Natural Rights, Civil Rights and States' Rights

The philosophy of rights is deeply entrenched in the American political system, and has even older roots in Western political philosophy. Most Americans, I would venture, believe in natural rights, namely, that each person has a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property according to the original sense). More recently, other natural rights have been asserted: women's rights, animal rights, etc. Civil Rights, especially when regarding the individual, also remain at the forefront of the American consciousness: right to attorney, right to remain silent, right of habeas corpus, right to vote, and so on. What is interesting about the philosophy of rights is the presuppositions that it seems to make. It would seem that for a person to claim a certain right as "natural," there would have to exist an objective, universal order. Unless a person can point me otherwise, I cannot see how any philosophy of natural rights can be undergirded by any system that makes moral and societal norms relative. Civil rights are granted by the state, but these rights also seem to be rooted in an evaluation of justice. Civil rights are granted because it is just and right to grant them, not because it benefits that state or the people of the state.

States' Rights, still touted by many (especially amongst Southerners) as the true issue at stake for the South in the American Civil War (AKA the War of Northern Aggression), no longer has any relevance in the minds of most Americans. Many Americans want to reduce the size of the federal government, but the question of the states taking on many functions themselves without the interference of the federal government often is not heard. The libertarians focus on the individual in his self-autonomy, with very little involvement from the government, primarily the federal government. But, so far as I am aware, there is no significant platform at present in the United States that pushes for state's rights. This is interesting considering historical precedent. The Founding Fathers first attempted a very loose Confederation of States (the Articles of Confederation). This did not work out--if I remember, Virginia and Pennsylvania declared war on each other. But I think this is important in that it shows what the Fathers looked for in a national government. The Constitution provided for a stronger government, but sadly, even early in America's history, abuses at the federal level arose. In the face of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions was created, an early assertion of the rights of individual states against abuse of the federal government.

Anglican Church Ok's Women Bishops

A major moment for the Anglican Church: the decision to ok the consecration of women as bishops. As I understand it, several women have already been consecrated in Canada, but this decision means that in England women in the future may be consecrated. No concessions were made to traditional-minded Anglican bishops who oppose female bishops. And this all comes a little over a week before the Lambeth Conference, a world-wide conference of Anglican bishops held once every 10 years and which numerous traditional Anglican bishops have vowed to boycott due to the homosexual issue.

Keep your eyes on this one. It will be big.

Divorce and Remarriage in the EOC

As a Catholic I took it as an axiomatic truth that divorce and remarriage is not sanctioned by divine law and in fact is condemned by God. However, over time, my views on the subject have changed. I believed then as I do now that there is a certain validity to creating some regulations on divorce and remarriage. The two are both very grave, and as New Testament Scripture does not speak highly of either, they must not be dealt with lightly. I'm familiar with both the Latin Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox position

Neither the Latin Catholics nor the Orthodox have a quick and easy solution to the problem of marital difficulties. The Latin Catholics argue that once two people marry, neither car marry another person while the original other spouse still lives. To their support, the Latin Catholics bring forth several quotes from the early Church Fathers, many but not all from the Latin Fathers, which argue to the effect that no remarriage is allowed. Also, Latin Catholics bring forward Paul's words against a woman who departs from her husband from remarrying.

The Orthodox, on the other hand, point out that in many divorces there is an innocent party. For example, the husband may violently beat his wife, who becomes the innocent party. In the Catholic approach, a woman in such a case must either reconcile with her deranged husband or remain alone the rest of her life, or at least until her husband dies. As Archbishop Elias Zoghby (a Melkite Catholic bishop who sympathizes with the Orthodox understanding) describes, heroic virtue is expected of the woman. She is expected to be that which she never truly felt called for in the first place. The salvation of the innocent party's soul is at stake.

