Senior Russian Priest accuses Western Christians of a deal with evil.

HamletOrHecuba

Can you imagine any Bishop in the British Isles being so forthright? The fact of the silence from senior clergy to the statement of the Dublin Archbishop that "secularization is not all bad" (as if anything at all can be philosophically neutral, spiritual neutrality is a possibility for human persons) bares out what Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Synodal Department for Church and Society Relations in Russia has said.

"He complained that acquisition of material benefits, pride, "supercilious self-fulfillment," and pluralism are dominant values in modern society and that the latter rejects single-truth doctrines. All that runs against Gospel ideals, he argued.

He accused Western Christians of a "deal with evil" and of forgetting Christian spiritual and social ideals in order to avoid conflicts with social groups that are allegedly used to speaking on behalf of society as a whole and laying down rules for it.

Others, he said, opted for self-isolation and abandoning their Christian mission in the world in an effort to at least partially rescue their faith and eventually achieve the global domination of Kingdom of God laws.

Both options mean defeat and are essentially un-Christian, the priest said."

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=dujour&div=218

gawker

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

"He complained that acquisition of material benefits, pride, "supercilious self-fulfillment," and pluralism are dominant values in modern society and that the latter rejects single-truth doctrines. All that runs against Gospel ideals, he argued.

Is this the same pluralism that Christians are crying out for in countries where they are not the majority religion? You can believe you have the absolute truth without needing to enforce the results of that perceived absolute truth on those who do not share your views. This guy seems like a muppet to be honest. The fact he previously said there should be a national dress code for women in Russia (not men, of course) in order to cut down rapes (by men on women) shows his slightly lob-sided and authoritarian way of thinking.

Oh an regarding his denouncement of "materical benefits", those guys don't exactly choose to live in poverty, and enjoy many privileges both financially and politically. Oh and they have plenty of lavish things too, they just photoshop them out - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/in-russia-a-watch-vanishes-up-orthodox-leaders-sleeve.html?_r=1&smid=rdt

Slav

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

He accused Western Christians of a "deal with evil"

I wonder how did it sound originally, in Russian (I suppose). Although recently Fr.Vsevolod generated more than enough facepalms in the Russian Church, that accusation of Western Christians of a "deal with evil" is probably too much even for him.

And I guess if he were to speak about it now (the article is dated November 2011) he would not be that loud about the acquisition of material benefits in the light of the recent controversies in Moscow Patriarchate.

HamletOrHecuba

Slav wrote: »

I wonder how did it sound originally, in Russian (I suppose). Although recently Fr.Vsevolod generated more than enough facepalms in the Russian Church, that accusation of Western Christians of a "deal with evil" is probably too much even for him.

And I guess if he were to speak about it now (the article is dated November 2011) he would not be that loud about the acquisition of material benefits in the light of the recent controversies in Moscow Patriarchate.

Sorry about that but it was posted on my facebook by someone today.

There is no doubt huge questions surround all the Patriarchs since St Thikon but I believe he was referring to Western Christians in general as opposed as opposed to Bishops, etc. How is what he said to much for him? Its clear that western society is evil, and its also clear that most so-called Christian leaders in the west are happy to go along with such evil.

HamletOrHecuba

The denial of important aspects of Redemption by a lot (but not all) of the Orthodox and the dogma of the toll houses are very problematic, but the Orthodox do seem to be spiritually a lot more healthy than any particular group of Western Christians.

Slav

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I believe he was referring to Western Christians in general as opposed as opposed to Bishops, etc. How is what he said to much for him?

It would be wrong on many accounts I think.

First of all, it's not in the spirit of Orthodoxy (and Christianity in general for that matter) to comment on others relations with evil because if we look at ourselves we always have a far better example of someone who keeps making deals with evil. Otherwise a bit of biblical ophthalmology about diagnosing a foreign body in one's eye springs to mind immediately. A well known saying by St.Seraphim of Sarov sums up the Christian way nicely: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."; accusing the thousands of "deals with evil" not only would not work but would also be a bad taste in Christianity.

