The inquiring, sometimes irreverent, Orthodox Christian author -- and SF/Fantasy writer all rolled into one!
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy is officially available!
My first book, The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy is now officially available from Regina Orthodox Press. Talked to the publisher Friday afternoon and my author copies have been shipped out as well. I should have my copies available something this coming week, so friends, family, and local purchasers the wait is almost over!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really liked "Crazy". What is next?
ReplyDeleteCrazy man, Fred.
I posted a thorough review of this blasphemous, un-Orthodox books at http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review-of-the-crazy-side-of-orthodoxy.aspx.
ReplyDeleteYep, the wait is over. Another self-published piece of junk is available for your purchase. By someone with no knowledge of the subject matter – without footnotes or reference to any historical treatments of the subject. In other words, a self-proclaimed expert who is desperate to see his name in print. How much did you have to pay Schaeffer to print it?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to tackle the subject matter in question, it might help if you actually approached it with more seriousness. Prattling on, in the juvenile way that you do, does not bring any respectablity to your (non-existent) credentials.
I want a refund. It's worse than I had imagined.
Your comments show your vast ignorance of the publishing world. To begin with, just because something is self published does not mean it is "junk" -- Spartacus was self published, surely that wasn't junk.
ReplyDeleteSecondly for the record, The Crazy Side was published through the traditional means by Regina Orthodox Press. Interesting critique though -- "it's junk"...at least Patrick Barnes took the time to write an actual refutation from the Traditionalist perspective. And at least a conversation has begun. Railing about the genre of literature or how much you hate self publishing illustrates just who it is that being acting juvenile. on The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy is officially available!
You didn't address my comments in their entirety. Not all self published works are junk, but many are, because they are not peer reviewed, and therefore have not been examined for quality by those working in the field. Your book shows an amazing level of ignorance of the field of canon law - though if it was peer reviewed, I apologize. Please let us know which scholars reviewed the work. However, i doubt it...Did you happen to read any Vlassios Phidas, the preeminent canonist alive today? Somehow I doubt that as well. Without a working knowledge of ancient and modern Greek, you are really out of your depth. And it shows in your childish approach to a topic of such import. I do not need to repeat Mr. Barnes critique - it obliterates your entire argument. I just wanted to pile on a little bit...
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so funny about people, such as yourself, coming here posting all sorts of arguments against my book is that it is attacked on trivial matter such as -- Frank Schaeffer is involved, one person didn't like the typeset, the cover is "blasphemous" (not sure how that is?) etc.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the substance? Patrick Barnes at least made an attempt -- in a civil manner -- to argue his side of the fence. The problem is he never addresses ANY of the Canons which I address. He only argues against my conclusions but doesn't offer alternative conclusions for the Canons themselves. If the Canon which calls for the excommunication of women who have miscarriages DOESN'T mean what it so clearly says, then what DOES it mean? The historical context argument that he uses -- that all Traditionalists use -- to defend such a Canon is very simple -- people in the middle ages were overly superstitious and assumed the woman must be at "fault" in some manner.
This is blatantly obvious to almost everyone, except for those who cannot admit that the Church might have made the tiniest mistake. And so instead of just admitting that the Canon is a product of the human mind and of human culture and is now outdated, they argue that if I only "understood" and attained to the same esoteric gnostic wisdom which they have (by reading multiple languages, and reading the "proper" Canon experts, and disregard other Canon experts who take a more liberal view), I'd accept such Canons as -- well, what exactly? Holy? God inspired? Also the idea that Traditionalist movement doesn't exist is completely absurd. Have you heard of something called the Ephraimite movement? Google it if you haven't.
As for Canonists: essentially I follow the Ecumenical Patriarch's (along with Met. Phillip,) thoughts on the Canons -- he believes many of these Canons are absurd and need to be removed from the books and/or rewritten. Granted I lean more towards Fr. John Erickson's view that even the Patriarch, but their views best represent my own. As with so many American, you don't seem care for the use of satire, which is far from childish.
I do not apologize for being a satirist because satire is often the best method we have for dealing with uncomfortable topics.
BTW, no Orthodox publisher would publish such a work without it being vetted through their own sources --
Actually I made some very specific remarks, which you have ignored. Here they are in a simple list:
ReplyDelete1. Was the book peer reviewed? If it was, comments would have been made and forwarded to you on the galleys. Did that happen? Who reviewed it. To say "no Orthodox publisher would publish such a work without it being vetted through their own sources…" doesn't answer the question. Which scholars reviewed this work and commented back to you that they approved of your 'argument'?
2. Are you fluent in modern and or ancient Greek? How familiar are you with primary sources? Have you read the work of Professor Vlassios Phidas (University of Athens)? If you haven't, but have read other scholars on the topic, please tell us who, which and where the sources are so that agree with your conclusion so that we can all read them.
Satire has no place in the commentary of sacred texts – yes, the Holy Canons are sacred texts within the Holy Orthodoxy. You needlessly cause scandal with such style, and its excessive use in the book borders on the infantile. You cannot use satire to cover up ignorance.
