What is the difference between Orthodox and heretic?

Protopresbyter John S. Romanides, University Professor 

What is the difference between Orthodox and heretic?

From the book "Patristic Theology"

I think we can comprehend the basic difference between them, if we take Medical Science as an example. There, we have doctors who belong to the Medical Association; if a doctor is not a member of the Medical Association, he cannot exercise the medical profession.  For a doctor to be legal, he must not only be a graduate of a recognized Medical School, but also a member of the Medical Association.  The same prerequisites apply to lawyers. These sciences undergo continuous monitoring, because, if one were to deviate from the proper exercising of his profession, he is tried by the pertinent authority of the professional Association he belongs to, and is expelled from the Body of that profession.

The same however occurs in the Church.  The respective procedure within the Body of the Church - that is, the excision of a member - is called "excommunication"; if it relates to a member of an ecclesiastic rank, then it is called "unfrocking". It is how heretics are excommunicated from the Body of the church.  Just as within the Medical realm a "quack" (fake doctor) cannot possibly be permitted to heal, thus also in the Church it is not possible for a heretic to heal the souls of people; because, being a heretic, he does not know how - nor is he able - to heal.  Therefore, in the same manner that a union between a "quack" Association and the Medical Association is never possible, it is likewise never possible for a union to take place between the Orthodox and heretics.  An actual doctor is not one who merely reads many medical books, but rather, the one who has graduated from the Medical School of a University, and at the same has apprenticed over a significant period of time near an experienced professor of proven ability to heal the sick.

Protopresbyter John S. Romanides, University Professor - from the book "Patristic Theology"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCE:

The Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios - In the Church we are all one and Christ is the head.

From here.
------------------------

The Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios

 In the Church we are all one and Christ is the head

The head of the Church is Christ and we humans, we Christians, are the body. The Apostle Paul says: He is the head of the body, of the Church. (Col 1:18)

The Church and Christ are one. The body cannot exist without its head. The body of the Church is nourished, sanctified and lives with Christ. He is the Lord, omnipotent, omniscient, everywhere present and filling all things, our staff, our friend, our brother: the pillar and sure foundation of the Church. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the basis - everything. Without Christ the Church does not exist. Christ is the Bridegroom; each individual soul is the Bride.

Christ united the body of the Church with heaven and with earth: with angels, men and all created things, with all of God’s creation with the animals and birds, with each tiny wild flower and each microscopic insect. The Church thus became the fullness of Him who fills all in all, (Eph. 1:23) that is, of Christ. Everything is in Christ and with Christ. This is the mystery of the Church.

Christ is revealed in that unity between His love and ourselves: the Church. On my own I am not the Church, but together with you. All together we are the Church. All are incorporated in the Church. We are all one and Christ is the head. One body, one body of Christ: You are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (1 Cor. 12:27) We are all one because God is our Father and is everywhere. When we experience this we are in the Church. This is our Lord’s wish for all the members of the Church as expressed in His great high-priestly prayer: that they may be one. (John 17:11,22) But that’s something you can only understand through grace. We experience the joy of unity, of love, and we become one with everyone. There is nothing more magnificent!

The important thing is for us to enter into the Church - to unite ourselves with our fellow men, with the joys and sorrows of each and everyone, to feel that they are our own, to pray for everyone, to have care for their salvation, to forget about ourselves, to do everything for them just as Christ did for us. In the Church we become one unfortunate, suffering and sinful soul.

No one should wish to be saved alone without all others being saved. It is a mistake for someone to pray for himself, that he himself may be saved. We must love others and pray that no soul be lost, that all may enter into the Church. That is what counts. And it is with this desire one should leave the world to retire to a monastery or to the desert.

When we set ourselves apart from others, we are not Christians. We are true Christians when we have a profound sense that we are members of the mystical body of Christ, of the Church, in an unbroken relationship of love - when we live united in Christ, that is, when we experience unity in His Church with a sense of oneness. This is why Christ prays to His Father saying, that they may be one. He repeats the prayer again and again and the apostles emphasize it everywhere. This is the most profound aspect, the most exalted meaning, of the Church. This is where the secret is to be found: for all to be united as one person in God. There is no other religion like this; no other religion says anything of this sort. They have something to say, but not this mystery, this exquisite point of the mystery which Christ demands and tells us that this is how we must become, that he wants us to be His.

We are one even with those who are not close to the Church. They are distant on account of ignorance. We must pray that God will enlighten them and change them so that they too may come to Christ. We see things in a human light, we move on a different plane and imagine that we love Christ. But Christ, who sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous, (Matt. 5 :45) tells us: Love your enemies (Matt. 5:44). We need to pray that we may all be united, united in God. Then, if we live out this prayer, we will achieve corresponding results; we will all be united in love.

For the people of God there is no such thing as distance, even if they be thousands of miles apart. However far away our fellow human beings may be, we must stand by them. Some people regularly telephone me from a town on the edge of the Indian Ocean - Durban is what it’s called, if I am pronouncing it correctly. It’s in South Africa, two hours drive from Johannesburg. Indeed, a few days ago they came here. They were taking a sick person to England and they came here first to ask me to read a prayer. I was very moved.

When Christ unites us, distances don’t exist. When I leave this life it will be better. I’ll be closer to you.

The Christian religion transforms people and heals them

Our religion is the religion of religions. It is from revelation, the authentic and true religion. The other religions are human, hollow. They do not know the greatness of the Triune God. They do not know that our aim, our destiny, is to become gods according to grace, to attain likeness with the Triune God, to become one with Him and among ourselves. These are things the other religions do not know. The ultimate aim of our religion is that they may be one. (John 17:11,22) Here the work of Christ finds completion. Our religion is love, it is eros, it is enthusiasm, it is madness, it is longing for the divine. All these things are within us. Our soul demands that we attain them.

For many people, however, religion is a struggle, a source of agony and anxiety. That’s why many of the ‘religiously minded’ are regarded as unfortunates, because others can see the desperate state they are in. And so it is. Because for the person who doesn’t understand the deeper meaning of religion and doesn’t experience it, religion ends up as an illness, and indeed a terrible illness. So terrible that the person loses control of his actions and becomes weak-willed and spineless, he is flied with agony and anxiety and is driven to and fro by the evil spirit.

He makes prostrations, he weeps, he exclaims, he believes he is humbling himself, and all this humility is a work of Satan. Some such people experience religion as a kind of hell. They make prostrations and cross themselves in church and they say, ‘we are unworthy sinners’, then as soon as they come out they start to blaspheme everything holy whenever someone upsets them a little. It is very clear that there is something demonic in this.

In fact, the Christian religion transforms people and heals them. The most important precondition, however, for someone to recognize and discern the truth is humility. Egotism darkens a person’s mind, it confuses him, it leads him astray, to heresy. It is important for a person to understand the truth.

