The Legion of Michael the Archangel [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Father David Moser

29-07-2006, 08:19 PM

Father Geroge Calciu ... is amazing person who spent over 20 years being tortured and abused in Romanian prisons and now serves at a Church in the US. He seems like a man of great sanctity. In the book Fr Calciu brings up the subject of the Legion of the Archangel Michael of which he is sympathetic.

During the very turbulent years of WWII and the following atheist domination of the states of Eastern Europe (and for Russia the time since the Bolshevik revolution in WWI) there were many spiritual giants and many spiritual movements born out of the fires of persecution. These men and their actions are good for our edification and inspiration and we should pay heed to their actions in as much as they further our salvation.

But (you knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you) times have changed. The soviet states are no more and different political powers have come into play - all of varying moral character, but all hoping to use the spiritual force of the Orthodox Church to help consolidate their place in the hearts of the people that they claim to represent. And not everything that was necessary in times of persecution is now necessary in our lives (we do not, for example now expell all non-Orthodox and seal and guard the doors at the liturgy at the cry "the doors the doors" although that is the origin of that cry - now we have spiritualized it and given the practice new meaning appropriate to our time and situation.)

In the same we we have to carefully evaluate these people and events that arose during the turmoil and persecution of the last century in Orthodox nations. This legion seems to have been born of a mix of nationalism and Orthodoxy (certainly a potent and legitimate mix - Stalin himself opened the Churches during the German invasion of WWII in order to make use of it - the person of St Alexander Nevsky is another example of the potency of that mix) That may have been appropriate and necessary for the time, but times have changed. Fr George may well have fond memories of the spiritual fervor of the legion and for that reason praises them and accepts their work as some kind of spiritual labor. But that doesn't mean that this movement is "saintly" or that its founder is a "saint" (something which remains to be seen - probably after some generations have passed and the full fruit of his labor can be observed)

That we all should hold such fervor for God and His servants in our hearts at all times is without question desirable. How that fervor manifests is subject to who and where we are in the world. Who is the greater saint - Alexander Nevsky or Boris & Gleb?

This web page has pictures of a memorial for the founder of the Legion (that took place not to long ago ) in which an Orthodox Priest is officiating.

It is always appropriate to serve a pannykhida (litia, slava, memorial) on behalf of the departed in Christ. How can we neglect to pray for the dead - it is our Christian duty. It doesn't matter whether we consider them to be saints or depraved sinners - we should pray for the souls of the all the departed alike.

Fr David Moser

Scott Pierson

29-07-2006, 08:44 PM

Father Bless

It is always appropriate to serve a pannykhida (litia, slava, memorial) on behalf of the departed in Christ. How can we neglect to pray for the dead - it is our Christian duty. It doesn't matter whether we consider them to be saints or depraved sinners - we should pray for the souls of the all the departed alike.

It appears that the memorial service was done at the end of a march organized by the New Right (an organization which seems to consider itself to be continuing the cause of the legion) I would assume that priest was in favor of the group because it organized the Codreanu rememberance march. Its possible the priest had no knowledge of the march and the group that was hosting it but I doubt it. Please note I'm not attacking the priest for doing so... The Legion could very well have been a great organization. Its just confusing to see so many diametricaly oposed accounts of what the group was about.

Fr George may well have fond memories of the spiritual fervor of the legion and for that reason praises them and accepts their work as some kind of spiritual labor. But that doesn't mean that this movement is "saintly" or that its founder is a "saint" (something which remains to be seen - probably after some generations have passed and the full fruit of his labor can be observed)

Thats true I've just read that certain miracles have been associated with the legion and its leader.

Scott Pierson

30-07-2006, 05:25 AM

Here is a quote from the book

"Fr Calciu tells us about Nicolae Steinhardt: " Nicolae Steinhardt was jew who was arrested and sent to prision, where he met the Iron Guard <<connected with the Legion>>. They made a big impression on him and convinced him to become an Orthodox Christian.. When he left the prison he became a monk"

If the claim that the Legion / Iron Guard was a violent anti semitic nazi like organization was true then would something like that really have happend ? ITs obvious that it did happen.. the person went on to write books about his experience with the Iron Guard and his conversion to Chrisitanity so that appears to be one piece of evidence pointing to the fact that the legion might not have been a group of violent hate filled thugs.

Alec Lowly

31-07-2006, 01:26 AM

Dear Scott,

My father was born in Romania of non-Romanian parents (British father, Russian mother). The family lived there until 1938, when they relocated to Britain. My grandparents maintained close relationships with friends there, including my father's godparents, right through World War II and somewhat afterward, helping some people to leave the country.

There is no good report in my family's lore concerning either the Legion or the Iron Guard. My father used to describe both as "fascist," and he was bitter about the harm they did to Romania, a land he always loved.

Sadly, he did not live long enough to see Romania finally free and to return for a visit, which is something he longed for his entire life. He was a stalwart admirer of King Michael, who was/is remembered in our family prayers.

My understanding is that the Legion began as a confused sort of spiritual-national renewal movement, but was then exploited and co-opted by thoroughly evil forces. My father thought that Codreanu was a psycho, not a saint.

The Iron Guard was an outright fascist organization; I doubt you will find any reputable historian who would deny this. Both organizations were anti-Semitic, sometimes violently so, and anti-Catholic, ditto. Romania had a substantial Jewish population and and even bigger Catholic population, in the Transylvanian lands that had been Hungarian before World War I. The Guard sought to purge Romania of Jews and to suppress Romania's Catholics.

The revival of these organizations in today's Romania iis not good news, in my opinion.

In XC,
Alec Lowly

Scott Pierson

31-07-2006, 02:24 AM

The Iron Guard was an outright fascist organization; I doubt you will find any reputable historian who would deny this. Both organizations were anti-Semitic, sometimes violently so, and anti-Catholic, ditto. Romania had a substantial Jewish population and and even bigger Catholic population, in the Transylvanian lands that had been Hungarian before World War I. The Guard sought to purge Romania of Jews and to suppress Romania's Catholics.

I understand that they wished to limit the influence of non Orthodox people and non assimilatable minorities who overwhelmingly favored un Orthodox ideas, socialism, communism, Catholicism, Judaism etc... I've heard about quotas for colleges and such (no more horrendous then our affirmative action). but not forced purges ( I may be wrong).. I don’t see that as making people hateful thugs however. Don’t Orthodox Romanians deserve a country of their own?** Its funny how people can support Zionism for example and the right of the Jews to have their own nation (in land they stole of all places) but who would deny the right of Orthodox Romanians to have a nation of their own in which they have political and economic power.. I've also read that members of the Legion actually worked to save Jews from the Nazis and as I posted above where kind to people of all religions and races in the prisons (in which they where incarcerated as political prisoners by the corrupt govt). Its possible that not all the legioneers lived up to that standard in fact Codreanu complained that some of them had acted uncharitably and needed to learn to love more... but I don’t think I would hold that against all of them. Whenever people are in a life or death struggle (look at what the Legion fought against- communism and what the communists did to Romania its easy to see how people might get a little carried away in defense ..) or involved in something of great controversy their will always be a few idiots attracted to the cause and a few overreactions and problems... look at the Pro Life movement which is overall a good thing but a few whackos who like killing "doctors" attach themselves to it.

It is possible for people of various nationalities to band together under one government but only when they have a unifying super national ideal like the Orthodox Christian Empire (Roman Empire for example)… never just because they happen to live together if that is all that bonds them together their will be constant struggles for power and infighting. When you have an un asimilatable minority that has excessive power over the economy , politics, etc then you have problems. If it is wrong to say that then the majority of humanity throughout the majority of human history (untill modernity and the concept of multi culturalism came about) have been wrong.

I may be wrong as to the Legion and If I am I apologize but from what I do know I'm not so sure I can write them off as bad guys. Thank you for responding I appreciate it.

Scott Pierson

31-07-2006, 01:35 PM

The revival of these organizations in today's Romania iis not good news, in my opinion.

You may be right I dont really know much about the "New Right" most of their articles are not in English. The flag with the Cross in a Circle that many of them are holding is popular with nazi and "white power" groups which makes me think they might not be that great of people... Its possible though that the Nazis just use that symbol to support nationalism and that it isnt an inherently nazi symbol.. I dont know. I do know that I'm totaly opposed to any group that teaches hatred of people who are differnt.

Alec Lowly

01-08-2006, 03:39 AM

I understand that they wished to limit the influence of non Orthodox people and non assimilatable minorities who overwhelmingly favored un Orthodox ideas, socialism, communism, Catholicism, Judaism etc... I've heard about quotas for colleges and such (no more horrendous then our affirmative action). but not forced purges ( I may be wrong).. I don’t see that as making people hateful thugs however. Don’t Orthodox Romanians deserve a country of their own?** Its funny how people can support Zionism for example and the right of the Jews to have their own nation (in land they stole of all places) but who would deny the right of Orthodox Romanians to have a nation of their own in which they have political and economic power.. I've also read that members of the Legion actually worked to save Jews from the Nazis and as I posted above where kind to people of all religions and races in the prisons (in which they where incarcerated as political prisoners by the corrupt govt). Its possible that not all the legioneers lived up to that standard in fact Codreanu complained that some of them had acted uncharitably and needed to learn to love more... but I don’t think I would hold that against all of them. Whenever people are in a life or death struggle (look at what the Legion fought against- communism and what the communists did to Romania its easy to see how people might get a little carried away in defense ..) or involved in something of great controversy their will always be a few idiots attracted to the cause and a few overreactions and problems... look at the Pro Life movement which is overall a good thing but a few whackos who like killing "doctors" attach themselves to it.

It is possible for people of various nationalities to band together under one government but only when they have a unifying super national ideal like the Orthodox Christian Empire (Roman Empire for example)… never just because they happen to live together if that is all that bonds them together their will be constant struggles for power and infighting. When you have an un asimilatable minority that has excessive power over the economy , politics, etc then you have problems. If it is wrong to say that then the majority of humanity throughout the majority of human history (untill modernity and the concept of multi culturalism came about) have been wrong.

I may be wrong as to the Legion and If I am I apologize but from what I do know I'm not so sure I can write them off as bad guys. Thank you for responding I appreciate it.

Dear Scott,

I get very uncomfortable when people start talking about "unassimilable minorities" because talk like that has often led to pogroms and death camps.

Of course, Romanians deserve a country of their own -- and they've had one since the 19th century. The true enemies of Romania's nationhood were first the Turks, then the Austro-Hungarian empire, and finally the Soviet Union. At no point ever in Romania's history have Jews, Roma ("gypsies") or Catholics been a threat to Orthodox Romania's nationhood. That includes today.

I find it very peculiar that someone who admits he knows little about Romania and its history has expressed some of the views you have. The fact that the Communists were bad doesn't mean that the Legion was good. As for the Iron Guard, well, the case is closed -- they were Romania's homegrown version of the Nazis.

Sa traiesca Regele (long live the King).

In XC,
Alec Lowly

Scott Pierson

01-08-2006, 05:41 PM

Dear Scott,

I get very uncomfortable when people start talking about "unassimilable minorities" because talk like that has often led to pogroms and death camps.

Of course, Romanians deserve a country of their own -- and they've had one since the 19th century. The true enemies of Romania's nationhood were first the Turks, then the Austro-Hungarian empire, and finally the Soviet Union. At no point ever in Romania's history have Jews, Roma ("gypsies") or Catholics been a threat to Orthodox Romania's nationhood. That includes today.

I find it very peculiar that someone who admits he knows little about Romania and its history has expressed some of the views you have. The fact that the Communists were bad doesn't mean that the Legion was good. As for the Iron Guard, well, the case is closed -- they were Romania's homegrown version of the Nazis.

Sa traiesca Regele (long live the King).

In XC,
Alec Lowly

If I have made any misleading statements based on my own ignorance then I apologize. I do not know a lot about the situation but I assume that Father Calciu who appears to be a very intelligent and pious person who lived most of his life there probably does.

