Blogging the Fraud

Well, we were hoping we would never have to use this blog….

But it seems that a certain deacon has decided to begin his defense of post-schism devotions and labelling “polemical pseudo-Orthodox” (he means us) because I personally challenged the Antiochian “Western-Rite” devotions to the Sacred Heart, kneeling on Sundays, and the hymns of Thomas Aquinas.

Par for the course when dealing with these folks, the alleged deacon (we say “alleged” because he hasn’t really admitted it on his website) hasn’t addressed a single one of these charges, instead looking for whatever dirt he can find on us, and sending it to private mailing lists. And now, that the waters have “calmed down” (in fact, we were only waiting for an answer) he has decided to throw out this poor excuse for a response, never actually addressing what we wrote, and referring to us as the “Soup Nazi”. The difference is that the Soup Nazi was funny, and made good soup. I know, because Al Yeganeh has lots of locations in New York. The deacon’s soup of a response is no better than Campbell’s Chicken Noodle (the wife asks me not to rip on Campbell’s.)

Let us examine if he has an argument, which appears to be a long statement from Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of the Moscow Patriarchate. If we exclude this, since the Moscow Patriarchate has, despite its canonical issues, always handled the Western Rite situation carefully (and has historically done its best to use the closest possible to the old Orthodox rituals), we are left with

One could note, St. Dimitri of Rostov also prayed the Rosary, said a Hail Mary at every hour, and “had a great devotion to the ‘Joys and Sorrows’ of the Most Holy Virgin Mary.” (This last, some note, was long included in ROCOR’s Jordanville Prayer Book as “The Tale of the Five Prayers.”) Many Orthodox of both rites are familiar with his Menologion (lives of the saints).

…and a recapitulation which makes us wonder if the alleged deacon understands what he reads. Certainly we have nothing against the Hail Mary. And the Rosary was a post-schism development of an Orthodox custom: the use of the prayer beads. Frankly, we like rosaries. The prayers on them are Orthodox, and they are pretty. This ridiculous argument, if taken to its conclusion, would lead us to claim to dislike baroque altars because they are baroque. But they are still altars!

And there is the problem with the alleged deacon’s argument. He has, a la Thomas Aquinas (who he venerates, apparently, but doesn’t know much about) committed the fallacy of equivocation: he has claimed we have a problem with “post-schism western practices and devotions” (which would include altars, rosaries, and vestments) when we are specifically talking about devotions contrary to Orthodox teaching (kneeling on Sundays, the “Sacred Heart”, et cetera)– and we assume he is fully cognizant of that fact.

The gist of the arguments against the Antiochian Western Rite innovations would be thus: Orthodoxy treats items from any faith outside Her with care, but a critical eye. Thus only after deep spiritual analysis did the Church of Russia accept the use of the revised Roman liturgy; and only temporarily, with the knowledge that the Orthodox usages would blossom on their own in the West.

We find that in the life of the Hieromartyr Gorazd, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsy had a dialogue about how Orthodoxy should be introduced; and that care must be taken in how things are done:

Further Bishop Gorazd wrote: ‘Metropolitan Antony did our Orthodox mission great service; from the beginning he was interested in it. Without interfering in the authority of the Synod of the Serbian Church, he gave fatherly or rather brotherly advice as to how I should operate in my missionary work. And this in such a way that the Czech and Slovak people, for whom the movement to enlighten the Slavs was in fact created by Sts Cyril and Methodius, would once more come to love their ancestral faith, strive to know it and return to it. His starting-point was the conviction that the Czechs would not be attracted to the Orthodox Church, if it were immediately presented to them in a historically set form in all its fullness, and at the same time in a purely formal, ritual way. He said that no mission should act in this way, especially in an Orthodox mission, since Orthodoxy in principle respects the ways each people thinks and feels … Orthodoxy has certain special forms among each people which naturally do not affect its dogmatic essence.

Metropolitan Antony asked: ‘Which ready form of Orthodoxy would you offer to your fellow-countrymen - Serbian Russian, Bulgarian, Greek, or another? If you wished to set out from such a viewpoint, which is in fact alien to Orthodoxy, taking into consideration your conditions, then I would advise you to accept the Serbian form, because your canonical ties with the Serbian Church would cause the least hurt. But I would not advise you to act thus. On the contrary, you must start from what there is in your people, as always happens in matters of upbringing and education. First of all look at the confessional views of your compatriots and find what is Orthodox and what is not Orthodox in them. Then restricting yourself to the main points alone, try to eradicate from religious life what does not appear to be part of the Orthodox confession of faith. A lot of work will have to be done before you overcome prejudices … proceed slowly and step by step as you introduce Orthodoxy into liturgical life. Acting thus, let no one who is not competent in these matters trouble you. The opinion of the Patriarch, the Synod and the Council of Bishops of the Serbian Church must be decisive in all things. In their representatives they wholly understand your Czech conditions and the tasks that await you. Those who are unable to rise above mere formal ritualism will probably criticise you and perhaps condemn you, but do not worry. You are not responsible to them. Work according to your understanding and trust in God’s help. I will personally accompany your work with my prayers, for I know what a great and holy task you are accomplishing. I will follow with interest your successes and your failures, not as your master - which I am not - but as a bishop and elder brother who is always ready to help you with advice’ (The Herald, pp 4, 7-8).

By contrast, the AWRV is not treating these devotions with care and criticism, but introducing them with zeal; whole, unabridged liturgical texts from even 100 years ago, and calling them Orthodox. They are not. There is no desire to introduce the Orthodox Western forms; they are dismissed as “liturgical archaeology” against the new, “ecumenical one-church” age.

Since the alleged deacon wants to talk about something unrelated to what we were saying, we would gladly like to return to what we were addressing: dressing up post-schism, heterodox innovations as “Western Orthodoxy”, by pointing in our next post to why the “Sacred Heart of Jesus” is not only unrelated to any Orthodox dogma, but alien and opposed to it.