OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

DIscussion and News concerning Orthodox Churches in communion with those who have fallen into the heresies of Ecumenism, Renovationism, Sergianism, and Modernism, or those Traditional Orthodox Churches who are now involved with Name-Worshiping, or vagante jurisdictions. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defense of Transgengerism

Post by Matthew »

The video can be found at this url

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defense of Transgengerism

Post by Matthew »

If you have read the above article please take the time to read this one as it clears up a lot of significant errors and unclear statements. Thanks.

Symeon

++++++++++++++++++

On Puhalo’s “Response to Critics About Transgender”

On January 18th, 2012, the Eve of the Theophany, OCA Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (the defrocked ROCOR Deacon Lev Puhalo/a.k.a. Ron Haler) released a strongly worded attack on the more sober-minded who have subsequently responded to his first infamous defence of Transsexuality, or as he would term it, Transgender, which has seemingly been widely publicized by him with impunity among the World Orthodox Jurisdictions.

First, it is interesting that throughout all of Puhalo's long history of having a penchant for discussing sexual issues, he has always insisted upon using the term "gender" rather than the traditional and anthropologically correct term, "Sex". In this he accepts as his linguistic inheritance a humanist/feminist anthropology. The preference for using the word, "gender," over "the male sex" or "the female sex" was deliberately introduced and made victorious in the re-engineering of the mass phronema of modern man. The goal was to replace the traditional idea that the differences between men and women in the Church, in society, and the home were biologically driven. With the new, non-biological term came the new ideology: traditional differences between the sexes are entirely learned and arbitrary differences, and not the result of genetic factors. The conclusion then, by extension, is that these differences, whatever the teaching of Scripture and the Church, are not divinely ordered from Creation. In fact, insistence upon them in our scientifically and socially advanced age, is not only unreasonable and unnecessary, but worse, it is cruel, unjust, immoral, and without compassion. Compassion and true anthropology, under the new paradigm, requires that women be denied nothing, not even the bishop’s mitre. It does not stop there in its reforms, however. According to an OCA Archbishop and abbot of a monastery, it now rightfully takes us into the once unthinkable realm of Transgenderism.

Why, “gender,” and, “transgender,” and not, “sex,” and, “transsexual”? What difference does it make? The reason for the linguistic change is entirely deliberate and the preference for one or the other is rooted in opposing ideologies and beliefs about the nature of humanity; humanity which is fully expressed through the complementary differences of men and women. The term, “gender,” was wrested from linguistic terminology in the 1950s by sexologist John Money, and taken up and popularized by feminist activists in the 1970s. Why? The reason is that all the governing rules and structures in language are constructs. They do not actually exist in nature, but are a matter of fashion, convention, and convenience in forming mutual understanding in communication, and therefore are, by nature, constantly changing. For example, while modern English is generally considered to be without grammatical gender, Old English, spoken by the Anglo-Saxons, did have grammatical gender, much as Spanish and French still do today. The English language gradually evolved over the centuries to the point where it has largely lost its gender distinctions. It is not difficult to see how this could be helpful to the cause of feminist reform.

Again, one sees the issue where something, such as the sun (Le Soleil, in French), is thought to be masculine, being the strongest and brightest in celestial bodies, and the moon (La Lune), feminine, being smaller and in a sense submissive to the sun when it rises causing the moon to be nearly invisible, even when full, during the day. Clearly, celestial bodies are neither male nor female, in fact, but are said to be so as a matter of agreed social construct. That is the reason why the feminists and humanists have borrowed the word, gender, to support their cause. Of course, such ideas, that there is a divine order in the relationships and differences between men and women, mirrored in such analogies of a masculine sun and a feminine moon, are abhorrent to the modern feminist or humanist mind; but by using the language of linguistics they have successfully introduced and established the idea that traditional sexual order and distinctions as defined by the theology and moral law of the Church are changeable. Further, by associating the sexes with change long established and familiar in the habits of speech, they have established the idea that resistance to change on the definition of male and female personhood and issues relative to sexual orientation is both unreasonable and a social crime; and active resistance in this social sphere is now subject to prosecution in most countries that have adopted this new social order. Even before occupying the positions of power, they have always exhibited a certain arrogance in debating traditionalists and constantly claim to hold the high moral ground on all subjects important to them while vilifying and denigrating anyone holding to Christian Tradition as bigoted, ignorant hatemongers. In this, Puhalo also shows himself to be like-minded.