Long ago when people were in a primitive state they didn’t have houses or anything. They would go into caves without windows. They would block up the entrance with stones and branches so that the wind didn’t blow in. They didn’t realize that outside there is life, oxygen. When he is enclosed in a cave, a person is worn down, he becomes ill, he is destroyed, whereas when he is outside he is revitalized. Can you understand the truth? Then you are out in the sun, in the light; you see all the magnificence of creation; otherwise you are in a dark cave. Light and darkness. Which is better? To be meek, humble, peaceful and to be filled with love, or to be irritable, depressed and to quarrel with everyone. Unquestionably the higher state is love. Our religion has all these good things and is the truth. But many people go off in another direction.

All those who deny this truth are psychologically ill. They are like those children who became delinquent or anti-social because they lost their parents, or because their parents divorced or quarreled. And all those confused people find their way into various heresies. The confused children of confused parents.

But all these confused and ant-social persons have a strength and perseverance and achieve a great many things. They succeed in bringing normal and peaceable people into subjection. They influence other like-minded people and they prevail in the world because they are in the majority and find themselves followers. Then there are others who, although they do not deny the truth, are nevertheless confused and psychologically ill.

Sin makes a person exceedingly psychologically confused. And  nothing makes the confusion go away – nothing except the light of Christ. Christ makes the first move: Come unto me all you who labour… (Matt. 11:28) Then we accept this light with our good will, which we express through our love towards Him, through prayer, through our participation in the life of the Church, and through the sacraments.

Often neither labour, nor prostrations, nor crossing ourselves attract God’s grace. There are secrets. The most important thing is to go beyond the formal aspects and go to the heart of the matter. Whatever is done must be done with love.

Love always understands the need to make sacrifices. Whatever is done under coercion always causes the soul to react with rejection. Love attracts the grace of God. When grace comes, then the gifts of the Holy Spirit come. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-sufferance, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control. (Gal. 5:22-23) These are the things which a healthy soul in Christ should have.

With Christ a person is filled with grace and so lives above evil. Evil does not exist for him. There is only good, which is God. Evil cannot exist. While there is light there cannot be darkness. Nor can darkness encompass him because he has the light.

SOURCE : Wounded by Love - The Life and the Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios

http://www.sprint.net.au/~corners/Oct06/ElderPorphyrios.htm

“Good War” and “Bad Peace”: Love According to the Church

From here.
-------------------

(A translated excerpt from the second chapter of Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis’ book Inter-religious Gatherings: A Denial of the Gospel and an Insult to the Holy Martyrs)

Ecumenistic and Syncretistic attempts to define the love which we ought to have for others demonstrate a lack of discernment and confuse that which is clear – that is to say, the unanimous view of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.  It is certainly true that God is Love and that He shows this love to all, both the righteous and the sinful, and it is also certainly true that this universal, all-embracing love ought to be manifested in our lives since this is the chief mark of a Christian.  This love, however, must not contradict truth and piety – it must be united to the truth – for any other love is false and hypocritical.  It must embrace its neighbour not solely as a bodily, biological being, but as a spiritual entity; it must embrace him with a view to eternity, and must be concerned above all for eternal things and not for worldly and transient things.  This love must, then, concern itself with the salvation of the other.

Since salvation cannot be achieved when one is found in delusion and heresy (and particularly if one remains there egotistically), the Church, following the example of Christ and the Apostles and acting out of love, not hatred, prohibits communion with those in heresy, thereby pedagogically leading them to a consciousness of their delusion while at the same time protecting others.  It is, then, out of love for those who have fallen into heresy that we deride heresy and delusion, which are impersonal, while we manifest this derision with pain of soul.   The sweet and gentle Jesus Himself – the friend of harlots and tax collectors, the Prince of Peace and love – took a whip and drove from the temple those who had changed it into a profiteering venture, just as the Pope has twisted the spiritual character of the Church, changing it into a worldly, economic power…

Let us stop hiding other agendas behind the word ‘love’ – agendas which cannot be reconciled with the word itself.  A wide variety of ways exist for us to exercise our love. We can feed those who hunger, clothe the naked, give hospitality to foreigners, and visit those in prison and the sick.[1]  We will not change the Gospel and the Holy Canons which teach us not to associate with heretics.  Are we the ones who are to teach Christ and the saints what love is?  The saints are the ones who know how to define these things: we are the ones who confuse them.  And this, the highest of all virtues!  On the basis of this virtue, then, the Church teaches that a “good war” exists, when it is waged against the impious, heretics and blasphemers.

Similarly, “bad peace” exists when it comes from an indifference and contempt of faith and piety.  This “good war” for virtue and piety was taught by Christ Himself when he declared that the Gospel will divide and distinguish men.  Those who follow Him must be ready to confront hostility even within one’s own family.  We must not deny Christ, the Truth, simply to avoid conflict which in this case is feigned and false since it does not include the agreement on the most important issues, that is, of spiritual things.  In what other way are we to interpret Christ’s saying:  “Never think that I came to cast peace on earth; I came not to cast peace, but a sword.  For I came to divide in two a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies shall be those of his own household”?[2]

Saint John Chrysostom says that peace and harmony are not always good when these are directed against God, fostering vice and sin.  For true peace to prevail the diseased portion must be cut off, that which rebels must be set apart.  God wants the harmony of all with piety as the foundation.  When men are irreverent, they provoke war:  “Since the physician too in this way preserves the rest of the body, when he amputates the incurable part; and the General, when he has brought to a separation them that were agreed in mischief. Thus it came to pass also in the case of that famous tower [Babel]; for their evil peace was ended by their good discord, and peace made thereby.”[3]  Saint Gregory the Theologian praises the clear and brazen “good war” even against clergy when it comes to matters of the faith.  He numbers himself among the combatants and he summarizes this with his well-known saying concerning “good war” and “bad peace”:  “Yea! Would that I were one of those who contend and incur hatred for the truth’s sake: or rather, I can boast of being one of them. For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God.”[4]  Therefore, love without piety and truth is false, pseudo-love.

[1] Matthew 25:34-36.

[2] Matthew 10:34-36.

[3] [T.N.]  Chrysostom. Homilies on Matthew. 35.[1].

[4] Gregory the Theologian.  Oration 2. [2].

Source: http://lessonsfromamonastery.wordpress.com/

Christian Chronology

From here.
------------------------

Christian Chronology
by Protopresbyter Fr. George D. Metallinos
Source: http://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/Christian_Chronology.htm

"Time" is Christianically seen as the framework in which God's revelation is manifested, for the fulfilment of man's salvation as well as for the sanctification of Creation in History. In other words, it has a soteriological significance - one that is always linked to the development of the plan of "divine providence". That is why Time is not perceived as something cyclical - as an interminable recycling - but rather as something linear. Its flow is not a repetitious one; it is filled with unique and salvific events that are "once only" and "everlasting". The center and the "fulfillment" of linear - straight - Time is Christ, the Alpha and the Omega of History, the Commencement and the End. The Christian perspective is permanently eschatological and it is from there that the Church draws the contents of Her perceptions regarding Time.

