The strange, sad case of the defrocked deacon, Lev Puhalo

[koufitsa22]

I knew Fr. Puhalo from my Canada early life and he had often mentioned that St.John Kronstadt was a homosexual and not deserving to be called a saint. Yes it

[CorpusChristi]

joann wrote: (Andy calls me an heretic because I don't believe in ecumenism, which by the way, Met Philaret, Archbishop Averky and St. John Maximovich opposed and made clear statements against it. I guess then, he would label them as heretics too.
So we all claim to be Orthodox and the other is an heretic. How ridiculous is this becoming??
Maybe we need a catastrophe, in order to bring us together, because we have all gone over the deep end at this point).

I think it is coming to that point,something terrible seems to be happening, I think the scripture of- Brother against Brother is this age today...
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

Saint Paul the Apostle was right? "The foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Corinthians 1:25).

[koufitsa22]

I think it is coming to that point,something terrible seems to be happening, I think the scripture of- Brother against Brother is this age today...

I do not perceive it this way and I see no “brother against brother” behavior. Yes, indeed a certain level of zealot-like fanaticism or egocentric behavior may prevail from time to time. However, for the most part, IF we just stick with the Church, Her teachings, the Orthodox dogmatic values and Holy Orthodox Tradition, use them in discussions (and not out of context -- especially the "love" thing) we then can come to some realizations and / or conclusions.

Brother against brother took place a long time ago, starting with our Latin friends when they sacked Constantinople, when they supported the wars against Orthodox (such as our Serbian brethren), when they continue to plot against Holy Orthodoxy via the Uniate movement in Russia as well as elsewhere, when...

Here, however, we are bringing forth heretical teachings that exist within Orthodoxy in the likes of Mr. Puhalo et. al. If we do not warn each other on these matters, what chance shall we all have against the heresy of all heresies?

Yes, ECUMENISM IS a HERESY! Make no mistake about it -- although this discussion belongs to another forum.

Here we are dealing with the likes of those who destroy Orthodoxy and Orthodox from within.

[joasia]

koufitsa22 wrote:

Brother against brother took place a long time ago, starting with our Latin friends when they sacked Constantinople, when they supported the wars against Orthodox (such as our Serbian brethren), when they continue to plot against Holy Orthodoxy via the Uniate movement in Russia as well as elsewhere, when...

Excellent point.

Yes, ECUMENISM IS a HERESY.

Unfortunately, many people refuse to see the obvious.

There are many references to false prophets, in the Bible...so the ecumenical movement fits that description.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Matt: 7:15)

But, back to the topic....Puhalo is certainly a person who deserved to be defrocked.

[Kollyvas]

