Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches

Source: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

(Phanar, March 6-9, 2014)

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Through the grace of God, the Primates of the Most Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, to the Orthodox faithful throughout the world, all of our Christian brothers and sisters as well as every person of goodwill: we extend God’s blessing and our greeting of love and peace.

“We always give thanks to God for all of you and mention you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith, labor of love, and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 1.2-3)

1. Having convened by the grace of our compassionate God, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, at the Phanar, from March 6-9, 2014; having deliberated in fraternal love on matters concerning our Holy Church today; and concelebrating in the Patriarchal Church of St. George on the glorious occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we address you with these words of love, peace and consolation.

Inasmuch as our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church dwells in the world, it also experiences the challenges of every age. Faithful to Holy Tradition, the Church of Christ is in constant dialogue with every period of time, suffering with human beings and sharing their anguish. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and to the ages” (Heb. 13.8).

The trials and challenges of history are especially acute in our days, and Orthodox Christians cannot remain uninvolved or indifferent to them. This is why we have assembled “together in one place” (Acts 2.1) in order to reflect on the problems and temptations facing humanity today. “There is fighting without and fear within.” (2 Cor. 7.5) These Apostolic words are also valid for the Church today.

2. In reflecting upon people’s suffering throughout the world, we express our support for the martyrdom and our admiration for the witness of Christians in the Middle East, Africa, and other parts of the world. We call to mind their dual martyrdom: for their faith as well as for the safeguarding of their historical relationship with people of other religious conviction. We denounce the lack of peace and stability, which is prompting Christians to abandon the land where our Lord Jesus Christ was born and whence the Good News spread to the entire world.

Our sympathy extends to all victims of the tragedy in Syria. We condemn every form of terrorism and defamation of religion. The kidnapping of Metropolitans Paul and Youhanna, other clergymen as well as the nuns of St. Thecla Convent in Maaloula remains an open wound, and we demand their immediate liberation.

We appeal to all involved for the immediate cessation of military action, liberation of captives, and establishment of peace in the region through dialogue. Christians in the Middle East are a leaven of peace. Peace for all people also means peace for Christians. We support the Patriarchate of Antioch in its spiritual and humanitarian ministry, as well as its efforts for reconstruction and the resettlement of all refugees.

3. We fervently pray for peaceful negotiation and prayerful reconciliation in the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. We denounce the threats of violent occupation of sacred monasteries and churches, and pray for the return of our brothers presently outside of ecclesiastical communion into the Holy Church.

4. A fundamental threat to justice and peace – both locally and globally – is the global economic crisis. The ramifications of this are evident on all layers in society, where such values as personal integrity, fraternal solidarity and justice are often wanting. The origins of this crisis are not merely financial. They are moral and spiritual in character. Instead of conforming to the worldly idols of power, greed and hedonism, we emphasize our vocation to transform the world by embracing the principles of justice, peace, and love.

As a result of self-centeredness and abuse of power, many people undermine the sacredness of the human person, neglecting to see the face of God in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Matt. 25.40,45). Many remain indifferent to the poverty, suffering and violence that plague humanity.

5. The Church is called to articulate its prophetic word. We express our genuine concern about local and global trends that undermine and erode the principles of faith, the dignity of the human person, the institution of marriage, and the gift of creation.

We stress the undisputed sanctity of human life from inception until natural death. We recognize marriage as the union of man and woman that reflects the union between Christ and His Church. Our vocation is to preserve the natural environment as stewards and not proprietors of creation. In this period of Great Lent, we exhort our clergy and laity to observe a spirit of repentance, to experience purity of heart, humility and forgiveness, bearing witness to the timeless teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ in society.

6. This Synaxis of Primates is a blessed occasion for us to reinforce our unity through communion and cooperation. We affirm our commitment to the paramount importance of synodality for the unity of the Church. We affirm the words of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, that “the name of the Church signifies unity and concord, not division.” Our heart is set on the long-awaited Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church in order to witness to its unity as well as to its responsibility and care for the contemporary world.

The Synaxis agreed that the preparatory work to the Synod should be intensified. A special Inter-Orthodox Committee will work from September 2014 until Holy Easter of 2015, followed by a Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference to be convened in the first half of 2015. All decisions at the Synod and in the preparatory stages are made by consensus. The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will be convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople in 2016, unless something unexpected occurs. The Synod will be presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch. His brother Primates of the other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches will be seated at his right and at his left.

7. Inseparably interconnected with unity is mission. The Church does not live for itself but is obliged to witness to and share God’s gifts with those near and afar. Participating in the Divine Eucharist and praying for the oikoumene, we are called to continue this liturgy after the liturgy, sharing the gifts of truth and love with all humankind, in accordance with the Lord’s last commandment and assurance: “Go ye, and make disciples of all nations . . . And lo, I shall be with you until the end of the ages” (Matt. 28.19-20).

