One incident inspired me to write this work. Once, while checking students’ works on the same topic, I noticed that in five of them, in all other respects independent and independent of each other, the authors cited the same quotation from Holy Scripture to confirm their thoughts. At the same time, the quote from all five was chopped off in the same way - so that in the “chopped off” form it would lose its original meaning and would be more suitable for confirming the author’s thoughts. I don’t think any of them deliberately tried to distort the sacred text. No, it probably happened automatically, and that's the saddest thing. This is due to the habit of looking at the biblical text as material for confirming our own ideas, and not at the Word of God, which we must humbly follow, rejecting all “our ideas” that contradict it.
This is a disease that affects, to one degree or another, most of us - modern Orthodox Christians brought up in the traditions of Western culture. The name of the disease is modernism.
Placing one's opinion at the forefront is a distinctive feature of consciousness, and even religious consciousness, affected by this illness. Hence the distrust of the patristic tradition, from which only that which is suitable for confirming one’s ideas is accepted, and the desire to interpret Holy Scripture “off the top of one's head,” completely neglecting its patristic understanding. Hence, finally, the desire to “renew”, “improve”, and “modernize” the Church of Christ, an obsessive desire, introducing into it one’s personal opinions, to justify and dogmatize them.
It is customary to associate modernism with a narrow circle of certain individuals, but in fact this phenomenon is much more widespread. Those who come to Church bring it from their pre-church life. This rejection of authority and contempt for antiquity and tradition are a common feature of the secular worldview, which has been spreading since the 17th century, but has reached its apogee precisely in our days. It is not surprising that the infection of modernism has taken root so widely right now. People are taught this way by school, mass culture, and elitist culture, too.
The phenomenon itself deserves a separate discussion. Here I would like to show what techniques are used - often not even fully consciously - by modernist authors in order to convince the reader that their own ideas are the teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Since any Orthodox Christian knows that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are learned from two sources - Holy Scripture and tradition, the efforts of such authors are aimed at manipulating them.
Let us consider how these techniques “work”, using some silly idea as an example. Let’s suppose a certain person believes that the duty of every Orthodox Christian is to kill moles, and that he is trying to convince his readers of this.
Technique one: unsubstantiated assertion
It would seem that an unsubstantiated statement is obviously an unreliable means of persuasion, but it “works” perfectly. It is enough to write: “Many holy fathers of the Orthodox Church said that it is necessary to exterminate moles,” and a significant part of readers will “swallow” this statement with complete confidence. The author will not provide a single quote, not a single reference, and the reader will not even think about it, but will put it in his memory so that later, on occasion, he can repeat this “statement”, although he will no longer remember either the name of the author or the title of the article where it came from.
Such blurry links are very common. At the same time, for the most part, the authors do not deliberately try to mislead the reader. It’s just that a person somewhere once read something similar about moles or heard it from someone. Of course, he doesn’t know the exact quote, but the general feeling remains. And what exactly is behind this feeling — whether the authentic words of the holy fathers, someone else’s retelling of them, or one’s own thoughts that came to mind while reading the works of the fathers of the Church — this seems unimportant.
Hence this advice: We should have the least amount of confidence in such unsubstantiated statements and anonymous references. We need to be attentive to what we read and what we write, because in the overwhelming majority of cases such references do not come from evil will, but from the author’s laziness, which the devil uses to push us to pass off our own thoughts as patristic.
Of course, there are many topics about which the Church Fathers spoke in complete agreement, and when presenting them, the above-mentioned method seems to suggest itself. But still, in my opinion, one should not succumb to this temptation. After all, the more that holy fathers wrote on one or another another topic, the easier it is to find in their works concrete confirmation of the idea being discussed. It is more fitting for the pious author to humbly step aside and let the holy fathers themselves speak, without daring to “summarize” and retell their thoughts to the best of their understanding.
There is also a variation of the above-described technique. More specific (but equally unproven) statements can be mentioned without any reference to the original source, such as when an author writes, “St. John Chrysostom argued that it is necessary to exterminate moles,” or even, “St. John Chrysostom wrote many times, 'Exterminate the moles.'” If the author does not provide a link to a specific patristic work, to the chapter or page from which he got this idea, then we still have the same unfounded and unsubstantiated statement.
Technique two: distortion when quoting
It sometimes happens that an author, by citing a quotation and giving an exact link, but taking it out of context, opens the door for similar distortions. Such misrepresentation is all the more dangerous since the presence of a link gives confidence to a much larger number of readers who, as a rule, do not check links.
