Most recent flop from Archbishop Elpidophoros

[Max Carvalho]

I mean, everyone must have heard by now. For context, this was a statement representing the orthodox side (or supposed to represent!) on the March For Life in Washington. I've read the full speech too available over the GOARCH website and... it doesn't help. Doesn't Elpidophoros know that the point of the March For Life is reversing current US law on abortion? Is just odd...

 

[BobRyan]

I am not sure those two statements put him in opposition to abortion... he almost makes it appear that Mary had the choice to abort Christ but was granted the autonomy to abort or not to abort

 

[Lukaris]

His statement seems deceptive in that, from what I believe the Church teaches, is that the Virgin Mary agreed in her free will to be bearer of God( Theotokos) for His conception in her. There was no taking of life in whatever decision she made. She was not subject to any chance of an involuntary taking of life. Thank God she being full of grace bore our Lord and she was not guilty of any murder prior to the annunciation even if she made the wrong decision. ( Luke 1:26-38).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I mean, everyone must have heard by now. For context, this was a statement representing the orthodox side (or supposed to represent!) on the March For Life in Washington. I've read the full speech too available over the GOARCH website and... it doesn't help. Doesn't Elpidophoros know that the point of the March For Life is reversing current US law on abortion? Is just odd...

I think if you read the non-bold parts, especially the first paragraph, it’s pretty anti-abortion.

I do think that second one though, if read on its own, can be read wrongly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not sure those two statements put him in opposition to abortion... he almost makes it appear that Mary had the choice to abort Christ but was granted the autonomy to abort or not to abort

she more had the choice not to accept Christ, not that she could have aborted the Logos before His time.

 

[prodromos]

I think if you read the non-bold parts, especially the first paragraph, it’s pretty anti-abortion.

I do think that second one though, if read on its own, can be read wrongly.

It was very poorly worded, far too open to being understood wrongly IMO. I haven't read the whole of his address but I haven't been impressed by many of his statements and actions in the past, so have no real inclination to.

 

[rusmeister]

The essential problem is that he is a Leftist, and Leftism demands support the causes of the Left, here, a woman’s “right to choose”, by which they mean choose murder, while people like him prevaricate and pretend it can mean the right to choose life for their baby, as if any alternative choice were tolerable. Thus he says “At the same time”, attempting to synthesize the Leftist mantra of “choice” with Orthodoxy, while trying to appear to not contradict Orthodoxy. He’s trying to serve two masters.

And what does he mean by “the autonomy of women”, and who does he think might disrespect it, and how? All humans are autonomous in a sense, and interdependent in another. Again, it pretends to say that “we respect a woman’s “right to choose”, when in fact, we think the only “right choice” is chastity. So he is trying to make himself sound Leftist-kosher AND Orthodox-kosher at the same time. He can go back and get support from the pro-abort Leftists while still retaining his Church credentials.

 

[Platina]

Regardless of what he said, my first thought when I saw that he spoke was, "What the heck, the OCA has been leading the Orthodox participation in the March for Life for decades. The mic belongs to Metropolitan Tikhon. Sit down and shut up, Elpidophoros."

 

[truefiction1]

I mean, everyone must have heard by now. For context, this was a statement representing the orthodox side (or supposed to represent!) on the March For Life in Washington. I've read the full speech too available over the GOARCH website and... it doesn't help. Doesn't Elpidophoros know that the point of the March For Life is reversing current US law on abortion? Is just odd...

He's confused.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It was very poorly worded, far too open to being understood wrongly IMO. I haven't read the whole of his address but I haven't been impressed by many of his statements and actions in the past, so have no real inclination to.

yeah, I also have not heard the whole speech, so maybe it’s clearer when looking at the whole thing.

 

[FenderTL5]

What seemed obvious to me:

In the United States any position that opposes abortion is viewed as being in opposition to women in general. iow, being opposed to abortion automatically places one in opposition to "women's rights". This is how the issue is positioned in the sphere of US policies.
The first statement is a clear opposition to abortion. The second refutes the notion above.

 

[E.C.]

