Author: orthodoxaustralia

“Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”

Every Sunday during the Beatitudes part of the Divine Liturgy, we hear this being chanted:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 5:3). The same paragraph in Luke 6:20 simply says “Blessed are the poor” (without the “in spirit” part). At first this may seem an insignificant detail, but in essence it makes a world of a difference.

In order to understand this from a deeper perspective, let us start by asking ourselves, what does to be “poor” really mean? If we first get to understand what being poor means, then we will be able to really understand the difference better, and this is very important as many today will misinterpret the words of St Luke.

To be poor means to be living in state of being short of something that is necessary for one’s existence. Someone finding himself in this state of “poverty” acknowledges the state he is in by recognizing the fact that something essential is missing in his life, which makes it hard for him to make it without. One who would look upon himself and see no shortcomings would not see himself in a state of being “poor”. When the Gospel speaks of “Blessed are the poor” it must be understood that one who hopes to make it to the kingdom of Heaven must have some real sense of poverty about himself, for if he sees himself rich and fulfilled he can’t possibly hope to be saved.

Now let us go back to the passage at the beginning of our assertion. Having understood these basic principles, we can now understand that the Gospel here, when saying “Blessed are the poor”, really means “Blessed are those who see their state of poverty”. Wow, all of a sudden a whole new meaning opens up to our understanding: blessed is the one who understand the precarious state he is in and strives to do something about it. Isn’t this the very essence of Orthodoxy?

Why is the clarification in Matthew important and why is the more complete form of this Beatitude the one referred to in our Divine Services? When we say “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” it means “Blessed are those who see their spiritual poverty for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”. How does that compare to “Blessed are the poor (materially) for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”?

Can we see the difference? Spiritual meanings are always higher. Not that the wordly poverty is not important towards one’s salvation, but it cannot be regarded as more important as the spiritual poverty. Worldly poverty means the death of the body, where spiritual poverty means the death of the soul.

Which one is more important?

This photograph is his Eminence Metropolitan Paul (Saliba). He passed away to the Lord about three days ago. Aged about 78. He was the bishop for Australia & most of the Southern Hemisphere Churches under Antioch.

Forgive me for not being too precise. No doubt details will be in a booklet which the Antiochian Archdiocese must print ASAP. I say “must”, otherwise another righteous one will soon be forgotten – a modern trend which began in the twentieth century & is designed to deliberately obliterate the lives of the saints and of those who expended their energy on promoting genuine Original Christianity.

His Eminence ordained me onto the priest hood in early 2000, on Trinity Sunday. Henceforth we developed a rather truthful relationship with each other. I would advise him on various, usually esoteric issues and he would use his wisdom to quickly resolve some bother that I had from time to time. A few words and all fell into place.
There were of course enemies that tried to destroy our unique relationship, but thanks be to the Lord Who scattered these machinations.

The Metropolitan reposed during the Apostles Fast & during the days of the repose of Holy Hierarch John (1966) – possibly the holiest man of the twentieth century, as well as the repose of the spiritual father of our English mission (2014), Abbot Hieromonk Herman of Platina, the mentor & spiritual father of Blessed Father Seraphim Rose. These are not coincidences, but God’s Providence in action.

Some will surely attack his Eminence through the Canons & by judging him for appearing too “loose” in his missionary activities. The truth of these will be revealed in due course. Certainly one would have to have a loose screw, if they did not recognise his Eminence’s magnum opus; “Antiochian Village”. Imagine the prayer state that he had to walk in, to make such a project come to fruition.

I have said too much. Forgive me. Just one point you should all keep close to your hearts, actually two. His Eminence was not a vindictive, nor revengeful person, but one of a kind heart once you found it
And finally remember that the Antiochian Archdiocese is barely 100 years old, after being under numerous destructive forces for over 1000 years. One would be very unfair to judge this against the centuries of refinement that the other jurisdictions possess.

With love in Christ
Fr Vladimir

Fr Vladimir’s message to Metropolitan Paul last year, June 30 2016:

Our dear Eminence, Metropolitan Paul
MANY YEARS MASTER
We say again
MANY YEARS MASTER

On behalf of our small English language mission, of Saint Herman of Alaska and of the Dormition of the Theotokas, we are sending you our prayers and the Apostolic grace from the Apostles Peter and Paul, which we know has been bestowed upon your Eminence, to grant you many years, but also the energy and holy creativity, to continue and to increase in the fruitfulness, which you have brought to Australia and other places of the Lord’s Southern Hemisphere.

Be assured always of our support and brotherly love towards yourself, even though we lament that we do not see you as often as we would wish. This we attribute to and rejoice in the fact that the Lord has you as a “prisoner”, on freely executing His Holy Will. This, anyone wishing to see, can easily observe, on account of the Orthodox growth that has occurred since the coverage by your Omophorion.

May we all live to see another Feastday of your’s and may it show forth an exponential increase in the Orthodox fruitfulness which is so needed in our apostate times, to overcome and put to shame the evil powers’ power, which mistakingly believe they have, when in fact they flee in great confusion, even at the slightest vision of the Precious and Life-giving Cross. And even more so at the utterance of ;

“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

Again, many years Master. Pray for us all.

Your unworthy
Fr Vladimir (Ivlenkov) and Parish.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1931360677147859&id=100008218360484

There may be something rather intriguing in this Epistle of Holy Apostle Paul to the Galatians which starts off with what may look a very clear passage that may seem to be very straightforward and leaving little room for interpretation:

5:1 “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage”

Ask any of the theological scholars today and most will tell you that this will refer to our civic (social) duty to stand up for our God given liberties. Examining everything happening in the world today, the world does indeed seem to want us to only look upon the earthly things and meanings, and if we do fall into this trap then we shall indeed fail. After all is this not the very essence of the Heresy of Social Gospel which is trying to pervert the meaning of the word of God towards a strictly worldly (social) interpretation?

What we are hoping to raise awareness of in our short dissertation is exactly to look at this Epistle and understand it in a deeper, spiritual sense. The deeper meaning of this epistle is a little more subtle and harder to grasp, and it has nothing to do with the physical but with spiritual freedom.

Let us start with this quote:

5:18 “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”

This paragraph may sound extraordinary and unconceivable to someone who sees the organization of the Church today in a strictly worldly sense. Is the apostle here hinting that one has the freedom to disregard the law (the canon) if he liveth in the Spirit?

One of the written canons of those times was related to circumcision, and the Apostle is clearly taking the opportunity to respond to some dispute that seemed to had arisen surrounding it in his letter, making the case that we ought to be very careful that we do not kill the spirit of the law by the letter of the law. When looked in this light, it becomes clear that the liberty the apostle is speaking of by no means refers to physical freedom, but is a warning of not looking at the law strictly from a worldly point of view, thus ignoring the danger of falling into spiritual bondage!

The Apostle even goes and makes the case against one of the canons of those days, that which required every male child be circumcised, if that canon is used against the Spirit of the Law:

5:3-4 “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”

Particularly relevant is to correctly understanding this today, when the world is concerning itself with following the law only in a worldly way, which will inevitably lead to the spiritual bondage of Antichrist.

Fr Seraphim Rose of blessed memory warned about it this way:

“We are absolutely resolved, in all obedience to the Church and lawful ecclesiastical authority, not to become a part of any such mockery. We pray that our firmness will not lead to any scandal, and that we can proceed according to the letter as well as the spirit of all the Church’s canons. But we know also that the canons were made for man, and not man for the canons, that above the canons is the spirit that inspired them, and that to preserve this spirit we are prepared even to go against the letter of separate canons, if these are enforced in order to crush our spirit. In actual fact, no one would dream of trying to enforce the letter of every canon today, for then there would be no Orthodox Christians left at all!”

http://orthodoxaustralia.org/2016/05/03/letters-of-fr-seraphim-rose-077-mar-24april-6-1971/

Other references:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5&version=KJV

Deutsche Bank accepted an earlier settlement by admitting rigging precious metal markets for turning others in. There is a bigger (involving many more banks) and far more important lawsuit in New York specifically for the rigging of Silver which is far more important to watch. Insider sources said that the US Govenrment specifically asked that the lawsuit be delayed for 1 year (that was in december 2016 – probably because it would blow the cover of the involvement of the US FED as well) very soon after this was reported:

A Letter to Thomas Merton, 1962

By Eugene [Fr. Seraphim] Rose

(excerpts in video format and some very important additional information at the end of the article – please watch)

I am a young American convert to Russian Orthodoxy—not the vague “liberal” spirituality of too many modern Russian “religious thinkers,” but the full ascetic and contemplative Orthodoxy of the Fathers and Saints—who have for some years been studying the spiritual “crisis” of our time, and am at present writing a book on the subject. [1] In the course of my study I have had occasion to read the works of a great number of Roman Catholic authors, some of which (those, for example, of Pieper, Picard, Gilson, P. Danielou, P. de Lubac) I have found quite helpful and not, after all, too distant from the Orthodox perspective, but others of which I have found quite disturbing in the light of what seems to me the plain teaching of the universal Church. I have read several of your works, and especially in some recent articles of yours I seem to find signs of one of the tendencies in contemporary Roman thought (it exists in Orthodoxy too, to be sure) that has most disturbed me. Since you are a Roman monk, I turn to you as to someone likely to clarify the ambiguities I have found in this trend of thought. What I would like to discuss chiefly concerns what might be called the “social mission” of the Church.