As for "un assimilatible minorities" I am simply referencing non-Orthodox populations that lived in Romania. In a country like the USA which is a secular democracy it is equally possible for people of all religions to be loyal to the USA and to have a love for the "American way". In Romania (and in most every traditional culture) however loyalty to the nation and its ideals are directly connected with loyalty to Orthodoxy . Catholics hold a faith which teaches that the Orthodox (maybe not so much now after vatican two and the whole eccumenical thing but at the time at least) are deluded heretics and schematics and that they need to submit to the pope. Jews believe that Christ was a Satanic false prophet born of a prostitute and roman solider... Both these faiths are hostile to Orthodoxy . On top of that you have many people in those communities who seemed to support changes in favor of secular democracy, communism, socialism, etc.. So I can see why the Orthodox of Romania might be a little worried if these peoples started to gain in economic, political, social, etc clout and started to guide the direction of the nation. If a magic geni came down and said " I will grant you one wish A. that Romania will stay a strong Orthodox nation governed by Orthodox principals... B. Romania will be a secular democracy, C. Communist state..etc.. I doubt many Jews or Catholics would have asked for wish A. I can see that Catholics would pray to "enlighten" the Romanian people and bring them to the pope but I doubt they would work for the increased power of the Orthodox worldview ... Certainly the Orthodox of Romania should try to be neighborly to their non Orthodox guests and show them hospitality and such but I think they have a right to take action if their guests start to gain too much control over the destiny of the nation. I don’t think its cruel or that odd to think that way.. If it is most of our Orthodox Emperor saints would have been cruel. In "Byzantium" (Roman Empire) for example I'm sure they allowed Muslim merchants and such to live and trade in the empire but they certainly wouldn’t allow them to gain too much control over the destiny of the Orthodox Empire because they had other religious loyalties. Certainly that doesn’t mean you can take any sort of action whatsoever to rectify the problem but in theory there is nothing wrong with working to fix it. So basically I'm just giving the Legion the benefit of the doubt (mostly due to the support of Fr Calciu). If they are the evil organization that many people claim then I want to find that out and I will apologize for my standing up for them.

Please note I’m not saying that Jews or Catholics are evil people or anything… heck my family is Catholic and they are nice people. I’m just saying they have other loyalties.

Scott Pierson

04-08-2006, 12:13 AM

I'm going to refrain from makeing any more comments untill I can find out more about the topic. They always say a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing (or at least a cause for embarassment :D )

I'm going to write Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood and ask them why they produced a book that had pro legion statements in it. I'm wondering if Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood looks positvily on the legion or if that was simple part of the interview and they had to include it in the book for it to be printed... the Nun interviewing Fr Calciu didnt seem to opposes his support of the legion and the book even has a picture of Codreanu ...

Owen Jones

04-08-2006, 03:30 PM

The most pious people in Orthodoxy sometimes have the screwiest politics. I would rarely look to a monastic or a cleric to derive my politics. Orthodoxy is far from developing a coherent political or social philosophy. On the one hand, what you have is a kind of romantic nostaligia for Christian empire. On the other, an accommodationism with liberalism and the left. Greeks in America worship like Orthodox and vote like good secular liberals -- a liberalism that rejects everything that Orthodoxy represents.

A good dose of classical philosophy would help. What should be avoided is the immanentist fallacy. The notion that politics is anything more than representational of the ideal. It cannot institute the ideal. On the other hand, faith, and the reality it represents, is more than just a personal experience. So politics will inevitably, always, be a representation of the soul and the desires and aspirations of the soul, and the political health of a society will reflect the spiritual health of its members.

Alec Lowly

05-08-2006, 01:07 AM

If I have made any misleading statements based on my own ignorance then I apologize. I do not know a lot about the situation but I assume that Father Calciu who appears to be a very intelligent and pious person who lived most of his life there probably does.

As for "un assimilatible minorities" I am simply referencing non-Orthodox populations that lived in Romania. In a country like the USA which is a secular democracy it is equally possible for people of all religions to be loyal to the USA and to have a love for the "American way". In Romania (and in most every traditional culture) however loyalty to the nation and its ideals are directly connected with loyalty to Orthodoxy . Catholics hold a faith which teaches that the Orthodox (maybe not so much now after vatican two and the whole eccumenical thing but at the time at least) are deluded heretics and schematics and that they need to submit to the pope. Jews believe that Christ was a Satanic false prophet born of a prostitute and roman solider... Both these faiths are hostile to Orthodoxy . On top of that you have many people in those communities who seemed to support changes in favor of secular democracy, communism, socialism, etc.. So I can see why the Orthodox of Romania might be a little worried if these peoples started to gain in economic, political, social, etc clout and started to guide the direction of the nation. If a magic geni came down and said " I will grant you one wish A. that Romania will stay a strong Orthodox nation governed by Orthodox principals... B. Romania will be a secular democracy, C. Communist state..etc.. I doubt many Jews or Catholics would have asked for wish A. I can see that Catholics would pray to "enlighten" the Romanian people and bring them to the pope but I doubt they would work for the increased power of the Orthodox worldview ... Certainly the Orthodox of Romania should try to be neighborly to their non Orthodox guests and show them hospitality and such but I think they have a right to take action if their guests start to gain too much control over the destiny of the nation. I don’t think its cruel or that odd to think that way.. If it is most of our Orthodox Emperor saints would have been cruel. In "Byzantium" (Roman Empire) for example I'm sure they allowed Muslim merchants and such to live and trade in the empire but they certainly wouldn’t allow them to gain too much control over the destiny of the Orthodox Empire because they had other religious loyalties. Certainly that doesn’t mean you can take any sort of action whatsoever to rectify the problem but in theory there is nothing wrong with working to fix it. So basically I'm just giving the Legion the benefit of the doubt (mostly due to the support of Fr Calciu). If they are the evil organization that many people claim then I want to find that out and I will apologize for my standing up for them.

Please note I’m not saying that Jews or Catholics are evil people or anything… heck my family is Catholic and they are nice people. I’m just saying they have other loyalties.

Scott, my dear brother, a few points:

1. I have no doubt that Father Calciu is "a very intelligent and pious person who (has) lived most of his life (in Romania)," but that doesn't mean that he is politically astute or that he knows his country's true history. Most pious folks are politically naive, in my experience. That's not a criticism, it's a finding of fact. As I have often discovered in Romanians who were educated under Communism, they were taught an incomplete and tendentious version of their nation's history, a version that served the purposes of the Communist Party. I have personally assisted some Romanians here in the United States in learning the truth about important issues of Romanian history, such as the circumstances behind the land grant awarded to Romania by the victors of World War I.

2. The Ronanian constitution under the monarchy guaranteed freedom of religion.

3. I know not one single Jew who believes that "Christ was a Satanic false prophet born of a prostitute and roman solider." This claim is frequently made, however, by anti-Semites, who say it's in the Talmud. Which it isn't.

4. "Certainly the Orthodox of Romania should try to be neighborly to their non Orthodox guests and show them hospitality and such. " Scott, they're not "guests." In most cases, they are native-born citizens of Romania.

5. "I'm just giving the Legion the benefit of the doubt (mostly due to the support of Fr Calciu). If they are the evil organization that many people claim then I want to find that out and I will apologize for my standing up for them." Scott, you provided links to various Web sites. Did you read those Web sites? They document ~horrific~ crimes. I'm referring to the sites in English. I know you cannot read Romanian (I can). There's enough documentation on the English-language sites alone to prove beyond any doubt that the Iron Guard was a disgrace to the cause of Christ.

In XC,
Alec Lowly

Scott Pierson

06-08-2006, 04:16 AM

"But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced [Celsus], speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera; "and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage."
[B]Origen Against Celsus 1:Chapter XXXII

I've read some of the debates online as to the veracity of the Talmud claiming that Christ was born of a prostitute**.... Even if the Talmud wasn’t speaking of Jesus it seems to have been understood that way by many Jews and to have been a very popular fable among them. I've read of this fable in more then a few books (none of them by anti Semites at least that I know of). If talmudic Jews reject Christ then they have to believe he was a false and therefore satanic prophet.... as is often said their are only 3 ways to understand Christ, Son of God, Madman or Liar ... If Jews acknowledge prophethood and reject the prophethood of Christ then they have to consider him to be a false prophet and therefore of the devil.

Though there are certainly many people who are Jewish who do not hate Christianity I think we would be blind to ignore the fact that many of the more pious (especially among the Israeli zionists) are no fans of Christianity. .. Look how Israel treats the Palestinian Orthodox Christians.. Palestinian Christians comprise less than 2.1% of the population of the Holy Land, down from the (over) 10% that lived there before the advent of modern Israel. Some large Palestinian cities had Christian populations as high as 60% before the advent of Zionist Israel. The Israelis have done more to destroy Christianity in the holy land then 100s of years of Muslim tyrants. Did you hear about the whole controversy about the international plus sign and its similarity to the cross and how it is no longer used in Israeli elementary schools ?

I think its very important for people to pray for the conversion of the Jews. I've added a pettition to my evening prayers for that. Their are many good people among the Jews and Christ points out that Christians have a duty to bring the good news to them. We also need to pray for the conversion of the muslims just because one is an enemy of the Church doesnt mean they cant change (thank God I was involved in occultism and really hated Christ with a passion). A lot of people dont understand the hate that many adhearents of non Christian religions can have for true Christianity but I know from experience... I hated Christ. The Bible shows that the darkness will be offended by the light.

Zionist crimes against Christians
http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crimes_against_christianity/index.htm

Here is web page that points out antichristian hatred by Israeli Jews (written by a Jew who survived the German concentration camps)
http://www.rense.com/general21/anti.htm

** there are some scholars who think that the Talmud does make refrence to Christ for example :

The great Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner who wrote earlier in this century [said that] the very few references to Jesus in the Talmud are of little historical worth 'since they partake rather of the nature of vituperation and polemic against the founder of a hated party, than of objective accounts of historical value."
- John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew - Rethinking the Historical Jesus
..........

Alec Lowly

06-08-2006, 10:39 PM

Zionist crimes against Christians

http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crimes_against_christianity/index.htm[/url]

This is a Palestinian site, Scott. Yes, Palestinian Christians are leaving their homeland in droves. Yes, they are bitter about the Israelis. They are also bitter, as several have told me, about their future in some future Palestine. They know perfectly well that once they cannot be used as a "diversity" card ("See? We are not all Muslims!") in the propaganda war against the Israelis, their Muslim brethren will suppress them.

Here is web page that points out antichristian hatred by Israeli Jews (written by a Jew who survived the German concentration camps)
[url]http://www.rense.com/general21/anti.htm[/url

A very interesting site, indeed, in you're into wacko conspiracy theories, such as the danger of fluoridated water ...

Scott, does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state? Yes or no?

Scott Pierson

06-08-2006, 11:40 PM

A very interesting site, indeed, in you're into wacko conspiracy theories, such as the danger of fluoridated water ...

I dont agree with everything on the site.. that article is on a varity of websites however and the author is a well known author you can buy his books on Amazon.com so I doubt the site just made the article up and attributed it to him .

Scott, does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state? Yes or no?
No. The jews may have a right to their own nation (Just as Orthodox Christians have a right to an Orthodox nation) but they dont have a right to take land from the Palastenians and set up their zionist state in palastine. The Zionists have plenty of money if they wanted to set up their own state they could have peacefully bought land from some poor nation and set up shop there...the zionist didnt do that because they consider themselves the chosen of God destined to rule Israel and they thought that gave them the right to displace the palastinians. The Zionist even want to blaspheme God by rebuilding the temple (of course last time someone (julian the apostate) tried to rebuild the temple God used fire to stop them). Please dont take this as me supporting Islam, I dont. Prior to Zionist ownership of Palastine things where not paradise for Christians and Jews there that is true but things have gone from bad to worse with advent of Israel.

Personally I would be most happy with Orthodox Christian Palastenians takeing the Holy Land for themselves but I dont see that happening any time soon . Maybe the Zionists and the muslims will mutually destroy each others millitary and the Christians can take over... yeah I know its just a fantasy lol.

Just because the sight was run by palastenians doesn't imply that everything posted there is wrong.