Second, as the article head suggests, Fr.Vsevolod made a point about "dominant role for Orthodox Church in Russian society"; in this context the remarks about Western Christianity at very least look strange.

Third, the Russian Church in general and Fr.Vsevolod in particular have a lot to learn from the Western Christianity especially Evangelicals, I don't mean the theology, but evangelisation and the social work is definitely not something to be snooty about.

There is no doubt huge questions surround all the Patriarchs since St Thikon

Owning a Breguet is not wrong in itself but if you go to people with a message you just need to make sure that you look appropriately. If you are to warn about the dangers of acquisition of material benefits then Breguet and things like that probably won't make the most appropriate outfit. If this Orthodox Patriarch:

came up with the same message that would be perfectly appropriate. But he didn't because he didn't have to: he didn't talk about it, he just lived this way.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The denial of important aspects of Redemption by a lot (but not all) of the Orthodox

Denial of important aspects of Redemption? By a lot? Even if it's "by some" I still don't understand what you mean.

and the dogma of the toll houses are very problematic

There is no such dogma.

but the Orthodox do seem to be spiritually a lot more healthy than any particular group of Western Christians.

You know this popular interpretation of Noah's Ark as the icon of the New Testament Church? Orthodox like it very much and usually in describing it as such they go into some details that bring in an interesting and quite important perspective. They used to say: the Church is like the Ark - it's full of animals, it stinks to high heaven, but it saves you.

lmaopml

Slav wrote: »

It would be wrong on many accounts I think.

First of all, it's not in the spirit of Orthodoxy (and Christianity in general for that matter) to comment on others relations with evil because if we look at ourselves we always have a far better example of someone who keeps making deals with evil. Otherwise a bit of biblical ophthalmology about diagnosing a foreign body in one's eye springs to mind immediately. A well known saying by St.Seraphim of Sarov sums up the Christian way nicely: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."; accusing the thousands of "deals with evil" not only would not work but would also be a bad taste in Christianity.

I like St. Seraphim's philosophy

You know this popular interpretation of Noah's Ark as the icon of the New Testament Church? Orthodox like it very much and usually in describing it as such they go into some details that bring in an interesting and quite important perspective. They used to say: the Church is like the Ark - it's full of animals, it stinks to high heaven, but it saves you.

Wholeheartedly agree. There are some real stinkers in among the salt of the earth, and most likely always have been - unfortunately it's usually empty vessels that make the most noise and get the most notice. Love the presentation of the Church as the Arc too. I read a small piece a while ago, can't remember where....The image was Jesus and the Holy Spirit represent the Ocean that the Church sails on, the wind in it's sails, providing daily bread for the inhabitants etc. - his humanity touches our shores and divinity touches the Fathers shores. The sea can be stormy, but we're assured it will cross....

HamletOrHecuba

Slav wrote: »

I
Denial of important aspects of Redemption? By a lot? Even if it's "by some" I still don't understand what you mean.

There is no such dogma.

Denial of that Christ's died on the Cross to satisfy God's justice by a lot of modern Orthodox theologians is what I was referring too.

According to anyone Orthodox who seemed to really know their stuff they are very much a dogma- they figure in Liturgical texts, in the official worship of the Orthodox Church, so how could they not be something that if someone wants to be Orthodox they have to believe?

The problems with the Patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church after St Thikhon is not really a love for nice watches but their possible membership of the KGB.

HamletOrHecuba

Slav wrote: »

First of all, it's not in the spirit of Orthodoxy (and Christianity in general for that matter) to comment on others relations with evil because if we look at ourselves we always have a far better example of someone who keeps making deals with evil. Otherwise a bit of biblical ophthalmology about diagnosing a foreign body in one's eye springs to mind immediately. A well known saying by St.Seraphim of Sarov sums up the Christian way nicely: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved."; accusing the thousands of "deals with evil" not only would not work but would also be a bad taste in Christianity.