In Christianity, world and time are seen as creations "ex nihilo" by the Triadic God - outside every notion of being God's "archetypes" or "ideas". Besides, any notion whatsoever of an "analogy" between "created" (the creations) and "Uncreated" (the Triadic God) is Christianically (orthodoxically) nonexistent. Both the world and Time have a beginning and an end - that is, a destination and a "fullness" (Gal.4:4). God, therefore, creates Time, as He is the "creator of all - of the ages and of all the beings" (John Damascene). God is "He Who created the nature of Time" (Basil the Great). Saint Gregory the Theologian in fact also defines the relativity of Time, inasmuch as he defines it as "that which by a certain motion is split up and measured".

It is the movement of Earth and of the other celestial bodies that give rise to our awareness of "chronicity" and its "measurability". In actual fact, the measurement of Time is just a conventional thing for the Church, Herself being the "body of Christ" and an "in-Christ communion". However, given that the Church lives and moves within the world (even though She is not "of this world" -John 18:36), She conceded along the way to calendars being used by the societies in which Her flocks lived and struggled for their salvation. It should also be pointed out that (Christianically-Orthodoxically speaking), salvation is not some sort of escape from Time and the world; it is the conquering of the evil of the world - of sin. Calendars, therefore, are nothing more than an "auxiliary addition" in Christianity, for the management of worldly conventionalities, with no subjugation to it.

By "Christian world" we mean the new political morph, which had begun as an informal Christian commonwealth during the first three centuries A.D., then later appeared as an organized city-state magnitude with the inauguration of New Rome-Constantinople in 330 A.D.. By the 6th - 7th century the Christian world was using local or national calendars, which dated according to the system of the Gentiles. In other words, the Christian world did not have a uniform and common calendar, nor did it begin its chronology from Christ. Furthermore, because of its links to the Old Testament (that is, the prophetic tradition), Christianity had originally accepted the Hebrew designation of the age of the world - which of course is far different to the calculations of science. It was just in 691 A.D. in the 3rd Canon of the Quinisext Council "in Trullo", that the Christian calculation of the date of "Creation" was proposed as being 5508 years before the Incarnation of Christ. This was accepted by the entire Christian world, which had already begun to differentiate (politically to begin with, and later on spiritually-culturally), into "eastern" and "western". Therefore, "from the creation of the world" was the first Christianic chronological designation.

The freedom that exists in the universal Christian community is apparent, in the instituting of feast-days as early as the first Christian centuries. It was on the basis of the solar calendar - the Julian one, which began to be applied in the year 45 b.C. - that the Christian feast-days were allocated. Thus, the Conception of John the Baptist was set as the 23rd of September, and the conception of Jesus Christ (the Annunciation of the Theotokos) which -in accordance with the Gospel narration- was six months later, on the 25th of March. Respectively, the birth of the Baptist was specified as the 24th of June and of Jesus Christ (finally) as the 25th of December, the prerequisite being the equinoxes and the solstices and the symbolic interpretation of the Baptist's words regarding Christ: "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30). In other words, the criteria were spiritual, not mundane or scientific. Nevertheless, it must not be overlooked that the political year begins in the East on the 23rd of September, which was also the the beginning of the "Indiction" up until 460, when it was transferred to the 1st of September. This last date acquired an ecclesiastic significance as the commencement of the liturgical year - a fact that continues to be valid to this day. It is uncertain when this practice began, however, it has been recorded in the 8th century.

The same freedom is also apparent in the "mobility" of Christian feast-days. The case of the dates on which Pascha is celebrated is the most characteristic example, but we will come back to that later on. Something similar also occurred with the date for the Nativity; up until 336 A.D. Christmas was celebrated together with the Epiphany, on the 6th of January (always according to the Julian calendar). However, this date was transferred in the West to the 25th of December, in order to confront the celebrations held in honour of the sun god Mithra, which took place during the winter solstice. In the East, the new date for Christmas was introduced around the year 380. Pursuant to this change was the reallocation of the other feast-days which are linked to Christmas (Circumcision, Presentation, Annunciation etc.).

We need to mention here the systems of the "Indictions" that were also observed by the Christian world. "Indiction" means "indicator", and was a term initially linked to the tax system of the Roman Empire. The usage of this system began during the reign of the emperor Diocletian (297/8), but with a duration of 5 years for each Indiction. The first Indictions with a duration of 15 years began in 312 A.D. (the first mention is in imperial documents, in 356/7). Ecclesiastically, this was accepted in 327, with commencement date the 24th of September. The Indiction period therefore was of a 15-year duration, and was used for dating documents or events. Upon the completion of that period of time, a new Indiction began, with its own reference year (first, second, etc. - something like the system of the Olympiads). The usual Indiction is called "byzantine" or "hellenic", and it commenced -as we mentioned- on the 1st of September. This system prevailed throughout the Christian world during the byzantine period, but continued to be in use, in meta-byzantine Greek texts (the patriarchal-ethnarchic ones).

Dating based on the Birth of Jesus Christ (AD - Anno Domini) begins in the 6th century. This new system was inspired by Dionysius Exiguus* of Scythian origin, monk, canonologist and chronologist. He settled in Rome around 500 A.D. and worked on chronological issues (for example, charts with Paschal dates). During the composition of his opus "Cyclus Decem Novennalis" (in 532) for the calculation of Pascha, he became renowned for identifying the years on the chart based on the Birth of Christ and not "the founding of Rome" («Ab urbe condita») as was done in the West, or beginning from Abraham, or from the first Olympiad. This new dating system spread very slowly to the West (France and England), while the first historian who used it steadfastly was the Venerable Bede, in the 8th century. From then on it prevailed throughout the entire Christian world - but also throughout the non-Christian world, as it continues to do, to this day.