It seems that Saint Jerome's words are most appropriate here:
"It is no small gain to know your own ignorance. It is a man's wisdom to know his own measure, that he may not be led away at the instigation of the devil to make the whole world a witness of his incapacity. You are bent, I suppose, on magnifying yourself and boast in your own country that I found myself unable to answer your eloquence and that I dreaded in you the sharp satire of a Chrysippus. Christian modesty holds me back and I do not wish to lay open the retirement of my poor cell with biting words. Otherwise I should soon shew up all your bravery and your parade of triumph. But these I leave to others either to talk of or to laugh at; while for my own part as a Christian speaking to a Christian I beseech you my brother not to pretend to know more than you do, lest your pen may proclaim your innocence and simplicity, or at any rate those qualities of which I say nothing but which, though you do not see them in yourself others see in you. For then you will give everyone reason to laugh at your folly." (Letter 61).
"Satire has no place in the commentary of sacred texts"
ReplyDeleteSo, you admit that a text which calls for the excommunication of women who've suffered a miscarriage is holy?
I rest my case!!!
You don't want to answer my very simple questions...so I rest my case.
ReplyDeletei HAVE already answered the question, you simply didn't like the answer. It was vetted through an Orthodox historian and priest -- though for obvious reasons I'm not about to post his name on a public blog. Yet, even if it hadn't been why is that NO ONE ever answers the historical questions I raise in the book, and in discussion. If the historical research involved is so incorrect, then it should VERY simple for you -- or anyone -- to make your own historical arguments against it. Yet no one ever does. They simply argue that I don't have the gnostic vision which they do -- or that satire is "inappropriate," or that I'm not as Orthodox as they are -- or not even Christian!
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that it is mostly Traditionalists that find the book troubling? Why do non-traditionalists (including priests, and no I'm not about to give their names just so they can start receiving emails and phone calls from people whom they don't know) agree with my arguments? Are they not "really" Orthodox too? For a movement which doesn't exist, it sure seems like the reactions which I anticipated in the book are are spot on.
Ok...a historian and priest read the book. We aren't allowed to know which historian or priest...though not sure why. If they truly believe what you wrote to be correct, surely the would have no problem standing up and saying so....but
ReplyDeleteThe most important question was about your own research -- how you did it, what sources you used, etc. You have not answered that question. A book that purports to debunk the canons of the Church -- all without footnotes -- requires further examination. That is what many are wanting to do, but you seem to be avoiding the questions.
Not every priest wants to be flocked with phone calls and emails from the "defenders of Orthodoxy" -- nor do they have the time. There are plenty of reasons why i won't give his name -- mostly because he has other and more important things to do. You're implying that I'm simply lying, that's fine, but the fact that YOU refuse to answer MY question as to whether or not you believe the Ecumenical Patriarch to be "truly Orthodox" speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteMy book contains a lengthy Bibliography AND I've posted ADDITIONAL sources of my research here on this blog, as well as having listed multiple Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs who hold to similar -- or in same cases more radical -- views. For example:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/resources/sermons/michael_greatest_need.htm
I'm not avoiding any questions, I simply refuse to answer the same question multiple times. The problem is not that I don't list sources, it is that you don't approve of the sources which I have listed. Sorry, that's not how historians do history. If there is fault with my historical research point it out. Yet no one ever does -- they simply rail about how "unorthodox" I am, or how "blasphemous" the book is. Tell me, how is a book which QUESTIONS the Canons blasphemous? Where do I blaspheme God? Where do I curse God? Where do I deny that God guides the Church in matters of dogma?
The Canons are NOT dogma -- and even dogma can and should be questioned, otherwise how else does one know what one is to believe? The real problem seems to be that an ugly side of Orthodoxy has been exposed and this -- just as I anticipated in the book -- upsets people. People say the book is scandalous -- YES IT IS! And some of the Canons are even more scandalous -- and if you don't think so, then that's you're right. However, you're simply not going to convince most people that a Canon which excommunicates a woman for having a miscarriage is -- or was ever -- "holy" or sacred.
if you believe such Canons to be sacred and holy, why not simply say so and be done with it? At least we'd know where you stand. As it is right now, the "non existent" Traditionalists obfuscate by redirecting my criticisms at other issues -- like their distaste for satire and humor or for making an unapproachable boring topic, approachable and entertaining. Yet they never addressing the actual criticisms themselves.
Is the 22nd Canon of St. John the Faster "holy" or not? Are Christians forbidden from eating blood or not? Should women keep silent "anywhere a congregation of people are gathered" or not? Are these decrees "holy" or not?
There have plenty of priests and Bishops for many decades and even centuries who have said that some of the Canons and the language used within them is at best, questionable. All I have done is made the information available to the average laymen who has a right to know what is that exists within their -- and our -- Church.
>>Satire has no place in the commentary of sacred texts – yes, the Holy Canons are sacred texts within the Holy Orthodoxy.<<
ReplyDeleteLook above, you will find that I have already said that the Canons of the Church are holy.
There is no "ugly" side to Orthodoxy. Thee Orthodox Church is the Body of the Christ, is perfect and and holy, spotless and unblemished. That you disagree is your right, and also your mistake.