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SESSION OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA
On 19 November/2 December, 1980, the Synod of the Bishops of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia heard: the extensive
correspondence connected with the controversy raised by Deacon Lev.
Puhalo (Ed. now known as Archbishop Lazarus ~ Synaxis Press) with regard
to a book by Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) on life after death. In the book
in question a great many false teachings concerning the soul outside the
body are investigated, with however, the purpose of contrasting an
Orthodox explanation with them. However, entering a domain which has not
been fully revealed to us, and furthermore, unwillingly employing
non-Orthodox materials. Hieromonk Seraphim, despite various
reservations, initiated a controversy, in which his opponent, Deacon Lev
Puhalo, paying no heed to the disclaimers, with yet greater persistence,
and with a spirit of condemnation, wrongly accuses him of heresy. This
controversy can cause great harm to the souls of the faithful.
They directed: Theologically evaluating the book of Deacon Lev
Puhalo, Bishop Gregory, in the review he made for the Synod of Bishops,
reports the following:
Fearing, as is natural for an Orthodox person, the possibility of an
Western or other non-Orthodox influence, Deacon Lev Puhalo has gone to
the opposite extreme and contradicts a number of teachings which have
long been accepted in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Thus for example,
fearing lest the teaching concerning the "Toll-Stations" be likened to
the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory, he leaves almost no place for what in
Orthodox dogmatic theology is referred to as the "particular judgment",
after which the soul experiences a foretaste of the blessedness or the
eternal torment which awaits it after the resurrection.
The state of the soul after death Deacon Lev Puhalo represents as
its utter inability to function in any way whatsoever other than with
the assistance of the body (p.7). As he understands the matter, after
its departure from the body, the soul finds itself in a state of mute
and blind repose. "An active, intellectual life or functioning of the
soul alone could never be conceived in either Old or New Testament
thought. For the soul to function, its restoration with the body as the
'whole person' would be absolutely necessary" (p.9).
"…Without the body, the soul…is not even a person, but only something
'of ' a person… the soul without the body cannot speak, nor remember,
nor discern, nor think, nor be roused, nor see…" (p.23)
Such a concept of the soul separated from the body does not
correspond in the least to the Orthodox concept. To begin with, it is at
variance with the teaching concerning the preaching of the Forerunner in
Hades prior to the arrival of the Saviour there, as well as the
possibility of the souls of the Old Testament personages of heeding the
preaching of the Saviour in Hades or their going with Him in paradise.
Likewise, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus contradicts Fr. Lev's
teaching. The synaxarion for Meatfare Sunday says: "Be it known that
there all shall know one another - them that they know, and them that
they have never seen, as saith Chrysostom…" The same synaxarion teaches
concerning St. Basil the Great that he "saith in his discourse on the
departed that before the general resurrection it hath been given to the
saints to know one another and to rejoice together." The very appearance
of Moses on Mt. Tabor reveals his soul as active and capable of taking
part in conversation with the Saviour concerning His redemption of the
Human Race. The state and life of people beyond the grave are not all
the same, but depend upon the degree of sanctity or sinfulness of their
life on earth. After death, some souls can in no wise manifest
themselves on earth, but the saints receive such boldness that they can
do good unto us in answer to our prayer.
While expressing certain healthy and good thoughts concerning
life after death, Deacon Lev Puhalo has allowed himself to become too
keen on battling that which appears to him to be scholastic, and from
which he strives to free Orthodox theology. However, even such ascetics
as St. Dimitry of Rostov, or Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Bishop
Sylvester and other prominent Russian theologians as times managed to
express genuinely Orthodox truth employing the outwardly scholastic
expression of the theological science of their times, inasmuch as they
drew such truth forth from the rich well of the Tradition of the Church.
Among such ancient traditions is the tradition of the so-called
toll-stations, which Deacon Lev Puhalo so determinedly dismisses,
stating this doctrine, however, in an exaggerated manner. Actually, no
one can dogmatically establish the existence of the toll-houses
precisely in accordance with the form described in the dream (of Gregory
recounted in the life) of Basil the New, insofar as no direct indication
thereto is to be found in the Scriptures. However, this tradition has
been preserved, with varying details, from profound antiquity and
contains nothing that is contrary to piety. It is cited in all texts of
dogmatic theology. The unorthodox explanation of Deacon Lev Puhalo, that
the soul, separated from the body can neither see nor hear, that it
cannot be subjected to the "particular judgment" of God without the
body, and his very understanding of the toll-stations as mere bargaining
between the angels and the demons indicates the hastiness of his
judgments. Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), the most recent author in
the field of dogmatic theology, writes of the toll-stations in the same
spirit as they are described in the dream (of Gregory recounted in the
life) of Basil the New. Archpriest Malinovsky, the author of a dogmatic
theology text valued highly by Metropolitan Anthony, writes on the
question: "How is the particular judgment conducted? What are the forms
and manners of its implementation? The Scriptures do not speak of this.
A trial has two aspects: the investigation of the innocence or guilt of
the one being tried and the pronouncement of the sentence over him. But
when the trial is conducted by the by the Omniscient God, for Whom the
mortal state and worthiness of a man are ever apparent, the first aspect
of the trial must be understood exclusively in the bringing of the soul
to an awareness of its mortal state. For man's individual awareness is
revealed by means of his conscience, that incorruptible judge