A well-known example is this statement:
Even the Bible says that "There is no God" (Ps. 13:1).
Turning to our chosen topic, we ourselves might begin to assert:
Even Saint John of Kronstadt urgently called for “throwing out these black moles that are undermining the integrity of our soul.” (My Life in Christ, 1,2)
In both cases, the words are quoted accurately, but their meaning is significantly distorted by the fact that they are taken out of context.
Therefore, at the first doubt, the reader should check the quotations given by the author in order to see how they are used in the text. If we are not too lazy to do this, we will see that in the first verse of the thirteenth psalm it says:
The fool said in his heart: “There is no God”
and Saint John of Kronstadt wrote:
Notice yourself, your passions, especially in your home life, where they peek freely, like moles in a safe place; outside the home, some of our passions are usually covered up by other passions, more plausible, and there is no way to drive out these black moles that undermine the integrity of our soul.
So, Saint John of Kronstadt is not talking about moles at all, but about passions; It is these that he calls to expel, and not the animals digging in the ground, mentioned only for metaphor.
It is appropriate here to recall how the fathers of the VI Ecumenical Council admonished a person using the above technique:
“Behold, you have torn out this testimony of the holy father incoherently; it is indecent for the Orthodox to disfigure the sayings of the holy fathers in such a way, tearing them out incoherently; it is rather the work of heretics” [1].
A variation of this technique is the compilation of collages from the words of Holy Scripture, thanks to which, in the eyes of a gullible reader, it becomes possible with the authority of the Word of God to justify any thought, including mole-killing:
The Lord Himself in Scripture says: “These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole” (Lev. 11:29); “So kill him, do not be afraid; This is what I command you, be bold and courageous” (2 Samuel 13:28).
Many readers “swallow” such collages with sincere trust, although the incorrectness of substantiating an idea by a mechanical connection of different phrases, none of which in itself confirms this idea, is quite obvious. Not to mention the fact that an appeal to the full text of Holy Scripture exposes a distortion of the meaning of the quotes themselves.
So, in the first fragment — in addition to moles — mice, lizards, chameleons, and other animals are also listed as unclean animals, and nothing is said about the need to kill them. On the contrary, it is forbidden to touch them: “These are unclean for you among all creeping things: whoever touches them when they are dead will be unclean until the evening” (Lev. 11:31), and this enumeration itself is given “to distinguish unclean from clean, and the animals that may be eaten, from the animals that are not to be eaten” (Lev. 11:47).
The second fragment is not the words of God about moles, but the words of Prince Absalom about his brother: “Absalom ordered his youths, saying: Look, as soon as Amnon’s heart is merry from wine, and I tell you: 'Strike Amnon,' then kill him, do not be afraid; This is what I command you, be bold and courageous” (2 Kings 13:28).
It is worth quoting here the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who describes how this method of “collage” was used by Gnostic heretics, who...
...collecting words and names scattered in places, transfer them from a natural connection to an unnatural one, acting like those who, having wondered about some thoughts, then they try to make them out of Homer’s poems, so that to the inexperienced it seems as if Homer composed poems for this just completed task, and many are carried away by the coherent sequence of poems to the thought that Homer really composed it that way. This is what one did, describing in Homer’s verses Herakles, sent by Eurystheus to fetch the hell-hound, - for nothing prevents them from being cited as an example, since the techniques of both are the same.
He said this, and, moaning piteously, sent from the house
the Husband of Herakles, the performer of wonderful feats,
the Husband of Eurystheus, the descendant of the Perseid Sthenel,
to take the Dog away from Erev from the terrible god Hades.
He set out on the road, like a mountain dweller - a lion, proud of his strength,
quickly through the city; He was seen off by all those close to his heart,
young virgins, and young men, long-suffering elders,
weeping for him inconsolably, as if departing to death.
Both Ermius and bright-eyed Athena gave help,
knowing their dear brother and how concerned he was in his soul [2].Who among the simple-minded would not be carried away by these verses and think that Homer composed them this way on the same topic? But he who knows Homer's songs recognizes these verses, but does not recognize the content; for he knows that of them one is said about Odysseus, another about Heracles himself, another about Priam, and another about Menelaus and Agamemnon; Having analyzed these verses and returning each of them to its own place, he will destroy the present composition. So, holding unswervingly the rule of truth, which he accepted through baptism, he recognizes the names, words and parables taken from the Scriptures, but does not recognize the blasphemous application that is made of them. For although he recognizes the stones, he will not take the fox for the image of the king, and, returning each saying to its connection and attaching it to the body of truth, he will expose their fiction and show its inconsistency (Against Heresies, 1, 4).
