Kirill makes his choice.

And it's as gruesomely-caesaropapist as possible: 

Ukraine had to be punished because it allowed gay pride parades.

God help the people and faithful of Russia. 

And Rome: make Sviatoslav a Patriarch right now. And a Cardinal, too. 

[As to the latter, it's ludicrous that he is not one--and ideological. Being a young Benedict appointment is anathema to the pontiff.]

 

How about "our Vlad-loving Patriarch" instead?

The invaluable Pillar does excellent work today examining the impact of Putin's war of aggression on the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. The report can be found here.

As hinted at before here, there is more than one Orthodox Church in Ukraine. The largest is recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople and those in communion with him. The other is recognized by Kirill, who heads what is easily Orthodoxy's 800 pound gorilla. The demographic and power imbalance in the patriarchates is profound, and drives the schism between them.

Which, yes, started in 2018 because the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized one Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and Kirill the other.

But the attack on Ukraine has thrown the Russian-recognized one into turmoil. 

To the point where two Russian-recognized diocese have stopped recognizing the Russian Patriarch in the Divine Liturgy:

“The termination of the commemoration of the Primate of the Church, not because of doctrinal or canonical errors, or delusions, but because of discordance with certain political views and preferences, is a schism, for which anyone who commits it will answer before God, not only in the age to come, but also in the present,” Patriarch Kirill of Moscow wrote March 2 to an archbishop of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is governed by Kirill.

The statement came after Metropolitan Archbishop Evlogy of Sumy, a city in eastern Ukraine, instructed his priests Monday to discontinue prayers of communion with Kirill in the Divine Liturgy, or celebration of the Eucharist. 

Schism is the refusal of submission to the authority of a legitimate religious authority, or refusal of communion, or unity, within a church body.

Evlogy’s decision is understood to be a repudiation of Kirill’s leadership. It came after the Russian Orthodox patriarch issued prayers Sunday that seemed aimed at theologically justifying Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

But the Sumy Orthodox archbishop said in a statement March 2 that directing priests to stop praying liturgically for Kirill is not an act of schism. Evlogy wrote that he remains in communion with Kyiv Metropolitan Onufriy, leader of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Kirill’s jurisdiction. 

As with the various western Catholic forms of Mass, the Divine Liturgies of the East (Orthodox and Catholic) commemorate the servant of the Faithful. In the case of churches with patriarchs, it is "our Patriarch," sometimes with the prefix "our most blessed" or even "God-loving Patriarch."

So, to not recognize your servant-patriarch is a momentous decision. But one that makes sense in momentous times--like your nation being assaulted and your patriarch making justification noises for the assault. 

Hence my sardonic suggestion in the title. It increasingly fits the ecclesiastical situation, sadly.

And it will only get worse as the war rages on and Ukraine continues to be ground down. Unfortunately for those who support the Russian patriarch, it seems that he has no intention of changing direction. 

Which bodes ill for an internal revolt among the rest of the elites who support Putin and his offensive. They bought the ticket, and they are riding it all the way down.

It's easy to pray for Ukraine, and right to so do. But remember Russia in your prayers, too. The noble people of that land deserve better than the would-be tsar, kleptocrats and lickspittles plunging them all into ruin.

Putin and the Patriarch.

 I was harsh on Patriarch Kirill a few days ago, and I wondered if I was too harsh.

I have stated in other forums that confessional apologetics need to take a sabbatical during the latest War in Europe, and I have gone that route since my post below.

I still think my rhetorical choices were a bit over the top, but quod scripsi, scripsi. 

But not too harsh, as his dreadful homily last Sunday demonstrates:

It was pretty much that bad. A sardonic wag (not me, for once) conceded that such was fair, given that Christ admonished us to lash out at those who laugh at us when we attack someone else. 

And yet, one cannot deny that the Russian Patriarch is in a tight spot, as are all those who are beholden to Putin. Indeed, the reaction from Rome (which instinctively defers to the beholden Kirill) was a muted bleat until Monday, when Russia was finally condemned by the Secretary of State. And perhaps--just maybe--Kirill was and is doing something behind the scenes which reflects well upon him. Not at all improbable. Hopefully, such is happening.

In the meantime, the Moscow-recognized Orthodox hierarchy in Ukraine leapt out the gate with a condemnation of the attack and issued a call to defend the homeland.

And now they have doubled down, calling upon Kirill to intervene.

