Where I’m still appreciative of some Ortho guys, again

Many of my posts have been critical to claims made by Orthodox apologists, and one apologist told me “I do protest too much” (though no one bothers to tell the guys at OrthodoxBridge the same thing.  Most of their posts are about how wrong Protestants are.  What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander).  I don’t want to sound like one always harping on the same thing, so I decided to say something nice.  (Unfortunately, I realize some of the people I mention are associated with groups that will embarrass mainline Orthodoxy.  Too bad for mainline then.  It’s hard to see Tsar Lazar or anyone predating the Nikonian Revolution–and it, along with the later “reforms” by Masonic Satanist Peter the Great was a Revolution as thorough as the Bolsheviks’–would be appreciated by World Orthodoxy.  See if you can dig up Fr Raphael Johnson’s essay on the Serbian leadership’s de facto, but not de jure, recognition of Kosovo)

  1. Joseph P Farrell:  I know Farrell is no longer Orthodox, but still.  One can only stand in awe of his research.  He is a remarkably clear thinker and he teaches you to reason your way through a topic.
  2. Orthodox Nationalist:  I listened to Fr Matt Johnson every week for three years.  He does a good job summarizing different aims of the New World Order and he is remarkably good on exposing the occult and freemasonry.  I bring up on Orthodox boards how different mainline Orthodox (former SCOBA and the non-American equivalents) groups are openly affiliated with Freemasony and Ecumenism and no one will touch that issue.
  3. Sergius Bulgakov:  Bulgakov’s Sophiology is dangerously close to Gnosticism and I understand why Maximovitch’s group condemned him.  The problem is that few people in today’s Orthodoxy can say why Bulgakov is wrong (which is probably why yet another Russian Church council exonerated him–so who’s right?  Don’t answer that).  He is valuable in giving us an honest reading of the Fathers.  A lot of times you will meet the claim that the Fathers are united in saying x.  Bulgakov takes the Fathers on the development of Christology and Pneumatology and completely blows that claim out of the water.  And that’s what I love about Bulgakov–he thinks through the tradition.  I had a discussion with some Orthodox apologists I brought up tensions within Cyril’s Christology, and they responded, “Well, Cyril is part of the inspired tradition.”  Maybe he is, but simply asserting that doesn’t make the problems go away.
  4. Fr Seraphim Rose:  His biography is awe-inspiring, yet he is an embarrassment to World Orthodoxy.  At a time when Orthodox thinkers wanted to show how relevant Orthodoxy was to the modern world, Fr Seraphim moved to the wilderness, resurrected Holy Russia on American soil, and loudly proclaimed a few key distinctives: six-day creationism and toll-houses!   It was great.   He then added insult to injury, albeit in a generous manner:  he documented how the fathers believed in these topics.  This unspoken inference is silent but deafening:  any Orthodox thinker who disagreed with him on this points was specifically out of line from what the Fathers taught.   Inference number two:  if you find Fathers who disagree with Rose then you must also posit a division in the patrum consensus.  I don’t agree with him on toll-houses (though CS Lewis taught something similar in The Screwtape Letters) and I am not as pro-Russia as I used to be, but it is interesting to watch the bourgeoisie hem and haw.

3 comments on “Where I’m still appreciative of some Ortho guys, again

  1. olivianus says:

    Reblogged this on Uncreated Light and commented:
    More random critiques of Eastern Orthodoxy by the Bayou Huguenot.

  2. Fr. John+ says:

    Have not gotten back to you, until now. Sorry. As to your assertion:

    “At a time when Orthodox thinkers wanted to show how relevant Orthodoxy was to the modern world, Fr Seraphim moved to the wilderness, resurrected Holy Russia on American soil, and loudly proclaimed a few key distinctives: six-day creationism and toll-houses! It was great.”

    I need to clarify something for you, so that you can ‘judge according to righteous judgement,’ as Christ said. Actually, this book is something of a publishing falsehood. The vast majority of the work is a ‘selective editing’ compilation by a (incompletely catechized former fundamentalist ICR) devotee of Fr. Rose, who compiled quotes, worked in his own ‘Scientific Creationist’ designs, and then had the prelest to say that it was Fr. Seraphim who said all this!

    While Fr. Rose did believe in the toll houses, he did NOT ascribe to what has come to be known as ‘literal Six-day Creationism.’ That he believed in the six ‘days’ of Genesis, no one would doubt. I believe in them, too! But the mindset- the aberrant, ‘God, Jesus, the Bible and me’ protestant isolationist ICR flatulence…. that passes for Christianity, no.

    This book buoyed me up, when I was doubting the more liberal elements within ‘canonical’ Orthodoxy, while on my pilgrimage there. But one has to be honest. When coming to a more ‘catholic’ frame of mind, you can’t live in a ‘cloud-cuckoo, never-never land’ in your understanding of the Church. This book, initially a welcome respite, began to jar on me, until a good Orthodox writer showed me that it was (I believe) the Editor’s own thoughts, and not those of Fr. Rose, that REALLY were the vast majority of the ‘correspondences’ in this book.

