A Novel Commandment? Coronavirus, Masks, and Access to Christ

“Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers” (Isaiah 58:3).

No one can add to the Creed. No one can invent novel commandments. A Christian’s right standing with and within the Church is established on the right confession of the Faith, consistent attendance at Services, and regular participation in the sacramental life of the Church. The truth contained in the Holy Scriptures and handed down in the Church is the established norm for Christian life. This is summed up in the Creed and the Ecumenical Councils, and is binding upon the conscience of the Christian. No one has any right to add to or subtract from the deposit of the faith that was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). In this light it is worthwhile therefore to heed St. Jude’s admonition to “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3).

Across the planet, our local parishes debate over issues of policy and policy-implementation. Regional bishops, local priests, and parish councils all struggle with a cacophony of concerns, and so they wrestle in their various overlapping spheres with unsettling questions concerning what is safe, what is necessary, what is wise, what is scientific, what is sanitary, what is loving, what is risk, what is authoritative, what is legal, what is essential, and so many other questions. And so bishops, priests, and laity, all seek to do what appears right in their eyes. The result? Chaos. For “every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). And even this smattering of considerations only scratches the surface, and so the saying becomes true of many of us, that “claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). One thing, however, which seems fundamental to the foregoing considerations, and goes beyond distinguishing between such things as churches and schools, churches and seminaries, churches and businesses, is the simple question: What is sin?

Citing the New Testament teaching found in 1 John 3:4, St. Philaret of Moscow in his Longer Catechism (Question 156) answers the question, "What is sin?" stating: "Sin is the transgression of the law."

What is the Law? In Question 65 of the same Catechism, St. Philaret states that the doctrine of charity is "In the Ten Commandments of the Law of God." Question 485 states that the means we have to know good works from bad are: "The inward law of God, or the witness of our conscience, and the outward law of God, or God's commandments." Questions 489-491 state in sum that the Ten Commandments are the chief and general commandments, and that they are binding upon all Christians.

Significantly, Question 572 asks of the extent of obedience to those in authority: "How ought we to act, if it fall out that our parents or governors require of us any thing contrary to the faith or to the law of God?" Himself quoting Acts 4:19 (and hearkening more generally to that section of verses 1-31), St. Philaret's answer is plain:

In that case we should say to them, as the Apostles said to the rulers of the Jews: Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye; and we should be ready, for the sake of the faith and the law of God, to endure the consequences, whatever they may be.

That being the case, it is clear that the law of God as summarily contained in the Ten Commandments, being moreover the essence of the Biblical notion of love, is explicit, established, and inviolable. Furthermore, the conscience of man, evidencing the inward law of God written on the heart of man by God (Question 486), acts inwardly as a judge to either accuse or else excuse him and so cannot be bound by that which is not of God. Of course, fallen man being subjected to ignorance, delusion, and passion, his conscience is not infallible and therefore must be conformed to God's law, in this case the explicit law of God as contained in the Ten Commandments, they being reinforced in their binding authority. In sum, the law of God understood in its objective outward and conformably inward senses cannot be superseded or suppressed by any law of man, the Apostles even refusing to cease preaching Christ but suffering rather to be jailed - as simultaneously a civil and a religious matter - than to cease publicly proclaiming Christ.

Having answered the question as to what is authoritative in the life of a Christian, it is essential to point out the divine Law's finality as an authority regarding the duty of man. For example, the Preacher declares, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). And not only is such obedience to the commandments the whole duty of man, God's holy law is also irreformable, as He even commands:

“Do not add a thing to what I command you nor subtract from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I am delivering to you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

And again:

“You must be careful to do everything I am commanding you. Do not add to it or subtract from it!” (Deuteronomy 12:32)

In other words, it is not possible to invent new commandments. Nor can new sins be invented. Only by a necessary consequence can novel circumstances cause the unchanging principles of God's commandments to be applied to novel circumstances.