In an essay entitled Christian Action in World Crisis [2] you devote yourself especially to the question of “peace.” In an age when war has become virtually “impossible,” this is, of course, of central concern to any Christian, but your remarks particularly on this subject have left me troubled.

What, first of all, are the real antagonists of the spiritual warfare of our age? To say “Russia and America” is, of course, trivial; the enemy, as you say, “is in all of us.” But you further say, “The enemy is war itself” and its roots, “hatred, fear, selfishness, lust.”

Now I can quite agree with you that war today, at least “total war,” is quite unjustifiable by any Christian standard, for the simple reason that its “unlimited” nature escapes measure of any sort. The point in your argument that disturbs me is your statement that the only alternative to such war is “peace.”

The alternative to “total war” would seem to be “total peace;” but what does such a “peace” imply? You say, “we must try as best we can to work for the eventual abolition” of war; and that is indeed what “total peace” must be: abolition of war. Not the kind of peace men have known before this, but an entirely new and “permanent” peace.

Such a goal, of course, is quite comprehensible to the modern mentality; modern political idealism, Marxist and “democratic” alike has long cherished it. But what of Christianity?—and I mean full uncompromising Christianity, not the humanist idealism that calls itself Christian. Is not Christianity supremely hostile to all forms of idealism, to all reduction of its quite “realistic” end and means to mere lofty ideas? Is the ideal of the “abolition of war” really different in kind from such other lofty aims as the “abolition” of disease, of suffering, of sin, of death? All of these ideals have enlisted the enthusiasm of some modern idealist or other, but it is quite clear to the Christian that they are secularizations and so perversions of genuine Christian hopes. They can be realized only in Christ, only in His Kingdom that is not of this world; when faith in Christ and hope in His Kingdom are wanting, when the attempt is made to realize Christian “ideals” in this world—then there is idolatry, the spirit of Antichrist. Disease, suffering, sin, and death are an unavoidable part of the world we know as a result of the Fall. They can only be eliminated by a radical transformation of human nature, a transformation possible only in Christ and fully only after death.

I personally think that “total peace” is, at bottom, a utopian ideal; but the very fact that it seems practical today raises a profounder question. For, to my mind, the profoundest enemy of the Church today is not its obvious enemies—war, hatred, atheism, materialism, all the forces of the impersonal that lead to inhuman “collectivism,” tyranny and misery—these have been with us since the Fall, though to be sure they take an extreme form today. But the apostasy that has led to this obvious and extreme worldliness seems to me but the prelude to something much worse; and this is the chief subject of my letter.

The hope for “peace” is a part of a larger context of renewed idealism that has come out of the Second World War and the tensions of the post-war world, an idealism that has, especially in the last five or ten years, captured the minds of men—particularly the young—all over the world, and inspired them with an enthusiasm that has expressed itself concretely—and, often, quite selflessly—in action. The hope that underlies this idealism is the hope that men can, after all, live together in peace and brotherhood in a just social order, and that this end can be realized through “non-violent” means that are not incompatible with that end. This goal seems like the virtual revelation of a “new world” to all those weary of the misery and chaos that have marked the end of the “old” world, that hollow “modern” world that seems now to have finally—or almost—played out its awful possibilities; and at the same time it seems like something quite attainable by moral means—something previous modern idealisms have not been.

You yourself, indeed, speak of a possible “birth agony of a new world,” of the duty of Christians today “to perform the patient, heroic task of building a world that will thrive in unity and peace, ” even, in this connection, of “Christ the Prince of Peace.” The question that sorely troubles me about all this is, is it really Christianity, or is it still only idealism? And can it be both-is a “Christian idealism” possible?

You speak of “Christian action,” “the Christian who manifests the truth of the Gospel in social action,” “not only in prayer and penance, but also in his political commitments and in all his social responsibilities.” Well, I certainly will say nothing against that; if Christian truth does not shine through in all that one does, to that extent one is failing to be a Christian, and if one is called to a political vocation, one’s action in that area too must be Christian. But, if I am not mistaken, your words imply something more than that; namely, that now more than ever before we need Christians working in the social and political sphere, to realize there the truth of the Gospel. But why, if Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world? Is there really a Christian “social message,” or is not that rather a result of the one Christian activity—working out one’s salvation with diligence? I by no means advocate a practice of Christianity in isolation; all Christianity—even that of the hermit—is a “social Christianity,” but that is only as context, not as end. The Church is in society because men are in society, but the end of the Church is the transformation of men, not society. It is a good thing if a society and government profess genuine Christianity, if its institutions are informed by Christianity, because an example is given thereby to the men who are a part of that society; but a Christian society is not an end in itself, but simply a result of the fact that Christian men live in society.

I do not, of course, deny that there is such a thing as a Christian “social action”; what I question is its nature. When I feed my hungry brother, this is a Christian act and a preaching of the Kingdom that needs no words; it is done for the personal reason that my brother—he who stands before me at this moment—is hungry, and it is a Christian act because my brother is, in some sense, Christ. But if I generalize from this case and embark on a political crusade to abolish the “evil of hunger,” that is something entirely different; though individuals who participate in such a crusade may act in a perfectly Christian way, the whole project—and precisely because it is a “project,” a thing of human planning—has become wrapped in a kind of cloak of “idealism.”

A few more examples: The efficiency of modern medicines adds nothing to the fulfillment of the commandment to comfort the sick; if they are available, fine—but it is not Christian to think our act is better because more “efficient” or because it benefits more people. That, again, is idealism. (I need hardly mention the fact that medicines can become, indeed, a substitute for Christian “comfort” when the mind of the practitioner becomes too engrossed in efficiency; and the research scientist searching for a “cure for cancer” is not doing anything specifically “Christian” at all, but something technical and “neutral.”

“Brotherhood” is something that happens, right here and now, in whatever circumstances God places me, between me and my brother; but when I begin to preach the “ideal” of brotherhood and go out deliberately to practice it, I am in danger of losing it altogether. Even if—especially if—I make use of a seemingly Christian “non-violence” and “passive resistance” in this or any other cause, let me before I call it a Christian act—carefully ask myself whether its end is merely a lofty worldly ideal, or something greater. (St. Paul, to take a pretty clear example, did not tell slaves to revolt “non-violently;” he told them not to revolt at all, but to concern themselves with something much more important.)

The “Peace of Christ,” being in the heart, does not necessarily, in our fallen world, bring about outward peace, and I would wonder if it has any connection at all with the ideal of the “abolition of war.”

The difference between organized “charity” and Christian charity needs no comment. [3]

There may be—I would not have written this letter if I did not hope there was—a kind of true, though so to speak subterranean, “ecumenism” between separated Christians, especially in times of persecution; but that has nothing remotely to do with the activities of any “World Council of Churches.” [4]

You may from these examples, I hope, understand the doubts I entertain about the resurgence of seemingly “Christian” ideals in our time. I say “doubts,” for there is nothing intrinsically evil about any of these “crusades,” and there are involved in them all quite sincere and fervent Christians who are really preaching the Gospel; but, as I say, there is a kind of cloak of “idealism” wrapped about them all, a cloak that seems to be drawing them into its own quite independent service (without thereby negating, of course, the personal Christian acts performed under their auspices). What “service” is this?—the placating of the modern sense of “idealism” by translating inward and Christian truths into outward and—at best—semi-Christian ideals. And we must be realistic enough to see that the general effect on the minds of people both inside and outside these movements, both inside and outside the Church, is precisely to place emphasis upon the realization of outward ideals, thus obscuring inward truths; and since this emphasis has been made, the path is all too short to the palpable falsehood that “doing good is the real purpose of Christianity anyway, and the only basis in which all Christians can unite, while dogma and liturgy and the like are purely personal matters which tend more to separate than unite.” How many of those indeed, even Catholic and Orthodox, who are participating in the world of “social Christianity” today, do not believe that this is really a more “perfect” and even “inward” Christianity than a dogmatic, ascetic, and contemplative Christianity that doesn’t get such obvious “results”?

I have, before this, been reproached by Catholics for lack of interest in the social mission of the Church, for holding to a one-sided “ascetic” and “apocalyptic” Christianity; and some Catholic philosophers and theologians have made such accusations against the Orthodox Church itself—accompanied, sometimes, if I am not mistaken, by a somewhat patronizing tone that assumes the Church is rather “backward” or “out-of-date” about such things, having always been “repressed” by the State and used to looking at the world through the all-too-unworldly eyes of the monk. Far be it from me to presume to speak for the Church; but I can at least speak of some of the things I think I have learned from Her.

You may legitimately ask me what, if I am sceptical of “social Christianity “—though of course I do not wish it abolished or given to the devil, I am merely pointing out its ambivalence—what I advocate as “Christian action” in the midst of the “crisis” of the age with its urgent alternatives.