As Mr. Barnes and others have shown, you have built up a straw man argument to tear down.
Job well done.
So, you DO believe that excommunicating women for having a miscarriage is a holy act. How 5th century of you! Folks, I rest my case!
ReplyDeleteOh BTW, the fact that you do not distinguish between the perfection of the Church Triumphant, and the sometimes brokeness of the Church Militant is -- well, unusual to say the least, but not at all unexpected.
Thanks for the discussion,
Let the reader decide . . . .
Amen, Chuck! I see you're raised a flury of controversy. That is the mark of a great writer who dares to tackle difficult subjects. Hang in there!
ReplyDeleteFr. Zoran wrote me out of the blue, and now misrepresents what I said to him. I never advocated stoning gay people or muslims, and never said that the American military has never made mistakes. In fact, I said just the opposite, but Fr. Zoran has chosen to bare false witness against his neighbor. I suspect he is the priest Charles said read his book in advance. Capital punishment is not contrary to the teachings of the Church, as Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) lays out in detail in his treatise on the the Christian Faith and War, and as the Russian Orthodox Church stated in its social concept document. No wonder a priest who makes wild and baseless accusations would approve of a book that makes wild and baseless accusations.
ReplyDeleteWhat is most amazing, Fr. Zoran, is that someone with absolutely no qualifications would write a book on the Holy Canons of the Church, not include one footnote in the text, show a completely juvenile understanding of the subject matter, and then be surprised that people questioned the quality of scholarship. Indeed, truly amazing.
ReplyDeleteFr. Zoran is NOT the priest who read the book before publication. Nice try Fr. John.
ReplyDeletePaphnutiuos more shocking is when someone who does not have orthodox education become Orthodox priest.
ReplyDeleteFr John there is no false accusation just shocking things you claimed in your teachings. And for your information; since you are acting like police investigator ; i did not read Chuck's book in advance.
It is interesting that you are cited Bishop Anthony and you claimed that Russia in not capable to maintain Capital Punishment but Texas is. For everything there is a first; and you are first Orthodox priest that I ever heard who is for Capital Punishment. I assume that is connected to your militant political view.
Fr Zoran
And Fr John what is very funny, you claimed that is false accusation; but i did not mentioned your name and you recognize yourself? Isn't that interesting?
ReplyDeleteFr Zoran
What is amazing is your inability to keep any facts straight. I did not say that the Russian legal system was incapable of applying the death penalty. Patriarch Kyril did... but he did not say that the death penalty was contrary to the teachings of the Church, because as a demonstrable matter of fact, it is not.
ReplyDeletePatriarch Kyril never claimed that Russian system is incapable; he claimed that legal systems in any country is incapable. But of course you Father belong to Holy Nation that is capable of everything.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Capital Punishment not only that is contrary to the teaching of Orthodox Church but is contrary of our western society and civilization of 21st century. I totally understand that you live in Texas and I am sorry for that; but in 21st century it is a tragic to support such a cruel and unchristian idea. I also understand Father that you don;t have a day of Orthodox Education; but we are never late to learn something new.
Fr Zoran
Once again, Fr. Zoran, you remember things that simply are untrue. Here is the article which quotes Patriarch Kyrill:
Deletehttp://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=8794
Chisinau, October 12, Interfax - Death penalty is acceptable in special cases, but existing judicial system cannot provide its justified use, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes.
"I'm against death penalty in today's Russia. Today to get rid of a competitor, they order a killer. Considering current state of our courts, if there's a death penalty, people will be "removed" legally. And it's a great danger," the Patriarch said in his interview with Moldavian, Romanian TV channels and Rossiya-24 TV.
According to him, there have already been several cases "when suddenly, in the last moment, it was cleared out that the person wasn't guilty."
"Thus if we speak about bringing back death penalty in some concrete cases, when we refer to maniacs, mass murders, terrorists, but we should have absolutely strong evidence that the person committed it and he wasn't forced to take this guilt, such things can take place in future," Patriarch Kirill believes.
The Primate reminded that the church tradition does not condemn or refuse death penalty, Christ Himself "was crucified, He went through death penalty, but He has never said that criminals shouldn't be executed and holy fathers don't say it either."
"Rejection of death penalty is not the result of Christian tradition, but the result of a new liberal philosophic idea that appeared in West European space," he said.
The Patriarch noted that though the Church had never spoke against death penalty, it spoke against applying it and there were only seven or eight cases of death penalty in the Russian Empire for more than hundred years.
---end quote----
There you have it. The Patriarch refers to the corrupt judicial system in Russia. He states flatly that the Church does not condemn the death penalty in principle.
Now what do you have to say?
Maybe you can start your education with famous Russian writer F. Dostoyevsky:
ReplyDeletePrince Myshkin: “Yes—I saw an execution in France—at Lyons. Schneider took me over with him to see it.”
Servant: “What, did they hang the fellow?”
Prince Myshkin: “No, they cut off people’s heads in France.”
Servant: “What did the fellow do?—yell?”