With that in mind, it is worth asking: Is mask-wearing a new holy law? Or put another way, is not wearing a mask a novel sin? Can a Christian's conscience be bound therefore to mask-wearing? This is not a petty question, for some would appear to be attempting to erect a novel commandment, and bind men's consciences to something that is not found in God's commandments. Since sin means to transgress God's law, and sin alienates man from God, then identifying sin as sin is no trivial matter. For excommunication can only occur in reference to the transgression of God's law and to unrepented sin. One cannot be excommunicated for not sinning, but for sinning. As it currently stands, many are essentially adding to God's commandments, even adding to the Creed that must be confessed in order to be a Christian in right standing with God and consequently in the Church. As it stands, the path to the Chalice has a new obstacle: Masks. 

Now, there is no authority in man or council to add to or subtract from God's law, the Creed, or from God's holy Word. We must be humble beneath them. The very Gospel book is placed on the head of the bishop as he is consecrated, proclaiming that his identity and his authority are under the Word of God, submitted to it utterly. In this way the Church proclaims that the essence and content of authority in the Church, the nature of a bishop's very overseeing, is naught but an expression of someone else’s will, namely the Lord Jesus Christ's as taught in His holy Word and preserved by His Bride, the Church. (It is worth noting that in principle the canons of the Orthodox Church are expressions, extrapolations, and/or articulations of Biblical teaching, not parallel additions to the deposit of faith, not a parallel authority. See Questions 17, 23, and 24 of St. Philaret's Longer Catechism) Therefore neither bishop, priest, deacon, nor parish council can add to or subtract from what is received in Scripture and Tradition. God's commandments must remain inviolate, for “the sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (Psalm 119:160).

With that in mind, it is not possible rightly to bind the conscience of a Christian by adding additional criteria through which he must qualify himself so as to approach the Chalice. Not wearing a mask cannot be turned into something that must be confessed as if it were a sin, which is to say contrary to the faith. No one has the power to make not wearing a mask such a sin, and therefore the mask cannot be turned into a confessional item upon which failure to confess (i.e. failure to wear) renders one barred from access to Christ in the Chalice. It is a simple point, but incontrovertible.

Therefore, it is impossible in principle to bind the conscience of a Christian such that he must wear a mask in order to be inside the Church and thus the local parish in a right-believing manner. It is evil to functionally excommunicate a right-believing Christian for not doing something that is not a sin, that is not of the essence of the faith "once for all delivered to the saints." As Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14). In other words, we cannot add hindrances to a faithful Christian’s approach to the Chalice for the sake of a novel commandment of men.

As Christ warns:

This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:8-9)

As He further explains:

He called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:10-11)

This teaching of Christ was expressly directed at condemning arbitrary, man-made purity laws. It is also worth considering that this revelation was in relation to questions of hand-washing, which is also today considered a matter of basic hygiene and etiquette:

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? ... So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” (Matthew 15:2-3, 6)

As helpful - and even necessary - as it may be to wash one’s hands (or, for that matter, wear a mask), teaching it as a commandment such that one’s conscience is bound, and one’s access to God hindered, makes void the word of God and so is flatly rejected by Christ. As God in the flesh, Jesus knew perfectly well that washing one’s hands helped reduce disease, and yet He still persisted in rejecting it as a condition of right standing with God. And this principle is inviolable. We cannot add criteria which places an obstacle between Christ and His faithful children. This means that masks cannot be rendered a necessary condition for being considered a faithful Christian, and being faithful is the only true and binding condition by which a person may rightly stand in the Church. The faithful cannot be excluded from access to God for not abiding by the “commandments of men.”

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6)

By excluding the faithful from access to God by attempting to force the faithful to wear masks in order to enter and attend the sacred Assembly, we invent novel conditions by which Christians must abide. This is contrary to faith, for we cannot add to the deposit of faith. We cannot write new sins on the books, establish new commandments, bind consciences, and practically excommunicate the otherwise faithful according to the fluctuating mind of fallen man’s insights and policies, no matter how helpful those insights and policies might be, for only "the words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times" (Psalm 12:6).

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Hope of Return: The Coronavirus and Getting Back to Church

As we face the difficulties, fears, and even anguish regarding the impact the coronavirus has had not only on our world and nation but also on our churches, it is important that we discuss criteria for the time when we will return to church. It is axiomatic that it is not possible to wait for the world to be under control, the virus to be eliminated from existence, and there to be no more risk of infection before we return to Church. Perhaps it bears repeating: We cannot wait for all risk to be removed before returning to Church, because at no point are all risks ever really removed. Yes, as we talk about this issue, it is necessary to remember and continue to recall the gravity of the illness and the need to protect those at risk of infection, but in taking these aspects of our situation into account we have to be equally careful not to end the conversation there. We have to prepare for our return.

