Topic: Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

[Ioannes]

I had recently got into a spat with a person who I thought was an Archbishop, Archbishop Lazar
Lev Puhalo. Some of the things he said confused me, and did not seem like something an Archbishop would say,  yet I remained silent and respected his authority. When I started to inquire about him to my Eastern Orthodox friends, many of them voiced their disgust for him, atleast those who knew him. They told me, among other things, that he believed God makes people homosexual and that evolution is true. I questioned him about this to find out if its true and exactly what about evolution he believes is true, since it is in opposition to scripture. When I questioned his response he began berating me as opposed to giving me evidence for what he said, as I had asked. He told me that Orthodoxy is living in the dark ages, and that I am simple and a host of other things I will not repeat.

Turns out he was defrocked in the ROCOR and the Serbian Orthodox church for these sort of beliefs, some of them I will not repeat. He was allowed into the OCA as a retired Bishop and now is head of All Saints Monastery. I have wrote the OCA to inform them of his past, and got quite a nasty response. So it seems they are content having an arius represent their church. Has anyone else heard of this heretic?

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[Salpy]

I think he was discussed here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=11020.0#top

[Asteriktos]

he believed God makes people homosexual and that evolution is true

He told me that Orthodoxy is living in the dark ages, and that I am simple

I've been quite critical of Archbp. Lazar in the past, but the above is all true, so I don't understand what the problem is here?

[Iconodule]

You can see his many Youtube videos where he espouses his uncritical acceptance of modern scientific dualism and Darwinism, his opinion that scripture "is not revealing to us anything about the creation of the universe or the earth", and of course dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as a) a heretic, b) a fundamentalist, or c) a Gnostic.

[88Devin12]

Well, you can be Orthodox and believe in Evolution. Also, I would say it depends on what he says about "homosexuals" being "created"...

I would say you can believe that some people are born with a tendency towards homosexuality (either biological, psychological,whatever) just like with anything else... But I don't think we can say that God deliberately creates people with such a tendency.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo is an Archbishop, though a retired one. I think ROCOR technically defrocked him, but this (I think) was an event that happened after his departure to the OCA and he wasn't even aware of the council that was called to defrock him.

He tends to be very anti-Fr. Seraphim Rose and anti-Toll Houses, he also tends more towards a more intellectual understanding. (too much for my taste)

I tend not to really listen to him, but he has said some things that aren't too bad. I wouldn't regard him as an Arius, and I was caution you against accusing an Archbishop of such heresy without solid evidence.

As I said though, I don't really agree with what he says, but I haven't seen anything personally that could be regarded as downright heresy... Are the things he says the best or the most Orthodox? Maybe not, but he sure (as far as I know) isn't a heretic.

[Iconodule]

I agree, we shouldn't be quick to call him a heretic, even if some of his views seem questionable. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to fellow Orthodox who disagree with him.

[88Devin12]

I agree, we shouldn't be quick to call him a heretic, even if some of his views seem questionable. I just wish he would extend the same courtesy to fellow Orthodox who disagree with him.

Yes, I find it quite distasteful how he accuses Fr. Seraphim Rose of being a Gnostic Heretic for talking about Toll Houses, etc...
Again, while I don't accept Toll Houses literally (I think they are just symbolic illustrations to teach us something), I don't believe Fr. Seraphim is a heretic for teaching about Toll Houses.

Ironically I think there is actually a photograph of Archbishop Lazar censing an icon of Fr. Seraphim in a Church...

Edited: Yup found the photograph:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/images/6/6a/Puhalo.jpg

[ialmisry]

he believed God makes people homosexual and that evolution is true

He told me that Orthodoxy is living in the dark ages, and that I am simple

I've been quite critical of Archbp. Lazar in the past, but the above is all true, so I don't understand what the problem is here?

God creates the blind, deaf and dumb and the homosexual, but as for God making someone blind, deaf, dumb or homosexual, that's a different question.

Compared to Auschwitz and other wonders of modern man, the Dark Ages look good. Btw, they were not dark in the Orthodox East.

[Asteriktos]

Close your eyes and cover your ears, it matters not to me

[ialmisry]

Close your eyes and cover your ears, it matters not to me

Before you go with the flow, check if there's a waterfall downstream first.

[jah777]

Has anyone else heard of this heretic?

Of course, and he is full of poison.  As a member of the Church that defrocked him as a deacon before he found a schismatic group that would elevate him to the priesthood and eventually the episcopacy, he is still the rightfully deposed deacon Lev to me.  It is very unfortunate that the OCA received him as a retired Archbishop because he has used this title to spew his heresies far and wide through his publications and the Internet.  With his title and his membership in the OCA, people consider that his voice is credible and authoritative.  It is best to ignore him altogether.

[Iconodule]

Close your eyes and cover your ears, it matters not to me

Then why have you been wearing your modernism on your sleeve?

[Iconodule]

Has anyone else heard of this heretic?

