THIS is what the prune-faced and tight-arsed konvertsy lust for in their heart-of-hearts… they want a public and humiliating auto-da-fé for all those who fail to meet their notional idiosyncratic criteria of “holiness”. Hell, they’d crucify Christ yet again if He were to return… “for the good of the Church“. Do ponder that…
All copy in italics is the original comment from Stokoe’s comboxes, with a name appended. All copy in plain type is my comment on it. The konvertsy truly don’t get it… they’ve memorised this or that obscure canon, they quote musty old Fathers that not even theologians remember, and, most of all, they’re better Orthodox Christians than we are… and they have the god-damned gall to say so in so many words. I kid you not… you should see some of the former Episkies in Stokoe’s comboxes… they state baldly that we don’t know our faith and that we’re unfit stewards of the Church’s truth. So, here’s three of their posts in their own words… do attend to it, yes, I know that it’s tiresome and dreary at times, but you have a NEED TO KNOW. Also, there’s a good guy sprinkled in, so that you don’t get the impression that all converts are empty-headed and ignorant jackasses (although most of the former TEC crowd IS such, especially those who became Orthodox “clergy”). Read and heed…
Christ’s response to the woman caught in adultery was to shame her accusers, then, to urge her to go and sin no more. So, while standing up for the homosexual is right, it’s only “half right” if we’re also allowing them to continue in sin. Love must be tough.
Fr Raphael Barberg
Izzat so? “Love must be tough?” The Church doesn’t think so… it allows divorcées to remarry… it allows homosexuals to commune at the chalice, for that’s up to the priest involved, after he investigates the particular case in front of him. If you disagree with Fr Ted Bobosh’s oikonomia, you should be open about it, Fr Raphael. The above comment is one of the reasons why I find konvertsy offensive and reprehensible as a group. They take the most acrid and harsh interpretation of the remedies found in the Church’s pharmacopoeia, and, then, they claim that’s the Church’s exclusive and binding position. Love is merciful, Fr Raphael…
- Treat those who engage in sex outside of marriage as you’ve always done, irrespective of gender
- Don’t hold children accountable for what their parents do; hold them accountable for their own actions
- If one is unwilling to embrace the Church and her teachings, they do NOT desire Christ, so, yes, prima facie, “turn them away”
Boy, am I glad that Ms Shepard isn’t a priest (yes, I know that she can’t be)… “I won’t allow anyone who doesn’t fit my views of ‘respectability’ and ‘holiness’ in the door! The Great Oz has spoken!” The Church is the Big Tent, dear… it’s the People’s Church (in the sense of the Russian Tserkov Narodnaya); it isn’t a small and self-centred set of the elect with their autogenetic and self-glorifying lists of rules, rules, rules… if you believe that, Calvinism exists… it’s a better fit with what you actually believe.
There are Orthodox people that are gay that have children; sorry if this disturbs you. If homosexuality’s a sin, as suggested by the Church, they’re merely sinners like me. When the Metropolitan of the [OCA] suggests that a “lavender mafia” exists that might be out to get him for his stance on gay marriage, perhaps, then, a discussion about Orthodox gays has merit. Frankly, the treatment of gays in general by all of us has merit, not just pastoring to them. I’m not gay and I’m a far cry from being a member of any perceived or real lavender mafia, but I’m on the lookout for bad behaviour toward gays by the hierarchy, and it isn’t because I owe Mark Stokoe a thing. What’s a worse sin, maligned treatment of gays, or being gay? I propose it’s the former.
Daniel E Fall
Let’s keep the reply to this (generally spot-on) comment focused. James Paffhausen’s guru was Gleb Podmoshensky. JP went to Russia under GP’s auspices. The ROCOR Holy Synod defrocked GP, supposedly for serving under suspension, but actually for sodomy (as Alexander Lebedeff admitted in a post on the Indiana List), long before JP went to Russia. That’s to say, Paffhausen’s had a long and intimate relationship with a known and public sodomite, and he maintained that relationship after the ROCOR defrocked JP, in contumacious and juvenile rebellion against the Church. At present, Paffhausen has close relations with Benjamin Peterson, Nikolai Soraich, and Isidore Brittain, all of whom are reputed to be closeted homosexuals. In short, it’s not JP’s critics who’re gay… it’s his closest supporters and his known spiritual mentor!
My own personal “take” is that Paffhausen’s a classic illustration of the danger of the closeted homosexual in our midst (as are BP and Soraich, as were Feodosy Lazor, Herman Swaiko, Seraphim Storheim, and Pierre l’Huillier). Don’t forget… JP served openly with Feodosy and Herman at the St Tikhon Memorial Day Pilgrimage last year… thereby implicitly telling believers that he accepts Feodosy’s and Herman’s behaviour. In short, there’s NO lavender mafia… except for the one surrounding Jonas Paffhausen. Also, in particular, note that the Episkie konvertsy defend Fathausen and his rebellious actions tenaciously. It makes one wonder about them… they left a body with openly homosexual clergy to become defenders of a closeted “lavender mafia” in the OCA hierarchy. They didn’t come to us because they loved Orthodoxy… they came to us because they lost a power struggle in the TEC… sadly, we were stupid enough to have ordained some of them to the clergy. We’re paying for that, now, aren’t we?
Who’re the big losers in all this? In the immediate short term, it’ll be ordinary lay homosexuals in the Church, who’ve received the Mysteries for years. The konvertsy Yahoos will go on witch hunts, and anyone who has the misfortune of not being a “respectable” well-off suburban prig will suffer. I, for one, will stand against them… and I think that I’m NOT alone…
These were the three most applicable comments… most others were “heat and light signifying nothing”, or simply restated what’s in the above comments in a more or less verbose fashion… these had “hooks” in them. Sadly, the konvertsy are looking for “answers”. They’re anxious to find out “what the Church teaches”… but they refuse to take the time to “grow into” the Church. The saddest are the former heterodox clergy who’ve become “Orthodox” clergy. It’s readily apparent that their formation was NOT Orthodox; it’s clear that they’re nothing but Anglicans and Sectarians in New Roman costume. I’m thinking of Reardon and the Touchstonistas… they believe in a “mere Christianity” that not only doesn’t exist… it NEVER existed. The Branch Theory walks openly amongst us… the konvertsy slobber over Uniates, Old Ritualists, and Oriental Orthodox (I’m not making a personal statement of dislike… these groups are objectively outside the communion of the Church, and that’s that). Oh, yes… the Most Holy Church of Moscow and all the Russias has definitively condemned the Branch Theory… and the author of the document explaining the Church’s stand was… Kirill Mikhailovich Gundyaev. There you have it… you can stand with Behr, Paffhausen, Reardon, and Stokoe, or, you can stand with the Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias… that’s not a hard choice, is it?