Scott Pierson

19-08-2006, 03:44 AM

I finally received a book in the mail a few days ago that was written by the leader of the Iron Guard (For My Legionaries). Having read it I do think there are some areas in which the ideology of the Legion was wrongheaded. It does appear that some in the Legion embraced the idea that Jewish people are an inferior mixed race and that there is some sort of racial determinism that makes them bad people. Obviously any doctrine that limits moral responsibility and free will by claiming that some are evil by birth is not good. Its also insulting to the great Saints of Jewish birth like many of the Apostles, Saint Romanos the Melodist, etc. This idea was very popular and widespread at the time (not just in Europe but in the USA as well) with the new “science” of racial classification, eugenics and evolutionary theory, but that really isn’t much of an excuse. To simply say that the Jewish elite ( Plutocrates, bankers, intelligentsia , etc) were dangerous to the future of Romania is one thing , but to say that anyone is unalterably evil by birth isn’t appropriate. Many of the Fathers of the Church have hated Talmudic Judaism and written warnings about the goals of the adherents of the religion but none of them have ever made the outrageous claim that ones race or ethnicity determines ones morality or salvation. In some ways the idea of racial spiritual determinism is a modern equivalent of the Gnostic view that some people are born pneumatics and others hylics destined for hell. The part in the book in which the racial determinist view was found was actually a quote from a news article so I cant be 100% sure that Codreanu agreed with every aspect of it . So it is possible that particular view wasn’t his but he obviously agreed enough with the overall gist of the article to include it in his book so I‘m not sure..

I also think they may have been excessively nationalistic. Generally nationalism, (the love for ones people and country ) can be a very good thing. Its also a good thing to foster in this age of globalism when people are pushing for world government and a new world order…etc... But I think problems arise when people make their earthly nation their number one priority over the heavenly nation. If a Christian talks more about (and has stronger feelings for ) their nation or “the national struggle “ then their God or the Church then something is out of balance. Thats one of the problems I have with fascism as well... With Fascism there is too much of a reliance on propaganda , mobolizing the masses, the "will of the people ",rule through controlling opinion, using symbols that invoke emotional reactions..etc .. In other words its too much like democracy.. sort of like the other side of the democratic coin.

Despite the problems I've also found a lot that was good in the book. The Legionaries appear to have been brave people willing to put their life, job, etc on the line to fight the communist threat. When a general strike was called by the rail road workers Codreanu walked right through the midst of them climbed up to where they had the commie flag flying , threw it down and raised the tricolor (despite the fact that thousands of angry people were watching him). He also barred the entrance into a college (to hundreds of angry students) until the Traditional Orthodox service was held first. The school administration had given in to the commies and decided to cancel the service (just like their comrades the secularists here in the US fight against school prayer I guess ) thanks to Codreanus actions they canceled school for the day and next time it resumed they had services (which was a 50 year tradition). Codreanu and his allies were also among the few people who were willing to support the King against the slander that was printed in the media on a daily basis.

The Legion had strict requirements for moral and upright behavior, self sacrifice, love of nation, obedience to the Church and such. Even in prison the legionaries kept up their moral behavior and became a source of encouragement to all the other political prisoners. Like I said above their witness even caused a Jew in prison to accept the Orthodox faith and he went on to become a famous author and monk who wrote positively of the Legion.

So I guess I found out what I expected too. The Legion wasn’t a saintly order of perfect Christians and it wasn’t the evil boogie man that the media, public schools and talking heads make them out to be either. They were simply people who cared about their country and hated communism. Their ideology had its problems and faults and its good aspects.

Pancone

20-08-2006, 05:25 AM

The Legion was more than a political group. It was the political expresion of the church, like they said. Corneliu Codreanu often said that the line of the Legion is beneath/under the line of the church ("We admit we are sinners").
BUT, without a spiritual training, gained in the Legion, it would have been imposible for the legionnaires to survive in jail or to fight in the mountains (half of the resistance members were legionnaires) against the (atheist) communism. Also, many priests and monks we're legionnaires.
For me, Corneliu Codreanu is a saint. At least a saint of my nation.

Scott Pierson

20-08-2006, 07:29 PM

Pancone,

Do you think the belief that the jews are racialy (and unalterably) predestined to be "evil" was widspread in the legion? I'm not sure if it was but I did see at least one place in the book "For My Legionaries" in which that idea is put forth but like I said in my last post it was a quote from another article that one of Codreanus friends wrote so it may not have been the "offical" position of the Legion.

Overall I think the Legion was a good thing and I can understand why one would consider the Legions struggle to be a holy one. The Masonic New World Order types hate the Legion and that in and of itself is a good indicator that it must not be half bad. Its also refreshing to see people who are willing to bravely fight communism and stand up for their nation and Church regardless of the consequences.

Anthony

20-08-2006, 08:03 PM

Alec Lowly

21-08-2006, 12:15 AM

Please consider that the ultimate source of deep hatred for the Jewish people is Satan himself.

Over the long ages, he repeatedly stirred up the nations of the earth to destroy the Jews so that the promised Messiah could never arrive. He failed, of course, thanks be to God -- and his fury against this people knows no bounds.

The great empires of the earth have arisen against this people. Where are those empires now?

Throughout the history of the Church, Satan has constantly deluded and inspired Christians in each generation to do his dirty work for him. He came very close to achieving his vengeance in 20th-century Europe -- but God has never renounced His promises to Israel. They have been fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ -- and they will be perfectly fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ on the great day of His Coming.

Please read the 11th chapter of the holy apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans.

Are the Jews the enemies of Christ? Yes, some are -- just as Christ has enemies among every people, including people in His Church. And even if the entire Jewish people were enemies of Christ, how are true Christians commanded by the Lord to deal with them? By loving them, by praying for their welfare and conversion, by answering evil with good.

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendents after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendents after you. And I will give to you and to your descendents after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ... " Genesus 17: 7-8.

Does God lie? Again: Read Romans 11.

IC XC NIKA,
Alec Lowly

Scott Pierson

21-08-2006, 01:24 AM

I don’t see how the Legion could be defined as "nazi" but I guess some have made the definition of Nazi so elastic that it basically means any nationalist group. The words "nazi" and "fascist" are often used as emotional buzzwords that stop rational and unbiased investigation of a topic or group. Other similar terms that are popular now are "Islamofascists" , "Orthodox Clericalists", "black hundreds", "religious extremists", "Democracy" etc...

I define a nazi as a member of the German National Socialist party and one who supports the views expressed by Hitler and the NASDAP. It might be useful to term as "neo nazi" groups that specifically embrace Hitler and the NASDAP as the foundation of their worldview. That is the correct and historical definition but people like to make it so wide that it basically covers any of their political foes ( did you know that Republicans ( just ask the dems) and Feminists (feminazis just ask Rush) are nazis too lol ). If a group or person doesn’t fit those requirements I wouldn’t call them "nazi" or "neo nazi". Being opposed to talmudic Judaism (or Zionism for that matter) doesn’t make one a nazi if it did a lot of the Church fathers would have been "nazis":rolleyes: . I can provide quotes from the fathers but I think its a well known fact how many of them thought of talmudic Judaism. I don’t think the term "Fascist" would be 100% correct for the Legion either.. Though some similarities exist the simple fact that the legion was monarchist rules out fascism.

I can understand why some people might disagree with the Legion.. I don’t agree with every aspect of their worldview but then again I have a hard time agreeing with anyone when it comes to politics. There are good people on both sides of the issue I'm sure.

Scott Pierson

21-08-2006, 02:59 AM

Please consider that the ultimate source of deep hatred for the Jewish people is Satan himself.

I dont hate jews just talmudic Judaism. As the old saying goes love the sinner but hate the sin. All people are sinnners and their are evil people in all religions but talmudic Judaism is particularly evil. I would strongly disagree with any theory that made humans out to be animals who are completly controlled by their ancestory and gentics and I would be the first to admite that Jews can become Christians and that many of the greatest saints have been of Jewish birth..but that doesnt make talmudic judaism a good thing. If one wants to look into the patristic understanding of talmudic Judaism ( I call it Talmudic in order to seperate it from the true Biblical Old Testament Judaism which ceased after the destruction of the temple) I would suggest people check out two books :

Saint Cyril of Alexandrias Three books of Testimonies Against the Jews
http://web.archive.org/web/20010630063345/www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-122.htm

Saint Chrysostems Against the Jews:
http://www.shoahrose.com/adversos.html

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendents after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendents after you. And I will give to you and to your descendents after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ... " Genesus 17: 7-8.

The Church is the Israel of God. Those Jews who accepted Christ (the faithful remnant) and the Gentiles who are grafted onto Israel are the true heirs of the promise and not the apostate Jews who reject Christ (who are called Jews but lie and are the synagoge of satan). I can find some Patristic refrences in a little bit if anyone wants. I know certain protestant (dispensationalists and Christian Zionists ) deny this but it is the standard teaching of the Church and has been for two thousand years. In fact the view that the Church isnt Israel didnt come along untill the 1800's.

Here are some other quotes on the subject of talmudic Judaism ( I can find many more if anyone questions that these are common views on the subject):

1st Thessalonians 2:14-16

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa:

"[Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, Sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness."

Blessed Augustine:

The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jews can never understand the scriptures, and forever bear the guilt of the death of Christ."

"These people have also become vagabonds, since they crucified God and our Lord. For they are not in their former abodes, but are spread over the whole earth. Here the Psalmist speaks of the beggary of spiritual riches which is upon them. For they have neither prophets, nor law, nor priesthood, nor sacrifice, but in truth they are made beggars."

"If you are his people, then admit you led Him to death. You are so blind that you claim to be spoken of when you are not, and you do not recognize yourselves where you are. Malachai speaks of your rejection. Come, then, Jews unto Him. For the light is not in you Jews, but in Christ. In the place where you believe in Him, there will you come unto Him."

"How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

Peter the Venerable

Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.

Saint Jerome:

"The Jews seek nothing but to have children, possess riches and be healthy. They seek all earthly things, but think nothing of heavenly things; for this reason they are mercenaries."

"Holding fast to their ancient anger and violence, still today under the name of Nazarenes, the Jews in their synagogues blaspheme the Christian flock: and while they slay us, they will their own destruction in the eternal fire."

"A fornicatress is a woman who has had intercourse with several men. An adulteress, one who, deserting her true spouse, joins herself to another. The Synagogue is both of these, and if she continues in fornication and adultery, God will strip off her clothes and remove the ornaments which He gave her."

Saint Chrysostem

"The difference between the Jews and us is not a small one, is it? Is the dispute between us over ordinary, everyday matters, so that you think the two religions are really one and the same? Why are you mixing what cannot be mixed? They crucified the Christ whom you adore as God. Do you see how great the difference is? How is it, then, that you keep running to those who slew Christ when you say that you worship him whom they crucified? You do not think, do you, that I am the one who brings up the law on which these charges are based, nor that I make up the form which the accusation takes? Does not the Scripture treat the Jews in this way?

Hear what Jeremiah says against those same Jews: "Go off to Kedar and see; send off to the islands of the Kittim and find out if such things have happened." What things? "If the gentiles will change their gods, and indeed they are not gods, but you have changed your glory and from it you will derive no profit." He did not say: "You have changed your God," but, "your glory." What he means is this. Those who worship idols and serve demons are so unshaken in their errors that they choose not to abandon them nor desert them for the truth. But you, who worship the true God, have cast aside the religion of your fathers and have gone over to strange ways of worship. You did not show the same firmness in regard to the truth that they did in regard to their error. That is why Jeremiah says: "Find out if such things have happened, if the gentiles will change their gods, and indeed they are not gods; but you have changed your glory and from it you will derive no profit." He did not say: "You have changed your God," for God does not change. But he did say: "You have changed your glory." You did no harm to me, God says, because no harm has come to me. But you did dishonor yourselves. You did not make my glory less, but you did diminish your own." -- Saint John Chrysostom, Discourse IV.

"Are you Jews still disputing the question? Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts."

Saint Ephrem the Syrian:

Let Sabbath Day and circumcision go, as they have let you go and passed away!
Your guilt is due to your internal thoughts; but you observe external disciplines.
The soul within you might have perished; but the Sabbath Day, outside you, is observed!
The Jew, although he did not keep the laws and ordinances while they were in force,
would press us hard to keep the Law today, although its time is past, the infidel!