Of course, and he is full of poison.  As a member of the Church that defrocked him as a deacon before he found a schismatic group that would elevate him to the priesthood and eventually the episcopacy, he is still the rightfully deposed deacon Lev to me.  It is very unfortunate that the OCA received him as a retired Archbishop because he has used this title to spew his heresies far and wide through his publications and the Internet.  With his title and his membership in the OCA, people consider that his voice is credible and authoritative.  It is best to ignore him altogether.

Yes, he seems to be trying very hard to establish himself as a famous theologian and get a substantial following.  Even as an archbishop in the OCA, I don't think he enjoys the level of prominence he desires.  It's better just to leave him alone.

[Punch]

Of course, and he is full of poison.  As a member of the Church that defrocked him as a deacon before he found a schismatic group that would elevate him to the priesthood and eventually the episcopacy, he is still the rightfully deposed deacon Lev to me.  It is very unfortunate that the OCA received him as a retired Archbishop because he has used this title to spew his heresies far and wide through his publications and the Internet.  With his title and his membership in the OCA, people consider that his voice is credible and authoritative.  It is best to ignore him altogether.

The fact that the OCA would take someone like this is one reason that I would never set foot in an OCA parish.  What else are they willing to call an Archbishop? If I remember correctly, he was defrocked from the ROCOR due to continued teaching of the heresy of soul sleep.

[88Devin12]

Of course, and he is full of poison.  As a member of the Church that defrocked him as a deacon before he found a schismatic group that would elevate him to the priesthood and eventually the episcopacy, he is still the rightfully deposed deacon Lev to me.  It is very unfortunate that the OCA received him as a retired Archbishop because he has used this title to spew his heresies far and wide through his publications and the Internet.  With his title and his membership in the OCA, people consider that his voice is credible and authoritative.  It is best to ignore him altogether.

The fact that the OCA would take someone like this is one reason that I would never set foot in an OCA parish.  What else are they willing to call an Archbishop? If I remember correctly, he was defrocked from the ROCOR due to continued teaching of the heresy of soul sleep.

Has soul sleep ever been declared a heresy in the Orthodox Church? I know it was in the Roman Catholic Church, but I've never heard of it being so in the Orthodox Church.

Regarding his deposition:

1980: Deacon Lev is ordered to cease lecturing in parishes on the subject of the toll houses1 by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. He was deposed by ROCOR for disobeying his bishop by continuing to preach his heresy of "soul sleep", and "for having entered a jurisdiction not in communion with ROCOR" and went to the schismatic Free Serbian Church.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_(Puhalo)_of_Ottawa

Also, at the time of his acceptance to the OCA by οικονομία, ROCOR was not in full communion with the EO Church, which includes the OCA. I think the "compromise" was that he be accepted as a "retired" Bishop.

Again, I think we have to be really cautious who we call a heretic here. If they haven't been declared a heretic formally, and if they don't profess doctrines that have been declared heresy by the Orthodox Church, I don't think we have any right to call them a heretic.

Regarding never stepping foot in an OCA parish... What are you going to do when we are all one jurisdiction, and Archbishop Lazar is a retired bishop of that one jurisdiction?
(also, keep in mind, he IS retired, he wasn't even invited to the Episcopal Assembly)

[Punch]

Regarding never stepping foot in an OCA parish... What are you going to do when we are all one jurisdiction, and Archbishop Lazar is a retired bishop of that one jurisdiction?
(also, keep in mind, he IS retired, he wasn't even invited to the Episcopal Assembly)

There will not be one jurisdiction in this country unless it is under the Antichrist.  And in that case, I shall not be a part of it.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Regarding never stepping foot in an OCA parish... What are you going to do when we are all one jurisdiction, and Archbishop Lazar is a retired bishop of that one jurisdiction?
(also, keep in mind, he IS retired, he wasn't even invited to the Episcopal Assembly)

There will not be one jurisdiction in this country unless it is under the Antichrist.  And in that case, I shall not be a part of it.

Strong words my friend. Pray that you will not have to eat them.

[ialmisry]

Regarding never stepping foot in an OCA parish... What are you going to do when we are all one jurisdiction, and Archbishop Lazar is a retired bishop of that one jurisdiction?
(also, keep in mind, he IS retired, he wasn't even invited to the Episcopal Assembly)

There will not be one jurisdiction in this country unless it is under the Antichrist.  And in that case, I shall not be a part of it.

If the archbishop is on the EA's roster of bishops, you already are.

[Shanghaiski]

Of course, and he is full of poison.  As a member of the Church that defrocked him as a deacon before he found a schismatic group that would elevate him to the priesthood and eventually the episcopacy, he is still the rightfully deposed deacon Lev to me.  It is very unfortunate that the OCA received him as a retired Archbishop because he has used this title to spew his heresies far and wide through his publications and the Internet.  With his title and his membership in the OCA, people consider that his voice is credible and authoritative.  It is best to ignore him altogether.