First and foremost I radically question the emphasis upon “action” itself, upon “projects” and “planning,” upon concern with the “social” and what man can do about it—all of which acts to the detriment of acceptance of the given, of what God gives us at this moment, as well as of allowing His will to be done, not ours. I do not propose a total withdrawal from politics and social work by all Christians; no arbitrary rule can govern that, it is up to the individual conscience. But in any case, if many may still be called to work for “justice,” “peace,” “unity,” “brotherhood” in the world—and these are all, in this generalized, ideal form, external and worldly goals—is it not at least as good a thing to be called to the totally unequivocal work of the Kingdom, to challenge all worldly ideals and preach the only needful Gospel: repent, for the Kingdom is at hand? You yourself quite rightly say of America and Russia, “the enemy is not just on one side or the other…. The enemy is on both sides.” Is it not possible to deepen this perception and apply it to those other seemingly ultimate alternatives, “war” and “peace”? Is one really any more possible for a Christian than the other, if the “peace” is a “total (i.e. idealistic) peace”? And does not the recognition of these two equally unacceptable alternatives lead us back to a genuine “third way”—one that will never be popular because it is not “new,” not “modern,” above all not “idealistic “—a Christianity that has as its end neither worldly “peace” nor “war,” but a Kingdom not of this world?

This is nothing “new,” as you say, and a world that imagines itself “post-Christian” is tired of it. It is true that when we, as Christians, speak to our brothers we often seem to be faced with a blank wall of unwillingness even to listen; and, being human, we may be made somewhat “desperate” by this lack of response. But what can be done about this? Shall we give up speaking about what our contemporaries do not want to hear, and join them in the pursuit of social goals which, since they are not specifically Christian, can be sought by non-Christians too? That seems to me an abdication of our responsibility as Christians. I think the central need of our time is not in the least different from what it has always been since Christ came; it lies, not in the area of “political commitments” and “social responsibilities,” but precisely in “prayer and penance” and fasting and preaching of the true Kingdom. The only “social responsibility” of a Christian is to live, wherever and with whomever he may be, the life of faith, for his own salvation and as an example to others. If, in so doing, we help to ameliorate or abolish a social evil, that is a good thing—but that is not our goal. If we become desperate when our life and our words fail to convert others to the true Kingdom, that comes from lack of faith. If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less.

You speak of the necessity, not just to speak the truth of Christianity, but “to embody Christian truth in action.” To me, this means precisely the life I have just described, a life infused with faith in Christ and hope in His Kingdom not of this world. But the life you seem to describe is one very much involved in the things of this world; I cannot help but regard it as an “outward” adaptation of true Christian inwardness.

Modern idealism, which is devoted to the realization of the idolatrous “Kingdom of Man,” has long been making its influence felt in Christian circles; but only in quite recent years has this influence begun to bear real fruit within the womb of the Church itself. I think there can be no question but that we are witnessing the birth pangs of something that, to the true Christian, is indeed pregnant with frightful possibilities: a “new Christianity,” a Christianity that claims to be “inward,” but is entirely too concerned with outward result; a Christianity, even, that cannot really believe in “peace” and “brotherhood” unless it sees them generalized and universally applied, not in some seemingly remote “other world,” but “here and now.” This kind of Christianity says that “private virtue” is not enough—obviously relying on a Protestantized understanding of virtue, since everything the true Christian does is felt by all in the Mystical Body; nothing done in Christ is done for oneself alone—but not enough for what? The answer to that, I think, is clear: for the transformation of the world, the definitive “realization” of Christianity in the social and political order. And this is idolatry. The Kingdom is not of this world; to think or hope that Christianity can be outwardly “successful” in the world is a denial of all that Christ and His prophets have said of the future of the Church. Christianity can be “successful” on one condition: that of renouncing (or conveniently forgetting) the true Kingdom and seeking to build up a Kingdom in the world. The “Earthly Kingdom” is precisely the goal of the modern mentality; the building of it is the meaning of the modern age. It is not Christian; as Christians, we know whose Kingdom it is. And what so greatly troubles me is that today Christians—Catholic and Orthodox alike—are themselves joining, often quite unaware of the fact, often with the best possible intentions, in the building of this new Babel….

The modern idealism that hopes for “heaven on earth” hopes likewise for the vague “transformation” of man—the ideal of the “superman” (in diverse forms, conscious or not), which, however absurd, has a great appeal to a mentality that has been trained to believe in “evolution” and “progress.” And let not contemporary despair make us think that hope in the worldly future is dead; despair over the future is only possible for someone who still wants to believe in it; and indeed, mingled with contemporary despair is a great sense of expectation, a will to believe, that the future ideal can, somehow, be realized.

The power of the impersonal and inhuman has ruled the first part of our century of “crisis”; a vague “existential” spirit, semi- or pseudo-religious, idealistic and practical at the same time (but never otherworldly), seems destined to rule the last part of this century. They are two stages of the same disease, modern “humanism,” the disease caused by trusting in the world and in man, while ignoring Christ—except to borrow His name as a convenient “symbol” for men who, after all, cannot quite forget Him, as well as to seduce those who still wish to serve Him. Christianity become a “crusade,” Christ become an “idea,” both in the service of a world “transformed” by scientific and social techniques and a man virtually “deified” by the awakening of a “new consciousness”: this lies before us. Communism, it seems clear, is nearing a transformation itself, a “humanizing,” a “spiritualizing,” and of this Boris Pasternak [5] is a sign given in advance; he does not reject the Revolution, he only wants it “humanized.” The “democracies,” by a different path, are approaching the same goal. Everywhere “prophets “—semi- or pseudo-Christians like Berdyaev and Tolstoy, more explicit pagans like D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Kazanzakis, as well as the legions of occultists, astrologers, spiritualists and millenialists—all herald the birth of a “new age.” Protestants, and then more and more Catholics and Orthodox, are caught up in this enthusiasm and envisage their own age of ecumenical unity and harmony, some being so bold—and so blasphemous—as to call it a “third age” of the “descent of the Holy Spirit” (a la D. H. Lawrence, Berdyaev, and ultimately, Joachim of Floris).

An age of “peace” may come to weary, yet apocalyptically anxious, man; but what can the Christian say of such “peace”? It will not be the Peace of Christ; it is but fantasy to imagine a sudden, universal conversion of men to full Christian faith, and without such faith His Peace cannot come. And any human “peace” will only be the prelude to the outburst of the only and real “war” of our age, the war of Christ against all the powers of Satan, the war of Christians who look only for the Kingdom not of this world, against all those, pagan or pseudo-Christian, who look only for a worldly Kingdom, a Kingdom of Man.

It was only after I had completed the preceding pages that I saw your article in Commonweal, “Nuclear War and Christian Responsibility.” [6] There you bring up the topic to which I was planning to devote the rest of this letter: the Apocalypse.

There is, of course, nothing of which it is more dangerous to speak. Futile and overliteral speculation on apocalyptic events is an only too obvious cause of spiritual harm; and no less so, I think, is the facile way in which many of our contemporaries refer to the “apocalyptic” character of the times, and in so doing raise in others deep fears and hopes which their own vague pronouncements are far from satisfying. If a Christian is going to speak of the Apocalypse at all, it is quite clear that in this as in everything else his words must be sober, as precise as possible, and fully in accord with the universal teaching of the Church. In this case I can see no reason why Latin and Orthodox testimony should be substantially different. The prophetic texts are the possession alike of East and West; the commentaries and statements of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, on these texts are explicit, detailed, and in mutual agreement; and the tradition of the Fathers has been affirmed, after the schism, by both the Orthodox and Latin Churches—in the latter most authoritatively, I would presume, in the person of Thomas Aquinas. [7] The recent book of Josef Pieper, The End of Time, basing itself almost entirely on Western sources, is, so far as I know, in no essential point at variance with Orthodox tradition. It is rather a shock, in fact, to read in Fr. D’Arcy’s Meaning and Matter of History that “not all Christian scholars would accept such a literal acceptance” of apocalyptic literature. Perhaps not, indeed, but that is to say no more than that, just as many Jews did not recognize the Christ of their prophecies, so will many Christians fail to discern the signs of the times with regard to the Antichrist and the end of time. (Many Christians have departed so far from tradition as to believe that the Antichrist will be no actual man, but a vague “spirit” only, much as many modern Jews have transformed their messianic hope into belief in a mere “messianic age.”)

But this failure of many Christians is itself part of the prophecies concerning the “falling away,” even within the Church itself; as Blessed Jerome said, “Many esteemed as the Patriarch shall fall.” For the Antichrist is a deceiver, and too few Christians are prepared for his deceptions. It is thus dangerous to speak of “apocalyptic” things without speaking of the Antichrist and his spirit. It is easy for the weakest understanding today to see something “apocalyptic” in the fantastic destructive powers man now possesses; but worldly power is only one aspect of the reign of the Antichrist—great deceptiveness, such as to deceive, if possible, even the elect, is another and less obvious one. You speak, like many today, of the possible “destruction of the human race”; is this not a rather strong phrase for a Christian to use? Does it not, again, place too much emphasis on the power of man? Does it not, above all, overlook the prophecies of what must come to pass before God (Who, of course, alone can “destroy the human race” He has created) calls men into His Kingdom?