One need not deny that there are doubtlessly those who attack Puhalo too strongly and with little tact and grace of the Spirit, and make, perhaps, irrelevant or erroneous claims. This is a malady, to some extent, from the right, and is a serious concern. However, one must seriously doubt that Lev Puhalo’s mad characterizations of his opponents, upon which he has furiously hurled himself, are the sum total of the general responses that have surfaced regarding his anti-patristic, anti-Orthodox, and anti-canonical theology of the human person.

As he has always done, to disarm his opponents and to convince the unstable, he returns to his two chief weapons of choice: one, the semblance and claim of representing the “informed and educated” man of conscience, and another, the claim to represent Christian compassion and co-suffering love, which, he would have us conclude, demands solidarity with the transgenderists. Hence, if you hold to a traditional approach which is necessarily counter to his own, then you are "guilty of the blood of all the marginalized homosexuals and transgender souls that have committed suicide," because of your perceived hatred. By this logic, the doctor who insists an anorexic needs to change the way they live in order to be healed or they will likely perish, does so out of hatred for his patient—a patently absurd assertion. Indeed, there are those who are very hateful in their approach to these groups of people, and such a charge is not unfair in their case (i.e. The Westboro Baptists in Topeka, Kasas, who seemingly live to hate homosexuals). However, such an attitude is in no way informed by an Orthodox view of humanity any more than is an acceptance of the condition of homosexuals and transgenderists as normative, or at least within the realm of acceptable Christian life, albeit on the periphery, perhaps.

Puhalo admits, in fact, that the bulk of his detractors are what he terms, right wing supporters of the Tea Party ilk, and since most of these well-meaning folks are heterodox, it goes without saying that they would not hold to a thoroughly Orthodox anthropology, inevitably driving their approach to these issues into the roadside mire of soteriological and ontological error. They would be colored by a certain arrogance in their manner since, according to the Fathers, the heretics cannot be free from pride, and pride will always restrain the hand of compassion, or hide its subtle but firm path from view. An Orthodox anthropology is essential to being able to view any moral issue with a perfectly clear and balanced approach that is both entirely compassionate and yet true to the moral and ethical requirements of the Apostolic Faith and Canons of the Church. The Church’s definitions of right faith, worship, and living form a living fabric of ethical/moral behaviours that are both redemptive and therapeutic. As the Apostle has written, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14). This is not peace with all men at any cost, but within the bounds of what holiness allows. To sacrifice holiness for peace with men is no virtue, and no keeping of a conscience that is true.

It is interesting that Puhalo argues, "to equate transgenderism with homosexuality is stupid because it is so cruel, so vicious, and so vindictive, because it is based on an ideology rather than any attempt to base it on any real knowledge of this tragic circumstance." This suggests that Puhalo views homosexuality as evil enough by nature that, for something like transgenderism to be equated with it, such a comparison becomes a great cruel and vicious insult. Puhalo has stated in this writer’s hearing that homosexuality exists in two forms: in the socially inculcated variety (which is therefore curable being a learned behaviour), and in the clinical variety which is beyond remedy being genetically hardwired into the individual and that, in his opinion, the Holy Fathers were ignorant of this distinctive clinical condition. He concluded that the best thing to do is to have a “clinically homosexual” parish member live as married in a "faithful relationship" with a homosexual partner and be communed as though married. This is the “pastoral policy” of an OCA Archbishop. That is truly, truly lamentable. Sounds pretty much like being equated with being homosexual in his world is not so wrong as to warrant the claim that such an association is cruel, vindictive, and vicious. He thus insults and betrays one sexual community he strove to defend to defend another.

