I thought it was good advice overall. The Simpsons chrismation photo is inappropriate, of course. It was good to emphasize the need for consistency, staying away from online controversies, repenting and confessing when we fall behind, etc. Today there seems to be a big problem regarding proper catechesis and reception, though. A lot of people do not begin their life in the Church on a firm foundation because they were not properly catechized - often with a short catechism focused only on learning about beliefs and not involving confessing of sins, repentance, and learning to struggle against the passions. Then, people are often received by chrismation and not baptized, contrary to the canons and the teachings of countless saints. This article also repeats the incorrect teaching that your bishop and parish priest are your “spiritual fathers” de facto. A spiritual father is selected voluntarily and should be a holy person who you entrust your soul to, to guide you to salvation and intercede for you before the throne of God after their repose. The idea that when you attend a parish the priest is now your spiritual father and you should not seek guidance elsewhere, along with poor catechism and improper reception, are among the most erroneous and damaging teachings popularly circulating today.
Thanks for stopping by and for the thoughtful engagement, even where we disagree.
On the chrismation photo: I really like to use fun artwork. If it’s not your taste, this is probably not the blog for you. I don’t think there’s anything inherently inappropriate about it.
You’re right that consistency, avoiding online controversies, and the priority of repentance and confession are central themes here. Our regular readers get hit with these themes again and again. This is why the article itself spends a good deal of space on confession and returning to Christ. You are correct: this is exactly the point.
But I have to push back on a few things.
On reception by chrismation: you say people are “often received by chrismation and not baptized, contrary to the canons and teachings of countless saints.” That’s not quite right. The canons and the tradition recognize both paths. Some are baptized; others are chrismated. This is the akravia—the canons require some by baptism others by reception, and to deny that is to be an innovator to the Tradition. The Church has never been one-size-fits-all on this. Your position doesn’t do justice to the actual canonical tradition. I myself was baptized Orthodox—because that's what my bishop required, and that is the only correct answer.
On spiritual fathers: this article isn’t talking about a capital-S, trademark “Spiritual Father” in the monastic sense. It’s talking about the ordinary reality that your bishop is your spiritual father, your parish priest is your spiritual father in a real sense, and even your godfather is a spiritual father. That’s not just traditional Orthodox teaching, it's biblical. St. Paul calls himself the spiritual father of those he writes to (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Thess. 2:11, etc.). We all have a few spiritual fathers in that sense; but not all Orthodox have a spiritual father in another sense. If a layperson is running around looking for a guru-style spiritual father, I think that’s usually a mistake. You’re really not obligated to have one unless you are under obedience in a monastery.
On confession: yes, I would say your parish priest is your default confessor regardless of whatever other arrangements can be appropriate. That’s a true and good statement, and the message that new comers need to hear. It doesn’t mean you can never confess elsewhere, as my own history attests—I've been Orthodox nearly 2 decades and a member of only three parishes—yet I've confessed to dozens of priests across the country.
Finally, you mention “poor catechism and improper reception” as damaging teachings. I’d gently suggest that your own comments here are a good example of the kind of catechism that confuses rigorism with tradition. The Orthodox faith is demanding, but it is also pastoral. Economia is not laxity, it is the proper ordering of the household by the bishop whether in strictness or in pastoral accommodation. And at the end of the day, we are a church that is led by bishops, not by monks in the desert who do corrective baptisms—we follow the application of the canons that our particular bishop makes for his flock and the individual needs of those people.
I appreciate the interaction. I hope you’ll give some consideration to what I've said.
"If a layperson is running around looking for a guru-style spiritual father, I think that’s usually a mistake. You’re really not obligated to have one unless you are under obedience in a monastery."
You reiterated my point here. This is anti-Orthodox teaching. Have you read any of the lives and teachings of the saints and holy elders? The Elders of Optina, St. Paisios of Mt. Athos, St. Joseph the Hesychast and his many disciples, St. Porphyrios - all of them were regularly visited by laypeople and none of them said that they should instead seek guidance from whomever happened to be their parish priest. Read the life of St. Gregory Palamas, for example. His parents regularly took him and their other children for guidance to an experienced monastic spiritual father. Many more lives and witnesses from the saints confirm that this is "normal" among whose who are glorified, which is not the same as becoming "normal" by random status quo criteria within a parish or jurisdiction in America today. The book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria" explains how reception by chrismation is not applicable to our times. Many saints confirmed this. For instance, St. Paisios the Athonite and Elder Ephraim of Arizona insisted that those received by chrismation were still in need of baptism - based on what they could perceive clairvoyantly in those who came to them who were not received correctly by baptism in three immersions in the Orthodoxy Church. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria in 1756 all agreed that all converts must be received by baptism in three full immersions and the past canons allowing for reception by other means were no longer applicable to converts today. BTW, lest you think I am an overzealous recent convert, I have been Orthodox longer than you.
Jason, I don't debate on this blog. If I choose to respond to your points above, it will get a separate post and it won't be written in a polemical way. I think you're making some serious mistakes here, and these play out poorly in a pastoral context. I actually have had an article in draft mode for months on this issue, but have held onto it because I don't have much interest in endless controversy. That said, I think you're mistaken on numerous points, and I think it's important to get these points right. But I'm not going to do it in the combox.
Ok, hopefully if you post such an article, it will be based very clearly on the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, saints and Holy Fathers. I don’t mind being mistaken, but make sure you address the teachings of the saints and not just a random person on the Internet.
This is super helpful and most encouraging. Thank you so much!
Dear Brother, this is amazing. Thank you so much for distilling so much wisdom so clearly. I'll be sharing far and wide!
