Orthodox Ethos-Fr Peter Heers

[eish]

Well said Sava. The whole "Royal Path" that Orthodox Ethos promotes is another example. It teaches to remain in communion with heretics etc while claiming to be the teaching of the fathers, while at the same time ignoring the teaching of the fathers who say to flee from communion with heretics. 
 

 

Do not underestimate conservative ecumenism as a gateway drug to Orthodoxy.

If you're like some people (okay, me) you might simply go towards what must be correct because of the history. On learning the history I had to conclude that we in the West were wrong in the schism, and therefore had to investigate the East. Naturally this by first intent meant some kind of WO or monophysite position because of not knowing any better. The conservative ecumenists challenged radical ecumenist positions by quoting fathers, whereas radical ecumenists back their writings with nothing at all, silly academic theories, non-normative historical once-off deviations, or episcopal fiat. So on sincere investigation one naturally would gravitate to conservatives. I wish I could say that I had experience of sane TO by that point but if I found any at all (rare), it was someone mouthing off on the internet. (Protip: Posting things like "Death to the sect of world orthodoxy!" only makes you sound crazy.)

If you are not presented with the fullness of the Orthodox teaching it is easy to be in conservative ecumenism. It is forbidden to pray with heretics. It is forbidden to break from the bishop. An unstoppable force meets an immovable object if you do not know the relationship between these two teachings, nor what the saints had to say about heretical hierarchies. So you stay and listen to those who say to wait for a conciliar decision.

Pieces of the truth are scattered and shared in the conservative ecumenist community. For this they are persecuted by their hierarchy, as Fr. Peter is experiencing. In that milieu one can warm up to the truth and encounter some peripheral TO people on occasion.

First you learn about this thing called Eastern Orthodoxy, then you learn some basics of the fathers and how they are understood, then you learn about ecumenism, then you learn (God willing) that those who separated from ecumenists were in fact allowed to do so, and lastly if you can and want to find the truth you learn that you not just can but should. At least that was my experience. I watched some of Fr. Peter's content; it was good at the time, but it did not last me that long before further investigation (it's as simple as reading Canon 15) brought me to agree with Fr. Cosmas*. The former says TO are schismatic, the latter that they are within their rights. Then I start to lose interest as Fr. Peter keeps hammering on a clearly false point. To go the final step requires hearing information which is simply never quoted in WO circles.

Add to this that conservative ecumenists have a line-up of recent fathers to quote on the ecclesiastical situation--all canonised by ecumenists, after careful consideration. These speak directly to the issue since they lived in it while the ancient fathers lived long before and did not speak of ecumenism in as many words. So if you are a conservative ecumenist and are told to focus on the recent saints who know our times and speak on our terms, it seems at the surface level to check out.

Except that on careful examination they are false fathers, of course, and that some of the true recent saints have had their writings falsified.

Sorry for yet another wall of text but I guess that about covers my opinion on Fr. Peter Heers.

*The hieromonk with the Serbian patriarchate in Australia.
 
 

[SavaBeljovic]

Thank you both for your contributions ! Welcome to --- ha ha ! Rumpelstiltskin. [ Why did you pick that name ? ]

Can we hear more about abp dimitri's connection with such a notorious person ? And the FBI's resulting suspicions about the purported saint ? The plot thickens !

PS Sorry that my picture didn't actually show up here. I don't know why, I might try it again later, as it's appalling.
 
 

 

Dmitri baptized Lee Harvey Oswald, to my knowledge, and to be fair, their connection was tenuous at best. Oswald converted to "Orthodoxy" because of his wife whom he met in Belarus I think? Who was in the MP and the OCA was the closest thing to them there in Texas. There are newspaper articles about Dmitri, who was a priest at the time, and Oswald, and possibly even a picture of the two together. The KGB tried to recruit Oswald when he was in Russia and they determined he was "unreliable" and probably not in sound mental health -- it actually caused a bit of a stir because when JFK got assassinated, the Soviets rushed to say they had nothing to do with it, and when they found out there was a file on Oswald in the Lubyanka building, they freaked out! ...until they realized they didn't actually recruit him and narrowly dodged WW3 -- from the beginning and when the OCA stated they were going to unite with the MP, the government was suspicious of them. It was no secret and well known MP clerics were KGB agents even in the US during the 1940s, 50s and 60s, and the OCA had been infiltrated. I can recall seeing some declassified documents from the FBI on Dmitri Royster where they heavily suspected he was a KGB agent/informant, but I haven't seen it in years. He might have been a KGB agent because of the list of KGB codenames used by church officials, we only know about half of them, but I also don't think any of the codenames we know of belonged to OCA clergy. 
 
 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Barbara: Rumpelstiltskin is the same name I used for NFTU discord, that's why. lol. 

[Barbara]

These answers are SO helpful to anyone browsing here to understand a unique viewpoint not available ANYWHERE else - just about !
That's why the more you all write, the better it is to have information clearly written that any person interested in this field will be able to immediately SEE the truth. And cut thru all that garbage out there floating around.
I think the better explanations we have to offer at this site about controversial Fr Peter Heers, the more readers can benefit.
So please, everyone, KEEP writing ! Where's Almond, by the way ? Eish, it's never too much material ! You apologized for a "wall" of writing, but the more, the BETTER !
Can you explain one thing right away so i can better comprehend what you wrote ?
Are the conservative ecumenists entirely the Orthodox Ethos group ? Or are there OTHER factions as well that would fall into this category ??