The fact that the OCA would take someone like this is one reason that I would never set foot in an OCA parish.  What else are they willing to call an Archbishop? If I remember correctly, he was defrocked from the ROCOR due to continued teaching of the heresy of soul sleep.

Let's just remember that the OCA was, at the time, run by folks who have been found to have been implicated in other regrettable business. There were lots of weird things going on, but also lots of good things. I think one can say it's the case in any local church. No jurisdiction is perfect.

[Punch]

[=
There will not be one jurisdiction in this country unless it is under the Antichrist.  And in that case, I shall not be a part of it.

Strong words my friend. Pray that you will not have to eat them.
[/quote]

I do, daily.  Nothing would give me more joy than to see any form of jurisdictional unity result in a more Holy and Traditional Orthodox Church.  However, nothing I have seen to this point gives me any confidence that it will.

[jah777]

Also, at the time of his acceptance to the OCA by οικονομία, ROCOR was not in full communion with the EO Church, which includes the OCA. I think the "compromise" was that he be accepted as a "retired" Bishop.

ROCOR was not in "full" communion with the OCA, since ROCOR had not yet reunited with Moscow, but ROCOR was always in communion with and recognized by Jerusalem and Serbia, both of which were in communion with Moscow and therefore the OCA.  So, in a sense, ROCOR was always "in communion" with the OCA and Moscow by being in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, but it is true that there wasn't "full" communion in the sense of subordination to Moscow or concelebration with the OCA.

Again, I think we have to be really cautious who we call a heretic here. If they haven't been declared a heretic formally, and if they don't profess doctrines that have been declared heresy by the Orthodox Church, I don't think we have any right to call them a heretic.

Archbishop Lazar Lev is a heretic.  The Synod of ROCOR, to whom he was subject, deposed him as a heretic.  He did not repent but rather fled to some schismatics who would cater to his delusions and elevate him to the priesthood and episcopacy.  Unless ROCOR lifts his deposition, a heretic he remains.  I would be disobedient to my bishops to consider him anything else.

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[Punch]

There will not be one jurisdiction in this country unless it is under the Antichrist.  And in that case, I shall not be a part of it.

If the archbishop is on the EA's roster of bishops, you already are.
[/quote]

No, I am not.  And I don't need to get into any twisted convoluted arguments on the matter.  At this time, both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the ROCOR / MP are independent organizations, and these are the Churches that I am affiliated with and who's clergy I take my orders from.  From what I have been told, neither have much interest in jurisdictional unity.  If the situation changes, I will re-evaluate my position.  I have never been one to believe that I have to be in communion with any of the "Local Churches" or the EP to be Orthodox.  When the organizations calling themselves "Orthodox" cease to be (and they must since the Apostacy must occur), there will be no shame in leaving them.  It has happened in the past.

[jah777]

Here is a very accurate description of
Archbishop Lazar Lev Puhalo by Fr. Seraphim (Rose), in a letter to Fr. Alexey Young in 1979, from the published "Letters from Fr. Seraphim".

Someone had sent Fr. Seraphim a lecture on the soul after death by Fr. Lev Puhalo, and concerning this work, Fr. Seraphim said:

"It is crude in the extreme and reveals an advanced state of self-opinion and disdain for others.  He reveals that he has been deliberately provoking us to come out with our “teaching” so he can expose it publicly, together with the teaching of Jordanville, Archbishop John, etc. on this subject.  His article seems to be a mishmash of undigested ideas from everywhere, the central theme of which is:  See how smart I am, and how little you know."

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Here is a very accurate description of
Archbishop Lazar Lev Puhalo by Fr. Seraphim (Rose), in a letter to Fr. Alexey Young in 1979, from the published "Letters from Fr. Seraphim".

Someone had sent Fr. Seraphim a lecture on the soul after death by Fr. Lev Puhalo, and concerning this work, Fr. Seraphim said:

"It is crude in the extreme and reveals an advanced state of self-opinion and disdain for others.  He reveals that he has been deliberately provoking us to come out with our “teaching” so he can expose it publicly, together with the teaching of Jordanville, Archbishop John, etc. on this subject.  His article seems to be a mishmash of undigested ideas from everywhere, the central theme of which is:  See how smart I am, and how little you know."

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

I am sure that +Lazar (formerly Lev Puhalo) had similarly strong views of Father Seraphim--not to say that either were wrong to have had such strong views. It is simply not a good thing for any of us to disrespect a Bishop of the Church by referring to him the way that many here have done. It is wrong on many levels, one which is reciprocity. How would those of us who feel that Father Seraphim should be canonized feel if those who vehemently disagree with his teaching of toll houses refer to him as "heretic" and "Eugene D. Rose"? Hurts, doesn't it? So why would you want to inflict that kind of a hurt on those who do not share your view of +Lazar? It is my understanding, for example, that ROCOR punished +Lazar for disobedience, particularly for not ceasing to criticize the Toll House theory held by Father Seraphim and many others in ROCOR. However, toll houses are not in yet accepted as an Orthodox dogma and remain a theological opinion ("theologoumen"). So, I plead to our ROCOR brothers not to make a mountain out of a molehill and to cease being disrespectful of an Orthodox hierarch.