Dionysius however made a fatal mistake. He had accepted the year 754 «Ab urbe condita» as the year of Christ's Birth, when it was a known fact that Herod died in 750/751 - a short while after the Massacre of the Infants (Matt.2:16), given that Christ was about two years old during the time of that Massacre. Which means He must have been born in the year 748/749 «Ab urbe condita». Hence our current date is deficient by 5 or 6 years, in which case, we are presently (2011) in the year 2016 or 2017 A.D.
-----------------------------

*Dionysius Exiguus (Dennis the Small, Dennis the Dwarf, Dennis the Little or Dennis the Short, meaning humble) (c. 470 – c. 544) was a 6th-century monk born in Scythia Minor, modern Dobruja shared by Romania and Bulgaria. He was a member of the Scythian monks community concentrated in Tomis, the major city of Scythia Minor. Dionysius is best known as the "inventor" of the Anno Domini (AD) era, which is used to number the years of both the Gregorian calendar and the (Christianized) Julian calendar. From about 500 he lived in Rome, where, as a learned member of the Roman Curia, he translated from Greek into Latin 401 ecclesiastical canons, including the apostolical canons and the decrees of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon and Sardis, and also a collection of the decretals of the popes from Siricius to Anastasius II. These collections had great authority in the West and still guide church administrations. Dionysius also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics. The author of a continuation of Dionysius's Computus, writing in 616, described Dionysius as a "most learned abbot of the city of Rome", and the Venerable Bede accorded him the honorific abbas, which could be applied to any monk, especially a senior and respected monk, and does not necessarily imply that Dionysius ever headed a monastery; indeed, Dionysius's friend Cassiodorus stated in Institutiones that he was still only a monk late in life.

Has the Church ever apostatized?

From here.
----------------------------

Because of the sudden appearance of Protestantism during the 16th century, there arose an inner need to prove that it has a place in the history of the Church, and also that Protestantism belongs to the Church. Hence they created a theory, which claimed that the Church supposedly apostatized after the demise of the Apostles, and hence, for centuries did not exist in any organized form.

http://oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/ekkl2.htm

Topics

• Proportional Judgment?
• Unworthy Priests of the Old Testament
• Unworthy Priests in Christ’s time
• Unworthy Priests in the Apostles’ time
• Unworthy Presbyters in the Apostles’ time

Because of the sudden appearance of Protestantism during the 16th century, there arose an inner need to prove that it has a place in the history of the Church, and also that Protestantism belongs to the Church. Hence they created a theory, which claimed that the Church supposedly apostatized after the demise of the Apostles, and hence, for centuries did not exist in any organized form.

Other groups claim that the Church apostatized during the 4th century, others during the 3rd, others during the 2nd, and others even claim it happened during the 1st century (!), depending on each group’s benefits. They use the scandals that occasionally appear in the Orthodox Church as their excuse, in order to validate their assertion that “the Church has apostatized, because it has a large proportion of unworthy presbyters and faithless people.”

This is the topic that we shall deal with here.  Can the Church have unclean Elders?


Proportional Judgment?

Someone might say: “Alright, perhaps people are indifferent, so we can expect a large proportion to be unclean and perhaps every now and then a presbyter may behave disrespectfully, but, when there is a huge proportion of scandals – and especially in the topmost “leadership” of the Church – God cannot accept worship from a religion that allows the continuation of scandals!”

The proportion of scandals is of course not as large as the other religions would have liked it to be. Quite often, the same subject is repeated again and again; some become confused and relate it to another presbyter, and the same topic takes on entirely different dimensions. But even if everything rumored were true, and one, sole, good presbyter existed, God would not judge His people proportionately, even if it were comprised only of  one presbyter. Even a presbyter will be judged on a personal basis, as a human being, and will receive whatever he deserves under God’s fair judgment. He will not condemn the innocent along with the guilty!  Besides, there are ecclesiastic canons, which provide for the corrective instruction of disrespectful clergymen, when their guilt has been proven. They too, as humans, need educating!

The question that remains however, is: “Does God accept the worship of an unsuitable presbyter? Can his ministry be of any value?”

Let’s take a look once again at what the Holy Bible has to say on the subject (the Bible that Protestantism claims it observes)


Unworthy Priests of the Old Testament

A first example that we shall mention (of the many that exist) is from the book of Samuel I, 2/II: 22-25. In there are mentioned the two sons of Eli, Head Priest of Israel; both of them upcoming high priests of the people. They, with their father’s tolerance, fornicated with the women that came to the temple of God, and according to 2/II: 12-17, they ate of the sacrificial fat (which was something that God’s law prohibited); in fact, they actually snatched it from the faithful forcefully. This scandalized the people and they refrained from sacrificing to God.  Yet they, as well as their father the high priest, remained in the temple as priests of God. One wonders, did God accept the sacrifices of those unworthy priests?  Of course He did! And this is confirmed, in chapter 1/I verses 3-5 and 19, where we read that God accepted the sacrifice of the parents of the prophet Samuel, and replied, by sending them a son-prophet! And moreover, Anna – Samuel’s mother – received and accepted the blessing of Eli, the unworthy high priest!! (1/I 17,18).

God of course later withdrew His protection from those unworthy priests, which eventually led them to losing their lives, according to the narration further down (2/II 31-36).  Thus, we see that it was God who imposed judgment, and not the people.  God did not reject Israel on account of its unworthy priests, He did not reject the righteous Levites, nor did He cease to accept the sacrifices of the faithful Israelites from the hands of unworthy priests.

The same applies today; even if an act of irreverence is tolerated by those in charge and the people are scandalized, it is God who has the last say in matters. He does not reject His Orthodox Church, or the righteous and worthy presbyters. And He furthermore continues to accept the ministering by unworthy hands, until such time as He decides to mete out justice.

Obviously, all scandal-seekers are left with no grounds for justification, given that everything that happened to Israel during those times was also going to happen tο the Christian Church, according to the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle II to Peter, 2/II 1-3, etc.

Let’s take a look at another example that proves God accepts as his minister even someone who is unclean.


Unworthy Priests in Christ’s time

We are well aware that the Lord’s crucifixion was the result of the designs of the high priests of God’s people (Israel) at the time.  John the Evangelist in his gospel (chapter 11/XI and verses 47-53) discloses the following event:  Caiafas, acting high priest of that year, along with other priests and Pharisees, conspired to assassinate Jesus Christ because of the many miracles that He had performed and because He was so persuasive to the people. So they said: “If we leave this person alone, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and destroy our people and our nation.” And the high priest Caiafas added: “It is better for us that one person die for the people, rather than the entire nation be destroyed.”

At this point, John the evangelist clarifies that: “Caiafas did not utter these words by chance; being the high priest for that year, he was actually prophesying that Jesus was destined to die for the nation’s sake.”

Just think! God conceded to giving a prophecy to someone, at the very moment that he was designing to assassinate Jesus Christ, simply because he was the high priest of that year!  What does this prove?  It proves the following:  That God may disapprove of an irreverent minister of His, but: He disapproves of him as a person. He accepts that person as a priest, and blesses his divinely given ministry.

Unworthy Priests in the Apostles’ time

But how did the Apostles behave towards such unworthy priests? Did they follow the tactics of today’s seemingly reverent accusers?  Let’s check it out:

In Acts 23/XXIII 1-5, Luke the Evangelist records an event involving the Apostle Paul. The apostle had been brought before the council as the accused; and while he was speaking, the high priest Ananiah ordered those present to strike him in the mouth. Then Paul said to him:  “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall; and yet you sit in judgment over me according to the law, and you violate it by giving the order to strike me?”