In no uncertain words you affirm, once more, “War must be abolished. A world government must be established.” Is not “must” a rather strong word? It is indeed a symptom of the apocalyptic character of the age that the only “practical” solution to the present crisis—the abolition of war—should at the same time be (as I think) totally idealistic. To some this situation gives rise to thoughts of a “new age” or a “new world”; to me, it suggests the possibility that we are, in actual fact, on the threshhold of the last days, when all courses of worldly action begin to become impossible.

A “new world”—this is a phrase, I have noticed, that you yourself use. In The Living Bread you even suggest that “we are witnessing the dawn of a light that has never before been seen…. We live, perhaps, on the threshhold of the greatest eucharistic era of the world—the era that may well witness the final union of mankind.” You ask, to be sure (but without giving an answer), “Will this visible union be a political one?” And you even suggest that “perhaps the last age of all will be ‘eucharistic’ in the sense that the Church herself will give the glory and praise to God by being put to the Cross.”

To Christians, who possess the word of Christ and His Prophets and Saints concerning the last days, I do not see how there can be any “perhaps” in the matter. The political union of mankind, however legitimate it may be as a political goal, can only end in the reign of Antichrist; the Church, beyond all doubt, will be crucified after a good many of the faithful have betrayed Her through the deceptions of the Antichrist.

I by no means preach an imminent “reign of Antichrist” and apocalypse that is possible, of course, and Christians at all times must be prepared for it; but no one knows the hour…. What I do wish to emphasize is the fact—I take it so—that, spiritually speaking, contemporary man in his despair of the present and still-present hope in the future, confronted with “ultimate” alternatives and seemingly “apocalyptic” social and scientific transformations (and evolutionary hope), has never been more receptive to the advent of a pseudo-Messiah, a supreme “problem-solver” and inspirer of the bright human “idealism.”

In times like these, I think, the Christian should be wary of involving himself in the tangled web of political activity, lest in striving for too much he lose all; boldness in faith and in preaching the Kingdom (above all by the example of one’s life), to be sure there is not nearly enough of that today—but caution in worldly “planning,” of which we have a superfluity, even (in fact, most of all) in the interest of “high ideals.”

Above all, the Christian in the contemporary world must show his brothers that all the “problems of the age” are of no consequence beside the single central “problem of man”: death, and its answer, Christ. Despite what you have said about the “staleness” of Christianity to contemporary men, I think that Christians who speak of this problem, and in their lives show that they actually believe all that “superstition” about the “other world”—I think they have something “new” to say to contemporary man. It has been my own experience that serious young people are “tired” of Christianity precisely because they think it is an “idealism” that hypocritically doesn’t live up to its “ideals”; of course, they don’t believe in the other world either—but for all they know, neither do “Christians.”

I think Christians have of late become entirely too “sophisticated,” too anxious to feel at home in the world by accommodating their faith to passing fashions of thought; so contemporary Christians become “existential,” speak of the “here and now” of faith and spiritual things. Well, that is fine, as far as it goes—but it doesn’t go far enough. Our hope as Christians cannot be reduced to the abstract, but neither can it be reduced to the concrete; we believe and hope in a Kingdom no one living has ever seen, our faith and hope are totally impossible in the eyes of the world. Well then, let us tell the world that we believe the “impossible.“ It has been my experience that contemporary men want to believe, not little, but much; having abandoned Christian faith, nothing can seem too fantastic to them, nothing can seem too much to hope for—hence the “idealism” of today’s youth. For myself, my own faith grew rather gradually, as a more or less “existential” thing, until the stunning experience of meeting a Christian (a young Russian monk) for whom nothing mattered but the Kingdom of the world to come. Let the contemporary sophisticate prattle of the childishness of seeking “future rewards” and all the rest—life after death is all that matters. And hope in it so fires the true believer—he who knows that the way to it is through the hard discipline of the Church, not through mere “enthusiasm”—that he is all the more in the present (both in himself and as an example) than the “existentialist” who renounces the future to live in the present.

The future Kingdom has not been abandoned by modern Christians, but it has been so “toned down” that one wonders how strong the faith of Christians is. Particularly all the involvement of Christians in the projects of social idealism, seems to me a way of saying: “You, the worldly, are right. Our Kingdom ‘not of this world’ is so distant and we can’t seem to get it across to you; so we will join you in building something we can actually see, something better than Christ and His Kingdom—a reign of peace, justice, brotherhood on earth.” This is a “new Christianity,” a refinement, it seems to me, of the Christianity of the “Grand Inquisitor” of Dostoyevsky.

And what of the “old” Christianity of “private virtue”? Why has it become so stale? Because, I think, Christians have lost their faith. The outward Gospel of social idealism is a symptom of this loss of faith. What is needed is not more busyness but a deeper penetration within. Not less fasting, but more; not more action, but prayer and penance. If Christians really lived the Christian hope and the full path of unification that looks to its fulfillment, instead of the easy compromise that most laymen today think sufficient—and doesn’t the “new Christianity” tell them that working for social ideals is really more important than following the Christian discipline?—; if Christians in their daily life were really on fire with love of God and zeal for His Kingdom not of this world—then everything else needful would follow of itself.

We can hardly hope that such a life will be too widespread in our time, or even, perhaps, that its example will make many converts—surely not as many as will the “new” Gospel; for social idealism is a part of the spirit of the age, while genuine Christian otherworldliness is most emphatically not. Too, it is more difficult and often less certain of itself—so weak is our faith; altogether, in short, an unappealing goal for outwardly-minded modern man. All of this is inconsequential: ours it is to live the full Christian life—the fruit of it is in God’s hands.

Well, I have said what I wanted to say. I should be very grateful to receive a reply from you, if you think my remarks worth replying to. And if you do reply, I hope you will be as frank as I have tried to be. This is the only kind of ecumenical “dialogue” of which I am capable; and if it seems more like a challenge to “combat,” I hope that will not deter you. My criticisms, I am sure you know, are directed not at you but at your words (or at what I have made of them).

Yours in Christ,

Eugene Rose

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiMkV7uwb0Y

Source:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/merton.aspx

Elder Raphail Berestrov is one of the few spiritual giants left in the world. He is 85 years old. He is a schemamonk who spent many years in the monastery of Valaam, and currently living as a hesychast on Mount Athos. He has a very important message for all Orthodox Christians to hear. (note: we are now in possession of the full high quality transcript which we will translate to English soon. We were only able to provide a partial translation due to not being able to find someone to help us with the translation from Russian. We thank the “aliona” reader of ortodoxinfo.ro for the extraordinary effort)

Christ is risen! In truth is risen!

Arch-shepherds, save Christ’s flock!

Protect and pasture the sheep of Christ, you who are called, save them from predatory wolves in sheep’s clothing, who are deceiving the sheep and taking them away from Christ to satan.

Patriarch Kirill during the numerous meetings with Muslims and Jews, talked about Muslims, Jews and Orthodox having the same “god”.

This is blasphemy! He distanced himself from True God – the Holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Reverend Bishop, do not let this wolf mislead Christ’s flock. Orthodox people in their simplicity with so much trust and respect, treats him like an Arch-shepherd and the Patriarch, but you know and remain silent!

And that is a sin! You, as the Apostles of Christ, you need to lay down your life for Christ’s sheep. He cheats, seducing them into the antichrist church.

I know who Patriarch Kirill is: He – if not a FSB general, is a mason (for sure) and maybe a catholic cardinal. He is a heretic.

I know that some of you are masons, who are in priest’s robes and white masonic hoods, along with archpriests standing in a masonic lodge. I’m surprised that they were in masonic lodges, in the enemy trenches?! Believing in Christ and going to satanists?!

In the Church they opened the door to convicted ecumenism heresy, and now through ecumenism in the Church, all other heresies condemned by Councils of the Holy Fathers, occultism and satanism are also entering.

Dear Arch-shepherds, protect Christ’s sheep, protect the Church of Christ! Re-establish what’s been trampled: restore Catholicism (NOT roman catholicism) and local Councils, destroy pontifical dictatorship of the Moscow Pope! Condemn the wolf’s Cretan heretical council!

Condemn therefore, ecumenism, which introduces antichrist to the Church, reject the lies of the World Council of Churches!

Now please, dear fathers, brothers and sisters, pray for our Arch-shepherds, so may Lord help them and heal them from a timid tetanus so that our Arch-shepherds will stand up in defence of the Church of Christ and us, their children.

https://youtu.be/U-NuGX8dtbk

One of the most troubling projects, one that will fundamentally change the world, one about which nobody is telling you anything in the media, a project in which billions upon billions (and some sources are even saying trillions) of dollars are being invested as we speak, is being hastily developed away from public eye and scrutinity. Something is being prepared to be revealed to the world and your are told nothing about.

The project is called “Ethereum”. It is the next phase of Bitcoin, but it will effectively change every single aspect of commerce and money. Botcoin has been nothing more that a proof of concept for this new revolutionary technology, a test run to assess the viability and feasibility of the new blockchain technology.

Let us start by giving a few quotes of that can be achieved by this new technology called Ethereum. The following quotes have been extracted from the page of the Ethereum Foundation:

A tradeable token with a fixed supply.
A central bank that can issue money.
A virtual organization where members vote on issues.
A transparent association based on shareholder voting.
Your own country with an unchangeable constitution.
A better delegative democracy.

and the list goes on and on …

But what maybe is even more telling is the list of companies that have gathered together in this big secretive consortium called the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, just to name a few:

What do these companies say about this project?

