EDITOR’S NOTE (Nick Stamatakis) In this video, the well-versed lady passionately critiques recent developments within the GOA, emphasizing concerns over the potential erosion of the church’s traditional practices and values. Highlighting various incidents, such as the involvement of a New York rabbi in a service and the allowance of service dogs during liturgy, the speaker argues that these actions reflect a growing trend toward secularization and compromise of the Orthodox faith. Additionally, the speaker underscores the importance of maintaining distinct clergy appearances, aligning with Orthodox canons, and resisting the pressure to blend in with modern cultural norms. Ultimately, the video calls for a return to the church’s foundational beliefs and practices as a way to preserve its authenticity and strengthen its presence in the modern world.
====================
Thank you young lady for speaking out! I am in shock! What will the rest of you do? When will you stop compromising traditional Greek Orthodox Christianity?
Isn’t sad that the laity is “schooling” the clergy on what is expected of them?
This video speaks very loudly, indeed…
ΑΧΙΑ!!!!
I STRONGLY agree with all you’ve said! However, I would go even further! Let women AND men wear loose clothing in church, long sleeves. Women and girls cover their heads in church and when praying elsewhere. No shorts or miniskirts on men or women in church. No sleeveless blouses or dresses. No pants for women in church. Men stand on the right side of the church, with Christ, and women and little children on the Left, with the Panaghia. Older boys stand on the right with their fathers. No organs, not polyphonic choirs; only our chanters. And as said in the video: priests wear their raso at all times, except when bathing, swimming or sleeping. Priests in Greece and other older Orthodox countries wear their raso at all times, not only in church, but: doing yard or housework, shopping, etc. If they’re afraid of being mistaken for a Moslem, let ALL Greek priests wear a pectoral cross, as do all Russian priests. They could also stitch a red or white cross on their skoufo (hat).
NO PEWS in an Orthodox church! Only stasidia (stalls) on the sides and back of the church, for people who cannot stand due to age, pregnancy or disability. Let the healthy stand in God’s house!
I agree with you, Stephanos
This is how it is in Bulgaria were I live. I Attended liturgy this morning in village church with young priest in beard and uncut hair and only stasidia and byzantine choir .
Only point is I thought Greek church in USA had been beardless etc for years and organ etc. So not new? Although services
attended in Chicago,palos heights and bay ridge NY were traditional and priest bearded.
I do as well.
Stephanos,
I follow those rules myself and I see a few others following them, but we are a minority, 2-3%. I do things because that is what I did in many Russian and other Easter European Churches that I used to go to. But where I am going now it will absolutely won’t stick. Too many liberals!
This lady is 1000% SPOT ON. Every argument is absolutely correct, and I maintain that Archbishop Spyridon wanted to do exactly that: keep Orthodoxy in America ORTHODOX. Unfortunately, the “higher-ups” couldn’t get their way with Spyridon and they forced his resignation. That was a sad day in America when Spyridon was allowed to walk out our door.
This young lady seems to be sincere and I assume well coached in what to say. People forget that the chapter where St. Paul speaks about a women covering her head is the same chapter where he says it is shamefull for a man to have long hair, 1 Corinthians chapter 12. Beards, rassos and ponytails do make a faithful priest. The 2 most faithfull and inspirational priests I have known did not wear their rasso in public and did not have ponytails and long beards. I have read St. John Chrysostom’s book on the priesthood and he does not mention the clothing of a clergyman rather he focuses on the inner life of the clergyman. The qualifications for a clergyman are clearly stated in 1 Timothy and Titus and no where is clothing mentioned. Finally, our Lord Himself wore no distinctive garment. He blended in everyone else. Additionally, St Basil the great stated that a monk should wear no other color than white. Should this apply to all clergy or only monks.
We’ve had this discussion just a few days ago, where I pointed out that a priest walking into a public space with rasa causes people to “stop sinning” in the presence of “holiness” in Greek culture (and other cultures, too)…And that is both important, as well as by extension unjustifiable to eradicate by any hierarch (that’s the young lady’s point).