[jah777]

We must indeed show respect for true hierarchs!  You just have to understand that I am in ROCOR, that Archbishop Lazar Lev Puhalo was deposed as a deacon in ROCOR, and ROCOR has never restored him, so he remains a deposed deacon to me.  Even his title, which he know uses to give credibility to his heresies, is a mere title.  He never has been an active bishop or priest in the OCA or any other real Church.  

Fr. Seraphim was never deposed, so why would someone disrespect him by referring to his name in the world before monasticism or the priesthood?  Not only has Fr. Seraphim never been deposed, he is also widely venerated as a saint, particularly in Romania, Russia, and other Slavic countries.  Archbishop Lazar's Lev's influence has been very strong in America and the resentment over his deposition from ROCOR has led him to take on his "anti-toll-house" campaign with a certain demonic zeal that cannot be more strongly denounced.  This man uses such terms as "neo-gnostic heretic" and "members of the toll-house cult" to refer not only to Fr. Seraphim but also St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. John the Wonderworker, St. Nikolai of Zica, St. Justin (Popovic), Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and even Elder Ephraim in Arizona.  This man denounces the saints and the Fathers and wishes to discard countless prayers of the Church which refer to the journey of the soul after death in order to support his false theories.  

Here I am not disrespecting a hierarch but a former deacon who is an unrepentant heretic.

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[Shanghaiski]

As the man is still alive, his views at present are of more importance than views he held at one time. I do not know that any real investigation has been made into what he now believes.

Incidentally, if you go to the OrthodoxWiki page on Archbishop Puhalo, you will see him censing an icon of Fr. Seraphim Rose. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Lazar_%28Puhalo%29_of_Ottawa

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[88Devin12]

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

Again, he was deposed when ROCOR was in schism. I'm not saying it isn't valid, but that is a point you have to remember.

Also Punch, I have no doubt we will be achieving unity after the Great & Holy Council. This is something that is desired by the Mother Churches, and not just the local jurisdictions and their Bishops. If the Council decrees there to be one unified Church in the United States, it is most likely going to happen, whether one personally disagrees with it or not. Also, it won't simply be a merging of a few jurisdictions that choose to participate, it is going to mandatory (as the Episcopal Assembly is mandatory). Therefore, disobedience to the Council would be a big no-no... (unless the Council turns out be very un-Orthodox and heretical)

BTW, defrocking/deposition doesn't make one a heretic. If it does, then some of our Saints are heretics.

You also cannot define a heresy on your own, with your own definition. If it isn't something the overall Church recognizes a heresy, I would be cautious about accusing one of such "heresy"...

And yes, accusing a hierarch of heresy without sufficient evidence is disrespectful to said hierarch.

[mike]

Many Priests have been addressed here without their proper titles. It's against the forum policy. No matter do you agree with them, or do you consider their titles to be valid - I ask you to use them properly. Following violations of the rules will result in green dot till the beginning of Philip Fast (Old Style).

[Shanghaiski]

The issue of ROCOR ever being in schism from anyone other than the Moscow Patriarchate on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate is an issue to discuss separately. Fr. John Krestiankin, a respected spiritual father of the MP, said in his letters written before the reconciliation that there was no schism except where ROCOR had parishes on the canonical territory of the MP. It is, rather, easier to prove that Archbishop Lazar Puhalo received consecration from bodies that were definitely in schism from the Orthodox Church. It could well be that, should he visit a ROCOR church, he would not be allowed to concelebrate, and ROCOR clergy would not be allowed to concelebrate with him. The OCA received him, rightly or wrongly, for purposes of its own economia and Puhalo's sake. Other churches are not obligated to view him the same way. Likewise, one does no need to officially be declared a heretic. If one professes heresy, fighting against the received belief of the Orthodox Church, one is a heretic. Now, for some people and beliefs, it may be a matter for investigation and discussion. We have to realize, however, our current poverty and disorder.

I will say, in addition, that, looking at Church  history, the cause of correctness has not always prevailed. Many times, we have just had to move on. It is unfortunate that confusion exists, continues, and spreads, but eventually it will pass.

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

[Shanghaiski]

Many Priests have been addressed here without their proper titles. It's against the forum policy. No matter do you agree with them, or do you consider their titles to be valid - I ask you to use them properly. Following violations of the rules will result in green dot till the beginning of Philip Fast (Old Style).

While I agree with the policy, surely the opinion of one local church ought not to be preferred over another. We don't have here an official word from ROCOR as of today, but if they still do not consider him to be more than a defrocked deacon, the case is an open one, or so it seems to me. There are various unfortunate contentions between the local churches that, however, do not destroy their unity.

[mike]

No one in their posts addressed him as a Deacon. His bare name was used. I ask to stop this offtopic.

