayer and desire that all who are in communion with the bishops, priests, or churches who have become apostate and part of the World Council of Churches, who adhere to the unscriptural tenants of Ecumenism and who have sided either knowingly or unknowingly with those who have split the church with the New Calendar innovation, either depose their hierarchy or remove themselves from them. This is scriptural. This is Canonical. This is Orthodox. Thus, to the Antiochian Diocese, all members of the World Council of Churches all participants in Ecumenism, all members of SCOBA, all local priests, deacons and parishioners, I offer the same exhortation and proclamation that Saint Maximus the Confessor did to Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia. It is as relevant today as it was then. Only the names have changed,

“Let these offences, introduced by Ecumenical Patriarchs Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul into the Church, be removed; let those who have introduced them be deposed; and then the path to salvation will be cleared of all barriers, and you will walk on the smooth path of the Gospel, cleansed of all heresy! When I see the Church of Constantinople as she was formerly, then I will enter into communion with her without any exhortation on the part of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will convince me ever to enter into communion with her.”

One final question follows,

“Was Saint Maximus the Confessor being “uncanonical”?

Neither are those today who withdraw from heretics, for such are the True, Genuine and canonical Orthodox Christians, The Orthodox Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against them.

“Illumine with the light of awareness the apostates from the Orthodox Faith, and those blinded by pernicious heresies, and number them with Thy Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church.”

With a desire to remain free of unreasonable accusation, my wife and I and our daughters unanimously decided to leave our local church and the Antiochian Diocese only having delivered by mail, the brief departure letter. We made no public or private announcements, have not engaged parishioners, distributed information, nor attempted to encourage others to join us. We will, however, from this point on, preach, teach and practice that which has been handed down to us encouraging all within our voice to join one of the faithful groups of True or Genuine Orthodox believers and their Bishops. For where such a Bishop is there alone is the canonical church.

May God have mercy on our souls and forgive all our trespasses even as we forgive those who have trespassed against us.

Nathan Lee Lewis

It's About Time!

Kudos to the Antiochian Diocese in the Oklahoma City area for actually letting people know that the Orthodox faith exists!



It reminds me of the childhood song,

This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

Hide it under a bushel? No!
I'm gonna let it shine
Hide it under a bushel? No!
I'm gonna let it shine
Hide it under a bushel? No!
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

Don't let Satan blow it out,
I'm gonna let it shine
Don't let Satan blow it out,
I'm gonna let it shine
Don't let Satan blow it out,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

Shine all over

[name of town]

I'm gonna let it shine
Shine all over

[name of town]

I'm gonna let it shine
Shine all over

[name of town]

I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

Let it shine til Jesus comes,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine til Jesus comes,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine til Jesus comes,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
This little light of mine,
I'm gonna let it shine
Let it shine,
Let it shine,
Let it shine.

The Stigma Of Depression

It is Orthodox that we are in bodies suffering from the fall of man. Sin and disease are the result. Our bodies, through environment and genetics lack what they need and some have more need than others. Cancer is an imbalance in an individual's system that allows the cells to mutate. Balance the system and the cancer goes away. Depression is an imbalance in the system. Balance the system and the depression goes away. Why does one have a stigma and not the other? Depression is a symptom and cannot be seen under a microscope as can cancer. Causes of depression vary with each host- same as cancer. Cures vary with each host-same as cancer. Unfortunately, psychologists have cornered the market on the treatment of depression as a behavior anomaly. The cure is to treat the needs of the body. Psychotropic drugs are not a cure and mask the symptoms. They are of great value in that they allow a person to cope through what can be desperate episodes, but left as a single treatment, the sufferer may never be fully healthy. A person with a propensity toward depression will always have to be on guard. His lifestyle, eating, rest periods, supplements will have to be specific to his needs. It is not a mystery nor a secret that depression is fully curable. A medical doctor needs to be educated. They will not routinely look for the causes such as vitamin deficiencies, kidney malfunction, both related to the body's ability to filter nutrients. Doctors such as Asa Andrews have a holistic approach to life and health from this perspective. Getting on his lifestyle system may change your life. You can enter a time of your life where there are NO episodes and no credit given to anti-depressants. That in effect is a cure. Please forgive if I presume to know too much. I am a living example of everything I just described. For those who would stigmatize the sufferer of depression-would you tell a cancer patient to "snap out of it" or to "have more faith"?