established by God Himself within the soul… It is exactly in this way
that one cannot accept the pronouncement of the sentence by the Almighty
Being only in the sense of the announcing of the Judge's decision to the
soul; the word of God is also the activity of His will, and for this
reason the decision of the Almighty Judge is also the blessing of a soul
or the refusal to permit its entry into the Kingdom of eternal life.
Doubtless, the justice of God's judgment which determines its fate will
be clearly acknowledged by the soul itself which is judged by its own
conscience" (Archpriest N. Malinovsky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology,
Sergiev Posad, 1909, Vol. IV, pp. 448-450). Malinovsky mentions that
even the ancient teachers, citing the account of the toll-stations, saw
it only a "weak depiction of the heavenly things" (ibid., pp. 453-454).
However, in the prayer of the Church there is considerable mention of
the toll-stations themselves as attempts of the powers of darkness to
affect the souls of the departed after their departure after their
departure of the body. Thus, in the canon chanted at the parting of the
soul from the body, we read: "The prince of the air, the oppressor, the
tyrant who standeth on the dread paths, the relentless accountant
thereof, do thou vouchsafe me who am departing from the earth to pass [O
Theotokos]" (Ode IV, troparia 4; also Ode VIII, troparion 2). Mention of
them is also made in the Octoechos of St. John Damascene.
In this encounter with the powers of darkness, that have caused a
man to stumble in the course of life and strive also to suggest to his
soul that by its constitution it belongs to them and not to the Kingdom
of Heaven, is the particular judgment accomplished. On the other hand,
in accordance with the Savior's words, the righteous can pass through
these toll-stations unhindered" "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that
heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death
unto life" (Jn 5:24). The soul of one who on earth has completed the
course of the faith, thereby frees itself from evil. The demons have
nothing in common with it and cannot touch it. Between these two aspects
of souls - of the sinful and the holy - there still stand various
degrees of sanctity or sinfulness, and in various degrees, the demons
may harry them. These actions, which must in no way be accepted as the
participation of the demons in the preliminary judgment, are what are
referred to as the toll-stations. Rejection of possibility of their
existence contradicts the consciousness of the ancient Church, as this
is apparent from the Canon of Departure of the Soul.
Minimizing the significance of the fear in the face of the
consequences of a sinful life and after the departure of the soul from
the body, teaching of Fr. Lev. can weaken in the souls of his readers
one of the stimuli to do battle with sin.
To maintain that the soul, having been separated from the body,
finds itself in some state of sleep, since without the body it cannot
experience either blessedness or suffering, or hear, or speak, and that
the demons also cannot even see it, is contrary to our Faith. The Church
has never taught this. In certain cases the citations made by Fr. Lev
have in mind the insensibility not of the soul, but of the dead body.
How exactly disembodied souls can speak and be saved has not been
revealed to us. The Church teaches only that without the body the soul
does not experience either the fullness of blessedness or the fullness
of torment. However, a pious soul already experiences repose because it
has departed from earthly pangs and testings and may be more closely
united with the Lord than it did on earth. Nevertheless, this
blessedness is still only preliminary to the complete blessedness, which
we await after the reuniting of soul and body at the general
resurrection. In reply to question 61 in the Confession of the Eastern
Patriarchs, we find: "Inasmuch as an accounting will not be required of
each one separately on the day of the Last Judgment, since all is known
to God; and inasmuch as at death each one knows his own deeds, after
death each one also learns of the recompense for his deeds. For if each
one knows his deeds, the sentence of God upon him is also known, as
Gregory the Theologian says in his discourse on Caesarius, his brother…
Thus, one must think of the souls of sinners only from reversed
perspective; i.e. that they know and foresee the torments which await
the. Neither the righteous, nor the sinful receive the full reward for
their deeds before the Last Judgment. Moreover, not all souls are found
in the same state, nor are they sent to one and the same place." In
connection with this there is the reservation that "when we say that God
does not ask of us an accounting for our life, this must be understood
in the sense that we shall be given an accounting not in the manner of
human accountings" (Ibid.). To put it otherwise, life after death is not
portrayable with sufficient fullness in earthly understandings and
expressions.
Bishop Theophan the Recluse writes well of this. Referring to
various visions similar to that (recounted in the life) of Basil the New
and others, he poses the questions: "Can one definitely suppose that
everything presented in them is reality of the matter, is exactly as is
depicted therein? Are they not comparative images for a more vital and
full representation of a reality not contained in such images, which is
being introduced her? "…All of these impressionably express the
reality, but, I maintain, one may not think that the reality itself is
exactly such, despite the fact that it is always expressed in no other
way than by means of these images…" Calling to mind that the spiritual
world is for us something mysterious, Bishop Theophan maintains that
"these images represent the reality, but are not the reality itself. It
is spiritual, noetic, devoid of anything fleshly. The Apostle Paul was
caught up into Heaven, - and what did he say of his experience? That
what is there, he says, "it is not lawful for a man to utter" (IICor.
12:4). We have no words to express this. Our words are crude, bound to
our senses, figurative.
Thus, addressing ourselves to contemporary conjectures on the life
of the soul after death, I propose that we ought to follow the advice of
Bishop Theophan, " to terminate our speculation as regards the accounts
of what takes place in the spiritual world. Read, delve deeply, be
edified, but do not rush to draw any such conclusions therefrom. For
that which is there, "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man" (I Cor. 2:9) (The Soul and Angels Are Not
Body, But Spirit, Moscow: 1891, pp. 90-92)