[Punch]

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

There is no such thing as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  The Orthodox Church is universal.  And just because there is an assembly does not mean that there will be true unity.  There were false councils before, and there is no reason that the next one will be any better.  Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years.  Just like there will not be a fourth Rome, except under the Antichrist, I fear that there will not be an 8th Council except under the Antichrist.  I am sure that I am not the only one to believe this, and it does not surprise me that the modernists seem the most excited about this assembly.  Everyone that I have spoken with in the Traditional Churches view this assembly with dread.

Michal - While I do not consider the individual in question to be anything other that a deposed clergyman, I will from here on abide by the Forum rules and offer my apology for my previous violation thereof.

[stashko]

Question...

Don't the Other Canonical Orthodox Churches communicate with one Another and tell each other if one is deposed or not....Why all this confusion...Things like this will just force us to seek the Non Cannonical Groups that are more Orthodox and Guard Our Tradition than the Canonical ones......If He was deposed by two canonical churches SERBIAN and ROCOR How can the O C A Recieve Him Then.....IM confused....

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

There is no such thing as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  The Orthodox Church is universal.  And just because there is an assembly does not mean that there will be true unity.  There were false councils before, and there is no reason that the next one will be any better.  Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years.  Just like there will not be a fourth Rome, except under the Antichrist, I fear that there will not be an 8th Council except under the Antichrist.  I am sure that I am not the only one to believe this, and it does not surprise me that the modernists seem the most excited about this assembly.  Everyone that I have spoken with in the Traditional Churches view this assembly with dread.

Michal - While I do not consider the individual in question to be anything other that a deposed clergyman, I will from here on abide by the Forum rules and offer my apology for my previous violation thereof.

[Rufus]

Abp. Lazar can certainly get out of hand when it comes to name-calling and recklessly promoting his own views. That being said...

Here is a very accurate description of
Archbishop Lazar Lev Puhalo by Fr. Seraphim (Rose), in a letter to Fr. Alexey Young in 1979, from the published "Letters from Fr. Seraphim".

Someone had sent Fr. Seraphim a lecture on the soul after death by Fr. Lev Puhalo, and concerning this work, Fr. Seraphim said:

"It is crude in the extreme and reveals an advanced state of self-opinion and disdain for others.  He reveals that he has been deliberately provoking us to come out with our “teaching” so he can expose it publicly, together with the teaching of Jordanville, Archbishop John, etc. on this subject.  His article seems to be a mishmash of undigested ideas from everywhere, the central theme of which is:  See how smart I am, and how little you know."

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

He adamantly denies ever teaching soul sleep, and repudiated it as a heresy on numerous occasions.
http://www.new-ostrog.org/t_m.htm

As for his assertions that the belief in literal toll-houses is an ancient gnostic myth--it is. Anyone ever read the Nag Hammadi library?

Although I strongly disagree with some of the things he says, I continue to be appalled by the opposition to evolutionary theory by many Orthodox Christians. It is shameful--it drives people away from the Church for the sake of an untruth. Learn your science.

We must indeed show respect for true hierarchs!  You just have to understand that I am in ROCOR, that Archbishop Lazar Lev Puhalo was deposed as a deacon in ROCOR, and ROCOR has never restored him, so he remains a deposed deacon to me.  Even his title, which he know uses to give credibility to his heresies, is a mere title.  He never has been an active bishop or priest in the OCA or any other real Church. 

Fr. Seraphim was never deposed, so why would someone disrespect him by referring to his name in the world before monasticism or the priesthood?  Not only has Fr. Seraphim never been deposed, he is also widely venerated as a saint, particularly in Romania, Russia, and other Slavic countries.  Archbishop Lazar's Lev's influence has been very strong in America and the resentment over his deposition from ROCOR has led him to take on his "anti-toll-house" campaign with a certain demonic zeal that cannot be more strongly denounced.  This man uses such terms as "neo-gnostic heretic" and "members of the toll-house cult" to refer not only to Fr. Seraphim but also St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. John the Wonderworker, St. Nikolai of Zica, St. Justin (Popovic), Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and even Elder Ephraim in Arizona.  This man denounces the saints and the Fathers and wishes to discard countless prayers of the Church which refer to the journey of the soul after death in order to support his false theories. 

Here I am not disrespecting a hierarch but a former deacon who is an unrepentant heretic.

Post edited for the proper titles - Michał Kalina

Where did he call saints heretics? Where? Show me the documents. Where did he call St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. John the Wonderworker, St. Nikolai of Zica, St. Justin Popovic, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and Elder Ephraim in Arizona heretics? I want to see it. If it's not true, it's slander. I heard him say that despite his teaching, Fr. Seraphim may be a saint!

This man denounces the saints and the Fathers and wishes to discard countless prayers of the Church which refer to the journey of the soul after death in order to support his false theories.

Which Fathers? Which prayers?

I hope I don't come across as nasty, but I think this discussion is crossing limits.
Rufus

[Iconodule]

Although I strongly disagree with some of the things he says, I continue to be appalled by the opposition to evolutionary theory by many Orthodox Christians. It is shameful--it drives people away from the Church for the sake of an untruth. Learn your science.