But you continue to ignore / defer / distract / deflect…
How did you figure that the young lady’s phrase “clergy must maintain a sober, distinct appearance…” is relevant to your statement “I have read St. John Chyrsostom’s book on priesthood and he does not mention the clothing of a clergyman…” You conveniently, intentionally, and selectively “deflect” from the young lady’s clear statement of “must maintain a sober, distinct appearance”… And this is a great example of why you perpetually open yourself to criticism that you exhibit a Protestant mindset with many of your responses…your own words are “self-condemning” …(Titus 3:10-11)
The color white was the color of burial back in the day. To the day the clergy wear the white sticharion beneath the amphia when they serve, as that ancient “remembrance of death”…Liturgical memory is strong, and even though society changed its view on what “the color of mourning is these days” (thus adapting the color later on), the priests still actually wear white beneath their amphia when they serve, preserving that old statement from St. John Chrysostom…so the flippant statement “a monk should wear no other color than white” today is not entirely accurate, because today’s society associates “white” with “the opposite of mourning”, and it would cause more spiritual confusion in broader society to maintain white than to migrate to “black”.. historically this is not an unjustifiable reason for the change in the color of monastic vestment, and you know that.
St. Paul also mentions the “order of Melchisedek”, when he talks about priests, doesn’t he? Do you understand what that means based on Orthodox Patristic tradition? It’s in the Book of Psalms, but also in Hebrews 7:3 where St. Paul explains: “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.”
So “RESEMBLING THE SON OF GOD” seems quite relevant here, for this discussion about priests, doesn’t it? Who was the Son of God, JK? What does Orthodox Tradition and witness say about his appearance when he walked upon the earth? Did he perhaps have a beard and long hair, or not? And as for “monks”, it is well known that the original “type” and “protector” of monastics is St. John the Forerunner, who lived alone in the Desert. Did he shave his beard and cut his hair in front of a mirror in the wilderness, too? Give us a break, dude!
It is not appropriate for Protestant rhetoric to be masked as “Orthodox perspective”, whether you or anyone else have been personally tainted by such propaganda on an individual level. A simple reference to what the Church Fathers have explained for each of these lines in the New Testament is the only thing that counts for the Orthodox community. When an individual can’t differentiate when St. Paul is speaking to a local community with local traditions (the Corinthians) for a specific purpose, vs. establishing general guidelines for the wider Church, it’s advisable for that person to consider reading Patristic commentary a bit more carefully (preferably in the original language to avoid “translation errors”) before making “self-condemning” public statements…
Correction 1 Corinthians 11 chapter.
Markos, again the same empty rhetoric. Whatever doesn’t fit your narrative is Protestant. I am not Protestant but I concede that you know Greek better than I do so you must be an authority on Orthodoxy.
That’s not how things work in this world, JK…the “authority on Orthodoxy” comes from the Patristic interpretations of Scripture, and not “misinterpretations” that you frequently cite. This isn’t about a “personal narrative”… it’s about a mindset. The current common mindset in North America has been influenced by the “sea of Protestantism” that surrounds it. Church leaders have become more political / secular than spiritual, adding those “influences” to the pile, too…The infiltration of our Church hierarchy and governance structure by secular-minded, spiritually weak and even corrupt men is the root cause of all this influence being allowed to permeate, and unfortunately – even into some key “translations” and “opinions” that you rely upon. The reliance of priest upon a “salary” turns them into “compromisers of Tradition” when they are bullied or blackmailed either by their own bishop, or by impious parish councils that treats them as an “indentured servant”. It’s easier to “go with the flow” than to “resist” changes to Tradition and Patristic teaching in N. America these days… the “mindset of compromise” and the resultant sermons and “teachings” that result from this “laxed and flexible” condition become the slippery slope of Apostasy / Schism / Heresy…criticism of this apostasy is not “empty rhetoric”.
