Multiple communion spoons - is it apostasy?

Antoni said:

I see that the Lenten season has not quelled your desire to slander an ordained member of the clergy.

Since you seem to put much creedence in your own wisdom and knowledge, please supply the readers with your qualifications to judge Father Peter. Of course, no need for specifics (not looking to dox you), but rather an inkling so that we can have a general idea of your authority to judge.

In addition, please supply the following since you seem to enjoy to spread your thoughts and opinions so freely: where did Father Peter say that this pandemic was a “fraud taking place, Zionists and Masons running the situation, the Antichrist being seated” AND ALSO your proof that this is false if he did in fact say it.

Click to expand...

First, I must admit I am utterly baffled by your logic. A guy calls (and with zeal disseminates other similar or even harsher accounts from extremists) the vast majority of Church leaders heretics or even blasphemers, purporting to represent true faith in the face of mass apostasy, and to call him out on this is slander? The only one doing the slandering is, in fact, Heers and those of the same ilk whose opinions he disseminates through his channels. One would have to hold an utterly ultra-clericalistic (to the point of idolatry) and, frankly, wholly unorthodox concept of the priesthood to see matters in such a way that these men, with their wild theories, are above critique.

As for inquisitioning me for my "qualifications", no such criteria for responding to public teaching has ever been applied on this forum. A couple years ago a prominent forumer still active on this forum actually unequivocally stated that Met. Kallistos "[unfortunately] has become a heretic" in the wake of his article in the Wheel journal, and was not corrected on this by any commentator, including Fr. Matt. While such comments of course are in the wrong, I need remind you that the "worst" I have done is to omit Heers' unofficial title while stating clearly I respect his ordination and in a formal context would refer to him with his proper title.

As for evidence of Heers' claims (and those he has propagated by others), one only has to research his series from last spring from his channel, which is filled with such theories. The whole series is basically a construction of the narrative how the virus crisis is a diabolical scheme to grasp draconian control over the global population and destroy Christianity. Among a bulk of other similar takes, I have quote later just a couple.

In regard to the proof for him being wrong, my friend, the onus is on the person presenting the accusations of faithlessness, heresy and blasphemy, or compliance with scheme of the Devil, not on those being accused. The "proofs" presented by Heers and Savvas (as evidenced by last 2 quotes) are utterly ridiculous and their absurd arguments can actually undermine the credibility of the Church. The most problematic part, however, is that they are asserting to represent the true faith vs the faithlessness of the 99% (the quote by Platina in the post prior to this one is also evidence of this), sometimes even going as far as to call them heretics or blasphemers. This kind of spiritual arrogance leads me to suspect the presence of great instability, if not plani, prelest, in their spiritual lives.

Peter Heers said:

When we look more deeply at the methodology that is being implemented in order to change society, and change the way we live, including the way we as Orthodox Christians live and our identity as Orthodox Christians, we can see that the devil has his fingerprints all over this process [COVID-19 crisis], this way of living that we are all being pushed towards....[The Devil] uses these means to press forward his plan to bring about submission to him through his anointed one, the Antichrist, the one who stands in the place of Christ and offers not salvation from sin and death, but salvation in this world for this world’s purposes, which is really damnation at the end of the day…They [the Elitists] want to bring us into a state of submission, a fall, and then as quickly as possible before we have any time to pray, or reconsider things, and then of course you have to live with this new state of things. They don’t want to return to normal. And this is apparent in their writings and even in the mass media. They don’t want to return to normal. They want a different order that reflects their worldview. The future is not presented as a choice at all, but as a fact. It will be this way, they say. The crisis will quickly impose upon the nations. There is no turning back, and the old order is over. And this narrative, this narrative is found in the daily avalanche of news...The fear of death pushed through this process will lead people to believe that the only solution will be mass vaccinations, otherwise we are lost, we are dead. If you do not submit, you will not be able to live in social society and travel… The endgame of the Devil is that people will not only cower and follow after the government, but also to blot out the Divine-human nature of our life in Christ” and distort the very life of the Church.

Click to expand...

