Father John Whiteford and Craig Truglia discuss the high profile apostasy of former Orthodox priest, Joshua Schooping, to Protestantism and critique his reasons for doing so.
Saturday, October 16, 2021
Apostasy: an Orthodox response to Joshua Schooping
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Does he need a response? Is he taking masses with him? Is he part of a wave of priests doing the same thing? I would need some motivation on why to single out one particular man's errors for hours of discussion. Not knowing anything about him, an Orthodox priest leaving to be a protestant pastor is ... well dramatic in a couple senses of the word, but I find it very unpleasant to apply "apostate" too easily.
ReplyDeleteHe apostatized from the Church. How is this even a question?
DeleteThe video is "an Orthodox response to..." -- I'm asking for whom or for what reasons is this 2+ hour "response" valuable.
DeleteFor me not liking the word, like Boris says, that's my own problem. You can reject icons, or you can reject the existence of God, and both of you are apostates, it's pretty different scenarios covered by the same word. More than that, in my experience it comes along with about as much charity as gang members receive after snitching.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't really care what you find unpleasant. I care about what the church teaches; that's the only party line I follow. The man DID apostatize. We call out people for doing such things.
ReplyDeleteObviously it's a SERIOUS thing for a priest of all people to do what he has done, but "apostate", really? Even if he did, so what? That's not rhetorical, that's, is there something other than sour grapes and fragile egos here? It gives him a lot more publicity for his grievances, for one thing.
DeleteThe term apostate is certainly appropriate here. I am less certain about all the attention. As far as I am aware this sort of thing is a fairly rare occurrence and there is no evidence of anybody following him. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes in life people do thing we don't agree with. In this instance I am not seeing any broad consequences beyond the danger to his own soul. Of more interest to me is that conservative former CofE "bishop" Michael Nazir-Ali joined the Roman Catholic Church despite reports of high level efforts in the Vatican to dissuade him. To my mind, that is far more significant in its implications.
ReplyDeleteWhat is different about this case is that this apostate priest has already set himself up as the anti-Orthodox apologist, and he will be given a lot of airtime in Evangelical circles, and probably prevent a lot of people from coming into the Church. That is why what he says needs to be responded to.
DeleteThank you, Fr. John. I think one may say that as human beings, we are all entitled to an opinion. I would say that if you are an Orthodox Christian, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own theology.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's two bloated hours of blowhards bloviating on the blogosphere about someone else's blithering baloney! It's a definite "must see!"
ReplyDeleteCraig the Theologian will tell us what is truly needed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"It's two bloated hours of blowhards bloviating on the blogosphere"
DeleteIs this all you have these days Joseph? Ad hominem attacks?
...and did I mention it's boring!
DeleteI don't think your comment has aged well. Schooping has written an anit-orthodox book and is on a speaking tour. A pastor of a protestant church. I worry for my loved ones recently looking into Orthodoxy and hope I can well answer their questions regarding his points. Thankful for F. Whiteford. Joseph, I hope you get to bed before 8pm tonight so you aren't a grumpy little boy like last year when you posted this.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft4p2h6fTOM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood reminder to pray for our priests
ReplyDeleteJoshua Schooping was actually invited to participate in this discussion, and he declined. I could write a response, but he is not raising many issues I have not already addressed in writing, but the fact is that a lot of people will watch a youtube discussion who will not bother reading a lengthy article.
ReplyDeleteOf course if someone doesn't like the way other people are doing it, they are certainly free to do it the way they think it ought to be done themselves.
Joshua Schooping's YouTube video, "An Orthodox Priest becomes an Evangelical Pastor", is more interesting. Perhaps his most interesting point is how he questions the unity of the Orthodox Church, and he fails to find this unity as anything more different than what "Evangelical Christians" already have. Although I disagree with his conclusion, it's certainly a valid question he makes, especially since there are so many divisions among Orthodox Christians today.
ReplyDeleteSo what unites Orthodox Christians? For example, is it Holy Tradition? There are many schismatic groups that cling to Holy Tradition such as the Uniates and even the Old Believers. Well okay, so is it the Holy Canons from the Ecumenical Councils that unites us? There are many schismatic groups that differ on their interpretation, and they specifically use the Holy Canons as the justification for their schisms.
St. Nikolas Kabasilas instead points out that the unity of the Orthodox Church has three centers: the altar, the bishop, and the saints. All three are inter-related. All three are also expressions of the Church as a Divine-human organism on earth. If any of these three centers are ignored or devalued, then there are divisions in the Church and even apostasy.
So for Joshua Schooping, even if he "affirms" the saints, he throws out the altar and the bishops as an "Evangelical Christian" pastor. Yet the saints wouldn't be without the altar and the bishops. It's a package deal. The Body of Christ, as a Divine-human organism on earth, needs all three expressions.
Are you still Orthodox Joseph?
DeleteWhy is it a package deal? Why are the saints connected to the bishops and the altar? One can affirm the truth of many or all of the saints without needing Orthodox bishops or the altar.
DeletePersonally, I cannot imagine even one slightly good reason to embrace any form of Protestantism, despite the many failures in the Church.***
ReplyDeleteIt is always easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize or protest. Play to the passions and fears of folks.
Of course, as noted, there are many similar "Orthodox" voices speaking in similar ways.
The mercy if Jesus Christ is the answer, I think. Repentance is the first step. A sort of death. Ressurection follows.
Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God. Have mercy on me, the sinner. (I use "the" sinner purposely)
Christ is Risen! follows.
"Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"
All of that and more. What is revealed in those moments that we are able to approach the hem of our Lord's garment through the Orthodox Church is more than all Protestant theology and practice put together.
***The priest who received me into the Church was spiritually ignorant and rapacious. He caused incredible pain in many people. Yet the mercy and Grace of our Lord heals even that.
David, over consumption leads to obesity of body, mind and soul
ReplyDeleteJoseph - then don't watch and why are you commenting ?
ReplyDeleteFritjof, I'm in agreement with Fr. John Whiteford that a response to Joshua Schooping's video is warranted. A two hour response though to Joshua's one hour video?
DeleteSometimes people who talk a long time really have nothing much to say. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case with the above "an Orthodox response".