These Mortal Bodies

At first glance it seems encouraging that God has made we humans "a little lower than the angels". Combined with the promise that one day our "little lower" rank will be elevated above the angels is cause for hope. But these mortal bodies do fail us and cause us pain. We are always grateful for the years that God has given us whether our change from mortal to immortal bodies comes in our youth or waits until our old age. I ask all JTO readers to offer at least one prayer for the health and welfare of my earthy father, who at 81 years of age is now faced with a degenerative spine condition. He, much like his father before him, would never willingly stop serving the Lord and being physically active to bring all that will into the Kingdom. He is stubborn to the point of defusing any talk of His condition, which includes extreme pain and the eventual inability to be mobile, to the fact that Creator God knows all about it and will take care of him. Reverend Bill H. Lewis cannot defuse our prayers for him, however, and since I am certain this lifelong Baptist Pastor doesn't read my Orthodox Blog, perhaps I will escape his rebuke for my public request on his behalf.

Christ Is Risen!

Statement of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

We – the Bishops, clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, feel compelled to call as much attention as possible to the following statement.

At the present time, the enemies of Orthodoxy – the Moscow Patriarchate, together with its subservient bureaucrats in the Russian Government – are doing everything possible to completely destroy the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.

This persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church has been going on since the very beginning of our open existence.

During the 1990’s, across Russia, the authorities sought to physically repress any attempt of the faithful who had freed themselves from the pro-Communist and Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate to obtain for their religious needs even a small number of the buildings that had historically been Orthodox churches and had survived the Communist period, in the sole place in Russia where the Russian Orthodox Church was able to organize itself in freedom from lies, betrayals, and heresy – the small city of Suzdal. These authorities illegally took churches away from us, refused to allow us to incorporate our dioceses and parishes, beat our clergy and parishioners up, and slandered us in the press and over the airwaves.

Then, an attempt was made to destroy our Church morally, by slandering and trying our First Hierarch in court. Since there was nothing with which to accuse us, they began to broadcast lies and slander through the mass media to make people who would believe such accusations turn away from our Church. This attempt had some partial success, but our Church remained.

Now, the Vladimir Office of Rossimushchestvo (Russian Federal Property Office), and those who stand behind it, have decided to use the courts to take our churches in Suzdal away from us, in order to deprive us of the possibility of preaching and holding Divine Services in public.

At one time, in the beginning of the 1990’s, when the Communist Party and its stranglehold on power in our country came to an end, the churches began to be returned to people of faith – those who had survived the Soviet meat-grinder; the descendants of those who had built these churches, in the first place. We received all of these churches in accordance with the law, and most of them were in deplorable condition when we received them. And now, after our parishioners have invested so much of their time and money into bringing them into proper shape and embellishing them, the bureaucrats have decided to sue them away from us so that they can give them to the Moscow Patriarchate and use them for their own common purposes.

Our communities of faithful believers are the only lawful proprietors of these buildings, to whom the government had simply returned that which had previously been taken away from them by force – their own inheritance that had been stolen away from them by the Bolsheviks. The faithful were the ones who received them back, they are the ones who restored them, they are the ones who preserved them for the government, and they are the ones who use these churches and maintain them in proper manner. These facts should have been the deciding factor in the courts of the legality of our using these churches. But instead of handing down a fair decision and leaving these churches with the faithful, the courts trampled upon their civil rights, as well as their religious sensibilities, and the Constitution of their own government. Could this happen anywhere else in the world but in Russia?

What this means is that the time has not come to an end in Russia when the authorities, like thieves, acting in opposition to their own people, can appropriate for themselves all of the Orthodox churches they want, deciding the fate of our holy things in accordance with their own whims, can make a mockery out of the religious feelings of people of faith, and dispose of anyone that they don’t happen to like. Now, we are witnesses to a repetition of the past. The tyranny of the bureaucrats continues on who, in the name of government, lord it over the people, and decide the fate of the inheritance that the nation has received from its ancestors. Instead of preserving the nation, instead of preserving our Faith, instead of preserving the government, instead of safeguarding the people, the authorities, in order to please the modern-day Pharisees of the “official church,” exile Orthodox Christians who are guilty of doing nothing wrong, and annihilate the last shreds of religious liberty.