Savvas Agioritis with Heers on Orthodox Ethos. Note: Heers in currently translating the talks with Savvas to Russian to reach a wider audience said:

All of what we are living is clearly demonic. It is a well-aimed attack of the powers of darkness, of the Kabbalistic, Zionistic forces. These things, of course, are not conspiracy theories. There is historical evidence that shows — and Saint Paisios was saying this, as well — that for two hundred and fifty years now the Zionistic have been working systematically in order to strike the Church.

Click to expand...

Savvas with Heers said:

The first thing which we must understand is, that we are under persecution. This has happened neither by chance, nor is it spontaneous; it is predesigned, this whole topic of the “fool’s virus.” So, there is a lot of evidence for this, also on the internet, how for years, let’s say, in about 1980, a book discussed this thing. Or how, not long ago, a famous Kabbalist, Madonna, had done that show with those masks, right? -I call them elephant’s trunks- which not only don’t protect the people, but instead make them sick, and we should emphasize that.

Click to expand...

Who are Heers and Savvas?

tapi said:

First, I must admit I am utterly baffled by your logic. A guy calls (and with zeal disseminates other similar or even harsher accounts from extremists) the vast majority of Church leaders heretics or even blasphemers, purporting to represent true faith in the face of mass apostasy, and to call him out on this is slander? The only one doing the slandering is, in fact, Heers and those of the same ilk whose opinions he disseminates through his channels. One would have to hold an utterly ultra-clericalistic (to the point of idolatry) and, frankly, wholly unorthodox concept of the priesthood to see matters in such a way that these men, with their wild theories, are above critique.

As for inquisitioning me for my "qualifications", no such criteria for responding to public teaching has ever been applied on this forum. A couple years ago a prominent forumer still active on this forum actually unequivocally stated that Met. Kallistos "[unfortunately] has become a heretic" in the wake of his article in the Wheel journal, and was not corrected on this by any commentator, including Fr. Matt. While such comments of course are in the wrong, I need remind you that the "worst" I have done is to omit Heers' unofficial title while stating clearly I respect his ordination and in a formal context would refer to him with his proper title.

As for evidence of Heers' claims (and those he has propagated by others), one only has to research his series from last spring from his channel, which is filled with such theories. The whole series is basically a construction of the narrative how the virus crisis is a diabolical scheme to grasp draconian control over the global population and destroy Christianity. Among a bulk of other similar takes, I have quote later just a couple.

In regard to the proof for him being wrong, my friend, the onus is on the person presenting the accusations of faithlessness, heresy and blasphemy, or compliance with scheme of the Devil, not on those being accused. The "proofs" presented by Heers and Savvas (as evidenced by last 2 quotes) are utterly ridiculous and their absurd arguments can actually undermine the credibility of the Church. The most problematic part, however, is that they are asserting to represent the true faith vs the faithlessness of the 99% (the quote by Platina in the post prior to this one is also evidence of this), sometimes even going as far as to call them heretics or blasphemers. This kind of spiritual arrogance leads me to suspect the presence of great instability, if not plani, prelest, in their spiritual lives.

Click to expand...

So you believe this virus came from a bat?

Hi, Tapi.
If possible, I would like to "gain my brother". I think dialog on some level is possible, as long as people are committed to politeness, charity, and dealing honestly with ideas that seem to challenge their own position. I said earlier on this thread that people tend to fall into one of two basic camps:

Any intelligent view of the question is going to see that there are legitimate concerns on both sides, and admit both any justice in the concerns of the other side, and that they themselves tend to discount those concerns.

Most are going to take sides based on whether they have more faith in tradition*, the idea of tradition in principle, that our ancestors have a right to teach and correct us, or in modernity, the idea of a right of moderns to correct or reject tradition based on modern education, science, and knowledge (which cannot help but be worldly knowledge and wisdom, such as it is.)

* (small “t”, in case that’s not clear enough, though I would argue that Holy Tradition is based entirely on the concept of the principle of “small “t” tradition, correctable only by direct revelation from God)

Click to expand...

I think it would be fair on your part to reject anyone's ideas who says that there is nothing true in your ideas or anything you say. But by the same token, you HAVE said that you see nothing true in anything others are saying here. That makes them just as justified in rejecting your ideas, as you speak of us an an "ilk", assume that we all say and mean exactly the same things in all respects as Fr Peter, and that there cannot possibly be any human conspiracy in using the virus, however it came about. I don't think your position is reasonable. Again, you might be able to say the same about anyone who completely rejects every aspect of everything that you say, but it still means a separation between us, an inability and, it would seem, unwillingness to understand the other.