Perhaps before you take this condescending stance, you might want to learn some of the philosophical objections some Orthodox have to modern science and its methodologies. Read Philip Sherrard's Human Image: World Image.

[88Devin12]

Question...

Don't the Other Canonical Orthodox Churches communicate with one Another and tell each other if one is deposed or not....Why all this confusion...Things like this will just force us to seek the Non Cannonical Groups that are more Orthodox and Guard Our Tradition than the Canonical ones......If He was deposed by two canonical churches SERBIAN and ROCOR How can the O C A Recieve Him Then.....IM confused....

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

There is no such thing as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  The Orthodox Church is universal.  And just because there is an assembly does not mean that there will be true unity.  There were false councils before, and there is no reason that the next one will be any better.  Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years.  Just like there will not be a fourth Rome, except under the Antichrist, I fear that there will not be an 8th Council except under the Antichrist.  I am sure that I am not the only one to believe this, and it does not surprise me that the modernists seem the most excited about this assembly.  Everyone that I have spoken with in the Traditional Churches view this assembly with dread.

Michal - While I do not consider the individual in question to be anything other that a deposed clergyman, I will from here on abide by the Forum rules and offer my apology for my previous violation thereof.

ROCOR wasn't fully canonical and not fully in communion with the Orthodox Church when it deposed Archbishop Lazar.

[Chtets Ioann]

ROCOR was established by Ukase of Patriarch St. Tikhon of Mosocw. ROCOR never broke communion with anyone, except for the Moscow Patriarchate and her daughter Church, the OCA. The re unification that occurred a few years ago was between two local parts of the ONE Russian Orthodox Church. ROCOR was always fully canonical, and co celebrations occurred frequently between ROCOR and other Orthodox jurisdictions, up until the reign of Metropolitan Philaret. When Vladyka Metropolitan Philaret published his "sorrowful" epistles to Patriarch Athinagoras, communion between ROCOR and other Orthodox jurisdictions began to occur less frequently. At this point in time, ROCOR began to ordain bishops for the Greek "Genuine" Orthodox Church. When Vladyka Metropolitan Vitaly became First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, he began to give a definite no cocelebration / intercommunion line, but through insinuations in his epistles. However, not even Metropolitan Vitaly went out - in written form via Synodal declaration - to say we are in communion with no one, we will celebrate with no one, we are isolated and on our own.

[PeterTheAleut]

Question...

Don't the Other Canonical Orthodox Churches communicate with one Another and tell each other if one is deposed or not....Why all this confusion...Things like this will just force us to seek the Non Cannonical Groups that are more Orthodox and Guard Our Tradition than the Canonical ones......If He was deposed by two canonical churches SERBIAN and ROCOR How can the O C A Recieve Him Then.....IM confused....

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

There is no such thing as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  The Orthodox Church is universal.  And just because there is an assembly does not mean that there will be true unity.  There were false councils before, and there is no reason that the next one will be any better.  Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years.  Just like there will not be a fourth Rome, except under the Antichrist, I fear that there will not be an 8th Council except under the Antichrist.  I am sure that I am not the only one to believe this, and it does not surprise me that the modernists seem the most excited about this assembly.  Everyone that I have spoken with in the Traditional Churches view this assembly with dread.

Michal - While I do not consider the individual in question to be anything other that a deposed clergyman, I will from here on abide by the Forum rules and offer my apology for my previous violation thereof.

ROCOR wasn't fully canonical and not fully in communion with the Orthodox Church when it deposed Archbishop Lazar.

ROCOR was a unique response to uniquely terrible circumstances we hope to never see again this side of the parousia. One should be careful, then, how far one goes in saying that ROCOR was at one time less than canonical.

[88Devin12]

Question...

Don't the Other Canonical Orthodox Churches communicate with one Another and tell each other if one is deposed or not....Why all this confusion...Things like this will just force us to seek the Non Cannonical Groups that are more Orthodox and Guard Our Tradition than the Canonical ones......If He was deposed by two canonical churches SERBIAN and ROCOR How can the O C A Recieve Him Then.....IM confused....

Is your loyalty to ROCOR or to the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole?

There is no such thing as the "Eastern Orthodox Church".  The Orthodox Church is universal.  And just because there is an assembly does not mean that there will be true unity.  There were false councils before, and there is no reason that the next one will be any better.  Seven is a holy number, and Seven councils have been the foundation of the Church for 1000 years.  Just like there will not be a fourth Rome, except under the Antichrist, I fear that there will not be an 8th Council except under the Antichrist.  I am sure that I am not the only one to believe this, and it does not surprise me that the modernists seem the most excited about this assembly.  Everyone that I have spoken with in the Traditional Churches view this assembly with dread.

Michal - While I do not consider the individual in question to be anything other that a deposed clergyman, I will from here on abide by the Forum rules and offer my apology for my previous violation thereof.