Have you read the book “My Exodus from Roman Catholicism”? The Spanish monk that “escaped” Roman Catholicism to find Orthodoxy admits that when he read the Church Fathers in the monastery library in Spain, he quickly realized that the Pope was no longer part of the “Original Church” when comparing what he was reading to what they were “telling and teaching him”. A similar divergence in “narrative” has been emerging in GOARCH (and by extension within the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s “theological circles”) incrementally for at least 100 years, but more intensely since WW2…the divergence with and avoidance of centuries Patristic interpretation and teaching on many subjects is sad to watch… modern “theologians” pat themselves on the back and quote each other every day, instead of quoting the Saints and the Fathers…that’s sad and schismatically dangerous at the same time, especially when those quoted come from circles such as Fordham University. Should we not resist rhetoric like that in “public discourse”?
We can’t have a “tale of two Churches” within Orthodoxy…Scripture itself says “a house divided against itself cannot stand”…you can choose to ignore the criticism, or you can take it at face value and ask others…even take a trip to Greece to find knowledgeable people who speak English…try an extended stay on Mt. Athos, and test your “interpretations” against what they understand and preach there…iif you still believe those opinions to be “empty rhetoric” after that pilgrimage, then there is nothing else that can be done for you…
Mr Markos, I agree with many of your observations but I don’t think pharisaical fundamentalism is the answer. The church must return to it’s foundation and first love, Jesus Christ.
Incidentally, I have traveled to Greece many times and find it is as secular as the USA. I have conversed and confessed to Fr. Epiphanios, who you may know of by reputation. i found him knowledgeable, inspirational and insightful. He answered my questions and I found that my thoughts, attitude and posture were consistent with his. Though I hadn’t met Fr Emilianos or St Porphirios, I find my posture aligned with their thinking. Neither of them emphasize the things you emphasize. Possibly, your thinking needs realignment. Do you attend a GOA church or are you an outsider throwing stones.
Mr. JK,
The question is not about where I or anyone else attends services.
The question here is if I or others do attend services in a GOA church, or in a church in Greece, or a Romanian church, or a Serbian, Antiochian, etc church, WILL THE ORTHODOX EXPERIENCE BE THE SAME,, or will there be SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS AND VARIATIONS (Schismatic ones), such as the attendance of heretical clergy in the midst of the faithful (common prayer or even worse – cardinals censing the Orthodox), Rabbis “blessing” the Orthodox priest at “common prayer services”, “multiple spoons”, and even (apparently soon) the presence of dogs, etc (the list goes on)…that’s exactly what the young lady in the video of this specific article was focusing on. And everyone knows the answer to that question when comparing GOARCH to other jurisdictions these days…
And while pharisaical fundamentalism is not the answer, woke innovation and forced reform of centuries-old Tradition is a mindset worth “throwing stones at” for sure. Also, the “Fordhamite doctrine” of incrementally labeling many elements of 2000 years of patristic Tradition as “pharisaical fundamentalism” (or extremism) is quite reprehensible, too. That term should only be reserved for actual cases of pharisaic fundamentalism, and should never be expanded as a “convenient machination” to justify woke innovations introduced by hierarchs and “pseudo-theologians” of questionable spiritual reputation and faith.
The Scriptural phrase “Christ yesterday and today, and the same One unto the ages” is also very relevant to our Liturgical Traditions. Local Synods can’t make decisions that override Ecumenical Synod decisions just because they feel like it…Schism heresy and chaos will ensue.
As for Fr. Aimilianos and St. Porphyrios, ~90% of surviving records of what they said has not yet been translated into English, so it may not be easy for you to convincingly formulate a generalized statement based on accessing a ~10% sample of what has been translated….we’d have to take that discussion “one position at a time”…that’s a different discussion for another day…
As for Fr. Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (I believe that’s who you are referring to), he wrote an epic letter to Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965…I happen to applaud it, 60 years later:
https://agiospatrokosmas.gr/%cf%89%cf%86%ce%ad%ce%bb%ce%b9%ce%bc%ce%b1/h-mnhmeiodhs-epikairh-epistolh-tou-gerontos-epifaniou-theodoropoulou-ston-patriarxh-athinagora
The problem is, neither Athenagoras nor anyone else listened to Fr. Epiphanios, and things got even worse over time…And what do we see today? The current Phanariotes & Fordhamites praise Athenagoras instead of Fr. Epiphanios… Was Fr. Epiphanios also “throwing stones”? Is he also going to be labeled a “pharisaic fundamentalist” based on his 1965 letter?