Will the man meet the hour? He has that rarest of things open to him--a second chance. He will not get a third.

 

Because the left lung should always know what the right lung is doing.

The schism within Orthodoxy has somehow gotten even uglier. 

In Orthodoxy, each patriarchate has authority over its own canonical territory, in which no other patriarchate can interfere, and Africa belongs by ancient tradition to the patriarchate of Alexandria.

But in Moscow they have broken with this very tradition, invading another’s camp, thereby doing to others what they have never tolerated for themselves. Last December 29 the synod of the Russian patriarchate established its own exarchate for Africa, with two dioceses: the first based in Cairo and with jurisdiction over the northern part of the continent, the second based in South Africa, for the southern part. The two dioceses have been supplied with 102 priests, who have switched from the patriarchate of Alexandria to obedience to Moscow.

The new exarchate has its headquarters not in Africa but in Moscow, and has been entrusted to Archbishop Leonid of Vladikavkaz, with the title of exarch of Africa.

The reaction from Alexandria was immediate. On December 30 Patriarch Theodore II expressed his “deepest sorrow at the synodal decision of the Russian Patriarchate to establish an Exarchate within the normal limits of the jurisdiction of the Ancient Church of Alexandria.” And he announced that the affront would be discussed at “an upcoming session of the Synod of the Patriarchate” at which the “relevant decisions will be taken”: that is, at the session already convened on January 10 in order to proceed also with the appointment of the successor of the deceased metropolitan of Kampala and all Uganda, Jonah Lwanga, a personality of prestige and of exemplary spirituality, an African pillar of the Alexandrian patriarchate.

 Yikes. Just...yikes.

 

I like this icon.

Allegory of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Tree of Life by Father Andrew Tregubov.

You can click to embiggen.


For the curious, it is cropped from the cover of this book. See also Rev. 22:1-2.

"The Church opted for the poor, and the poor opted for the Evangelicals."

An interesting article here, regarding a little-known "Catacomb Pact" of bishops following the Second Vatican Council:

On the evening of Nov. 16, 1965, quietly alerted to the event by word-of-mouth, some 40 Roman Catholic bishops made their way to celebrate Mass in an ancient, underground basilica in the Catacombs of Domitilla on the outskirts of the Eternal City.

Both the place, and the timing, of the liturgy had a profound resonance: The church marked the spot where tradition said two Roman soldiers were executed for converting to Christianity. And beneath the feet of the bishops, and extending through more than 10 miles of tunnels, were the tombs of more than 100,000 Christians from the earliest centuries of the church.

In addition, the Mass was celebrated shortly before the end of the Second Vatican Council, the historic gathering of all the world’s bishops that over three years set the church on the path of reform and an unprecedented engagement with the modern world — launching dialogue with other Christians and other religions, endorsing religious freedom and moving the Mass from Latin to the vernacular, among other things.

But another concern among many of the 2,200 churchmen at Vatican II was to truly make Catholicism a “church of the poor,” as Pope John XXIII put it shortly before convening the council. The bishops who gathered for Mass at the catacombs that November evening were devoted to seeing that commitment become a reality.

So as the liturgy concluded in the dim light of the vaulted fourth-century chamber, each of the prelates came up to the altar and affixed his name to a brief but passionate manifesto that pledged them all to “try to live according to the ordinary manner of our people in all that concerns housing, food, means of transport, and related matters.”

The signatories vowed to renounce personal possessions, fancy vestments and “names and titles that express prominence and power,” and they said they would make advocating for the poor and powerless the focus of their ministry.

In all this, they said, “we will seek collaborators in ministry so that we can be animators according to the Spirit rather than dominators according to the world; we will try to make ourselves as humanly present and welcoming as possible; and we will show ourselves to be open to all, no matter what their beliefs.”
The document would become known as the Pact of the Catacombs, and the signers hoped it would mark a turning point in church history.

Instead, the Pact of the Catacombs disappeared, for all intents and purposes.

It is barely mentioned the extensive histories of Vatican II, and while copies of the text are in circulation, no one knows what happened to the original document. In addition, the exact number and names of the original signers is in dispute, though it is believed that only one still survives: Luigi Bettazzi, nearly 92 years old now, bishop emeritus of the Italian diocese of Ivrea.