ROCOR wasn't fully canonical and not fully in communion with the Orthodox Church when it deposed Archbishop Lazar.

ROCOR was a unique response to uniquely terrible circumstances we hope to never see again this side of the parousia. One should be careful, then, how far one goes in saying that ROCOR was at one time less than canonical.

I'm not saying anything about their response, but pointing out that yes, they weren't in communion with all Orthodox Churches. Also, I don't understand why Chtets pointed out about "Greek "Genuine" Orthodox Church" when it isn't in communion with Orthodox Churches even today. (and in fact, didn't they conclude that New Calendarist Churches are devoid of grace?)

As for ROCOR, the only Churches it regularly could concelebrate and commune with were the Church of Jerusalem, Church of Serbia and the Church of Sinai. Also, I would say the fact that ROCOR remained in communion with other schismatic groups (mainly Old Calendarist groups, many of whom are still not in communion with EO Churches) kind of hurts your claim.

I would say that ROCOR could have broken communion with the MP (as kind of instructed by +Tikhon) and remained in communion with all other Orthodox Churches. However, she unfortunately began to associate herself with non-canonical, schismatic groups.

However, thankfully ROCOR was returned to full communion and has broke communion with the schismatic groups.

[Chtets Ioann]

I'm not saying anything about their response, but pointing out that yes, they weren't in communion with all Orthodox Churches. Also, I don't understand why Chtets pointed out about "Greek "Genuine" Orthodox Church" when it isn't in communion with Orthodox Churches even today. (and in fact, didn't they conclude that New Calendarist Churches are devoid of grace?)

As for ROCOR, the only Churches it regularly could concelebrate and commune with were the Church of Jerusalem, Church of Serbia and the Church of Sinai. Also, I would say the fact that ROCOR remained in communion with other schismatic groups (mainly Old Calendarist groups, many of whom are still not in communion with EO Churches) kind of hurts your claim.

I would say that ROCOR could have broken communion with the MP (as kind of instructed by +Tikhon) and remained in communion with all other Orthodox Churches. However, she unfortunately began to associate herself with non-canonical, schismatic groups.

However, thankfully ROCOR was returned to full communion and has broke communion with the schismatic groups.

Technically, you are correct: ROCOR tainted her image by being affiliated with schismatic groups, however, ROCOR created the hierarchy of these schismatic groups. In a way at the time those groups reflected the ecclesiology of ROCOR: They not only did not say that the New Calenderists had grace, they also communed New Calenderists, and allowed their parishioners to visit and commune at New Calender Churches, so those were different years. After said Greek old calender group broke with ROCOR, or ROCOR broke with them, (one side claims the other broke with it, I think) then a more anti Patriarchates/Autocephalus Churches ecclesiology began to come forth. 

[Punch]

I would say that ROCOR could have broken communion with the MP (as kind of instructed by +Tikhon) and remained in communion with all other Orthodox Churches. However, she unfortunately began to associate herself with non-canonical, schismatic groups.

However, thankfully ROCOR was returned to full communion and has broke communion with the schismatic groups.

Coming from a member of a church recognized legitimate by nobody other than the Godless Communist regime at the time.  Also, from what I understand, ROCOR did not break communion with the OC Greeks, they broke communion with ROCOR.  A canonical Church is one that follows the canons of the Church, not one that needs to call itself canonical because there is no other evidence to support the claim.  I am sure that the Churches that Maximos and Athanasius railed against considered themselves canonical.  History has shown otherwise, and these "schismatics" are now considered Saints.  If the world is here another 1000 years and Christ does not come soon, I predict that history will shine far more kindly on ROCOR than the modernist babble that calls itself SCOBA.  I would say that there is nothing unfortunate about ROCOR's association with these other groups.  What is somewhat unfortunate is that ROCOR's amends with the MP are viewed by some (who do not know better) as meaning that ROCOR somehow has changed its relationship with the other jurisdictions.  I have not found this to be the case at all.  While ROCOR did not deny the Grace of the other jurisdiction's Sacraments, its members were told that it was better not to attend some of these Churches as they were on a path that would eventually lead to separation from the Church.  I have not heard any of this change.  In fact, I heard a clergyman from one of the Slavic Churches ask why we should even take the EP seriously, and afford any authority to him at all to convene a council.  Moscow is the third Rome, and Constantinople no longer exists.  The EP is nothing but a small group allowed to exist by the grace of their Muslim masters (which can be said about Alexandria and Antioch as well).  Shouldn't the "first among equals" of the Church at least come from an Orthodox country?

So, while there may be high hopes for "unity" in the United States (a decidedly NON-Orthodox country), and by a few jurisdiction within the United States and their enslaved home churches (a minority of Orthodox Christians), I am not so sure that this 8th council is being looked at in quite the same manner by all Orthodox Christians.  Or for that matter, even the majority.  I don't think the Slavic Orthodox are going to go along with things any more in two years from now than they did at Florence or Brest, or put up with innovations any more than they did with Pat. Meletius and his antics.