But St John Chrysostom and other Fathers clearly did comment on the relations of others with evil, doing so is the duty of a Priest and a Bishop, St Seraphim was a monk in the wilderness was he not? So his vocation his different.

qrrgprgua

Hasn't the Orthodox Church cosied up to many occupying powers of the centuries? Sometimes you do have to deal with evil as he said to protect from the greater evil. But he does have a point the west has watered down Christs message.

Slav

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Denial of that Christ's died on the Cross to satisfy God's justice by a lot of modern Orthodox theologians is what I was referring too.

If you mean Satisfaction theory of Atonement then it's denied as THE theory of Atonement. Concentrating solely on this aspect of Redemption at the expense of other views is seen as a later Western development of Augustine - Anselm - Aquinas theology which cannot be considered as catholic by Orthodox as it has never been accepted in the East. I think we discussed it some time ago in Onesimus' "Proof of Purgatory" thread. In short, Orthodox have no problem in talking about Atonement in Satisfaction terms but they are not ready to reduce the Mystery of Redemption to a juridical transaction simply because that would be "the denial of important aspects of Redemption" as you said.

According to anyone Orthodox who seemed to really know their stuff they are very much a dogma- they figure in Liturgical texts, in the official worship of the Orthodox Church, so how could they not be something that if someone wants to be Orthodox they have to believe?

...and according to someone else Orthodox who really know their stuff too the toll houses is a heretical myth because you cannot find them in liturgical texts not to mention that any council ever tried to defend them, plus they are fishy from the theological point of view. Both positions would be a bit of extreme. Indeed, there is nothing in Divine Liturgy, Vespers or Mantis that could possibly suggest toll houses and some lesser texts can be interpreted as supporting them only with a bit of imagination. On the other hand, the opinion of many Church Fathers who supported toll houses cannot be ignored and automatically regarded as heretical because their sayings did not face any opposition in the Church and the list of supporters contains some very respected authors like John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, John the Merciful of Alexandria, Simeon Stylites, and many others. However it would be completely wrong to count it as a dogma simply on that grounds.

The mainstream approach in the Orthodox Church is more balanced though. There is nothing wrong with doctrine itself but being an extremely allegorical (even for the Eastern Orthodox taste) it allows a broad range of interpretations that could be unorthodox. Specifically, it's said that one could wrongly assume that it's the daemons who judge us after death while the role of Christ in the Judgement is rather limited. So the doctrine is OK but should be used with care. If you find the toll houses a sound doctrine don't demand that everyone else would see it as such because essentially subscribing to it or rejecting it does not change a iota in the Gospel that the Church proclaims.

Also that very allegorical nature of this theologumena is yet another reason that makes it impossible to become a dogma. A dogma is something that can be put into a formula "if anyone does not confess something then let them be anathema". That something has to be very specific; putting an vague allegory there just would not work.

The problems with the Patriarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church after St Thikhon is not really a love for nice watches but their possible membership of the KGB.

OK, I see. Personally, I would see the affiliation with KGB (especially a possible one) to be a least problem.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

But St John Chrysostom and other Fathers clearly did comment on the relations of others with evil,

Of course, there are no single one good for all pattern. Context is everything. If it was appropriate for St John in the 4th century Constantinople to comment on relations with evil of some members of then undivided Church then it does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate for Fr Vsevolod in the 21st century Moscow to comment on Western Christians at least because there are enough problems in his own Church which are much more relevant to the topic he was discussing and which are, as opposite to the problems of the West, are the real obstacle for the Russian Church to become what he wanted it to be.

doing so is the duty of a Priest and a Bishop, St Seraphim was a monk in the wilderness was he not? So his vocation his different.

He was a monk in the wilderness alright but I think he met more people in his life them the St John, the Patriarch of Constantinople. It's a pedagogical issue really. Christ himself depending on the situation could be modest or be hard on someone. Whether you demonstrate your modesty or you blame someone but people see Christ behind you then you succeeded; if people see instead a hypocrite or someone with a beam looking for motes in someone else eyes then you spectacularly failed your mission. That's why I hope Fr.Vsevolod's words were either mistranslated or were taken out of context.