When I mull over in my mind these issues, I am reminded of Jesus' words to the Pharisees. I reproduce the words and situation here:

1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one^[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,'^[b] you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012&version=31)

The above is from Matthew 12. The Pharisees claim Jesus is doing something unlawful on the Sabbath. Jesus points to David, who even Jesus says did something unlawful on the Sabbath (Jesus does not here claim that what David did was "lawful") The last two verses deserve repeated: If you had known what these words mean, I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

There is, I think, a difficulty in Latin Catholicism when it comes to reading passages in Scripture on divorce and remarriage. When Latin Catholics read injunctions of Jesus and Peter regarding divorce and remarriage, they take these injunctions in a very strict, no qualifications, sense. Yet, when Latin Catholics read other passages of Jesus and Peter regarding a bishop being a husband of one wife, "those who live by the sword die by the sword," etc. there is an attitude of "well, they said that for this or that reason due to the culture of the times, but the essence of what they were saying..." No bishop in the Latin Catholic Church (or any Eastern Church for that matter) is allowed married. The Crusades, violent expertises against Muslims and Albigensians, among others, received papal blessings, and even came with indulgences. There are explanations for these in relation to the Scriptural texts that literally appear in opposition to these occurrences.

The error, I think, is in falling into legalism: replacing the laws of the Old Testament with the laws of the New Testament, but without the Hesed, the mercy, by which all laws of God are to be understood. According to a strict interpretation of their laws, the Pharisees were right in pointing out Jesus' transgression. Yet, the Pharisees did not understand the true meaning of the laws given them. They forgot the two great commandments. They relegated mercy and love below the strict observance of rites and regulations. Sadly, I believe something similiar has occurred in the Latin Catholic Church, where Christ's words have become fixed laws that serve to condemn any and all who trespass them, no matter the circumstances or personal situation, or exception.

City of Djinns by Willilam Dalrymple

The past several weeks have proved very busy for me. I have not had many opportunities to sit down and cogitate. I have, however, as is even in the case with the busiest times, set forth to read several news books I have recently purchased. One book (of the at least ten) that I am reading is City of Djinns, a travelogue/social history of the city Delhi in India. I would not have come across this book were it not for having previously read Dalrymple's other well-written work, From the Holy Mountain, which largely concerns Christians in the Middle East.

The City of Djinns is surprisingly a very interesting read. I say surprisingly, not because of Dalrymple's writing style, which remains superb, but because I came to the book without any previous fascination with India, the Moghul Empire, British colonialism. William Dalrymple does excellent work of weaving events of the past with the present and making the past relevant to the customs and every-day living of Indians today. One of many examples is the eunuchs of Delhi. Originally court eunuchs under the Moghul Dynasty, the eunuchs now serve the general populace in blessing marriages and weddings, and as dance entertainers. Dalrymple shows how the beliefs and traditions of the collapsed Moghul empire have merged with the traditions of Hinduism. As Dalrymple explains, eunuchs were highly regarded in Muslim countries because they often guarded important religious tombs and relics. In Hinduism, on the other hand, eunuchs were viewed as worse than the lowest of classes. Dalrymple, with a keen wit, portrays how the very same people who throw rubbish at the eunuchs are the ones who invite them to bless the family during marriages and births. Dalrymple does this throughout the book. He never suggests these paradoxes are anything but that (I never receive the impression of judgment from Dalrymple). When Dalrymple comes down hard, it usually is on those who as individuals probably deserve the criticism. Dalrymple details some of the atrocities the British committed on the native population in 1847, and Dalrymple evinces little sympathy for those responsible for the horrible crimes of violence, committed by the British or otherwise.

Dalrymple's book's addictive, and I look forward to reading White Mughals next (I in fact already own a copy, just haven't had the time lately to get into it.

St. Photios on the Filioque

I'm reading The Mystagogy, the well-known work of St. Photios of Constantinople (9th century) on the error of the filioque. It is quite excellent. The first half of the book, for about 7o pages, is background and introduction from the editor, which provides very helpful information. Although aware of the Neo-Platonism in St. Augustine's thought, even Trinitarian thought, I never connected that with St. Augustine's proposition of the filioque.