No fewer distortions occur when retelling the words of the Church Fathers. For example, we could use the same sort of tactic:
“St. Epiphanius of Cyprus testifies that moles lead to the death of a person." (cf. Panarion, 64, 72)
But what will we see if we look into the 64th chapter of the famous encyclopedia of heresies, dedicated to Origen, compiled by St. Epiphanius? Here's what we find:
“Those familiar with natural history say that a mole lives in a hole and suddenly gives birth to many children: up to five or more, and echidnas catch them. If the echidna finds a them, then, not being able to devour them all, it eats one or two for its own satiation, and having gouged out the eyes of the rest, brings food and feeds the blind ones until it takes and eats each of them when it wants. If someone who doesn’t know about it happens to find them and takes them for food, he is poisoned by them, like from a viper filled with poison. So you, Origen, having blinded your mind with the above-mentioned Hellenic teaching, spewed poison on those who trusted you and became poisonous food for them, harming many in the same way that you yourself suffered harm.”
From the text itself it is clear that it is not about moles at all, but about the meaning of Origen’s false teachings, which the holy father explains with the help of a metaphor built on ideas understandable to his contemporaries.
So, we have sufficiently shown that quotations from the Holy Scriptures or the Holy Fathers must be treated very carefully and, in case of any suspicion, they must be checked. This is also worth doing because (although this is rare, it still happens sometimes) some authors dare not only to take it out of context, but even to distort the text of the quote itself so that it is more suitable to their own thoughts.
In addition, it sometimes happens that authors, when citing a quotation, try to use it to confirm exactly the opposite idea from what was actually expressed in the quotation itself. With loose modern reading, it sometimes seems not so important to people what exactly is written: “it is worth killing moles” or “it is worth not killing moles” — it is enough that the words “kill” and “mole” stand together.
Technique three: arbitrary interpretation
A modernist author, quoting or paraphrasing the words of Holy Scripture, almost always gives them his own interpretation. All other interpretations, even patristic ones, are of secondary importance for him in comparison with his own opinion. As a rule, such an author does not even check them, believing in a Protestant manner that his own understanding of the Bible is the most correct and completely sufficient.
In practice, for example, this can lead to the following hermeneutic somersaults:
In the Holy Scriptures we find these words: "destroy such a one from the earth! for he must not live" (Acts 22:22). What are they talking about? By whom? To whom? Of course, they cannot be understood only as the words of the Jews about the Apostle Paul. Can we really think that an episode of a private biography that has no significance for all Christians was recorded in the Holy Scriptures? No! These words apply to each of us. This is a call. And at the same time there is a clear indication: “from the earth.” We all understand perfectly well what we are talking about, exactly what lives and digs in the earth, and thus, as the Word of God instructs us, we must mercilessly destroy these creatures, for they should not live.
This kind of thing happens all the time. And if an attentive reader tries to point out to the author (or his like-minded people) the obvious far-fetchedness and absurdity of such an interpretation, then without being at all embarrassed, he will say, “But that’s what I see! . . . And I believe that is exactly what the Scripture says!”
What can be done if two people defend fundamentally different understandings of the Word of God? Is there any way in the Orthodox Church to separate a correct understanding of Scripture from an incorrect one? Thank God there is! This is the tradition of patristic interpretations. According to Canon 19 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council:
“if the word of Scripture is studied, then let it not be explained in any other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set forth in their writings, and let it be verified by this rather than by compiling one’s own words.”
This is a very simple and concrete way to move forward. Therefore, to expose the above interpretation, it is enough for us to look at how the holy fathers explain this passage.
Saint John Chrysostom:
“Here he (Apostle Paul) reminded them of the most inhumane murder. Then they could no longer stand it, after such reproof of them and the fulfillment of the prophecy. Great is the zeal, strong the reproof, bold the speech of the witnesses of Christ's truth! The Jews could no longer listen to the whole speech, but, inflamed with anger, they shouted loudly... saying: “Destroy such a one from the land! for he must not live.” Oh, impudence! Rather, you should not live, and not him, who obeys God in everything. Oh, wicked people and murderers!.. And look: they do not indicate his guilt, because they could not say anything, but they think to act by shouting, while they should have asked the accusers... (The Apostle) voluntarily endures everything that he endures... We too will learn his meekness" (Conversations on the Acts of the Apostles, 48, 2–3).
