• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Touchstone

Linus7

Member
No*s recently posted a link to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' The River of Fire, an excellent article.

Here is a link to another of Dr. Kalomiros' works, The Touchstone.

I am kind of hoping some of you will read it in its entirety and comment on it here.

Two warnings:
  1. The Touchstone is controversial
  2. It is rather long and in pdf format
Even if you disagree with some of what Dr. Kalomiros has to say, perhaps you will not disagree with all of it. It may be useful to consider and keep in mind these days.
 

Linus7

Member
No*s said:
I haven't read it, but I'll download it and see what it says :).
Thanks.

I stayed up very late last night reading it. Once I started, I found it hard to stop.

I look forward to discussing it with you. I hope at least one or two others will read it, as well.

I am mostly interested in what Orthodox Christians have to say about it, so I hope this discussion can remain in this forum.
 

Matrona

Member
I too am reading that, I may not have time to comment on it any time soon though. Just wanted to post to say that I am not ignoring it. :)
 

Linus7

Member
Matrona said:
I too am reading that, I may not have time to comment on it any time soon though. Just wanted to post to say that I am not ignoring it. :)
Thanks.

I realize it's a long one and takes some getting through.

For some reason reading e-text is more of an ordeal than reading regular print, too.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I had delayed reading it, because I have to push myself to read an e-book. However, I've started, and all I can say is that this is strong stuff. I'm hesitant about the last times claims (I will be that for a while), but I have agreed with his analysis of Ecumenism so far, not entirely, but I have.

Unless he changes things, I would have to say that ecumenism sponsors the belief that we all have little pieces. Many ecumenical people I've met felt passionately about what they believed...they just wouldn't call it the Truth. I have no such qualms, though I do try to do so politely :).
 

Linus7

Member
No*s said:
I had delayed reading it, because I have to push myself to read an e-book. However, I've started, and all I can say is that this is strong stuff. I'm hesitant about the last times claims (I will be that for a while), but I have agreed with his analysis of Ecumenism so far, not entirely, but I have.

Unless he changes things, I would have to say that ecumenism sponsors the belief that we all have little pieces. Many ecumenical people I've met felt passionately about what they believed...they just wouldn't call it the Truth. I have no such qualms, though I do try to do so politely :).
That's fair.

I think we can be polite, but it is part of the Orthodox Christian faith to affirm the existence of only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Some of the words and actions of a few of the more ecumenically-minded patriarchs seem to deny that.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Linus7 said:
That's fair.

I think we can be polite, but it is part of the Orthodox Christian faith to affirm the existence of only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Some of the words and actions of a few of the more ecumenically-minded patriarchs seem to deny that.

I agree firmly with that premise. The ecumenical movement does compromise the sanctity of the teaching of the Church. I strongly suspect that it will soon find itself an endangered species, though. It's passing out of the Russian Church from what I gather, and with the damages in the Greek Church, it will either get much worse or get better.

What I fear most, though, is that it will get worse. I'm in no position for the staunchness of Kalimoros. All I will have access to when I get to TX is the GOA. This situation, for someone like me, is nightmarish :(
 

Linus7

Member
No*s said:
I agree firmly with that premise. The ecumenical movement does compromise the sanctity of the teaching of the Church. I strongly suspect that it will soon find itself an endangered species, though. It's passing out of the Russian Church from what I gather, and with the damages in the Greek Church, it will either get much worse or get better.

What I fear most, though, is that it will get worse. I'm in no position for the staunchness of Kalimoros. All I will have access to when I get to TX is the GOA. This situation, for someone like me, is nightmarish :(
The only Orthodox Church within reasonable driving distance of me is also GOA, so that's where I go.

I think ecumenism will get worse. The Latin Church is totally committed to it, as are many of the mainline Protestant churches. The more liberal among the Orthodox are also advocates of it.

From what I understand not only of biblical prophecy but also of the prophecies of many fairly recent Orthodox saints, the true Church will be pretty small and hard to find when the Antichrist begins to reign, despite the existence of a multitude of pseudo-churches.

I think the ecumenism of today is paving the way for the one-world super religion of the Antichrist. To buy into it is to lose one's soul.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
Linus7 said:
The only Orthodox Church within reasonable driving distance of me is also GOA, so that's where I go.

I think ecumenism will get worse. The Latin Church is totally committed to it, as are many of the mainline Protestant churches. The more liberal among the Orthodox are also advocates of it.

From what I understand not only of biblical prophecy but also of the prophecies of many fairly recent Orthodox saints, the true Church will be pretty small and hard to find when the Antichrist begins to reign, despite the existence of a multitude of pseudo-churches.

I think the ecumenism of today is paving the way for the one-world super religion of the Antichrist. To buy into it is to lose one's soul.

I'm definately in a similar position, and I have no vehicle. That's the deciding factor, and I have someone who travels in that direction when I arrive in TX.