It would be unreasonable to ask for a specific date of return, much less for the hour, but at the same time there must be objective, identifiable criteria for our decision-making. Too many of us are quarantining ourselves under the mistaken idea that we are waiting for the storm to pass and the sun of virus-elimination to emerge. Current information tells us that the virus will remain with us for a long time, perhaps permanently, abating and returning, abating and returning, and therefore there must be some other criterion for making the decision to return to Church. This may be obvious to many, but there are a great many people who are not exactly sure or are confused as to what the specific goal and motive of the quarantine are.

Since the criterion for return cannot be the eradication of the coronavirus, some other criteria must be suggested. Since one of the presented concerns is the availability of medical equipment and supplies, one obvious criteria for return is an affirmation that the medical community has, not maximally, but reasonably sufficient resources to treat those infected. Currently we are told there are regional shortages of x, y, and z. Therefore, when the shortage of x, y, and z is met at the regional level, churches in that region ought to consider that an objective criteria for returning to worship has been met. Another criteria could be the slowed or decelerated rate of infection. Concomitantly, in the presence of the decelerated numbers of infections, standard precautions ought to be implemented to minimize excessive risk. We cannot eliminate all risk, and we also cannot expect churches to be sterilized as though they were hospitals, and so reasonable precautions must be in place, like hand-washing, sanitary wipes, etc. It would be unreasonable, however, to wait for there to be “no risk,” because there will simply never be a time when there is no risk. Criteria also include instructions that while the infection is on the rise that those who are already ill or suffer from complicating medical conditions that increase their risk of infection should stay home until either they are recovered or until the rate of cases of infection decelerates or plateaus. 

It is important to remember that current information estimates that over 95% of cases experience recovery (unlike the H5N1 Bird Flu which is estimated to kill 60% of those infected), which is to say that among historic pandemics the coronavirus is arguably the least deadly of all. This fact, however, ought not cause complacency or a cavalier attitude, but in affirming the gravity of the contagion one cannot simply pause the conversation there as if the seriousness of the situation justifies all measures taken in response. Along with the affirmation of its seriousness is the need for definite but limited closures (which has already happened) together with identifiable criteria for reopening. By not giving these criteria for return we do not provide people with hope of return. It is unreasonable to demand that people who are at little or minimal risk, who understand said risk and are willing to take reasonable precautions to safeguard themselves and others, be barred from attending Church for undefined periods of time. Although definite and tightly purposed closures may be warranted, indefinite and open-ended closures of churches are a red flag that ought to cause us concern and immediately propel us to identify reasonable criteria for reopening.

An additional concern, amidst the reasonable cautions and precautions, is that there is also the spread of the passion of fear and anger. Passions darken and confuse clarity of mind, and so it is important to not only take reasonable cautions and precautions against threats of physical disease, but also the spiritual disease of impassioned fear and anger. It cannot be overlooked that “erring on the side of caution” is still “erring.” It may be wise as a temporary or initial policy, but since experts seem to indicate that we will have this threat for a long time to come, it cannot become a standing policy for the simple fact that no churches will be left to come back to.

Two additional points emerge. The first, realistically speaking, is that it is a doctor’s job to “warn” of “health risks,” and so waiting for the doctor to give the “all clear” is not always workable, and may never happen. A doctor cannot say without risk of liability that one is at "no risk," and so it would not make sense to wait for the doctor to say what he almost in principle cannot say. The second point, cynically speaking, is that the media’s principle concern is with gaining and maintaining audience, page views, shares, subscriptions, etc., and fear operates quickly on the nervous and endocrine systems, and thus provides a rapid chemical stimulus to propagation of negative news. They survive as an industry on the fight-flight response of their viewers. Perhaps their agenda is not wholly nefarious, but neither is it particularly noble. Since they survive based on maintaining viewership they will always frame a story or spin a fact in order to promote sales of their “news product.” Fear must therefore be strictly guarded against, and so in the face of real dangers and necessary cautions, fear cannot be allowed to have the last word, nor only vague words of encouragement.