Then the spectators admonished him: “Are you insulting the high priest of God?”

The apostle apologized immediately: “My brothers, I didn’t know that he is a high priest! For it is written: you shall not speak badly of the potentates of your people”

So, what do the critics of the presbyters of God have to say about this?  Do they have the same kind of respect for their own presbyters?

Unworthy presbyters in the Apostles’ time

Now let’s take a look at some examples of the situation that prevailed INSIDE the Christian Church during the time of the Apostles, as recorded in the New Testament.

Especially in Corinthians II, chapters 10-12/X-XII, we learn that the Apostle Paul was downhearted, because apparently certain so-called “apostles” had enslaved the Church of Corinth and were also accusing the Apostle Paul.  Paul was thus compelled to present his arguments in these three chapters, in order to remind them of his labors for their sakes, so that they might comprehend that his accusers are bad pastors of the Church of Corinth.  The reader is asked to read these three chapters very carefully, so that he can become fully aware of the unworthiness of those pastors of Corinth.

But this was not the only incident! John the Apostle writes in his Epistle III, 9,10 to the Christian Gaius: “I wrote something to the Church, but the primacy-loving Diotrephes does not accept us. So, when I come there, I shall remind him of what he has been doing, and of his gossiping about us with malicious words; and as if this weren’t enough, he doesn’t receive our brothers and he obstructs them and drives them away from the Church.”

Just imagine! The prebyter of this Church refused the Apostle John and other Christians into the Church! And yet, despite all this, it was still the Church of Christ, albeit with an unworthy presbyter and persecutor of the apostles. And what is more, neither Gaius or anyone else –not even John himself- asked for his dethronement, nor did they deny his status as presbyter!

In the first chapters of Revelation, the Lord dictates 7 epistles to the corresponding 7 Churches of that time. Each epistle is directed to the “angel” - the “messenger” – who bears the wills of God for those Churches; in other words, to their Bishop.

Evidence that it does not refer to a spirit but a person, can be discerned in verses 7,10 of chapter 3/III, where Jesus Christ addresses the “angel of the Church of Philadelphia” and in verse 10 He includes him in “those inhabiting the earth”. If the angel therefore resides on earth, he cannot be an angel in the sense of a spirit, but only in the sense of a “messenger”.

In the same sense, therefore, the ‘angel’ of the Sardis Church is its Bishop - the pastor who is responsible for that Church.  In Revelation 3/III 1-4, the Lord Jesus Christ orders this Church’s bishop “to wake up, because only in name is he alive, when in fact he is (spiritually) dead”. He informs him that “his works are known” and that “he must recover, and give support to whatever else is destined to die on his account, because his works are not perfect in the sight of God”. He warns him that “He will be caught in his sleep, as by a thief, if he doesn’t stay alert.”  He is also told that “he has a few in his Church who are still pure, and that they shall receive suitable wages, because they are worthy”.

What is it saying here?  It is showing that in the Christian Church of the Apostolic era there were Bishops who –as we saw in the previous examples- were spiritually dead! Their works were mischievous; they scandalized Christians and were the cause of spiritual death for many people. In fact, in the Church of Sardis, only a few had remained pure Christians, which indicates that the majority of the Church was unclean. So, here we have an unclean (in its majority) Church, with a spiritually dead Bishop!

According to the seemingly reverent groups of our time, a corrupt Church such as this could not be Christ’s. But, according to the above words of the Lord, He continued to acknowledge it, unclean as it may have been, and regardless how few the worthy ones were!  He furthermore did not deny His “angel’s” status of Bishop; in fact, He invited him to rise to the demands of his mission, and did not ‘dethrone’ him immediately, just as John didn’t, just because that bishop had sinned. We furthermore observe that this Church is among the 7 Churches that had the Holy Spirit as oil, being the lamps of God that they were. (Revelation /I 20). And most importantly, according to verses 16 and 20, the Lord is “He who holds the seven stars in His right hand” and “the seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches”.  It is interesting, how that unworthy bishop WAS ONE OF THOSE SEVEN ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES, AND ONE OF THE SEVEN STARS IN THE LORD’S RIGHT HAND.

All of the above indicate to us that the Church remains the treasury of divine grace, even if its shepherd and the majority of its congregation are “spiritually dead”.

N.M.

Translation by A.N.

Symeon the New Theologian

October 12

Reading:

 

Saint Symeon became a monk of the Studite Monastery as a young man, under the guidance of the elder Symeon the Pious. Afterwards he struggled at the Monastery of Saint Mamas in Constantinople, of which he became abbot. After enduring many trials and afflictions in his life of piety, he reposed in 1022. Marvelling at the heights of prayer and holiness to which he attained, and the loftiness of the teachings of his life and writings, the church calls him "the New Theologian." Only to two others, John the Evangelist and Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, has the church given the name "Theologian." Saint Symeon reposed on March 12, but since this always falls in the Great Fast, his feast is kept today.

Apolytikion in the Third Tone

 

Since thou hadst received within thy pure soul God's enlightenment, O righteous Father, thou wast shown to the world as a blazing light which drave away its thick darkness and moved all men to seek the grace of the Spirit which they had lost. O all-holy Father Symeon, intercede with Him to grant great mercy unto us who honour thee.

Kontakion in the Third Tone

 

Shining with the Three-Sun Light, thou wast a true theologian of the Holy Trinity, the Lord divinely-transcendent; from on high, thou wast made rich with wisdom of discourse and didst pour forth the divine streams of godly wisdom; whereof having drunk, we cry out: Rejoice, thrice-blessed Symeon, taught from above.

SOURCE:

SAINT OR FEAST POSTED THIS DATE 2010(with 2009's link here also and further, 2008's, even 2007!)

Refuting the Dogma of Reincarnation

From here.
------------------------------------

Fr. ANTHONY ALEVIZOPOULOS
Dr. of Theology - Dr. of Philosophy
Refuting the Dogma of Reincarnation

The Foundation of Reincarnation

If we want to determine the premise of reincarnation, we need to make reference to its dogma that every person, according to their innermost self, is eternal and subject to the eternal law of cause and effect, called karma. This law pushes the person into consecutive births after each death. A basic cause which makes up the 'fuel', so to speak, for the continuous movement of this wheel of deaths and births is a person's attachments and desires in connection with external reality. Each and every thought, word or deed returns to that person during his new incarnation. His new life composes a living movie, and he is now called to be like a perfect actor to reenact this 'drama' on the new screen. 