* * *
But perhaps nothing has revived and legitimated the Pact of the Catacombs as much as the surprise election, in March 2013, of Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio — Pope Francis.
While never citing the Catacombs Pact specifically, Francis has evoked its language and principles, telling journalists within days of his election that he wished for a “poor church, for the poor,” and from the start shunning the finery and perks of his office, preferring to live in the Vatican guesthouse rather than the apostolic palace. He stressed that all bishops should also live simply and humbly, and the pontiff has continually exhorted pastors to “have the smell of the sheep,” staying close to those most in need and being welcoming and inclusive at every turn.

“His program is to a high degree what the Catacomb Pact was,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, a retired German theologian who is close to the pope, said in an interview earlier this year at his apartment next to the Vatican.

* * *“With Pope Francis, you cannot ignore the Catacomb Pact,” agreed Massimo Faggioli, a professor of church history at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn. “It’s a key to understanding him, so it’s no mystery that it has come back to us today.”

But why did the Pact of the Catacombs disappear in the first place?

In reality it didn’t, at least for the church in Latin America.

Now, the text of the "Pact" is OK, as far as it goes. But, as with much of the Vatican II era, the anthropocentric focus pulses up from the pages. It is what it does not say that is most telling. Salvation--preaching Christ crucified--doesn't enter into it.

As the author points out, the message at its heart is economic, material. It focuses on new economic and social structures, legislative work and addressing poverty. Good work--necessary, even. But not remotely sufficient. Oh, and they want to dump the vestments, too. Presumably, that will help them in persuading others to adopt the rest of their social program. And a social program it is. Hence the problem.

Finally, if it took root most firmly in Latin America...then how's that working out for the Church?

Erm, uhhhh... .

While there is much talk about their political meddling and impact, most Evangelicals appear to succeed because they usually preach a purely spiritual message. Henrique Mafra Caldeira de Andrada, head of the Protestant program at Rio's Institute of Religious Studies, thinks Catholic advocates of the social gospel failed to realize that "these people were hungry for more than just food. The Evangelicals met the peoples' emotional and spiritual needs better." Or, as Brazil's top Baptist, the Rev. Nilson Fanini, puts the paradox, "The Catholic Church opted for the poor, but the poor opted for the Evangelicals.

Not all that promising, so far. Even the expert John Allen quotes here admits the problem, at least in part, noting that the Latin poor were not all that impressed.

Some Catholics say liberation theology "politicized" the church and drove the middle and upper classes into Protestantism.

There may be some truth in that, but it has to be qualified. [In the 1950s], the Catholic Church recognized that it was losing both to Protestantism and to Communism. The working class and the young both seemed more attracted to Marxism than to the church. The bishops asked for help from abroad. In Peru, they went to the United States and asked for missionary priests as a kind of "tithe." The idea was to save people from Communism. Foreign missionaries were sent to work with the poorest of the poor, and they discovered that the problem was not Communism but rather that the church was part of oppressive structures in society. The bishops realigned themselves with the poor. In some forms, this choice became highly politicized, and they forgot about the spiritual dimension -- that is, people need a spiritual experience from the church, not just political guidance. This produced the popular saying that the Catholic Church opted for the poor, and the poor opted for the Pentecostals!

But, who knows? Maybe this time it will work.

The Old Believers intrigue me.

Boyaryna Morozova by Vasily Surikov (1884-1887), depicting

the martyrdom of Feodosia Morozova. Click to enlarge.

The Russian Old Believers arose out of the "modernizing" reforms of the Moscow Patriarch Nikon in the 17th Century. Refusing to buckle despite often ferocious persecution, they still exist today, albeit in a range of observance which runs from a hierarchy with seven sacraments to groups that deny there are any sacraments other than baptism. There are some in Michigan, and one of my wife's students was an Old Believer.

Say whatever else you will, the Old Believers had courage to spare, and as a result, they're still here. 

Needless to say, I'm interested in books about them, so recommendations are more than welcome...

Right now, my Much Better Half is doing this:

 

Martyrdom.

An artist named Nikola Saric' painted this, and explained that it was on display in Germany:

It is my honour that Bishop Damian of the Coptic Orthodox Monastery Brenkhausen invited me to present my paintings for some weeks. From today, there you can view my recent works: the Parables cycle and this icon of Holy Martyrs of Libya (21 Christians killed by IS terrorists). First visitors were 150 refugees who were invited by the monastery for that afternoon.

 

Inclusivity!