I think Joshua actually makes some valid criticisms of Orthodox Christianity in America, namely the divisions that currently exist. I wished that Craig Truglia and Fr. John Whiteford would have at least addressed those criticisms.
This may be the source of the disconnect here. There are many more videos than a one hour video that have been produced.
DeleteWhat valid criticisms of Orthodox Christianity in America do you think he has made that we did not address?
Fr. John Whiteford, thank you. Joshua points out some of the divisions that are currently prevalent in Orthodox Christianity, and particularly in North America. He seems to struggle with what actually unites Orthodox Christians in the midst of these divisions. Granted, the current novel ecclesiology coming out of Moscow seems to be that Orthodoxy is simply a federation of "right-believing" Orthodox Churches, and that's really just basic protestant ecclesiology.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI'm not sure what exactly you find novel about the Russian Church's ecclesiology. The novelty we are seeing is the neo parish from Constantinople. If neo parish is correct, on what basis did we reject the original parish?
DeleteAnd this is an issue we actually did address in the video.
"I'm not sure what exactly you find novel about the Russian Church's ecclesiology..."
DeleteTrue it is not "novel" in the since of recent, as it has been the de facto ecclisology of our Eastern Orthodox Church since the fall of the Roman Empire (about 1300 years). In other words the inner and practical principal of our unam sanctam (i.e. our real unity in His Body) has been one of faith (which of course is arguably the most important aspect), but on the *economic* level the "conciliar" aspect has been but a memory, helpfully sustained by historical circumstances (e.g. the isolation of Eastern Christendom within slav. and ottoman circumstances, etc.). Now that that isolation has been lifted by modern historical circumstances (the world has grown smaller through industrialization/tech, 1920 population exchange, the bolshevik revolution, orthodox immigration and "jurisdictionalism" in western europe/NA, etc. etc.), this practical ecclesiology of "One Faith, but many ethno/national 'churches'" is showing its weakness's and a basic *disunity*, not just economically, or around the various pietistic emphasises I would argue, but theologically, most obviously around this very unam sanctam question itself, but more importantly in the long term (I would argue) the differences around theological anthropology and how to respond/live Christianly in a wider secular/modernist regime (e.g. women's ordination, 'climate change' and various 'social doctrine', etc.).
Not that many years ago you had a helpful (at least it was to me) conversation with Fr. Matthew Baker of blessed memory over at ancient faith radio about all this, where both of you addressed the actual theological, canonical, and historical complexity of all this, largely without the comment box soundbite (and thus false) reductionisms such as "neo parish".
Don't get me wrong, if forced to choose I myself would go with a Russian "federation" ecclesiology before I would go with the current "Mother Church" ecclesiology currently coming out of Istanbul. While doing so I would at the very least admit that such a thing is NOT the real "conciliar" theology/ecclesiology of the 7 ecumenical councils anymore than Instanbul's "Mother Church" is, and I would also admit that such an ecclisology is fundamentally impotent in the face of "jurisdictionalism" (or for that matter most other Orthodox-within-modern-circumstance questions) because it elevates a fundamental *disunity* as the starting point of ecclesiology. In other words, it would just be a 'lessor of two weevels' choice.
Thanks be to God, I don't have to make this choice. Instead, I choose to live,worship, pray, and pass the faith on to my children as best I can in the current complexity and ambiguity which God Himself has given me. Spitballing, I suspect that the current ecclesiological/theological *contradictions* (and so are in fact *heresitical* emphasises of BOTH Russian and Greek origin) can not be sustained and in God's time will be repudiated in a REAL ecumenical council. At the same time I admit I can't even imagine how such a council will take place, as obviously we have no Emperor or Empire (besides the Secular one) to actually call/pay for it, and we ourselves our too weak, spread out, and disorganized to do it ourselves. That said, St. Paul tells us it is in our very weakness that we our saved ;).
How are we supposed to take seriously a guy who operates a website called "OrthodoxChristianTheology.com" and who bloviates on the internet about "theology" wearing a tied-dyed Def Leppard T-Shirt?
ReplyDeletesarcasm on/
DeleteWhat's wrong Joseph, you don't find young men who the day before yesterday were prooftexting Protestants, and today are prooftexting "Orthodox" (just ask them), helpful?
sarcasm off/
Before the State Department instructed him to go against it, Patriarch Bartholomew knew perfectly well that he was not the first without equals, or an eastern pope. https://orthochristian.com/142574.html
ReplyDeleteI've sometimes thought that regular synods (annual? every 5 years?) of the heads of all Orthodox churches would go a long way toward making the conciliar model a practical reality. I like to imagine a month-long synod every five years. In this time of easy worldwide travel, nothing stands in the way. But I suppose that political concerns (which delegation gets the most weight, etc.) would quickly take over. So near and yet so far...
ReplyDeletePatriarch Bartholomew will not call a meeting of the heads of the local churches, or for a pan-Orthodox council to address the situation in Ukraine, because he knows there is very little support outside of the US State Department for what he is doing.
ReplyDelete"... regular synods (annual? every 5 years?) of the heads of all Orthodox churches...In this time of easy worldwide travel, nothing stands in the way..."
ReplyDeleteFirst, it could not simply be "the heads" and be in keeping with the conciliar of the 7 ecumenical councils (e.g. are the rest of the bishops simply supposed to accept what the head agrees to, and what if they don't?). If it were, it would be a new development, which I suppose could be judged on its own merits/results.
Second, there is a question of money even in such a slimmed up process. Many autocephalous churches are in fact quite small and poor. Ask the Greeks how much $money$ went into Crete, which was what, a week (going from memory)?
Third and most important, as you note we are currently NOT a conciliar church ontologically, and have not been for a very long time. Even in the Empire, we were largely forced into it by virtue of our relationship with the Imperium. There simply is no center to get us past even the most petty of squabbles. After 1300 years of (often quite desperate) conservation, few of our bishops (and the people behind them) have any taste or ability for something as novel and challenging a real council.