According to this concept, a basic aim becomes the passage through all the hardship and experiences corresponding to the accumulated karma and the effort put into restricting these activities and attachments, so that new karma accumulation can be avoided. 

A final objective is one's 'liberation' not only from death but from life as well.  

In contrast, the 'western version' of reincarnation views this belief as potential for a better, future life on earth, as a course leading to continuous greater advances of development, reaching the level of a super-being. 

Both perceptions on reincarnation are based on the holistic theory of the world, forming an anti-Christian worldview. 

According to the Christian faith, man is not uncreated and eternal, but a creation: not a result of God's substance, but the fruit of divine will and love. In the Old Testament the distinction between the Maker and his creations is underlined, between the human and the rest of creation. Only the human being is made 'in God's image'. His position in God's world is a position of authority, which according to God's plan translates into a position of responsibility and love on man's part towards all of God's creation. 

There is no single 'evolutionary scale' between the human and the rest of beings. The human as 'according to the image' of the personal God, who is a communion of persons, meaning freedom and love, is not determined according to blind laws, but he himself participates in determining his course. Following God's plan and God's path in respect to human existence and the meaning of his life, he remains in communion with God and becomes a bearer of God's benefaction. 

Man was created as a psychosomatic entity from the beginning; his body is not evaluated negatively but is a blessing. This is why man's hope rests not in 'liberation' from the body, but the resurrection,  imperishability and immortality of the body. 

Interpretative Deadlocks

  

If we accept the view that life inside the body is a fall and a state of punishment, with the aim of instructing the soul, this creates for the faithful person, who accepts the Scriptures as divine revelation, interpretative deadlocks.  

The Holy Scriptures tell us that God made man as a psychosomatic entity and gave him His blessing and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and 'fill' all the earth. If this life inside the body is a 'curse', God would not bless man. It would not be God's will for man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the world with 'cursed' beings. 

If again, we assume that Adam, in a state of pre-existence sinned, and that is why he was incarnated ― to be punished and instructed ― then why should the same thing happen to all the other souls, and how could the protoplasts 'multiply' as psychosomatic entities, actually taking this multiplication as a blessing? If Adam sinned, then only he should become incarnate and not all people. 

But the Scriptures mention that God placed man in paradise and not in a 'state of hell'. The place that God gave man as a residence was a place of 'delight' and not punishment. That is why man is called to serve God's paradise, preserve it and not eliminate his relation with it (Gen. 2:15). 

The Holy Scriptures underline that punishment for man is not life in the body, but exactly the contrary. God warned man that his biological life would end if he sinned but not so if he remained faithful. If this life was a result of 'karma' and a negative stance of man in the state of a spiritual being, then sinners should live and the righteous should die, since this life would be considered a curse and not being released from life. 

Denial of Salvation in Christ 

The dogma of karma and reincarnation nullifies the mystery of salvation in Christ. The incarnation of the Son and Word of God constitutes the foundation of the Church and is linked with the mystery of man's salvation (Math. 16:17-18, 1 Tim. 3:16). His 'taking on' the whole person, not only the soul but also the body, constitutes the manifestation of God's glory (John 1:14, Hebrews 1:1-3). It cannot be considered negative. But these grounds for salvation are canceled when we accept the beliefs of karma and reincarnation. 

Christ conquered death, not through the liberation from the body, but through the resurrection and incorruptibility of the body. This change in a person's life does not come through continuous births and deaths, but 'in a moment', during Christ's second coming. For the Christian, there are no repeated judgments, which define the 'quality' of a new life each time, but only one biological life and only one judgment, which will take place in front of Christ's judgment seat. In front of the eternal Judge man will stand not only as a soul but also as a body, to answer for his deeds, which occurred by way of this body. 

This state of 'new creation', of incorruptibility, is lived by the Christian already in this life during the Holy Eucharist. The teaching of reincarnation, which regards the body negatively, not only nullifies the Christian's hope in Christ but also the meaning of divine worship, the primary purpose of the Holy Eucharist. 

Pedagogy Requires the Feeling of Responsibility 

The dogma of karma and reincarnation interprets this life's negative situations with acts which took place in a supposed previous life. For those acts, man is called to punishment, so as to erase his 'karma' and his attachments, aiming at complete 'liberation'. 

But man is not conscious of this fact. He does not remember those deeds that supposedly 'drove' him to a new reincarnation and to those difficulties he is now going through. He does not remember committing those deeds, for which he is supposedly being punished. When we accept that man is punished for things he is unable to remember, the significance of 'pedagogy' is abolished. When there is no memory, then punishment does not have an educative end. It could be a result of a blind law, which nonetheless rejects the existence of a God, who directs the course of history, who is a communion of persons ― that is, freedom and love. 

'Gospel' of the Serpent 

According to the Christian faith, man is not autonomous. He is by nature 'according to the image of God', and therefore, communion and love defines the person's life and corresponds to his real nature. However, man was made autonomous, following the serpent's advice, that is, a 'different gospel'.  

The teachings of karma and reincarnation are another expression of that same 'gospel', not of the gospel of freedom and love in Christ. 

The changes that take place within a person and the 'evolutions', as they are perceived by the followers of this dogma, occur without contact with the absolute existence, without communion with a personal God, Who is love. Man becomes completely autonomous. He is not conscious of the existence of a God, which can intervene in his life. He does not seek a god outside of himself. When he is happy, he attributes this happiness to himself and is confined within himself. When he is unhappy, he is led into passiveness; he does not seek a way out. Nor does he seek help from anyone outside of himself. 

He who believes in karma and reincarnation sinks into his misery and does not hope. He does not seek a God, nor anyone from his surroundings. He is expected to passively accept his state without 'attachment'. He cannot experience faith and gratitude for God's presence in his life. Even if he refers to 'a law of grace', it is aimed at  mechanistic and automatic consequences of a blind law, and this is why he is called on to act without internal involvement, without 'attachment', as he claims. Nevertheless, man is by nature a communion of persons. This is why the complete loneliness in which the dogma of karma and reincarnation immerses its believer constitutes an 'unnatural' state. 

On the contrary, the Christian believer accepts with gratitude all states in life and seeks a solution that is external to himself. He seeks God's face and the communion of love with Him. This gives him a deeper meaning in life. He feels that God does not abandon him and resides close to him, even if he faces negative situations. For the believer, sorrows and pain hold a deeper meaning. There are no unchangeable situations for him in life, an unalterable 'destiny', which is determined through a blind law. A person's will and God's grace can alter the spiritual state and life of that person. A Christian does not face anything passively but responsibly and with awareness of God's presence in his life. The Christian has undoubtedly abandoned the path of being distant and autonomous and follows the path of the 'new creation' in Christ, that is, the path of gratitude, love and hope. 