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

There are some real stinkers in among the salt of the earth, and most likely always have been - unfortunately it's usually empty vessels that make the most noise and get the most notice.

The funny thing about this Ark is that its population does not divide really to those in white tailcoats and those in deep ****e. Everyone stinks and pointing to those who, as we might think, stink more then others is counterproductive I think.

Onesimus

I like St. Seraphim's philosophy

''Philosophy''?

Sounds like the Holy Spirit speaking through St.Seraphim to me. Which would render it ''Theology''.

St.Seraphim is my favourite Eastern Saint by the way. You should check out his works.

HamletOrHecuba

Slav wrote: »

If you mean Satisfaction theory of Atonement then it's denied as THE theory of Atonement. Concentrating solely on this aspect of Redemption at the expense of other views is seen as a later Western development of Augustine - Anselm - Aquinas theology which cannot be considered as catholic by Orthodox as it has never been accepted in the East. I think we discussed it some time ago in Onesimus' "Proof of Purgatory" thread. In short, Orthodox have no problem in talking about Atonement in Satisfaction terms but they are not ready to reduce the Mystery of Redemption to a juridical transaction simply because that would be "the denial of important aspects of Redemption" as you said.


OK, I see. Personally, I would see the affiliation with KGB (especially a possible one) to be a least problem.


Of course, there are no single one good for all pattern. Context is everything. If it was appropriate for St John in the 4th century Constantinople to comment on relations with evil of some members of then undivided Church then it does not necessarily mean that it's appropriate for Fr Vsevolod in the 21st century Moscow to comment on Western Christians at least because there are enough problems in his own Church which are much more relevant to the topic he was discussing and which are, as opposite to the problems of the West, are the real obstacle for the Russian Church to become what he wanted it to be.

He was a monk in the wilderness alright but I think he met more people in his life them the St John, the Patriarch of Constantinople. It's a pedagogical issue really. Christ himself depending on the situation could be modest or be hard on someone. Whether you demonstrate your modesty or you blame someone but people see Christ behind you then you succeeded; if people see instead a hypocrite or someone with a beam looking for motes in someone else eyes then you spectacularly failed your mission. That's why I hope Fr.Vsevolod's words were either mistranslated or were taken out of context.

The Mystery of Redemption cannot be reduced to simply the Satisfaction of Divine Justice, and if (some) of the Orthodox were just saying that than I would wholeheartedly agree with them; the problem is that leading 20 th century Orthodox theologians actively deny this important aspect, such as Fr John Romanides and Christos Yannaras without being condemned or even rejected by most (even conservative) Orthodox- the first head of the Russian Synod in Exile even went so far as to reduce Christ's work on the Cross primarily to one of moral example. I would also question that this aspect of Christ's work has never been accepted or important in the east- many of the Eastern Fathers, including St Gregory Palamas do speak of the satisfaction of Divine Justice.

Im also shocked by your statement that membership of the KGB, and I should have written probably instead of possibly ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/12/1 , http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/maltsev7.html ) to be the least of problems- after all did not lead the Russian Church in exile to doubt the very existence of sacramental grace in the Moscow Patriarchate's Churches for a period?

What Fr Vsevolod said is clearly correct- http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2012/0324/ireland/archbishop-secularism-not-all-bad-for-ireland-188196.html and even worse examples can be found among mainline Protestants. Should we not presume that he said what he said out of love and concern?

Just also to note that source given in the link is in no way hostile to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Corkfeen

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Sorry about that but it was posted on my facebook by someone today.

There is no doubt huge questions surround all the Patriarchs since St Thikon but I believe he was referring to Western Christians in general as opposed as opposed to Bishops, etc. How is what he said to much for him? Its clear that western society is evil, and its also clear that most so-called Christian leaders in the west are happy to go along with such evil.

Is it? While evil acts have occurred in the Western world. (Murder, Rape etc although these happen across the world) We don't condone this behavior and punish for it, for the most part anyway. So no, the sweeping statement that the West is evil is just a fundamentalist opinion with no basis.....