Saint Athanasius the Great:
“For the lips of those who speak unrighteously are stopped. Who are these but those who do not dare to say: destroy this one from the earth! for he must not live (Acts 22:22)? It was their lips that stopped when the Lord trampled death and rose again for three days” (Commentaries on Psalms, 63:2). And again: “To generation and generation Thy truth. There are two races that have accepted the truth of God: the Jewish people, who have the Law and the Prophets, and the Church. Therefore the truth of God is not to all generations, but to the first generation and to the second generation. Other nations are in error. But when the first generation rejected the truth and said: destroy such a one from the earth! then the truth passed from the first kind to the second kind” (Ibid., 118, 90).
As we see, the “mole-killing” interpretation proposed above is by no means patristic, and therefore it is not Orthodox. The testimony of two or three holy fathers is quite sufficient, according to the words of the Apostle: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word will be established” (2 Cor. 13:1).
Technique four: placement in the “right” context
There is another, more complex group of techniques to convince the reader that the author’s thought is the teaching of the Church, sanctified by Scripture and tradition.
Thus, a modernist author can abundantly confirm with quotes - accurate and undistorted! – theses are secondary to his theme, placing his own main thought in a bouquet of patristic ones. As, for example:
St. John of Damascus writes: “The name of believers alone is not enough for us: no, we must show our faith by works” (Conversation on the Withered Fig Tree). So, you need to work hard. We must act and demonstrate by deeds our standing in the truth. It is not enough to simply talk about the need to exterminate moles; we must show our faith in action. Yes, this may be unpopular in the eyes of the children of this century, but let us remember the warning of St. Simeon the New Theologian: “He who loves human glory is not a true Christian, but some kind of a good warrior of the Devil” (Words, 16, 2). “So, remember that day on which we will all give an account of our deeds” (St. John Chrysostom. On statues, 21, 3).
This is how unscrupulous sellers at the market, when selling “young” potatoes, put “old” ones in the bag along with them, but if only an attentive buyer checks, the deception will easily be revealed. And here the inattentive reader, glancing over the text, perceives it as saturated with patristic quotations and as if entirely built on tradition, not noticing that, among the genuine patristic thoughts, a completely unfounded “mole-killing” statement is being slipped into his hands.
Another technique, close to this, is perhaps the most difficult to recognize. It lies in the fact that from the words of the Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church attempts are made to logically deduce the “necessary” idea, for example, like this:
St. Simeon the New Theologian compares unspiritual people with moles: “Whoever has not yet achieved the measure of such love ... is still underground, hidden by the earth like a mole: for, like this mole, he is blind, and he hears only by hearing those who speak above the earth” (Words, 54, 2). It is not surprising that St. Nicholai Velimirovic wrote: “Truly, human likeness to moles is deplorable” (Prayers on the Lake, 7). For the holy fathers, moles were associated with the darkest phenomena and forces which a person had to get rid of.
Let us remember how St. John of Kronstadt likens passions to moles, and St. Theodore the Studite writes that we must live “mortifying the passions” (Catechetical Teachings, 73), and St. Theophan the Recluse also says: “Kill passions and quickly ascend to purity.” (The Path to Salvation, III, 11). So, the strict orientation of patristic thought is visible: passions - moles - kill.
And in Scripture, the prophet Isaiah says: “On that day man will throw ... his idols to the moles” (Is. 2:20), and the prophet Ezekiel recalls their fate: “So that your idols may be crushed and destroyed” (Ezek. 6: 6). And here is the same sequence: idols - moles - destroy.”
Individually, each statement may be true and the quotes undistorted, but through a false logical chain the author leads the reader to an idea that supposedly naturally follows from the above, but which in fact does not belong to any of the holy fathers to whom he refers.
The only thing that can help here, as in other cases, is attentiveness when reading, and the ability to analyze the material offered by the author. After reading the article, ask yourself these questions: “What is the author’s main idea? And how exactly does he justify it?” With repeated careful reading of a dubious article, even complex intricacies will not be able to hide unfounded statements from the reader’s gaze, especially when they are presented as Orthodox teaching.