The dogma of the pre-existence of the soul and of reincarnation has been condemned by the Church as foreign to the Christian faith. Still there are guruistic, neognostic, theosophic, occult groups which claim that the dogma of karma and reincarnation was an integral part of Christ's teachings and of the first Church. 

These views rely on occult sources and are a result of para-psychological and spiritual practices and 'experimentation'. This means that they are the fruit of religious convictions from a sphere outside Christianity. 

The occultists project examples of 'memory' and use 'recollection' techniques. But if they do not concern situations which can be interpreted in a different way or cases of conscious deceit, we still find ourselves in front of 'phenomena' and 'testimonies' that are of no scientific, but only religious value. In order for them to be accepted, one must abandon the spiritual sphere of Christian faith and move to the sphere of Asian spirituality. 

Even people within the sphere of orthodox Hinduism, who believe in reincarnation, when referring to the phenomena of so-called 'spontaneous memory', underline that they pertain to 'demonic seizures', meaning demonic states. 

There is no Continuation in the Life of Personality 

The followers of reincarnation claim that on the path to 'liberation' there exists an intermediate state in the 'cosmic spheres' of the spiritual world. In this state, the personality of the previous life is dissolved and disappears before the soul is reborn into a new body. However, if the soul completely rejects its previous earthly personality, then, when it returns to life in a new reincarnation, it does not involve the same being, but another. 

So with reincarnation there is no continuity between successive lives. The destruction and disintegration of personality of every human after death does not differ so much from the atheistic conviction regarding man's extinction. In reality, the only thing that gets reincarnated is karma that is broken away from the body. This conviction has as a consequence that the being, who receives a new body, does not have, and cannot have any memory of a former existence, so that it can then achieve correction of its life and perfection during the coming lives.  

Consequently, it is possible that 'momentarily' the reincarnation theory satisfies some, offering an explanation for injustice and inequality, but in essence, it does not solve the problem, since man's personality dissolves and the being that is reincarnated does not have the required memory of those crimes for which it is being asked to pay. M. Albrecht brings up as an example the case of Joseph Stalin. The reincarnation of this dictator could suffer for Stalin's terrible crimes, without retaining any memory that indicates to him that he is Joseph Stalin. Besides, there is no indication that it is possible to ensure the 'evolution' of Stalin's new reincarnation; he could just as well increase his 'bad karma', instead of living a life that would drive him into 'evolution' into a new reincarnation.

But since one's personality dissolves and there is no ontological connection between the two beings, the possibility of 'another chance' proves ungrounded.  

The 'Cosmic Game' 

According to the views of the Theosophical Society, faith in divine providence leads the Church into desertion. To regain lost ground, the Christian Church needs to replace this faith with the belief of karma and reincarnation, which completely satisfies the evolved intelligence of modern man, argues Cooper. 

But this belief constitutes a religious conviction which 'exceeds' any possibility of guarantee in the human intellect. This is accepted in the areas of guruistic – occult groups that preach reincarnation as a 'key solution' for man's and the world's existential problems. 

The teacher of the 'harmonious life', following guru Sai Baba's steps, referring to 'the creation of the world' and the soul's 'involvement' in karmic relations and 'tendencies', writes:   

 
“The question comes to mind as how this cosmic game got started. How and why was the first samskara (impression or tendency) developed.” “The origin of the universe has been a question which has enticed the human mind into reflection ever since we've existed on this planet.” (Robert Najemy, Universal Philosophy, p.142,90).  

Najemy makes reference to various religious groups, which each “offers their own creation stories”, but that are “beyond the capacity of our limited mind to understand” (Universal Philosophy, p. 90). The teacher of 'harmonious life' presents as his own answer the belief in reincarnation: 

“The idea is that the spirit, for some reason, has separated from its perfect eternal state of union with God and is experiencing life in the physical world. Although the Spirit, in reality, remains perfect in its union with God, its projection on the earth plane, that is, the soul in the incarnated body, loses its awareness of that divine state. The soul then begins to experience and experiment with the physical world by entering into physical vehicles. 

“At first the soul could manifest itself only through very simple vehicles such as one-celled organisms like amoebas. Eventually as the soul has more and more contact with the physical world, through repeated birth and death of these various simple forms of life, it gradually develops the ability to incarnate into more advanced physical vehicles, such as plants, fish, insects, animals, primates and finally human beings”. (Robert Najemy, The Mystical Circle of Life, p. 140-141).

How is it possible for the soul, which is a 'projection' and 'reflection' of the Absolute, to lose consciousness of its godly state and start wandering about in the material world, to obtain something that evidently it did not have, the experience of matter? How is it possible for the perfect Spirit to be 'trapped' in matter? How and why did it have to be firstly reincarnated into 'inferior entities', such as is the amoeba, before it begun the 'evolutionary course' upwards? Wouldn't it be more natural to pass through in a contrary stream towards the bottom, from a manifested spirit to be embodied into the entity of man and then to fall further down, to become humanoid, animal, fish, plant, amoeba, mineral, since it 'desired' to experience all levels of matter? 

We see that the belief in reincarnation does not at all satisfy the 'evolved mind of contemporary man'. In this Robert Najemy also agrees. He writes:
 

“Because our conceptual ability and language are limited by the concepts of time and space, there is no way we can understand the final truth about creation with words or the rational mind. The answer to this question lies within the higher mind which is able to transcend time and space and realize the answer through direct experience of the process of creation itself. That answer is, of course, incommunicable as our language does not offer the necessary terminology”. (Universal Philosophy, p. 90)
 

The 'mind' belongs to the 'world of dualism', says Najemy. So, to arrive at an 'experienced' answer to the problem of creation, we must 'overcome' the world of 'dualism'. “However, even if once you have experienced the answer, you cannot communicate it because it is beyond duality and beyond the comprehension of the mind. Accepting that it has started in some way...” (Universal Philosophy, p. 142-143).  
 

That which the 'harmonious life' offers as an answer to the problem of how the first 'impression or tendency' (karma) developed, and of how the soul lost 'consciousness of its godly state', constitutes a religious view, which belongs within the sphere of Asian perception, external to the Christian sphere. This is how this religious view is expressed:
 

“The stance of Universal Philosophy is that creation is not an event that took place millions of years ago but rather a process that is eternally happening every second.” ... “There is a void, an infinite non-physical, unchanging, unmanifest Reality from which creation is constantly being projected somewhat in the way that an image is projected onto a screen by a projector.” (Universal Philosophy, p. 90)
 

A similar religious approach is attempted by so-called 'Esoteric Christianity'. According to the 'Esoteric Orthodoxy' of Boris Mouravvief “Orthodox Tradition teaches that the Universe was created by a sacrifice of God...God's sacrifice is Self-limitation by manifestation.” “...life in the Universe is nothing but a perpetual process of creation in every domain, on every plane, and at every step.” (Boris Mouravieff, Gnosis, Volume 1-Exoteric Cycle, p. 70,75)
 

D. Dorizas of 'Esoteric Christianity' expresses this referring to man's purpose in life: “You will be able to be diffused in the same way within forms and within the Formless and Non-manifested Essence, that exists and governs the Infinite Universes. A purpose and aim is to become Exhalation, and exhalation is the Word. And the Word is Flow, which is continuously recycled and perpetually transmits consecutively in a movement and vibrations so fast, that it seems not to palpitate or vibrate. When you become Exhalation, the Word, the Endless Flow of the Universe, you will be absorbed into the Formless, unifying with the Formless, but without losing the possibility to manifest yourself in Infinite ways...” (D. Dorizas, 2001, p. 84 [translated from Greek text]).       
 