It is also important to recall that there are at least two economies that must be kept in mind: the medical and the national. Not simply money, the idea and reality of economy refers to the distribution and redistribution of resources. The medical economy includes hospitals, clinics, treatments, medicines, etc., and this medical economy depends for its existence on the national economy. If “erring on the side of safety” is to be measured against what is currently estimated as a 95%+ recovery rate, then it is reasonable to conclude that the risk of shutting down the majority of the economy may ultimately undermine the medical economy such that no one will be able to receive the needed medical support because there will no longer be a national economy to sustain the medical industry. This is not to mention the deaths that will result from a collapsed economy. What is more, as long as one sides with extreme caution, they will always place themselves in a position to criticize anyone who sees a better way that involves more risk. This creates an illusion of wisdom on the side of those who err on the side of caution. Of course, one must not err on the side of pure risk, either, but since it is impossible to eliminate risk (for even the position of extreme caution risks collapsing the national economy and consequently the medical industry that it supports), tarring and feathering ideas which include more risk as being "unloving" of one's neighbor must be guarded against. That is a manipulative use of compassion language which undermines the ability to discuss viable solutions. In this way it is better to strive for wisdom rather than mere caution.

In addition to the national and medical economies, there is also the economy of the local church. It is not simply a matter of paying the pastor, for if local closures remain indefinite and extend without objective criteria for reopening, then churches will be unable to reopen. The spiritual harm this would cause is incalculable. The Church is a necessary entity, and its local parishes cannot simply allow themselves to perish through “erring” on the safe side. A plan must be in place. Currently, the government has defined a working distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” businesses. It is also important to insert the Church into this equation because, although the Church is not a business, it is certainly essential, and so we must treat the Church as essential. We implicitly understand that grocery stores are essential, and do not protest when dozens of people are together in a single store shopping despite the official restrictions of gatherings being limited to ten people. If grocery stores stay open, then Churches should consider that they likewise remain open. If churches simply remain closed without clear direction for criteria of when to open, not only will they close, but the spiritual service and support they provide will disappear with them.

To close, I would like to stress that the above series of reflections and suggestions are not intended to be authoritative, exhaustive, or conclusive, but as a departure point for further discussion and a call for the clarification of a determined set of criteria for a return to church. It is unacceptable to not have a plan of return, even if that plan does not include date or time but includes rather more general, yet objective, criteria. Certainly more criteria may be suggested or rejected, but it is important to establish them, even if it is in favor of more extreme caution. Currently, too many are stopping the conversation with the approval of the closing of the church doors (as necessary as that may have been). It is a serious situation that requires solemn, compassionate attention, but not inertia. We have already agreed to suspend services, which means the next phase of reflection is necessitated, which is the objective, reasonable plan and hope of return to the worship of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

-Fr. Joshua Schooping

A Heap of Stones: The Unsustainable Paradox of Catholic Papal Apologetics

Attempting to demonstrate the error of the Roman papacy is very tricky, for almost every claim against it there are counterclaims upon counterclaims. In these counterclaims one finds quotes from Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, and appeals to Scripture and to logic. One grows weary (and lighter in the wallet) attempting to keep track responsibly, but for an Orthodox Christian the problem is relatively plain to see. Trying to point it out to a Roman Catholic, however, is almost like trying to point out a dolphin jumping out of the water a little ways off shore that, for whatever reason, the other person just never seems to be able to see. There is a paradox, however, which could provide an image of the type of problem that seems to be at work. This paradox is called the Sorites Paradox.

The Sorites Paradox is sometimes also called the Paradox of the Heap, and it refers to how a single stone is not a heap of stones, and how, if one more stone is added, it is still not a heap. Now, if two stones are not a heap, then adding only one more stone will not make it a heap, either. And if that is not a heap, adding still one more stone won’t make it one. Eventually, so the paradox goes, one has an enormous heap of stones, but, due to the one-by-one method of adding, the obvious fact of the heap is denied. Nothing to see here, there is no heap.

Returning to the centuries-long developments of the Roman papacy, I contend that they are a heap of stones. Yet, because each single stone receives its own rationalization and its own justification, the mountain of stones is denied, and so the Roman Catholic will seek in some way to say that nothing has changed regarding the Roman patriarch; it is essentially the same as St. Peter left it... and yet to plain sight the heap created over the centuries is utterly unlike that which came before. In short, the whole has departed through the sum of its minor changes, hence there is a schism separating them from the Orthodox Church.