Prince Myshkin: “Oh no—it’s the work of an instant. They put a man inside a frame and a sort of broad knife falls by machinery —they call the thing a guillotine-it falls with fearful force and weight-the head springs off so quickly that you can’t wink your eye in between. But all the preparations are so dreadful. When they announce the sentence, you know, and prepare the criminal and tie his hands, and cart him off to the scaffold—that’s the fearful part of the business. The people all crowd round—even women— though they don’t at all approve of omen looking on. And I may tell you—believe it or not, as you like—that when that man stepped upon the scaffold he CRIED, he did indeed,—he was as white as a bit of paper. Isn’t it a dreadful idea that he should have cried —cried! Whoever heard of a grown man crying from fear—not a child, but a man who never had cried before—a grown man of forty-five years. Imagine what must have been going on in that man’s mind at such a moment; what dreadful convulsions his whole spirit must have endured; it is an outrage on the soul that’s what it is. Because it is said ‘thou shalt not kill,’ is he to be killed because he murdered some one else? No, it is not right, it’s an impossible theory. I assure you, I saw the sight a month ago and it’s dancing before my eyes to this moment. I dream of it, often.”
Servant: “Well, at all events it is a good thing that there’s no pain when the poor fellow’s head flies off”
Prince Myshkin: “Do you know, though,” cried the prince warmly, “you made that remark now, and everyone says the same thing, and the machine is designed with the purpose of avoiding pain, this guillotine I mean; but a thought came into my head then: what if it be a bad plan after all? You may laugh at my idea, perhaps—but I could not help its occurring to me all the same. Now with the rack and tortures and so on—you suffer terrible pain of course; but then your torture is bodily pain only (although no doubt you have plenty of that) until you die. But HERE I should imagine the most terrible part of the whole punishment is, not the bodily pain at all — but the certain knowledge that in an hour,—then in ten minutes, then in half a minute, then now — this very INSTANT—your soul must quit your body and that you will no longer be a man — and that this is certain, CERTAIN! That’s the point—the certainty of it. Just that instant when you place your head on the block and hear the iron grate over your head—then—that quarter of a second is the most awful of all.
This is not my own fantastical opinion—many people have thought the same; but I feel it so deeply that I’ll tell you what I think. I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or
Last time I checked, the opinions of particular characters in Dostoyevsky's novels do not constitute the Tradition of the Church.
DeleteThe fact that Dostoyevsky faced the death penalty himself, and then was pardoned was what prompted his own spiritual transformation. Had he been sentenced to life in prison without parole, we would never have heard of him.
or begging for mercy after his throat was cut. But in the other case all that last hope, which makes dying ten times as easy, is taken away FOR CERTAIN. There is the sentence, and the whole awful torture lies in the fact that there is certainly no escape, and there is no torture in the world more terrible. You may lead a soldier out and set him facing the cannon in battle and fire at him and he’ll still hope; but read a sentence of certain death over the same soldier, and he will go out of his mind or burst into tears. Who can tell whether human nature is able to bear this without madness? Why this hideous, useless, unnecessary outrage? Perhaps there is some man who has been sentenced to death, been exposed to this torture and has been told ‘you can go, you are pardoned.’ Perhaps such a man could tell us. It was of this torture and of this agony that Christ spoke, too. No, you can’t treat a man like that!”
ReplyDeleteJurisdictional Statements
ReplyDeleteIn “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, the death penalty is condemned, in part because it denies the criminal the opportunity for repentance:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
The Orthodox Church in America condemned capital punishment without exception at its All American Council held in St. Louis in 1989:
http://yya.oca.org/TheHub/Articles/TheChurchonCurrentIssues/CapPunish.htm
Statements from Church Hierarchs
Patriarch Alexei likens the death penalty to premeditated murder:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jim_forest/webdoc5.htm
Patriarch of Georgia condemns death penalty:
http://www.geplac.org/publicat/law/archives/glr99q1q2e.pdf , see also http://www.steele.com/fpphr/capital.html
Metropolitan Herman of the Orthodox Church in America issued statement condemning capital punishment, euthanasia and capital punishment in January 2005:
http://www.oca.org/news/724
Metropolitan Evangelos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese applauded the State of New Jersey for being the first state to abolish the death penalty since its reinstatement in the 1970s:
Http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=7812%E2%8C%A9=US
Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos condemned capital punishment and calls for its abolition. See
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/christodoulos.htm
Various Bishops condemn capital punishment
Archbishop of Ottawa and Canada (OCA) condemns capital punishment.
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/seraphim_capital_punishment.htm
Bishop Demitrios (GOA) condemns capital punishment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0612080312dec08,0,7764178.story
Other Orthodox condemnations of capital punishment
Pan-Orthodox Sanctity of Life Prayer Service at St. George Antiochian Church condemns capital punishment, euthanasia, and abortion. See http://www.romarch.org/news.php?id=1540 . In attendance were His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos from the Greek Metropolis of Chicago, His Eminence Archbishop Nicolae, and His Grace Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos.
AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS WITH ORTHODOX PRIEST ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND TO TRY TO EXPLAIN HIM HOW UNORTHODOX THAT IS.