    Also, as another Orthodox writer has noted: “In Fr Seraphim’s view, which he (and, a fortiori, his editor) hammers home relentlessly throughout the book, we are faced with a stark choice: do we accept the Holy Fathers, or “modern wisdom”?

    This epitomizes an approach which many readers will see as missing the point. Fr Seraphim is firmly convinced that “the doctrine of evolution was invented… to account for the universe on the assumption that God either does not exist or is incapable of creating in six days or bringing the world into existence by His mere word” (44 1, emphasis original), and that Christians accept it only because they have fallen into the latter two of those assumptions.

    This quite fails to recognize that many Christians accept evolution for a reason of quite a different order:

    that while God is perfectly capable of creating everything in six [literal 24-hour] days, the weight of evidence suggests that in point of fact He did not.

    Perhaps Fr. Seraphim is cutting through the bullcrap and seeing what us who are not illumined do not see. The same goes with St. John of Kronstadt who said that geologists believe they can tap into the mind of God — well just because they don’t openly say that doesn’t mean that isn’t what is really going on. The Saints are able to see through the facade and tell us the truth because they are illumined by God. In this light, arguments from the incorruption of Christ’s birth to the incorruption of the newly created world (cf. 418-19) becomes irrelevant. They are not irrelevant at all, bc Christ is the New Adam, and thus there is an integral link between Adam and Christ. I believe it was St. Augustine who said that in the OT is hidden the OT and in the NT is the OT made manifest (paraphrasing), a sentiment which is held by the Orthodox Church, which sees parallels between the Testaments on nearly every teaching.

    So does the insistence that the six days of creation lie outside the reach of science. No one is suggesting that science can tell us about a period when the laws of nature as we know them did not apply, in which everything came into being in its present form within six days in a state of incorruption; they are pointing to strong circumstantial evidence for species coming into being at a time when death already reigned and the laws of fallen nature were well in place.

    Evolution denies the idea of such a time with different law—that is the point. Science claims it can tell us about the beginning of all things ie. the Big Bang and other theories, and evolution is dependent upon uniformitarianism which assumes away the paradisiacal state of the earth.”


    That is why, when I finally realized that the Hamite (!) ICR rationales were actually positing a far more dangerous heresy; namely, ‘evolutionary universalism’- which I now consider to be far, far worse than those who held to an ‘old-earth’ position among Evangelicals… I left the fantasy that “Fr. Seraphim believed in the ICR tenets- therefore, so can I, too!” mindset.

    This mindset, now more and more clearly made vocal by men like Ken Ham, and his ‘One Blood’ heresy; namely miscegenation as the norm for all who are Western White Evangelicals, that will eventually lead to acceptance (vide the liberal Prot. churches today) of sodomy as the ‘next prejudice to overthrow,’ I speedily left this mindset behind.

    While I am of the opinion that only Whites of the Ecumene are the ‘Israel’ that Christ said he was sent ONLY to that House (oikos) to save, there are others that, while still believing the ‘hslfway-house’ covenant of considering non-Whites to be our ‘brothers, yet see Ham’s folderol, for just that.


    I, knowing as I do that God did NOT make ‘all races’ from Shem, Ham, and Japheth, find it fascinating that someone with whom I would severely disagree, yet agrees with me on ICR/Hamite heresy!

    Here are my posts on this topic, for the record.


    I hope this helps you in seeing that:
    a) the position of the Orthodox Church is not synonymous with the ICR/Hamite heresy.
    b) Fr. Seraphim Rose was far more ‘literal’ than many, but still submitted himself to the ‘witness of the Fathers,’ rather than ‘go it alone’ a la Protestantism.
    c) The position I am iterating is found within your own school- it’s known as Kinism. Which is the only biblical way that both Orthodoxy and Protestantism can continue to operate, seeing as the ‘gay marriage’ rationales are ‘built on the foundation of the miscegenationists, liberals, and jews’ of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in 1967.
    d) The unanimous defining of the “Ecumene” with White, Caucasoid Europe was only shattered, upon Rome’s departure from same, ca. A.D.1100. All subsequent ‘missionary’ activity after that date, is suffused with the filioquism, and casaro-papal heresy of ‘invite the world, invade the world’ that saw ALL hominids as ‘worthy of salvation’ when Christ never rescinded his claim that he was sent ONLY to the ‘lost sheep of the House of Israel.’
    Which is (cleary) a defined racial stock, adhereing to the Monotheism of teh Tribes of the Israel of God. [ Jas. 1:1, Gal. 6:16, I Peter. 1:1]

    That is why I consider Jewish academic Gerald Schroeder, far closer to the Truth, in his book, ‘The Science of God’- even as he ascribes Adamic status only to the Jews. I consider Adamic status to be the privilege of White Europeans, from history, linguistics, grace and favor, and which race has historically been called, “Christendom.”

    Pax et Lux.
    – Fr. John+
    Orthodox Priest

Comments are closed.