Much like the tiles of the mosaic St. Irenaeus used in his argument against the gnostics in Book I Chapter 8 of Against Heresies, the Roman Catholics have rearranged a series of legitimate “tiles” to create an unjustified papacy. In Irenaeus’ example, the image of a king had been rearranged to create the image of a dog or a fox. The point from this example to keep in mind here, however, is that the tiles are proper; their problem is therefore not in whether the tiles are proper, but whether they are in their proper place. Regarding the Roman apologists, the Patristic quotes are real Patristic quotes, the Scripture verses are real Scriptures verses, the Ecumenical Council statements are real Ecumenical Council statements, but their apologists have shifted them to create an image of a pope that is so unlike what an orthodox patriarch looks like that it can be astonishing.

Apologetics here is difficult, though, for entering into the forest of qualifications, the thicket of views, one is easily led astray, tile by tile, stone by stone, for each rearrangement, each addition is seemingly justified by Patristic citations, Councils, Scripture, and logical argument, and so by degrees one receives a heterodox Papism, something that looks utterly unlike the early, Orthodox Roman patriarchate that existed during Rome’s Orthodox period. Tile upon tile, stone upon stone, changes and additions which are typically classified as clarifications, if not “doctrinal developments,” the Orthodox notion of papal primacy has by degrees transformed into papal supremacy. It is for this reason that it is likely fruitless to try to assemble more quotes and citations, for no amount of quoting has ended this schism. Several doctoral degrees together with knowledge of several languages is required to sort this out, if one sought to go that route, but even then success is far from guaranteed.

For the sake of this article, papal primacy refers to the Orthodox doctrine of the Patriarch of Rome’s place of primacy of honor and authority, being the highest court of appeal, but restricted in its governance and jurisdiction to its traditional geographic territories. The position of highest authority is, so to speak, relational rather than positional, which is to say it is not “over top of” the other patriarchates as, say, a conductor or autocrat, but “together with” the other patriarchates as, say, first chair or speaker of the house (under the mystical Presidency of Christ), and as such its relational authority is mediate with that of the other patriarchates and, thus, necessitates concert in order to be exercised aright.

Papal supremacy, on the other hand, here refers to the heterodox doctrine of the Patriarch of Rome’s immediate, universal jurisdiction and unilateral authority over the other patriarchates, including such doctrines as ex cathedra infallibility being an ontological mark, so to speak, or guaranteed charism, of the Patriarch of Rome. This authority structure expresses a top-down model, as a conductor or autocrat, or CEO, an authority exercised unilaterally over the other patriarchates.

Perhaps the two biggest problems, from an Orthodox perspective, are so-called Papal Infallibility and Immediate Universal Jurisdiction. Concerning the first of these, as Vatican I states of Papal Infallibility:

We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

— Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

And from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:

This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

To comment on these, it seems plain that nowhere is there such a remarkable promise explicitly given anywhere in Scripture or in the Church Fathers. Scripture does not indicate that Peter is “over the other apostles.” He certainly was not “over” the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:11, and I do not see any modern Catholic bishop having such potential scope, for “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable,” and “should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject” this notion of infallible papal supremacy, he is considered “anathema.” Luckily, this doctrine had not been fully “developed,” lest St. Paul perhaps be anathematized for “opposing Peter to his face” (although Peter was not likely acting ex cathedra) and regarding him as “standing condemned.” Peter likewise did not seem to be “over” James in Acts 15:13-29 when James gave the authoritative judgment concerning the situation that was then at hand.

In these situations, Scripture does not seem to “institute in [Peter] a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.” But to a Catholic apologist this plain fact of Scripture will not be so plain, and so the critique will die the death of a thousand qualifications. Nothing in Scripture, however, gives any sense that a single member of the Church by virtue of office can stand in her place as an infallible representative of the whole Church. But the Vatican Councils have given voice to the shifting of the mosaic’s image such that the Catholics are become the Church of Peter, and any number of qualifications will likely also dismantle Scriptural teachings, such as that from St. Paul to the Corinthians when he infallibly teaches:

you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:3-7)

But, perhaps to give the Roman Catholics a chance to exercise their exegetical ingenuity, St. Paul does not mention only himself and Apollos, but also Peter: “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13) Clearly, although chief of the apostles and in possession of great, if not unique, authority, St. Peter is not thereby “a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.” His identity is not treated as a rallying point of unity, and certainly not as grounds for disunity, much less schism, for Christ has not been divided up according to Paul, Apollos, and Peter, but, carefully placing one stone after another, no heap will be found.