Technique five: the best defense is to attack
Many authors who try to pass off their own fabrications as the teaching of the Church prefer to attack sound thoughts that are contrary to them, allegedly as heresies. They believe that if they can convince the reader that the opposite idea is non-Orthodox, then the Orthodoxy of their fabrications will be proven, as it were, automatically. And they often do this in a very aggressive manner.
Consider this diatribe, for example:
Nowadays, many people have appeared who are not ashamed to go against Scripture and the Holy Fathers, to overthrow all Christian teaching, claiming that it is not necessary to kill moles! Such people are infected with the spirit of this age, obsessed with ecology, and neo-pagan ideas associated with its defense! This is what they are trying to impose on us under the guise of church teaching!”
This is also a very old trick of heretics. Here is how Saint Gregory Palamas wrote about it:
The fact that the malicious Barlaam says that we are dual-theists directly proves our piety and his wickedness. For the great Basil was also accused of tritheism by the blasphemers of the Son and the Holy Spirit... And Gregory the Theologian was stoned by the associates of Apollinaris and brought to trial, accusing him of dual-theism, because he thought the Word-God-Man to be perfect in both natures. For Maximus, who was wise in Divine matters, the supporters of Sergius and Pyrrhus did not fail to cut off both his hand and his tongue, accusing him of dual-theism and polytheism, because he preached that in Christ there are two wills and two actions - created and uncreated, according to natures; for, according to his teaching, not only the Divine nature is uncreated, but also the Divine will and all the natural energies of the Divine nature, which are not natures, but divine movements, as he often asserts in his works. Now they are slandering us too. (Letter to Akindinus, 1)
Very popular for this kind of technique is an attempt to identify the opposing point of view with some existing heresy: “It is generally known that Catholics do not kill moles. So such views which, unfortunately, also exist among some Orthodox Christians, are a consequence of Catholic influence.” The pattern here is false: if something coincides with what Catholics do, then it represents Catholic influence. To show that this approach is incorrect, consider the fact that the same Catholics read the Bible — but when Orthodox Christians are reading the Bible, is that a result of Catholic influence and heresy? Of course not. In the case of real and not imaginary influence, it is not merely “something” that must coincide, but the very essence of the heresy itself. Both in relation to Catholicism and in relation to Protestantism, the main points of error that separate them from the Orthodox Church are described and well known. Anything other than this (in our case, the reluctance to kill moles) is neither a consequence of Catholic influence nor heresy.
“Historical explanations” are also very popular. For example:
After most of the Orthodox world fell under the Muslim yoke, in the new, cramped conditions, the Orthodox could no longer freely fulfill all the instructions of their religion, especially those related to the extermination of moles, and at the same time intensified Catholic propaganda was doing its job. Many were forced to study in Latin schools, from which they emerged already infected with the corresponding views.
The move, as a rule, is to bring the opposite point of view to the point of absurdity and attribute to opponents views that they obviously do not profess:
Today’s mole lovers urge us to take care of moles like the apple of our eyes, to care for and cherish them, to take them into the house, to put them in bed with us! They claim that love and reverence for moles is one of the most important commandments in Christianity. Their apostasy from the truth has brought them to such madness and blasphemy! In essence, we are dealing with a revival of ancient pagan animal worship. So, the faithful children of the Church must be vigilant, identifying among the priests the followers of the mole-worshipping heresy and sending the lowest requests to the hierarchy to immediately take canonical measures against the heretics. We must fight with all our might even the mildest manifestations of this vile heresy!
After such “processing”, not every person will dare to say directly that, perhaps, exterminating moles is not a religious duty of a Christian. And those who decide to take that position will be forced to start by denying involvement in Catholicism, heresy, paganism, the fruits of the Turkish yoke, etc. Thanks to this attack, the author will deliberately put his opponents in the position of making excuses, while in fact he himself needs justifications, because none of the above-mentioned techniques, so common in Orthodox polemical journalism, in any way proves the correctness of the position of the author himself.
The incorrectness of these techniques is much more difficult to trace if the conversation is not about killing moles, but about more subtle and spiritual things.
Another difficulty is that almost none of the techniques listed above are a formal sign of modernism. It is possible to offer an incomplete quote, but in a faithful way that retains the original idea of the entire passage. It is possible to rephrase it in your own words, not distorting the original thoughts, but accurately reflecting them. And so on. The only way to know where the distortion is and where it is not, is to check all the quotes yourself.