Regardless of the inconsistencies in comparison with his past record, he tries to fashion a disarming tool of this line of reasoning. Indeed the entire tone of this address is awash in claims of owning the high ground of compassion and justice AND true knowledge and theology! Meanwhile, he wishes us to believe that those who would hold that transgenderism is an illness of the soul to be cured lest the soul be lost, are, willy nilly, haters of suffering and afflicted transsexual men. He thus accuses Traditional Orthodox advocates of being “anti-compassionate” idealogues who are opposed to compassion itself. In his judgement, they are little more than ideologues who are "spouters of a savage ideology." And this must be the case, says Puhalo, "whether or not" they are trained counsellors from either "an accredited or non-accredited" institution. It seems their traditional views on sexuality and the human person prove they have not studied, are ignorant, and heartlessly hold to "savage" views since they don't agree with him. It is also very telling that he goes on to say that, "so much destruction, human suffering, suicides, and stripping away of people's personhood" is the direct fault of these backward and "medieval" ideologies about the human person. Yes, suicide, hatred, dehumanization, and suffering are authored by antiquated moral requirements long believed to be requisite for being in a minimal state of grace. The Orthodox Faith teaches that it is precisely such wayward lifestyles he now seeks to defend that, in fact, produce the very maladies and injustices he decries.

Sin is the denial of, attack upon and overthrow of an Orthodox anthropology or ontology (the study of being or personhood) and not, as Puhalo ignorantly, blasphemously charges, the fault of defending and lovingly and firmly recommending someone to follow the time-honored teaching of the Church on sexuality and salvation. This is not "Anti-Compassion," as Puhalo claims as he beats upon his drum, but True Compassion: because the only hope to be cured is to correctly diagnose the nature and seriousness of one's infirmity. Only then can one obtain the cure by identifying and pursuing what is normative, God-pleasing, and truly according to our original nature, and what is not. To blur this distinction so grossly, as Puhalo does, is, despite all his claims to the contrary, an unintended hatred for the souls of those who never find the harbor of repentance and salvation through following his rash and arrogant advice, which clearly is entirely at variance with the historic teachings of the Church. Arrogant, because it flies in the face of all that the greatest righteous souls that ever walked the Earth had to say on the matter; be it Moses who spoke to God face to face as a man does with his friend, or Saint John Chrysostom who was the greatest theologian the Church Age ever saw and received his teaching by divine revelation. Nevertheless, whilst the "ignoramuses" insist on blindly holding to the Tradition of the Holy Fathers without fault or change, Puhalo goes on to cite as proof of his being in a state of Gnosis, the medical cases of those who have been genetically transsexual, possessing both male and female genetic structures, from birth.

While he does not state it overtly, this line of reasoning is entirely that of the Homosexual Community at large as well as even pedophiles, and, yes, even lawyers defending rapists have used this kind of argument. It is the claim that if biological transgender cases can naturally occur, then it is in some sense from the hand of God, and so to struggle responsibly against the added tide towards outlawed sexual activities by seeking reform, by following some manner of life acceptable to God and the Church, is superfluous. That one can prove that there are such cases where someone has both male and female genitalia from birth is irrelevant (*see footnote). That some people are born with a more violent temperament, or stronger sexual impulses than others, or have a generational (inherited) propensity for alcohol or drug abuse, does not in any way mean they are exempt in the sight of God from the dignity of taking responsibility to struggle against those things.

Christ, the Holy Apostles, the Holy Fathers, and all the God-illumined Saints who struggled painfully with themselves down through the ages were entirely aware that the earth, even at the genetic level, was affected by the Fall in the garden of Eden. This did not alter, however, the Faith of the Church on these matters, or how such issues ought to be both compassionately and honestly addressed; and that, in no way, could ascetical struggle and cross bearing be absent or optional from an honest pursuit of a cure. Indeed, we know such aberrations do happen. They have happened since the disobedience of Adam, when roses grew thorns, which hitherto had not, signifying that the sin of man produced genetic changes in the natural world. To discover that man’s ongoing disobedience is still actively altering genetic code in the world today does not undermine the Traditional Faith on these matters, but supports it. Moreover, as sins continue to multiply both in number and in kind, and as we continue to pollute the world with newly invented chemical compounds, and to accelerate the confusion of genetic mutations in the wild through cross pollination of Genetically Modified crops and produce, and through a host of vaccinations campaigns worldwide, we are adding greatly, through ventures of industrial greed and the insatiable desire to control nature, to the possibility of much more frequent and serious aberrations at the genetic level of people's bodies.

To insist that all men obey God’s Law and the historic Faith of the Church in the face of the fact that there are some people who suffer from transgender genetic complications, does not connect with the claim that one is, of necessity, blaming God. Nor is it in any way requisite to say such cases never happen, in order to keep the Tradition and Faith of the Church on these issues afloat, as Puhalo claims. The True Church faithfully addresses these emerging realities of these last times without changing Her Faith, nor changing the definition of the sexes and related disorders, nor modifying her teaching on the path of redemption in all such cases. The compassion of God is in no way on trial simply because some people have a seemingly, "unfair disadvantage," in some area of struggle against the passions, or other malady that touches upon the spiritual life. One cannot question that God would certainly be more lenient in such cases on the day of judgement. But the law of God will still stand, and they must prove that they have lived in repentance through demonstrating both an ongoing struggle against it, and an open declaration or confession of the Church's teachings; namely, that the Church's teachings are to be honored and that all these aberrations of sexual behaviour are to be renounced and a remedy to be sought with all diligence. In some cases, some people may suffer from transsexual DNA. Spiritually, they are not in any danger from this. They are still dignified with a free will, and through the life of the Church they are able to be saved and bear their vessel honourably. To deny this and meddle with the Faith is not just something not accorded to amateurs or dilettantes, but it is denied would-be world scholars and scientists, also. It is well beyond any man’s purview, and inexpressibly beyond the competence of a monastic of episcopal rank, to call into question the Faith once for all handed to the Church by Christ and the Holy Apostles. To turn all that the Church has to say in these matters on its head in the name of "compassion and knowledge" (Gnosis) -- be it on the basis of modern moral theories derived from an amateur, armchair reading of Klinefelter's or Turner's Syndrome, or any other modern discoveries in the field of genetics and genetic change, is deep spiritual darkness indeed.

May God have mercy upon us all, Symeon.

  • Klinefelter’s Syndrome, for example, is a complex condition under ongoing study and revision. There are presently several classifications or different syndromes under the name of Klinefelter’s which vary in the theorized statistical rates depending on which one one is considering, occurring in about 1 in 500 live male births for one type to about 1 in 18,000 to 40,000 births in another type, and, admittedly, in many cases the “condition” is so light that there are no visible signs of Klinefelter’s. So, if one were to re-calculate these statistics on the basis of severity above or below appreciable transgender effects upon a person’s life, the statisics would be showing the real hard cases to be very rare indeed. However, as noted, even if the cases were a solid 3 percent of the population (3 full blown cases out of every 100 men) that would not change the fact that they must be saved the same way as all of us, and must observe the same sound moral teachings as all mankind since Adam until now.
Mark Templet
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon 6 August 2007 2:59 pm
Location: Abita Springs, LA

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

Post by Mark Templet »

One of the fundamental planks in the platform of humanism when disguised as Christianity is that God makes people this way. This deeply discounts the roll that the Fall plays. In the Great Fall everything was damaged and suffers degradation. This degradation is thorough, down to our very genetic information. Sin and falleness is interwoven into the very DNA that acts as the blueprint for human beings. We are all born with various inclinations from our parents toward sins. For instance, an alcoholic very often has offspring that are predisposed to developing the same condition.

Why is it that we can't see that our sinfulness has polluted everything. Yes, some people are born with physical, psychological, and hormonal imbalances because of mutations of their genes. As the Church, we must care for these people with the utmost patience and loving compassion. But we have to tell people that some may be born in such conditions that they struggle with sexual identity and so forth their entire lives and that in order to save their souls they must carry this cross in celibacy. But people don’t want to hear that they have to struggle and perhaps refrain from pleasure, rather they seek the wisdom of men to “reassign” themselves to something else. Our lives as Christians is not supposed to be about getting what we want, it is to struggle and seek God first and accept His will over our own. We are not supposed to seek feeling fulfilled in this life, but to seek the fulfillment of the next life.

I feel great sympathy for people who struggle with their sexuality and yet want to please God. I often pray for them and ask God to send them help and strength in their struggles. This is what they need, not this joke of bishop from the OCA coming up with excuses in excuses in sin.

Fr. Mark Templet
ROAC

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

Post by Matthew »

Amen, Father Mark. Your clearly stated compassion is very much the tone we want to set in the discussion of these kinds of issues. It is important that the love of Christ come through very clearly, since the expectation of many men and women suffering from sexual issues be they heterosexual, homosexual, or transexual, etc., is that they will be hated or hurt by devout adherents of religion. They need to know they are welcome as our brothers and sisters and to struggle along side with us and that we should all share each others' burdens. In regard to sin and the passions, none of us is special but all our sins and struggles, though different in kind or expression, still flow from the same basic longings and nature which the fall has commonly wounded.

Symeon

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

Post by joasia »

Your clearly stated compassion is very much the tone we want to set in the discussion of these kinds of issues.

Who is "we"??? And who are you to "set" anything in this forum? Seems to me like you want to instigate your own purpose here and I don't like it.

It is important that the love of Christ come through very clearly, since the expectation of many men and women suffering from sexual issues be they heterosexual, homosexual, or transexual, etc.,

So you are saying that Christ's love accepts this circumstance?? He rejects this lifestyle in the Holy Bible. It's even listed.

.. is that they will be hated or hurt by devout adherents of religion. They need to know they are welcome as our brothers and sisters and to struggle along side with us and that we should all share each others' burdens.

So you support their acts?? I certainly will not share in their burden of this act. It is completely outside the essence of our physical nature.

In regard to sin and the passions, none of us is special but all our sins and struggles, though different in kind or expression, still flow from the same basic longings and nature which the fall has commonly wounded.

So you try to discredit the abomination of this particular act by lumping it with all the other passions. I think you have an agenda here and I don't like it. Nature of man has always shown that a woman and man unite. God's creation of our body parts prove it. That is our nature. If a sin transcends that actual physical nature of our construction, then that is completely wrong. It is demonic.

Mankind has many passions, which came about because of the fall, but these passions can be cleansed when a person focuses on repentance. Therefore, to say that we should support these people, as if this is who they are and will not change, is a complete discredit to the process of repentance and rejects God's construction of our bodies. Basically, you are saying that we should accept these people as they are. NO. They are sociologically damaged and more so, psychologically. You and they want to conform your wills to God. But, God is the Creator and He shows us what our bodies are made to do.

If you try to discredit God's work, on the physical level, then I'm sure you have no understanding on the spiritual level. And I wonder where you are coming from.

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

User avatar
searn77
Jr Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed 24 November 2010 10:00 pm
Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Metropolia of Americas & Brit. Isles

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

Post by searn77 »

joasia wrote:

It is important that the love of Christ come through very clearly, since the expectation of many men and women suffering from sexual issues be they heterosexual, homosexual, or transexual, etc.,

So you are saying that Christ's love accepts this circumstance?? He rejects this lifestyle in the Holy Bible. It's even listed.

I don't see where Icxypion is saying that Christ's love accepts this circumstance.

joasia wrote:

.. is that they will be hated or hurt by devout adherents of religion. They need to know they are welcome as our brothers and sisters and to struggle along side with us and that we should all share each others' burdens.

So you support their acts?? I certainly will not share in their burden of this act. It is completely outside the essence of our physical nature.

Again, where is Icxypion saying that he supports their acts? People who struggle against homosexual passions are human beings just like you and I. They are welcome as our brothers and sisters and they must indeed struggle against their passions, just as I must struggle against the passions that afflict me as well.

joasia wrote:

In regard to sin and the passions, none of us is special but all our sins and struggles, though different in kind or expression, still flow from the same basic longings and nature which the fall has commonly wounded.

So you try to discredit the abomination of this particular act by lumping it with all the other passions. I think you have an agenda here and I don't like it. Nature of man has always shown that a woman and man unite. God's creation of our body parts prove it. That is our nature. If a sin transcends that actual physical nature of our construction, then that is completely wrong. It is demonic.

Mankind has many passions, which came about because of the fall, but these passions can be cleansed when a person focuses on repentance. Therefore, to say that we should support these people, as if this is who they are and will not change, is a complete discredit to the process of repentance and rejects God's construction of our bodies. Basically, you are saying that we should accept these people as they are. NO. They are sociologically damaged and more so, psychologically. You and they want to conform your wills to God. But, God is the Creator and He shows us what our bodies are made to do.

If you try to discredit God's work, on the physical level, then I'm sure you have no understanding on the spiritual level. And I wonder where you are coming from.

How is struggling against homosexuality different than struggling against any other passion? It is well known that Fr. Seraphim Rose struggled against homosexual passions and I can only hope to attain to the closeness of God as he has.

I do not see where Icxypion has basically said "we should accept these people ['these people' being people who struggle against homosexual passions] as they are" like you are claiming he said. People who have fallen to their homosexual passions must repent of their sins, just as I must repent for my sins. But if they fall, like I myself have fallen to my own sins, God is there to embrace them when they have repented and confessed their sins, just as the father embraced the prodigal son when the prodigal son returned to the father in repentance.

Troparion of St. Philaret of New York
Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.

Matthew
Protoposter
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat 21 January 2012 12:04 am

Re: OCA Archbishop's 2nd Brazen Defence of Transgenderism

Post by Matthew »

Dear Joasia and Searn77,

I appreciate both of your comments. First I want to ask the forgiveness of all if I have failed to be clear in what I intended to say in my follow-up posts to my main article, and which I thought was already made crystal clear--but apparently was not in my main article that initiated this thread. Searn77 has repeated precisely my position in his wording; in other words he has read my words as they were intended by me to be read and understood. Moreover, Joasia, I don't understand how I could be suspected of defending Puhalo or any even "softer" or deceptive form of defending sexual perversion, especially by anyone who would have first read my above lengthy response to Puhalo's position--especially the clarified and improved text (which I had to post as a second entry because the moderator insisted the more poorly worded text had to stand as is). That what I have written could now seem to be proof that I am secretly trying to introduce the very position of Puhalo by attacking it, (Huh?) is really beyond my ability to understand. I thought what I said had made my views entirely clear--crystal clear, that I vigorously reject and oppose Puhalo and his monstrous "compassion and understanding" in his "outreach" to "help and defend" the benighted "transsexual community." I have worked for 12 to 16 hours to state in the plainest terms I could, that compassion for people who are tempted with these particular passions absolutely does not mean -- cannot mean -- that we support their behavior or cooperation with those perverse passions. I hope that you will also understand that the lack of clarity in my choice of words was something I realized was present in my original article and for that reason I had asked for permission from the moderator to make some statement clearer. While I understand the reason the moderator had for his decision to be totally unbending, unfortunately that was not granted and so the original text is still what people will end up reading first and are not likely to read the second edition below. As a result I think that the best is not what a lot of people are going to come away with after reading the first edition only. That is why I posted else where for us to brainstorm on how we could allow some case by case permission to diffuse some confusion between posters and save some feelings from being hurt by fixing problems in how we might have failed to get our point across in the most beneficial way to all concerned. Now it seems what I was concerned about and had hoped would not happen because of anything I would write on the forum someone has become hurt and offended and angry -- all on a misunderstanding, that could have been avoided if I had been allowed to present a clearer text to the initial text article of this thread.

Having said that, I still think I am right in saying that the ambiguities of the first edition could not at all give rise to doubts in anyone's mind that the belief and position I hold is clearly that Puhalo is wrong, heretical, and is sending souls to hell by a demonic "compassion" and a satanic "understanding." I am an admirer of your (Joasia's) solid and zealous defense of Orthodox Tradition which I have noted in any posts of yours that I have come across, so it especially saddens me that you think I am some secret agent of the EP or MP or the devil himself. Please, of your kindness, reread my second edition of the above main article that initiated this thread, keeping what I have said in mind, and I believe you will see that my position is clear and on the side of Historic True Orthodoxy. I deserve to be condemned, as I am a sinner, but not in this matter or for what you suspect me of on this forum. For the sake of not falsely accusing a brother or sister, especially one who is a member of the True Orthodox Church, which is a serious matter, please retrace your steps a bit on this and reconsider what you have suspected me of. I wish you well, dear Joasia. You are a warrior and valiant for Christ, and for that you are dearly beloved by Christ, I have little doubt. In this day and age there are precious few who are in the True Church at all, let alone zealous for the purity of the Faith and the honor of the One True Church. God bless you both and thank you for your comments.

the unworthy Symeon

Post Reply