“We look forward to active collaboration with the members of the alliance,” said Kwang Woo Song, vice president of Samsung‘s Distributed Ledger Technology Business Group. “And believe that there will be significant synergy opportunity to drive the adoption of blockchain in the enterprise space.”

“Not only can these industries work and learn from each other, you’re going to start seeing multi-sided, or n-sided marketplaces where it’s not just the banks operating with each other, it’s actually the banks turning into software companies and getting close and more seamless with their clients.”

“Among the new members are South Korean telecom Samsung, pharmaceuticals giant Merck, automaker Toyota, investor communications platform Broadridge, financial markets firm DTCC, and the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees licensed businesses in the state.”

http://www.coindesk.com/enterprise-ethereum-alliance-new-members-blockchain/

The new system is called “holy grail of a post-central bank world“.

According to Reuters, the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA) will work to “enhance the privacy, security and scalability of the Ethereum blockchain, making it better suited to business applications”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/ethereum-soars-after-jpmorgan-intel-microsoft-and-others-form-blockchain-alliance

First please allow us to highlight the secrecy in which this whole project is veiled:

“A secretive project that would aim to make ethereum more suitable for corporate users is taking shape, according to multiple sources familiar with the project. Rumored to be called Enterprise Ethereum, the exact nature of the effort remains veiled behind an unusual degree of privacy.

On Thursday, 15th December, a group of startup founders and representatives from some of the world’s largest financial institutions reportedly gathered in New York to discuss the common problems they face when building enterprise applications on ethereum.

On site at the undisclosed location appears to have been several bulge bracket banks, including at least one who was in the past involved with R3CEV, a stock exchange and a major software provider, among others.”

http://www.coindesk.com/enterprise-ethereum-details-emerge-secret-blockchain-project/

Why is this project so secret, what is it that they do not want you to know? Because it indeed bears all the hallmarks of the mark of the beast system, the system that will replace the way people trade and pay for absolutely everything. It will be the only way for people to buy, sell and pay for all goods and services, and judging by the rush for them to finalize its implementation and the amount of money thrown at it, it certainly seems it is meant to become operational rather soon. Again we ask, why the rush?

The way in which Ethereum will revolutionize the world is by allowing everything to be “tokenized” and then traded. Every commodity, every asset will be digitized and traded on the back of this new platform. What is this “tokenization”? The dollar, back in the days when it used to be backed by gold, was in effect a “token”, meaning on every dollar bill it stated that this “token” is exchangeable for this amount of gold or silver, so in effect the paper dollar bill was a “token”. Ethereum will work in the exact same way, but in a much broader way: the platform will allow for every single asset or commodity to be “tokenized”. Companies out there are already working to “tokenize” gold and silver for example – here is one of the participating companies in the Ethereum Project, Digix:

“Digix is an asset-tokenisation platform built on Ethereum. We leverage the blockchain’s immutability, transparency and auditability by applying it to precious physical assets.”

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/digixglobalsecuresdeal-silverbullion-safe-house-singapore-1572491

“The Ethereum-based gold tokenisation company DigixGlobal has secured a deal with Silver Bullion and The Safe House and will be transferring their current gold holdings to Silver Bullion for the upcoming relaunch of DGX 2.0”

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/digixglobalsecuresdeal-silverbullion-safe-house-singapore-1572491

Whether someone buys wheat, oil or virtually everything else, the Ethereum blockchain technology will support it. These are just some of the “benefits” of the new system concerning commerce, but what about the money supply and central banking? The new money will be able to be issued much easier on the back of any asset, thus allowing for new asset backed currencies, and will make the process much more transparent and harder to manipulate (they say). The blockchain technology is already being heralded as doing away with central control. No central bank or central authority will be able to manipulate it in any way (they say). This new technology will be seen as capable of liberating humanity from under the yoke of central planers and financial oppressors and people will adopt it open-heartedly. This will be the crown jewel of the revolution against the ruling elite and their tyrannical financial system. Humanity will break free from under the oppression of the banking elite!

Aside from that, the new technology does indeed seem to have applicability in all social and political aspects as well, as stated by its founders, promising to solve all of humanity’s problems. What a wonderful world!

Here is how “the resistance” is describing this new technology and how all those who seemingly fought against central bank manipulation and control of everything see this “revolutionary” system:

Observation:
Putin’s business ombudsman: “Russia must become world’s blockchain leader”:
http://www.coinfox.info/news/5799-putin-s-business-ombudsman-russia-must-become-world-s-blockchain-leader

by Eugene Rose [Fr. Seraphim]
from The Orthodox Word issue #5, September 1965
(in video format at the end of article)

Perhaps no other event in recent history has been so clear a “sign of the times” as the visit to New York of Pope Paul VI, on Oct. 4 of this year, and his address there before the United Nations. For the world, first of all, it was a sign: the universal longing for “peace” has been given an unmistakable “religious” sanction and the age of “universal peace,” the dream of generations of Utopian thinkers has been brought almost within reach.

But what, one wonders, have Utopian dreams to do with Christianity? Did not Paul VI come to speak for Christianity? An examination of his address reveals a singular fact: the purpose of the Church of Christ is not mentioned, and the name of Christ appears in it only once, in an ambiguous final sentence. It is perhaps assumed that the audience knows for what the Pope stands; he said, indeed, “you know our mission.” But later, when characterizing the “aspiration” of the Church of Rome, he said only that she wished to be “unique and universal” — in the spiritual field”!

For a single moment only in his address did it seem that the Pope might be about to speak a word of genuine Christianity. Citing the commandment of our Lord to His Disciples to “go and bring the good news to all peoples,” the Pope announced that he indeed had a “happy message” for “all peoples” represented at the United Nations. For Christians, this can only mean one thing: the good news of salvation, of eternal life in God. The Pope, however, had a different, an astonishing message: “We might call our message … a solemn moral ratification of this lofty institution.” This is what Rome offers today in place of the Christian Gospel!

Rome aspires to be “universal.” But there is one universality of the true Church of Christ, which is called to preach the Gospel of salvation to every creature; and there is quite another universality that springs from the world and seeks to conform itself to that world by preaching another more “acceptable” message. The very words of her Popes make it too clear which of these Rome has chosen. Paul VI very accurately presumed in his address “to interpret the sentiments of the world.” John XIII before him had even more ingenuously justified his own program of “adaptation” to the modern world: “The voice of the times is the voice of God.”

Thus speaks the voice of Rome, today even more than in ages past, in its aspiration to a “spiritual authority” over the entire world — no longer over all Christians, but over men of every religion and of none. Paul VI in his address spoke no word of genuine Christianity; not once did his words rise above a merely worldly idealism. The Pope’s ideals come not from our Lord, not from the Apostles and Fathers of the Church of Christ, but rather from rationalistic dreamers of the modern age who have revived the ancient heresy of chiliasm — the dream of an ancient millenium. This heresy was explicit in the Pope’s evocation of the “new age” of humanity, and of a “new history — peaceful truly human history as promised by God to men of good will.” The Church of Christ has never taught this strange doctrine; it is, however, one of the cardinal doctrines of Freemasonry, of occultism and numerous related sects, and even [without mention of God] of Marxism. For adopting this sectarian fantasy into the body of Latin doctrine the Pope was acclaimed by the press as a “prophet.”

Involuntarily one calls to mind the last work of the 19th-century Russian philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev, — the “Short Story of Antichrist” [from Three Conversations], in which, basing himself primarily on the Holy Fathers, he draws a chilling picture of Antichrist as a “great humanitarian” and superman, accepted by the whole world as Messiah.

This “Messiah” wins the world by writing a book, The Open Way to universal Peace and Prosperity, which was “all-embracing and all-reconciling, combining noble reverence for ancient traditions and symbols with broad and bold radicalism in social and political demands… It brought a better future so tangibly within reach that everyone said: This is what we want… The wonderful writer carried all with him and was acceptable to everyone.” Those who were concerned because the book did not once mention Christ were given the assurance that this was not necessary since it was “permeated by the truly Christian spirit of active love and all-embracing benevolence.” Swayed by the great man, an “International Assembly” was formed to create a world government; he was unanimously elected world ruler and issued a manifest, proclaiming, “peoples of the world! My peace I give unto you. The ancient promises have been fulfilled; eternal and universal peace has been secured.” Finally he calls an Ecumenical Council and unites all Churches under a Pope-magician who dazzles the multitudes with false miracles…

Such a picture is quite in harmony with the Orthodox teaching on Antichrist, who is indeed to come at the end of time to reign not [at first] by force but by deception with a show of “goodness” that will deceive all those who, through the apostasy that precedes his coming, no longer will be able to distinguish Christ from Antichrist. [A number of Fathers, drawing chiefly from the Holy Scriptures, have discussed the Orthodox teaching on Antichrist in detail, among them St. Efraim of Syria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Cyril of Jersusalem. St. Hipplytus of Rome, and Blessed Augustine. Even in the Catholic Church the teaching is not entirely dead, as witness the recent defense of it by a Thomist, J. Pieper, The End of Time.]