Instead of an afterword
The above techniques were known to the ancient holy fathers. Here is what St. Irenaeus of Lyons said about them in the 2nd century:
Some, rejecting the truth, introduce false teachings... With cunningly counterfeit plausibility, they deceive the minds of the inexperienced and captivate them, distorting the sayings of the Lord and poorly interpreting what is well said... For error is not shown alone in itself, so that, appearing in its nakedness, it does not expose itself, but, cunningly dressed in tempting clothing, it achieves what in appearance for the inexperienced seems truer than the truth itself. About such people, someone better than me said that they prefer glass skillfully counterfeited to look like an emerald to the emerald itself... When there is no one to test and in any way detect the fake, or when copper is mixed with silver, who among the simple can easily recognize it? (Against Heresies 1, 1–2).
Of course, an attentive and diligent reader will not be afraid to read the text, reflect on it, and check the quotes in order not to be fooled by a modernist author. But having the prospect of such labor when reading an article or book by a modern author — comparable to the prospect of eating a minnow — many may wonder: is it worth it? If the danger of catching some kind of error under the guise of Orthodoxy is as great as the necessary precautions, then isn’t it better to read something time-tested, about which the Church has already testified that there is only benefit here?
Here is what St. Ambrose of Optina says about this:
Reading spiritual books without instructions, you are afraid that you will fall into some wrong thoughts and wrong opinions. Your fear is very reasonable. Therefore, if you do not want to suffer such a spiritual calamity, do not indiscriminately read any new works, of such authors who did not confirm their teachings with the holiness of life, even if they have spiritual content, but read the works of such fathers who are recognized by the Orthodox Church as firmly known and without a doubt edifying and soul-saving[3].
And, of course, we must try to overcome the modernist attitudes instilled in us by the secular environment. The basic principle and antidote to errors is to subordinate your mind to the Church, to place yourself not above or on the same level, but below the holy fathers, to believe in them more than in yourself — such a person, even if he happens to sin with ignorance about Orthodoxy, having learned the truth, immediately he will push away his error in order to follow the truth. But the modernist is not like this — in such a situation he begins to wriggle out in order to continue, not only to cling to his delusion, but also to instill it in the Church.
Here is what St. Theophan the Recluse writes about this:
Sincere faith is the denial of one’s mind. The mind must be laid bare and presented to faith as a blank slate, so that it can inscribe itself on it as it is, without any admixture of outside sayings and positions. When the mind retains its own positions, then, after writing the provisions of faith on it, there will be a mixture of provisions in it: consciousness will be confused, encountering between the actions of faith and the philosophies of the mind. Such was Simon the Magus - an image for all heretics; such are all those who, with their wisdom, enter the realm of faith, both before and now. They are confused in faith, and nothing comes of them except harm: for themselves - when they remain voiceless, for others - when this confusion is not kept within them alone, but breaks out, due to their thirst to be teachers. From here there always emerges a party of people who have more or less sinned in the faith, with an unhappy confidence in infallibility and a disastrous urge to remake everyone in their own way. (Thoughts for every day of the year, 11.04)
A person who has correct, sound guidelines, as he becomes a church member and takes root in the faith, will both internally feel and mentally understand when he is approached with the modernist idea of remaking everyone in his own way. And he will avoid this trap if he remembers that “our duty is not to lead religion where we would like, but to follow where it leads, and that Christian modesty and dignity are not inherent in passing on what is personal to our descendants, but in preserving what was received from our ancestors,” because then “the custom has always flourished in the Church that the more God-loving someone was, the sooner he opposed new inventions” [4].
In the Orthodox Church we have been given the fullness of truth, and all that is required of us is to fall into it, assimilate it, and pass it on to others without distortion - neither detracting from nor adding any “innovations” from ourselves. The only thing we can and must renew in the Church is ourselves. To renew ourselves from sin and passions, to put off the old man and put on the new, about which the Apostle Paul spoke: “You have heard about Him and in Him you learned, since the truth is in Jesus, to put off your former way of life, the old man, which is corrupted by the deceitful lusts, but to be renewed in the spirit of your mind and to put on the new man, created according to God in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph. 4:21-24)
[1] Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T.IV. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 94.
[2] These verses are taken from various places in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.
[3] Collection of letters of the Optina Elder Hieroschemamonk Ambrose. M., 1995. pp. 101–102.
[4] Memoirs of St. Vikenty Lirinsky. Peregrin. M., 1999. P. 14.
Take action! Resist the assault from the rainbow mafia: