However, one of the defenses of Canon
law and Traditionalism which I admit I was unprepared for was the
surprising claim that Orthodox Traditionalists (of the type I
address) don't even exist! That's right. My points would be okay,
except for the fact that the radical and fringe Traditionalists (who
believe Canon law is divine and/or should be enforced in the modern
world) aren't a part of modern day reality. In other words, I'm just
making all of this up! (Funny that my publisher didn't think that.)
The claim that “Traditionalists
don't exist” actually comes in two versions. The first comes from
very genuine Orthodox Christians who honestly have never met any
Traditionalists, nor have they read any of their books, websites, and
thankfully don't know anyone who has been abused by Traditionalism.
Generally these Orthodox Christians live in the largest and most
multicultural parts of the country. Places like San Fransisco,
Boston, and Atlanta are – as they should be – places of sanity
where the people I'm referring to seem so outlandish that my
arguments appear to be all for nothing. People tend to think that
there may be 5 guys living somewhere in Arkansas who believe this
stuff, but that doesn't make them a “movement” which must be
“addressed.” If I had this view, I would agree too! And I respect
this view and those who hold it because these types of responses to
the book are always cordial and genuine. The reader just cannot
understand why I'm making an issue out of nothing.
Again, I understand this view but let
us for a moment assume that the Traditionalism I'm referring to
doesn't exist. As a lover of history, I still find the fact that such
people once existed in the Church – even if it was over 1000 years
ago – an intriguing and fascinating issue. Isn't it worth knowing
how the Church once viewed women? Slavery? The importance of the
pecking order within the hierarchy? To me, even if Orthodox
Traditionalism didn't exist today, these Canons are still a fascinating and sometimes disturbing part of our
Church history which is worth exploring and beginning a conversation about.
And these views were
still held by the compilers of The Rudder, which was first
published just over 200 years ago. In Eastern Orthodox time, that's
like last weekend! it's not like these beliefs died out in the 8th century. If they died out, they only did so very recently (post Enlightenment). It may very well be true that if you're
living in NYC you probably have never encountered the people I'm referring to in the book. Yet
they do exist. They are not 5 guys in Nebraska, nor are they limited
to a couple of practical jokers posting on blogs. Nor are they
confined to the so called Ephraimite Monasteries which have become
such a troublesome issue within the heartland of the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese (though that's probably where the heart of the problem
lies at the moment). I know people on the East Coast who have no clue
as to what this troublesome issue even is, yet it exists (see:
http://gotruthreform.org/)
and it is in part a product of the type of “Traditionalism” and view
of the Canons which my book addresses. Traditionalists are not
limited to Greek Churches, nor are they limited to America. In fact,
I have personally corresponded with someone from England who has also
had her own problems with Traditionalists for a number of years. (And
no, please don't email me and ask me to give you her name, address
and telephone number, if she wants a date -- she'll email you herself!)
These Traditionalists do exist – and ironically the second version of the “Traditionalists don't
exist” argument comes not from the good people at great Churches
like St. Sophia Cathedral in LA, or St. Mary's in the Twin Cities (if all Churches were like that, I
wouldn't even have written a book) but from the
Traditionalists themselves. I've gotten emails telling me that no such fanatics exist -- or so they tell me right before they explain that I'm
committing blasphemy, cursing God, and that I'm going to hell! After all, what's fanatical about condemning someone (me) to hell for criticizing something I'm told doesn't even exist? That's perfectly sane! I've also been told that the Canons are but man made tools -- but questioning them is blasphemous! Makes perfect sense, right?
My intention is not to refute “the Canons” per
se but a very specific misunderstanding of them: that being that they
cannot change and that God had something to do with writing them.
This makes people uncomfortable but it is what it is and I stand by
my arguments, and more importantly I stand by the fact that there ARE
Traditionalists who do claim that Canon law is on par with Scripture
– in fact it is part of “Sacred Tradition,” (see: which for my
non-Orthodox readers means it came from God the Holy Spirit). These
are not the claims of a couple of people posting on the internet
which we can write off because – well, it's the internet. Yes,
apparently some people still think the internet is still an obscure
upstart fad and not the modern world's fastest and most efficient
method of communication.(Welcome to the 21st century!)