These beliefs move externally to Christian faith, are anti-Christian teachings, which project absolute monism and the cyclical outlook of history, meaning a pointless 'cosmic game':
 

“Although this physical creation is in a constant rhythmic process of creation and destruction, this Ultimate Reality (as Spirit or Consciousness) cannot be created or destroyed. All of creation alternates between expansion, manifestation and contraction then back into the latent unmanifest state. Just as we have the rhythmic cycles of night and day, summer and winter, we have the cycles of creation and reabsorption of the universe back into the Unmanifest.” (Universal Philosophy, p. 91)    
 

This endless 'cosmic game' of continuous alternation between 'expansion towards manifestation' and 'contraction towards absence, into a latent unmanifest state', the continuous recycling of all, cannot possibly provide us with a satisfactory answer to the question for a deeper meaning of life. It's a religious view that does not offer solutions but leads to dead ends. It sinks a person into an endless loneliness.
 

Based on this perception, man is indeed doomed to loneliness. He is deserted to his 'destiny' helpless. Nobody can change his fate, not himself, nor another person, not even God. He has substituted Divine Love and Divine Providence with karmic plans, which define events in his life just like episodes of a movie, which are projected from a machine onto a screen. In the end, what is written in the movie will be screened, irrespectively of how philanthropic or horrific the scenes of the 'movie' are which are played in each life.   
 

According to the perception of the teachers of reincarnation, one must not even try to change the 'scenario' of his life. But even if he did try, it would be in vain, as the 'movie' will be played in any case. What one is called to do is to 'play his part' without 'identification [with things]' and without 'attachment'. It does not matter what the role is, if it is the role of a robber or of that being robbed, a criminal or a victim!  
 

The behavior of others towards him is also a result of 'karmic stipulations'. The same applies to relations formed with one's relatives, school, profession. The 'roles' change continuously from life to life. In one life one is a mother, in another one is a father, in the next a spouse, in another they afflict him, torture him, treat him unjustly, rob him, lead him into wretchedness and death. Under no circumstances is there the element of responsibility for one's fellow human or the concept of injustice. There is no God-lawgiver, who institutes ethical laws and calls on man to follow God's path, who will lead him into the fulfillment of the meaning of man's life, according to God's will. Man is only subject to karma's blind law and will not have to explain himself to anybody for his actions. He is submerged in complete loneliness.     
 

What is important is not what one does, but if he does it with 'attachment' or without identifying with what he does. It does not matter if his action is considered good or bad, but if he feels it is helping him in happiness and 'evolution'. “We want to see what’s useful for our evolution and not get caught up in concepts of sin, guilt” (Universal Philosophy, p. 207). For teachers of absolute monism, every action, regardless of whether it's considered good or bad, “is equally an expression of the one Universal Consciousness and thus, each deserves the same respect and love independent of what he or she does or does not do on the external levels.” (Universal Philosophy, p. 71)
 

If someone is strong, and considers it 'useful' to oppress someone weak, he may do it, 'without attachment'. If someone else is weak and is oppressed, he must also endure 'without attachment' or 'empathy'. Both deserve the same love and respect, regardless of whether they are oppressors or oppressed. Nobody wrongs anybody. The ones who perceive things differently are moving in the level of 'dualism' and are at a low evolutionary level. This is the theoretical foundation of ethics based on reincarnation.  
 

There is no injustice in reality. The ones who 'do us injustice' as we think, are only carriers of actions that, according to the 'scenario' of our life's movie, must take place, for our evolution's sake! If we endure without protesting, we will have learned our 'lesson' and in a future life we will advance in evolution! (self-evolution).   
 

It becomes obvious that the precept of karma and reincarnation does not lead to the development of man's personality, but to its destruction; it does not nurture relations of mutual responsibility and love between people, but the maggot of ego centrism. This faith does not know mercy and threatens the pillars of our whole society and civilization.  

The belief of karma and reincarnation means a reversal in the evaluation of our society. Any form of sociability is negatively evaluated, because the aim is not the development of society in all its expressions, but abstinence from every active and essential participation in social relations. Every such participation and relation is considered 'empathy' or 'attachment', which creates 'karma', and leads a person to be bound to the endless wheel of samsara, to the continuous 'torture' of successive births and deaths. This 'cosmic game', in which man also takes part, does not at all make sense.       
 

Nobody doubts that each person has the right to make his religious choice, to keep his faith in the resurrection and hope in Christ or to become a follower of reincarnation. But this choice must take place freely. That is why, one must realize that both of these are incompatible with each other. One cannot believe in reincarnation without denying the hope of resurrection. He cannot say, “I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come” (The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed), and at the same time confess belief in karma and reincarnation.    
 

For these beliefs to be taught as Christian, using Christian terminology and using the Holy Scriptures, is a pitiable error ‒ if, of course, this does not occur on purpose ‒ otherwise it is dishonest. Either way, it causes confusion and prevents unsuspecting people from having a free choice.      
 

If someone wishes to choose to believe in reincarnation, they must beforehand know that apart from the fact that this path is anti-Christian, they are not led to a 'better life' or to the 'development of man's abilities'. Because the final aim, according to the principle of karma and reincarnation is not a better life, but the termination of life, the 'absorption' into an impersonal 'Universal Reality'.
 

On the contrary, the Christian faith, according to which God, out of love, created the world and created man 'according to His image and to His likeness', not as a result of His divine substance, but His divine will and freedom. It offers an answer to the question of creation and deeper meaning in man's life. This meaning does not end in an 'absorption' of a person into the 'Universal Reality', but into his participation in God's life 'in Jesus Christ', with the eternal communion of love with the Holy Trinity (for more information, please see our book The Orthodox Church: Faith-Worship-Life, Preveza 1991).   

Fr. ANTHONY ALEVIZOPOULOS
Dr. Of Theology - Dr. Of Philosophy
REINCARNATION OR RESURRECTION: AN ORTHODOX OUTLOOK ON EVIL

Translation by: Holy Monastery of Pantokrator