Code: Select all

  Taking all of the forgoing into consideration, the Synod of

Bishops resolve: In the deliberations on life after death one must in
general keep in mind that it is not pleased the Lord to reveal to us
very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness
depends on how much a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian,
and the degree of a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree
of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been
pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation, and all
disputes in this domain are now especially detrimental, the more so when
they become the object of the discussion of people who have not been
fully established in the Faith. Acrid polemic apart from the spirit of
mutual love turns such an exchange of opinions from a deliberation into
an argument about words. The positive preaching of truths of the Church
may be profitable, but not disputes in an area which is not subject to
our investigation, but which evokes in the unprepared reader false
notions on questions of importance to our salvation.
In view of this, at the present time of the Synod of Bishop's
demands the cessation in our magazines of controversy on dogmatic
questions and, in particular, on questions concerning life after death.
This controversy must be ended on both sides, and Deacon Lev Puhalo is
forbidden to lecture in the parishes until he signs a pledge
satisfactory to the Synod to terminate his public statements on
questions of internal disputes between Orthodox on subjects which may
provoke confusion among the faithful.
(Resolved also: ) To announce this resolution to Deacon Lev Puhalo
and to editors of religious magazines.
Certified as an accurate translation of the original.

Code: Select all

   +Bishop Gregory
    Secretary of the Synod of Bishops

[Kollyvas]

(Anyone even remotely aware of george lucas' views on religion knows he is a syncretist who endorses dualism and this is what he means by his introduction of "the force" in his star wars movies, traits quite inimicable to Orthodoxy. Refer to: --R)
http://www.next-wave.org/may99/starwars.htm

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa ... =R682&I=-3

...Star Wars: Another Point of View

by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

It seems that every time a new fantasy movie appears, we see a rash of
"yellow journalism" excoriations of it in various Orthodox publications.
If you ask the editorialists if they have actually seen the film, the
reply will usually be, "Most certainly not!" Their reviews, alas, are
often based on something they have read in the standard sectarian "doom
and gloom" press. Often, the extravagant outcries of "demonic,"
"perverse," "antiChristian," etc. are merely the automatic reflexes of a
bleak, morbid religious negativism and many writers in Orthodox journals
simply quote or rewrite articles from some sectarian publication...