Jurisdictional Statements
ReplyDeleteIn “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, the death penalty is condemned, in part because it denies the criminal the opportunity for repentance:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
The Orthodox Church in America condemned capital punishment without exception at its All American Council held in St. Louis in 1989:
http://yya.oca.org/TheHub/Articles/TheChurchonCurrentIssues/CapPunish.htm
Statements from Church Hierarchs
Patriarch Alexei likens the death penalty to premeditated murder:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jim_forest/webdoc5.htm
Patriarch of Georgia condemns death penalty:
http://www.geplac.org/publicat/law/archives/glr99q1q2e.pdf , see also http://www.steele.com/fpphr/capital.html
Metropolitan Herman of the Orthodox Church in America issued statement condemning capital punishment, euthanasia and capital punishment in January 2005:
http://www.oca.org/news/724
Metropolitan Evangelos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese applauded the State of New Jersey for being the first state to abolish the death penalty since its reinstatement in the 1970s:
Http://www.hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=7812%E2%8C%A9=US
Archbishop of Athens Christodoulos condemned capital punishment and calls for its abolition. See
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/christodoulos.htm
Various Bishops condemn capital punishment
Archbishop of Ottawa and Canada (OCA) condemns capital punishment.
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/seraphim_capital_punishment.htm
Bishop Demitrios (GOA) condemns capital punishment.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0612080312dec08,0,7764178.story
Other Orthodox condemnations of capital punishment
Pan-Orthodox Sanctity of Life Prayer Service at St. George Antiochian Church condemns capital punishment, euthanasia, and abortion. See http://www.romarch.org/news.php?id=1540 . In attendance were His Eminence Metropolitan Iakovos from the Greek Metropolis of Chicago, His Eminence Archbishop Nicolae, and His Grace Bishop Demetrios of Mokissos.
Icon of St Nicholas:
http://www.incommunion.org/incommunion.org/wp-content/uploads//2008/02/St-Nicholas-stopping-executions.jpg
And Fr John accused me for Marcionism when I asked him to cited something from New Testament not only Old.
ReplyDeleteMaybe You can accused Christ as well:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth… ‘But I say to you: Do not resist one who is evil. But, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt. 5:38-39)
Fr Zoran
Again, we see Fr. Zoran's memory lapses in action. I provided you with New Testament quotes:
Delete"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Romans 13:3-5).
And when I pointed out that St. John Chrysostom did not condemn the death penalty, but stated that it was founded on Scripture, he dismissed him.
I can cite numerous fathers of the Church who support the death penalty. For example:
St. Innocent I, Pope of Rome (ca. 405):
"It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister (Romans 13:1-4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority." Ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, PL 20,495.
You cannot cite one to the contrary. You can only appeal to the contemporary opinions of some.
And great source of Orthodox Church point of view on Capital Punishment:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.incommunion.org/2008/02/24/orthodoxy-and-capital-punishment/
Chuck, sorry for trolling your blog, but if you want to stop that you will need to ban Fr John from living his comments; because he will never stop of learn anything.
Fr Zoran
The first statement on this page is untrue:
DeleteIn “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, the death penalty is condemned, in part because it denies the criminal the opportunity for repentance:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx
Here is what it actually states:
"The death penalty as a special punishment was recognised in the Old Testament. There are no indications to the need to abolish it in the New Testament or in the Tradition or in the historical legacy of the Orthodox Church either. At the same time, the Church has often assumed the duty of interceding before the secular authority for those condemned to death, asking it show mercy for them and commute their punishment. Moreover, under Christian moral influence, the negative attitude to the death penalty has been cultivated in people's consciousness. Thus, in the period from the mid-18th century to the 1905 Revolution in Russia, it was applied on very rare occasions. For the Orthodox church consciousness, the life of a person does not end with his bodily death, therefore the Church continues her care for those condemned to capital punishment.
The abolition of death penalty would give more opportunities for pastoral work with those who have stumbled and for the latter to repent. It is also evident that punishment by death cannot be reformatory; it also makes misjudgement irreparable and provokes ambiguous feelings among people. Today many states have either abolished the death penalty by law or stopped practicing it. Keeping in mind that mercy toward a fallen man is always more preferable than revenge, the Church welcomes these steps by state authorities. At the same time, she believes that the decision to abolish or not to apply death penalty should be made by society freely, considering the rate of crime and the state of law-enforcement and judiciary, and even more so, the need to protect the life of its well-intentioned members."
---end quote---
Here is the key statement: "There are no indications to the need to abolish it in the New Testament or in the Tradition or in the historical legacy of the Orthodox Church either."
It simply says not executing someone gives them more time to repent. However, it is also true that executing someone with a few years of notice gives them a lot of motivation to repent, and a much better opportunity to do so then their victims received.
Now, can you produce any actual evidence from Orthodox Tradition that the Church condemns the death penalty? No, you cannot.
Father your statements are so shocking that Orthodox People should avoid your parish. There is a part of statement that best describe you and your believes:
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, national sentiments can cause such sinful phenomena as aggressive nationalism, xenophobia, national exclusiveness and inter-ethnic enmity. At their extremes, these phenomena often lead to the restriction of the rights of individuals and nations, wars and other manifestations of violence.