8. We live in a world where multiculturalism and pluralism are inevitable realities, which are constantly changing. We are conscious of the fact that no issue in our time can be considered or resolved without reference to the global, that any polarization between the local and the ecumenical only leads to distortion of the Orthodox way of thinking.

Therefore, even in the face of voices of dissension, segregation, and division, we are determined to proclaim the message of Orthodoxy. We acknowledge that dialogue is always better than conflict. Withdrawal and isolationism are never options. We reaffirm our obligation at all times to be open in our contact with “the other”: with other people and other cultures, as well as with other Christians and people of other faiths.

9. Above and beyond all challenges, we proclaim the good news of a God, who “so loved the world” that He “dwelt among us.” Thus, we Orthodox remain full of hope. Despite all tensions, we nevertheless dare to hope in the “almighty God, who is and who was and who is to come” (Rev. 1.8) For we remember that the last word – the word of joy, love, and life – belongs to Him, to whom is due all glory, honor and worship to the ages of ages. Amen.

At the Phanar, the 9th of March, 2014

+ Bartholomew of Constantinople

+ Theodoros of Alexandria

+ Theophilos of Jerusalem

+ Kirill of Moscow

+ Irinej of Serbia

+ Daniel of Romania

+ Neophyte of Bulgaria

+ Ilia of Georgia

+ Chrysostomos of Cyprus

+ Ieronymos of Athens

+ Sawa of Warsaw

+ Anastasios of Tirana

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

OCL responds to the EP talk at Holy Cross | AOI Observer

Some thoughts about a recent speech at Holy Cross School of Theology from the American Orthodox Institute blog. Your comments are, of course, welcome (but please, keep them charitable, by which I mean gentle.)


In Christ,


+Fr Gregory

George Michalopulos, Orthodox Christian Laity board member and frequent contributor to the AOI blog, penned the official OCL response to Arch. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis recent talk at AOI. Original article is posted on the OCL website.

An OCL Board Member Responds to the Message of Chief Secretary of The Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
George Michalopulos

March 25, 2009 - the Feast of the Annunciation

I. Introduction: An Archimandrite Speaks

Recently, a certain archimandrite, the Very Rev Dr Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, spoke at Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts. His position is one of auxiliary professor at this seminary but his formal title is “Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod.” His remarks thus were more than the observations of a mere academic; indeed he stated from the outset that they were authorized by the Ecumenical Patriarch himself and “with the consent” of Archbishop Demetrios, the primate of the Greek archdiocese.

What began as astute observations of American Orthodoxy by a highly educated clergyman-scholar quickly descended into vituperation, slander against other jurisdictions, and almost total ignorance of America. Moreover, his understanding of canon law and Byzantine history itself was questionable. It is unknown whether this was deliberate or merely the result of ignorance. At best, this willful twisting of history can be viewed as Phanariote propaganda, which like all good propaganda uses words and ideas for some higher purpose. The purpose of this reply is not only to identify that which is propagandistic, but to point out the severe internal and logical contradictions contained therein.

It has been reported that several of those who attended his lecture left in disgust in the midst of his speech and that of those who remained, disgruntled comments were audible upon the completion of his oration. The following day, during a private meeting with the faculty of Holy Cross, clear disagreements were enunciated towards him and his views. Others have pointed out in the interim that his speech should be viewed by many as the intellectual case (such as it is) of the Phanar regarding the claims it will press at the upcoming “Pan-Orthodox Synod” which is in the planning stages at present. Given his standing at the Phanar, his speech deserves serious consideration. More importantly, as seen within the turmoil of the GOA in the aftermath of the Ligonier Conference in 1994, the Phanar’s capabilities for mischief cannot be underestimated. (Henceforth, for purposes of brevity, I will refer to Archimandrite Lambrianides as “the speaker” and his remarks as “the speech.”

Read the rest here: OCL responds to the EP about Holy Cross talk.

Guest Post: Comments on the Archimandrite's talk

Image via Wikipedia

Below are Chrys' comments in response to John Couretas's post on the American Orthodox Institute's blog "Ecumenical Patriarchate: American 'Diaspora' must submit to Mother Church."  As my own re-post of the original speech would suggest, I agree with John's observation: "The battle is joined."

As Chrys, and other Orthodox respondents have pointed out, the Archimandrite's arguments for the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch are at least as applicable to Rome as to Constantinople. Given the rather lukewarm response of the EP to the great moral challenges of our age in favor of a rather poorly thought out participation in the environmental movement, I have to agree with Chrys, "he demonstrates NO effort to understand the arguments of those whom he believes are critics of the claims of the Patriarch."  As I've said before, it is not enough to simply argue that your opponents are wrong--you must actually respond to the concerns that motivate their arguments.  In his talk Fr Elpidophoros has not done this--he has not engaged his critics even as the EP has not engaged those (both outside and inside the Orthodox Church) who reject traditional Christian moral teaching.