[Barbara]

Sava ! That's one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of all Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States !
I'm grateful that you disclosed this history. No one knew this, I think ! At least, it's not told anywhere on the internet- and certainly NOT in the OCA material !

The latter only raves about how incredible it was that Royster was supposedly "found to be incorrupt". Do you have any idea how to interpret that claim ?? It just DOES NOT RING TRUE to me - it never did from the 1st I heard about it.

Besides the possibility that this OCA hierarch was a KGB agent or agent of influence, which just about cancels out ANY possibility of him having been a Saint of any type, were there any remarkable good qualities about him that would make him even faintly "holy" ? I'm trying to be completely fair. I don't think so, but you sound like you have a more full grasp of the story of Royster's life. Readers visiting here in the future might already be  programmed to think like THAT, so I am anticipating their reactions when they read this less-than-flattering thread on abp dmitri of the South [United States].

Rumpelstiltskin, thank you for answering. It's such a funny name !
Could you possibly what a discord is ? I am so "out of it" as far as internet-ese goes. I have a hard time understanding people a lot of the time, in fact.
I see terms flying across the screen but I never know what they mean !
 

[SavaBeljovic]

Sava ! That's one of the most remarkable episodes in the history of all Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States !
I'm grateful that you disclosed this history. No one knew this, I think ! At least, it's not told anywhere on the internet- and certainly NOT in the OCA material !

The latter only raves about how incredible it was that Royster was supposedly "found to be incorrupt". Do you have any idea how to interpret that claim ?? It just DOES NOT RING TRUE to me - it never did from the 1st I heard about it.

Besides the possibility that this OCA hierarch was a KGB agent or agent of influence, which just about cancels out ANY possibility of him having been a Saint of any type, were there any remarkable good qualities about him that would make him even faintly "holy" ? I'm trying to be completely fair. I don't think so, but you sound like you have a more full grasp of the story of Royster's life. Readers visiting here in the future might already be  programmed to think like THAT, so I am anticipating their reactions when they read this less-than-flattering thread on abp dmitri of the South [United States].

Rumpelstiltskin, thank you for answering. It's such a funny name !
Could you possibly what a discord is ? I am so "out of it" as far as internet-ese goes. I have a hard time understanding people a lot of the time, in fact.
I see terms flying across the screen but I never know what they mean !
 

 

Incorruption can be a punishment too, people forget. The wicked Uniate emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos who signed the union of Lyons went to Mt. Athos while on his way to fight a war, with a bunch of Papist cardinals and other clergy, and forced the monks to commemorate the Pope, those who refused, he killed, and they became Martyrs. He left not long after, and lost the battle he was fighting horribly, he stopped back in Mt. Athos (which just for note, there are no incorrupt relics, despite the many Saints who lived there, on Mt. Athos whatsoever) and him and a few of the Uniates died there after a brief illness. Their bodies did not corrupt, but they had horrified expressions on their faces and omitted a putrid stench. There is another story from the life of St. Nektarios of Aegina I believe? Where a woman got upset at her husband for getting drunk I believe, and slapped him, her hand immediately withered and she went to St. Nektarios to confess. St. Nektarios told her that God had forgiven her sin, but as a punishment, her hand would not be restored nor would it corrupt, and so it came to pass.

The OCA, very unfortunately, is quite good at distorting things in their own accounts and materials. They also recently canonized this Matushka Olga, whom I don't doubt the sincerity of, but the canonization felt more like "we're canonizing this pious grandmother from Alaska to attract more American converts" than anything else... I'm not saying Matushka Olga wasn't pious or Holy, the whole thing about her essentially being a faith healer is very suspicious, but it doesn't look like a valid canonization to me, even disregarding the fact the body that did the canonization is illegitimate.

With this Dmitri Royster, he was very Ecumenist and would commune Ethiopian Monophysites. I will admit I haven't read everything there is to read about him, but I also don't think there's that much to begin with. It seems like with these recent WO canonizations, only when they're about to canonize people do sources and stories suddenly appear (or in the case with Matushka Olga, there are maybe only a handful of photographs and a few anecdotal stories about her, and that's it) and that's qualification enough, in conclusion, I seriously doubt Dmitri (Royster) is a Saint. 

[eish]

Incorruption can be a punishment too, people forget.

 

Not only can it be, but this is the default interpretation in the absence of some physical cause of failure to decompose (like bog bodies).

As I have it--and this comes from WO sources so take that as you will--when a body is exhumed incorrupt it is normal in Orthodox countries to perform prayers for the forgiveness of sins and rebury it for a period before checking if it helped. It is taken as a sign that the earth would not accept the body because of unconfessed/unrepentant sins. A sign that the soul needs prayers.

Only in rare cases is incorruption taken as a mark of holiness, usually with a specific symbolism such as the ear of St. Chrysostom which is incorrupt where St. Paul whispererd his teachings. The people to whom this is applied are always those already believed to be saints for other reasons.