In Response To Slander Of Elder Ephraim

[尼古拉前执事]

Those who want to read the stories can read part one at http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4478780 and part two at http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... =menu216_1

[Kollyvas]

Christ is in our midst!
He is and ever shall be!

While I have no hesitation in supporting the Elder and Athonite witness in N America, I do have to underscore that I consciously have made it a point to avoid former and present "ephraimites" for reasons of incompatibility of character. As david smith has illustrated, to some Orthodoxy isn't serious enough a faith to work toward its witness and integrity. Those in the past who have impugned my methods or zeal are people who have different devotions than myself, and, inevitably, these things remain at odds. It is best not to inflame old and settled differences, It is true that in the past I have had my differences with the OCA and at least one of its hierarchs, +Tikhon of the West, but if he has accepted my apology, who is anyone else to underscore the past?! It is precisely because of these types of innuendos that I avoid all contact with members of Fr. McCuen's ROCOR parish, which seems a hotbed of gossip and slander in Phoenix. Again, I thank God I have nothing to do with the endeavour and would encourage others to avoid it for OCA alternatives. If any parties do wish to address things with me, it is clear that I'm public enough as to not have to be addressed in absentia. Unfortunately, there are indeed people associated with the monasteries who make things difficult, BUT, like david smith, they are not accurate representations of the monasteries...
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
MY SHOVEL IS MY CREDIBILITY.

[Kollyvas]

(forwarded from Orthodox Forum...R)

:mrgreen: :bump: ... My sources indicate that Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlakhos and even the Royal family of Greece wrote letters (or rather e-mails) to KVOA. KVOA management is scratching their head because what they expected to happen with this story and what happened were two different things...

#52448

From: "Kostas Moschonisiotis" <moschonisi@...>
Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:43 pm
Subject: Re: KVOA Ch 4. Tuscon Investigative Report

MR. COIN: Before you fire a response (or anything else) at me, PLEASE read my entire message It would be beneficial for many of us that monitor this Forum to understand what your personal issue is with the monasteries. It would also be helpful to also inform us (if you know) the issues which Pokrov has with the monasteries as well. It most certainly appears that both of you (on this and other forums) anxiously take every opportunity to push negative messages against Elder Ephraim's work. So many of us fail to understand your motives as we are aware that you have spent zero time to study or understand or review Elder Ephraim's work. Furthermore, there seems to be eagerness to jump on the slightest negative innuendo and advertise it accordingly. Why? What have the monasteries done to YOU or YOUR CAUSE? You very well know that they stay far away from the ugly politics between the hierarchs and OCL and all that stuff. Look at what you are doing below: you are advertising a negative message against a formal and world-wide reputable Church entity when you forward the KVOA garbage about "close to a PRISON is the COMPOUND..." And then you also add the "(NBC)" so as to make it bigger than it really is... You could have just sent the links and say here is the link for the KVOA news report, but that was not enough. There is so much one can pick on the OCL web site and attack your cause yet I rarely see people do it (and certainly never the monastics). And another thing, how can you possibly expect me or so many others to ever get serious about the Orthodox unity movement that OCL promotes, and even think about supporting OCL, when you and other OCL members (like Dean Calvert on St. Andrew Forum) behave in this manner. May I please beg you and Pokrov and all other OCL members to PLEASE leave the monastics alone? They have done absolutely NOTHING to any of you, and if you ever visited them, they would put you in their prayer lists and keep you there. You see, sir, you may not need the monastics and their prayers, but my family and I do. It is OK for you and I to differ on our personal spiritual desires - I do not condemn your OCL agenda, please do not bother or condemn the monks who pray for me and my family. You and Pokrov most certainly do not really believe the Rick Ross garbage - you are way too intelligent for that and have been around too long to know; yet directly or indirectly you promote it! I invite you both to visit a monastery and see for yourself. As far as the BIG STRY and INVESTIGATIVE REPORT by KVOA is a complete bust - even my American, non-Orthodox friends' response was "I don't get it - what was this story about? Hearsay?" Some of them even called KVOA to ask them, very honestly, what was this story about? They were also taken back by what the reporters said, that hundreds of letters poured in, from all over the world, in support of the monasteries and Elder Ephraim. Do you really believe that Elder Ephraim is a magician and has the power to "manipulate" actions world- wide from AZ? If so, then our nation really needs him in the war against terror! The question to you is: ARE ALL THESE PEOPLE WRONG? My sources indicate that Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlahos and even the Royal family of Greece wrote letters (or rather e-mails) to KVOA. KVOA management is scratching their head because what they expected to happen with this story and what happened were two different things. It will be interesting to see if they drop it or if they say something else. I hear the outpouring of negativity towards KVOA and the accusers is till coming into KVOA. It is not very often these reporters get it this wrong, but they did this time. I also heard that one person at KVOA who took a little more time to telle them to NOT go with this report, is now laughing and walks around telling Tedesco the old "I told you so" thing. He is the one that even told them that this $13 million thing on "where the money is coming from" is silly. He is right! Holy Trinity Cathedral in Phoenix just started an education building that will cost $4.5 million in just a coupe of years or less. St. Katherine's in Chandler just received a $2 million donation from a single person, And KVOA was wondering about $13 million for St. Anthony's monastery WHICH, BTW, IS THE NO. 2 VISITED SPOT IN AZ AFTER GRAND CANYON? Come on!... You see, sir, God has an almost funny way to turn things around and He did just that in this case. Could it perhaps be that Elder Ephraim is truly doing God's work in America? That is a question that we all need to answer. If so, it may perhaps be to all of our benefit to leave him alone. Please forgive me if my tone is strong but the garbage of the KVOA story and the "accusers" has me quite animated. Kostas Moschonisiotis