One thing that especially surprised me were some words that St. Photios writes quite early in his Mystagogy and which I myself had come to the logical conclusion several days ago: namely, that one could just as easily (indeed it would be necessary) to argue that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit. I don't say this in zest, but I am glad because it at least shows I'm thinking along the same lines as St. Photios and the other Church Fathers, at least in this one regard.

There have been some ecumenical dialogues with the Latin Catholics on the filioque. Some have reduced it to a difference in words with the Greek East's understanding. Personally, I find the filioque quite difficult to uphold, especially if one feels it necessary to regard the Council of Florence authoritative.

Hilary Clinton's RFK Comment

Yesterday, Hilary Clinton made a comment to the effect that RFK was assassinated in June. The comment came immediately after a reference to her husband going into June in the early 90's. The comment clearly was in the context of presidential nominees going into the summer without dropping out of the race; yet, for some reason, she immediately was accused of insensitivity towards the Kennedy family.

This is nonsense. Any sensible person can see that the comment was meant to say that presidential candidates still have a chance in the primaries well into the summer. I'm not a supporter of Clinton; in fact, I can't stand her. However, I think that the charges against her in this regard are nonsense.

Now, Hilary's comments on Bosnia are a different matter.

Crime and Punishment: Murder Scene

I'm reading Crime and Punishment. I'm at the point where Raskolnikov viciously murders the old woman (the pawnbroker). I don't think I've read such a violent scene since the murder scene in Richard Wright's Native Son. In fact, reading this scene and all of Raskolnikov's inner stream of thoughts recalls to my mind the similar stream of thoughts of Bigger. I wonder if Richard Wright read Crime and Punishment and was influenced by it.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner

If you are going through hell, keep going

Thus said the esteemed Winston Churchill. I thoroughly agree with it, yet I am too exhausted right now to expound on it.

Anaphora Prayer: "We offer You, Yours of Your own, in behalf of all and for all"

This prayer comes from the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy. Most people, when they look at this prayer, notice the offering of "Yours of Your own" to God, and recognize that the prayer is talking about the sacrificial offering of Christ at the altar.

What struck me today, as I listened during Divine Liturgy, was the latter portion: "in behalf of all and for all." Who are the "all"? Does all mean all members of the Church? All persons living on earth? All persons on earth and those deceased? Or, does all refer to something more encompassing than man alone, such as all creation?

Certainly the redemption of man is the main concern of Christ in his sacrificial offering. This is clear in Christ's priestly prayer, just before he offers himself up (John 17). However, it should be noted that redemption affects not man alone but all creation. The New Covenant brings forth a New Creation in which all things are made new. The Bread and Wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, and God's divine energies permeate and transform all things unto him. I believe St. Irenaeus said something similar with his theme of "recapitulation" of all creation into Christ. St. Paul, even earlier, writes: And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. (Ephesians 1:9-10)

Good Video on Catholic Liturgical Crisis

I've read several books and articles dealing with the problem of the New Mass of the Roman Rite. Many of these works assail the New Mass and its "innovations" as originating only in the 1960's. Many of these works are written in a caustic tone, and expressly uphold the Tridentine Latin Mass as far superior in every way to the New Mass.

These two videos, together forming a single production, do a great job in laying down the theological foundation for the changes made to the Mass--or rather, the introduction of a New Mass--following Vatican II. The producer of these videos is neither polemical nor triumphalist in his presentation of the divergences of the New Mass from the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

Part 1

Part 2

Nietzche the End-All?

I often marvel at a trend in modern thinking to place Nietzsche at the pinnacle of modern philosophy, at least in the area of morality. It as though with Nietzsche's "A-ha!" experience with Christianity that a vast curtain has arisen and man now sees himself in his true form.

The most recent example I've found of this happened today, when I purchased Crime and Punishment. Although the work is well-known for its profound Christian sense in relation to the difficulties posed by life, the publishers make no mention of this but only, on the back cover, tout the work as a prelude to the work and thought of Nietzsche.