Just try to imagine the change a REAL council would bring -the end of ontological and theological "jurisdictionalism", A wholesale adjustment/rethinking of the bishop/metropolitan/patriarch ordo to reflect the modern world (i.e. the secular and nation state imperium) which would mean the wholesale demotion of Alexandria, Antioch, Constaninople, etc. as well as the rejection of Moscow's "federation" ecclesiology. One could go on but it quickly becomes apparent the bishops, and their flocks are simply not ready for what a REAL council would mean...
Declassified documents show that it has been going on since World War II. And the US State Departments role in the push for autocephaly for Ukraine is not much of a secret. Do you need me to provide you with news links on that?
ReplyDeleteAnd the real Church in Ukraine already has far more independence as an autonomous part of the Russian Church than the fake Church has been given by the EP.
ReplyDeleteDavid, at the risk of offending you (I don't mean to at all!) I don't think you realize how *radical* a real council would be. The "inertia" you reference is just the status quo, with all the Greek vs. Russian chess board intrigue, the reluctance to even talk about the major issues, and endlesssquabble about the minor ones, all in the context of a canonical order that does now 'work' in the reality of nation states, secular majorities, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteA real council would be radical because these old dysfunctional paradigms, not the least of which is "metropolitans" and "patriarchs" of long dead Roman geography, would be quite literally dissolved and remade. The EP, such as it is today, a bishop of a very small (less than 3000 people I understand) minority in an unimportant city (Istanbul) who nonetheless is somehow "ecumenical", universal, would be righted, just to name one example.
The Crete model is a failure path for several reasons - its very essence is designed to accommodate the status quo, not to in any way challenge it. It's not just about redrawing the map, it's about honestly looking at the world as it really is, and faithfully working out how the Orthodox Church can exist as a church (an "economy") in it.
Like I said, folks (such as yourself) can't even imagine it, which means we are not at the point where we are ready to be honest with ourselves, so a real council is simply not in the foreseeable future. So the status quo of dysfunction will continue, and the details of this dysfunction (jurisdictionalism, Greek vs. Russia, etc. etc.) is just pathology reports...
Fr. John is right in that after the population exchange the EP as an institution closely aligned itself with western european/American "liberalism", which is to say the philosophical idea of Classical Liberalism with it's emphasis on free economic markets, religious liberty, multi-cultural tolerant society, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe reasons for this are complex and not reducible to "the State Dept. told them to" simplifications. For example, after centuries of Ottman oppression the Asian Greeks, rather uncritically, aligned themselves with this philosophy as a way to survive. There are other reasons as well.
Not that this has much to do with whether the EP did the right thing in Ukraine and for its (Orthodox) people. A (canonical) legal argument (such as it is) is really in the end all Russian partisans have to cling to, because what else can justify the *imposition* of the Kievan-Rus myth on a people who are not only not interested in it (Ukrainians in the eastern half of the country) but have in recent (and for that matter ancient)generations been actively harmed by it?
Your not going to get this addressed directly by Fr. John David because his (and everyone like him) confidence that they are in the "right" church depends upon this (canonical) legal belief.
Another thought: This *integrationalism* (i.e. that Classical Liberalism and Orthodox Christianity are compatible and to be fused together as a way of life) on the part of EP as institution, and GOA in general, is nothing less than a theological and *moral* disaster. The evidence is everywhere to be seen for those who have any sense of what ascetical Christianity actually is and lived. Greek style integrationalism is what Kierkegaard called "repetition", the endless empty history of sin, and a repeat of the failure of theological liberalism in the western church (in both Protestant and Catholic versions). The Russian/slavic churches, for all their problems and delusions, are not rushing (though they have their theological liberal advocates among them) to thread this failure path...
ReplyDeleteFather, perhaps the key area showing how the UOC-MP is not independent, is that it is not allowed to be in communion with the autocephalous Ukrainians, and with Constantinople, and with Alexandria, etc. That order comes down directly from Moscow. It's the same thing for ROCOR worldwide. I've talked to more than a few recent converts in ROCOR parishes, and they all tell me how it basically sucks that they can't go to communion at the Greek monasteries. Of course those converts I encounter are programmed already to blame this entirely on Patriarch Bartholomew. It's a puppet show indeed.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, folks from OCA parishes, Antiochian parishes, and Serbian parishes have no such restrictions.
The MP has no mechanism for making the legitimate Ukrainian Church do anything. If they were trying to coerce them, the easiest thing in the world for them to do would be to align with the EP, if they had any inclination to do so. The MP sends them no money, and they send the MP no money. The legitimate Ukrainian Church has, as a matter of fact, a lot more say in the affairs of the Russian Church than the Russian Church has in the affairs of the Ukrainian Church. The only thing that the Russian Synod has to do is to approve the election of a new Metropolitan. Aside from that, they have no power, and they would not likely reject the election of a new Metropolitan lightly because of the risk of losing the Ukrainian Church altogether. So what you say simply has no basis in reality.
ReplyDeleteThe EP, on the other hand, has a lot more say in the affairs of the fake Ukrainian Church.
The MP had a knife to it's throat, and the EP, in the 1920's actually sided with the Bolsheviks, recognized the Living Church, and condemned St. Tikhon. The EP maintained communion with the heretical and schismatic living Church for more than a decade. Had the Russian Church been in a better position, they would have been made to answer for their behavior too, but since the Russian Church was under the gun until the 90's, they allowed the outrageous behavior of the EP to pass, and the EP is repeating that bad behavior right now, entering into communion with a new Living Church, and they are preparing to unite with Rome to boot.
ReplyDeleteEconomia would be appropriate to apply the schismatics in Ukraine if there were any signs of repentance, but there is not. As a matter of fact, Filaret is now in communion Greek Old Calendarists, and Epiphony is concelebrating with Papists, and promising to take a soft stand on the skittles communities.
Father, at the ROC Bishop's council from Nov. 30th, 2017, at the end of the meeting they finally examined a letter from the "former" Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret, dated from 2007 (ten years later):
ReplyDeletehttps://mospat.ru/en/news/47939/
"During the second day, the council hierarchs heared a written appeal of the former Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev and All Ukraine to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, dated November 16, 2007. The letter contains a request to restore the Eucharistic and devotional communion with Christians in the Ukrainian church schism and to annul ‘all the decisions including bans and excommunications… for the sake of God-commanded peace between Orthodox Christians of the same faith and reconciliation between nations’. The letter concluded with the following words: ‘I ask for forgiveness for everything in which I have sinned by word, deed and all my feelings and in the same way I sincerely forgive all from my heart’."