It is contrary to Orthodox ethics to divide nations into the best and the worst and to belittle any ethnic or civic nation. Even more contrary to Orthodoxy are the teachings which put the nation in the place of God or reduce faith to one of the aspects of national self-awareness.
I posted you website with all resources and if you don;t want to read its your problem. But being Orthodox Priest and being for murdering other human beings is so shocking that I can not believe somebody ordained you.
Fr Zoran
As you have repeatedly done, you ignore overwhelming evidence that your position is untenable. The sources you cite, don't support your claims. The website you appeal to is full of errors. For example, you have Fr. Ted asserting that St. Vladimir did away with the death penalty when he converted. He conveniently fails to mention that St. Vladimir reinstated the death penalty... at the urging of the Church! See Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsy)'s treatise on the Christian Faith and War. There is no basis for claiming that the Church's tradition or Scripture is against the death penalty. You haven't a shred of evidence to support such a contention, and yet like most liberals, you simply restate your baseless opinions as fact, and are impervious to actual evidence or reason. How about engaging the evidence I have presented you with? How about actually providing something like evidence to support your assertions?
ReplyDeleteFrom all the information you found one mistake wooow Father; open your heart and tell what is your problem with Capital Punishment? Only that in USA against are so called liberals; and since our President is Marxist we need to be for.
ReplyDeleteYou are looking for resources? Start with Sermon on Mount from Christ; even though he was a liberal too according to your militant protestant view.
As I told you, you attack Chuck for his book; you are well known for your ego on all orthodox forums. And yet you always trying to get away woth simple question: what is your orthodox background? Which Orthodox Seminary did you attend? What was your Orthodox education that your Bishop decide to use when he ordained you into priesthood?
certainly if he has access to Internet to read Orthodox Yahoo Forum he will think twice before he do such a thing
What was your theological education? You are arguing exactly like a Protestant. Never mind what the Tradition of the Church is, you have your own private interpretation of the sermon on the mount, and have decided that it is against capital punishment. Which Father of the Church can you cite that interpreted the Scriptures in this way? The canons tell us that we are not to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the interpretation of the Holy Fathers. The Fathers found no conflict with the sermon on the mount and Christian rulers using the death penalty in accordance with Romans 13.
ReplyDeleteJust prove one more time. You ego father can not survived simple truth ; you have no Orthodox Education; neither one of your wrong interpretation of Orthodoxy can not be explain by Orthodox Church. I have no mine interpretation of Sermon on Mount; Orthodox Church does; if you can not see the truth it is your problem.I know that you are for Murdering other Human beings only because your militant political party is. With this please don;t troll Chuck site more; as a matter of fact better don;t visit at all if is your only message to this young Orthodox Christian hate.
ReplyDeleteYour hypocrisy is clear here. You promote a book written by a man who has absolutely no theological education whatsoever... and a book on the canons of the Church no less, and yet you engage in ad hominem attacks against me. There is only one of us who has presented evidence to show that what they are saying is supported by the tradition of the Church, and it isn't you. You have not cited anything.
DeleteTell us about your theological education, and I will tell you all about mine.
Also, I should apologize to any Protestants that might have read my previous comparison with your approach to theirs. A good Protestant would have at least felt the need to deal with the Scriptural evidence I presented, such as Romans 13. You refuse to engage any evidence, and have presented none yourself.
Now, if you wish to oppose the death penalty for reasons other than your erroneous claim that the Tradition supports your view, feel free. If you want to argue for example that in our day and age it is not cost effective, or that since we can reliably keep people in prison for life, perhaps a different approach is warranted, that is one thing. I know and respect some Orthodox folks who take such a position. But don't claim the Tradition of the Church proves your case, when it clearly proves just the opposite.
To expand on my previous point... I have published only one theological text, the article on Sola Scriptura, which is a topic I am qualified to write on, and has been well received. I would never dream of publishing a commentary on the canons, much less a diatribe against them. You have no problem with a man writing a book attacking the canons... a man without any theological education. This is why I would like to hear the details of your own theological education... because if you have one, I would like to know what went so wrong, and who is responsible.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with one point which Fr. John makes. At least some within the ancient Church were FOR the death penalty -- I mean, after all it was Orthodox Christians who flayed Hypatia of Alexandria alive with stone tiles, ripped her body to shreds and then burned her inside of a Church! John Bishop of Nikiu even believed that this it was a "holy" act. So Fr. John does have some support that some within the Orthodox have been for the death penalty!
ReplyDeleteOf course, just because Orthodox Christians did or believed something in the 5th century doesn't make what they did or believed right or moral -- does it?
The actions of a mob and the execution of duly convicted criminals is obviously not at all comparable. Also, you have you facts wrong. According to the record Socrates of Constantinople (a Church historian who presents this story in a way that clearly shows his disapproval), she was killed outside of a Church, and then burned at another place called "Cinaron". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Death
DeleteThere is no evidence that the Church approved of this lynching at all. Your use of red herring arguments, such as this, seems to be a pattern.