Moleskin Journals

I only have about 10 more pages left in my Moleskin Journal. This is my second Moleskin Journal. The first one I filled by the beginning of last summer.

If you plan on keeping a journal, I highly recommend using a Moleskin. Although Moleskins are slightly more expensive (around $19-20) than some journals sold at the bookstore ($4-10), the Moleskins hold up much better. The binding has not fallen apart on me for either my present or my last Moleskin. Also: Moleskins last for about a year, at least for me; and I write entries quite frequently and of considerable length. My first entry in my present Moleskin is July 9, 2007. So, by the time I completely fill in this Moleskin, it will be about 10-11 months of entries. Not bad.

Anglican Summit Approaching

280 conservative Anglican bishops will hold a summit in Jerusalem to deal with issues that increasingly are dividing the Anglican communion.

The Lambeth Conference, a meeting held every 10 years to address unity, and expected to be attended by some 800 bishops, is just around the corner.

There is speculation that the conservative bishops in Jerusalem will boycott attendance of the Lambeth Conference. If this becomes reality, the Anglican Church may experience the greatest split since its inception.

You may read the full story here: Conservative Anglican bishops call summit

These events affect not only the Anglican Church but Western Christianity in general. Whereas Christianity in Europe and North America generally has taken a more liberal route, in the hemispheric South traditional Christian values is on the rise.

While You Were Sleeping - Casting Crowns

Casting Crowns, while an evangelical Christian band, has produced many great songs.

The following is one of my favorite:

While You Were Sleeping

I've been listening to this song daily, during my commute to work. I usually alternate between this song and "Does Anybody Hear Her," another song with a good message. The best line in While You Were Sleeping, "As we're sound asleep about philosophies that save the trees and kill the children." They hit the problem right on. And the fact that they glide through it makes it even more impressive.

Serbian Pascha

Check out this video:

Hristos Vokrese

It's the Orthodox Happy Song!

To see the other happy song, go here:

I'm So Happy, Hokus Pick

Pope's Visit Inspires Spike in Seminary Applications

Check it out:

New York seminary applications

One wonders how many will complete formation and become ordained.

"His blood be upon us and on our children"

Such was said by the Jewish crowd gathered before Pilate and recorded by Matthew (Mt 27:24–25). Many non-Christians and even some Christians today impugn the inspiration of this verse, believing as they do that this is an early example of anti-Semitism in the Christian Church. According to this way of thinking, the writer of this verse, be it Matthew or some redactor, has it out for the Jews: The Jews killed Christ, and their punishment in 70 AD at the hands of the Romans is God's wrath for what they did some forty years earlier: crucify God.

I long thought this to be the proper interpretation of this verse. And indeed, it is possible that this be the interpretation of some early Christians: because they deny and even crucify Christ, the non-Christians Jews are forever under God's curse. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and God fulfilled Jesus' prophesied in wrath when the Romans tore down the Temple brick by brick.

But, all this is now very odd to me. Up to this point, I always have read this verse, that is, "His blood be upon us and on our children," as a CURSE: the people taking upon themselves the guilt and consequent punishments for the unjust murder of Christ. Old Testament references would seem to suggest this. Just a few days ago, however, the thought struck me: this verse is a curse, but, in a paradoxical sense, is in truth a BLESSING!

Before you think me crazy, consider the words concerning Caiphas, the high priest, in Jn 18:14: Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Verbal irony here abounds: Caiphas counsels this because he believes by the death of Christ the people will be saved from error. Yet, there is a second meaning, unbeknownst to Caiphas: the death of Christ will be the true salvation of Israel. May not Mt 27:24-25 also be an instance of verbal irony? In this verse, there are two important points: firstly, the calling of blood; and secondly, the calling of blood on future generations.