What was the ROC Council's response? They basically shelved the letter by establishing a commission.
Yes, Metropolitan Onuphrey has a prime seat on the ROC Holy Synod, but it's ultimately the ROC Holy Synod, through Patriarch Kirill, deciding who the autonomous churches of the Moscow Patriarchate can or cannot be in communion with.
"Sergianism is the issue here, Father. The OCU's fundamental assertion is that the MP is Sergianist and a puppet of Putin's government. That is why they will not "repent.""
ReplyDeleteYes, this is an important point.
When the Ukrainian soldiers who died defending their nation against the Annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbass had their names read during the May 8th, 2015, special session at the Parliament, it was only the primate of the UOC-MP and his delegation that remained seated. And when the Ukrainian prime minister meets with the leaders of other Orthodox Churches, UOC-MP delgations instantly leap into action to apprise these same leaders of the "real" - according to their owns words -situation in Ukraine. If they are communicating the true picture, then it means that they believe that Prime Minister Shmyhal is relaying a false picture.
It is not hard to see that refusing to honour soldiers who died for their own country while also undermining the activities of government officials acting in the interests of Ukraine has led to the UOC-MP being viewed as a dangerous 5th column serving a hostile foreign power.
"I've talked to more than a few recent converts in ROCOR parishes, and they all tell me how it basically sucks that they can't go to communion at the Greek monasteries. Of course those converts I encounter are programmed already to blame this entirely on Patriarch Bartholomew. It's a puppet show indeed."
ReplyDeleteThere are even people - not recent converts mind you - who attend a ROCOR parish but have a spiritual father from an EP Greek monastery and out of obedience they do not receive holy communion from their spiritual father. So in what is surely a first in the history of Christianity, they are out of communion with the man they believe that Divine Providence has sent to guide them to salvation. Of course, Patriarch Bartholomew is all to blame for this too. This is the tragicomical level of absurdity that the Orthodox Church has been reduced to today.
These same people by the way regard modifying the way that holy communion is administered to be blasphemous and they believe that getting vaccinated against COVID-19 involves experiencing the spiritual consequences of commiting abortion on some level but they never considered breaking communion with the MP which has allowed both of these things. The breaking of communion has been reserved instead for those who fulfilled the divine commandment of bringing back the lost sheep into the fold of the Church.
"When the Ukrainian soldiers who died defending their nation against the Annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Donbass had their names read during the May 8th, 2015, special session at the Parliament, it was only the primate of the UOC-MP and his delegation that remained seated..."
ReplyDeleteThat's a significant symbolic act, and while David B. is right about the complexity behind everything, it does reveal just how "sided" the UOC-MP is in this conflict. At the end of the day ethno-national based ecclesiology is going to be as messy as the cultural ground upon which it stands.
There are some parrell's, but they are not nearly as significant as the main difference: Orthodoxy is simply not in the same historical, ontological, and theological position vis-a-vis secularism/mdernity as RC. Vatican II (and more significantly Vatican I) is but the tip of the iceburg of the Counter-Reformation. Orthodoxy is not grounded on that particular iceburg.
ReplyDeleteThat said I think you are beginning to see the depth of significance of what would be a real council, and your willingness to play out the good, bad, and ugly of the status quo is typical, and why no real council is in our foreseeable future.
David,
ReplyDeleteThe EP was under a whole lot less pressure to recognize the Living Church than was the MP, and yet it did not, and many were martyred for not doing so. The EP had no gun to their head forcing them to do this, but they did it, because the Living Church's renovationist agenda was fairly close to their own.
The recognition of the Living Church was not just a mistake... it was a stab in the back of the legitimate Church in Russia, which was even worse than what they are doing in Ukraine now. It was only corrected when the Living Church faded into non-existence, not because they recognized they had made a mistake. Where do you find them ever admitting that they had made a mistake in that regard?
The EP was not an American puppet in the 20’s. They were much more of a British puppet back then. The MP was in no position to condemn them at the time because most of the bishops of the Russian Church were in prison or under house arrest. After the Living Church ceased to exist, the MP was not inclined to make this an issue, when they needed what support they could get from the rest of the Church, and by that time, there were new occupants of the Ecumenical throne.
The schismatic Church in Ukraine is very much a repetition of the Living Church in that you have a bunch of fake bishops who are also modernists, want to concelebrate with Ukrainian Catholics, and are OK with going squishy on issues like homosexuality, if that is what the US State Department wants, and the EP is on the same page there: See https://orthochristian.com/118195.html When you have the EP openly supporting pro homosexual propaganda sources like Public Orthodoxy, you have to ask why. And this kind of renovationism makes the Living Church look like pillars of Orthodoxy, by comparison.
It is untrue that the MP failed to condemn Sergianism. They did so in their Social Concept Document, section III. 5, and you will find the pertinent quote towards the bottom of this page: http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/voicesofreason.htm
And I hope you are right that the EP doesn’t unite with Rome, but they have been pushing the boundaries on that question since the time of Athenagoras, and the only reason they haven’t already done it is the push back they have received. But the EP’s actions in Ukraine only make sense if that is what he intend to do, because he has certainly not increased his stature in the Orthodox Church by his actions.
And why had the EP not condemned the violence directed at the real Ukrainian Church?
Real repentance would have included Filaret acknowledging that he had sinned against the unity of the Church and stepping down. The man is was not just defrocked, he was anathematized, and the entire Orthodox Church recognized him as such. And anyone who doubts that need only look at his behavior since the EP went into communion with him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_dt1mOSS-8
There is no issue with Sergianism in the Russian Church today. Putin is not trying to destroy the Church, and the Church doesn’t take orders from him. When Russia annexed Crimea, Patriarch Kirill did not appear at the ceremonies, and the Russian Church continues to consider it to be part of the Ukrainian Church. The real Church in Ukraine has far more independence than the fake Church has, and that is simply a fact. The so-called “autocephaly” they were given was autocephaly in name only.