I can see where you come from on that, but I tend to be optimistic (it's sometimes a fault). I have hopes it will pass over, but if we are in the end times, it will play out exactly as you describe. I simply don't know and am not wise enough to discern :eek:
 

Linus7

Member
I think the future will see the expansion of ecumenism. Ultimately it will include non-Christian religions. There is already a push for that. Witness the creation of the United Religions Initiative and those two interfaith love-ins at Assisi in 1986 and 2002.

The ecumenists won't ask anyone to change his or her religion, oh no. What they will ask for is acceptance of the validity of everyone else's religion, abstinence from proselytizing, participation in "interfaith dialogues" and cooperative charities, etc.

This will mean accepting the idea that all religions are pathways to the truth, that your "truth" may not be the same as my "truth," which may not be the same as the "truth" of still another, and so on.

That amounts to a betrayal of Christ.

It all seems so reasonable, so loving, so broad-minded; many who are ostensibly Christians will fall for it. Many already have.

Ecumenism will lead to syncretism and the eventual acceptance of the Antichrist as the Messiah come at long last.

This is what I believe will happen anyway.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I'm not sure of the future of these things, but I know I stand by the ancient confession. Perhaps in time, I will have read the Fathers enough and enough modern elders and things that I will be able to say with certainty what I think on the issue of the Last Days, but for right now, I'm pretty ignorant.
 

Joannicius

Active Member
Linus7 said:
I think the future will see the expansion of ecumenism. Ultimately it will include non-Christian religions. There is already a push for that. Witness the creation of the United Religions Initiative and those two interfaith love-ins at Assisi in 1986 and 2002.

The ecumenists won't ask anyone to change his or her religion, oh no. What they will ask for is acceptance of the validity of everyone else's religion, abstinence from proselytizing, participation in "interfaith dialogues" and cooperative charities, etc.

This will mean accepting the idea that all religions are pathways to the truth, that your "truth" may not be the same as my "truth," which may not be the same as the "truth" of still another, and so on.

That amounts to a betrayal of Christ.

It all seems so reasonable, so loving, so broad-minded; many who are ostensibly Christians will fall for it. Many already have.

Ecumenism will lead to syncretism and the eventual acceptance of the Antichrist as the Messiah come at long last.

This is what I believe will happen anyway.
Well said Linus and I am excited to here of the other writings by Kalomiros as I have enjoyed the River of Fire and can see it being the truth neglected by the West. I will read the e-book you mentioned as soon as I finish with the "Monastic Wisdom" I am in the middle of. I'll check and report back.

--We are almost to Pacha........ I love it !
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Linus7 said:
No*s recently posted a link to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros' The River of Fire, an excellent article.

Here is a link to another of Dr. Kalomiros' works, The Touchstone.

I am kind of hoping some of you will read it in its entirety and comment on it here.

Two warnings:
  1. The Touchstone is controversial
  2. It is rather long and in pdf format
Even if you disagree with some of what Dr. Kalomiros has to say, perhaps you will not disagree with all of it. It may be useful to consider and keep in mind these days.
Brought it up on Explorer, 81 pages - that's my year's reading ration all in one go. Will read it and come back.:jiggy:
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Linus7,

I have read the Touchstone and agree with it up to a point, but it seems to me that Dr. Kalomiros goes too far. He seems willing to condemn all those who commemorate an ecumenist bishop as heretics even if they do not understand that he is a heretic. This is nonsense. Heresy means 'choice', therefore you cannot be an accidental heretic even if you believe in heresy. This is why, for instance, Bl. Augustine is still an Orthodox saint despite the heretical nature of his Triadology. He asked for correction if he erred but received none and never knew of the heresy of his doctrine. I note that if this belief of Kalomiros' is true, you and I (I having converted to the Romanian Orthodox Church) are both heretics simply because of the local church we attend.

Further, I feel he goes too far in opposing those who wish to fight from within the Church - far too far. We should not cut ourselves off from the Church lightly - this is encouraging schism whatever arguments he provides to the contrary. I dislike the New Calendar intensely and despise ecumenism, but I am in a church headed by a Patriarch who is an ecumenist and which uses the New Calendar. The next Patriarch is unlikely to be any better than Teoctist as usually the Metropolitan of Moldova is elected to the post and Metropolitan Daniil is also an ecumenist, so what do I do? Do I run to the 'True' Orthodox Church of Romania and cut myself off from all those faithful who remain in the Church, or do I rather stay in the Church and protest, seeking to bring others around to the right belief? I would rather do the latter and accept the consequences if it earns me an excommunication. Being illegitimately cut out of the Church by an ecumenist bishop is one thing, voluntarily turning my back on the Church quite another.