Where else do we see blood in the New Testament? The Blood of the New Covenant. Christ's Blood, in the Eucharist. The Apostle John writes, "we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Christians have fellowship to the greatest degree when they commonly partake in the Eucharist, the same Blood that Christ shed on the Cross and even before the final Trial, when already Christ had been flogged and crowned with thorns. If you draw your attention to the second portion of Mt 27:24-25, the blood on future generations, you will find another significant link to the Old Testament. God's early promise to Abraham is key: Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them...So shall your offspring be. (Gen 15:5) God blesses not only Abraham but his descendants as well. Future generations, offspring--it is the same idea; the Covenant extends beyond the initial persons blessed to their children. Interestingly, when God curses in Genesis, after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, God only curses the Serpent and the ground; he does not curse Adam and Eve, and the sufferings God enunciates are only mentioned in reference to Adam and to Eve; no direct mention is made of their descendants or offspring. When the suggestion is made of future generations, in Adam naming his wife Eve ("mother of the living") it is the opposite of what is expected. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and are suffering the consequences of their actions; and yet, immediately after their entrance into a fallen world filled with death and dying, Eve brings forth not the dead but the living. Who but the Theotokos, the New Eve, brings the true Light and Life into the world? I digress.

In the light of all the above, interpreting the Jewish crowd at the Trial as representative of the Jews in a collective sense is not detrimental to Jews but in fact affirmative and life-giving: even though the Jews present at the Trial reject Christ, God has not forgotten them, and He in fact He blesses them with their own words. The Gentile Romans stand rather clueless as to Jesus' identity. The Jews know who He claims to be, but they do not accept it...at least not at this point in the narrative; Christ will soon arise from the Dead. God is in control all along. As Christ says to Pilate: you have no authority except that given from above. Salvation truly comes from the Jews, since they are the ones whom God blesses with the Blood of his only Son.

I could write more, but I do not want to become too speculative, and I will defer to anyone who can show me in the wrong in some or several points. I will end with the words of Paul: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree". (Galatians 3:13)

Giorgio Vasari's The Lives of the Artists

Check this book out:

Giorgio Vasari's The Lives of the Artists

I just picked it up about a week ago. I studied English Literature in college, and this book would have been a great resource for me, had I known about it. Giorgio Vasari provides short biographies on the great [Italian] Renaissance artists, including Fra Angelico, Fra Filippo Lippi, Donatello, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo, among many other lesser-known artists. These artists feature so frequently in works of English poetry and other English (and other European) fiction, that knowledge of these individuals is, in my estimation, invaluable to a better understanding of the written English tradition, and to European tradition in general.

Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility: it is a dogma of the Latin Church; belief in it is necessary if one is to be orthodox. It is a settled matter, and rejection or disagreement concerning it can entail serious consequences (e.g. the removal of Hans Kung's teaching faculties at a Catholic university). It is to be believed by all Catholics, but is it really understood by all Catholics? Is it even understood by the ones who proclaim and continue to proclaim it as dogma?

Orthodox Christians have long contested inflated papal claims as alien to the Church of the first millennium, when East and West were one. Protestant Christians, although on different grounds and for different reasons, have likewise rejected papal claims, even going so far as to reject what the Orthodox do not: the Petrine Primacy associated with the Papacy. (The Orthodox are willing to acknowledge a Petrine Primacy, although in the sense of priority and equality amongst the other Apostles.) Latin Catholic scholars approach the Papacy from two major vantage points. One group of scholars feels it necessary to identify and prove, from early Church history and from the New Testament writings themselves, that the bishop of Rome exerted a superior authority, and even a universal jurisdiction, over the bishops of the other early Christian churches. Another group, more sensibly in my opinion, admit that examples of papal superiority and universal jurisdiction are wanting in the early centuries of the Church. Whereas the first group takes the view that the Papacy "was a'll there" in fullness of power in the beginning, and only needed time to more fully manifest its true nature, the second group takes the Papacy from the angle of development. There is development according to the first group, yes, but the chief difference seems to me to be this: whereas the first group seems to think that papal powers were fully understood by the earliest of the bishops of Rome, the latter seem to think of these same papal powers as only partially known by the earliest bishops of Rome, including Peter (believed to be the first bishop according to Latin Catholics). Pope Pius IX, in the 55th section in his (in-)famous Lamentabili Sane, which was written to combat Mondernism, especially as it affected matters of Biblical theology, condemns the following proposition: Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him. (source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df07ls.htm) This condemnation is interesting, since it does not pinpoint what exactly is meant by primacy. Orthodox Christians could even say that Peter recognized he had a certain primacy amongst the Apostles. But if one takes "primacy" in the sense it has acquired by Roman decisions, then it would seem that Rome condemns anyone who rejects the notion that Peter fully knew that he had a superior authority--that is, one above and over the other Apostles.

Theological niceties aside, Papal Infallibility only creates more confusion than it solves. Now: ask any reasonable Latin Catholic and he or she will tell you that the confusion comes from poor catechesis, and indeed there is some legitimacy in this argument. Many Catholics today, in the U.S. and elsewhere, barely known the essentials of the faith. Catechesis is heavily needed amongst Latin Catholics today. Yet, this reality aside, there is another reality: infallibility is too often wrongly equated with inerrancy. What is the difference? In Latin Catholic teaching, infallibility is a grace given by God to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Infallibility therefore applies to the college of bishops as a whole, and more precisely, to the Roman Pontiff who heads them. Infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals. It does not apply to matters of personal preference. The Pope and the College of Bishops cannot with infallibility declare, "God roots more for the Steelers than for Broncos," since this has really nothing to do with what must be believed and what has always been believed. Inerrancy applies to no human person or group of human persons. Jesus Christ, a divine person, is inerrant: he never made or will make an error. The Holy Scriptures are inerrant because the Scriptures are the Word of God, and God speaks and reveals only the Truth. But, while no reasonable person will reject this distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, what does one find in the Latin Church, but the tendency to affirm inerrancy in defense of infallibility. In my opinion, this is best seen in the Latin Catholic apologetic of pointing to the historic bishops of Rome and their long track of orthodoxy.

While it is true that the vast majority of Roman bishops of the first millenium were orthodox, not all were always orthodox as Roman bishop; at least one fell into the grievous error of Monothelitism: Pope Honorius. Yet, the tradition continues: the Roman bishops never taught error. The Roman Pontiffs were preserved by the Holy Spirit from publically teaching error. This never has been declared as dogma, and yet it is a tradition no less potent than papal infallibility. The Pope is infallible because of, or dependent on, his own inerrancy in matters of faith and morals. He speaks the truth and not error because within himself, and at all times, the Catholic beliefs are safeguarded from heresy.

Of course, there is a counter-current in today's Catholicism: ultra-traditional Catholicism--independent Catholics and to a lesser extent, the SSPX, who believe the Pope can fall into heresy, or at least grievous error. In fact, the platform for many of these Catholics today is just that: Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI affirmed that which was non concurrent with the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, and so far as I'm aware, the SSPX to this day still distinguishes true obedience (to the inerrant truths of the Catholic Church) from a false obedience (to false traditions pushed on people in the pews by erring Popes).

As a final note: the Papal Infallibility claim is, like many things in Latin Catholicism, unnecessary. If the Church has always and everywhere believed it, then why the need for a declaration? Unless, of course, it was never really believed in the first place, or believed in a "less-developed" sense that now needs an updated confirmation from on high to be believed properly, as the Church understands it. Some Latin Catholics say: Papal Infallibility is not superfluous; it's necessary, for without the Pope there would be so much confusion and uncertainty concerning what the Church believes. I always enjoy hearing this, because on the outside it does make sense: any good institution needs a good CEO. BUT, the Church of Christ is not an institution modeled after the empire, but the mystical body of Christ. One does not side with the emperor, but with the Truth that continues to be taught by the bishops of the Orthodox Churches. It would be easy if all we had to do was side with one bishop forever; it would be easy if we could all "be saved" and not fear the possibility of Hell. Yet, this was not the reality of the early Church; it is not the reality of the Church today. True Christianity, the Church, and the battle for it against heterodoxy has and always will be a great struggle, albeit one guaranteed by the words of Christ himself: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.