The reason why the comparison between the fake Church in Ukraine and ROCOR has no validity is because Filaret was justly deposed and anathematized, and he created a schism when the Russian Church was free from persecution, and there was no canonical basis for his actions.
ReplyDeleteROCOR had a canonical basis for their actions, because St. Tikhon gave them that basis when he issued Ukaz 362. See https://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA for the history here. Furthermore, the bishops of ROCOR were never deposed or anathematized.
If the EP was really concerned about the welfare of the Ukrainian Church, he could have accepted the MP’s call to have a council to discuss it, and I think he could have easily used leverage to get the Russian Church to agree to a real autocephaly for the real Ukrainian Church, but the fact that the EP will not call any meetings or synods which would allow for a hearing of all sides shows that he knows he hasn’t a leg to stand on, nor has he much support for his actions in the rest of the Church.
Even if you grant that the EP has the universal right of appeal beyond it’s canonical boundaries (which it doesn’t), the EP cannot hear an appeal without actually hearing an appeal, and allowing all concerned sides to make their case. No proper hearing (as laid out by the Council of Sardica) was ever held.
The actual history of the Russian Church under the Soviets is a lot more complex than your cartoon history allows. I would suggest you read the book “A Long Walk to Church,” by Nathaniel Davis, which is a very fair account of the period.
Marcele, how many Ukrainians were murdered in the American backed coup that overthrew the lawfully elected government of Ukraine? When you throw the rule of law out the window, it is you who are responsible for the deaths that result, not those responding to your lawless actions.
ReplyDeleteAmong Fr. John's conspiratorial rhetoric, exaggeration, and half truth is a good question:
ReplyDelete"...When you have the EP openly supporting pro homosexual propaganda sources like Public Orthodoxy, you have to ask why"
Indeed. While it might tickle the inner lizard brain to entertain answers such as "The State Department", the real answer is more important for all of us because it's not some far off government institution that has nothing to do with our actual faith, parishes, families, schools, and communal life. Secularism is everywhere, not just "out there" but *inside* the Church, because *we* are the Church and *we* are to lessor or greater degrees (mostly greater) a secular people in heart and thought. This is well known in a vague and general sense, but the enormity of the problem has us stupefied.
Those of a legalist mind such as Fr. John want to identify the "bad men" in the Church, such as Patriarch Bartharlomew and anyone in communion with him, because its easier to believe that secularism is a problem of the will - a simple "revisionist" conspiracy, and just by being in the "right" jurisdiction "BAMN!", problem solved. Anyone not born yesterday knows the reality is that in heart of each member of Fr. John's parish secularism is just as rampant, or very nearly so, as the GOA parish on the other side of town.
At the core of secularism is a theological heresy, the Cartesian Self and the nature/relationship of practical to theoretical reason, combined (somewhat ironically) with a materialistic heresy about Creation itself. This heresy is *everywhere*, including the most pietistic and self proclaimed "canoncially correct" jurisdictions. Seeing and understanding this is difficult enough, let alone actually dealing with it from a pastoral perspective. Pretending it is a (canonical) legal problem, such as simplistically naming the "bad men", has proved not very helpful at all.
Just this past weekend my bishop was in town installing our new priest. He was trying to convince me to finish my last two classes of seminary, and without my prompting admitted that Orthodoxy is good at training men to serve liturgy, we are doing nothing to help them understand what secularism is (as a life and a kind of anti-Christianity) or what to do about it. This was on top of his preaching about how if the Church is not passing the faith on to its children, it is failing to be the Church, which of course Orthodoxy largely is in NA. This is a serious and in my view correct appraisal of the problem, and its this sort thinking/church/bishop that will be the source of solution(s), grounded as it is in actual ascetical (i.e. of the heart) Christianity...
Jake, as is often the case, spouts a lot of nonsense to avoid dealing with the facts. The facts are that not all Orthodox bishops wink at homosexuality, but the EP does.
ReplyDeleteIn the United States and in the English-speaking Orthodox world generally, we hear many voices from within the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which are supporting homosexuality, openly. The Archons have helped fund an Orthodox institute at Fordham University. The heads of this institute have used this platform to launch a website called “Public Orthodoxy” which regularly promotes homosexuality and other forms of deviancy. And it is not bad enough that they publish this material in English, but they now translate their articles into Russian, Greek, and Serbian. And they do this without the slightest hint of any rebuke from the Greek Archdiocese of America. In fact, whenever they have a big event, Archbishop Demetrios of New York is usually present, adding his authority to that event. For example, one of the heads of this institute, Aristotle Papanikolaou, in an article in another pro-homosexual journal, The Wheel, wrote that expecting people who suffer from same-sex attraction to remain celibate is “unrealistic” and unhealthy, and that such desires should best be expressed in the context of “long-term committed relationships or marriages” (The Wheel 13/14, Spring/Summer 2018, p. 97 [emphasis added]. See also "Unitarian Morality With a Little "Theosis" Sprinkled on Top," "The Living Church 2.0," and "Cultural Marxism and Public Orthodoxy").
Patriarch Bartholomew’s Archdeacon, Fr. John Chryssavgis, has made a number of pro-homosexual statements. For example, he wrote a review of a book that was a simple piece of pro-homosexual propaganda written by a homosexual Episcopal priest, and he gushed with praise for what a great contribution this book was to the important “dialogue” on homosexuality. The only slight criticism he made of this book was to say that he remained “unconvinced” by some of the book’s arguments that the Scriptures support homosexuality. This is from a man who has no difficulty expressing his disagreement, in eloquent and striking terms… when he wishes to.
And then there is the call that was made to “Metropolitan” Epifany, by a Russian prankster, who pretend to be a western diplomat, and congratulated him on the “autocephaly” of the Church in Ukraine, but expressed his hope that the Epifany would take a different stand on homosexuality than the conservative one taken by the Russian Church. Epifany assured him that he would not take such a conservative stand against homosexuality.
This is not normal. This is apostasy. Defending it is a betrayal of the faith. Stop it.