So finally, what is my proof for the existence of a
“problem”? Well, other than my book's
Bibliography and the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
felt the need to actually release an encyclical addressing it in 2010 I've selected just a few websites to post here. A few of these appear in my Bibliography, most do not. These only scratch the surface of the Traditionalist world -- which as I explain in the book is NOT all bad -- but it does have a more disturbing form which, not only exists, but does hurt the Orthodox Church today in many different ways.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/modernism.pdf
A couple of more scholarly works on THE RUDDER:
Well people,ummm,those of you who have not read this great book really should not make threats and derogatory statements....How narrow minded some people are....
ReplyDeleteThis book is one of the funniest books I have read in a very long time....You should really read it before you knock it.....
Thank you Chuck for a great read,can't wait until the next one......
I doubt anyone has argued that there are no such people as Orthodox "traditionalists". There are plenty of people who happily call themselves that, and there are plenty of people that I would categorize as extremists. I have spent quite a bit of time debating them, and so I know they exist. I just don't believe that any of them would argue that it was against the canons to go to a modern doctor who happened to be Jewish. If you focused your criticisms on the real positions of real extremists, I would be right there with you, but when you mock the canons themselves, you are mocking the Church, and in fact mocking God. See: Luke 10:16.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, what do you think the link to the Traditional Orthodox Blog proves?
ReplyDeleteFather John wrote: "I just don't believe that any of them would argue that it was against the canons to go to a modern doctor who happened to be Jewish."
ReplyDeleteI have NOT asserted any such thing! Clearly you still haven't read the book....
Folks, I rest my case!
Charles, here is what the promo for your book says:
ReplyDelete"The Orthodox Traditionalist Movement impacts the Orthodox Church negatively because it calls for a "return" to all the traditions of the ancient church, since today they are rarely enforced. But what are those traditions? Did you know that they include forbidding the Orthodox to dance at weddings? From having a Jewish doctor? They also include punishing a woman for having a miscarriage! Believe it or not, these "inspired" Canons even include laws which declare that eating Matzoh bread is evil!"
http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/crsiofor.html
Now, if you agree that the canon in question does not say another against having a Jewish Medical Doctor, and you agree that no one argues that it does say that, then what, pray tell, is your reason for raising the issue in the first place? You are tilting at windmills here.
Father, if you'd had taken the time you've spent reading and posting on my blog and had actually read the BOOK (rather than just the blurb on the publisher's website) you'd already have your answer.
ReplyDeleteYou want an answer, read the book. Sorry, I do not discuss substance with those who've not read it. This is not just a ploy to garner sales just so I can get an extra 5 cents on my royalties -- it is to avoid talking passed each other and to avoid repeating myself ad nauseum.
During the communist regime in former Yugoslavia; one of the official of regime, once attack famous Serbian Writer Vuk Draskovich by the words : "I did not read a book, but I am strongly oppose what is inside". Our dear Father John acting the same here.
DeleteFr Zoran Savic
St George Serbian Orthodox Church
Oakland, California
You cannot judge a book by its cover. You can judge it by its contents. I have read a large section of this book. I have not bought a copy, and do not intend to, based on what I read myself, and based on Patrick Barnes' thorough review and based on the contents of this blog, I have no reason to believe that the parts I have not seen are any better.
DeleteMr. Shingledecker, here are some of your phrases which describe "Orthodox traditionalists" and their supposed "movement":
ReplyDelete• “[T]here is a growing movement in the Orthodox Church of what’s called the Traditionalist Movement” (p. 1)
• The movement is “made up of Orthodox Fundamentalists who attack other Orthodox Christians if they don’t believe the Canons are perfect, inspired by God and should be kept as they are.” (p. 1)
• “They also attack other Christians that question the official ‘interpretation’ of the Canons in a book called The Rudder.” (p. 1)
• They “love to exclude people they don’t fully approve of.” (p. 3)
• They are “rigorists” who are contrasted with “progressives” or “moderates” in the Church who supposedly are the only ones who exhibit “compassion and open mindedness.” (p. 3, 9)
• The movement “fills some need in people that’s always been there to lord it over others in the name of God.”