The visit of Paul VI was received by at least a part of America emotionally, almost hysterically. One wonders: what was the purpose of a visit that could produce such an effect? One searches in vain for a rational purpose; the intent was simply, as the press put it, to ‘dramatize” the world’s aspirations, which have become the Vatican’s policy. Everything the Pope did and said was intended to appeal, not to reason, but to the emotions. Everyone was particolarly struck by the Pope’s expert use of gestures, which were more expressive than his words; and everywhere he went he was received with applause, cheers, whistling — even in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, for it has long been the Latin custom to applaud the Pope in church. If the Pope’s visit was a great drama, he himself was received as a consummate actor.

Both the Pope’s manner and the content of his address reveal a man in the state called by Orthodox ascetic writers prelest: spiritual deception. [See Orthodox Word No.4p. 155] Addressing the nations of the world, which find themselves in a state near anarchy and total moral collapse precisely because they have abandoned or will not receive the Christian Gospel, the Pope spoke no word of reproach, made no call to repentance, said nothing of Christian faith, gave no hint of the Christian message of salvation; he utilized rather a skillful combination of Utopian idealism and — simple flattery. Addressing the unrepentant nations of the world — including many who are today persecuting and killing Christians — the Pope could only “praise” and “congratulate” them, offer them “gratitude,” “homage,” and “tribute,” and ended by giving them that which should be offered to God alone: “glory to you.”!

Paul VI is not Antichrist; but in the whole “drama” in which he was the chief “actor” something of the seductiveness of the Antichrist is already present. To be sure, it is nothing original with him; it is rather the culmination of centuries of apostasy, just as the enthusiastic response of the world was the result of a spiritual blindness, owing to ignorance of the nature of Christianity, which has been growing ever since the separation from the Christian East.

[embedyt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDpXchPd0_c[/embedyt]

By the New Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) [+1928]

Men verily swear by the greater (Heb. 6:16).

This truth remains ever and everywhere immutable. Any single truth or any series of truths always comprise what is “greater” for man, and this “greater” is man’s authority; he refers to it, he “swears” by it. Yet the same truths are not what is “greater” for all men. Sometimes what is “greater” is entirely false; yet man nevertheless swears by this illusory “truth” as though it were authoritative. The measures by which men approach the phenomena of the life which surrounds us are quite varied. Each chooses that authority which seems best to him, and therefore one may accept the position: Tell me what your authorities are, and I will say what sort of man you are. In the past, men were different, and their authorities were also different. The word of God, the laws of the Church – in the past these were the eternally immutable and perfect authorities understood and held dear equally by all. If something were in accordance with the word of God, with the laws of the Church, it was good; if something were not in accordance with them, or contradicted them, it could not be good. I. T. Pososhkov wrote his “A Father’s Testament” precisely “to corroborate the divine Scriptures”; there he states with certainty: “All of us who live in the Orthodox Faith know this well: that all truth is contained in the words of the Lord”; and to his son he says: “My son, I firmly exhort and adjure thee, that with all thy strength thou hold fast to the Holy Eastern Church as the Mother who gave thee birth… and that thou cut off from thyself all who oppose the Holy Church, and have no amicable relations with them of any sort, for they are the enemies of God.”

Now, many have quite different, and even contradictory, authorities. Truly, where now can one find in the “progressive” press any reference to God and the Church? Is not agreement with the laws of God and the Church of Christ now considered the hallmark of what is bad, of backwardness, while opposition to them is considered a sign of what is good? I recall a certain student (at the {Theological} Academy, alas!) who, seeing a man with whom he was unacquainted eating fasting food, said: “He is probably one of those who participates in the pogroms!” Another student, when I praised the Theological Academy in his presence, enumerating its good qualities, quite seriously interrupted me, saying: “No, tell me: What has your Academy done for the Revolution?” I declined to enumerate such dubious merits, yet such a statement is entirely characteristic of our times. Now it is not what is pleasing to God or the Church that is good, but what is “progressive,” “liberal,” revolutionary; that which is “right-leaning” is the concatenation of all evils. “It is in agreement with Marx!” – this is the highest praise for any teaching, for any opinion. Even holy Christian doctrine is assessed on the basis of this new standard. Thus, all of Christianity’s fundamental teaching concerning the personal struggle of repentance and humility is cast aside, while only some sort of “social teaching” is taken up and given consideration, and in it only that which one can reinterpret in a liberal-revolutionary way is approved. Those who wrote and labored in the Church, even the great Holy Fathers, are assessed using the same debased, inferior coinage. We ourselves were witness to how a certain “orator,” delivering a panegyric to Saint John Chrysostom on November 13th, 1907, declared that the great hierarch ‘thought like Marx on some things, though not as well.’ Such – we dare to say – blasphemy is now troubling to very few. In life, some new world-view is urgently announcing itself; new gods, new idols are being erected. Of course, the Church of Christ is holy and without blemish. The people of the Church continue to live in accordance with the divine laws of the past, refusing to bend their knees before Baal. For them there is no other god than God and His Christ; there is no authority besides the authority of the Church. However, there are no few people who have already adopted the new world-view, who have already bowed down before the new idols, yet nevertheless have not for some reason left the Church entirely. Such people are constantly passing judgment on Christianity, on the Church. They pass judgment not as ones taught by the Church, but as ones who would teach it; they wish to “correct” the Church’s understanding of Christianity, replacing it with their own, in which the teaching of Christ is shown to bear a remarkable resemblance to all the most recent teachings and actions of the godless, up to and including revolutions, expropriations, and bombings. On the basis of such interpretations of Christianity, in renunciation of the authority of Church, there have appeared a “Christian Brotherhood [?!] of Struggle” and a “Christian Socialism,” and who knows whether there will appear at some point “Christian” brigandage, etc., etc.

Eras of decline are always characterized by the absence of definite, clearly expressed convictions. Men become, as it were, impotent; their laziness does not allow them to think a thought through to the end, and for this reason the most contradictory elements, taken from various sources, peacefully coexist within their world-view. Such is the nature of eclecticism. Our times may serve as an illustration of this. Do not many now desire to bring together in unity the most impossible things? There are far too many who share such a desire in our days!

One of the more prominent misunderstandings which have arisen in this area is the misunderstanding about socialism. On the one hand, they aver that Christ was a socialist; and on the other hand, that socialism is entirely in agreement with Christianity. This implies that in all these discussions Christianity is not taken to be the only possible and definite form of the Holy Church of Christ. The Holy Church is mindlessly disparaged as “official,” “the one which put itself at the service of the old regime,” et al. Everyone interprets Christianity as he pleases, and only a small part of its sacred books is given any attention. The epistles of Paul are rejected; no one knows them! Even from the Gospels only that which is “appropriate” is selected, e.g., the expulsion of the merchants from the temple, as proof of the lawfulness and necessity of violence, though of course only revolutionary violence. With such devices, it is not difficult to demonstrate whatever one pleases, and not only some “agreement” between Christianity and socialism. In light publicistic literature one may constantly encounter attempts to reconcile pagan socialism and Christianity. It is sufficient merely to socialize Christianity and to Christianize socialism – and, lo! Christian socialism is the result!

Therefore, any attempt to investigate, from a strictly Christian point of view, the question of whether socialism is appropriate for Christians, or is our adversary, can only be welcome. One can especially welcome a serious and fundamental attempt. Such an attempt, which stands alone and prominent among the mass of others which are not well-founded and are lacking in seriousness, has been provided by V. A. Kozhevnikov in his remarkable brochure, “The Relationship of Socialism to Religion in General & to Christianity in Particular.” It is not surprising that the author has provided an especially well-founded and unintentionally persuasive resolution of each question; the author knows socialism from its very sources, far better than the majority of our woeful socialists. The author speaks exclusively using the words of socialist literature, and provides such an overwhelmingly vast quantity of this literature that only bad faith will not believe him, will not be persuaded by his arguments. We highly recommend to each person who desires to be ready to give a well-founded answer to anyone who asks about Christianity and socialism, that he not only familiarize himself with Mr. Kozhevnikov’s brochure, but keep it constantly at hand. But since not everyone can familiarize himself with this brochure, we wish, if only in brief, to pass on the results of Mr. Kozhevnikov’s investigation. We ask the reader’s pardon only because it is quite impossible to convey all the richness of the contents of this remarkable brochure; otherwise, we would have to reprint it here in its entirety.

V. A. Kozhevnikov states that, as far as the relationship of socialism to Christianity goes, there is not even partial truth: “Here everything is in content contrary to Christian truths, and is in form offensive to Christian sensibilities.” In vain do some think that socialism is merely a theory of economics. No, socialism replaces everything with itself; it is founding its own religion. In the resolutions of the various socialist assemblies and the discourses of socialist leaders one finds clearly and definitely expressed the demand for a revolution in all human thought. “Socialism is not and cannot be a mere economic science, a question concerning the stomach only… In the final analysis, socialists are striving to bring about revolution throughout the entire juridical, moral, philosophical, and religious superstructure” (Vandervelde). “Is socialism merely an economic theory?,” we read in the socialistic catechism of Bax and Kvelch; “In no way! Socialism envelops all the relations of human life.” According to Bax, in religion socialism is expressed as atheistic humanism.

