The Theological Faculty of St.Vladimir in New York: "Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate and the church in the U.S. "
http://www.romfea.gr/
...I'm pleased to stand today on the premises of the Theological Faculty of St. Vladimir, a nursery of theological and pastoral letters calling, which has based the Russian spirituality and intellect, great pioneers of the spirit and the highest functionaries, such as fathers George Florovsky, Schmeman Alexander and John Meyendorff.
I express my sincere thanks to the worthy successors of those great theologians for their invitation to participate in high level academic symposium, and to have the opportunity to pass on all the blessings and paternal Patriarchal blessings of the Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the Pontiff of the Holy Great Church of Christ in Constantinople.
(I regret that because of the last session of the Holy Synod Holy my late arrival, and allowed me to attend two very interesting presentations of the main Timothy Clark and George Lewis Parsenios).
The issue is now called upon to present before you is the "Greek Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church in the USA. Starting from the content and historical development of "Greek Orthodox" will try to explore its relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and finally using these to interpret the attitude of the Church of Constantinople at the ecclesial situation in the U.S. and will present his vision for the future of American Orthodoxy.
The Church of Christ from the recommendation that the Lord Jesus Christ on earth and in particular the principle of its organization under the local bishops deeply affected, as was also natural, from the political, administrative and cultural context of the Roman Empire, known as an empire, by syncretism, multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, but also by a single law, single chain of command, common language, common currency, etc. Since Christianity, after the period of persecution was recorded as a known and tolerated in the beginning and formal, then the religion of the empire, the identity of the Church affected and influenced the identity of the Roman citizen. I do not want here to elaborate on how the Divine Providence had thus prepared the political and cultural background of the expansion and consolidation of the Church of Christ, nor on how the multinational and multicultural identity of the empire easier to own the external building Christianity.
But I want to draw your attention to the meaning and content of Roman citizenship (or resident of the Roman Empire), especially since he began to have a characteristic identity of the Christian religion.
The Roman Christian tribal can belong to any nation, have any native language and yet be faithful falling undera Bishop of the city's temporary residence, as in secular terms was subject to the Roman governor governor of the region. Its status as a citizen of the kingdom of God was, mutatis mutandis, the same characteristics in his capacity as a citizen of the Roman Empire: regardless of race, language or origin.
Similar was the identity of the Roman Empire in the Church: the basis and criterion for the organization from scratch was the geographical criterion, a bishop for each city, which have been subject to all local residents, the other language without discrimination, within the apostolic teaching "essential èvl Jew nor Greek, slave nor essential èvl free, essential èvl male and female ˙ everyone you are a For he to ye in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3, 28).
On the same principle, the churches are called today "The Church of Alexandria", "Antioch Church", "Jerusalem Church," Church Russia "and so on in that geographic designations. It antiparadosiako and irregular in church terms, it is called the Patriarchy as 'Russian', 'Serbian', 'Romanian', 'Bulgarian' or 'Georgian', and the Patriarchs: "Patriarch of the Russian", "Serb", "Romanian ', "the Bulgarians" or "Georgians" because the designations are introduced not only the dispersion but also to the local Orthodox Churches in Ethnic criterion and divide the flock of the bishop of the place based on national origin, leaving room for eispidisi in such other province and even parish practice. This applies at the local Church and the dispersion, because the sacred rules can not be selective and occasional power, but universal.
The experience and teaching of the Church is also reflected in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, which codified and recorded binding for all Christianity, not just the once delivered faith and doctrine, but the principles of administrative organization. The Ecumenical Councils, I draw your attention, not edogmatisan of non-being, or conditions imposed by church organization did not exist until then. So in matters of faith and on the administration codified the apostolic teaching, the experience of the Church and the patristic tradition. Nor is it necessary here to go to the presentation of proven wrong already adequately distinguish the sacred rules dogmatic, can not reviewed, and administrative, Steam tropopoiisin.