So with that, let me now give the stage over to Chrys and your comments.


In Christ,


+Fr Gregory

The Archimandrite makes a provocative if unconvincing argument. Many of his observations about American culture ring true, which makes for a good beginning and builds some good will.

He argues that ethnic separatism is wrong.  Agreed: philetism is a heresy.  He then makes the potentially contradictory claim that we should maintain - or at least not be detached from - our culture of origin.  He gives particular weight to what he claims is a broadly understood Hellenism, but in fact serves to demand deference to a very particular culture.  He claims to value the American experience but then criticizes both the local parish and the "corrective" Athonite monastic movement in the US.  (I wonder how the monks on Mt. Athos would respond to these comments.)  He demonstrates an appreciation for the contributions of the laity in the US but then asserts a very high view of primacy.  It is a view of primacy that would seem to erase or at least significantly diminish any notion of conciliarity.  (So much for the wonderful work of Zizioulas and others.) In fact, so far as I can see, there is no good reason given in his argument to stop at Constantinople; the logic chain leads as well - if not better - to Rome.  At the end of his address, he quotes the Patriarch of Antioch as something of a proof.  Unfortunately it is not a proof, merely an illustration.  Quoting St. Ignatios of Antioch would have been much more compelling - but, as I understand the saint's comments about the (local) bishop would have much better served those with whom the Archimandrite disagrees than his own position.

That said, he demonstrates NO effort to understand the arguments of those whom he believes are critics of the claims of the Patriarch.  And here we come to the purpose of his talk.  The intensity of his disagreement with critics frequently substitutes a zealous demeanor and unyielding demands for carefully considered data.  His tone exceeds the quality of his argument and suggests some desperation.
As a result, his attacks rarely addresses the central claims of "the critics."  He seems to simply dismiss them for not subscribing to his quasi-papal view.  His claim that his view is the traditional and essential view begs the question; no real evidence is offered.  Worse, he often resorts to ad hominem attacks that do no credit to his arguments and unfortunately contradict the Christian character that he should, in his official role at least, embody. 

He makes some claims that don't square with my understanding of history - but I may be wrong.  It is my understanding that most of the autocephalous Churches often "took" their status without the blessing of Constantinople.  Either way, the notion that the Patriach finally granted Alexandria such status in 2002 only serves to undermine his purpose further.  That it took 1900+ years surely serves his critics' purposes, not his.  (Either that, of the Church in the US can look forward to official blessing for self-rule sometime in the year 3800.)

He argument ultimately seeks to establish that the health of the Church here depends upon its deference to the Patriarch.  Obedience is often a great source of blessing, but that argument is not offered.  In the end, the "patrimony" that he claims is intrinsic to the Patriarch of Constantinople alone is not demonstrated - at least in his presentation.  He claims that it is essential to the life of the American parish, but does not convincingly demonstrate how.  The purpose, however, is clear enough: America should not consider self-governance.  (Which is ironic since this is what America is known for and, as the "empire" of the current age, would seem to be have the standing upon which both Old Rome and New Rome asserted their preeminence.)  Indeed, he seems so intent on defending the idea of the value of the Patriarch that he fails to address the seemingly transparent reason for his urgency -- which is that the opposite is actually true.  It is rather the Patriarch who is desperately dependent on the US for political and financial support. 

In the end, his effort to assert the claims of Constantinople and (uncharitably) silence the growing American Church's desire for increasing self-governance are more urgent than considered, more demanded than demonstrated.  And for that, he may have done his cause far more harm than good.

Memory Eternal: Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Alexy II dies

News reports are now coming in that His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Russia has fallen asleep in the Lord.

May the Lord our God make his memory eternal!

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory


MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian Orthodox Church says its Patriarch Alexy II has died.

The church says the 79-year-old died at his residence outside Moscow on Friday. It did not give the cause of death, but the patriarch had long suffered from a heart ailment.

The outspoken patriarch had led the world's biggest Orthodox church since 1990, presiding over a flock that by most estimates numbers two-thirds of Russia's population of 142 million.

Is There a Breakthrough in Orthodox and Catholic Relations?

Is There a Breakthrough in Orthodox and Catholic Relations?
By Deacon Keith Fournier
6/20/2008

Catholic Online Has the Patriarch of Constantinople proposed a path toward communion between Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox brethren? Could it be a breakthrough?
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) – Reports are circulating, in circles which are intensely attuned to the continued warming of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, of a statement and proposal allegedly made by Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople.

If they are confirmed, it may signal a major move toward communion between Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox Brethren.It may also open the path to dialogue on communion between the Churches even wider.