Jk, I think you are missing the point. One should go very modestly dressed to church. I cringe when I see girls with skirts that barely cover their undergarments. When we are in church we should behave like we are in church, not in a club. This is just respect for God. I am disgusted that women wear lipstic and kiss the holy icons and then I have to put my lips on their lipstick in order to kiss the icons, they are literally full of lipstick and sometimes I look for a corner that is not covered in lipstick so I can find a clean little place. Come one, we are in Church. Dress like it and act like it and don’t look for reasons not to.
Sandy, I agree that one should go to church dressed modestly. However, what’s being promoted here is Orthodox legalism and fundamentalism. God is in the business of changing hearts not changing outward appearance. It was the pharisees who focused on outward observances.
JK – the major problem all “novelists” have, all those who do not care about “appearances” is the current huge wave of youth turning towards Faith and tradition. why are they attracted by Catholicism and even more from Orthodoxy? It is exactly these “appearances” of tradition… in essence they are seeking the roots of the faith and the watering down of traditional faith and practice – they can find these in Protestantism. Which basically is SECULARISM.
You perplex me. I have no idea what you are talking about.
JK, who do you think we should imitate? Christ, Virgin Mary and the saints or the world, in our appearance? You have the icons as examples to see how Christian saints dress. Did you see a man wearing a pair of shorts and a woman wearing a miniskirt and makeup in the icons? No? Ok well now you know how we should dress in Church. And the men in icons to have bears, I can’t think of a saint that does not. It is the bare minimum one can do. And you may think it does not matter but it does more than I can tell you in words. I touch my scarves on all the relics and miracle icons that I come in contact with at different Churches, so to me the scarf is very important, and I would feel out of place and proud without it. IF the women in the icons are covering the head, who am I not to? I do not cover my head outside the church, but inside the church I am in the presence of God and the angels, so I have to act like it. But my scarf has so much meaning to me that I would hate to go to church without it. It is becoming like an object that I can’t enter the church without because that is God’s space and out of respect for Him, I do bow my head when I enter and I don’t even look around at anyone, I bow my head and enter, no chit chatting during Liturgy, I stay quiet the whole time. Yes dropping the scarf is secularism, wearing makeup is secularism, we are bringing the world into church, we are imitating how the people dress in the world, in the church, so we are secularizing the church, rather than imitating the saints. I do very much prefer churches that are more traditional, my level of concentration is much deeper. The rest are losing their flavor and become watered down because of us. Even the services are shorter now, compared to before. What is this if not secularism? I asked the father about a service, I don’t remember which one. And I asked him how come is so short compared to other churches. He said people complain the service is too long. Well why not move the service on line and make it 5 minutes!?
In USSR clergy suffered abuse and much else refusing to shave and take of rason Such clergy who did saint surgeon bishop Luke banned from the altar
JK, who do you think we should imitate? Christ, Virgin Mary and the saints or the world, in our appearance? You have the icons as examples to see how Christian saints dress. Did you see a man wearing a pair of shorts and a woman wearing a miniskirt and makeup in the icons? No? Ok well now you know how we should dress in Church. And the men in icons to have bears, I can’t think of a saint that does not. It is the bare minimum one can do. And you may think it does not matter but it does more than I can tell you in words. I touch my scarves on all the relics and miracle icons that I come in contact with at different Churches, so to me the scarf is very important, and I would feel out of place and proud without it. IF the women in the icons are covering the head, who am I not to? I do not cover my head outside the church, but inside the church I am in the presence of God and the angels, so I have to act like it. But my scarf has so much meaning to me that I would hate to go to church without it. It is becoming like an object that I can’t enter the church without because that is God’s space and out of respect for Him, I do bow my head when I enter and I don’t even look around at anyone, I bow my head and enter, no chit chatting during Liturgy, I stay quiet the whole time. Yes dropping the scarf is secularism, wearing makeup is secularism, we are bringing the world into church, we are imitating how the people dress in the world, in the church, so we are secularizing the church, rather than imitating the saints. I do very much prefer churches that are more traditional, my level of concentration is much deeper. The rest are losing their flavor and become watered down because of us. Even the services are shorter now, compared to before. What is this if not secularism? I asked the father about a service, I don’t remember which one. And I asked him how come is so short compared to other churches. He said people complain the service is too long. Well why not move the service on line and make it 5 minutes!?