Returning to the analysis of the terms, recall that the Church within the Roman Empire, such as the 18th century, was named by Western historians as the Byzantine, Roman onomastike, when they started emfanizontai schismatics and heretics church structures, which have diakrinontai terms of terminology. This was entonotero and established at the Orthodox East after the Schism of the year 1054 and especially after the Ottoman victory over the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Sultan allopistos now confirmed and formally introduced the term "Roman nation» (Rum Milleti ₌ Roman nation) with respect to all Orthodox Christians of the empire occupied. For the Sultan, like the predecessor of the Emperor, there were nations discrimination, but discrimination and religious bonds. That is, after all, and people who are not naming exislamizonto Rome Muslims, but Turks. The exislamizomenos "tourkefe 'changed identity.
The Ottoman Empire, which adopted and respected the existing ecclesiastical terminology, which subdued the Roman Christians are not distinguished by language and ethnic background, but on the membership of the Church.
Thus, in the Anatolian languages (Greek, Turkish, Arabic), the Patriarchate (Orthodox, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) marked as Rum Orthodox (ie Roman Orthodox) as opposed to the Rum Catholic (ie Roman Catholic) is the Armenian or the Syrian churches.
Problem arose when the rise of nationalism (19th century) in the Balkans, the term Rum metefrasthi a Greek to be the cause of rehabilitation and independence of peoples and Orthodox church perspective. Meanwhile, of course, was founded by the Greek state and any sense of Hellenism was treated with nationalistic terms, giving a totally different meaning in the original condition Rum.
In order not to dwell only briefly summarized as follows: The origin of the term "Greek Orthodoxy has now taken a content of national character, which distorts reality. The term "Greek Orthodoxy, the« Rum Orthodox »given in English as beneficially« Roman Orthodox ». As the term Roman Catholic is not translated as «italian catholic», so the term «Rum» the «Roman» Orthodox should not be translated as «Greek Orthodox», ie a way to give national content in a purely ecclesiastical terminology.
The original sense is preserved in the Roman Catholic Church which, unfortunately, have the unfortunate title of «Greek Catholic». These are certainly not Greek, but Uniates subordinate to the Pope, followed by the Byzantine (Eastern Roman see) rate.
It is also striking that all the Slavonic peoples in the pre-outbreak period of nationalism had no problem whatsoever called Rum Orthodox and be subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is not to forget, never made an effort to Hellenization, since this was contrary to the principles and the very identity as universal. Not even a period of Christianization of the Slavic epecheirithi the hellenization them: on the contrary strengthened (essentially edimiourgithi) language with the preparation of special alphabet for them and support their cultural identity.
It is no coincidence that the Church of Russia in the 18th century until the October Revolution had difficulty called "Greek-Russian '2Or even your own church until 1971 was called «Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America»3.
Since, then, I think, proved that the term «Greek Orthodox» with respect to the Patriarchate of the East is not an exact return on their real identity, we can better explain current developments both in the diaspora and in the Patriarchate itself.
Once established the independent Greek state, which in terms of terminology, corresponded with the Patriarchate of the East are gone through a period of crisis of identity.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has granted the status Autocephalous Church of Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, Albania and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (19th - 20th cent.) After the Asia Minor catastrophe lost almost the entire flock within Turkey with the signing of Treaty of Lausanne and the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey.
The Patriarchate of Antioch and Jerusalem passed through an identity crisis because their Greek threatened to identify with the fate of the Greek nation and the policy of the Greek Republic. Also, the Church of Russia, turned after the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peter the Great in a state institution panslavistiki reconciled with the direction of foreign policy of the Russian state during the 19th century, because it allowed the possibility of having full coverage of the State to promote and their own interests. Thus, by the establishment of the Royal Society Palaistineiou on May 28, 1882, by helping Russians pilgrims, became an institution of the Czarist interests in the Middle East, simultaneously promoting its own interests in this sensitive area.