I know in my heart that I am Orthodox and I know that most of my brothers and sisters in the Romanian church are also. It is the faith we share that is important, not the attitudes of certain heirarchs, however unworthy they might be. In this I agree with Dr. Kalomiros, we, all of us, are the Church, not the heirarchy, but whereas he seems to believe an entire church falls if it's bishop does, I disagree. Even if every bishop were to apostasize, the Church would remain so long as there is one faithful member. I note that even during the Iconoclast heresy and the attempted Union of Florence, those that fought, such as St. Mark of Ephesus, did not cut themselves out of the Church and form schismatic synods as many modern Old Calendarists have done, but fought from within. Dr. Kalomiros is right to warn us of the dangers of ecumenism and the New Calendar, he is right to ask us to practice discernment and not blindly accept the actions of the heirarchs and he is right to point out to us that the laiety are every bit as much the Church as the clergy and we all have a duty to defend the Truth of Orthodoxy, but he is very, very wrong to foment schism, and that is the only way I can interpret his writing on this matter.

James
 

Joannicius

Active Member
IacobPersul said:
Linus7,

I have read the Touchstone and agree with it up to a point, but it seems to me that Dr. Kalomiros goes too far. He seems willing to condemn all those who commemorate an ecumenist bishop as heretics even if they do not understand that he is a heretic. This is nonsense. Heresy means 'choice', therefore you cannot be an accidental heretic even if you believe in heresy. This is why, for instance, Bl. Augustine is still an Orthodox saint despite the heretical nature of his Triadology. He asked for correction if he erred but received none and never knew of the heresy of his doctrine. I note that if this belief of Kalomiros' is true, you and I (I having converted to the Romanian Orthodox Church) are both heretics simply because of the local church we attend.

Further, I feel he goes too far in opposing those who wish to fight from within the Church - far too far. We should not cut ourselves off from the Church lightly - this is encouraging schism whatever arguments he provides to the contrary. I dislike the New Calendar intensely and despise ecumenism, but I am in a church headed by a Patriarch who is an ecumenist and which uses the New Calendar. The next Patriarch is unlikely to be any better than Teoctist as usually the Metropolitan of Moldova is elected to the post and Metropolitan Daniil is also an ecumenist, so what do I do? Do I run to the 'True' Orthodox Church of Romania and cut myself off from all those faithful who remain in the Church, or do I rather stay in the Church and protest, seeking to bring others around to the right belief? I would rather do the latter and accept the consequences if it earns me an excommunication. Being illegitimately cut out of the Church by an ecumenist bishop is one thing, voluntarily turning my back on the Church quite another.

I know in my heart that I am Orthodox and I know that most of my brothers and sisters in the Romanian church are also. It is the faith we share that is important, not the attitudes of certain heirarchs, however unworthy they might be. In this I agree with Dr. Kalomiros, we, all of us, are the Church, not the heirarchy, but whereas he seems to believe an entire church falls if it's bishop does, I disagree. Even if every bishop were to apostasize, the Church would remain so long as there is one faithful member. I note that even during the Iconoclast heresy and the attempted Union of Florence, those that fought, such as St. Mark of Ephesus, did not cut themselves out of the Church and form schismatic synods as many modern Old Calendarists have done, but fought from within. Dr. Kalomiros is right to warn us of the dangers of ecumenism and the New Calendar, he is right to ask us to practice discernment and not blindly accept the actions of the heirarchs and he is right to point out to us that the laiety are every bit as much the Church as the clergy and we all have a duty to defend the Truth of Orthodoxy, but he is very, very wrong to foment schism, and that is the only way I can interpret his writing on this matter.

James
I to realy like Kalomiros, and I have read the Touchstone. I tend to agree with you and am in the Antiochian Portion of The Church. There could come a point where if it was obvious disobedience and Public heresy that we would have to stand up and make a statement against our Bishops as you mentioned the Saints of Old had done. But we must know that God has planted us where we are for a purpose and we can't listen to another unknown to us and jump because of error. We would all end up as the other Christian faiths, running from one Church to another. We are called to stand and disagree and face the enemy "forehead to forehead" as it were. God will vindicate the Truth in due time. That is His Job. That is why the Orthodox Church is The Church. We have let the Holy Spirit control through concilliar means rather than by one man's opinion. I love the Orthodox Faith more every year despite the problems of men in the church. My understanding in the OrthoPraxis in matters such as these are that when you are excommunicated or castigated by the heretics you can count it all joy for suffering for truth, but none of us should count it joy when suffering for being schismatic, which is worse than heresy. Portions of the body that are separated from the other parts can't be healed, but sick parts that are attached can. Maybe the tree trunk and limbs would be a better example or anology.

I hate our being in the WCC and NCC but I voice it loud and clear and will not be quiet about it. I don't think any of our Bishops should worship with the Pope, but dialog is always in order. In the ninth century the Roman Bishop was the last or final council in matters above the Constantinople Bishops and that would be okay if He were of an Orthodox Concilliar heart, but there haven't been any that have lived in that vein since the 8th and 9th centuries if I remember correctly. There have been a couple that espoused it, but did nothing toward the same.
 
Top