An Archbishop in a Pagan Temple

First 2 canons from Synod of Antioch, the last 2 canons from the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

As I said before, the message, especially in this country, is that Orthodoxy is just another way of getting to God. Not the only, just another. Part of the cafeteria spirituality of our culture. The fruit of the ecumenical movement if you ask me. It also sows confusion among the faithful. After all, if the Archbishop can do it, so can I. I actually know of people who proudly state that some Sundays they go to the Roman Catholic Church (and receive communion), and some Sundays they come to ours (and receive communion). After all, we\'re pretty much the same, right? I\'ll agree that Canons can be set aside at times, I just don\'t agree that this is such a time. I think the fruit of ecumenism has largely been bad.

I have to agree with you that its been bad most of the time, however, I must say ecumenical dialogue is a lot different than ecumenical prayer. If we do not talk, no one will know about us and what we believe. If we sell out and pray and say we\'re the same, then that\'s pretty bad and it gives off the image you were describing. Now, there are two possibilities with Archbishop Demetrius, he could have prayed with an ecumenical intent, or he simply said a prayer to bless the country and its president. After all we do mention the name of the President in our Liturgy (at the chalice during the great entrance and about 3-4 times in the petitions), what does that mean? Politics? perhaps. Or sincere prayer to help our country and its leader? I cannot judge, I am only trying to say we should wait and see what was his intent (selling out or sincere prayer in the presence of non-Orthodox). :)

In the presence of non-Orthodox we are called to, ever more so, BE Orthodox. How can we set an example for them, or in the case of a Priest, Bless them if we aren\'t following our own prescribed Orthodox practices, our Orthodox way? How can a sincere Blessing be made without invoking the name of our Lord? Worse yet, what do we call a Blessing that has been edited to remove name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Is this not, and forgive me if I\'m wrong, denying Christ as Peter did, out of fear? Does the need for political correctness somehow outweigh our witness of the Truth? At the very least, one would imagine that an Orthodox Blessing would involve the Sign of the Cross... even if it were made discretely.

Archbishop Demetrios read Matthew 22:36-40 - certainly a powerful text. I don\'t know what prayer or other activities he was part of. I don\'t frankly think its relevant. I\'m certainly not impugning his motives - that is not my place and I am fortunately not clairvoyant (and about as far removed from that as you can get). All I am speaking of are the message that I feel is transmitted by such actions, and the end result.

I have been blessed by many priests in this way: \\"God bless you\\"; the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was not uttered, or is this \\"un-orthodox\\"? I have heard of many saints who blessed others saying \\"May God save you\\" without hinting at Christ\'s name. Perhaps it would be better to utter His name should the circumstances prefer it, yet nothing is wrong with the other blessings. (P.S. and the greeks are well known at least here in Toronto for nothing making the sign of the cross for the blessing, on the other hand the russian priests here make such a huge cross; i don\'t know if it is different in the states, if they usually make the sign of the cross then your point is stronger than mine nikola)

Those are valid points, It\'s also good to know that Holy Scripture was read. Personally, in terms of the conventions at least, I don\'t think this was simply a case of saying \\"God Bless you\\" as opposed to \\"May the Blessings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be upon you\\" - there is a place for a Priest to say God Bless you and a place where the name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ MUST be mentioned with no excuses. Although I kept saying \\"No, this can\'t be so\\" to myself, in the end it was plain to see that this was outright political correctness. The name of our Lord was not mentioned in a single Prayer and the Sign of the Cross was completely absent - from the beginning to end he did not Bless himself or the people. I\'ve yet to hear of a Prayer service, in Toronto or otherwise, that does not begin with and end with the Sign of the Cross and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, \\"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen\\". I\'ll have to watch video of the latter prayers but I am at least relieved that the Holy Gospel was read. Was the Sign of the Cross made before reading Scripture, was Jesus\'s name mentioned?

You also make good points and I wish there would be further clarification on this matter (are the people who lead the prayers barred from mentioning the name of God and if so, would it be wise to do so [certainly in this case it would but what can I say] or is it done by free choice?) question of the century.

If His Eminence has erred, then according to the established order in the Church, he should be judged by his peers, the bishops. If he has failed in something or acted willfully in contravention of the holy canons, he will have to give an account, as shall we all for all our sins, from the greatest to the least, at the Dread Judgement. One of those sins for which we may have to give account is sitting in judgement on the clergy, a very terrible crime, since they have been given by God the grace of the holy priesthood, which by God\'s mercy provides the holy sacraments, without which we would be cut off from life and salvation. While there is plenty of scandalous behavior one can report and discuss that other people have shown, it would be far better for us to commend the clergy and ourselves and one another to God with our fervent prayer and to ponder how we have caused scandal to others--clergy, laity, saints and angels, even God, and repent of this. Truth be told, we have grieved the Holy Spirit far more with our sins than anyone has grieved us. Those who willfully act against truth will have a lot to fear in the end. For this, we ought to pity them and all men, and pray for them as we would for our own souls, that we all might be granted sincere repentance before the Lord calls us from this life. Scandals will always come in this world, and those who cause them will receive a recompense, but we cannot do anything about them but be true to what we know, fast and pray, and continue trying our best to live an Orthodox life, with God\'s help.

Well said Reader John... unfortunately this is still really troubling. God help us.

Well, I would say that this is one of the less troubling incidents. Such things happen every day on this level. At least we have only one case I know of in the world of an Orthodox Metropolitan walking into a Non Orthodox church and taking communion at the altar. This incident, involving Metropolitan Nicholae of Romania, has still not been resolved. As far as I know, he continues as a Metropolitan and makes no apology. Maybe someone has official news otherwise.

Here is some further information on the case of Metropolitan Nicholae: http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/holy-synod-of-the-romanian-patriarchate-condemns-metropolitan-who-took-uniate-communion-no-decision-as-to-punishment/ It may be best to disregard the editorial note and comments at the end, lest they infuriate anyone.

I am not an expert on Orthodox Canons. But, I can offer this opinion. We are called to be a shining city on a hill, and not a lamp covered up in the corner, to borrow some phrases from the Bible. Bringing the Light into the presence of others should not be considered a sin, I think.

subscribe...