#52449

From: frjsilver@...
Date: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [Orthodox-Forum] Re: KVOA Ch 4. Tucson Investigative Report

Dear Friends -- I, for one, am very grateful for these remarks by Kostas Moschonisiotis. May the Lord reward his kindness as only He can, and bless him and his family. You ought to know -- if you don't already -- that all of us monastics are praying for you, sometimes by name and sometimes not, but always. And we would be very grateful if you'd remember us in your prayers, too, as we strive to 'work out our salvation in fear and trembling'. Peace and blessings to all. Monk James

[Kollyvas]

It is time to close this chapter for all Orthodox faithful. We encourage all of our friends to look beyond this travesty. In the end, we all may have grown just a little stronger and more determined in our personal efforts, each of us in our own way, to earn the highly desired end result, our salvation.

The KVOA story is already forgotten and it is possible (and quite likely) that its impact may end up being opposite from what those vicious enemies of the monastics desired. It is interesting to note that, as we all knew from the beginning, this was all about the evil of pseudo-journalistic sensationalism and not about the truth; nothing “came out” of this “investigation” other than a few bitter parents who are upset because their sons (in their 20s) decided to become monastics, and a disturbed young man with a personal vendetta of peculiar and highly questionable origin…

We continue to strongly encourage our friends to visit the monasteries and reap the spiritual fruits they have to offer. We have yet to come upon a single family that has not benefited though periodic visits to monasteries, whether in the USA or in Greece.

We are also thankful to so many of you who wrote or called the TV station to voice your objection for the ill treatment of our monastics and to speak out for the traditions of our Holy Orthodoxy.

In Christ, the Omnipotent Judge of all nations and all people,

The Brotherhood of St. POIMEN the Great

http://www.OrthodoxHeritage.org/

[Kollyvas]

This is a well-put letter from the heart, representing the true side of how the absolute majority of monastic parents feel.

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Chondropoulos"
To: kchoal@kvoa.com
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE KVOA NEWS DIRECTOR -- RE: THE “MONASTERY REPORT”
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 21:58:24 -0700

Madame:

My wife and I can not recall if you are one of the persons we met during our
short visit to your TV station, before the “Monastery Mystery” report aired.
I believe that we had a short meeting with you and Mr. Brad Stone. We
introduced ourselves as the happy parents of a very happy monastic. We
explained to you that we live in Arizona and we were shocked that a story
about or from monastic parents would be aired. Knowing some info about the
interviewees, we volunteered to be interviewed as well. We also informed
you that your story represents only the negative side which also happens to
be the absolute MINORITY! We also informed you that there are many other
parents, just like us, that can be here in a moment’s notice, and would
gladly provide you with all kinds of un-prepared, un-practiced feedback.
You, of course, refused our offer and instead urged us to view your
so-called fair and unbiased report.

We did view it, but fair and unbiased it was not. We can emphatically and
categorically state that the story was greatly biased and extremely unfair.
First and foremost, the simple response which you received BEFORE it aired
should have caused you to raise your antennas. You did not stop to think
and then repeated your error on two different nights. I am certain that the
overwhelming response in support of the monasteries must have certainly
caused you some concern; if it did not, then I kindly suggest that you are
foregoing your fiduciary responsibility as journalists and reporters.

We, the happy parents of Greek Orthodox monastics, do not have a coalition
group, yet. However we are parents and we are human, just like you; thus,
when somebody attacks the very institution that our child is part of and
presents misinformation and slander of the type that you anxiously accepted
as de facto from David Smith, it causes great concern to say the least. It
is for this reason that we are writing to you to inform you of your report’s
deleterious impact upon us, our children, and our fellow Orthodox
Christians. After all, when you attacked monasticism, you also attacked our
2000-year old religion in a manner that is unacceptable, prejudicial and
highly unethical.

You see, Ms. Choal,, you and your peers have no right to make my wife cry
with lies and innuendos; you have no right to accept the word of a character
like Smith and disregard the truth which the monastics presented to you,
along with Fr. Anthony. You did a masterful job of picking the worst
possible few seconds of Fr. Anthony’s 2-1/2 hour interview so that you can
introduce your pre-determined agenda. You thus also condemned a retired
priest who dedicated his entire life to God. But then, you were worried
about ratings… oh those ratings, how quickly they make you all compromise
your integrity!

You also took the word of a troubled woman like Ms. Alec, whose own husband
did not participate in this fiasco report. Additionally, you accepted input
from a peculiar individual like Ashley Nivens who has made himself a prophet
and declares false truths to anybody who will give him a small amount of
time. As far as the Pantanizopoulos family, when you mentioned that their
child was back home, you did it briefly and never questioned how in the
world he “escaped” from this God-awful monastery prison, and why did he
leave with the help of the monastics who supposedly guarded him and
brainwashed for the last 9+ years. You did not even bring up that several
other monks and nuns have left the monasteries upon their expression of such
wish, even though you knew it and you knew it very well.

I can not help but ask: Do you consider yourselves ethical journalists (or
even just journalists) with such type of reports? Do you have any concept
how many parents shed tears because of your story? Do you know how many
Jewish-heritage monks (yes, there are several monastics of Jewish descent)
were not only perplexed but astonished and upset with your anti-Semitism
garbage? Yes, I call it YOUR garbage and not Smith’s – anybody spending any
amount of time with him should be able to surmise that this is an extremely
unstable young man – and you knew MUCH more about him, yet you went with
this garbage! Do you also know how many siblings or nephews or other
relatives got confused because the place they go (i.e., St. Anthony’s) is
NOT the place you described?

I will try in parent-talk to explain to you a couple of things about this
monastic “call” that you obviously neither understand nor took the time to
understand. I have three sons who, since their early youth, have been going
in and out of this or that monastery, off and on, for several years (and
much longer than Smith). Somehow, though, their brains were not washed away
by the monks and they selected to remain in the world and pursue a family
life. Their sister, on the other hand, who spent much less time than them
talking with or being around the monastics, decided to become a nun. And
even then, she was a novice for over five years! YES! Five years! Think
about that! Why would a brainwashing institution need five years to do
their KVOA-hypothesized brainwashing job? Could it be that KVOA has been
misled by those who are known polemics to the monasteries into a false
story?

You need to think about my words, you need to realize that all these people
that contacted you, they truly love the monastery for what it is, a unique
spiritual oasis that heals the soul and provides comfort and support to all
faithful Orthodox Christians; and I ask that you also take the time to
picture my wife crying, you need to consider that there were many tears shed
by many monastic mothers and many Orthodox faithful over the falsehoods of
your story, and when you get this picture clear in your mind, think for a
second that this could be YOUR mother… or YOUR wife… or YOUR sister…

How does it feel?

George Chondropoulos
Queen Creek, Arizona

[Kollyvas]

http://joyfullight.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 12, 2006
Response to David Smith's continued allegations of anti-Semitism
I am finding it difficult to give an adequate answer to David (Nephon) Smith’s latest webpage, where he addresses my earlier blog on Elder Ephraim’s supposed anti-Semitism.

The difficulty does not lie in answering Smith’s specific complaints; in fact, he really makes only one specific accusation, namely, that Elder Ephraim teaches anti-Semitism (which I have already refuted). Rather, the difficulty lies in the long and winding path by which Smith arrives at that one accusation. This is a path strewn with misconceptions, misunderstandings, innuendo, and petty nonsense. It is very time-consuming to attempt to address each of these twists and turns – requiring more time than I have at my disposal. Therefore, I will provide a sampling, which I hope will be sufficient to indicate to readers the strained character of Smith’s argumentation. Following this, I will address one or two concrete issues.

Smith begins his answer to my earlier posting with a perplexing statement – “I never said the monks were racists or anti-Semites. I said that Ephraim’s teachings are anti-Semitic.” What is the purpose of this hair-splitting? Is he trying to distinguish between the terms “anti-Semite” and “anti-Semitic”? What is the point here? Following the same online dictionary that Smith referenced (link, and especially link), one sees that these terms are essentially synonomous: an anti-Semite is one who promotes anti-Semitic teaching.

Is he then trying to distinguish between the teachings of the monks at Elder Ephraim’s monasteries, and the teachings of the Elder himself? This does not make sense either, as Smith repeatedly refers to “the Monastery's network of people”, teachings “propagated by the Monastery”, “taught by the monks”, or by “the Elder’s followers”. He generally equates all of these things.

Perhaps Smith intended to communicate some nuance that escapes my notice; were it not for this possibility, I would be inclined to regard Smith’s statement as petty equivocation.

Continuing through Smith’s argument, he makes the following assertions.

(1) The Protocols are absolutely proven forgery.

My response: There are many reasonable people who would not make such a firm and absolute assertion, either for or against the Protocols. I will address this later on in this post.

(2) Smith demonstrates that Elder Ephraim’s disciples have expressed various opinions on the issue, some opposing the authenticity of the Protocols, and some supporting it. He quotes from several of these people.

Smith looks upon this variety of opinion as vacillation – people scrambling to downplay the Elder’s references to the Protocols. Smith describes this circumstance as “interesting”, insinuating that there is some attempt at a “cover-up”.

A much simpler explanation is that, in fact, the Elder’s spiritual children are ordinary people with their own reasonably considered opinions, some of them accepting the Protocols as valid, some denouncing them, and others never having heard of them at all. However, Smith cannot take this position, because he asserts that the Elder is running a cult, that the Elder’s spiritual children “aren’t allowed” to have any opinions of their own, and that the Elder is “pushing” the Protocols on his “followers”. The more rational explanation is much simpler.

(3) Smith provides a quote from Saint Ambrose of Milan, presenting it in a light that makes the Saint appear to be an anti-Semite.

Smith does not even refer to this Holy Father as a Saint, but refers to him simply as “Bishop Ambrose of Milan”, despite the fact that Saint Ambrose is universally regarded as one of the greatest fathers of the Western Church. One immediately suspects that the Saint has been quoted out of context, and upon reading the source of the quote, one finds that this is indeed the case.

Saint Ambrose is writing a letter to the Emperor Theodosius, asking for clemency for a village bishop and some other Christians who were accused of burning down a synagogue. Apparently the Emperor had already decreed a sentence in the matter, and Saint Ambrose reminds him that the accused bishop had not even been allowed to give a defense of himself. The Saint further reminds the Emperor that many Jews and pagans had recently destroyed a large number of basilicas and churches, and had received no punishment for their deeds. How, then, could the Emperor rightly mete out a strict punishment against these Christians, whose guilt had not even been proven? This would not only be unjust, but would also be showing partiality to those who deny Christ; by doing so, the Emperor would be making himself an enemy of Christ.

In the course of this epistle, one can find the passage quoted by Smith. Smith condemns the “hateful practice” of burning synagogues, insinuating that Saint Ambrose actually condones this, where this is not at all what Saint Ambrose is advocating. Saint Ambrose was writing in defense of a particular group of Christians in the case of a particular event, not at all trying to persuade people in general to rise up against civil order and burn down synagogues as a general practice. Saint Ambrose certainly uses strong language in his admonition of the Emperor, referring to several Old Testament passages that condemn the false religion practiced at times by the ancient Jews, but this language is not even as strong as that used by the Apostles themselves (cf. Rev. 3:9).

In my opinion, Smith has shown himself to be an unreliable patristic interpreter, spinning the Saint’s writings to fit his own purposes. He skews the evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion. He even dares to misrepresent a great father of the Church in this way.

(4) Smith finally makes a concrete accusation – “There is NO place in Christianity for the kind of statements about Jews (or anyone else) that Ephraim is making and encouraging his followers to make.”

However, Smith has very little to stand on. He refers to one or two obscure references to the Protocols in Elder Ephraim’s books, and based on this he claims the Elder is teaching anti-Semitism. Based on the writings of “a disciple of Fr. Paisios”, who provides a general characterization of Judaic spirituality, Smith assumes he learned these things from St. Anthony’s Monastery, and declares there is “NO place in Christianity” for opinions of this kind.

Smith imagines there is a concerted secret effort going on amongst Elder Ephraim’s spiritual children to incite prejudice against the Jews and get people to believe in the Protocols. But Smith himself demonstrates that the Elder’s spiritual children have expressed many different opinions on the matter.

I think it is fair to ask, who is really being prejudiced here? Who is really taking an extreme position and making a ridiculous argument?

Now, to move on to Smith’s specific allegations. Smith continues to charge Elder Ephraim with teaching anti-Semitism, based solely on the Elder’s referring to the Protocols as though they were a genuine document. Smith cites many sources that purport to make the case that the Protocols are a forgery.

As I have already pointed out, it is quite possible for reasonable people to look at the evidence on both sides of the issue, and come to different conclusions. I personally believe that this happens because the issue is quite complex. People think differently and give different weight to the various points of evidence, thereby reaching different conclusions.

Smith, however, seems to think that the only way a person can assess the evidence and then conclude that the Protocols are genuine, is if the person is already predisposed by anti-Semitic prejudice. Of course, Smith’s approach precludes any rational discussion of the topic, since if a person takes the opposing point of view, Smith will denounce him as de facto anti-Semitic.

Smith therefore concludes that the Elder must teach (and therefore believe) anti-Semitism, because the Elder apparently teaches (and believes) that the Protocols are genuine.

I have already given substantial evidence to show that the Elder has absolutely no prejudice towards the Jews. But the only thing that seems to matter to David Smith is the Elder’s opinion of the Protocols; this is enough to convict the Elder of anti-Semitism. It doesn’t matter that many of the Elder’s spiritual children are Jews. It doesn’t matter that many of the monks and nuns in the Elder’s monasteries are Jews. It doesn’t matter that even the Elder’s personal physician is a Jew. It doesn’t matter to Smith that none of these people have ever complained of anti-Semitism from the Elder or from the monasteries, and that they have experienced no negative prejudice shown toward them. The only thing that seems to matter is this one allegation — that Smith believes the Protocols are a fraud — and anyone who disagrees with his opinion is anti-Semitic.

Which point of view is truly prejudiced?

Smith concludes his argument about anti-Semitism as follows: “The only reason to propagate the Protocols, like Ephraimites do, and like the Archdiocese allows the Ephraimites to, is if you honestly believe there is a conspiracy against Christianity by Zionists, which Ephraim certainly believes and it appears his followers do too.”

Surely Smith (and perhaps some other readers) will object that I have not yet come out and stated clearly whether the Elder actually does “honestly believe there is a conspiracy against Christianity by Zionists”, and so on.

It is true that I have not addressed the issue. I have many good reasons for this. Chiefly, this is a very serious topic that especially requires an appreciation and understanding of what the Holy Fathers have written about it. But in an atmosphere of innuendo, misunderstanding, and antipathy towards the Holy Fathers, to begin a discussion of these things in detail would surely only add to the confusion. This is why I have preferred to limit my current response, addressing only the disingenuous method of argumentation employed by David Smith.

If we are able to “clear the air” and discuss the issues forthrightly, with at least some deference shown toward the opinions of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, and without knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism being flung about, then perhaps a discussion of the Protocols would be worthwhile. But in the current atmosphere, I doubt such a discussion would be profitable for anyone.
posted by Seraphim Larsen at 8:38 PM 0 comments

Regarding names
I personally find it disappointing that David Smith does not care to refer to Elder Ephraim with his customary title. He does not even acknowledge the Elder’s priesthood by calling him “Father” Ephraim. Does Smith not share in common civility? Or does he mean to insinuate that the Elder is not a real priest, or that he has not really been the Abbot of the ruling Monastery on Mount Athos (Philotheou), and the founder and spiritual father of countless other monasteries? In the Greek tradition every abbot is called “Geronda” (Greek for “Elder”). Perhaps this grates upon our American ears, and if that is the case, Smith could at least use the respectful title of “Father” and give deference to the sacrament of ordination.

[Kollyvas]

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa ... &S=&P=2242

Since this guru inferences are nothing more than another attack against the monastics and Elder Ephraim, it is important that I give all LAZARites and SMITHites the true PATRISTIC basis for the obedience which they rickross away into their guru garbage theories. This is only a few lines, very elementary, as posted on: http://orthodoxpatristicwisdom.blogspot ... ing-elder- ephraims-book.html You MUST understand that obedience of the type discussed in the pertinent texts are for all of the TRUE monastics and those who aspire more than the normal Sunday afternoon coffee clutch after their "expedited liturgy." BTW, do you think God will use a differenbt measuring stick for laity than for monks on Judgement Day? Or, do we have two bibles, one for monks and one for laity? Or, did the Holy Ftahers write for monks only and not for all Orthodox Christians? Here is what the Holy Fathers say: +++ +++ +++ St. John Climacus says a lot on monastic obedience in Step number 4: #3: "Obedience is absolute renunciation of our own life, clearly expressed in our bodily actions. Or, conversely, obedience is the mortification of the limbs while the mind remains alive. Obedience is unquestioning movement, voluntary death, a life free of curiosity, carefree danger, unprepared defence before God, fearlessness of death, a safe voyage, a sleeper's progress. Obedience is the tomb of the will and the resurrection of humility. A corpse does not argue or reason as to what is good or what seems to be bad. For he who has devoutly put the soul of the novice to death will answer for everything. Obedience is an abandonment of discernment in a wealth of discernment." #5: "You who have decided to strip for the arena of this spiritual confession, you who wish to take on your neck the yoke of Christ, you who are therefore trying to lay your own burden on another's shoulders, you who are hastening to sign a pledge that you are voluntarily surrendering yourself to slavery, and in return want freedom written to your account, you who are being supported by the hands of others as you swim across this great sea - you should know that you have decided to travel by a short but rough way from which there is only one erring path, and it is called self- rule. But he who has renounced this entirely, even in things that seem to be good and spiritual and pleasing to God, has reached the end before setting out on his journey. For obedience is distrust of oneself in everything, however good it may be, right to the end of one's life." #9: "He who submits himself, passed sentence on himself. If his obedience for the Lord's sake is perfect, even if it does not seem perfect, he will escape judgment. But if he does his own will in some things, then although he considers himself obedient, he lays the burden on his own shoulders. It is good if the superior does not cease reproving him; but if he is silent, then I do not know what to say. Those who submit themselves in the Lord in simplicity run the good race without provoking the cunning of the demons against themselves by their exacting investigations." St. Basil the Great, from his Ascetical Works says this about obedience: "If, then, with the grace of God, you find a teacher of good works (for if you really seek, you will find) keep a watch over yourself so as to do nothing against his will; for whatever is done without his consent is, as it were, a piece of thievery and a sacrilege leading not to your profit but to your ruin, however good it may seem to you." And again St. Basil the Great in reference to sisters in a monastery: "She should not dispute the orders given her (for such a practice becomes habitual and leads to rebellion), but as we receive the commands of the Lord without question, knowing that all of the Scripture is divinely inspired and of benefit to us, so also the members of the sisterhood should accept without distinction the commands of the superior." Again St. Basil: "Consequently, when a superior has been chosen, all private volition will give place and all, without exception, will follow the example of their head in obedience to the apostolic precept bidding every soul to be subject to higher powers and warning that 'they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.' True and perfect obedience of subjects to their superior is shown not only by their refraining from every untoward action in accordance with his advice, but also by their not doing even what is approved without his consent." St. Basil, from Ascetical Discourses (the short rules) says this on obedience: "If those who govern the world have received their authority through civil law and we have to be obedient to them, how much more obedience does the ascetic have to show to him who has received his authority from God and from His laws. And how is it not possible to go against the commandments of God when one opposes the abbot. For the abbot is none other than the one who holds the place of the Savior and intercedes between God and man and he offers to God the salvation of those obedient to him (i.e. his monks)." St. Symeon the New Theologian, taken from the Discourses, Chapter 20, paragraph 2 titled The guidance of a Spiritual Father: "So brother do as we have said and go to the man whom God chose you, either mystically in person or externally through his servant. you should look on him and speak to him as to Christ Himself and so revere him and be taught by him what is profitable." St. Theodoros the Great Ascetic and Bishop of Edessa (Volume 2 of the Philokalia) - #41: "The struggle to achieve obedience is won by means of renunciation, as we have learned." And #42: "Do not judge the actions of your spiritual father, but obey his commands. For the demons are in the habit of showing you his defects, so that your ears may be deaf to what he tells you. They aim either to drive you from the arena as a feeble and cowardly fighter, or simply to terrify you with thoughts that undermine your faith, and so to make you sluggish about every form of virtue." And #43: "A monk who disobeys the commands of his spiritual father transgresses the special vows of his profession. But he who has embraced obedience and slain his own will with the sword of humility has indeed fulfilled the promise that he made to Christ in the presence of many witnesses." And #44: "From our own observations we have clearly perceived that the enemies of our life, the demons, are exceedingly jealous of those pursuing the ascetic way under obedience to a spiritual father. Gnashing their teeth at them and devising all sorts of schemes, they do and suggest everything possible so as to separate a monk from his spiritual father's care. They propose plausible excuses, they contrive irritations, they arouse hatred against the father, they represent his admonitions and rebukes, they make his words of correction seem like sharpened arrows. Why, they ask, since you are free, have you become a slave - a slave to a merciless master? How long will you wear yourself out under the yoke of servitude and not see the light of freedom? Then they make suggestions about giving hospitatlity, visiting the sick and caring for the poor. Next they extol above measure the rewards of extreme stillness and solitude, and sow all sorts of evil weeds in the heart of the devout warrior, simply to cast him out of the fold of his spiritual father; and having unmoored him from the untroubled haven they drive him out to sea, into the fierce and soul-destroying tempest. Finally, when they have enslaved him to their own authority, they use him according to their own evil desires." And #45: "You who are under obedience to a spiritual father must be alert to the cunning of your enemies and adversaries. Do not forget your profession and promise to God... nstead, rooting in your heart the Lord's words, 'He who endures to the end will be saved'." - - -