• The book’s chapters are supposedly narrowed down to “the more outlandish Canons they insist we embrace.” (p. 4)
• The movement “proclaims that… the Orthodox Church must return to an older and more pure form of the Christian faith, as personified in Canon Law.”
• They “look for certainty where there is none” (p. 8)
• They have “fear-filled or even hate-filled baggage”, and “everyone who disagrees with [them] is not just wrong but damned and [they] miraculously happen to be right… about everything.” (p. 10)
• They have a “habit of loudly judging those they disagree with as not really Christian and delight in denouncing them” (p. 11)
• They “archaic, outdated, and pointlessly irrelevant” Canons as “weapon[s] to beat other Christians in general and Orthodox in particular over the head with.” (p. 12)
• They “take the Canons as speaking for God” (p. 17)
• They consider any change bad: “The idea that change (i.e., innovation) is bad is something you’ll hear a lot of from the Orthodox Traditionalist movement. If evolution were ‘Traditionalist’ we’d all still be single celled organisms!”
• They say that the only way to fix the alleged problems with the Orthodox Church is to “return to a more ‘pure’ form of the religion where all of Holy Tradition—as personified in Canon law—is strictly enforced.” (p. 20)
• They disagree with Canon 102 of the 6th and would consider it to be a product of modern secular thinking.
• “It means covering up the insanity of the church, vowing to never change a thing and badmouthing all who dare question this addicition to false ‘certainties’. In other words, Fundamentalism is now unleashed and rampant within the Orthodox community. And it will hurt, and is hurting, the Church.” (pp. 171-2).
Without a single quote or footnote from any of their writings, you make these assertions. I have been associated with people who call themselves "traditional" or "traditionalist" for almost 15 years. Not once have I read or heard anything like your book describes (and yes, I have read it, painful as it was to get through). I have also communicated with clergymen in the Church of Greece, who are in a country where more extreme "traditionalist" views can often be found. They, too, have never heard anyone claiming like you describe. Please cite specific examples from their writings that back up your allegations. I don't think you can.
Mr. Shingledecker, I think you are guilty of slander. Please cite any of the references you provide above to support your outrageous allegations and characterizations of Orthodox "traditionalists". I'm giving you a chance to prove what you write, even citing sources that you don't mention in your book. Please provide direct quotes, page numbers, URLs, etc. How's that for fairness? I look forward to a detailed list of citations that directly support your assertions.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who wants an Orthodox understanding of the Canons, please see *Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons* (http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Dimensions-Canons-Lewis-Patsavos/dp/1885652682), by Dr. Lewis Patsavos. He could hardly be labeled a "traditionalist" or "fundamentalist". He's a Professor at Holy Cross Seminary (Greek Archdiocese of North America) in Brookline, MA. A good article/interview is http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/church_scandals_and_the_canons. Anyone who reads these with a proper disposition towards the Orthodox Church and the Holy Fathers will come away with a healthy understanding of the Holy Canons. This quote by Dr. Patsavos is especially relevant:
ReplyDeleteWorthy of note is the fact that the rejection of canonical order leads to the opposite of the desired result, i.e., the imposition of the human element upon the divine. What needs to be understood is the fact that despite the steadfastness of the Orthodox Church in her canonical tradition, there are still those in her fold whose degenerate will scorns the theanthropic will of the Church as expressed by the holy canons. Furthermore, their own selfish will seeks to settle ecclesiastical matters without the canons or to distort them for their own calculated motives. In the words of canon 10 of the Synod of Constantinople (861): “Those who appear to be victims of their own passions not only do not shudder at the thought of the punishment provided by the holy canons, but have actually dared to scorn them. For they distort them, and in conformity with their malicious nature make pretense of their will; so that in keeping with the magnitude of their malice, according to St. Gregory the Theologian, not only is what is evil not attributed to them, but is even thought of as good. (Patsavos, p. 29)
I find the above quote hard to digest. can someone please put it into American English.
DeleteI just posted a review of his book: http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/review-of-the-crazy-side-of-orthodoxy.aspx
ReplyDeleteCharles, do you have any intention of writing a substantive rebuttal to Patrick Barnes' review?
ReplyDeleteActually no. I'm in the process of writing other things at the moment. Though I may perhaps do so at some time in the future.