The Religious Information Service of the Ukraine, associated with the Ukranian Catholic University, was cited as one source for the articles. Another was a German Ecumenical Journal named after the great Bishops Cyril and Methodius.

Both of these sources allege that the Orthodox Patriarch made an unusual gesture toward Eastern Catholic Churches which are in union with Rome, proposing that the members of those Churches somehow "return to Orthodoxy without breaking unity with Rome".

Eastern Catholics actually believe, in some respects, that they have already done just what the Patriarch suggests. They are in full communion with Rome, and therefore with the Chair of Peter, while still remaining faithful to Orthodoxy, in their profession of faith, liturgical worship and practices.Some actually refer to themselves as "Orthodox in Union with Rome". Of course, the Orthodox have not seen it that way at all.Fortunatley, old animosity has often been replaced by a growing desire for restored communion.

Further, it is reported that the Patriarch spoke positively of a similar proposal for a form of "dual unity" made by the Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Archbishop Lubomyr Husar.Does that also suggest a warming in dialogue concerning concepts for a way toward communion?

These same sources indicate that the Patriarch may be proposing an approach to communion which would allow for some sort of "dual communion", the details of which are not clear. Further, that he has suggested that the discussions between the two sister Churches look to the first millennium model of the relationship between Rome and Constantinople for pursuing this model of communion.

The Servant of God John Paul II, wrote regularly of the two Churches, Orthodox and Catholic, as being the "two lungs" of Christianity which must breathe together again in the Third Millennium. He dedicated much of his Pontificate to promoting communion between them.

His successor, Pope Benedict XVI has also dedicated his Pontificate to promoting this communion between East and Western Christianity in the Third Millennium. He has made regular overtures toward the Orthodox Church which have received warm and hopeful responses.

Unless noted otherwise, everything posted here is © 2008 Gregory R Jensen.

Bartholomew invited by the pope to participate in the synod of bishops

AsiaNews reports that in "spirit of Ravenna," Pope Benedict XVI has invited Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to participate in the upcoming meeting of the Catholic bishops from around the world.

The article is re-posted here for your information and comments.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory


Vatican City (AsiaNews) - Benedict XVI has invited ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew to take part in the upcoming synod of bishops, scheduled for October, and to give an address to the assembly, together with the pope himself.

The news of the invitation, not yet released by Vatican sources, comes at the conclusion of Bartholomew's visit to Rome for the 90th anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, during which he met with the pope. The invitation to attend the synod came during lunch yesterday. In itself, the presence of representatives of other Christian Churches and confessions is a normal practice for synod assemblies, ever since Vatican Council II invited the "fraternal delegations". What makes this event significant is the personal invitation extended to Bartholomew, the solemnity reserved for this, and the atmosphere in which it took place.

In regard to the meeting between Benedict XVI in Bartholomew, there has in fact been talk of the "spirit of Ravenna", meaning the meeting of the "Mixed international commission for theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" held in Ravenna from October 8-14, 2007. The final document of the meeting - although it was released by a commission, and is therefore not binding - was described as "an important step forward" by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the pontifical council for Christian unity, although "the road to full unity is still a very long one".

The document, Cardinal Kasper explains to Vatican Radio, "speaks of the tension between authority and conciliarity, or collegiality, at the local level, meaning that of the diocese, and at the regional and universal level. The important step is that for the first time the Orthodox Churches have told us yes, there exists this universal level of the Church, and there is also conciliarity, collegiality, and authority at the universal level; this means that there is also a Primacy: according to the practice of the ancient Church, the first bishop is the bishop of Rome, there is no doubt of this. But we did not speak of what the privileges of the bishop of Rome are, we only indicated the praxis for the sake of future discussions".

But the ecumenical patriarch will not only be present at the 12th general ordinary assembly of the synod of bishops that will be held at the Vatican from October 5-26, 2008, on the theme of "The word of God in life and mission of the Church". It seems, in fact, that Bartholomew could personally lead the delegation that the patriarchate sends to Rome every June 29th to take part in the celebration of the feast of Saint Peter and Pau

Orthodox Church May Set Up Alliance with Catholics

Posted on: Monday, November 26, 2007 at OrthodoxEurope.org:

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad: Orthodox Church May Set Up Alliance with Catholics

The Moscow Patriarchate has noticed the intensification of its contacts with the Catholics during Pope Benedict XVI's pontificate and suggested that alliance between the two churches could theoretically be set up in the future.

"After Benedict XVI was elected pope and declared the development of dialogue with the Orthodox Church among the priorities of his pontificate, bilateral relations between our churches have noticeably enlivened," Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, the head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, said in a report he presented at an inter-religious conference in Naples.

Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches "understand more clearly today than they have ever done before the importance of their joint testimony to the secular world about Christian values, which this world is trying to marginalize," Metropolitan Kirill said.