You put more faith in modernity, modern education and science, than most people here do. Not in every respect regarding everything, but certainly regarding some key things, and regarding general tendency. That's going to put you at odds with people who have less faith in these things and more in what tradition, including Holy Tradition, has to say to us. I hardly ever listen to Fr Peter, and yet, just reading your first quote of him, meant to discredit him as you see it, I see that I think that what he said is largely and generally true, and that while you can deny it (denial is as easy as Luke Skywalker shouting "Nooooo!"), you cannot refute it (a much harder task), as there are so many signs that it is actually true, that the wealthy and powerful of this world, driven by the lust for power, do in fact seek to overthrow the normal social order common to most of the world established by human tradition, to say nothing of that of Christendom and what even the fallen-away Protestants and Catholics preserved of Holy Tradition for many centuries. It is very difficult, nay, impossible, I think, in the face of a thousand signs that they are in fact seeking that overthrow, to refute it and prove them all mistaken on every front.

Or you could say that a thing is not proven true when something proves it, so much as when everything proves it.

rusmeister said:

Hi, Tapi...

Click to expand...

Just a short answer due to time constraints, but you seem to have misinterpreted my position (or maybe I have not been clear enough), as I do not consider any persons here as "Heers ilk". My comments and critique have been posited towards persons who

1) Hold a clerical position in the Church
2) Conceive the crisis as purely (mere exploitation does not cut it) a machination of the Devil and/or machinates such as "Globalists", "Zionists", "Masons"
3) Posit ridiculous speculations and conspiracy theories with utterly absurd/non-existent "proof", which when done by clergymen undermines the credibility of the Church
4) Go on to assert that the vast majority of the Church leadership and/or the faithful have fallen into apostasy, blasphemy or faithlessness
5) Purport themselves as the true representatives of authentic Orthodox faith, in a great show arrogance if not plani.
6) Exhort directly or implicitly the faithful to disobedience to their spiritual authorities and/or suggest they seek "true" spiritual fathers (which these persons, of course, consider themselves to be examples of)

Pandemics are a cyclical phenomenon in history. Of course, any such event can and will be exploited by malevonent political or spiritual entities, and certainly, there is room for improvement in the responses of the local Churches. Yet, these folks go way, way beyond any reasonable limits in their speculations and assertions and sow dissension among the faithful in a time when if ever we need to stand together.

tapi said:

Just a short answer due to time constraints, but you seem to have misinterpreted my position (or maybe I have not been clear enough), as I do not consider any persons here as "Heers ilk". My comments and critique have been posited towards persons who

1) Hold a clerical position in the Church
2) Conceive the crisis as purely (mere exploitation does not cut it) a machination of the Devil and/or machinates such as "Globalists", "Zionists", "Masons"
3) Posit ridiculous speculations and conspiracy theories with utterly absurd/non-existent "proof", which when done by clergymen undermines the credibility of the Church
4) Go on to assert that the vast majority of the Church leadership and/or the faithful have fallen into apostasy, blasphemy or faithlessness
5) Purport themselves as the true representatives of authentic Orthodox faith, in a great show arrogance if not plani.
6) Exhort directly or implicitly the faithful to disobedience to their spiritual authorities and/or suggest they seek "true" spiritual fathers (which these persons, of course, consider themselves to be examples of)

Pandemics are a cyclical phenomenon in history. Of course, any such event can and will be exploited by malevonent political or spiritual entities, and certainly, there is room for improvement in the responses of the local Churches. Yet, these folks go way, way beyond any reasonable limits in their speculations and assertions and sow dissension among the faithful in a time when if ever we need to stand together.

Click to expand...

So you think it is possible, or even definite, that an event such as a pandemic will be exploited by malevolent political and spiritual entities, but it is rather ridiculous to speculate that such an event was initiated exactly for those exploitational purposes. Got it.

I think you greatly underestimate the evil in this world.

Personally, I discovered Fr. Peter's Orthodox Ethos youtube videos last year while we were all locked down, and watching and listening to his talks gave me much comfort and brought to life my faith that was somewhat withering then. I thank God I found his talks in a time when not only me, but also my family needed them. He literally stoked the fire of faith in our hearts at a difficult time.