However, their war is not with us. Their war is with Almighty God, Who will quickly repay His enemies for their evil deeds.

Together with the Prophet and King David, our response is, “Our God is refuge and strength, a helper in afflictions which mightily befall us” (Psalm 45:1). Let our oppressors prosper in their luxuries and power. Let them rejoice in their high-sounding titles. Let them “devour widows’ houses” (Matt. 23:14), let them amass their comforts in the bosom of the bureaucracy. We, however, will follow the path of the New Martyrs of Russia – the straight and narrow path of Christ.

We know that very soon, in the churches that belong to us, we shall see the bailiffs of the courts and the militia (OMON), which will beat us up and chase our clergy and people out of their churches. In a word, we shall see the repetition of the same things that took place in our unfortunate country during the horrendous years of the 1920’s and the 1930’s.

In conclusion, we wish to say, not to the district attorneys and judges, but to those people who are standing in the wings behind them and directing this repression against us: We understand that you do not believe in God, but why do you have no fear of bringing yet more shame upon your country?

President of the Synod of Bishops Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir.

Members of the Synod of Bishops:

Archbishop Theodore,

Archbishop Seraphim,

Archbishop Viktor,

Archbishop Hilarion,

Bishop Timothy,

Bishop Irinarkh,

Bishop Andrew,

Bishop Yakov.

Bishops say "NO" to Antiochian Synod and Metroplitan Philip's Power Grab

Bishop Basil of The Diocese Wichita and Mid-America and Bishop Mark of the Diocese of Toledo and the Mid West have refused to sign a document "Affirming Obedience" to the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch and Metropolitan Philip that demotes the Bishops to the status of Auxiliary. The document entitled:

RESOLUTION AFFIRMING OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009,WHICH NORMALIZES THE STATUS OF BISHOPS ACROSS THE ENTIRE SEE OF ANTIOCH

The decision, made without consulting the Bishops, raised questions including the canonicity, the legality and the underlying motives of such a sweeping decision. Another Bishop, Alexander of the Diocese of Ottowa Eastern Canada and Upstate New York, also did not sign the document but instead, wrote a note on the signature line saying "this decision is not in effect and does not need my signature." Only three of the six Bishops signed the document, virtually dividing the consensus in half.

Antiochian churches across North America and especially those in the diocese of the resisting bishops now wait to see what the ramifications of such a refusal to sign will have. A few churches have already met on the parish level to discuss the issues involving the possible departure of the Bishops from he Antiochian jurisdiction under Metropolitan Philip or the possibility that Metropolitan Philip and the Antiochian See will recognize the strong opposition to their recent action, not only from the bishops but from clergy and laymen alike.

Many of we who are converts are struck by the blatant papist elements of such an edict that seems to usurp the consensus/synod elements of the faith giving the power of decision to one man in a region. It is not uncommon for one man to have authority over a region, however, what is uncommon is for a region which already has Bishops in place to remove or demote those bishops who have committed no infraction and are in total compliance with the Self Ruling documents already in place. It seems to JTO that the reasons for the demotion of these good men lies in who refused to sign and why. Why would two of the most respected and revered bishops in the entire diocese so openly resist? We can only hope that this information would come from their mouths and very soon.

The official statement from Metropolitan Philip as to why this action was taken is still cryptic and couched in platitudes. The fact of the matter is, he attempted to enforce an independent decision. Half of his bishops refused to sign on to it and the parishioners have rejected it. While it is true that,"Where the bishop is there is the church", it is also true that if you lose the people there is no need for a bishop. Unless you are a papist.

The Bolsheviks Are Back

Author Unknown...