It's worse than you say with Aristotle as he is now working on a book supporting the homosexualist (and thus anti-Christian) anthropology. The Wheel published Met. Kallistas Ware's essay where he got all cosy with secular anthropology (ably rebutted by several over on Fr. Andrew Damick's blog at Ancient Faith), and is itself really just the mouth piece of Fr. Robert Arida's and a collection of other "progressive" and disaffected NE 'liberal' Orthodox. These folks however are a *symptom* of the problem, and are just the noisy voice of secular confusion that more or less rules the heart of almost ALL Orthodox Christians in western society, and contrary to what you say this Kingdom of Secularism is very much "normal" even your own parish.
DeleteBy the way, why did you not list your jurisdictions own Sister Vassa? She is still a "sister" and a member in good standing in ROCOR no, even though she is very much unrepentant of her homosexualist views and counsel?
David, you assert without any actual argument that the renovationist agenda of the Living Church was not at all like that of the EP in the 1920's. The New Calendar was far from the only similiarity. Here are the items that were on the agenda at the so-called "Pan Orthodox Congress" of 1923:
ReplyDelete1) The question of transferring the Feast Days of major saints to the nearest Sunday with the goal of lessening the number of holidays.
2) The question of impediments to marriage.
3) The question of marriage and the clergy:
a) The Episcopate and marriage;
b) Second marriages for widowed priests and deacons;
c) Whether it is absolutely essential for the sacrament of ordination to follow the sacrament of marriage;
4) The question of church services;
5) The question of the fasts;
6) The necessity of calling a Pan-Orthodox Council annually.
In short, they wanted to allow priests to remarry, bishops to marry, shorten the services, reduce the fast, and eliminate weekday feast. This is very much in line with the agenda of the Living Church.
You want to know why the Russian Church won't consider the "feelings" of the Ukrainian Church. I want to know how you know what those feelings are. The vast majority of Orthodox people who actually go to Church in Ukraine go to the real Church. This is evident simply in the fact that the fake Church didn't even attempt to do a procession on St. Vladimiar's day this year, because they knew they would be dwarfed by the real Church's procession.
David, you ask how I could call fake bishops "fake bishops" after the EP accepted them. The reason is simple. The EP had no right to do it.
ReplyDeleteThe Canons of the Holy Apostles are among the most ancient Canons of the Church, and were specifically endorsed by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. Canon 11 of the Holy Apostles says:
"If anyone who is a clergyman pray in company with a deposed clergyman, he shall be deposed too" (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 23).
Canon 16, says that if a clergyman is suspended or deposed, and goes to another bishop, and "the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder." (Ibid., p. 27).
Canon 28, says: "If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, who has been justly deposed from office for proven crimes, should dare to touch the liturgy which had once been put in his hands, let him be cut off from the Church altogether" (Ibid, p. 40). Which is a canon clearly violated by Filaret, which is why he was also anathematized. And when he was anathematized, Patriarch Bartholomew again stated his agreement with the decision:
“Having received notification of the mentioned decision, we informed the hierarchy of our Ecumenical Throne of it and implored them to henceforth have no ecclesial communion with the persons mentioned” (Letter of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to His Holiness Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow and All Russia, April 7, 1997).
And this means very clearly that the EP has knowingly joined himself to a justly deposed and anathematized bishop, along with the schism that he established.
The Canons of the Council of Antioch were also specifically affirmed by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. The second canon of that council states:
"As for all those persons who enter the church and listen to the sacred Scriptures, but who fail to commune in prayer together and at the same time with the laity, or who shun the participation of the Eucharist, in accordance with some irregularity, we decree that these persons be outcasts from the Church until, after going to confession and exhibiting fruits of repentance and begging forgiveness, they succeed in obtaining a pardon. Furthermore, we decree that communion with those excluded from communion is not allowed, nor in another church is it to be allowed to admit those who have no admittance to another church. If anyone among the Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or anyone of the Canon, should appear to be communing with those who have been excluded from communion, he too is to be excluded from communion, on the ground of seemingly confusing the Canon of the Church" [Ibid., p 535].
And Canon 4 states:
"If any Bishop, deposed by a Synod, or any Presbyter, or Deacon, deposed by his own Bishop, should dare to perform any act of the liturgy—whether it be the Bishop in accordance with the advancing custom, or the Presbyter, or the Deacon, let it no longer be possible for him to have any hope of reinstatement even in another Synod (or Council), nor let him be allowed to present an apology in his own defense, but, on the contrary, let all of those who even commune with him be cast out of the Church, and especially if after learning about the decision pronounced against the aforesaid, he should dare to commune with them" (Ibid., p 536).
This canon makes it clear that Filaret, by continuing to serve after he was deposed, placed himself beyond the possibility of being reinstated by any subsequent Council. Furthermore, by entering into communion with Filaret, the Ecumenical Patriarch has committed an offense, for which he should be not only deposed, but cast out of the Church entirely.
David,
ReplyDeleteThe EP had a great deal of leverage when they announced what they were intending to do and the MP went to Constantinople to beg him not to do it (as he had promised he would not do it to all the heads of the local Churches, but evidently lied).
The MP will not accept an autocephaly for the Ukraine that is a fake autocephaly (not really autocephaly at all, but really subordination to the EP) given to fake bishops. The MP would certainly accept an autocephaly given to the real Church of Ukraine if there was a pan Orthodox consensus for it.
Father John, what makes you think that Moscow would accept a "real" autocephaly for Ukraine? It's been 30 years since the original 1991 request for Ukrainian autocephaly was denied by Moscow. Patriarch Bartholomew later went to Kiev in 2008 and personally talked with Patriarch Alexei about the need to somehow resolve the Ukrainian crisis back then. Nothing changed afterwards. Even today, Moscow's "repent of your autocephaly" approach offers no feasible path towards reconciliation with the Ukrainian autocephalists.
DeleteIf all the bishops of the UOC-MP had shown up to the December 15, 2018 "Unity Meeting" in Kiev to elect a new primate, they would have greatly outnumbered everyone else and very easily could have elected Metropolitan Onuphrey as head of an autocephalous Ukrainian Church. The current OCU has only 62 bishops while the UOC-MP has 97. The deck was clearly stacked in favor of the UOC-MP if they had attended the meeting.
Given the provisionary language of Constantinople's 1686 transfer of authority given to Moscow, Patriarch Bartholomew had every right to rescind it. According to that letter of transfer, the Patriarch of Constantinople was always supposed to have been commemorated by the Metropolitan of Kiev when he served Divine Liturgy. When did they stop happening? Who knows? Yet the fact that Metropolitan Onuphrey doesn't commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew now is an actual violation of the 1686 transfer anyways.
Fr. John, the international community that condemned these acts of agression would disagree with you. Metropolitan Onufry called for an end to the war and bloodshed while you seem to think they were inevitable.
ReplyDeleteJake, I didn't mention Sister Vassa for the simple reason that ROCOR publicly rebuked her on the subject. If the GOA or EP had done that in any of the cases I mentioned, I wouldn't have mentioned them either.
ReplyDeleteShe then publicly and explicitly rebutted said rebuke, even further elaborating her homosexualist view about how under age men and women - *children*!!! - should act out homosexual acts.
DeleteYou want to play the strict (canonical) judge/lawyer over here and there - recommending who should be deposed and who is and is not in the real church, but in your own back yard you make thin excuse as to why your in communion with a modernist homosexualist excusing "nun"...big fat log in your own eye and all that...
Your hypocrisy is understandable however, given how pervasive secularism is *in the church*, all of it, including the Russian.
David, you honestly think that the items on the agenda of the 1923 "Pan Orthodox" congress and their parallel in the Living Church is totally unrelated to the EP entering into communion with the Living Church? Why do you think they entered into communion with them?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the allegations that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is covertly advancing the homosexual agenda, we should understand that just because public rebukes are not issued or that sensitive matters are not handled in the manner that we would like, it does not mean that they are apostates. The people who make these allegations keep a curious silence about a number of other problems in the Church and nobody seeks to accuse them of apostasy. In any event, if we are sincere about learning what a synod believes, as opposed to selecting only negative examples in order to cast stones, then we need to refer to their synodical documents. In this case, Article 10 of The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments text from the 2016 Holy and Great Council tells us that "The Church does not allow for her members to contract same-sex unions or any other form of cohabitation apart from marriage. The Church exerts all possible pastoral efforts to help her members who enter into such unions understand the true meaning of repentance and love as blessed by the Church."
ReplyDeleteRussia did not establish a parallel jurisdiction in Bulgaria, much less did they enter into communion with anyone who was universally recognized as not only deposed, but anathematized.
ReplyDeleteMy recollection of the situation with Daniel Bwayantoro, was that the EP only deposed him after he was received by ROCOR, and this happened at a time when ROCOR and the EP were not in communion. It did not happen in an area where anyone recognized an autocephalous Church as having exclusive jurisdiction. As to whether it was a good idea or not, subsequent events would suggest that perhaps it wasn't. The MP would not have made such a move prior to what the EP has done in Ukraine. But in any case, that is not analogous to establishing a parallel jurisdiction within the territory of an autocephalous Church and doing so with bishops universally recognized as not only deposed but anathematized.
David, there is no reason why the MP should have put Ukrainian autocephaly on the table, when the legitimate Church in Ukraine has not requested it, and they are beyond the reach of Putin, and so could easily do so, if they wanted to. They have a better deal with the MP than Epiphoney has with the EP. However, if the EP had been willing to discuss it when the MP was begging them to do so, they might have agreed to an autocephaly with Met. Onouphry at the head, in order to avoid the schism we are likely headed towards right now.
ReplyDeleteMarcele, I agree with calls for an end to the war, and if the US was not interested in keeping the war going, the war would have ended a long time ago. Furthermore, had the US not launched a coup against the lawfully elected government of Ukraine, none of this would have ever happened in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMarcele, when the EP has prominent clergy and Archons who are promoting homosexuality and transgenderism, and they not only do not rebuke them, but continue to shower them with money and praise, that means they agree with what they are doing, by any standard or measure. Don't kid yourself. If want to end up like the Episcopal Church USA, just keep your head in the sand.
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, the bishops of ROCOR were never deposed or anathematized."
ReplyDeleteIn 1934, Metropolitan Sergius together with the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decreed that the leaders of the Karlovci group (ROCOR) were to be tried in spiritual court for disobedience and were forbidden from performing their sacred duties pending outcome of the trial. All those in communion with or receiving the blessing of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Archbishop Meletius (Zaborosky), Archbishop Seraphim (Lukianov), Bishop Nestor (Anisimov), Bishop Tikhon (Liashenko), Bishop Tikhon (Troitsky) and Bishop Viktor (Svyatin) would be under the same penalty. The rest of the Orthodox Church was notified of the decree and when the Serbian Patriarch Varnava disregarded it, Metropolitan Sergius sent him a stern letter threatening to sever communion with him unless he respected the decisions of the Russian Church.
Marcele, can you point me to the record of the trial that Metropolitan Sergius conducted that deposed and/or anathematized the bishops of ROCOR? It never happened, much less was it universally recognized throughout the rest of the Church. Metropolitan Sergius was not free, and in 1934, he didn't have a functioning Synod of bishops, because most of them were in prison or dead.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Sister Vassa publicly rebuke the rebuke? I have not heard her say very much on the subject since she was rebuked. She has put a toe over the line once or twice, but it has been a long time since something like that has even happened. But the fact that she was rebuked is in sharp contrast to showering praise on the pro-homosexuals under the EP.
ReplyDeleteHow bishops handle discipline in a particular case is something that is hard to judge without knowing all that is said behind the scenes, but public statements that endorse homosexuality should be met with public rebukes. ROCOR has rebuked publicly. The EP only praises those guilty of such things, and makes sure they get more money.
My wife was a subscriber to her site at the time (some version of her "coffee with" perhaps, I don't recall the name exactly) and I read it there, but I believe our host also documented it here at Byztex though I'm not going to go search for it myself. My wife cancelled her subscription/support due to her rebuke of the rebuke.