If socialism looks upon itself as a world-view, what, then, is this world-view? It is, first of all, a consistent materialism. A materialistic understanding of history, as acknowledged by the socialists themselves, comprises the essence of the entire theory of their teaching, its cornerstone, according to the expression of Bernstein. “One must seek the basic reasons of all social changes and revolutions not in the heads of men and not in their views on eternal righteousness and justice, but in changes in the means of production and distribution” (Engels). If socialism is so closely bound up with materialism, how can it bear any relationship to religion? Crudely distorting the moral and educational significance of religion, the materialistic criticism of Marx and Engels sees religion as the mere “handiwork of man,” the product of ignorant imagination or profit motives; and God Himself as a reflection of economic relations. Even in the Christian God they dare to see an “anthropological idealization of a capitalism which thirsts for power and satisfaction.” Religion is called forth, in the words of Engels, “by the dark, primordial ideas of man concerning his personal nature and that which surrounds him,” and is defined in its permutations “by class, and consequently economic, relations”. Religion seemed to Marx to be a superstition which has outlived its time, “a dead question for the intelligentsia, but an opium for the people.” According to this, Marx considered “freedom of conscience from the charms of religion” to be “the assistance of the people toward real happiness.”

True, there are thinkers who maintain that socialism is not inescapably bound up with materialism, but they are not real socialists. Such thinkers try to impart to socialism a philosophical and ethical, even a Christian, coloration. Schtaudinger tries to convince his “brother socialists” that “the basic ideas of Christ are the same as ours; His idea of unity is our God. His idea of the existence of this unity is our Christ. And although we deny all dogmas, in principle our ethics are Christian”.

Dyed-in-the-wool socialists staunchly refuse to accept the recommended “deepening” of the bases of socialism, which, in their opinion, is entirely unsuitable for them. Bebel rains down mockery upon the invitation that “everyone study, and philosophize, and work on oneself.” Conrad Schmidt distances himself from Kantian humanism, because ‘in it there is no agitational power, there are only old metaphysical ideas, monastic asceticism, and morals more appropriate to angels.’ In the experiments at “deepening” socialism, Plekhanov sees “an opium to lull the proletariat to sleep.” Mering sees it as “turbid waters in which to catch an unclean fish.” Menger does not understand the reason for loud speeches about unneeded lofty philosophical principles, when we are facing “our own ethics, which overturn every religious foundation and are a guarantee even against the rebirth of religious consciousness.” Dietzgen long ago proposed “to jettison all that is majestic in morality,” because “the special logic of the proletariat delivers us from all philosophical and religious mysticism.” Similar thoughts are expressed by Kautsky, Lenin, and Axelrod. ‘We are fed up’, says Axelrod, ‘with the boring and monotonous pestering of the critics, teachers, the various perfecters of socialism; it is time for them to cease! To take their path would mean to fall into a dreadful muddle and a demoralization of mind, to take from socialism its living, revolutionary aspect, in other words, its essence, and to replace it again with the reactionary, religious character of the whole philosophical mentality.’

I think that to everyone it is now clear that socialism, as a distinct world-view, is in its essence the adversary of all idealism, of all the immutable principles of morality, and the enemy of all religion. Reducing everything in the world to matter, the socialist world-view leaves no place for the divine Principle.

Such is the theoretical relationship of socialism to religion. In practice, socialists often resort to compromise to gain tactical advantage, which in the language of morality one must call a betrayal of what is true and right.

In practice, one has to consider the socialists as having the temper of village peasantry or even the traditional habits of the working class; we cannot even speak of spirituality and other conditions. “The class of Christian workers shows the most stubborn opposition to propaganda” (Pannekoek). One must of necessity direct serious attention to religion, as Engels puts it, “that greatest of conservative powers.” “We will never succeed in earning trust if we begin to demand that the government take violent measures against the Church,” admits Kautsky. What to do? “In order to overcome the mistrust of the workers and infiltrate them more quickly, in our own ranks there is arising the aspiration to suppress our fundamental views and, in the name of temporary success, to sacrifice clarity of thought and the sensibilities of our own comrades.” This Anton Pannekoek openly and cynically admits. And so we see how socialists “adapt.” According to the Erfurt program, religion is a personal matter. According to the “worker’s catechism,” social-democracy demands neither atheism nor theism. Schtampfer maintains that “the theses of socialism are concerned neither with God nor the afterlife; it is slander to say that it is the sworn enemy of the Church.” One can be both a Christian and a social-democrat (Kautsky). In all these and similar statements, there is absolutely no sincerity. The Erfurt program does not satisfy the more consistent socialists; they demand that an inimical relationship with the Church be stressed more emphatically. In actual fact, the socialists are waging war against religion, but, in accordance with their tactical ploys, they take refuge behind a personal struggle against “clericalists,” and this struggle is justified by that fact that the “clericalists” 1) have pretensions to political power, 2) are fanatics, 3) foster ignorance, and 4) support the capitalist class. Yet all of this is, of course, a mere sham; the socialists are in reality inimical to all religion, are against God.

But is not such hypocrisy, such falsehood, immoral, scandalously immoral? To this the socialists answer us thus: “Mere moral means have nothing to recommend them to us. You will not get far in politics with them” (Bebel). “In each party perfidious tricks are unavoidable, and the laws of traditional morality here recede completely into the background” (Menger). What can you do with party tactics? But these tactics are such as would move Jesuits to ecstasy. The more direct and (if one can speak of honesty among them) honest socialists, however, let the cat out of the bag and openly state their enmity towards religion. On August 22nd, 1901, the French Social-Revolutionary Party resolved: “Citizens, the members of the Party vow that under no circumstances will they carry out any religious acts whatever in conjunction with representatives of any denomination” (freedom of conscience!!!). On December 31st, 1878, Bebel, in the presence of the entire Reichstag, declared: “In the area of religion, we aspire to atheism”; and on September 16th, 1878, he expressed “a firm trust that socialism will lead to atheism.” This same blasphemer Bebel calls himself the enemy of all religion, “of which people of high quality have no need.” At the Gall Assembly, Liebknecht expressed the hope that “the basic principles of socialism will overcome religious forms of popular ignorance.” According to Todt, “He who is himself not an atheist and does not commit himself with all zeal to the dissemination of atheism is not fit to be called a socialist.” Lafarge is indignant “that religious principles are still not utterly extirpated even from the minds of the learned,” but is comforted by the hope that in the future socialism would completely erase faith in God from men’s souls.

Certain socialists descry in the distance “the first day of socialism,” an international celebration of it in the Vatican and Saint Peter’s Basilica, when “the whole religious past will be made the subject of curious conversations and merry jokes, when educational institutions, trade schools, and exhibits of the products of modern industry [not even art!] will be housed in the churches, and when the place of religion will be occupied by an amalgamation of all interests in economic solidarity!”

It is understood that in the socialist world-view there will also be no place for belief in the immortality of the soul. The denial of immortality is one of the main conditions for the success of socialism, “because with the weakening of belief in heaven, socialist demands for heaven on earth will be strengthened” (Bebel). Dietzgen advises that one prefer “a comfortable world here” to the other world. On February 3rd, 1893, a certain Catholic deputy asked the social-democrats of the German Reichstag the question as to whether they believed in the afterlife. They answered unanimously in the negative. One socialist newspaper, Neue Zeit, suggested that “the threats of hell be mocked, and that pointing to heaven be disdained.”

It is terrible to read the socialists’ blasphemies against religion in general, yet these blasphemies are even more greatly intensified when they speak of the Christian Faith. There was a time of sentimental socialism, when it assumed the role of a direct continuer of the commandments of the Gospel. At that time, one could encounter in the homes of certain socialist workers an engraving depicting Jesus as a carpenter, with the following inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the first Representative of the People.” On the feast of the Nativity of Christ, they would gather at democratic banquets to celebrate His birth. Prudhon himself, despite his anticlericalism, paid tribute to this fashion, and in his newspaper printed explanations and accounts of these Christian-socialist affairs.

On April 25th, 1848, a committee of democratic-socialist ladies organized in Valentino Castle “a banquet on the day of the Nativity of Christ,” with paid admission of 1 franc, 50 centimes (50 centimes for children). Prudhon’s newspaper, Le Peuple, published the following account:

“The assembly was opened appropriately, with the reading of the Sermon on the Mount; after a song in honor of brotherhood, sung with great animation, there followed a series of toasts, a list of which we will enumerate:

“‘For Christ, the Father of socialism!’ – offered by a certain lady, whose name we will not cite.

“‘For the coming of God to earth!’ – offered by Jeanne Derouan.

“Our friend, Pierre Lerue, who is always prepared to welcome the desires of his brethren and friends, again read and explained the Sermon on the Mount and greeted the coming of a new religion… This impromptu speech was accepted with the most ardent approval.

“Then followed most toasts:

“‘For Christmas!’ – offered by Mme. Brazier.

“‘For Saint-Just, the victim of the Thermidore!’ – offered by Herve. “‘For the resurrection of Christ, for France!’ – offered by Bernarome.”