He wants to make us healthy ones contract that illness which he suffered from of old.
The cutting and the cauterizing irons, the drugs, as well, prepared to cure his pains,
he wants to use for mutilating us, for cutting off the limbs of perfect health.
The fetters, shackles, manacles prepared to keep him captive in his servitude,
he cunningly attempts to use to clap the freedom of the love of God in irons.

The ravening slave is prompting us to clamp his fetters, shackles, irons on the free.
By flattering the pride of freedom, he subjects her to the yoke of slavery.
He makes pretence of honoring the free, but really all he feels for us is scorn.
Attracting us to Moses is his way of fleecing the Messiah of his flock.
If one is proud to stand beside the Slave, how much more proud to stand beside his Lord!

He doesn't even stand beside the Slave, denying, as he does, that Servant's Lord.
And Moses, who was scorned of old by them, was always held in honour by ourselves.
The Lord is honored as a Lord; and slaves are honored as the servants of their Lord.
He persecuted Moses in his time and, in his time, he crucified his Lord.
The nations, at that time, were off the track; but, all the same, he ran away to them.

Today, when, by denial, he has strayed, he calls the nations off the beaten track.
The Gentile Church preserves her chastity; by Egypt, though, pollution was embraced.
He would have hurried back to Egypt's arms, had deep sea-water not prevented him.
He will not enter this Girl, full of truth; he longed to run to that Girl, full of lies.
Because he's tasted blood on such a scale, he cannot stop himself from murdering.

In former times he murdered openly; but now he murders secretly instead.
He tramps around the ocean and the land to find companions for the road to Hell.
He has no Prophets whom he might destroy in public, as his lust would make him do,
Among the kings he was dispersed, that they might hold in check his lust for blood by force.
He saw that mediums could no longer hold the pagans spellbound, while the Prophets could.

So then he dressed himself in prophecies, the prophecies of those whom he had killed;
he put them on and took them off at will, the more to kill by reasoning with them.
He kills the bodies of the prophets, then he takes the prophets' voices for a cloak.
Avoid the Jew, you vulnerable man! Your death and blood is nothing much to him!

He took upon himself the blood of God; and will he be afraid of shedding yours?
He has no fear of leading you astray; he had no fear of wandering himself!
Beneath the very Pillar of the Cloud he made the Calf and did not even blush.
He placed the idol with the fourfold cheeks, bereft of dread, within the Holy Place.
He hanged the Maker on a piece of wood and all Creation shuddered at the sight.

The Spirit rent the curtain of the door, to make the disbeliever rend his heart.
The stones above the tombs were rent as well, but still that heart of stone felt no remorse.
The Spirit saw that he was undismayed; She fled his rabid, predatory lust.
The accursed one then snorted through his nose in front of his most honourable God.
The Prophet was too modest to relate his filthy deed exactly as it was;

Ezekiel found modest words to tell what filthy acts the Jew committed then.
Because those acts were told by modest lips, they were articulated modestly.
For just as what is sanctified has passed through Jewish lips and so has been outraged,
so filthy acts committed by the Jew have passed through modest lips and been improved.
He slaughters all the prophets sent by God, like newborn lambs, so innocent and pure.

Physicians came to visit him, but he became his doctors' executioner.
So get away from him, because he's mad! Run for your life! Take refuge in the Christ!
Don't come to Him with curiosity! Approach Him, rather, as a worshipper!
If he, the disbeliever, crucifies, and you, the one who worships, penetrate,
discerning men will shed great tears, because the one blasphemes, the other penetrates.

He visited the seed of Abraham: the heirs turned into murderers; and then
he visited the nations, immature as yet: the innocent began to probe.

Saint Justin Martyr:

"In Leviticus it is written: 'Because they have transgressed and despised me, and because as traitors they walked contrary to me, I also will walk treacherously with them, and I will destroy them in the land of their enemies. Then their uncircumcised heart will be ashamed' (Lev. 26:40-41). For the circumcision according to the flesh was given to you from Abraham as a sign so that you might be distinguished from other nations and from us, and so that you alone might suffer what you now rightly suffer; so that your land might become desolate, and your cities burned, and strangers eat the fruits of your land before you, and not one of you set foot in Jerusalem. ... Therefore these things have rightly and justly come upon you, for you put the just one to death, and before him his prophets and now you deal treacherously with those who hope in him, and with him who sent him, Almighty God, the Creator of all things.

Pancone

21-08-2006, 04:42 AM

The legionnaires were real nationalists (and this is the way that you can explain how 80% of the intelectuals were members or supporters of the Legion: Blaga, Tutea, Cioran, Eliade, Celibidache, Noica, Gyr, Barbu, Cotrus, Nae Ionescu, G. Manu, S. Mehedinti, N. Paulescu - see the full list here: http://fgmanu.net/personalitati/pers_cuprins1.htm ), fanatic christians, real peasants (in a good way).
Romanians werent racially antisemites. Many jews had money, economic power, business. Most of the romanians were poor peasants. Thats why it was the conflict.
A good relationship with Nazis had National Christian Party - NCP (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Christian_Party and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_C._Cuza). But these articles should be taken *** grano salis. Wikipedia is not a very objective source.
Also, other small groups had some connections with nazis or fascists. The Legion had a better relationship with La Falange (see http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/mota.html ).
In 1937, at the elections, "the jewish problem" was not on their top issues (number 6 or 7). On the other hand, NCP had only one message: Jews to Palestina!
After NCP came to power (dec. 1937), they gave the first racial (antisemite) laws. During the legionnary regime (end of 1940) was build a national theatre for jews (first one in the world).
After WWII, the commies mystified history. Not even today we dont have a good image about what was then or if we have is not accepted by the neo-commies (that are in power now in Romania).
Sorry for my bad english.

Pancone

21-08-2006, 04:44 AM

I can understand why some people might disagree with the Legion..

The bad thing is that we dont have such men anymore.

Pancone

21-08-2006, 04:52 AM

I am getting very uncomfortable about some of the things I have read in this thread. Every reputable historian I have read supports what Alec Lowly said very well several times above. These people were just a bunch of Nazis, and if they were in any sense "the political expression of the church" then unfortunately that reflects very badly on the church. This does not exclude the possibility that some were better than others, in Romania as in Germany (think of Schindler's List).

I would rather leave this to people who know more. But I don't think that this kind of revisionism about Nazism (and I have seen plenty of that where I live) is something that should go unchallenged.

Anthony, try to think by yourself. Dont listen what media says. Not anytime.
The best book about the Legion is written by a german: Armin Heinen. The book is called “Die Legion ‘Erzengel Michael,’” in Rumänien. Soziale Bewegung und politische Organisation. Ein Beitrag zum Problem des internationalen Faschismus (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1986). The book is real history, not sf.
Please read it ;).

Scott Pierson

21-08-2006, 01:10 PM

After WWII, the commies mystified history. Not even today we dont have a good image about what was then or if we have is not accepted by the neo-commies (that are in power now in Romania).

They say that the person who controls the past controls the future. Thats the only reason I brought up the topic its important to find out the truth and not just what the propaganda teaches. I thought something was fishy with the standard story of the Iron Guard when I read that book by Fr Calciu and now I'm even more convinced of that.

oh yeah I forgot about that, Mircea Eliade was in the Legion (or at least their politcal party "Everything for the Fatherland"). People hate him for that just check out this article about him on wikipedia only about 1/4 of it is dedicated to his actual works and scholarship and the majority is about what a bad "anti semite" and Legionary he was... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade

Scott Pierson

21-08-2006, 01:56 PM

I think its also important to relize that many people thought positivly of German National Socialism when it first came to power. Many of the British thought highly of Hitler ...untill he started bombing britan . Some of the legionaries had hopes that German National Socialsm may have been a good thing but after they saw how Hitler felt about the Orthodox (for example what Hitler allies the Ustaci did) and after they found out that the Nazis orderd the destruction of the Legion (calling them religious fanatics) they changed their minds fairly quickly.

Anthony

21-08-2006, 09:41 PM

Scott,

It is true that some people use the word Nazi very loosely. However I was using it rather carefully, and I believe correctly, though narrower definitions are possible. According to the sources I rely on, the Iron Guard was part of the same Europe-wide movement as Hitler's Nazi party and identified itself with it. For their modern admirers I would probably use some term such as Neo-Nazi, as you suggest. Hitler supported the suppression of the Iron Guard not because of ideological differences but because getting his supplies of Romanian oil on time was, for the moment, more important to him than murdering Romanian Jews. I am prepared to be told that this account is wrong, but only by competent historians.

"pancone"

I notice that you have as your homepage a link to a far right organization. For readers who may not read Romanian, a view of this organization can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noua_Dreapt%C4%83).

Scott Pierson

22-08-2006, 12:09 AM

Anthony,

for a time many of the Legionaries did regard the National Socialist movement in a positive light. I wouldn’t deny that. I don’t think that makes them "Nazis" though. Didn’t the British prime minister think highly of Hitler for a while.. did that make him a nazi? I dont think it would be correct to say that they looked to German National Socialism for any sort of ideological leadership either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Codreanu formulated his views long before he even new of the existence of the NASDAP and Hitler. He did appear to hope that something positive could have come out of Nazi Germany but I dont think its correct to say that the Legion borrowed its ideology from the Nazis. There are a variety of differences between the two world views.. for example : the Legion focused on the importance of the Orthodox Church whereas the Nazis were heretics for the most part (more then a few occultists, neopagans, and arisophers as wells). The Legion supported the Monarchy whereas Nazis didn’t think too highly of the old school conservative monarchist types. The Nazi also disliked the "religious extremism" of the Legion

Here is a short part of an article on the subject:

"These three methods all bore their fruit and brought about an irresolution in people's minds in regard to the Legionary Movement, just at the moment when General Antonescu instigated his coup d'état. Furthermore, seen in the light of consecutive facts, the coup d'état of January 21,1941 had been premeditated quite far in advance (perhaps even from the first day that General Antonescu and Horia Sima, leader of the Legionary Movement, were united in the same government). In the anti-Legionary book, Mémorial Antonescu -- The Third Man of the Axis, which appeared in 1950, the author states that following some conflicts between the General and the Legionary Movement,

Under Berlin's pressure, Antonescu consented to keep the Legionnary Movement in his government even though his faith in the possibility of collaboration with it was definitively shaken. But from that moment on, he waited only for a favorable opportunity to dismiss the Legionary Ministers. [5]

And later, when he recounts the preliminaries of the coup d'état (which he calls the "Legionary rebellion"), the author affirms however that for the army, "The disposition for the fight had already been carefully studied." [6] In the same book are found innumerable passages which demonstrate German complicity in ousting the Legionary Movement in addition to the premeditation of coup d'état. Germany found it easier to get along with General Antonescu than with the indomitable Legionary Movement. Thus in the course of a visit with Hitler, in the midst of a discussion on the modern revolution, General Antonescu made the following remark:

"And what do you do with the fanatics, for it would be difficult to make a renovating movement without them?"

"You have to get rid of them," replied Hitler without hesitation, and he smilingly threw the General a look of complicity. [7]

Hitler ended his exposition with these sentences;

The man who allows himself to be dispossessed of his command - and he stared at the General with insistance - proves that he does not know how to use a machine gun. A 20th century dictator cannot be overthrown. If he falls, it is because he committed suicide...

Back in Bucharest, Antonescu maintained absolute silence about the matters discussed during the fifteen minutes he spent alone with Hitler. The conversation which had taken place in the presence of witnesses gave the impression that he had gotten satisfaction as far as his conflict with the Legionary Movement was concerned ... [8]

January 22, 1941: Dawn of this day finds the military forces and the Legionnaires face to face. The military attacks buildings occupied by Legionnaires, the latter defend themselves. The clashes between the two belligerents seem more like a siege, in which the besieged are those who are accused of fomenting the rebellion and who defend themselves with whatever weapons they can find. It is a strange "rebellion" in which the supposed rebels choose not to attack and to avoid any conflict with the forces that besiege them.

There appears to be a kind of stabilization of positions and expectations of the two sides. In certain regions there is even collaboration between the army and the Legionnaires. Some local incidents have taken place in Bucharest, Braila and Prahova where several Legionnaires but no military fell.