It seems clear to Orthodox teaching and to reason that the Holy Spirit does not give the charism of infallibility positionally, or to the occupants of chairs merely by virtue of being selected (infallibly?) to sit in it (by whom?). Of course, at certain moments any Christian can speak infallibly. But to guarantee that a human being will speak infallibly is self-evident hubris. St. Athanasius taught with infallibility regarding the divinity of Christ. St. Basil taught with infallibility concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. St Maximus also taught with infallibility regarding Christ's two wills. St Gregory Palamas taught with infallibility regarding the distinction between God's essence and energies. But to say this infallibility can be guaranteed to a person on condition that they are the Patriarch of Rome is not an issue of faith, but an elaborate ruse, an idol. Infallibility is, and in principle cannot be, a possession of the human will. Human beings do not possess infallibility as a trait of their person or position. The Papist doctrine of infallibility, however, is a claim about a position, the infallibility of a man based on his occupancy of a certain office.

It should be obvious that no Scriptural promise looks anything like Papal infallibility, or supremacy for that matter. Even the promise that Peter’s faith will not fail is not a promise that he has infallible teaching accuracy and authority, nor is Christ’s naming him Peter, nor His command to feed His sheep, an assignment of supreme governance and visible point man for the global Church, much less that any of this applies ontologically to his “successors.” The Roman Catholics have invested so much of themselves into the authority and identity of the pope, his infallibility and supremacy, that the pope becomes the logo, so to speak, of the Roman Church, a virtual stand-in. He both represents Christ and the Church in his person. Stone by stone, however, there is no heap.

One of the problems is that there is a fundamental distinction between a developed explanation of doctrine, on the one hand, and the development of doctrine itself, on the other. The former is a refinement of language, a clarification of expression, while the latter is a new product that is purported to be genetically present in or based on the older. This distinction could certainly be contentious, but the so-called Novus Ordo comes to mind as a more obvious case in point. Infallibility ought to be another obvious example. Infallibility belongs to the Church as Mystery, in her totality. Councils may express this, even patriarchs may, but the promise is to the Church qua Church.

Does the Apostle Peter’s authority as represented in Scripture look anything like the modern papist version? i.e. immediate universal jurisdiction? Did Peter claim infallibility for himself? Did Paul claim it for him? Did Peter carve the wood and build the chair his successors were to sit on, and lay hands on it such that whoever sits in it receives a guarantee of the charism of infallibility? Where in Scripture is any office, much less anyone, promised perfect, perpetual infallibility based on possession of said office? The judges? The sons of David? Were there no false prophets in Israel? No unfaithful high priests? Did Jesus say anything about Peter being “instituted... a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion”? Are these merely superficial differences, or do they point to a more fundamental shift, even a departure from what the Ancient Peter looked and acted like? A “total makeover” from how the Ancient Church related to his primacy, the answer to all of these questions seems only too obvious. If, however, a person adds slowly one stone upon another, carefully considering each one, they might just convince themselves into denying that a very large heap of stones stands before their very eyes, and that Pope Francis is the virtual twin of St. Peter.

To shift again to the metaphor of the mosaic, each subtle argument shifts a tile, inch by inch, until there is a completely different image, from Peter the chief Apostle to a Universal Patriarch of the planet, of the very galaxy, the infallible CEO of Christ’s Church. These are clearly not the same role, and only by entering into a vortex of qualifications and proof texting can a person get there while at the same time thinking it is legitimate. Sure, each tile of the mosaic is a correct tile, and one can argue the rightness of the tiles all day; the problem is, it’s just not arranged aright.

The Jesus Prayer and Conversion

Outside of Christ, our minds are founded on the ceaseless subtle invocation: “I am Lord, I am Lord, I am Lord.” Scripturally, this is rooted in the moment of temptation at the Fall, when the subtle serpent offered the fruit of knowledge as a means of becoming like God. Eating the fruit, man has ever since transferred his center from God to self. As such, man’s center is now self.