The Greek Archdiocese is becoming just as leftist as the Democratic Party and other Communists. This should come as no surprise.


That said, the sad reality is that no matter what laws one day get overturned, abortion will never go away. Perhaps if we Orthodox spent half as much energy helping unwed mothers as we do with the March for Life we would have fewer abortions in this country.

 

[truefiction1]

The Greek Archdiocese is becoming just as leftist as the Democratic Party and other Communists. This should come as no surprise.


That said, the sad reality is that no matter what laws one day get overturned, abortion will never go away. Perhaps if we Orthodox spent half as much energy helping unwed mothers as we do with the March for Life we would have fewer abortions in this country.

We aren't helping unwed mothers? Gee, I wish someone had informed me of this earlier. It would have saved me having to labor so hard to move heavy furniture and whatnot all about the city into the abodes of unwed mothers and their babies. I'm not a young man anymore, you know.

Kidding aside, you make a great point, for certain. And protesting is also key.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

What seemed obvious to me:

In the United States any position that opposes abortion is viewed as being in opposition to women in general. iow, being opposed to abortion automatically places one in opposition to "women's rights". This is how the issue is positioned in the sphere of US policies.
The first statement is a clear opposition to abortion. The second refutes the notion above.

I was hoping this theory were true and the Archbishop wasn’t totally off the edge, but it seems they’ve doubled down on the original thought: that the Archbishop supports abortion.

GOARCH retweets pro-abortion approval of Abp. Elpidophoros’ March for Life speech

 

[Justin-H.S.]

The Greek Archdiocese is becoming just as leftist as the Democratic Party and other Communists. This should come as no surprise.


That said, the sad reality is that no matter what laws one day get overturned, abortion will never go away. Perhaps if we Orthodox spent half as much energy helping unwed mothers as we do with the March for Life we would have fewer abortions in this country.

There’s support, and then there’s enabling.

 

[Not David]

Update on that:
GOARCH retweets pro-abortion approval of Abp. Elpidophoros’ March for Life speech
"GOARCH retweets pro-abortion approval of Abp. Elpidophoros’ March for Life speech"

 

[searn77]

After reading the entire speech at Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, Introduction & Prayer, March for Life Rally - Messages - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America , it seems as if Archbishop Elpidophoros is saying that regardless of the law, it should be unconditional love that leads a woman to bringing a child into the world

Maybe he could have worded it better, but if I'm understanding him correctly, I completely agree. Whether there is a law that allows for abortion or not, women should be prompted by love to bring their child, who is made in the image and likeness of God, into the world. This doesn't mean that the opposite is true though, that if a woman doesn't have love, she should be allowed to kill the child in her womb. Rather, it stresses the importance of love in the matter. And he also states that we as Christians should love both the mother and the child unconditionally.

 

[rusmeister]

After reading the entire speech at Archbishop Elpidophoros of America, Introduction & Prayer, March for Life Rally - Messages - Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America , it seems as if Archbishop Elpidophoros is saying that regardless of the law, it should be unconditional love that leads a woman to bringing a child into the world

Maybe he could have worded it better, but if I'm understanding him correctly, I completely agree. Whether there is a law that allows for abortion or not, women should be prompted by love to bring their child, who is made in the image and likeness of God, into the world. This doesn't mean that the opposite is true though, that if a woman doesn't have love, she should be allowed to kill the child in her womb. Rather, it stresses the importance of love in the matter. And he also states that we as Christians should love both the mother and the child unconditionally.

That seems like a useless thing to say in the fallen world. Everything in Christian teaching is "should". No practicing Orthodox Christian should get divorced from another practicing Orthodox Christian - but they do. We should live in chastity and not sin - but we don't, and do sin.

It literally goes without saying that children should be brought into the world by love (which needs parsing into the different understandings we apply to the word). It need not be said. In a world in which abortion is a fact, it is of no help whatsoever, and when he speaks of a "woman's autonomy" (as if anyone denied them freedom to do what is right) and the choice of the Theotokos, I have to ask, could she have made a different choice that we could respect and honor her for? As long as one speaks of "choice", one opens the door to the legitimization of the wrong - evil - choice. The word choice in the context of "doing the baby-making thing" (thanks to Prof. Tony Esolen for that great expression!) should be to condemn any sexual act outside of the marriage bed (as long as we are saying "should") and should be utterly rejected as a concept in speaking of abortion, just as we reject it in speaking of murdering adults. The word "choice: itself serves evil in that context.

 

[searn77]

I respectfully disagree. It is not a useless thing to say that love is needed. The caricature from the Left is that pro-life people have an obligation to promote life for the unborn, but that this obligation is primarily just that: an obligation. Obligation and love are not the same thing. So stressing the importance of love is needed if we want to be a vessel of healing for those who are spiritually and morally sick.

As Orthodox Christians, we recognize that the entire cosmos was corrupted by Adam and Eve freely choosing to turn away from God by their disobedience. This turning away from God resulted in death, disease, corruption of morals, and every evil. All people, myself included, are enslaved to sin whether we recognize it or not. This is not the way we are meant to live. True freedom or choice can only be brought about by unshackling ourselves from sin, death, and uniting ourselves to God, life. This is true freedom and this is true love. While we as Orthodox Christians might think this idea goes without saying, this idea is misunderstood by many, non-Christians and Christians alike.

It's essential to have this in mind when we want to bring about healing, salve-ation, to the world. So yes, we should seek to end Roe v. Wade, and going to the March for Life might be an avenue for this to occur. But it needs to be said that we as Orthodox Christians should be promoted to do so out of our love for Christ and wanting to share this love with others to bring about an end to an enslavement to sin. If we successfully do this as vessels for Christ, abortions will cease as well as other societal ills.

 

[rusmeister]

I respectfully disagree. It is not a useless thing to say that love is needed. The caricature from the Left is that pro-life people have an obligation to promote life for the unborn, but that this obligation is primarily just that: an obligation. Obligation and love are not the same thing. So stressing the importance of love is needed if we want to be a vessel of healing for those who are spiritually and morally sick.

As Orthodox Christians, we recognize that the entire cosmos was corrupted by Adam and Eve freely choosing to turn away from God by their disobedience. This turning away from God resulted in death, disease, corruption of morals, and every evil. All people, myself included, are enslaved to sin whether we recognize it or not. This is not the way we are meant to live. True freedom or choice can only be brought about by unshackling ourselves from sin, death, and uniting ourselves to God, life. This is true freedom and this is true love. While we as Orthodox Christians might think this idea goes without saying, this idea is misunderstood by many, non-Christians and Christians alike.

It's essential to have this in mind when we want to bring about healing, salve-ation, to the world. So yes, we should seek to end Roe v. Wade, and going to the March for Life might be an avenue for this to occur. But it needs to be said that we as Orthodox Christians should be promoted to do so out of our love for Christ and wanting to share this love with others to bring about an end to an enslavement to sin. If we successfully do this as vessels for Christ, abortions will cease as well as other societal ills.

We don't disagree about love in general as far as I see (hopefully, we distinguish between Philia, eros, storge and agape). I am speaking only to what seems to me to be you putting words in his mouth - words he might say, but here, didn't. Too many people understand love wrongly in a non-Christian manner, including an enormous number of people inside the Church. They think of love more as a feeling (that one may be obligated to have) than as a command to action regardless of feeling. The Archbishop is speaking to the general audience, and certainly is not delving into such issues and nuances here. The only thing he speaks of clearly is "choice", which is a fatal error (for one who believes that murder should never be a choice), as it will be read by all Christians who effectively support abortion as supporting the possibility of that evil choice, because that's what they WANT to see. As Orthodox Christians, we should NEVER speak of choice in regards to an existing fetus, aka babe, in the womb. Your seeing love in the AB's words is an assumption on your part. He actually speaks of "autonomy" (who is NOT autonomous, and what exactly does the word mean?) and "choice". And Christian women thinking of abortion generally haven't been visited by an angel (making his reference to the Theotokos dubious at best), so his words are a mix of the good and true with words known to be used in the service of evil.