He noted that the proposal to set up a Catholic-Orthodox alliance produced mixed reaction in the Protestant world. However, he said, this proposal is based on the objective tendency towards deeper cooperation between Catholics and Orthodox and does not presuppose an alliance "against someone." "As regards the so-called alliance, I do not think that we should talk about some inter-Christian organization today, although it would be wrong to absolutely rule out the establishment of such an organization," Metropolitan Kirill said.

Under the word "alliance", he specified, one may understand "the possibility of a more coordinated and structured interaction between the Churches, primarily in their relations with the secular world and non-Christian religions. For a successful dialogue with the others there should be from the very outset a higher level of agreement among Churches and Christian communities than the one that exists today in the framework of the ecumenical dialogue." For example, according to Metropolitan Kirill, it is unlikely that the full-scale dialogue between Christians and Muslims which is so necessary today will be successful "while deep contradictions remain among Christians in the sphere of anthropology and ethics."

The doors of such an alliance between the Orthodox and Catholic believers "cannot be categorically closed to our Protestant brothers," Metropolitan Kirill said.

Orthodox Patriarch Accepts Papal Primacy?

While I need to find the rest of the story, or better the complete interview, the following report from Catholic World News is certainly interesting.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory





29-November-2007 -- Catholic World News Brief

Rome, Nov. 28, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople has said that he is prepared to recognize the primacy of the Pope--although he does not accept the Catholic position on the implications of that primacy.

In an interview with a Bulgarian television network, the Orthodox leader-- who is himself recognized as the "first among equals" in the Orthodox world-- indicated his support for a statement released by the joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission at an October meeting in Ravenna, Italy. That statement had recalled that during the first Christian millennium, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the foremost of the patriarchs.

Patriarch Bartholomew went on to say, however, that he does not believe the primacy enjoyed by the Pope in the early centuries of Christianity included authority over other patriarchs. The primacy of Rome, he explained, involved precedence of honor rather than disciplinary status over the world's bishops.

Metropolitan John (Zizoulas) On Primacy

In light of our conversation on the Orthodox understanding of primacy and the Ravenna statement of Catholic/Orthodox relations, I thought this interview with His Eminence Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) might be of interest. The interview appeared in the September 2005 edition of 30Days, an Roman Catholic news magazine.

In the interview His Eminence does a good job of laying out the history and rational for the various Orthodox responses to the question of primacy in the Church.

To read the interview please click here: "Where the Eucharist Is, There is the Catholic Church."

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

clipped from www.30giorni.it Where the Eucharist is, there is the Catholic Church Catholics must take seriously the notion of the full Catholicity of the local Church promoted by Vatican Council II, and must apply it to their ecclesiology». Ioannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamum, takes stock of the debate between Catholics and Orthodox regarding the primacy. by Gianni Valente Above, Benedict XVI with Ioannis Zizioulas, head of the delegation of the Ecumenic Patriarchate of Constantinople, come to Rome on the feastday of Saints Peter and Paul, 29 June 2005; down, Bartholomew I in prayer before the Confession of Saint Peter in the Vatican Grottos, 29 June 2004

USAToday: Sen. Grassley probes televangelists' finances

This is an interesting article that I thought was worth reflecting on. There does come a point when Caesar, though granted for his own reasons, casts an investigative eye at Christians. If we do not keep our house in order, then we must expect God to make use of the civil authority to chastise us even as He used Babylon to chasten did Israel. We cannot afford to say, as some Christian groups have said, that the morality of our leaders—clerical or lay—is a purely internal matter. Like it or not, Christians are called to be the "light of the world" and "a city on a hill." It is to us, our good works and our love for one another, that is meant to shine plainly so that—seeing us and the character and integrity of our lives—the world might come to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord.

This does not mean that there is no privacy in the Christian life. But our respect for privacy and especially the dignity of the human person who, having fallen struggles to rise from sin, is not meant to excuse wrong doing. The Quaker community was so effective in the fight against slavery in Ante-Bellum America because it first made sure that no Quaker owned slaves. Rightly the world expects Christians to hold to the moral code we preach. Our failure to do so undermines not only our witness to the Gospel, it endangers our salvation.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

The Associated Press. Acting on tips about preachers who ride in Rolls Royces and have purportedly paid $30,000 for a conference table, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee said Tuesday he's investigating the finances of six well-known TV ministers.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said those under scrutiny include faith healer Benny Hinn, Georgia megachurch pastor Creflo Dollar and one of the nation's best known female preachers, Joyce Meyer.

Grassley sent letters to the half-dozen Christian media ministries earlier this week requesting answers by Dec. 6 about their expenses, executive compensation and amenities, including use of fancy cars and private jets.

In a statement, Grassley said he was acting on complaints from the public and news coverage of the organizations.

"The allegations involve governing boards that aren't independent and allow generous salaries and housing allowances and amenities such as private jets and Rolls Royces," Grassley said.

Read more:
Sen. Grassley probes televangelists' finances

What Kids Don't Want From Church

From Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con:

Via Amy Welborn comes this terrific list of guidelines for youth ministry from Father Philip Powell, OP, who does campus ministry at the University of Dallas. It's a list specifically for Catholic college students, but there's lots here that all of us can learn from. A couple of weeks ago some of us young parents from our Orthodox parish were talking about youth ministry, and how we need to structure it. Obviously the needs of younger kids aren't going to be the same as that of college students. But Fr. Philip gives us a lot to think about.

To read the rest of Fr Philip click here: Kids These Days: What they don't want from the Church

And now, my comments on Crunchy Con:

As both an alum of the University of Dallas and an Orthodox priest I think that Fr Powell is right on track. Whether we are talking about Roman Catholic, Orthodox or mainline Protestant or Evangelical Christian kid, they need and want a substantive faith. When I arrived at UD in '78 I was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "conservative" Catholic. Actually I grew up in a "lapsed Catholic" family. What I encountered at UD was a view of Catholicism that I never even suspected existed. The combination of intellectual rigor and tangible piety has stayed with me all these years and has been a great asset to me as an Orthodox priest.

It is not a question of liberal vs. conservative, but insubstantial vs substantive. If, as Fr Powell suggests, there was a time when insubstantial & conservative converged in the Catholic Church that is no longer necessarily the case. What I think especially the Orthodox Church can learn from Fr Powell and Catholic institutions like UD is the need to raise our own intellectual standards and examine not only what we believe, but how we live as Orthodox Christians. We must also not be afraid of allowing our faith to illumine for us the larger world around us. For the most part Orthodox Christians--whether cradle or convert--seem happy to leave their faith in Church.

After 200+ years in America the Orthodox Church has not produced a Dorthy Day, a Martin Luther King, Jr, or a Billy Graham, to say nothing of an academic institution like the University of Dallas, a Thomas Aquinas College, a Grove City College or a Hillsdale College. If we wish to keep our young people we must, as Fr Powell suggests, be courageous and sacrificially generous in our efforts to help them pour their lives out for Christ.

As in the rest of the spiritual life, we only live by dying, we only receive by giving away--I have seen it again and again, it is only when I help young people discern and live out their unique vocation as Orthodox Christians that I have any hope of keeping them in the Church. Too often our work with youth reflect not a desire to help them be faithful to Christ's call for their lives but rather the dubious goal of holding them to our (my) standards for them.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

God Save Us From "Good Intentions"

The following is a guest post from, Chrys, one of the more frequent commentators on this blog. Chrys sent me the original privately a while ago and I encouraged him to allow me to post it here--he has finally agreed!

You may or may not agree with everything that he says, though I happen to be fundamental agreement with his analysis. As always, I would welcome your comments and/or observations. Also if anyone would like to offer a guest post, I would be edger to consider what you have to say for inclusion here.

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

One of this year’s Greek Orthodox Sunday School themes is “Saving the Earth.”

It is important to recognize that stewardship is a critical element of our discipleship. In fact, I would suggest that “gardening” is actually a central motif in the Bible, emblematic of our calling to serve God in the cultivation of and care for the earth. (Indeed, it may be for this reason that Jesus is mistaken for the gardener after His resurrection.)

Even so, the focus is egregiously misplaced. I would argue that – especially for children – it is more important to focus on those basic resources that they MUST always use (their time, energies and bodies) rather than those that they can not yet (and may never directly) use – “the earth’s resources.”

Worse, by reducing stewardship to "saving the earth" – especially in this political climate and for those who can have little to do with the actual use of it – the Church ignores the foundational components of true stewardship in the service of what strikes me as little more than propaganda.

This strikes a particularly sore point with me. It appears to be the case of the Church once again abandoning its critical role in the transfiguration of the Universe (!) for the sake of a misbegotten, self-congratulatory and all-too-passing trend. Misplaced priorities are to expected from the confused, the insecure and the foolish -- but not from the Church, which has been given a truly cosmic role to play.

Beyond the abandonment of the ultimate for the transitory, the clergy commit other errors. This is inevitable whenever anyone speaks outside of their area of expertise – a folly apparently not reserved to Hollywood. In this case, those who are (rarely) schooled in the environmental sciences and lacking an informed, critical appreciation of the problem merely assuming the popular and oh-so-political posture on the nature and causes of the issue. Regarding Climate Change, for instance, the science is far from settled; the models, methods and equipment are all still inadequate to the complexity of the task. At best, we see as through a glass darkly. Since a meaningful solution depends upon an accurate diagnosis of the problem, it is presumptuous (at best) to begin to apply the certitudes of moral suasion to such tentative concerns.