Converting to Christ, therefore, refers not to making Christ an ornament to a self-as-center mode of existence, which is to say adding another layer to fallen egocentrism, but refers instead to the process of exchanging self-as-center for Christ-as-center. Conversion is not perfecting self-life, but ending self-life and being reborn into new life, the life of Christ.

In this light, the Jesus Prayer serves not merely as an expression of piety, but as a divinely prescribed means for uprooting the self from its position as the practical center of one’s being. It is the practical means, so to speak, of training the mind, heart, and will to find its center not in self, but in Christ.

The essence of humility, the Jesus Prayer thus expresses the highest form of repentance, conversion, and cross-bearing, and likewise the highest means outside of the Eucharist for realizing Christ as the central point and ground of our being, as in truth He is.

The Anatomy of Schism: How Advocating a Female Diaconate Divides the Church

David sings in Psalm 101: “Every morning I will destroy all the wicked of the land, so as to cut off from the city of the LORD all those who do iniquity.” Spiritually, this can be understood in the Church as rooting out schism and heresy early, not waiting until it has gathered its full strength. As such, it will be important to know the tactics of the enemy, the methodology of those who would seek to set the Church against herself.

The Orthodox Church currently finds gestating among certain of her members a Modern, progressive feminist movement, really an unclean spirit, that is manifesting itself as advocacy for a female diaconate. It is especially pernicious because it can only result in division. If not merely naive or unaware, the advocates of a female diaconate are either willfully ignoring the division they are insinuating, or are very aware of it and as such are intentionally maneuvering as if to imperceptibly entrench themselves in a position of political advantage so as to thus champion their cause. This is done while those who, focusing on the faith as received, would rather not speak of or research such things, and so typically remain uninformed and unaware that people are actively and intentionally coordinating efforts to change the practice of the Church.

Given that others have well highlighted important issues related to the problems of a female diaconate (also here and here), it is yet vital to understand and expose the anatomy of how this liturgical progressivism creates enemies out of the Orthodox faithful. To begin, notice that the advocacy group is a para-Church organization. In short, it is outside the Church. And yet, other than being mostly comprised of female academics, by including among its advisory board at least one metropolitan together with two archpriests, it seeks to lend ecclesiastical authority to itself. This is one of the ways that progressivism acts, like a cancerous cell which attaches itself to a body and seeks to insinuate itself into said body's functioning.

By being a para-Church organization, progressivist advocacy can eschew all actual ecclesial oversight. Posing as Orthodox, it is yet outside of the Church's authority structure, therefore maximizing its freedom to advocate while minimizing its accountability. With this methodology it can unilaterally extend its reach into the Church without actually being of the Church. By wrapping itself in a cloak of legitimacy it thus seeks to transform the Church by inserting its ideas into the members of Christ’s Body, all the while acting as a foreign body. Note carefully, however, that it will not present itself this way, but will instead present itself as a friendly and responsible group of like-minded Orthodox Christians compassionately concerned about their concern, which will of course be made to sound neutral and non-threatening.

A major element of this diaconal progressivism is feminism, and so a brief digression concerning how feminism functions as a social reality seems appropriate. Quite simply, feminism is a pseudo-virtue, and essentially a Rorschach, meaning anything from the simple affirmation that women compliment and share equal dignity and opportunity with men, on the one hand, a meaning that is moral but hardly justified by such a binary term as feminism, to the vociferous hating and displacing of men and masculinity, on the other. Such a plastic term is hardly grounds for a moral rallying cry, and its ambiguous import certainly has no place advising the Church or revising her liturgical practice. One characteristic mark of this feminism is that there is no objective “need” beyond the “felt needs” of certain men and women for such a radical change. Emotionally charged, feminism poses as a great virtue, sometimes even as the great virtue, when really it is an empty term which is filled in by the passionate imagination of its adherents. Thus it is a pseudo-virtue, and since it is not a true virtue, it will tend towards vice, a fact amply demonstrated by the successive mutations or “waves” of feminism.