For us who witnessed the fall of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist dictatorship 20 years ago, it was impossible to believe then that the atheist establishment that fell with such a bang would have been back in business in such a short time. Unfortunately we are re-living the times of 1917 when the Godless regime attempted to drown and extinguish Orthodoxy. Ninety years later after committing unspeakable crimes against the True Orthodox Church of Russia, a new wave of persecution has been unleashed, camouflaged under the cloak of law enforcement by a pseudo-democratic state.

It appears now as if nothing has changed: The state is still trying to suppress and choke off True Orthodoxy, the MP is a cheerleader of the Godless regime (Sergianism in full bloom) and the True Orthodox are once again running for the Catacombs. It is dejavou all over again with two notable exceptions:
* This time the government is pretending to be a democracy enforcing equitable laws and treating everyone equally and
* the MP is an instigator of much of the suffering inflicted on fellow Orthodox if one can ever accept that the MP is Orthodox.

The collusion of MP and the government is clear against those whose only crime is that they are not followers of the government-approved faith. It is inconceivable that in the 21 century, in a country that calls itself Orthodox, the government is seizing and closing Churches and persecuting its citizens merely because they do not follow the faith approved by the government. It is difficult to believe that the True Orthodox of Russia have to revert to asking for help from western heretics to defend them from their fellow "Orthodox". It is difficult to believe that protestants and catholics and Pentecostals are treated as fellow Christians and the True Orthodox are treated as if they are non-believers (as is the case of the Constantinople Patriarchate in its attempt to muzzle the Esphigmenou Monastery and the Traditional movement in general).

I have spent some time in the Middle East where churches were not allowed to place a cross on their buildings but the reason of course is that Christianity is not an accepted religion in Muslim countries. Russia these days resembles a Muslim country when it comes to the Churches of ROAC: ROAC has not been allowed to place a cross or cuppalas on the two churches that have been built in Moscow by private donations and private efforts on private land. Is the present government in Russia of the same mindset? You decide for yourself. If you do not believe what you are reading and find these facts incredible, then please open your eyes and beware of the creeping reality because as they say back in the old country "today it is my neighbors feast but it is also the eve of my celebration". Today it is ROAC in the crosshairs of the neo-soviets. Without a doubt the other Traditional Churches will not escape such treatment when the MP and the government masters find it opportune to smash the competition and silence their voices.

Does Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Have Authority Over the Whole of Orthodoxy?

"In true Orthodoxy, canonicity is not determined by individuals and church politics, but by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. There is no canon promulgated by any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which even remotely suggests that every single Orthodox Jurisdiction must be in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It would be churlish to suggest that given his greatly diminished territorial stature (the Turkish government recently reminded him of the tiny Christian population of his see) he should be stripped of his title of First among Equals. He should rightly remain as the first spokesman of the Church (although the current Patriarch’s dalliance with ecumenism is causing questions to be raised amongst some Churches in this regard). But at no time should he be regarded as exercising any form of temporal or ecclesial jurisdiction. He is simply the 270^th successor of the Apostle Andrew in the See of Constantinople; and that is the greatest of his honours." (See the Full Article HERE from The Hermitage Journal) [UPDATE: 3/9/11-The link provided here has joined a series of links making itself available to members only and is password protected. Prompting the question, why? Seems there are more "orthodox" sites becoming unavailable to the public since the coup of the MP. Also watch for revisionist history, particularly in new additions of books and other Orthodox materials.]

So stop throwing around the phrase "You must be "canonical" as if every Orthodox Bishop must be in communion or under the reign of the Ecumenical Patriarch. That concept is Papism and Papism is certainly not canonical. A Bishopric/Church/Diocese is canonical if it has authentic succession, follows the canons of the Church as presented by the historic Ecumenical Councils, and teaches what has been believed by the Church at all times in all places. This is what Antiochian Metropolitan Philip has refused to accept as he has recently demanded the written acquiescence of his fellow Bishops to the Antiochian Patriarch's decision to demote them without cause.

Here are some of the more relevant questions about canonicity:

1. Is Pseudo-Patriarch Bartholomew canonical when he teaches that there are paths to God other than through Jesus Christ? Do the churches who remain in communion with the heretical Patriarch retain their canonicity?

2. Are Bishops canonical when they issue an edict forbidding all Orthodox to evangelize people of other "christian faiths" in order to preserve "unity"?

3. Is a Bishop or church canonical when it follows a New Calender innovation introduced by a single heretical Masonic Bishop removing that which was practiced by the whole Church and since the First Ecumenical Council?

4. Is any jurisdiction canonical when it considers the Roman Catholic Church to be a sister church sharing the same Eucharistic sacrament?

The Ecumenical Patriarch has been uncanonical in all of these matters. One cannot with integrity broach the issue of canonicity without dealing first with these and other similar questions.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Question: "Should not we cease to emphasize our differences and unite in a spirit of love?"

Answer: "If we, supposedly in the name of love, so as not to trouble our neighbors, are going to keep quiet about their error and not explain to them that they are on a false path, then this is not love at all but hatred! Does he do well who, upon seeing a blind man approaching a precipice, does not tell him about it, so as not to 'trouble' him? Is that then love?"

Antiochians And All Other Parishoners Of "World Orthodoxy"

This is the theology of your hierarchy- your Ecumenical Patriarch, your Patriarchs, your Metropolitans, your Bishops, your Priests and your Deacons who are part of SCOBA and are part of the World Council of Churches and who adopted the following mission statement. Is this what you believe?

The Barr Statement of the World Council of Churches

"That in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word the entire human family has been united to God in an irrevocable bond and covenant. The saving presence of God's activity in all creation in all creation and human history comes to its focal point in the event of Christ...

[Good so far? Look at the rest...]

...because we have experienced goodness, truth and holiness among followers of other paths and ways than that of Jesus Christ..., we find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ."

"Choose you this day whom you will serve."

Saint John Chrysostom's Pascal Homely

If any man be devout and loveth God,
Let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast!
If any man be a wise servant,
Let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord.

If any have laboured long in fasting,
Let him how receive his recompense.
If any have wrought from the first hour,
Let him today receive his just reward.
If any have come at the third hour,
Let him with thankfulness keep the feast.
If any have arrived at the sixth hour,
Let him have no misgivings;
Because he shall in nowise be deprived therefore.
If any have delayed until the ninth hour,
Let him draw near, fearing nothing.
And if any have tarried even until the eleventh hour,
Let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness.

For the Lord, who is jealous of his honour,
Will accept the last even as the first.
He giveth rest unto him who cometh at the eleventh hour,
Even as unto him who hath wrought from the first hour.
And He showeth mercy upon the last,
And careth for the first;
And to the one He giveth,
And upon the other He bestoweth gifts.
And He both accepteth the deeds,
And welcometh the intention,
And honoureth the acts and praises the offering.

Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord;
Receive your reward,
Both the first, and likewise the second.
You rich and poor together, hold high festival!
You sober and you heedless, honour the day!
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted
And you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously.
The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:
Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.

Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?

Christ is risen, and thou art overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead,
Is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be glory and dominion
Unto ages of ages.

Amen.

"A Brief Analysis of the Current Situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese"

Unsigned Document
Full PDF File Here

A Brief Analysis of the Current Situation in the Antiochian Archdiocese April 6, 2009

What Happened?

In February, the Holy Synod met and claimed to have changed its bylaws to “normalize” its rules governing non-Metropolitan bishops, even though it did not have a quorum present to issue a binding decision under its own rules.

In the Antiochian Church today, there are only three bishops, other than our own Diocesan Bishops, who are not Metropolitans—and one of these bishops—the Patriarchal Vicar—is not permitted to be a Metropolitan. Although couched as a decision affecting the entire Patriarchate, the decision, if binding, would affect North America disproportionately.

Metropolitan PHILIP then issued a directive stating that, as a result of the Holy Synod’s decision, our Diocesan Bishops were (a) reduced in status to Auxiliary Bishops and (b) not permitted to do anything contrary to the will of the Metropolitan.

Metropolitan PHILIP regularly states that this is a “narrow administrative change” and that nothing really changed—the Local Synod continues to exist and the bishops in the Archdiocese just have an added title to their names—“Auxiliary.” Quite the opposite is true. Although the Local Synod may still “make decisions,” Metropolitan PHILIP’s directive clearly prohibits any bishops from opposing his own will, as some have in the past.

Is the Action Binding on the Archdiocese?

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because it is noncanonical. The Holy Canons are exceedingly clear that one bishop may not be subjected to the authority of another bishop without (a) the consent of the affected bishop or (b) a conviction of the affected bishop by an ecclesiastical court for conduct unbecoming a bishop or teaching or action contrary to Scriptures, the Holy Canons, or Holy Tradition. This ecclesiological structure is one of the fundamental differences between Holy Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism; Holy Orthodoxy does not tolerate and has never tolerated superbishops. Metropolitan PHILIP himself has said, in response to a query from Bishop BASIL, that none of the Diocesan Bishops have done anything wrong.

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because its decision was not properly taken in accordance with its own rules that require a quorum of at least 11 of its 20 members to be present before it can take binding action. The signatures of only 9 members were affixed to the document faxed to Metropolitan PHILIP, and the presence of at least one of those bishops was unlikely. Metropolitan PHILIP indicates that the document was faxed to other members of the Synod for approval, but signatures after the meeting by members not present would not make the action binding after the fact.

The Holy Synod’s action is not binding because its decision violates its grant of self-rule to the Archdiocese in 2003. The Holy Synod bound itself to revising its own Constitution to reflect the special “self-rule” status for our Archdiocese. Although the Holy Synod never got around to amending its Constitution as promised, its failure in this regard did not make self-rule any less of a reality.

On a number of previous occasions (primarily dealing with differences in the Archdiocesan Constitution as adopted by the General Assembly and as approved by the Holy Synod), Metropolitan PHILIP and the Archdiocesan Legal Department themselves have insisted in no uncertain terms that:

The Holy Synod’s grant of self-rule was irrevocable; and

The Holy Synod, by reason of its grant of self-rule, was not permitted to interfere in the administration of the Archdiocese.

Since 2003, our Diocesan Bishops have been exempt from the rules that the Holy Synod attempted to amend in February:

The Holy Synod’s Bylaws have always contained rules that make non-Metropolitan bishops into what we refer to as “Auxiliary Bishops.”

The Holy Synod’s grant of self-rule to our Archdiocese removed our Diocesan Bishop from the scope of these rules.

The Holy Synod’s purported action in February simply amended the existing rules governing Auxiliary Bishops and would, if binding, have no effect on our Diocesan Bishops—they have been exempt from these rules since the Holy Synod granted self-rule to our Archdiocese.

The Metropolitan’s directive violates the Archdiocesan Certificate of Incorporation and the Constitution approved by the people.

Section 2(c) of the Archdiocese’s Certificate of Incorporation provides that, if the provisions of the Archdiocesan Constitution are not followed as the result of an action taken outside the Archdiocese, both the Board of Trustees and the Local Synod must take “all necessary action to protect the Archdiocese.” Our Board of Trustees and Local Synod (including Metropolitan PHILIP) have a legal obligation to take all necessary action to protect the Archdiocese from any attempts by the Holy Synod to reduce the status of our Diocesan Bishops.

The Archdiocesan Constitution provides very clearly that the decision-making power in the Archdiocese resides in the Local Synod and not in the Metropolitan.

Metropolitan PHILIP and the Archdiocesan Legal Department have reminded the Faithful many times that the Archdiocesan Constitution may only be changed by following the procedures set forth in it. These procedures have not been followed, in disregard of both (a) the Constitution approved by the Faithful and (b) the Metropolitan’s own past insistences.

Why was this Done?

At this time, we can only speculate as to the reasons for this action. The national Association of Orthodox Christian Attorneys has published a helpful and well-documented factual timeline of the Archdiocese’s path to self-rule and situations that have occurred since at http://www.orthodoxattorneys.org/resources.html.

The facts, themselves, suggest a number of reasons, but it is up to you to develop your own thoughts in the matter. www.ocanews.org also has some excellent discussion of this issue, but you must be careful to distinguish between fact and rumor.

What can be Done?