Worse by far are the economic admonishments. While most of our understanding of the environment may not exceed popular assumptions, ignorance of simple economics is difficult to excuse. Take, for instance, the oft-repeated belief that America “consumes” a disproportionate share of the earth’s resources. While this is true, it is true in the same sense that Satan was correct in his quotation of Scripture to Jesus in the desert. It is a conveniently truncated fact bereft of the context that reveals its meaning. America "consumes" resources . . . in order to “produce” a disproportionate share of the world’s wealth. We aren’t just “eating” resources, we are using them to “make” something of value.

If our enlightened anointed would even briefly review history, they would discover that free exchange within a reasonably well-regulated market has produced a boon to mankind - quite apart from the intentions of the participants. (This, by the way, is the real meaning of Adam Smith's "invisible hand.") It was Ford who made transportation available to the masses – which allowed city streets to be rid of the stench and filth left by that other popular form of transportation: horses. It was Rockefeller and what became Standard Oil that made cheap oil available so the poor could affordably heat their homes. Not only did this prevent the poor from freezing, but it also saved the whales from extinction since it was their oil that had been the primary source of heat prior to kerosene. It was Edison and what became General Electric that made reliable, safe lighting available to all. It was Carnegie and what became U.S. Steel that made that remarkably strong and flexible material cheap enough to build the buildings in which we worked. The wealth of these “robber barons” was not bequeathed through the luck of happy parentage – it was earned by providing exceptional value to so many people.

Consider our tribal ancestors. As P.J. O’Rourke noted, the basket maker could not kill his meat very well with his baskets. The spear maker could not carry his meat well with his spears. When each is free to exchange what he has for something he values more, ALL are made richer, made more productive and are thus better able to meet his families' needs. It is not a zero-sum game. By rewarding those who offer the greatest value to their neighbors – that is, by blessing their neighbors in the way the neighbors actually need and want, all are blessed. In this way the market actually creates wealth. By structuring the world in such a way that man can bless himself and his family only by blessing his neighbor, God has devised the perfect system to teach even those with dim moral lights how they should behave. Adam Smith saw this in 1776. Incredibly enough, most of our “educated” leaders remain blind to it still.

Indeed, our moral betters would tell us that this is not so because it is not perfectly so. (The requirement of perfection is a curious standard since perfection can be found nowhere; it does, however, permit the user to universally "justify" his intervention.) They tell us that it is they who care more for the earth and its limited resources. Self-regard aside, what have they actually done? Do they, in fact, care more? I would argue that they have confused intentions with effects. In its ultimate form, the result is self-flattery bordering on delusion.

For example, who REALLY cares more about the state of the world’s forests - the academics or the paper mills? If all the trees are destroyed, the mills are out of work. Not surprisingly the Paper Companies pour millions into the cultivation and maintenance of the forests. By focus and practice, they are the real experts. Do they have an agenda? Certainly: the perpetual profitability of their business. Does the "disinterested" academic have agenda? Certainly: the identification of a need or crisis or novel understanding upon which to justify and built his career. The academic, who has no "skin in the game," may be completely wrong, but his career will be over and done before the damage is felt. The company, on the other hand, is designed to exist beyond that and must live with the consequences. The livelihoods of all involved in the company depend upon a healthy outcome.

We see this everyday on the “street” level. The neighborhoods that are well cared for are privately owned. If you want to see wanton destruction of property, visit a government housing project or a college dorm. If one receives no meaningful value from the improvement of a thing or incurs no meaningful cost to maintain it, there is little incentive to expend the energy needed to be "care-full" with it. Thomas Merton pointed to the monastery bicycle as the perfect example of “un-invested” neglect.

Yet enlightened elite flatter themselves for their good intentions while judging harshly others whose motives may not match their own. Experience exposes the emptiness of this posture. Whenever people become sufficiently concerned about their environment that they are willing to actually pay for it, there are myriad enterprises willing and able to use their ingenuity to create solutions – whether that involves “green” buildings, fuel-efficient planes (Boeing), reclaiming a strip mine or simply reclaiming a front lawn. Creative, entrepreneurial energies do far, far more to provide real, meaningful solutions than the best intentions of the next “live aid” concert with its massive carbon footprint.

On a purely practical level, then, I am irritated by clergy who major in motives but ignore effects. (Somehow I do not think this would pass muster when it comes time to raise money to pay the Church’s bills.) I am troubled by clergy who focus on matters for which they are ill-equipped. But the offense that is especially egregious arises when these same clergy abandon their great gift and high calling to grasp at momentary "relevance." For IF I am a Christian pastor, then I should know that the REAL cause of global destruction is not a particular market, economic system or cultural phenomenon. I should know that the REAL solution is not a series of “green” behaviors. As simply a “mere” Christian, I should know that the REAL cause of environmental distress is . . . sin. If I claim any theological insight into life at all, I should understand that the "root cause" of these recurring concerns (whatever the form of the crisis “du jour”) is really sin. It astounds me that those who would claim the right to lead the faithful could be unaware of this – all the more so since it takes real effort to miss (or avoid) what Scripture clearly says:

"For the creation was subjected to futility—not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it—in the hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of God's children. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together with labor pains until now. And not only that, but we ourselves who have the Spirit as the first fruits —we also groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies." (Romans 8:20-23)

Had they taken their calling as Christians more seriously, our "leaders" would see that the real cause of the “corruption” of the earth lies in sin and the real solution depends upon holiness – which is, in fact, (or so I am told) within their proper area of expertise!

If only more Christians – especially clergy – would simply be more “Christian” in their analysis of issues of the moment. By stooping to popular political agendas (for which they are very poorly qualified), by trying to be “relevant,” they trade their glorious inheritance for a mess of pottage. Since, as Oscar Wilde put it, they “can resist everything except temptation,” it appears that my children may learn how to "save the earth" but not themselves. I would rather that they learn how to save themselves and then, as St. Seraphim said, thousands around them will be saved. Indeed, the cosmos will be saved if St. Maximos is correct. Presumably this includes the earth.

Some Greek Orthodox links on the environment:

Our Faith: Environment

Ecological activities of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

From Cranmer: Iraq and the genocide of Assyrian Christians

From the blog by Archbishop Cranmer:

It is perhaps one of the great ironies of the whole Iraq debacle that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair - two of the most avowedly Christian leaders of recent times – should have created a situation which has not only destabilised the entire region, but imperils the very existence of Assyrian Christians. In the liberation of the majority Shi’ia from their Sunni oppressors, the Christians, who once lived and worshipped freely under the regime of Saddam Hussain, now face genocide in their own country at the hands of determined Islamist fanatics. The Rev Canon Andrew White, vicar of the 1300-strong St George’s Anglican Church in Baghdad, recently spoke in Washington, and said: “The situation is more than desperate. The Coalition has failed the Christians. We have done nothing to support the Christian community or the increased Christian suffering.”

To read more: Iraq and the genocide of Assyrian Christians.

The Dormition of our Most Holy Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary

Apolytikion in the First Tone

In birth, you preserved your virginity; in death, you did not abandon the world, O Theotokos. As mother of life, you departed to the source of life, delivering our souls from death by your intercessions.

Kontakion in the Second Tone

Neither the grave nor death could contain the Theotokos, the unshakable hope, ever vigilant in intercession and protection. As Mother of life, He who dwelt in the ever-virginal womb transposed her to life.

Reading:

Concerning the Dormition of the Theotokos, this is what the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers. When the time drew nigh that our Savior was well-pleased to take His Mother to Himself, He declared unto her through an Angel that three days hence, He would translate her from this temporal life to eternity and bliss. On hearing this, she went up with haste to the Mount of Olives, where she prayed continuously. Giving thanks to God, she returned to her house and prepared whatever was necessary for her burial. While these things were taking place, clouds caught up the Apostles from the ends of the earth, where each one happened to be preaching, and brought them at once to the house of the Mother of God, who informed them of the cause of their sudden gathering. As a mother, she consoled them in their affliction as was meet, and then raised her hands to Heaven and prayed for the peace of the world. She blessed the Apostles, and, reclining upon her bed with seemliness, gave up her all-holy spirit into the hands of her Son and God.

With reverence and many lights, and chanting burial hymns, the Apostles took up that God-receiving body and brought it to the sepulchre, while the Angels from Heaven chanted with them, and sent forth her who is higher than the Cherubim. But one Jew, moved by malice, audaciously stretched forth his hand upon the bed and immediately received from divine judgment the wages of his audacity. Those daring hands were severed by an invisible blow. But when he repented and asked forgiveness, his hands were restored. When they had reached the place called Gethsemane, they buried there with honor the all-immaculate body of the Theotokos, which was the source of Life. But on the third day after the burial, when they were eating together, and raised up the artos (bread) in Jesus' Name, as was their custom, the Theotokos appeared in the air, saying "Rejoice" to them. From this they learned concerning the bodily translation of the Theotokos into the Heavens.

These things has the Church received from the traditions of the Fathers, who have composed many hymns out of reverence, to the glory of the Mother of our God (see Oct. 3 and 4).

Reading courtesy of Holy Transfiguration Monastery
Apolytikion courtesy of Narthex Press
Kontakion courtesy of Narthex Press
Icon courtesy of Theologic Systems

Would you like to receive the daily saints and feasts via email? Sign up here.