ReplyDeleteOrthodox Traditionalism and Orthodox Traditionalists simply are interested in living Orthodoxy, worshipping in Orthodox fashion and maintaining Orthodoxy intact and without adulterations and/or syncretist accretions and/or adulterations. That is the point of Orthodoxy. The Holy Canons, emanating from the Holy Apostles and Ecumenical Councils and local councils holding this authority are only subject to revision to those who rise up to the spiritual life and fidelity to Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers and Hierarchs who helped established these Holy Canons in the Holy Spirit. A priori that excludes people who do not believe in the Work of the Holy Spirit, do not recognize the spiritual stature of the Holy Fathers and are disobedient to these Bishops. It isn't fundamentalism to hold to this view. It is in plain terms what defines Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteI find it all too aggregious that people who neither understand illumination and it's requisite condition for the episcopacy, nor the theanthropic life, nor even the concept of phronema, mock it all too easily. This is the sole rebuttal necessary for trite scrawlings like this and for their publishers and sponsors (jurisdictional as well as other), who these days are on record as saying that they are odds with the core Christian message of Christ being the "Way, the Truth and the Life".
Such a fundamental Christian concept they do indeed castigate as "fundamentalism". In their world, this teaching embodies a type of "bigotry", but this is a neo pagan world celebrating humanism and a post Christian world having nothing at all to do with Orthodoxy. For them, they are their own gods of their own orthodoxy which they construct in a cafeteria, picking and choosing what they wish to believe and how they wish to worship, melding it with whatever fad or fancy and justifying it with a check to hierarch x or by a nod from heterodox y. This is the modern day golden calf, a graven image of ones defiance and rebellion, worshipping of modern man in a worship with a shelf life as long as that man's contributions to the coffers of hierarch x or by his death. Neo Paganism. Bonhoeffer died fighting this type of religion in its apotheosis, and IT WAS INDEED TO HIM the most heinous of anti Christian fundamentalisms!
Let us put it bluntly, those people in certain quarters bating Traditionalism and Traditionalists are hard pressed to give explanation of why Traditionalists and Traditionalism, ie a CALL TO LIVE THE LIFE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT ACCORDING TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE HOLY FATHERS, THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, OBEYING THE HOLY CANONS expressing the Mind of Christ, are by any means non normative of Orthodoxy, historically, theologically, canonically, etc. Moreover, this pew and organ crowd of latter day Protestants and agnostic humanists, the true FUNDAMENTALISTS and BIGOTS of a NEO PAGANISM, are challenged with the severe call to JUSTIFY WHY AND HOW and BY WHOSE AUTHORITY they have deviated and continue to deviate from the Orthodox Tradition. If such a voice does not rise to the level of a Father or of Scripture or of a grace illumined teacher, the only thing THEY establish is that they found their religion on ignorant humanist catcalls. They speak for themselves. The Tradition speaks by the Holy Spirit.
Let's be succinct. Orthodox Traditionalists are one in Faith and worship and discipline with the historical Church and with the Fathers and follow a path which leads to theosis. They are in opposition to those who have deviated from this path, introduced innovations and offer a revolutionary break from the Church founded by the Holy Apostles. Thus, Traditionalists and Traditionalism is fundamentally Orthodoxy. Where it is lacking, Orthodoxy is either under assault or has been subverted. To be Orthodox in all sincerity and piety is to be a Traditionalist and live a life of Traditionalism, for Orthodoxy is the Faith of Tradition, ie the LIFE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CHRIST JESUS SENT BY GOD THE FATHER. If someone does not believe in such a Faith or Church, one is not only NOT Orthodox, such a one isn't even a Christian.
ReplyDeleteTserkovnye Vekhi,
ReplyDeleteForgive me for taking so long to reply -- as I've said before, I'm a terrible blogger. But, I will attempt to be more prompt in the future.
First, I much appreciate your reply, even though I disagree with nearly everything you said! :)
I also want to thank you for being honest enough to say what you think. Free speech is what I have hoped this blog would be about. I also am glad that -- even though you posted some very strong opinions, and in no uncertain terms told me that I'm not even a Christian, let alone Orthodox -- that you have done so in somewhat polite manner.
With that said, I want to thank you for PROVING all of my previous points, along with the thesis of The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy. This post is possibly the best evidence I have that ARE Orthodox Christians who believe that the Canons -- all of them -- are to be OBEYED because they are HOLY and express the mind of Christ.
BTW, I am far from a "pew and organ" Orthodox Christian -- I continue to remain obsessed with the minutiae of our Orthodox Liturgical tradition, much to the chagrin of some of my friends. I hate organs (my parish hasn't used on in over 12 years) and long for a return to traditional Byzantine chant. In many ways I too am a traditionalist; however, I believe there is a vast different between loving our neighbors as ourselves, and telling women they should be excommunicated for a mere act of biology. (Or any of the other ridiculous Canons, that clearly do NOT come from the "mind of Christ."
We will never agree on these issues -- and to me, that's okay. There is a member of my parish (whom I just spoke to) who doesn't agree with me, but he still considers me a Christian brother. Too bad you (and so many others) cannot do the same.
In Christ,
In other words, you are more enlightened than the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers who spoke in the phronema and feel qualitifed to speak in place of the HOLY SPIRIT. That is your point. Yes, your type does indeed embody the "crazy side of 'orthodoxy'", but is in all actuality an expression of a heterodox trend within Orthodoxy.
ReplyDelete1). The Holy Seven Ecumenical Councils spoke the Truth in the HOLY SPIRIT and established the discipline of CHRIST's Church in the Holy Canons. To not believe that is to not be Orthodox.
2). Since APOSTOLIC TIMES and SINCE THE TIME OF CHRIST - Did you know more about "biology" than CHRIST HIMSELF?! - women during their menstrual cycles have been excluded from Holy Communion until their flows of blood abate. Likewise, IF YOU ARE BLEEDING or HAVE OPEN BLOODY SORES, YOU ARE ALSO EXCLUDED FROM HOLY COMMUNION. Just as you don't toss the BODY AND BLOOD of CHRIST in the Chalice on the ground, likewise, flow of blood prevents you from Communion. PERHAPS, you LEARN before you write such ignorant statements again. Orthodoxy is not High Church Protestantism. Your point of view is not Orthodox and any who have your viewpoint really don't believe in Orthodoxy.
3). We Orthodox have the Holy Fathers as our authorities. Whom do you offer in YOUR "crazy side of 'orthodoxy'"?! Your very attitude exhibits that of the schismatic and innovator anathemized on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
Delete4). No one ever maintained the Holy Canons were "changeless". There is a reason why we have Ecumenical Councils. But can you or the people who hold YOUR VIEWS honestly claim to be of the same spiritual stature of the HOLY FATHERS and the HOLY APOSTLES who provided the Holy Canons for us.
ReplyDelete5). Show us YOUR SAINTS and those who have been deified by having your Protestant mindset and railing against the Holy Fathers and the Holy Ecumenical Councils. Since you cannot, that indicts your schismatic rants as the "crazy side of Orthodoxy", not the Traditionalists who live Orthodoxy. How can you be Orthodox when you rail against LIVING ORTHODOXY and suggest nominalism and post Christian Western mores in its place?!
ReplyDeleteChristos Anesti! I hope you had a blessed Holy Week too!!!
ReplyDeleteInteresting how agnostics council us on the Canons, Bright Week, Liturgy, Traditionalism and everything else. Believing in nothing, they style themselves as "authorities" and "spokespeople" on everything, including the Truth, Orthodoxy. It is odd that people like this man and Frank Schaeffer are still allowed to commune in churches whose doctrine they fundamentally reject. It is even more odd that innovators would use such people to rail against Orthodox Traditionalism. Perhaps, because they are expendible and easily cast off once their belligerent serves its purpose in sowing doubt? But no one is fooled. The fact certain clerics gives license to unbelievers like this to profane Orthodox Faith and worship and discipline tells us the true intent of these clerics and their innovations, their modernisms, their proposed renovations of Orthodoxy. If one wants to understand the mindset of these Renovationists, one need only listen to Frank Schaeffer or this man, for they right and speak with approval from their respective clerical authorities with the blessing of those permitting them to commune and insult Orthodoxy. These men are spokespeople for their jurisdictions and their witness indicts the modernism and ecumenism these sad places stand for.
ReplyDelete