[PeterTheAleut]

So how does this talk about ROCOR tie in with our views of Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo)?

[Rufus]

Although I strongly disagree with some of the things he says, I continue to be appalled by the opposition to evolutionary theory by many Orthodox Christians. It is shameful--it drives people away from the Church for the sake of an untruth. Learn your science.

Perhaps before you take this condescending stance, you might want to learn some of the philosophical objections some Orthodox have to modern science and its methodologies. Read Philip Sherrard's Human Image: World Image.

I am well aware of the shortcomings of the methodology of science. However, the objections people bring up against evolution are exactly what you said: they are philosophical. They are not rooted in empirical facts. I know that not everyone who objects to evolutionary theory objects to it for the same reasons, and some of those reasons are respectable; most of them are subjective.

Genuine science is naturally open to the reality that most theories will probably be falsified in some way in the future. If some antireligious people use science as a dogmatic crutch to oppose anything we say, we can only try to help them by opening their minds to the correct understanding of faith. That does not give anyone liscence to throw out science as false, just like the Crusades do not give anyone liscence to throw out Christianity as false--although many do on account of their own bitterness.

Rufus

[Ionnis]

I don't know if he is a heretic, but I do know that he is rabidly anti-Western, which bothers me.  Anything Western is pure evil, at least that is what I get from his youtube videos.  If you hold an opinion contrary to his own, you are either Westernized or Gnostic. Bleh. 

That being said, I read somewhere where he said that he did not doubt that Fr. Seraphim was in the choirs of the righteous.  So I don't think his attacks against the toll-houses and Fr. Seraphim Rose are completely personal.

And if he does believe that God made homosexuals as they are, God help him. 

[jah777]

As for his assertions that the belief in literal toll-houses is an ancient gnostic myth--it is. Anyone ever read the Nag Hammadi library?

Where did he call saints heretics? Where? Show me the documents. Where did he call St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. John the Wonderworker, St. Nikolai of Zica, St. Justin Popovic, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and Elder Ephraim in Arizona heretics? I want to see it. If it's not true, it's slander. I heard him say that despite his teaching, Fr. Seraphim may be a saint!

Which Fathers? Which prayers?
 

On the front page of his own website, featured prominently on the left hand menu, the first words one notices are “DISCUSSION OF THE TOLL-HOUSE HERESY”.  Would you suggest that a person can teach a heresy and not be a heretic?  In addition to his own faulty writings on the subject, he also publishes many articles and books by Fr. Michael Azkoul, a member of the HOCNA schism, including “The Toll-House Myth: The Neo-Gnosticism of Fr. Seraphim Rose” wherein the toll-house teaching as presented in The Soul After Death is spoken of as a “Neo-Gnostic heresy”.  Those who teach heresy are heretics.  If anyone reads Fr. Seraphim’s book, they will see that his teaching is not by any means his own, but rather he quotes at great length from St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and St. John the Wonderworker.  So, in saying the toll-house teaching is heretical, and Fr. Seraphim’s book on the subject is heretical, he is also saying that these saints are heretical.  St. Nikolai of Zica refers to the toll-houses in many places in the Prologue of Ohrid.  St. Justin (Popovic), in his work on Dogmatic Theology (not yet translated into English) has a whole chapter which presents the toll-house teaching as the teaching of the Church and he illustrates this teaching using the Life of St. Basil the New.  Elder Ephraim in Arizona also mentions the toll-houses in his book Counsels from the Holy Mountain.  If you read the Lives of the Optina Elders, you will likely find reference to the toll-house teaching in every one (I have read a few but not all of their lives).  Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos in his book Life After Death has a whole section in Chapter 2 on the “Taxing of Souls” which affirms the toll-house teaching of the Church.  I have never heard anyone oppose the toll-house teaching of the Church except for members and associates of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston – the monastery which left ROCOR in 1986 in the midst of very serious moral accusations in order to create a new false “Church” of their own making, where the only bishops of their “Church” could come from this one monastery.  The person we are discussing here was formed by this monastery and absorbed its whole sectarian and heretical, renovationist and pseudo-scholarly outlook.  He now promotes their ideologies to a wider audience now that he has made it into a “legitimate” jurisdiction with the title of an Archbishop.  Fr. Michael Azkoul, the other person who has been so outspoken against the toll-houses, is a member of the same “Church” created by this monastery which formed the person we are discussing.  If one wants to believe these people, or the erroneous notion that the toll-house teaching is an “opinion” or “debatable”, such a person should prove this with examples from other saints who were the contemporaries of St. John the Wonderworkder, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, the Optina Elders, St. Justin Popovic, St. Nikolai of Zica, etc. Show me that any saints contemporary with the saints that spoke about the toll-houses rejected the toll-houses or spoke out against it, and then I will consider that perhaps it is “debatable”, but without such (and nobody has provided such) then there is no reason to reject the clear teachings of the saints and Fathers based on the objection of some very questionable contemporary people.