Dorothea said:

Personally, I discovered Fr. Peter's Orthodox Ethos youtube videos last year while we were all locked down, and watching and listening to his talks gave me much comfort and brought to life my faith that was somewhat withering then. I thank God I found his talks in a time when not only me, but also my family needed them. He literally stoked the fire of faith in our hearts at a difficult time.

Click to expand...

Glory to God! And rejoice that no amoung of naysaying can take that from you!

Platina said:

Glory to God! And rejoice that no amoung of naysaying can take that from you!

Click to expand...

Yes.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm wondering what's being said in a video. About those who insist on multiple spoons, it's said that:


What is "the Inn"? I've never heard this term before.

Said around 11:40.

I think the Inn is the Church

Inn is like a hotel, where travellers can find food and board. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, it is also serving as a defacto hospital.

Chesterton said:

Slightly off-topic, but I'm wondering what's being said in a video. About those who insist on multiple spoons, it's said that:

The fear of dying has dangerously shipwrecked the faith of these communicants, and they now are in urgent need of the intensive care of the Inn, like the injured man was in the parable of the Good Samaritan.​

What is "the Inn"? I've never heard this term before.

Said around 11:40.

Click to expand...

For what it is worth, Christ's "fear of death" was not a normal fear. St Maximus, St Sophornius, and others all talked about this during the monothelite controversy. In short, it is natural to not want to die *before* the Fall. Satan tempted Eve by assuring her she would not die. So, Christ's voluntarily assuming of death (as otherwise a sinless human nature cannot die), he likewise assumed not only an antipathy of death but the blameless passion of fear and deprivation (as such fear could not exist apart from actually being able to die). However, Christ did not have a terror of death or any sort of psychological deprivation (as these pertain to the passions that come from the Fall, according to St Maximus.) This is still an issue I am trying to systematize in my own mind. Like all things Orthodox, it is not easy.

abacabb3 said:

For what it is worth, Christ's "fear of death" was not a normal fear. St Maximus, St Sophornius, and others all talked about this during the monothelite controversy. In short, it is natural to not want to die *before* the Fall. Satan tempted Eve by assuring her she would not die. So, Christ's voluntarily assuming of death (as otherwise a sinless human nature cannot die), he likewise assumed not only an antipathy of death but the blameless passion of fear and deprivation (as such fear could not exist apart from actually being able to die). However, Christ did not have a terror of death or any sort of psychological deprivation (as these pertain to the passions that come from the Fall, according to St Maximus.) This is still an issue I am trying to systematize in my own mind. Like all things Orthodox, it is not easy.

Click to expand...

correct. Christ assumed what is according to nature, which includes the desire to live and not do the unnatural thing of dying.

abacabb3 said:

For what it is worth, Christ's "fear of death" was not a normal fear. St Maximus, St Sophornius, and others all talked about this during the monothelite controversy. In short, it is natural to not want to die *before* the Fall. Satan tempted Eve by assuring her she would not die. So, Christ's voluntarily assuming of death (as otherwise a sinless human nature cannot die), he likewise assumed not only an antipathy of death but the blameless passion of fear and deprivation (as such fear could not exist apart from actually being able to die). However, Christ did not have a terror of death or any sort of psychological deprivation (as these pertain to the passions that come from the Fall, according to St Maximus.) This is still an issue I am trying to systematize in my own mind. Like all things Orthodox, it is not easy.

Click to expand...

He experienced many things that God could not otherwise experience. He hungered and thirsted, had temptation, was let down by friends and betrayed by a friend, he was unjustly accused, mocked, humiliated, experienced great physical pain, and feared death. He experienced all of our worst humanly experiences. We can take comfort that, through the incarnation, God knows what it's like to be us.

Chesterton said:

He experienced many things that God could not otherwise experience. He hungered and thirsted, had temptation, was let down by friends and betrayed by a friend, he was unjustly accused, mocked, humiliated, experienced great physical pain, and feared death. He experienced all of our worst humanly experiences. We can take comfort that, through the incarnation, God knows what it's like to be us.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Great summary.

I think Father Peter Heers was very good discussing the topic of vaccinations and emphasizing the need to exercise spiritual discernment