Behold the future, if "progress" continues its jackbooted march:

State-funded university boots Asian Christian group off campus. The crime? Its charter doesn't allow for non-Christians.

Last December, members of Asian InterVarsity Christian Fellowship were summoned before university officials who told them there was an issue with the section of their club constitution related to leadership. In order for students to be InterVarsity leaders, they must sign a statement of faith, but the university said that requirement violated its nondiscrimination policy. InterVarsity member Sara Chang said the group was given the option of submitting a revised constitution, but she and the other students decided to stand firm in their faith. As a result, the university de-recognized the group -- forcing them to relocate off campus.

While I root for Michigan football, I wouldn't shed a tear if the LSA complex was turned into a strip mall. Or even a strip club.

The U of M responded, indicating that the institution would be fine with a Christian group whose charter mirrored the beliefs of this great guy:

Thanks.

I appreciate the kind words and commentary on the post immediately to the south. And, yes, love you too, brother.

I'll have more to say when I have time and energy. We just found out our ATM number was swiped. No money was lost, thank God, but it's still a pain in the tuchus for such things as, say, auto-debiting. Also, we have friends in need of prayer for a child (I need to be vague), so storm heaven or keep them in your thoughts, as is your wont.

For the curious, and a happier bit of news, I've broken 1000 entries on LibraryThing. A neat feature is the Legacy Library function, which shows which books you share with famous people. Walker Percy and I get along reasonably well, sharing even very obscure titles.

The last days of Nick Charles.

If you aren't into sports, or weren't in the 1990s, you probably don't remember Nick Charles. Along with Fred Hickman, Charles was the anchor of CNN's Sports Tonight broadcast at 11pm. It was must-watch. Knowledgable, witty and with a great chemistry between the anchors, it beat the snot out of ESPN's 11pm broadcast in both quality and ratings. Alas, CNN jettisoned sports coverage in 2001 and Charles moved on to boxing, which I've never followed.

It was a shock to learn Charles is dying of bladder cancer. But he's going out with strength, dignity and Christian hope. And an honest account of his failings.

Read it all. He has a list of people he'd like to meet after death. For my part, I hope to meet Charles on the other side.

A disturbing story.

A more accurate description would be "one evangelical," because the case for Mr. Lively's foreknowledge of the scope of the law looks pretty solid.

Any advocacy of the death penalty for homosexuals is horrific. It should go without saying, you'd think.

The "Advent Conspiracy."

An idea whose time is long, long overdue:

But to a growing group of Christians, this focus on the commercial aspect of Christmas is itself the greatest threat to one of Christianity's holiest days. "It's the shopping, the going into debt, the worrying that if I don't spend enough money, someone will think I don't love them," says Portland pastor Rick McKinley. "Christians get all bent out of shape over the fact that someone didn't say 'Merry Christmas' when I walked into the store. But why are we expecting the store to tell our story? That's just ridiculous."

McKinley is one of the leaders of an effort to do away with the frenzied activity and extravagant gift-giving of a commercial Christmas. Through a savvy viral video and marketing effort, the so-called Advent Conspiracy movement has exploded. Hundreds of churches on four continents and in at least 17 countries have signed up to participate. The Advent Conspiracy video has been viewed more than a million times on YouTube and the movement boasts nearly 45,000 fans on Facebook. Baseball superstar Albert Pujols is a supporter - he spoke at a church event in St. Louis to endorse the effort.

In the past four years, Advent Conspiracy churches have donated millions of dollars to dig wells in developing countries through Living Water International and other organizations. McKinley likes to point out that a fraction of the money Americans spend at retailers in the month of December could supply the entire world with clean water. If more Christians changed how they thought about giving at Christmas, he argues, the holiday could be transformative in a religious and practical sense.

I'm happy to say the Christmas shopping is almost done, and we didn't overdo it this year. The kids should be happy, and not drowned in stuff, and we didn't develop a case of homicidal fury trying to be good consumer drones.

Win-win!

Thank you.

To God for the rebirth in Christ of our youngest on the Feast of Christ the King. Elizabeth accepted the Sacrament of Baptism with demure, if puzzled, grace. Thanks also to Shelly and CM for standing witness to this blessed event.

Elizabeth is doing well, inflating as we speak. She's on the brink of smiling, too, and is even jabbering slightly. I'm not surprised as to the latter--she has to start early, otherwise she'll never get a word in.