The Patriarchate of Alexandria turned his attention to ieraspotoli to the peoples of Africa. Once developed and consolidated its mission organized in 2001 has requested formal letters from the Ecumenical Patriarchate's jurisdiction if parachorisin entire continent. Since then, added the title of Patriarch of Alexandria, the words "and all Africa" and until then "and any land in Egypt 'only.
Nationalism and knocked on the door of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which Palestinians loyal edyskolefonto understand now why the Church was entitled «Rum Orthodox» (wrongly be translated as greek) while they were neglecting Arabic and Arab national consciousness. Wisely, however, pastoral activities and demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of the Palestinian flock, he managed to deal with each emerging nationalist outbreaks and crises.
I think it was necessary that border on being able to approach the current situation of the Orthodox Church in the U.S. and the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not national in its current sense. It follower of the traditional, traditional expression of Christianity, as he stood in the organizational background of a non-national, a global empire and, as recorded and codified in the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods.
The Ecumenical Councils recorded the original and apostolic Christian conscience on the organization of ecclesiastical life in purely geographic criteria, rather than linguistic or national origin. The jurisdiction of each church was described accurately in their decisions, while they were composed saints and bearing Fathers were aware that there were areas outside the boundaries of the Roman world and beyond the then known "universe", which called the technical term "barbarian". The pastoral responsibility for those areas reimbursed to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The geographical jurisdiction of the churches and patriarchates built up later (after enn. Marital sessions) periegrafisan also precisely the patriarchal and synodal Volumes issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of securing and expressing the Pan-Orthodox consciousness and consensus.
It is well established that the Church of Russia has developed missionary work in Alaska as the 18th century, when the region was a russian territory, as indeed did the churches of the Empire era in apiokies them.
The standard question here is: the territorial expansion of a state is aftonoitos extending jurisdiction of the Church of this State in that area? H and the other question: The development of a mission outside the geographical area of jurisdiction is likewise claim jurisdiction?
Preaching the word of God and spreading the Gospel of Christ is certainly commendable, and the holiness and sacrificial offering of first missionaries are well respected and accepted.
The geographical, but the jurisdiction of the Church Russia is clearly circumscribed in Volume of Autocephaly received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The argument that this first evingelise a part of the Americas is not church, nor a regular basis, but is colonial mentality. We at this point to mention the examples of the Russian mission in China and Japan, countries where the Church of Russia considers the standard of ground! The proper response in such cases is the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which he has requested and received formal jurisdiction over the entire African continent, as you said.
The further presence of Orthodoxy in the U.S. in late 19th and during the 20th century the common features of all the Orthodox diaspora around the world: the Orthodox church were organized mainly based on ethnicity and the churches of origin.
Therefore it is not fair to say that by doing this ... "Diespasthi this section and was replaced by the arbitrary authority unheard of" multi-jurisdictional '"4.
The Patriarchy presvygeni esevasthisan the 28th rule of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on outside the geographical limits of the Orthodox Church sites. The only exception was, unfortunately, the Patriarchate of Antioch, who in the confusion caused in the late 19th century with good performance and the exact scope of "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate» «Rum Orthodox Patriarchate» misled by the rise of Arab nationalism and made ecclesiological different options to survive in an environment characterized by dangerously growing anti-western of the time (the geopolitical environment enn.).
The evolution of the presence of Russia in the U.S. Church deeply affected by the consequences of the October Revolution in the year 1917 and the introduction in Russia of the atheist regime. Communication with the needy Orthodox Church became increasingly difficult with each dependency it accused of collaboration with the atheist regime, treated with suspicion and a strong reluctance. Contributed to this later and the Cold War climate between the two superpowers, which made it conceivable to subject American citizens to Moscha5 church.
Already in 1924, as you know, it was decided to 'temporary autonomy' of the U.S. presence Rossias6 Church. Moscow has challenged the regularity tous7 while they mention the Patriarch of Moscow as a formal ecclesiastical authority tous8. We forget that the year 1946 was an attempt to join in the then Patriarch Alexius I, not karpoforise9. A similar attempt was made back in 1966 when Bishop Irenaeus was sent to all Orthodox Prokathimenous10.