What the Fathers of the Church believed and taught is what guides our understanding of Scripture. It is simply a fact that the Tradition of the Church is in favor of the death penalty, as a means of punishing criminals who have done something worthy of it.
Pardon me for not having perfect recall or keeping to the precise details with 100% accuracy. You're right she wasn't burned inside of a Church, she was MURDERED inside of a Church.
ReplyDelete"Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and, dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell." --Socrates Scholasticus
Yes, that's SO MUCH better. Thanks for clarifying!
Of course, this was a mob! But there are no historical records of any of the murderers (which was led by someone we know by name) were ever disciplined or excommunicated. Socrates believed this wasn't in line with the spirit of Christianity, but where are the statements from the hierarchs of the Church that say so? Oh right, they don't exist. The Church remained silent. Remember that John of Nikiu believed the ringleader of the mob was "a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ" -- John of Nikiu (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm).
The point is not that a mob is comparable to state sanctioned execution (I think you must be the only person who would have gotten that from my previous post) but rather than blind adherence to something because "the Church Fathers say so" is simply untenable. We should think whether or not what the Church Fathers is in line with what Christ Himself said and taught. The fact that you're using the word "tradition" and the death penalty in the same sentence, and capitalizing tradition with a "big T" is problematic because "big T" tradition -- as far as I understand it -- has nothing to do with governments and society but with matters of an eternal nature: The Creed, the Liturgy etc.
I have no doubt that you will disagree -- and to be honest I have intention of debating this issue at all, though it may be something of which I write about in the future. Thanks for the idea!
You wrote: "Pardon me for not having perfect recall or keeping to the precise details with 100% accuracy. You're right she wasn't burned inside of a Church, she was MURDERED inside of a Church."
DeleteMe: That is highly unlikely. At that time, strict discipline was maintained about who could enter a Church. One had to be a catechumen to even enter the narthex. Taking a pagan inside the Church would have been a notable violation of that discipline, and killing anyone inside a Church, even if there were just cause to execute them, would have been a notable sacrilege.
The text only says she was taken to a Church, given that it was a mob action, it would have remained in the street.
You: "Of course, this was a mob! But there are no historical records of any of the murderers (which was led by someone we know by name) were ever disciplined or excommunicated. Socrates believed this wasn't in line with the spirit of Christianity, but where are the statements from the hierarchs of the Church that say so? Oh right, they don't exist. The Church remained silent. Remember that John of Nikiu believed the ringleader of the mob was "a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ" -- John of Nikiu (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm)."
Me: There is also no record that any of the mob were ever identified. We have the disapproval of Church historians. What may have been said by the bishops in Egypt at the time was not been preserved... but that is no proof that such statement were not made, only that record of those statements were not copied and recopied over the centuries... which is hardly surprising.
Bishop John of Nikiu was not an Orthodox bishop... he was copt, living under the Muslim yoke, about 3 centuries after the fact. Socrates of Constantinople lived when memory of the event would have still been living.
You: "The point is not that a mob is comparable to state sanctioned execution (I think you must be the only person who would have gotten that from my previous post) but rather than blind adherence to something because "the Church Fathers say so" is simply untenable."
Me: Well, you did make such an equation, as a matter of fact.
What one or another person in Church history may have done or said may or may not be of significance, but the consensus patrum is the Tradition of the Church, and if you are an Orthodox Christian, you should adhere to it, but obviously what the Church teaches is of no importance to you.
You: "We should think whether or not what the Church Fathers is in line with what Christ Himself said and taught. The fact that you're using the word "tradition" and the death penalty in the same sentence, and capitalizing tradition with a "big T" is problematic because "big T" tradition -- as far as I understand it -- has nothing to do with governments and society but with matters of an eternal nature: The Creed, the Liturgy etc."
Me: You are approaching the question in an entirely Protestant manner. Apart from the Tradition of the Church, how can you know what Christ taught or thought? You can't.
You: "I have no doubt that you will disagree -- and to be honest I have intention of debating this issue at all, though it may be something of which I write about in the future. Thanks for the idea!"
Me: I am sure Protestants and skeptics alike will welcome your thoughts on the matter.
One more point here. The reason we are talking about the death penalty at all here is that it was argued -- and not initially by me -- that the Church emphatically does have a position on the death penalty... only that this position is that the death penalty is absolutely unacceptable. I have only pointed out the fact that actual Tradition of the Church is just the opposite to correct the record. If you wish to be opposed to the death penalty, you have every right... just don't claim that the Tradition of the Church supports you on the question.
DeleteSo Father, if you do not accept John of Nikiu's histories because he was a Copt, why do you accept Socrates' histories seeing as how he was a Novatian?
ReplyDeleteWhether Socrates of Constantinople was a Novation or not is actually not a certainty -- see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.iii.ii.html He was, however, certainly much closer to the event. I pointed out John of Nikiu's actual Church affiliation because you cited him as speaking for the Church, which he clearly did not, not being a member of it, and as a matter of fact, he lived 3 centuries after the time in question.
