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

[costaswright]

Диакон Никола wrote:

It should be noted that he, along with HOCNA not only disparage the
Toll-Houses and Blessed Augustine, but teach evolution. I am

Of course he teaches evolution. Why wouldn't he? One might as well ask why he doesn't teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as St. John of Damascus taught.

Theistic evolution is a perfectly acceptable belief for an Orthodox Christian to hold, involving no contradiction with the fundamental principles of our holy faith.

Here is a comment from a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate:

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:41:45 -0800
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
From: "A. Chumakov" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: creationism, was parochial orthodox
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

However, death was not introduced into the world until the sin of
Adam. Is this not a central tenet of Orthodox theology? Is this not
the central theme of Pascha -- that the death brought into the world
by Adam has been overthrown? If death pre-existed the Fall, does not
the whole theology of the Resurrection come into question?

Dear Seraphim,
Some creatures need to live, and others die anyway (if they are not plants). When cows eat grain, it results in death of plants. Every living organism has metabolism, and ecosystems are based on one creatures eating others and being eaten themselves in the end. The wisdom of this arrangement is far greater than any "deatheless" world of spiritualist invention, and St. Basil in his homilies on the Six Days attests to its beauty and propriety. There is an interesting article by deacon Andrew Kuraev, you can find translation here -

http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklet ... kuraev.htm

There are also some additional materials on the same website, for example
http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklet ... eant_e.htm

both of these articles are not without the weak spots, but they certainly
very interesting. Death did enter the world with sin, with human sin death entered the human world, up until this time protected in a special place, garden of Eden, by special means, the tree of life. Bible is silent about the workings of the laws of biology outside of this Garden...

In Christ,

priest Alexey

It's very telling what Fr. Alexey says... eating always involves the death of that which is eaten, when it is broken down and metabolized into the human body.

BUT... God gave Adam the command to eat IN THE GARDEN, as Scripture tells us!

BUT... Christ, in His Resurrected and Glorified body ATE fish, as the Gospel tells us!

But those deaths did not involve human beings, human persons... so the fact of non-human death during the evolution of life on this planet does not call the whole theology of the Resurrection into question. Far from it.

In the Joy of the Fleshed Lord Jesus,
Rd. David-Constantine

[Kollyvas]

Диакон Никола wrote:

It should be noted that he, along with HOCNA not only disparage the
Toll-Houses and Blessed Augustine, but teach evolution. I am

Of course he teaches evolution. Why wouldn't he? One might as well ask why he doesn't teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as St. John of Damascus taught.

R--I, for one, would go further and state that the universe, for each of us, revolves around us, man is microcosm as St. Maximos the Confessor taught. What that means is that the whole of CREATION is saved by the redemption wrought by Christ Jesus of mankind and in man's (especially theandric man's)stewardship of ALL of creation, what we are ALL called to. Again, for ANYONE to begin to lampoon the deified is not only sacriledgious, it's beneath contempt, for it shows that this person does not believe in divine illumination. And if this is discounted in assessing/presenting Orthodox theology, then neither Orthodoxy nor theology is presented but rather the fallen mind of man which is in error. YOU CALL YOURSELF AND YOR METHOD/MENTORS ORTHODOX. orthodox what? mormons?! scientologists?!

Theistic evolution is a perfectly acceptable belief for an Orthodox Christian to hold, involving no contradiction with the fundamental principles of our holy faith.

R--Theistic evolution as the latin heretics (What's this? Are you purging or promoting heretical westernization. hocnaisms, LOL!) have it means that Adam was a metaphor for primitive man who evolved and that the Book of Genesis presents "mythical language" which can't be taken literally. It can't even come to terms with the third law of thermodynamics nor even the absence of transitional forms. The Orthodox PATRISTIC view is that creation fell (ie began devolving) with the fall of man (who is steward over creation), just the opposite view from evolution, and that the first few books of Genesis have veiled literal meaning as well as typological (If there was no Adam, how could Christ be the New Adam?!) historical and allegorical meanings. Moreover, when did this beast Adam take on a soul and how could he have sinned?! Do animals sin? Only by our fall. And how is a monkey/ape created in the image of God and called to perfection. Perhaps on the planet of the apes, BUT ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS DO NOT CONFUSE SCIENCE FICTION WITH THEOLOGY. Again, more heretical blasphemy which reflects AN UTTER LACK OF AN ORTHODOX worldview.

Here is a comment from a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate:

Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:41:45 -0800
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
From: "A. Chumakov" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: creationism, was parochial orthodox
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

However, death was not introduced into the world until the sin of
Adam. Is this not a central tenet of Orthodox theology? Is this not
the central theme of Pascha -- that the death brought into the world
by Adam has been overthrown? If death pre-existed the Fall, does not
the whole theology of the Resurrection come into question?

Dear Seraphim,
Some creatures need to live, and others die anyway (if they are not plants). When cows eat grain, it results in death of plants. Every living organism has metabolism, and ecosystems are based on one creatures eating others and being eaten themselves in the end. The wisdom of this arrangement is far greater than any "deatheless" world of spiritualist invention, and St. Basil in his homilies on the Six Days attests to its beauty and propriety.

R--St. Basil DOES NOT go into trophism as beautiful, BUT he does maintain THAT SIN, death, ENTERED THE WORLD THROUGH ADAM's DISOBEDIENCE.

There is an interesting article by deacon Andrew Kuraev, you can find translation here -

http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklet ... kuraev.htm

There are also some additional materials on the same website, for example
http://www.fatheralexander2.org/booklet ... eant_e.htm

both of these articles are not without the weak spots, but they certainly
very interesting. Death did enter the world with sin, with human sin death entered the human world, up until this time protected in a special place, garden of Eden, by special means, the tree of life. Bible is silent about the workings of the laws of biology outside of this Garden...

R--How does this substantiate evolution; moreover, the FATHERS MAINTAIN THAT MAN WAS CREATED AS STEWARD AND HIGH PRIEST OF ALL CREATION. Nonsensical.

In Christ,

priest Alexey

It's very telling what Fr. Alexey says... eating always involves the death of that which is eaten, when it is broken down and metabolized into the human body.

BUT... God gave Adam the command to eat IN THE GARDEN, as Scripture tells us!

BUT... Christ, in His Resurrected and Glorified body ATE fish, as the Gospel tells us!

But those deaths did not involve human beings, human persons... so the fact of non-human death during the evolution of life on this planet does not call the whole theology of the Resurrection into question. Far from it.

In the Joy of the Fleshed Lord Jesus,
Rd. David-Constantine

R--Trophism is not a sign of evolution or proof of it. The point that is being missed is that theistic evolution MAINTAINS THERE WAS NO ADAM. Hence, WHENCE sin and why the need of the Incarnation?! More error and heretical nonsense. WHAT FATHER TAUGHT THIS?! WHERE IS THE PATRISTIC WITNESS?! The only Father cited is alluded to incorrectly.

ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48911

EVOLUTION WATCH
500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin
Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory

---

Posted: February 21, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Charles Darwin
More than 500 scientists with doctoral degrees have signed a statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution.

The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

The institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

West said Darwinist "efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

The statement, signed by 514 scientists, reads:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
West said the Discovery Institute was encouraged to launch a website for the list because of the growing number of scientific dissenters.

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought," said David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. "It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."

Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell, American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen, evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and researcher at the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg, editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum – the oldest still published biology journal in the world – Giuseppe Sermonti and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.

The list include 154 biologists, 76 chemists and 63 physicists. They hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science and related disciplines.

Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, University of California at Berkeley, Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, Ohio State University, University of Georgia and University of Washington.

---

Related offer:

Great titles from WND Book Service that will help you counter evolutionary dogma.

---

Previous stories:

Designers' attorney: Class not intelligent

Limbaugh got it wrong, says intelligent designer

Intelligent-design backers downplay Dover

Intelligent-design backers blast judge

Salman Rushdie blasts intelligent design

Intelligent-design backers applaud Bush

Opposition to intelligent design drummed up

Smithsonian backs off intelligent design film

Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

Teachers refuse intelligent-design policy

ACLU backs off on intelligent design

PBS station cancels intelligent-design film

[Kollyvas]

...Much (if not most) of what is visible and audible in this blogshere, for example, seems to be the SOS secular polarization, conservative "liberal" namecalling.
Is this site funded by the so called "religious right"or has the "religious right" simply found "orthodoxy" with a capital O more useful for lending itself credence?
After all, there were some thousands taken in by the Antiochians.
As may be said, you can take Christ out of the protestant but can you take the protestant out of those who "call" themselves "Orthodox Christians"?
Where is there in any of these antics any evidence of Sophia (Divine Wisdom), a traditional (as opposed to "conservative christian") Orthodox worldview?
"Conservatism often sees the Orthodox Church as a jackbooted, authoritarian organization where salvation is earned through the precise maintenance of ritual and structure."...
http://www.new-ostrog.org/paper1.html

[Kollyvas]

(This is definitely NOT Jordanville nor Fr. Pomazansky.--R)

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5 ... ianity.php

...This problem includes not only the failure to encourage the faithful to join the singing of the Divine Liturgy (and "liturgy" is understood in the Orthodox Church as "the work of the people"), but also our failure to encourage regular and frequent Communion of the Holy Mysteries. Stop and think about it without the prejudice of custom for a moment. The obnoxious and meaningless custom of opening and closing the royal doors and curtains during the Divine Liturgy is based on nothing else except the rank of the clergyman serving that day. We once read in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate of a priest in Moscow who had been given, as an award, the right to serve the first part of the Liturgy with the curtain half open. Meanwhile, it is likely that very few of the faithful were approaching for Communion. The only argument I have ever heard for allowing priests of different rank to have the doors and curtains open for different portions of the Liturgy was that "it teaches the lower ranking clergy humility!"

As David Goa has stated, "The Liturgy is the highest form of the human story, and its most concrete expression."(3) The purpose of the Divine Liturgy is to bring the faithful to Holy Communion, not to teach some clergy humility and others pride! Whatever the origins of the custom of some clergy opening and closing the doors and curtains at differing times, depending upon rank and privilege, it is distracting and forms just another way of closing the faithful out of full participation in the Liturgy. In spite of unclever sophisms, no one has ever proposed an explanation of this custom that has the slightest real meaning. Meanwhile, the faithful are seldom if ever taught the actual meaning of the actions and words which they see and hear during the Liturgy. How, then, do we expect educated and cultured younger generations to continue to attend the divine services? Protestantism at least offers participation in the services, as well as a great deal of shallow and empty entertainment; but this shallow entertainment is a big attraction for the "television generation."

When we cling so fervently to meaningless customs based in vanity and self-importance, it ultimately becomes more difficult for us to hold fast to those things which do have meaning and which are needful....

...While the secular is indeed a loss of religious power (and well it ought to be), the secular is a gift from the Christian tradition to both the life of the world and the life of the Church. To the Church, it provides the freedom from the corruption of worldly power so that it can regain authentic spiritual authority. To the world, it gives the freedom necessary to claim the Gospel and accept willingly its pathway to freedom and fullness of life. Moreover, to the Church, the secular makes it possible for it to re-establish it's vocation as "leaven" so that the faithful may once more minister on all the margins present in the lives of people and in civil life. We have nothing to fear from an emerging secular society since "perfect love casts out fear." ...

[Justin Kissel]

That's straight from Fr. Georges Florovsky

That Florovsky was a good theologian I doubt anyone would deny. What is at issue is whether you understand what Florovsky, Gregory of Nyssa, and others say. I think you are an intelligent person, and thus you are good at reading stuff and recycling it in it's technically sophisticated terminology. I also have no doubt that you understand the technical aspects of much of what you say. I'm sure you understand what nous and hypostasis and theandric means. However, I do have doubts as to how close to the mark of truth your arrows are hitting. You seem to me more like the weapons expert who knows a lot about the arrows and bow, but couldn't hit the broadside of a barn when actually shooting.

[Kollyvas]

In other words, you plead "no contest," other than invective. Ok, expected from puhalo types. BTW, I studied/study theology/Orthodoxy in seminary and elsewhere. Specifics, and we can start quotes. What I specifically doubt, with good reason, is the commitment to an Orthodox, Patristic worldview of many, and I'm confident of my own. I was kind enough to point out errors. And I'm honest enough to listen to where mine supposedly are. But, hey, even david letterman has an opinion...So, honestly, the great variance here is caused by the partizans of a defrocked deacon and that deacon who have no concept of the Patristic mind or Orthodox theology. I'll confess I strive to emulate Fr. Florovsky, Lossky, +Met. Hierotheos, Fr. Sophrony, Fr. Staniloae, Fr. Meyendorff, St. Justin of Chelje, Cavarnos and by their witness I will rise or fall, for they reflect the teaching of the Fathers. What mr. haler-puhao teaches isn't what they or the Fathers teach. Absolutely not.
R

[moschonisi]

R...,

I congratulate you for your defense of Holy Orthodoxy. It is rare to indeed see a laity person that is patristically-minded. And think: you are not even a "reader" like the self-declared, self-appointed, self-trained convert experts... It is individuals like the reader-boy that give converts a bad name. The damage he does to converts through his silly posts and continued defense of a self-declared bishop is immesaurable!

Did you see his post on Idianna, where he starts with the "Oh dear,..."?

What kind of a man starts a sentence with "Oh dear..."?

But then, he does have a connection to the ever-gentle Puhalo, whom he calls his mentor and insiprarion. Am I seeing this right on his site? Are we in the midst of a Puhalo-in-the-making?

KIRIE ELEISON!