Thank you for letting me borrow the Sponger for a while.

The Rev. John Shelby Spong simply couldn't care less about the Catholic provision for the Anglicans.

Which is why he wrote 400 words about it and called people who disagree with his secular hard leftist worldview segregationists and whatnot.

Both of these church leaders seem to me to be lost in the fog of antiquity. For that reason it matters little to me or to most of the world that they continue to play their ecclesiastical kindergarten games. I am quite simply not interested in this debate.

Untruer words were never spoken. *Sure* you don't care, John. I mean, *everyone* cranks out 400 words about something they could care less about, flinging the schoolyard insults all the while.

Don't worry, though--I have every confidence you'll be called for comment when the Episcopalians consecrate a Playstation as Bishop. Then you can wax flatulent about how the "truly enlightened" jettisoned such "obsolete" notions as "organicentrism" *ages* ago...

Two barrels, one report.

Fr. Philip Powell, as is his inimitable Dominican habit (rimshot!), notes something significant about the announcement that Anglicans are getting a glidepath to entry into the Church:

That belly churning howl you heard last night in the US was the collective wailing of the English/Welsh Catholic bishops as Papa Benny ground their lib noses under his bright red shoes. What a satisfying crunch that was, is, and will be forever and forever. Amen.

That is the flip side, and strikes me as the unspoken, and deliberate, second impact from this announcement--namely, a boot to the collective backside of the British Catholic episcopate. As bad as things can be in the U.S., they have been immeasurably worse in England and Wales since the closing of the Second Vatican Council. Imagine an episcopate of Mahonys and Weaklands from Land's End to the River Tweed, and that's pretty much Catholic Britain, with a handful of exceptions. It would take decades of patient episcopal replacement to change the conditions on the ground there. Unless, of course, you were able to do something like inject a brand new ecclesial structure into the mix, independent of the local bishops, along with tens of thousands of newly-minted Catholics with zero patience for bureaucratic prog-speak.

That might tilt the playing field in a landslide hurry.

Under the circumstances, it seems likely to have been goal 1b all along.

Just my tuppence.

We have it good here.

"We" as in Christians. Not that the things I gripe about are irrelevant, but they are pretty much all less life-and-death than our Christian sisters and brothers around the world are facing.

Consider the brave witness of converts out of Islam. Try watching this without having your heart rent.

Please note that it is women like Sana that upper class twits in Britain are perfectly content to leave to the care and consideration of sharia courts.

Then pray.

Thanks to Lydia at What's Wrong With The World for the link.

The Inquisitron isn't working, honest.

I knew the blogpoll would be disproportionately Catholic.

I didn't realize it would look like a conclave.

I have no idea who you are when you vote--that's the truth.

Really, I'm not coming after you with the Poperizer (Now With 50% More Guilt!) if you don't ID yourself as a mackerel snapper. At least not right away.

Odd, really. I guess I am speaking into an echo chamber?

"Make sure you're not bashing Muslims. Never say Muslims are evil. They're just like you and me."

So speaks Jay Smith, an English Christian who routinely debates Muslims in Hyde Park and elsewhere.

Western seminaries taught Smith "friendship evangelism" as the primary way to share Christ with Muslims. Nothing should offend. Never point out contradictions, inconsistencies, or historical inaccuracies in another person's religious beliefs. Everything aims to convert. Judge results by the number of conversions.

Smith decided to take an alternate approach:

Defend historic, orthodox Christianity.

Answer untruths that Islam proclaims about the Bible, Jesus, and Christians.

Hold Islam itself accountable for the actions of its followers.

"We have to start taking Christ back to his Mediterranean roots," says Smith. "True love confronts friends when they go wrong. Paul certainly argued. Jesus certainly argued. That's the kind of love Muslims need to hear.

"Propositional truth confronts," he argues, in fundamentalist fashion. "If there's not a reaction, we're not preaching the gospel."

In most Muslim-Christian dialogue, Smith believes Christians typically concede on points of orthodox doctrine to make the faith palatable to Muslims. Smith asks: Why should Muslims respect any Christian who distances himself from what he claims to believe?

Read the whole thing.

Interesting change.

No pun intended.

Sheepcat sends (OK--*sent* weeks ago) word that Exodus, the controversial "ex-gay" movement, is trying a new but faithful (think Courage) approach on same-sex attraction issues.

More light, less heat. Sounds good!