DeleteTo counter your excuse making and arbitrary lines in the sand, the Fordham boys, the editor of Wheel, etc. are all laity who make their (very secular) cases in secular academia and publications - with commensurate funding structures, whereas (in theory) a nun is a vocation of the Church, directly overseen by the Church through her authorities (i.e. bishops). Fact is your synod played politics, publicly disagreeing but allowing this homosexualist excusing voice to continue *under their authority*, and they do so to this day. This is a "strictness for thee but not for my" hypocrisy on the part you and your jurisdiction.
This is a part problem with the legalistic emphasis that is such a part of your internet ministry, in that your jurisdiction and self professed canonical, theological, ordo/pietistic, etc. *correctness* is a just a delusional mirage, no matter whether you personally really believe it or not. Your jurisdiction swims in the same cultural and historical soup as all the others, and whatever small advantages yours have are offset by other weaknesses. None of this is serious assessment or cure to what the secularist disease...
Joseph Lipper, the request in 1991 was coerced by the Filaret... the undeniable kook who allowed an occultist to pray over him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_dt1mOSS-8
ReplyDeleteMet. Onouphry is a living saint, who is highly respected, and Putin has no ability to coerce him. And so if he thought pushing for autocephaly was in the best interests of the Church in Ukraine, he would do it. He certainly does not want to be in a forced union with the lunatics, modernists, and heretics of the likes of Filaret.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFine, so if Metropolitan Onuphrey wants to uphold the "1686 transfer" then he should at least be commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew at the Divine Liturgy and as per the terms of that transfer. Of course he doesn't have to do this anymore because it's since been rescinded as of October 2018.
DeleteFurthermore, if Metropolitan Onuphrey feels that he has been wronged, he is free to appeal and make his case before the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Of course by doing so, he would automatically be breaking off from Moscow.
DeleteDavid, clearly the agenda of the 1923 "Pan Orthodox" congress was designed to push those items. Why else would they have put them on there? And this is proven by their embrace of a schismatic group in Russia that implemented these very items, and were willfully complicit in helping the Soviets to undermine the legitimate Church of Russia. And the EP was likewise willfully complicit. As I said previously, they certainly did not have anything like the pressure that the MP was getting from the Soviets to recognize the living Church. How many bishops of the EP were martyred as they resisted being forced to enter into communion with a satanic schism? Answer: zero.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJake, Archdeacon John Chryssavgis is hardly a layman. He is one of the most prominent spokesmen for the EP in the English speaking world. Neither Patriarch Bartholomew, nor Archbishop Elpidiphoros, nor Archbishop Demetrios has ever rebuked him or the people at Fordham, but on the contrary, they have only showered them with praise, honors, and increased their prominence, despite the fact that they promote the idea that it might not be inherently sinful for a man to have sex with another man, or a woman to have sex with another woman... not to mention promoting trans-genderism, or other such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteSister Vassa was rebuked, and has been relatively quiet on the subject since. I don't subscribe to her pay per view stuff, so I can't say what happens there.
You say my ministry has a legalistic emphasis... such as what, for example? There is a big difference between defending principles, and a legalistic approach on a pastoral level.
David, the Bulgarian Church had a Patriarch prior to the Baptism of Rus'. The Russian Church did not claim Bulgaria as its own territory. Nor did it recognize or enter into communion with a group of laymen who claimed to be bishops, but were part of a completely bogus Church. So the situation at the time of the Bulgarian schism was not at all analogous to the EP claiming a chunk of the universally recognized territory of the Russian Church for itself, and entering into communion with a group headed by a fake bishop, Epiphoney.
ReplyDeleteI think ROCOR has made many mistakes over time, but it's cold relations with the EP prior to 2007 were due in large part to the scandalous behavior of the EP and its ecumenical atrocities. I think in retrospect we should have been more cautious and diplomatic, and I think that those who were ready to write off the EP at that time as already being beyond the pale were premature -- but its actions didn't happen out of the blue, and the EP has some share in the blame. Blowing off the canons (such as those against praying with heretics) doesn't put you in a great position to complain about others not abiding by the canons in response.
And if you think Patriarch Kirill's prediction that there would be blood in the streets as a result of the EP's actions hasn't proven true, you aren't paying attention. The fact that the EP hasn't yet condemned Met. Onouphry is hardly a star in his crown. He hasn't said a discouraging word about the illegal stealing of parishes, or violence directed at the real Orthodox clergy and laity of Ukraine, which has included murder.
The EP previously carved off a piece of Estonia, and created a division in a part of the Russian Church that has never been anything other than part of the Russian Church. For the sake of peace, the MP let that go. This was more than could possibly be tolerated, and no other local Orthodox Church would put up with anything like it either. The EP itself threatened to break communion with Greece over far less.
And on the Living Church, there is no evidence that anyone put a gun to the head of the EP to force them to enter into communion with the Living Church -- but if they had, they should have let them fire the gun, rather than enter into communion with a fake heretical Church. That's exactly what many Russian Bishops chose to do. Anything else was a betrayal of the Faith, pure and simple.
Joseph, the evidence that the EP actually did transfer the parts of Ukraine under their control are undeniable. There is no evidence that any complaints were ever made about a failure of the Metropolitan of Kiev to commemorate the EP. Every local Church recognized this for centuries. Furthermore, even if we bought this claim, and even if we could be convinced that a transfer that was stated to be "forever" could be rescinded, the EP did not have a claim on all of modern Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteThe EP has no universal right of appeal, and neither did Rome. They had a right of appeal within certain territorial bounds. Otherwise you would have had the problem of having two rival supreme courts, and such a thing cannot be. But even if the EP had such a right, they never heard the appeal in this case, in the manner laid out by the council of Sardica, which required actually hearing an appeal, and listening to all sides before rendering a judgment.
https://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2018/12/whats-going-on-in-ukraine-part-2.html
As long as Mr. Schooping continues to sell his books written when he was Orthodox, I personally would have a hard time paying attention to anything he has to say. Others who have made the switch TO Orthodoxy have pulled their "B.O." (before Orthodoxy) literature, and sacrificed their profits(like Roosh). This is , I think a good point for those who have expressed concern over the effect he might have on seekers....
ReplyDelete