Pray. The prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

Think clearly. Our Metropolitan has done much good for this Archdiocese. There may be a temptation, as was the case with (Father) Joseph Allen, to give Metropolitan PHILIP what he wants simply because he has done these good things. The Metropolitan’s directive, however, strikes at the very heart of the Orthodox Faith. Never before in history has our Church permitted the authority of a bishop to be reduced by other bishops without that bishop’s consent or a conviction of that bishop for wrongdoing. The Metropolitan wants us to accept his short-term practical answer (“nothing has really changed”) to a question both of principle (“do the Canons permit this?”) and one of long-term reality (“assuming nothing would really change during the Metropolitan’s tenure, what happens after he dies?”).

Act like a responsible Orthodox Christian layperson.

When a bishop acts in a manner not sanctioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, the laity have a distinct role that they are obligated to exercise—the laity are the guarantee of the Orthodoxy of the Church. When most of the bishops at the Council of Florence signed a statement of agreement with the Papal authorities, they returned home to laity who refused to comply. Ultimately, these bishops either recanted their agreements or were treated as heretics because of the pressure brought by the people.

Consider contacting all members of the Board of Trustees and the Local Synod (including your Diocesan Bishop), encouraging them to hold fast against this noncanonical situation and to meet their legal obligation to protect this Archdiocese from the Holy Synod’s attempted action.

Advocate for the true practice of our Orthodox Faith; don’t attack people or personalities. Be respectful in all that you do, no matter how distasteful you find something.

Understand that not everyone is compelled to protest this action in the same manner. Different Orthodox Christians will find different ways that are best suited to their souls.

The Heretical State-Owned Moscow Patriarchate Strikes Again!

From Bishop Andrew Of the ROAC:

As has been reported in recent news stories, the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church is being sued for possession of 13 churches that it received from local authorities over the past 15-20 years, which were received by us in utterly ruined conditions and carefully renovated and returned to use as churches at our expense. The cases were heard at trial on February 5th by the Vladimir Regional Court of Arbitration. This court ruled against the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church and ordered the local authorities to confiscate the churches. We were given 30 days to vacate the buildings. Appeals were begun, and recently the Court of Appeals postponed the hearing of these cases until the 24th of April. Believing that the Court of Appeals is prejudiced against us, and in compliance with the court order, our people have been trying to gradually remove our belongings from these churches - vestments, icons, church vessels, books, etc. Two of our deacons were recently detained by the local police, who explained that they had received a request from the Moscow Patriarchate not to allow us to remove our own belongings from these churches. Apparently, they think that they have a right even to those furnishings that we have placed in these churches.

Today, on Orthodox Good Friday, Metropolitan Valentine made a frantic telephone call to Bishop Andrew of Pavlovskoye, who resides in the US, and had time enough to say only that he and those with him have been arrested for entering the church to serve Holy Week services, before his telephone call was cut off.

We ask all of our people to pray for the deliverance of our FIRST HIERARCH from police custody, and we ask all men of good will, who value the rights of people everywhere to pray in peace and freedom of conscience, as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution of the new Russian Federation, to make their concerns known to the authorities both in Russia and in their respective countries.

Bishop Andrew
95 Elm Street
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 USA
Telephone: (347) 321-4870
Mobile: (551) 580-4965
Fax: (208) 730-7551
Email: bishopandrei@gmail.com

UPDATE: 9 pm 4/17/09 Metropolitan Valentine has been released. More to follow...

A Question For The Entire Orthodox World- About Baptism

Here is the question:

Is there any scenario in which an individual who has NOT been baptized by

"triple immersion" AND in "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit",

can be received into the Orthodox Church through Chrismation alone?

Rules for responding:

1. You must be Orthodox to answer.
2. Keep answers to five sentences or less.( You may refer to links for documentation.)
3. Refrain from personal opinion.

Thanks!

The Approach of The One World Church

World orthodoxy is the end-time Church in ecumenical union either directly, or by association, with the one world church about to be revealed.

The equation should be: Julian (old) Calendar + Holy Tradition + The Seven Ecumenical Councils + the Holy Scriptures + the Holy Fathers = Holy Orthodoxy.

Today, world orthodoxy is abandoning, more and more, one or more of the "parts" which make up this equation.

How Apostasy Approaches:



Notice how it flees when confronted face to face!