Known developments that led to the return of the incorrect Autocephaly the metropolis, which only in 1970 renamed the Moscow Patriarchate on «Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America» in OCA11.
Apart from the question whether it was normal yield "Autocephaly (which is not a coincidence that only recognized the Soviet sphere of Churches epirrois12) questions:
The pursuit of local drug metropolis of the Church of Moscow dictated solely by ideology and ecclesiological principles of locality of the Church was an inevitable choice and need to decline the possible suspicion that subject, and spiritually guided by a church state, which was considered the main threat to IPA13.
Today, after 40 years, verified the view of Fr John Meyendorff that: "The criticism caused the Autocephaly not due to the normal ecclesiological reasons, but fear that 'fyletistiki' ethnocentric or the structure of existing 'jurisdictions' will now face the serious challenge of a normal, healthy American Church, which was at the same time very open to maintaining all existing national customs and traditions of various groups of Orthodox immigrants?14
We appreciate the efforts of the OCA to establish the U.S. concept and reality of the local Church. This, as noted above, a vision and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I wonder if you can claimlocality when there is a minority, when ignoring all other churches.
Reading the Instructions of the Hierarchy of OCA, by which was announced formally in the year 1970, making the 'autocephalous' status, stressed that it was a three-fold objective:
"The objective of the union of all Orthodox Christians of America at a church."
"The objective of free testimony of Christian faith throughout the world."
"The goal of spiritual growth in power by force, through the prayers of the holy Father Herman of Alaska.
Again I wonder if now, after 40 years, we can say we have found one of these three objectives. The first goal is clearly not achieved. As for the other two goals, just make in the double question:
a) needs to return autocephalous status to be achieved? You had the exact same and before making this scheme? and in that connection, b) the other Orthodox in the U.S. presence, which have not been autocephalous status, lagged behind in anything in these areas of the Orthodox witness in the world and the spiritual force of increase in power?
Summing up the yield on the 'autocephalous' status my humble opinion, let me say that in fact appeared in the Church as well, and if the intentions, the violation of sacred rules in no way lead to positive results. The results of irregularities, sooner or later we find before us, as happened recently (2009) with the decisions of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in Geneva Chambésy. While the OCA that began with the entirely commendable optimism unification of all Orthodox in the U.S. and consolidating the conscience of such locality, is today an obstacle and a problem to epilysin because there is a church recognized by all Orthodox. This is because according to Article 1 of the Rules of Operation of the Episcopal Assemblies and approved by the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference: "Always the Orthodox bishops of each Region, as of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference set, which is in normal society after bass of the local autocephalous Orthodox churches establish their own Episkopikin Assembly. Moreover, Article 2c of the decisions of this Pan-Orthodox Conference, provides in the Orthodox diaspora that: "The issues on Against this lamvanontai decisions throughout omofonianChurches and self worth which represented the concrete Assembly.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate organized ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the U.S. after the transplantation of believers from the regions of Thrace, Pontus and Asia Minor, after the great disaster experienced. This is natural and has historical explanation. He founded the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese J. North and South America, this does not mean that the Greeks created for the race. This is evidenced by the fact that the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including Albania, Ukraine, karpathorossous and Palestinians, but none of them ever feel exellinizomenos deteriorating by this fact. The very founder of the Archdiocese Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis the enthronement of reason talks of the Pastoral Care of all Orthodox Christians of the diaspora, with particular reference to the faithful of the United Politeion15. This patriarch not only distinguish the faithful according to their ethnic origin, but refers directly to the decisions of the Great Synod of Constantinople in the year 1872, which condemned the ethnofyletismo. I recall that the Synod has declared schismatic who epixan 'own altar "and recommended" individual fyletikin parasynagogin "is based on purely racial grounds, to be judged" ... designed to teach the Gospel and ierois kanosi percent of the Blessed Our Father "16.
The non-jurisdictional autonomy of the archdiocese was not an obstacle to spiritual and organizational progress. At least no one can now ichyristhei that the Archdiocese of us lacks something of the 'autocephalous »OCA in any field. Instead, we saw take place in life without it ceases to be direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the vision of the late Professor Anton Vladimirovich Kartashoff for compensation "insobornost (Ie the responsible participation of all the people of God, clergy and people in the life of the church) from the top to the base ... "17.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate always faced with understanding the historical difficulties through which passed the OCA. When this had to face the question of regularity that the Church of Russia in Soviet times, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has maintained fruitful cooperation and community. Even if, contrary to normal meaning to order almost certainly got a so-called "autocephalous" of the Orthodox Church saw it more as a pending settlement with the Moscow Patriarchate and showing understanding is not stopped, applying the ecclesiastical economy, society, and her continued Concelebrants the hierarchy. We want now to develop the anti-evolution arguments that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which also are known and recorded. But I consider it my duty to emphasize the common vision and our common principles, which are often disadvantaged and are lost in the jurisdictional dispute which usually monopolize our relations. I recall the words of the late Bishop Galanakis, who in a Christmas message to the Orthodox patriarchs in 1966 said "... unity can be achieved only by an agreement between all the national churches "18Therefore, not by unilateral actions of questionable regularity.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate did not come to America as a national Church, to establish a national jurisdiction, because it is also contrary to the ecclesiological principles and his own identity and its history. The Archdiocese is our "Greek" in the sense that you have discussed it at the beginning of my speech, this does not mean that it will terminate and suppress ethnic origin, language and culture of believers who are the jurisdiction, whether they be Greek or not. In this also I think symfonoume19.
Ground being on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, I want to say that one can encounter parishes, where the Greek is widely spoken and where the sequences are particularly sacred to the Greek in two languages: Greek and English. But there are many parishes where the Greek is not in use and is spoken only English. In other words, one can get the impression of a dominant influence in the Greek church, which is not true.
Further I would like to draw your attention to the following argument. The Greek language is also a victim of rising nationalism and became a target even in the U.S. by car to the idea of courses of treatment, the Mother Church. But the Greek language is not just a national language but the language of the Gospel, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the Fathers of the Ekkliias and functional prototypes and devotional texts of Orthodoxy.
Finally, I wonder why the Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate can not be an expression of all united Orthodox presence in the U.S., because the title has the word "Greek" and the same claims to be the OCA, despite the fact that by 1970 brought officially titled "Russian" (and "Greek") and until recently run by the bishops of Russian origin?20
The meaning is "Greek" was not an obstacle to our loyal Americans are genuine, loyal U.S. citizens and willing defenders of the interests.
It is understandable and perhaps just a degree of labeling of certain difficulty to accept the term diaspora, which includes the element of precarious. Certainly the bulk of the orthodox believers in the U.S. - but not only - the element of precariousness of their existence in these areas is an anachronism. But we must understand that when we say we do not refer only spread to people scattered in other words, but rather - now - the geographical area in which it has been spreading. In this sense, then, is neither dishonorable nor anachronistic to refer to a geographic specificity in terms of a separate ecclesiastical terminology. I do not think that anyone who does not accept the pastoral care of the areas outside the geographical limits of local churches currently employs throughout the Orthodox and should at least be defined and onomatistei so then analyzed and addressed. The once scattered, today is indigenous, rooted Christians who flourished and bore fruit at home.
This is in itself a the American dream, which you claim is right, does not require the removal of historical memory and culture of the people who compose it, but promotes the creative composition in the essence of flourishing U.S.. "We hold these truths self-evident, that all men are molded and have equal endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights including the right of zis, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," says the American Declaration of Independence. President Jimmy Carter, but adds that "we do not take up a pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different goals, different hopes, different dreams "21. Here the views of those steps Vice Hubert H. Humphrey: «It is, thankfully, long since passed the time when people liked to believe that the United States as a kind of container of assimilation, which took men and women from all over the world and to transform American uniform. Eimate, I think, has become more mature and wise. As we welcome a world of otherness, the glory of American otherness - the increasingly wealthy America because of the many different and distinct yarns that are woven "22.
Katakleiontas's suggestion, I think that the irregularities, even dictated by historical necessity, not a good choice because it will always stand before us towards the Pan-Orthodox unity and witness.
The decisions of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference is a historic opportunity for Orthodoxy in America to overcome the competitive mentality of the past and see that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is governed by the same principles yperthenikes both the OCA and the U.S.. Respect the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the observance of the Orthodox tradition and faith are the only way in Christ, unity and progress.
In his address to the Primates of the Orthodox Church by the Assembly in October of 2008 the lighthouse, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said:
"Ileithimen the Lord to anikomen at the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, whose faithful follower and exponent in the History of the Holy Orthodox Church Prayer. Parelavomen and sustained the alithinin faith as handed on to us by the holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. Koinonoumen the same Body and Blood of Christ in the one Eucharist, and metechomen of these holy sacraments. Kept basically the same liturgical typical dioikoumetha and in the same Holy Canons. However always ensure the unity of us, and provide basic conditions through the witness of our modern world now.
However, due to omologisomen the honesty that is sometimes given the poor image of unity as we are not a Church but a confederation federation of Churches ... Of course, apantisis to this question, which is usually given is that despite dioikitikin katatmisin Orthodoxy remains united in faith, sacraments, etc. But is this enough? When before non-Orthodox emfanizometha often divided in their theological dialogues and elsewhere where the adynatomen to prochorisomen pragmatopoiisin in the long-promised the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church ∙ sterometha a single voice on current issues and Instead, sygkrotomen bilateral dialogues on issues moreover, made after the non-Orthodox or when ∙ adynatomen to sygkrotisomen unitary Orthodox Church in the so-called Diaspora in conformity with the ecclesiological and normal all of our Church ∙ apofygomen how we can split the image of Orthodoxy, and public and on the basis of non-theological, secular criteria?
We have lifted, hence, require more unity to emfanizometha out to be not just a federation of Churches but as one single church. The latter from the throne through the centuries, particularly after the schism, nor the Church of Rome ceased to be found in society after the Orthodox, was asked by the normal range ministered to the unity of the Orthodox Church as Protothronos this, which they did over time call panorco'doxo met throughout several summits on critical issues of church, and always ready to provide aid of the and in this symparastasin emperistatous Orthodox Church, where it has been requested by him. Diemorfothi so a normal taxi, whereby the coordinating role of the Patriarchate exisfalize unitary result of the Orthodox Church, with no complaints to the paravlaptitai meiotai the autonomy of the local autocephalous Churches by whose intervention in the internal thereof. Indeed it is a healthy sense of the autocephalous institution that, while ensuring the self-governed each church as to this life and esoterikin organosin on matters relating to the entire Orthodox Church and to the outside relations of each autocephalous Church does not act independently, but ἐν coordination after the other Orthodox Churches. If the coordination eliminate the latter from atonisi the Autocephaly is "aftokefalismos, toutesti dividing factor and not a unity of the Orthodox Church.
We are called therefore prosfilestatoi brothers in the Lord, to symvalomen by all means against the unity of the Orthodox Church, regionalism is always the temptation to ethnikofyletikon energomen a single Church, as in normal sygkekrotimenon body. This is certainly not easy. There diathetomen as happened in Vyzantinin period, guaranteeing civic leaders - the sometimes imposed - our unity. Ecclesiology nor allows us sygkentrotikin power to become liable to impose unity from above. This unity is for us in the conscience of us. The synaisthisis need and our debt as apotelomen sygkekrotimenon the normal body, one Church, is likely to safeguard the unity of us, without outside interference oiasditinos.
"Now I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught, and avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own appetites; and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded."
.jpg)