I thought it was good advice overall. The Simpsons chrismation photo is inappropriate, of course. It was good to emphasize the need for consistency, staying away from online controversies, repenting and confessing when we fall behind, etc. Today there seems to be a big problem regarding proper catechesis and reception, though. A lot of people do not begin their life in the Church on a firm foundation because they were not properly catechized - often with a short catechism focused only on learning about beliefs and not involving confessing of sins, repentance, and learning to struggle against the passions. Then, people are often received by chrismation and not baptized, contrary to the canons and the teachings of countless saints. This article also repeats the incorrect teaching that your bishop and parish priest are your “spiritual fathers” de facto. A spiritual father is selected voluntarily and should be a holy person who you entrust your soul to, to guide you to salvation and intercede for you before the throne of God after their repose. The idea that when you attend a parish the priest is now your spiritual father and you should not seek guidance elsewhere, along with poor catechism and improper reception, are among the most erroneous and damaging teachings popularly circulating today.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for stopping by and for the thoughtful engagement, even where we disagree.
On the chrismation photo: I really like to use fun artwork. If it’s not your taste, this is probably not the blog for you. I don’t think there’s anything inherently inappropriate about it.
You’re right that consistency, avoiding online controversies, and the priority of repentance and confession are central themes here. Our regular readers get hit with these themes again and again. This is why the article itself spends a good deal of space on confession and returning to Christ. You are correct: this is exactly the point.
But I have to push back on a few things.
On reception by chrismation: you say people are “often received by chrismation and not baptized, contrary to the canons and teachings of countless saints.” That’s not quite right. The canons and the tradition recognize both paths. Some are baptized; others are chrismated. This is the akravia—the canons require some by baptism others by reception, and to deny that is to be an innovator to the Tradition. The Church has never been one-size-fits-all on this. Your position doesn’t do justice to the actual canonical tradition. I myself was baptized Orthodox—because that's what my bishop required, and that is the only correct answer.
On spiritual fathers: this article isn’t talking about a capital-S, trademark “Spiritual Father” in the monastic sense. It’s talking about the ordinary reality that your bishop is your spiritual father, your parish priest is your spiritual father in a real sense, and even your godfather is a spiritual father. That’s not just traditional Orthodox teaching, it's biblical. St. Paul calls himself the spiritual father of those he writes to (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Thess. 2:11, etc.). We all have a few spiritual fathers in that sense; but not all Orthodox have a spiritual father in another sense. If a layperson is running around looking for a guru-style spiritual father, I think that’s usually a mistake. You’re really not obligated to have one unless you are under obedience in a monastery.
On confession: yes, I would say your parish priest is your default confessor regardless of whatever other arrangements can be appropriate. That’s a true and good statement, and the message that new comers need to hear. It doesn’t mean you can never confess elsewhere, as my own history attests—I've been Orthodox nearly 2 decades and a member of only three parishes—yet I've confessed to dozens of priests across the country.
Finally, you mention “poor catechism and improper reception” as damaging teachings. I’d gently suggest that your own comments here are a good example of the kind of catechism that confuses rigorism with tradition. The Orthodox faith is demanding, but it is also pastoral. Economia is not laxity, it is the proper ordering of the household by the bishop whether in strictness or in pastoral accommodation. And at the end of the day, we are a church that is led by bishops, not by monks in the desert who do corrective baptisms—we follow the application of the canons that our particular bishop makes for his flock and the individual needs of those people.
I appreciate the interaction. I hope you’ll give some consideration to what I've said.
In Christ,
Jamey
"If a layperson is running around looking for a guru-style spiritual father, I think that’s usually a mistake. You’re really not obligated to have one unless you are under obedience in a monastery."
You reiterated my point here. This is anti-Orthodox teaching. Have you read any of the lives and teachings of the saints and holy elders? The Elders of Optina, St. Paisios of Mt. Athos, St. Joseph the Hesychast and his many disciples, St. Porphyrios - all of them were regularly visited by laypeople and none of them said that they should instead seek guidance from whomever happened to be their parish priest. Read the life of St. Gregory Palamas, for example. His parents regularly took him and their other children for guidance to an experienced monastic spiritual father. Many more lives and witnesses from the saints confirm that this is "normal" among whose who are glorified, which is not the same as becoming "normal" by random status quo criteria within a parish or jurisdiction in America today. The book "On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria" explains how reception by chrismation is not applicable to our times. Many saints confirmed this. For instance, St. Paisios the Athonite and Elder Ephraim of Arizona insisted that those received by chrismation were still in need of baptism - based on what they could perceive clairvoyantly in those who came to them who were not received correctly by baptism in three immersions in the Orthodoxy Church. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria in 1756 all agreed that all converts must be received by baptism in three full immersions and the past canons allowing for reception by other means were no longer applicable to converts today. BTW, lest you think I am an overzealous recent convert, I have been Orthodox longer than you.
Being wrong for a long time is no more admirable than being wrong for a short time, Jason.
One should not be wrong for a short or long time. I don’t know how this comment addresses anything I stated.
Jason, I don't debate on this blog. If I choose to respond to your points above, it will get a separate post and it won't be written in a polemical way. I think you're making some serious mistakes here, and these play out poorly in a pastoral context. I actually have had an article in draft mode for months on this issue, but have held onto it because I don't have much interest in endless controversy. That said, I think you're mistaken on numerous points, and I think it's important to get these points right. But I'm not going to do it in the combox.
Ok, hopefully if you post such an article, it will be based very clearly on the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, saints and Holy Fathers. I don’t mind being mistaken, but make sure you address the teachings of the saints and not just a random person on the Internet.