The most serious problem for General Antonescu arises on January 22, 1941, because of the attitude of the peasant masses. By the hundreds of thousands they begin to penetrate into the cities to help the besieged Legionnaires.

In the meantime, negotiations take place during the day between the German representative, Neubacher and Horia Sima for the cessation of hostilities. Result: The Legionary Movement agrees to stop all resistance. General Antonescu pledges not to take any action against the Legionary Movement or its militants. However, parallel to those negotiations, General Antonescu increases his intrigues, his accusations against the Legionnaires and his military offers to Hitler. All of those accusations only completed the series of calumnies made in Berlin against the Legion and worsened the Legionary position in Hitler's eyes. Under those circumstances, nothing could be more natural than the order received during the night of January 22- 23 by the German troops stationed in Romania to "...put themselves at the disposition of General Antonescu to crush the Legionary rebellion."

Therefore, it was the Germans who determined the fate of General Antonescu's coup d'état.

January 23, 1941: The troops being unable to rout the Legionnaires from the official buildings they occupy, General Antonescu gives the order to employ artillery against them. At the same time, the troops in the Capital receive orders to fire into the crowd of passers-by who are automatically considered as partisans of the Legionary Movement. Several hundred who had nothing to do with politics or the Legionary Movement were killed. These were premeditated actions which were to be charged to the Legionary Movement and presented to the Germans as undisciplined and unconscionable actions on part of the Legonaires.

And yet at dawn, Horia Sima had ordered that the resistance cease and that the buildings be evacuated. It should be pointed out that in many cases, the public buildings occupied by the Legionnaires were first turned over to the German army, which then turned them over to Romanian military authorities so that all possibility of conflict would be entirely avoided.

The pact accepted by Horia Sima and General Antonescu before the German diplomat was categorical: total liberty for Legionnaires. Nonetheless, that pact was not respected by the General nor even considered by the Germans. A few hours after the Legionnaires' capitulation, General Antonescu gave the order for repression. The enactment of that repression registered several hundred killed and tens of thousands arrested. The Legionary Movement entered a new phase of persecution.

April 9, 1941: Horia Sima, leader of the Legionary Movement, arrives in Berlin as an ordinary refugee.

April 18, 1941: The Legionary refugees in Germany are informed that they will be confined from then on to compulsory quarters in certain areas (Rostock, Berkenbruck, etc.) as a result of agreements between the German and Romanian governments..."

Scott Pierson

22-08-2006, 12:53 AM

but only by competent historians.

What do you mean by competent historians? . Are the historians you respect who have written on the subject of the Legion without bias in the matter. Are they even traditionally minded Orthodox or are they protestant, latins or atheists ? Do they have any interest in the well being of Orthodox Romanians? Maybe they are good historians I don’t know its just something to think about.. I would assume that there would be great professional pressure for "historians" in the west (and elsewhere for that matter) to portray the Legion in a negative light.. No one wants to be tarred with the label "nazi", and a positive portrayal of the Legion could lead to a loss of Job and peer respect. Historians who value their job and safety keep silent about any of the positive aspects of the Legion ( no sense in angering the ADL or the JDL, look what they are doing to Mel Gibson). It's sort of like evolution with the "scientific" community people either keep silent about their views (that God created humanity) or else they are laughed out of a job and end up working at a "Intelligent Design" or "Creationist " think tank or whatnot.

BTW I really enjoy this conversation it is interesting, makes me think.. If I come off as an opinionated know it all I apologize. I have a problem with that at times. I’m certainly not an expert and if I was running for president I wouldn’t vote for myself :o . As a new Christian I should probably focus less on geopolitics and Masonic conspiracys and worry more about things of more direct importance like my own sinfulness and how to raise my family etc… I will try to refrain from continuing this discussion ( for real this time ) but I would I love to see what other people think (specifically I would like to see peoples opinions on the Fathers view of Talmudic (and pharisaical proto talmudic) Judaism and if there has been a change in Christians views on the subject over time especially in the last few generations. ) .

Anthony

22-08-2006, 01:16 PM

Scott,

Thank you for your detailed reply. I will look at more closely at your account of the suppression of the Iron Guard. On your general question about competent historians, I am fairly open-minded. (I am not incidentally a historian myself, just to clarify that one.) Most of the books on Romanian history I have read are written by western historians, who I don't assume to be Orthodox. I am not sure what follows from this. I am (contrary to Pancone's earlier comment) as sensitive as most of us to anti-Orthodox bias in western sources, and capable of reacting when I see it. But I am also skeptical of the idea that people brought up in a country necessarily have the clearest view of their history. I wouldn't make that claim for my own country. Whether the Orthodox are the most reliable sources for historical events relating to Orthodoxy is equally a moot point. Certainly there are some things that only an Orthodox Christian can understand. But at the level of who did what when, I don't think this always applies. The work of Dvornik on the Photian schism or that of Runciman on the Tourkokratia are examples of non-Orthodox historians doing fiine work which has contributed to our knowledge of important episodes in Orthodox history. Moreover there are also Orthodox groups that write history with a clearly ideological purpose (I am not talking about defence of the faith which we all share, but their own particular slant), and I would certainly not take anything from them on trust. I guess what I am saying is similar to Owen Jones' earlier post: just as I don't take "pious folk" as my guide in politics, I don't necessarily in history either.

So much on that one. I will try to get back to you later on your other post.

Anthony

22-08-2006, 01:29 PM

Didn’t the British prime minister think highly of Hitler for a while.. did that make him a nazi? I dont think it would be correct to say that they looked to German National Socialism for any sort of ideological leadership either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

PS - despite the well known and justified criticisms of Chamberlain, I don't see anything in this article that makes him an admirer of Hitler. Certainly there were supporters of Hitler in Britain and elsewhere, and yes, they are normally regarded as nazis.

Anthony

22-08-2006, 05:52 PM

Scott,

You seem to want to distance the Garda de Fier from the Nazis on the grounds of (i) the "religious" element in the former, and (ii) the role of Hitler in its suppression. So let's take a look.

(i) the "religious" element.

Yes, there was this difference between nazism in Germany and in eastern Europe, chiefly because in the latter area religion was (is) closely bound up with racial identity (and often racial hatred). In Germany the relationship of nazism to religion was more complicated; as you say there was a strong element of neo-paganism in it, though combined with the same messianism and a lot of harking back to the medieval "Holy Roman Empire". All this does, though, is to put the Iron Guard in the company of the Arrow Cross and the Ustasa, if that makes you feel any better. All these movements are described as nazi because they were identified as such, both by themselves and by Hitler. They committed the same crimes and for basically the same reasons, just justified them in the name of religion (unfortunately Orthodoxy in the case we are talking about).

(ii) I assume the passage you quote is meant to show the ideological rift between Hitler and the Iron Guard. In fact however it makes perfect sense in the context I described in an earlier post. The civil war between the Iron Guard and the monarchy (it is not the case that the Legion supported the monarchy as you state) and the monarchy's successor Antonescu, plus the chaotic pogroms being committed by Legion, were making the country ungovernable and seriously hampering the nazi war effort. Essentially Hitler needed reliable supplies of Romanian oil. Initially he had pressurized the king's party to accept the Iron Guard into the government. When they couldn't co-operate, he had to choose, and decided that Antonescu was a better bet to get things organized.

The following quote (from Goebbels' diary, 24 Jan 1941) sums up Hitler's attitude exactly:

Still no clear picture in Romania. The legionaries are now in open rebellion and Antonescu has opened fire on them. The Fuehrer is on his side. He wants a contract with a state, not with a Weltanschauung!

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 01:01 AM

I’m weak I had to respond.. Doh! I’m going to have to pry myself away from the computer some day.

I enjoyed reading your response . Its not that often that people look into controversial topics like that rationally and with an open mind but it seems you are willing to do that. I'm willing to admite that I'm wrong if I see sufficent evidence as well. I'm not a history expert, just a high school drop out.

) Most of the books on Romanian history I have read are written by western historians, who I don't assume to be Orthodox. I am not sure what follows from this

The darkness hates the light. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that the world conspires against Christ and the Church. I wouldn’t say that all non Orthodox historians have an active hate for Orthodoxy or the Orthodox peoples of the world but I would say that many have at least an unconscious aversion to the Light (caused by the flesh and the devil, etc..). All historical records have some bias, even if it is only in what they choose to include and what not.

But I am also skeptical of the idea that people brought up in a country necessarily have the clearest view of their history. I wouldn't make that claim for my own country

I would have to agree that in some instances that can be true. It can be hard for people to look past the bias , presuppositions and worldview that their culture often imposes on them.

Whether the Orthodox are the most reliable sources for historical events relating to Orthodoxy is equally a moot point. Certainly there are some things that only an Orthodox Christian can understand

I don’t see it as a moot point. The Orthodox (especially the Saints) are more likely to see things clearly. A persons political and historical worldview is often based on sub personal forces, passions, hatreds, etc but an Orthodox who prays, recieves the sacraments and certainly a person who practices Hesychia can move beyond that and see things more clearly without the distortion of the ego and passions (to a greater or lesser degree based on personal holliness or God given revelation)..

But at the level of who did what when, I don't think this always applies

History is so much more then that though and as I said above even what one chooses to discuss and what one leaves out can itself severely bias a report. The Legion being "nazis" for example isn’t a simple "who did what when" its a philosophical question (or at least a question of the proper way to define the word "nazi")

All these movements are described as nazi because they were identified as such, both by themselves and by Hitler

Do you have an references to support that claim? I didn’t notice Codreanu calling the Legion "nazi" in his writings (at least the ones I've read online and in the book "for my Legionaries"). I'm not aware of Hitler calling them Nazis either I may be wrong .. but what Hitler calls them is of lesser importance to what they called themselves imo. What do you make of the fact that the people who went on to start the Legion formulated their views before they even knew of Hitler or the German National Socialist Party? I have read a few instances in which Legionaries wrote something positive about NS Germany but I've never seen any reason to believe they stole their worldview from them.

How would you define the word "nazi"?. To label the Legion Nazi is imo stretching the meaning of the term .. there are too many differences, if one wants to create a word to describe a broad category of views that would include both the Legion and Nazism that would make sense but to use the same word for both unfairly links people who consider themselves to be unique and who have differences of opinions. It would be like calling Buddhists, Hindus or Pentecostals ,Catholics ... there are many similarities but also important differences. Most historians dont even call Musolinis Italian Fascists , "nazis" (even though they had more in common with "nazism" then the Legion did ) .. at least I've never read a history book that called them Italian Nazis.

it is not the case that the Legion supported the monarchy as you state

The Legion supported the concept of a monarchial form of government .. certainly they didn’t feel positively about every monarch that ever ruled in Romania.. I messed up though I should have said that Codreanu supported the monarch when the media was against him (before the Legion was formed ) at least that’s what he said in his book .

PS - despite the well known and justified criticisms of Chamberlain, I don't see anything in this article that makes him an admirer of Hitler. Certainly there were supporters of Hitler in Britain and elsewhere, and yes, they are normally regarded as nazis.

Your right that specific article doesn’t but I did see a show on the History channel that discussed his early positive appraisal of Hitler and German National Socialism. The fact that some Legionaries may have been duped ( for a while) into thinking that Hitler ( a charismatic and well liked leader at the time) would have been a good partner in the fight against the growing threat of communism doesn’t make them bad people.

Father David Moser

23-08-2006, 02:07 AM

but I did see a show on the History channel

You know I don't have a whole lot of stake in this discussion (hence my general lack of participation), however, I think if you want to use legitimate, reliable sources for history, you probably ought to stay far far away from the history channel. Despite the name, I haven't seen a lot of real history on that channel - just a lot of propoganda supported by various historical events. The history channel doesn't have objective history about anything (least of all anything that has anything to do with Christianity) - it is biased and selective and its "spin" on history is certainly one sided.

Fr David Moser

Alec Lowly

23-08-2006, 02:23 AM

Dear in Christ Scott,

You are right to object to the loose use of the term "Nazi," because such loose uses deprive the word of any meaning other than a general pejorative sense -- and that's dangerous. So I, too, agree that the Iron Guard ought not to be described as a "Nazi" organization. There's a far more accurate word -- fascist.

Webster's defines "fascism" as "an autocratic system of government, headed by an absolute dictator, and characterized by strict social and economic regimentation, aggressive nationalistic policies often accompanied by racism, and forcible suppression of all criticism or opposition."

This will do only as far as it goes. The definition fails to delineate other distinctive marks of fascism, such as the elevation of nation, ethnicity or "blood" as transcendent values; the mythologizing of historical events and personages; the elevation of some leader as divinely chosen or inspired, e.g. Codreanu, "the man of destiny," who is not to be held accountable to the same standards as other men, and the inevitable scapegoating of some "enemy" as a focus of fascist unity.

You are quite incorrect that fascism is incompatible with monarchism. The classic example is the Japanese empire. Imperial Japan is also a good example of another fascist marker -- its tendency to cloak itself in religion, either its version of an existing religion, e.g. Shinto in Japan, Orthodoxy in Romania, or else a new faith, such as the one the Nazis were reviving by its appeal to the values of Germanic paganism.

"My kingdom is not of this world." Fascism denies this, as do all totalitarian ideologies. With such movements the philosophy comes first, the Gospel comes second, if it comes at all.

Fascist is to Nazi as communist is to Bolshevik. In other words, the relationship is that of general philosophy to particular manifestation.

Germany was a calamity after World War I, with much of the responsibility to be laid at the door of the victors, who crushed and bled the German nation with a vindictive peace. (Yes, that includes the United States, also complicit.) The Nazis were initially admired by some people in other nations who, ignorant of their true aims, saw a restoration of social and civil order in that suffering land.

They used to say of Mussolini that "he made the trains run on time."

There is simply no question that the Iron Guard was a fascist organization and that the Legion, however noble and inspiring its propaganda, was a cancer on the Body of Christ. "By their fruits you shall know them." I do not believe that Codreanu was a cynical fraud as was Hitler, manipulating his followers. I believe that Codreanu was self-deceived and deep in prelest, which is even more perilous. So beware.

I have much more to say, about this and other issues on this thread, but no time now, and probably no time tomorrow.

In XC,
Alec
Personal motto, shared with my brothers: 1 Peter 2:17

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 03:33 AM

"My kingdom is not of this world." Fascism denies this, as do all totalitarian ideologies. With such movements the philosophy comes first, the Gospel comes second, if it comes at all.

I can see your point. People do often focus on this world more then the Heavenly Kingdom... But we also pray "on earth as it is in heaven" and though it is most certainly impossible that we will build a perfect utopia on earth it is the duty of Christians to strive for perfection (economic and social justice, peace, stability an environment which is conducive to raising kids, protection and freedom for the Church, a society governed on Christian values, etc...) none the less isn’t ? Yes, that may not be the most important aspect of the Christian struggle but it has its place. It is true that many of the greatest saints have been hermits and renouncers of the world but we also have emperor saints such as Saint Constantine , Saint Justinian , Royal Martyr Czar St. Nicholas II the Passion Bearer , etc.... If we are to formulate a true Orthodox social and political philosophy shouldn’t we look to them ? I wouldn’t rate the Legion on the same level as say Saint Constantine .. there are certain disagreements I have with what I believe to be the worldview of the Legion but they are not the devil incarnate and many of them struggled bravely against the communists and for the Romanian people.

Here are a few good articles on Monarchism... I'm not a big fan of some of what Fr Azkoul writes but I do like this

http://chattablogs.com/hagioipateres/archives/cat_ecclesiology.html

This is interesting as well :

On Monarchy

Archbishop Averky

The idea of monarchy itself, in the return to which as the historic and immemorial form for governing Russia many rightly see salvation, is holy and dear to us not for itself, but only insofar as it is supported by our Orthodox faith and Church ? insofar as our czar is an "Orthodox Czar," as we sing in our old national anthem; insofar as he is not just formally and officially, but in actual fact the first son and also the exalted Protector and Defender of the Orthodox Faith and Church; insofar as he is really the "Anointed of God" who has received special gifts of grace in the Mystery of anointing performed over him by the Church to be the "King and Judge of the People of God," as he himself confesses in the prayer he reads before everyone in the church during his sacred coronation. Therefore he enters the altar through the royal doors and receives Holy Communion before the holy throne of God as an equal of the other sacred ministers, which, of course, could not be done by any other monarch who was not orthodox and who did not respond to the demands of the Church, who was not sanctified with grace by the Church.

This is decisively confirmed for us by the ever-memorable Fr. John of Kronstadt, who said, "Who places earthly kings on their thrones? He Who alone sits on the throne of fire from eternity, and alone, in the true sense, rules over all creation ? heaven and earth with all the creatures which inhabit them. From Him alone is royal power given to the kings of the earth; He crowns them with the royal diadem... Be silent, dreaming constitutionalists and parliamentarians! `Depart from me, Satan! Thou art an offense unto Me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men' (Matt. 16:23), said the Lord to Peter who denied Him. Depart also, you who oppose God's command. It is not your task to order the thrones of earthly kings. Away, bold ones who do not know how to govern yourselves, but are always quarreling with each other... Authority, power, courage, and wisdom is given the Czar from the Lord to govern his subjects" (Sermon, 1907). '

Pancone

23-08-2006, 10:32 AM

Scott,

"pancone"

I notice that you have as your homepage a link to a far right organization. For readers who may not read Romanian, a view of this organization can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noua_Dreapt%C4%83).

Wikipedia has high connections with Indymedia (a communist news agency). When we speak about politics, I dont believe in Wikipedia, Discovery, National Geographic, History Channel (well said, Fr David Moser ;) ) etc.

About Noua Dreapta: its a legal organisation. We try to defend romanian culture, the institution of family, world wide romanians. We fight against the abortion, gay propaganda etc. We care about our country. I dont see anything wrong in it.
For those who dont now romanians, we have a section in english (and other 5 languages) with a few activities:
http://www.nouadreapta.org/limbistraine.php?lmb=eng

I am sorry for you, because you dont have as much freedom as I have. Freedom of thought, even freedom of speech (although Romania is still a commie state).
I believe in freedom of speech (especially on the Internet)? Do you?

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 12:58 PM

You know I don't have a whole lot of stake in this discussion (hence my general lack of participation), however, I think if you want to use legitimate, reliable sources for history, you probably ought to stay far far away from the history channel. Despite the name, I haven't seen a lot of real history on that channel - just a lot of propoganda supported by various historical events. The history channel doesn't have objective history about anything (least of all anything that has anything to do with Christianity) - it is biased and selective and its "spin" on history is certainly one sided.

Fr David Moser

Father Bless.

I would have to agree , I've seen some odd programs on the subject of Christiantiy on the History channel. I probably shouldnt have used it as a source. I do believe that I've heard it said elsewhere as well though... I will try to find another source and if I cant I will retract the statement.

Scott Pierson

23-08-2006, 01:08 PM

Wikipedia has high connections with Indymedia

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and the articles change on an almost weekly sometimes daily basis depending on the interest people have in the subject. So you do have to be careful with what you find on it. I have found some of the articles to be fairly good and others to be really biased. If you think the article on that specific organization is little off you can edit the page yourself.. I wouldnt make it too obviously biased in favor of the group though or people will change it back immediatly (and it is supposed to be an encylopedia and not a propaganda piece) but I doubt anyone would mind subtle changes that just made the article a little more even handed. I've heard that some of the articles are "locked" or whatnot though because they had to much "trouble" with them so I'm not sure as to the state of that specific article.

Pancone

24-08-2006, 02:09 AM

Wikipedia blocked that page. We have tried many times to erase the "flowering" part (NOT to write in favor, just to keep the real part from what was written), but few seconds later it goes back.

Anthony

24-08-2006, 02:35 PM

Wikipedia has high connections with Indymedia (a communist news agency). When we speak about politics, I dont believe in Wikipedia, Discovery, National Geographic, History Channel (well said, Fr David Moser ;) ) etc.
Wikipedia is no big deal for me either way. I find it mostly reliable on subjects I know about, and so I make use of it when I need some piece of information in a hurry. For the rest, I don't watch television.

About Noua Dreapta: its a legal organisation. We try to defend romanian culture, the institution of family, world wide romanians. We fight against the abortion, gay propaganda etc. We care about our country. I dont see anything wrong in it.
For those who dont now romanians, we have a section in english (and other 5 languages) with a few activities:
http://www.nouadreapta.org/limbistraine.php?lmb=eng

Thank you for the link, which I had missed. I was aware that your movement is legal in Romania. I just like to know where people are coming from, and to be fair you have put your cards on the table.

I see that you are associated with the NPD in Germany. This is also a legal organization, though by the skin of its teeth. It is regarded in Germany as neo-nazi (or plain nazi in common usage).

I am sorry for you, because you dont have as much freedom as I have.

Dream on.

Freedom of thought, even freedom of speech (although Romania is still a commie state).
I believe in freedom of speech (especially on the Internet)? Do you?
The internet allows everything, from pornography to fascist propaganda to God knows what, and it is not for me to do anything about it. I am dismayed to find the Iron Guard being defended on an Orthodox website, and with so little protest. Since this is unfortunately the case, I will have my say about it.

From somebody who also cares about your country

Anthony

24-08-2006, 02:56 PM

Dear Alec,

Thank you for your post, most of which I agree with and support.

Dear in Christ Scott,

You are right to object to the loose use of the term "Nazi," because such loose uses deprive the word of any meaning other than a general pejorative sense -- and that's dangerous.

Certainly I agree with this.

So I, too, agree that the Iron Guard ought not to be described as a "Nazi" organization. There's a far more accurate word -- fascist.

Like you I am not completely happy with Webster's definition. I would like to explain my own usage, since several people have suggested I am using it loosely.

I draw a distinction between fascism and nazism, along the lines that fascism primarily exalts the authoritarian state, while in nazism the main focus is on race (and racial hatred, especially anti-semitism). This distinction is not peculiar to me - it is used by some historians, and I think it is supported by the respective careers of Mussolini and Hitler, especially in their early stages. In the context of the traditional European nation state naturally there is considerable overlap between the two.

One can of course insist on the confining the term nazi to the German phenomenon from 1933-45, but that seems to me over-restrictive, depriving it of all usefulness except to historians. It is a bit like confining "gnostic" to the early church, or "iconoclast" to a certain period of the Byzantine empire. Not quite the same, of course, but I hope you take my point.

Be that as it may, I am not concerned to argue the toss over whether the Iron Guard were nazi or fascist, but to draw attention (as you have better than I can) to the character of this movement.

In Christ,
Anthony

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 12:14 AM

I may be wrong but I get the feeling that more then a few Orthodox are loath to discuss the patristic understanding of talmudic Judaism (not specifically on this list just in general). On the one hand they know that the fathers said things they wouldn’t want to be associated with and then on the other hand they don’t want to openly say "yeah the Fathers were just wrong ". Some of the apparent extremism of the statements are partially due to the late classical and medieval way of writing and rhetoric and such... but they do show that the fathers where not afraid to point out that Christ rejecting forms of Judaism are evil and that the adherents of the said religion conspire against Christians and the state ( or that Antichrist would be a Jew who the other Jews would worship as messiah, or that the Jews bear a special responsibility** in the murder of Christ, etc...)... In other words I don’t see too much a difference between some of the so called "anti Semitic" remarks of the legion and the statements of various fathers on those who practice talmudic Judaism. Its possible the rhetoric may have lead the Legion to act in ways that the fathers wouldn’t have approved of (I don’t doubt that some of them did) but the rhetoric itself doesn’t seem much different. I'm 100% certain that if Saints Chrysostem, Cyprian, or Melito of Sardis, etc lived today and said exactly the same things they said then that the media would label them "anti Semitic bigots" and a very large number of Orthodox would join the media in condemning them.…

** Yes I also understand that there is truth to the statement that we all are guilty of his death (and of course that Christ laid his life down of His own will) and that is important to remember but the Bible and the Fathers make clear that the Jews bear a special responsibility for the murder of Christ and the Prophets.. As 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16 points out. If they convert to Christ he frees them from that blood guilt but if they stay loyal to the faith of the Pharisees then they stay guilty .

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 01:54 AM

After reading more of that book I think I may have understimated the importance of race to the Legion. One part of the book talks about the importance of a uni-racial state. I wouldnt agree with that. Unless maybe by race they are talking about a "race of the spirit" (the term Christian or Orthodox Race would be used in that manner for example) or something other then the modern definition of biological race. The very existence of the Roman/Byzantine empire proves that mult-racial empires can work if they are united around something that transcend biological and ethnic differnces (in this instance the Holy Orthodox Church) . Racial purity doesnt exist.. we are all descendents of Adam and Eve and Later of Noah. Certain races have formed and will continue to form over history but I dont think any of them can claim to be "pure" in any biological sense of the term. The Legion was a movement for Romanians and certainly over time the Romanian population started to take on its own standard racial type so I can understand why a group that supported 'Romania for Romanians" might refrence the importance of belonging to that form but the idea that a state can not incoporate people of more then one race dosent make sense.... I also dont think that physical traits such as dark or light skin, skull size, etc predetermine a persons spirituality or morality. In a dog for example breed and "race" are everything but in man ( a being which has a rational soul and spirit) the merely biological is capable of being transcended by the spirit. A person may be born into a people who have certain traditions and predispositions but through later inculturation or asetic effort overcome that and change.

I do see what pancone said though about the Legion trying to protect the economic interests of the Romanian people against the organized effort of the Jews to monopolize various fields and buisness.

Alec Lowly

25-08-2006, 02:43 AM

I dont hate jews just talmudic Judaism. As the old saying goes love the sinner but hate the sin. All people are sinnners and their are evil people in all religions but talmudic Judaism is particularly evil.

But talmudic Judaism is not a sin; it is an error. In what way is talmudic Judaism "particularly evil," Scott, according to your beliefs?

Alec Lowly

25-08-2006, 03:20 AM

Here are a few good articles on Monarchism... I'm not a big fan of some of what Fr Azkoul writes but I do like this

http://chattablogs.com/hagioipateres/archives/cat_ecclesiology.html

This is interesting as well :

Thank you, Scott, but I've already read this, long ago. St. John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco was a staunch monarchist, as well. A number of years ago I concluded a very lengthy study of patristic writings and straight history relevant to what we today would call "political science." My spiritual father read it with care and advised me against publication, not on the grounds that my findings were incorrect or heretical, but because their publication wouldn't be particularly conducive to the fostering of unity within the Church. And I think he's right -- which is not to say, however, that I flatter myself that any writing of mine is some kind of big deal.

In short, I found that the emergence of a society characterized by secular institutions of government, pluralism of values, and free markets is something quite beyond the imaginative scope of classical patristics, and I concluded that the Church today is called to "rightly define the word" of Christ's truth in these new circumstances.

Let us agree for discussion's sake that sacred monarchy is the Orthodox paradigm for political order. Well, first, no Orthodox tsar exists. Does this mean that we Orthodox Americans, who are citizens of a state with no monarchical tradition to speak of, should therefore recognize the closest thing we have to the same -- that is, the crowned and anointed sovereign of our mother country, Great Britain? Or -- this one is fun -- if an Orthodox imperiate were to be restored, in Russia, say, where would the loyalty of Orthodox Americans lie? To the Constitution of the United States or to the revived Russian Empire?

Alec Lowly

25-08-2006, 03:46 AM

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 04:19 AM

Let us agree for discussion's sake that sacred monarchy is the Orthodox paradigm for political order. Well, first, no Orthodox tsar exists. Does this mean that we Orthodox Americans, who are citizens of a state with no monarchical tradition to speak of, should therefore recognize the closest thing we have to the same -- that is, the crowned and anointed sovereign of our mother country, Great Britain? Or -- this one is fun -- if an Orthodox imperiate were to be restored, in Russia, say, where would the loyalty of Orthodox Americans lie? To the Constitution of the United States or to the revived Russian Empire?
That is certainly a hard question to answer and it would probably take some one with a little better education (and personal piety) then myself to give a good one. If an Orthodox Imperate was restored in Russia my loyalty would be to the Emperor first and the United States second. If the United States proved itself to be an ally of the Empire , I would then support the government of the USA if it proved to be less then friendly then I would work to bring about the downfall of the American state. The Constitution of the US has never really been that important to me. Its not that important to our elected officials either who simply make it mean whatever they feel it should mean. Its funny when the people want to do something the courts remind them (like have a statue of ten commandment) "hey you cant do that its not constitutional" but when the state wants to ram something down our throats that is blatantly unconstitutional (like depriving an innocent child of the right to life )the same judges tell us "yeah the constitution allows that "

"The People" have never run a country and they never will its not in human nature. In a modern democracy a nation is ruled by the people who fashion ideas, create fashions and trends, educate the children, control the media and can amass the most money. In some ways Democracy is similar to fascism with the main difference that in a modern democracy the people who rule the nation are in the shadows whereas in a fascist govt things are more honest and you know who is in charge.

Also markets do not need to be "free" and there doesn’t need to be a "plurality of values" all that can change. The elevation of "freedom" without responsibility, pluralism without truth and secularism are a reality we have to deal with but they are far from optimal and can be changed. The whole modern deviation from the vast majority of historical cultures and civilizations is really (in the big scheme of things) a rather small era of time.. just a drop in the bucket . I don’t think we are stuck with what we have now.

But talmudic Judaism is not a sin; it is an error. In what way is talmudic Judaism "particularly evil," Scott, according to your beliefs?

Is promoting the claim that Christ was not the Messiah of Israel a sin? Modern Judaism is (literally) the descendent of the faith of the Pharisees (the Jews themselves will admit this!). The Whole tradition of the Talmud was formed by Pharisaical rabbis.*** Modern Judaism ( Orthodox, Conservative, reformed, Cabbalism, etc) is no more the religion of the Old Testament then Mormonism is the faith of the New Testament. Christ points out that they are "of their father the devil" and the Bible and Church history proves over and over again that they conspire against the True Faith and the Church. You may think I'm off my rocker but tend to believe that some of them use Kabalistic and occult means to gain power and that there is an organized effort by them to monopolize industries and gain world dominion ( along with their buddies the Masons, Skull and Bones (like Bush and Kerry [vote Bush / Kerry Republicrat for President!]), CFR, types ).

***
"The relationship between the Pharisees and Rabbinic Judaism (exemplified by the Talmud) is so close that many do not distinguish between the two". ... see this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee

What do you make of the writings of the fathers in regards to those who practice Talmudic Judaism ( like those I posted above and the books by St Chrysostem and St Cyprian ) ? Wouldn’t you agree that many of the Fathers considered it to be a thoroughly evil tradition?

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 04:26 AM

we are all the same creature, no matter what shade our skin may be, what shape our eye may be, what texture our hair may be. The widest genetic difference between two human beings is as nothing compared to the genetic chasm that separates humans from other hominids.

I agree.

One could say that there are "racial types" not so much based on genetics but based on common experience. Everyone knows what a "black person" or a "white person" is.. etc. When there is an isolated breeding pool for a period of time certain "racial" differnces arise just as when you selectivly breed dogs. Those differnces are not as important with humans as they are with dogs though like I said above. The Spirit (which is the same ) and being a person is more important then the relativly minor genetic differnces

Pancone

25-08-2006, 10:58 PM

After reading more of that book I think I may have understimated the importance of race to the Legion. One part of the book talks about the importance of a uni-racial state. I wouldnt agree with that. Unless maybe by race they are talking about a "race of the spirit" (the term Christian or Orthodox Race would be used in that manner for example) or something other then the modern definition of biological race.
The Legion was a movement for Romanians and certainly over time the Romanian population started to take on its own standard racial type so I can understand why a group that supported 'Romania for Romanians" might refrence the importance of belonging to that form but the idea that a state can not incoporate people of more then one race dosent make sense..
I do see what pancone said though about the Legion trying to protect the economic interests of the Romanian people against the organized effort of the Jews to monopolize various fields and buisness.

I dont think that somebody said something (in our entire romanian history) about the purity of race. Or, at least, not seriously.
What Codreanu wanted to say, imho, is : be aware, there will be a judgement day for nations too. Btw, some gipsies, armenians, even jews were members of the Legion, so this thing goes off. To become better - this was everything about. Codreanu was like a national teacher.
I dont belive in pure race.
P.S. Who translated that book?

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 11:42 PM

The translation is put out by Liberty Bell and the translator is Dr Dimitrie Gazdaru.. at least I think he is because he wrote the introduction.

The book says :

"Fifty years earlier the Romanian philosopher demonstrated with unshakeable scientific arguments, framed in a system of impeccable logic, the soundness of racial truths that must lie at the foundation of the national state;...

'it is a recognized fact, even by those attacking us today, that the first condition for a state to exist and prosper , is that the citizens of that state be of the same race'.."

but the same part goes on to say that is possible for foreigners to join the state if they are willing to assimilate. So I guess It wasn’t as "racist" as I first thought it to be.

"True this does not prevent foreigners from acquiring the citizenship of a state, provided they assimilate into the dominate nation; namely to mix totally so that ultimately the state remains of the same single blood.

These, are the only scientific principles of naturalization. For naturalization to be useful, rational and conforming to scientific criteria, it must be granted only to those foreigners who assimilate or are inclined to do so by marriage to the indigenous…”

he goes on to say that the Russians, Greeks, Italians and Germans who move to Romania often assimilate through culture and marriage but that the Jews and the Turks tend to set up their own nation within a nation. So I guess they are not talking about stopping "race mixing" or promoting ethnic cleansing but are rather more interested in promoting a racial unification and assimilation into a single Romanian type ? In a way that is certainly different from the typical Nazi view which would frown on people of other races assimilating with the German race through marriage (they thought that would “stain” the purity of the Aryan race) . The last thing the Nazis would want would be for a Jew to marry a German for example.

Scott Pierson

25-08-2006, 11:45 PM

Btw, some gipsies, armenians, even jews were members of the Legion, so this thing goes off.

Thanks for pointing that out. I didnt know that. Its certainly not something your going to read in the daily newspaper or the public school history books.

Pancone

26-08-2006, 12:06 AM

Some links in english:
http://miscarea.com/ccengl.htm
http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/ironguard/
http://www.codreanu.ro/engleza.htm

Alec Lowly

26-08-2006, 01:33 AM

If an Orthodox Imperate was restored in Russia my loyalty would be to the Emperor first and the United States second. If the United States proved itself to be an ally of the Empire , I would then support the government of the USA if it proved to be less then friendly then I would work to bring about the downfall of the American state.

But why? Clearly, the fact that you were born by God's providence in the United States of an American family, I am assuming, indicates God's will for your circumstances in this life. I do not agree with your position at all. Even if an Orthodox imperiate were revived in Russia, the Russian tsar would have no legitimate claim to one square acre of North America, and as long as American society permitted Orthodox Christians the free exercise of their religion, there would be no moral grounds to oppose the American state in the interests of a foreign power. Remember that the apostle Paul teaches us to be obedient to lawful authority -- he was teaching this even of a pagan state.

The Constitution of the US has never really been that important to me.

I am sorry to hear that. I am very grateful to this country (also to Britain, that's another story) for the security, freedom and prosperity that my grandparents and parents have enjoyed here, and now my generation and my children's. Frankly, Scott, I think you have no idea how well off you are. If your family had lived through what my family lived through in 20th-century Europe, you would feel very little nostalgia for olden times and olden ways.

The elevation of "freedom" without responsibility, pluralism without truth and secularism are a reality we have to deal with but they are far from optimal and can be changed. The whole modern deviation from the vast majority of historical cultures and civilizations is really (in the big scheme of things) a rather small era of time.. just a drop in the bucket . I don’t think we are stuck with what we have now.

Well, Scott, if I were seeking to establish a tyranny, I get this feeling that if I said the right things to you, you would happily join me in that enterprise. Please show me that I'm mistaken.