We doubt that such blasphemous banquets would dispose any Christians to favor socialism, but now such affairs are a thing of the past. Now the socialists have but one desire: to debunk Christianity, to undermine trust in its historical principles, to mock the content of its ideals, and to drag even its moral teachings through the mire. Christianity arises from economic conditions and spiritual needs. For the sake of decency, they try to present the case as “scientific.” At the Mainz Conference, the demand was made “to provide a scientific refutation of the teachings of Christianity suitable for the purposes of agitation.” And so, a filthy and blasphemous caricature of Christianity appears in “scholarly” literature. “Here one does not know what to be more surprised at: the psychological limitations of the authors, their ignorance of history, the backwardness of their point of view from the standpoint of principle, or their dishonesty in distorting the facts and twisting the sense of the texts. In no single area does the science of this socialism, which boasts of its scholarship, bring such shame upon itself as here, in its juvenile, perfervid criticism of Christianity” (Kozhevnikov, p. 39).

“Irrefutable conclusions of science” arise among the socialists of Tubingen. Lafarge sees in the Christian Faith a “systematic amalgamation of ideals and myths, which dominated in the ancient world for hundreds of years.” For Bebel, the existence of Christ is “very uncertain”; Christianity borrowed from Egypt, from India, Buddha, Zoroaster, and even from Socrates; of course, it is of human origin, and “its elimination, from the point of view of progress, is essential.” The Church is “the yoke with which the clergy harness the people in the interests of the ruling classes” (Bebel).

The dogmatic aspect of Christianity is of no interest to the socialists. Who now considers dogmas obligatory? Yet the socialists dare to blaspheme even the moral teachings of Christianity and to propose their own “greater.” According to this teaching, all morality is conditional; it is immoral only to deviate from one’s own morals, and in no case from those of others (Kautsky). The conscience, according to Menger, is only fear of unpleasant consequences for opposing power and what is commonly accepted, and power and morality are in essence identical. “Hope in the Messiah is senseless; Christianity has not fulfilled its promises of universal redemption from the needs and cares of existence.” (But where is the proof that it ever made such promises?)

To criticize the moral teaching of Christianity, which they do not wish to acknowledge, the socialists do not undertake criticism, but prefer to wage war. Christianity is “a religion of hatred, persecution, and oppression” (Bebel). Christian charity is explained as a desire to belittle the dignity of the poor and to receive, in exchange for a paltry earthly outlay, fabulous, usurious interest in the form of heavenly rewards (Lafarge). Finally, the height of socialist blasphemy, for which may God Himself chastise them, is the wild expression of Bax concerning “the excess of continual references to the ideal perfection of the half-mythical, first-century Syrian [a blasphemous mis-reference to Christ], when there are so many higher examples among the ranks of the modern socialist movement.” (May God deliver us from these “higher examples”! )

The perfection of the “modern socialist movement” is not in Christian life on earth, nor in eternal blessedness in heaven. Both the former and the latter are relegated to the archives. “Our ideal is not poverty, nor abstinence, but wealth, and wealth immeasurable, unheard-of. This wealth is the good of all humanity, its holy object, its Holy of holies, toward the possession of which all our hopes are directed” (Dietzgen).

But enough! Enough of these mindless words! I hope my readers will forgive me for setting down these blasphemies of the socialists and offending their Christian sensibilities with them. I have only wanted to show what moral ugliness socialism is, what an abyss of falsehood lies within it, and, therefore, how mistaken is any attempt to reconcile socialism and the divine Christian Faith. Such attempts are being made not only by Christians who have lost their faith, who have “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like the corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23); certain among the socialists, or better to say, workers seduced by socialism, are also naively convinced that it is possible to combine socialism and Christianity. The socialist press is also trying to take advantage of this trust, arguing “that Christ belongs not to the churchmen, but to the socialists.” Oscar Zimmer, in his booklet “The Socialist from Nazareth”, reaches the conclusion that all the religious teaching of Christ was a mere addendum to His preaching of socialism. In the opinion of another author, Christ unfortunately could not fulfill His most important task – to write a manual of political economics; but the modern lights of socialism have brilliantly carried out this task.

All of these attempts at reconciling socialism and Christianity, whichever side makes them, do not satisfy present-day socialists in the least. The real convictions of the socialists are expressed by Bebel and Vandervelde: “Christianity and socialism strive for different things; they are as opposite as fire and water.”

If one could conceive the full satanic evil of socialism, which is expressed in the socialists’ own words, one’s heart would die of horror. In 1908, the magazine The Christian appended the book of Emilia Gregorovius, Heaven on Earth. The book produced a deep impression. It depicted socialism as a horrible monster, in the form of “a mockery of God.” Just such an impression is produced by our familiarization with the relationship of socialism to our Holy of holies, the Christian Faith. Socialism is the “mystery of iniquity” which the holy Apostle Paul prophesied (II Thess. 2:7). Is there any need to refute socialism? No, it is sufficient merely to say what socialism is, and those who have still kept their faith in Christ to any degree will reject this ungodly scandal with horror. The believing man is absolutely unable speak of any agreement between socialism and Christianity whatever. Socialism is not only not ours, it is our declared and dangerous adversary. It is guilty of enmity toward Christianity and deserves no condescension. It is our enemy. Every member of the Church must be aware of this, and it is essential that the Church explain this for all the world to hear. If passing into heresy entails separation from the Church, passing into socialism is an error more grievous than any heresy, and is even more deserving of punishment. “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema” (I Cor. 16:22). We have already seen how socialism ‘loves’ Jesus Christ. It is necessary to commit all inveterate socialism to anathema. Ravening wolves must be driven from the flock, else the whole flock will perish. How can one speak of the ‘Christianization of socialism’? These are empty words. Can one Christianize atheism? “Christian socialism” is a contradiction in terms. What is Christian cannot be socialist. If we do not loudly and openly declare that socialism is the enemy of Christianity, nothing will result except harm and scandal. All compromises are inappropriate here. One must look one’s enemy in the eye. To underestimate danger is always deleterious.

[Taken from Orthodox Life, May-June 1998 issue, pp. 35-44]

Source:
http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/non_christian_others_socialism_sthilarion.shtml

Newly discovered excerpts unavailable at the time of publishing The Departure of the Soul:

St. Meletios the Confessor of Mount Galesion (+1286) – (commemorated on January 19th)

Called by God at a young age, St. Meletios abandoned his homeland and his beloved family and set out as a pilgrim for the Holy Land. Becoming a monk on Mount Sinai, he spent weeks without food and nights without sleep, continuing in fasting, vigils, and ceaseless prayer to the astonishment of all his fellow monks. Having wandered through the desert, like a diligent bee gathering the nectar of the virtues from the holy ascetics he met, St. Meletios settled on Mount Galesion at the Monastery of St. Lazarus, becoming perfect in obedience and the ascetical life.

Christ the Lord appeared to him in glory, commanding him to go to Constantinople to defend the Orthodox Faith, which was in danger from compromises with the Latins that Emperor Michael VIII had made for political reasons. Presenting himself at the imperial court, St. Meletios boldly reproached the emperor for betraying the Faith. Thrown into prison, he was then exiled to the island of Skyros where he authored a long poem, excerpted here, in which he desired to set forth all the essentials of the Orthodox Faith in a single Gathering. Sent to the pope in Rome for trial, St. Meletios continued to boldly confess the Orthodox Faith, confronting the Latin scholastic theologians and rebuking their errors. Imprisoned for seven more years, he was then sent back to Skyros and shut up in a dark dungeon. The peoples’ proclamation of the saint as a confessor of the Orthodox Faith stirred the Emperor to summon him back to the imperial court. Steadfast as ever in proclaiming Orthodoxy, the saint was condemned to torture. He was hung on a dry tree which burst into leaf upon receiving him. His tongue which had so bravely spoken the truth was cut out, but miraculously he was able to continue proclaiming the true Faith. Finally released from imprisonment on the death of Michael VIII, St. Meletios played an important role in re-establishing Orthodoxy. When he departed from this world to God, his face shone like the sun. His body remained incorrupt, becoming a wellspring of countless miracles.

The texts excerpted below provide a significant early witness to the saints of the Orthodox Church embracing not only the teaching of the toll-houses but also the Life of St. Basil the New, the most complete and vivid description of the toll-houses:

“The soul that yearns for God and does good things, gladly departs to Him when it is called. It soars above the evil demons and with peace proceeds to the assembly of the angels, having certainly passed through safely. The things that are said about the toll-houses are from experience which the divine Theodora has stated wonderfully. You certainly know these things, how fearsome, how terrible, how frightful, how full of shock the time of death is.… The venerable Basil says that they examine that [dissolute] life as well….”

T. Simopoulos, ed., Μελέτιος ὁ Γαλησιώτης (Meletios Galesiotes) (Athens, 1978), no. 180, “On the Remembrance of Death,” p. 492, lines 49–57, 71. (In Greek.)

“The Savior at the time of the Passion said that the ruler of this world will find nothing in Me (John 14:30). But in someone else he will find many or few things. However many passions someone says he has, he has the same number of demons. Each one is marked by the corresponding toll-house. According to the words of the venerable and divine Theodora, each demon incites us towards sin.”

Ibid., no. 181, “On the Separation of the Soul and the Resurrection of the Body,” p. 493, line 15–20. (In Greek.)

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/gregor-isiopili/st-meletios-the-confessor-on-the-tollhouses-this-excerpt-was-unavailable-at-the-/1920858858151929/