Returning to the manner in which progressivism functions to divide, a key set-up to keep in mind is that progressivism functions to move, always, in the name of some “ideal,” which on the surface appears innocent enough. Ideals, like ideas, have consequences, and so does their promotion. Progressive movement being by nature relative, “progress” always implies a moving beyond others, the non-progressors, so as to achieve said progress, therefore creating at least two groups in the process. Predictably, the group which embraces progress implicitly places themselves in the “moral” group, separating themselves from the non-progressors, which renders those outside the progressive movement backwards, recalcitrant, and submoral, if not evil.

In their minds, at least, the progressives are not progressing for no reason, but for some strongly held reason, typically an ideal. Thus the very energy which motivates their desire for progress creates as an automatic consequence a proportionate “othering,” if not an “enemization,” of those who do not join them in their efforts. The problem of note here, however, is not only the bare fact of creating two necessarily opposed groups, but the insidious way in which the progressives, by intentionally moving out of sync with others, transform them into their opposing “other.” By refusing to cooperate with progressivism, one has quite simply done nothing and yet, remarkably, in doing nothing one has become the enemy of an entire group of people, all through a type of passive-aggressive enemization or “othering.”

As a psychological phenomenon, the schism that is necessarily generated by the progressives is therefore not seen by the progressives as their own fault. In their mind they are innocently and virtuously - even heroically (considering what they are up against!) - seeking their ideal. In the process of creating an “other” where there was none, the progressives end up paradoxically accusing said other of immorality, those whom they acted against, even turning themselves into the victims of those whose only sin was not to agree with their innovation, those who would consciously choose to remain without the supposed “progress.” As a consequence, in the progressive mind, to refuse to “progress” is not simply to be a stick-in-the-mud or old-fashioned, but to commit a manifest wrong.

Of course, outwardly, the progressive may be found to object to the accusation of creating schism. How they are described and how they describe themselves are not the same. They will naively claim that there “need” not be any division… if only the others would agree with them.

To apply the above to the feminist deaconess movement, the function of advocacy of the deaconess will necessarily create schism. With sophistical eloquence, an increasing number will advocate for it, and yet an increasing number will oppose. The progressive will say something to the effect of “but it does not need to be this way, you do not need to resist us, it is ‘traditional,’ you have no need to worry, do you not want women to feel included,” etc. People will fall for this nonsense. The spirit of the age, the unclean spirit of progressivism, will thus wreak havoc in our parishes.

Schism is the inevitable result of the current deaconess movement, and merely seeking to maintain what has been rightly received from our holy fathers and mothers will be treated as if it were the problem. The fault line will run deep, and those who stand outside the Church will relentlessly attempt to appear as though they are inside, and attempt to deceive Orthodox Christians to move away from sacred Tradition. By refusing to truly heed the inevitably divisive consequence of implementing their ideal, their advocacy is actually rendered a sin, even if on the surface the "ideal" appears neutral or even praiseworthy. There is no "progress" in the Church, for the faith was once for all delivered to the saints, and its life is hid with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3).

To conclude, if it has not been made clear, despite its sophistry to the contrary, the female diaconate is not only wrong theoretically. Its great sin is schism. To try to make this clearer, even if, for the mere sake of argument, one were to consider the tenuous web of arguments woven by the progressives, this would not change the schismatic nature of their proposal. In short, even if the progressives were correct in their interpretation of the roles of the historical deaconess, they are still in the wrong in seeking to "restore" it. They are wrong because they knowingly move in a way which will create division and factions. They place their idealizations above the unity of the Church. By seeking to innovate actual received practice on the basis of their historical research and progressive theorizing, they needlessly divide the Church according to the contours of their research and their subsequent theoretical proposals.

The progressives would sacrifice the unity of the Church for the sake of “exploring” their idea, split the Church in persuading to their cause, divide the Church in trying to implement it, and set brother against brother, sister against sister, all for the sake of advancing a “felt need.” Their exegetical arguments are thus not merely for the sake of clarifying history, but of lending weight to their carnal, schismatic progressivism. Capitulating in the least to the unclean spirit of progressivism only emboldens it in further endeavors, until it progressively possesses the whole Church and so destroys it from within by factions and internal divisions. Since there is no "need" for a deaconess, then there is no "need" for the change. To insist that there "needs" to be a change when there is no "need" is inevitably divisive, especially on such a socially charged issue. The Church does not adopt sweeping changes without an actual, objective need.