(And mr. puhalo endorses this, to dispel "religious negativism":)

http://sw-anthropo.ibelgique.com/txt/re ... tangl.html

The "Star Wars religion" (I)
© Muriel Verbeeck. Translation: Sylvie Bussers

I.George Lucas'religion
II. Star Wars' religion

When the first Star Wars film came out, one striking and unexpected phenomenon was the extraordinary and immediate craze for ‘the Force’, this invisible and essential actor of the Trilogy. The famous ‘May the Force be with you’ directly becomes one of the standards of the ’pop culture’, a quotation you cannot miss.
But from the start, the Force is much more. It stirs curiosity, titillates imaginations, causes numerous speculations, to such an extent that Francis Ford Coppola will jokingly suggest to George Lucas to become the founder of a new religion. Twenty years later, however, this phenomenon has done nothing but extend, which is not without effect on the very perception of the Prequels and on their reception. To comprehend the overall issue, several elements should be taken into account. They united to turn Star Wars, a science fiction entertainment film, targeted at a very young audience, into the heart of a religious controversy. A controversy which reveals so much of a society…

I. George Lucas’ religion
According to my sources, Lucas was baptised in a Methodist church and was raised with protestant values. Accessible, by his anthropological processes, to other forms of spirituality, among others the oriental spirituality and particularly buddhism, he defines himself today still as a ‘believer’ – and directly stresses the difficulty to precise ‘in what or whom’. The existence of God is not a problem to him, but the possibility to know something about God is. Should we see an agnostic reluctance there ? Anyway, this is probably the reason he chose to give his children not so much a religious education, than more definitely a form of education to spirituality. I’m giving this information incidentally, since this belongs to his privacy.

Much more revealing for our subject is the interview given to Bill Moyers, entitled ‘Of Myth and Men. The meaning of the Force and the true theology of Star Wars’1. Let’s remember that the producer and the journalist have in common another series of interviews on a very near subject : those made by mythologist Joseph Campbell in 1986 at Skywalker Ranch.

G.Lucas and B.Moyers at Skywalker Ranch
© Times Magazine

From the start of the interview, George Lucas stresses again his conscious will to translate old myths under a new form in an original medium. Nevertheless, Lucas also clearly states that his project is not essentially religious :

I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct--that there is a greater mystery out there. (...) I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people--more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery. Not having enough interest in the mysteries of life to ask the question, "Is there a God or is there not a God?"--that is for me the worst thing that can happen. I think you should have an opinion about that. Or you should be saying, "I'm looking. I'm very curious about this, and I am going to continue to look until I can find an answer, and if I can't find an answer, then I'll die trying." I think it's important to have a belief system and to have faith.

In the same interview, G. Lucas precises his creed which meets J. Campbell’s thinking on more than one point :

all the religions are true. (...) Religion is basically a container for faith. And faith in our culture, our world and on a larger issue, the mystical level--which is God, what one might describe as a supernatural, or the things that we can't explain--is a very important part of what allows us to remain stable, remain balanced.

In his view, structured religions keep their pace, in a world which tends to complete secularisation. He defends himself against critics who accuse him of destructuring revealed religions, and of feeding a cheap mass mysticism.

I would hesitate to call the Force God. It's designed primarily to make young people think about the mystery. Not to say, "Here's the answer." It's to say, "Think about this for a second. Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God?" Just getting young people to think at that level is what I've been trying to do in the films. What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.

More recently, probably exasperated by the polemic around the Phantom Menace George Lucas let out ‘It’s just a movie’ – which will disappoint many fans – particularly those who considered the film as a theology treaty (see below).

Nevertheless, the saga reveals a lot about G. Lucas and his underlying convictions. One can find in it his questioning and his attempts to answer.

MOYERS: Is it fair to say, in effect, that Star Wars is your own spiritual quest?
LUCAS: I'd say part of what I do when I write is ponder a lot of these issues. I have ever since I can remember. And obviously some of the conclusions I've come to I use in the films.

Thus, besides numerous themes, - the relation of man to machines, redemption, the importance of loyalty and friendship, the symbiotic development -, an essential truth is established : man is born (often in pain) during an initiatory progression and, faced to choices, builds his destiny himself. Intuition – trust your feelings – is a privileged access to mystery, to transcendency, a renunciation of rationality in favour of a ‘leap of faith’, as mentioned by a philosopher like Soren Kierkegaard (Lucas explicitly refers to that). Faith into ‘something’ which is not precised, and which depends in effect on the personal, individual experience.

These themes are recurrent in his work, and they become more precise throughout episodes. Intuition is different from emotion ; redemption is obtained through fatherhood ; fidelity to others and to oneself is expressed in various ways. But above all, the relationship to others and to the community becomes increasingly important. The human blossoming now goes through a symbiotic development with the environment, people and objects, each of which cooperates with the other for its survival – in brief, this is the idea expressed very academically by Qui-Gon in the Phantom Menace. Lucas repeats this recurrent theme of symbiotic development in each of his interviews. It is clear that he is very keen on the idea. I think this is one of the keys to understand the Star Wars films, naturally, but also the producer’s projects and more personal achievements. Beyond a vibrant creed, this idea has become a ‘way of life’ for him.

I will conclude this text about George Lucas’ "religion" by stressing that, in the end, his ideological statements are much more philosophical than religious. He did not conceive Star Wars as a bible, but as an entertainment film aimed at a young audience. If it makes people think, so much the better. It initiates a research. It does not give answers – and certainly not dogmatic ones.

II. The religion of Star Wars

When I wrote the first Star Wars, I had to come up with a whole cosmology: What do people believe in? I had to do something that was relevant, something that imitated a belief system that has been around for thousands of years, and that most people on the planet, one way or another, have some kind of connection to.I didn't want to invent a religion. I wanted to try to explain in a different way the religions that have already existed. I wanted to express it all.

G. Lucas always proceeds in the same way. The concepts, either extra-terrestrial or not, are inspired from real elements which allow the spectators to create a link, conscious or not, with their history or their culture. At an architectual level, Otton Gungan inspires himself from the organic style of ‘Art Nouveau’, Theet combines the Venitian diversity, the Roman-Byzantine art and the oriental influence – without leaving aside Renaissance perspectives.

L'architecture hybride et cohérente de Otto Gunga et de la Cité de Theed.
©Lucasfilm Ltd and TM

But the process is the same for virtual creatures. For example, the sea monsters in the Phantom Menace : sea-killer Opee is a combination of crab and lobster. Fish Colo is a crossbreed between an eel and an octopus, fitted with a crocodile jaw and a luminescent peduncle. Monster Sando is a crossbreed between a sea otter, an elephant seal and a tiger, revisited by elephants and whales.

La genèse multiforme du poisson Colo ©Lucasfilm Ltd and TM Croquis préparatoire pour l'aqua-monstre Sando
©Lucasfilm Ltd and TM

The organic fusion produces creatures which are totally credible, because their anatomy though improbable is ‘close’ to the spectators. And again with Sebulba, half-way between Aarachnidas and camels…

Sebulba, hybride d'araignée et de chameau. ©Lucasfilm Ltd and TM

The process is strictly identical for this other creation which is ‘religion’ – finally, an element amongst others in the Star Wars world. From an existing factor, G. Lucas creates a hybrid form by combining influences : he borrows from Buddhism, from Taoism, without objection to borrowing from Christianism, Judaism or Islam… In order to be understood and become rooted in the spectator’s imagination, the borrowing must remain superficial. This is how Buddhism and Taoism as perceived (or imagined ?) by westerners are to be found in his work: far away from the diversity and the complexity of the Small or Greater Vehicle, the refinements of Tibetan Buddhism or the ‘tantric’ expression, the subtleties of philosophical Taoism or its religious form, which integrates for example elements from Upanishads (and therefore from the Hindu spirituality)....

(Would mr. puhalo invite Orthodox to go and witness the dance of hare krishnas, the chanting of tibetan monks, the shamanistic rituals of voodoo, yet he is perfectly fine WITH YOUR CHILDREN exploring religion under lucas' religious template. He recognizes no spiritual harm. Could it be it is because HE IS FOREIGN TO SPIRITUAL MATTERS?!--R)

[Tessa]

You all now see how really very dark this guy is and all his teachings.

St. John of Kronstadt!
СРАМОТА!
SHAME!

The more and more I find out, the more and more it sounds like works of someone under demonic possesion! We must pray for this poor man.

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Tessa