ReplyDeleteI never said John of Nikiu was speaking for the Church, I said that he believed Peter the reader was a "perfect believer" in Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that one can find ANYTHING they want within the Church fathers (or ancient Christian histories, laws, or sanctions) to rationalize any sort of barbarous actions. I don't accept John's testimony anymore than you do, however, it does show what happens with barbarous acts over time. They are at first rationalized, and then heralded as "holy acts of faith." You accept Socrates' testimony as the most credible -- as do I. He was absolutely disgusted with the events and believed Hyptia to be a righteous person and victim of politics. As he wrote:
"they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles."
Whether this happened INSIDE of a Church or not, is as you claim, not certain. However it seems to me the most probable scenario that it did happen inside of a Church, for why else would they bother to take her there in the first place? The idea that men who flayed the woman alive, ripped her to shreds then burned her remains had scruples enough to NOT take a Pagan inside of Church is absurd!
Socrates continues:
"After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church."
Do you accept this portion of his histories, that this brought disgrace upon Cyril himself and the entire Church in Alexandria? Remember Alexandria was still Orthodox at the time -- yet he felt that the Church and even the Bishop could be disgraced by such actions.
Socrates concludes:
"And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort."
On this we can agree on, I'm sure.
You wrote: "My point is that one can find ANYTHING they want within the Church fathers (or ancient Christian histories, laws, or sanctions) to rationalize any sort of barbarous actions."
ReplyDeleteMe: Quoting a single heretical bishop is hardly finding something with the teachings of the Church fathers, much less finding something that is found throughout the Church Fathers.
You: "Whether this happened INSIDE of a Church or not, is as you claim, not certain. However it seems to me the most probable scenario that it did happen inside of a Church, for why else would they bother to take her there in the first place? The idea that men who flayed the woman alive, ripped her to shreds then burned her remains had scruples enough to NOT take a Pagan inside of Church is absurd!"
Me: Who knows what goes on in the mind of a mob, but if they had taken her inside the Church, this would have been worthy of special note... for one, they would have had to have gotten inside, and secondly, there would have been the objections of anyone who was in charge of the Church. It is not at all absurd that this would have been an issue. Any Christian with any sense would know that to kill anyone, even if justly, in a church, was an act that would defile a Church. There is actually a service in the Book of Needs for the cleansing of a Church in which someone has been killed... and so obviously, this would have been an issue.
You: "Do you accept this portion of his histories, that this brought disgrace upon Cyril himself and the entire Church in Alexandria? Remember Alexandria was still Orthodox at the time -- yet he felt that the Church and even the Bishop could be disgraced by such actions."
Me: There is no mention of their complicity, only of their shame at it happening. Now, if we were talking about Muslims doing something very similar, which one finds in abundance in their history, you would not only not find shame, but praise and support from the Koran and Islamic tradition.
Of course, we can agree that lynching a woman because she was a pagan, and doing so in the hideous manner that it happened is completely contrary to Christianity. However, the death penalty is found in the Scriptures, it is alluded to favorably by St. Paul and St. Peter, and the Fathers understood it it to be necessary and appropriate.
As for the death penalty -- assuming that you're correct -- (which plenty of people would contest) why are so many Orthodox bishops against it? Are they all heretics? Secularists in disguise? Not as well read in the fathers as you? If what you say is so clearly the case then how is it so many saints have been against it? Are they all deceived? Given that there has never been an official pronouncement on the issue -- and given that, even Church fathers who thought it might be necessary in some cases always argued that the core of Christianity tended towards mercy -- how is it that your views can be declared THE Orthodox opinion?
ReplyDeleteI never said that people who oppose the death penalty are necessarily heretics... it is just that their opposition is not based on the Tradition of the Church. Even the sources that Fr. Zoran cited conceded the fact that the Tradition of the Church supported the death penalty, but made other arguments against the death penalty.
DeleteI didn't say that you said they were heretics, I was asking if you believe them to be heretics. There is a difference.
DeleteHere are a couple of links which you probably will not read but others may be interested to know that -- contrary to Fr. John's assertions -- many, many Orthodox Bishops oppose the death penalty:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/seraphim_capital_punishment.htm
http://www.incommunion.org/2008/02/07/assessing-the-death-penalty-let-the-punishment-fit-the-time/
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/goarch_moral_statements_1984.htm
Please point me to the line or lines in which any of these sources actually cite the fathers, the Scripture, or the canons clearly endorsing opposition to the death penalty. I don't see any arguments that are based on anything other than personal opinion. The Social Concept Document of the Russian Church clearly leans in favor of opposition to the death penalty, but unequivocally acknowledges that the Tradition of the Church does not support such a view, and then makes other arguments against the death penalty... while acknowledging that Orthodox Christians have a right to make their own minds up on the matter.
ReplyDeleteIt is inherently sinful to support abortion. It is not inherently sinful to oppose the death penalty, and it is certainly not sinful to support its just application.
Father John, you are really wasting your breath. CS is more interested in making arguments for what texts don't say than what they do say. He's on a crusade of stupidity, driven by ignorance, and a disdain for things holy.
ReplyDeletePaphnutios -- are you saying that the death penalty is "Holy"?
ReplyDelete