The problem is that without tradition we do not have the same Church. Those are the words of late Fr. Seraphim who converted from Protestantism. He understood it. Why can’t we? His words had radical effect on me because at one point I thought we should modernize the OC. But anyway, I wanted to say that the problem with changing things is that once you start there is no end in sight of how far to go. Like this man over here, pretending to be an orthodox priest.
This is a grave abatement from Orthodoxy that this OCU “cleric” did. Remember, they say that UOC is part of the Russian church but yet, this man, a OCU “cleric” is wearing the miter of a… Russian saint. I guess OCU is now part of the Russian Church? Of course he should not even wear the relics clothing, miter etc of any saint, but what makes his attitude even more bizarre is that the miter belongs to a russian church saint. We all remember the power of the clothing of St. Necktary had, healing the man in the hospital. These people are just insane.
https://spzh.eu/en/news/88314-in-lviv-ocu-cleric-holds-a-liturgy-wearing-st-john-of-kronstadts-miter
I once met a monk at the Russian monastery in Jordanville who was described as a “terror”. He was famous as the father of all hair-splitters! Subsequent to my meeting him, he explained that he was a former Roman Catholic who, having seen the results of Vatican 2 on that tradition, had turned his back on all that and become Orthodox – and he was determined to keep Orthodoxy from ever falling to the same forces that had created Vatican 2. As a former Catholic myself, I could only applaud him, and I keep him in mind whenever discussions such as these arise. Thank you to all who have called out the Fordhamites, snakes in the grass that they are! As for pharisaic practices, it’s adherence to tradition as well as Tradition that keeps us safe from what one Greek priest termed “bouzouki liturgies”, Catholic folk Masses. Do you really want bouzouki liturgies?! Because that’s what you’re risking.
Mrs. Mutton,
Exactly, the monk understood very well what change brings: A DIFFERENT CHURCH, that is precisely what happened with Vatican II. Many catholics hate it because it is not the same catholic church. Just like Fr. Seraphim of blessed memory said. I hear ROCOR is talking about canonizing him. I hope they do. He is not a fundamentalist. Neither am I. I was born orthodox and I will die orthodox and we don’t need a vatican II in our church. We are just orthodox and we try to follow our faith, unwatered and undiluted. I want to be in the same church as my grandparents and their grandparents.
Unfortunately, this monk is missing the mark. 1 Timothy 1:5 states, the goal of our faith is love, which comes from a pure heart, a good conscience and sincere faith. The essentials of our faith must not change but many practices have changed. The liturgy of St John Chrysostom has changed dramatically with many accretions. Do you know there were many other liturgies in the early church. In the liturgy of St James the clergy sit in the solea and the people receive the body of our Lord in their hands and drink directly from the chalice. This was an authentic practice in the early church. Things have changed. An authentic Orthodoxy is not fossilized. Again the essentials of our faith can not change.
JK, I think you are missing the mark, not the monk. Love can not exist without truth. Only misleading. To change Orthodoxy in the name of love is dishonest. We must bring people into the church and change them, not to change the church to fit the shortcomings of people. Yes, the liturgy changed but many of the prayers we still have today. And please do not compare the changes made by a holy man like St. John Chrysostom to the changes that you and other earthly people are suggesting. It is because people can’t take long services and it’s again, out of weakness, not out of some kind of virtue. Mt. Athos and many other places still practice long services. Maybe we should tremble, instead of finding excuses to make things even worse. And the reason for changing the way we receive holy communion has a very good explanation, it is to guard it because, well, it’s holy. Things were happening with it and people could easily drop it if they were not careful. I would rather have it in the care of the priest, not in my hand. Do you really want to be responsible? Let’s not play with holy things, especially Holy Communion that even the angels are not allowed to touch!