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 02:04 AM

I am sorry to hear that. I am very grateful to this country (also to Britain, that's another story) for the security, freedom and prosperity that my grandparents and parents have enjoyed here, and now my generation and my children's. Frankly, Scott, I think you have no idea how well off you are. If your family had lived through what my family lived through in 20th-century Europe, you would feel very little nostalgia for olden times and olden ways.
I am certainly grateful for all the God has blessed me with (or at least I try to be I do often fail..). I know that there are amazing material benefits to living in this nation. Even the poor here live like kings .. even better then the kings of the past who didn’t have running water, refrigerators , computers, etc. Is life only about political "freedom" and material well being? If it is then this is the greatest nation ever to exist... if it isn’t then I wouldn’t rate it that highly.

This land is also spiritual sick. Why are so many of these well to do Americans on anti depressants, why such a high suicide rate, why the drug addiction, the Nihilism, the abortion (what mental illness, we have killed more babies in abortion then all the wars the US has fought in combined !) ,why do rich teens who have everything blow their brains out, why do 70-80% of public school students stop going to the Church of their parents when they graduate? Just look at the culture of this land , rock music, Marlyn Manson, porno, gangster rap, people cutting themselves to relive stress ( i forgot the statistic but you would be surprised how many kids cut themselves) hobbies like huffing aerosol and choking people to get a buzz, sticking needles in their arm and smoking crack, homosexuality, cross dressing, and babies having babies with no dad in sight, etc.. Look at American religion; we have televangelists, contemporary liturgy’s (catholic priests who play guitar while people do interpretive dance around the altar), Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Left Behind series, new age, growing influence of far eastern religions, etc.. Political we have two “wonderful” parties the republicans and the democrats yay! I probably wouldn’t last a day in the past because I was brought up in this decadent environment and as much as I hate it I know I'm a part of it. your right I might run right back in my time machine and come back to modern day USA like a dog coming back to its puke. Is the environment here conducive to Christian living that is that main question to ask when judging a nation. Yes , life was much harder for the average person in pre revolutionary Russia or the Byzantine empire, etc and I probably wouldn’t "like it" one bit but this nation cant hold a candle spiritually to those civilizations. Life isn’t about money or the power to legally do whatever floats your boat. Those can be nice things to have and I'm grateful for them but I wouldn’t rate that as the highest thing on my list. America is the modern day Babylon and like Babylon it is comfortable, rich and a "good place to live " but its soul is dark.

Alec Lowly

26-08-2006, 02:33 AM

Is promoting the claim that Christ was not the Messiah of Israel a sin? Modern Judaism is (literally) the descendent of the faith of the Pharisees (the Jews themselves will admit this!). The Whole tradition of the Talmud was formed by Pharisaical rabbis.

No, in the 21st century, I do not think this is sinful if the man conscientiously believes it. I believe that this man is mistaken, and that he will discover his mistake in very short order when he leaves this world. But then he is Christ's to judge, and we have no ground to say another word. We may someday meet that man in the Kingdom of God. Christ alone is the judge.

Scott, the Jews who are our neighbors today are no more responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ than you and I are for slavery in the Confederacy. Today's Jews are descendents of those First Century Jews who delivered up Jesus to death, just as many Americans today are descendents of people who trafficked in human beings and lived off the sweat of their brows. In neither case are the descendents guilty of the crimes or failings of the ancestors. Have you really thought this through? If you were going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and came across a Jew who had been beaten half dead by robbers, what would the Lord Jesus Chrust have you do in that situation? Hmm?

I have known and do know many Jews in my life. In some cases the relationship has been such that a frank and respectful conversation about matters of faith has been possible. While I accept that Jews exist who hate Christ, the Church, and Christians, I've never met any. The Jews with whom I have been able to discuss Jesus consider him neither a fraud nor a lunatic. In some cases, they don't believe He even existed -- they think He is a fable that gentiles believe, like Santa Claus. Others are more sophisticated in their point of view. They acknowledge that Jesus existed, "the first Reform rabbi," was how one of these Jews described Him -- but that His true story has been lost in the mists of time, replaced by the strange stories recorded in the Christian scriptures. In other words, the way we look at Mormons, the Jews look at us.

Christ points out that they are "of their father the devil" and the Bible and Church history proves over and over again that they conspire against the True Faith and the Church.

The Lord was addressing the Jews of His day -- the two or three generations of Jews who were alive to hear His words, among whom were the ones complicit in his death, the ones who threw the Christian Jews out of the synagogues and initiated persecution of the Church. Those generations paid dearly for the crimes of their leadership, in blood -- the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, the loss of their homeland, the ferocious Roman crushing of all resistance in the early 2nd century, etc. No living Jew today has anything to do with all that.

You may think I'm off my rocker but tend to believe that some of them use Kabalistic and occult means to gain power and that there is an organized effort by them to monopolize industries and gain world dominion ( along with their buddies the Masons, Skull and Bones (like Bush), CFR, types ).

Scott, please. You're too intelligent to be suckered into believing such sick fantasies -- I hope.

What do you make of the writings of the fathers in regards to those who practice Talmudic Judaism ( like those I posted above and the books by St Chrysostem and St Cyprian ) ? Wouldn’t you agree that many of the Fathers considered it to be a thoroughly evil tradition?

The fathers have a lot to say about a lot of things, including, embarrassingly, natural science. Be that as it may: It's instructive how a number of the fathers condemn Jews as a whole and not any Jew in particular. In other words, they have created a "typos" (type) of the unbelieving, despicable, treacherous, dirty-dealing, Christ-hating human being and condemned all Jews as the living exemplars of this typos.

The problem is, the plain truth is, they aren't. Individual Jews then and now are no better or worse, or sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending, than the normal run of Christian folk or the human race in general. Have you any idea how much this people have contributed to the world -- science, medicine, arts, etc.? How they have made contributions to the general welfare way out of proportion to their numbers?

So, Scott, we can play a game. You show me a bad Jew and I will show you a good Jew. We can keep doing this until the cows come home and establish nothing more than to demonstrate that there are good and bad Jews, just as there are good and bad Americans.

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 02:40 AM

Well, Scott, if I were seeking to establish a tyranny, I get this feeling that if I said the right things to you, you would happily join me in that enterprise. Please show me that I'm mistaken.

There is no need to establish a tyranny it has already been established by the devil and his servants. Yes its possible that a person could decive me I'm not perfect just as a person could (more then likely) decieve you. People can always say the words others want to hear in order to use them I guess we just have to pray that God will show us the truth. One could establish tyranny using words like freedom, USA, democracy just as they could using words like Orthodoxy , Empire, etc... I guess you just have to find out if the people using the terms actually believe in them.

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 03:14 AM

Scott, the Jews who are our neighbors today are no more responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ than you and I are for slavery in the Confederacy. Today's Jews are descendents of those First Century Jews who delivered up Jesus to death, just as many Americans today are descendents of people who trafficked in human beings and lived off the sweat of their brows. In neither case are the descendents guilty of the crimes or failings of the ancestors. Have you really thought this through? If you were going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and came across a Jew who had been beaten half dead by robbers, what would the Lord Jesus Chrust have you do in that situation? Hmm?

If a Jew continues to hold the faith of the Pharisees then he shares in the guilt of the Pharisees just as if a modern white American supports slavery and mistreats blacks then I would say that he shares in the guilt of his slave owner ancestors. If he rejects that then fine he isn’t guilty. They are guilty by sharing in the ideology that caused them to murder Christ just as a white man would be guilty by sharing in the ideology of the slave holders. I'm certainly not saying that "all Jews are mean and beat their children" or that all Jews actively or consciously conspire against the Church. I'm saying that the pharisaical spirit of antichrist is alive among those who practice the faith and those among them who reject Christ ( just as the spirit of antichrist is to be found in neo pagainsim, wicca, or any other false religion). The very existence of their faith is an insult to God. You don’t think it would be sinful to teach others that Christ is not the Messiah !!!? That’s sound rather odd. Yes I understand that a person born into a heresy is not as guilty as the one who founded it and that there are varying circumstances that may limit ones guilt in participating In an evil religion and all that. I don’t judge the heart of individual Jews I just know that you know a religion by its fruit. The same thing with Satanists , I’m sure some Satanists are nice people who help old ladies cross the street… that doesn’t prevent Satanism from being a purely evil faith. People can suffer from the sickness of false religions and still be “nice people” I don’t deny that.

IMO there is difference between a father of the Church discussing his opinion on science and a father discussing something that has to do with the faith or their understanding of the spirit of other religions. They may not be experts in science but they are experts in things of the spirit and discernment of spirits. Its not just a few odd fathers who speak out against Talmudic Judaism (and are rebuked by the other fathers for teaching a falsehood), there is a real consensus.. I trust them in that.

It seems that many people are following the lead of modern protestant Zionists and the politically correct Vatican 2 Latin Church. The way modern Christians view talmudic Judaism is really a new innovation even the protestants and Latin’s agree d that it was evil at first (look at Martin Luther, Calvin, the various Popes, etc ). I’ve heard people call it “Post Holocaust Theology” everyone knows that it has changed and it is our duty to preach the faith of our fathers and not change to suit political correctness.

If I came across a Jew who was beaten and half dead I would help them out. If a Jewish lady was walking into a store I would hold the door open. I've had Jewish friends as well . I treat Jewish people the same way I do any other people. I pray for their salvation and the conversion of the Jewish people to the Holy Orthodox Church every night. I just don’t think that highly of talmudic Judaism and I don’t let the "fear of the Jews" prevent me from pointing out the evil nature of it.

I'm sure there are worldviews and religions you consider to be evil... like nazis or communism or Islamic extreamism ,and you probably think the adhearents of those views conspire to implement them does that mean you hate them no , does it mean your cruel to them, no. It just means you recongnize the reality of the situation

Alec Lowly

26-08-2006, 05:09 AM

Let's discuss Romans, Chapter 11, Scott, over the next couple of days. Read through it, seek patristic commentary on it. This could be a worthwhile discussion.

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 05:14 AM

Let's discuss Romans, Chapter 11, Scott, over the next couple of days. Read through it, seek patristic commentary on it. This could be a worthwhile discussion.

Ok, I will look into that.

Alec Lowly

26-08-2006, 05:32 AM

IMO there is difference between a father of the Church discussing his opinion on science and a father discussing something that has to do with the faith or their understanding of the spirit of other religions. They may not be experts in science but they are experts in things of the spirit and discernment of spirits. Its not just a few odd fathers who speak out against Talmudic Judaism (and are rebuked by the other fathers for teaching a falsehood), there is a real consensus.. I trust them in that.

OK, this is a valid point. As a general principle, we do well to trust the fathers, especially when there appears to be a consensus among them. How are we to understand, then, the consensus of the fathers on the subject of women? Have you read any of that stuff? How are we to know whether this consensus is based on their spiritual insight or the cultural norms of their times?

My point is, we owe the fathers the benefit of the doubt at all times and in all circumstances, but this filial devotion of ours does not excuse us before Christ of the duty of thinking for ourselves, here and now. The consensus patrum is not an idol to be worshipped -- the way the Orthodox Jew views the Torah, the Muslim the Koran, the fundamentalist the Bible. The consensus patrum is a standard to be respected and a gift to be accepted. It is not the Orthodox equivalent of papal infallibility. There is no such thing in the Church of Christ aside from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

Scott Pierson

26-08-2006, 06:09 AM

The basic gist of Romans 11 appears to be ( after a short look over I will look into it more) that though the Jews in general have fallen away that God has preserved a remnant among them. That remnant along with the Gentiles who are grafted in are the Israel of God. That though the Jews in general may have fallen ,that God still has love for them, seeks to win their hearts and that when they come to the True Faith it is a great thing and worthy of rejoicing, etc. It also shows ,as the Orthodox Study Bible points out, that “Gods grace saves the willing, not the unwilling, : those who will receive grace by faith and obey God. Israel is not willing, for she seeks righteousness on her own terms, through the works of the law, not through the grace of Christ. She stubbornly and freely hardens herself in un-repentance. God does not cast the people away; they remove themselves..”. The OSB also points out that Romans 11 shows that “ Has Israel stumbled that it should fall permanently? Since the people have fallen away because of Christ, are they beyond salvation? No, for through Israel’s failure to believe, salvation has come to the Gentiles…” . Romans 11 also states that all Israel shall be saved and the OSB points out : “That is true Israel, those who truly believe, not all physical descendants of Israel” Please note I know the Orthodox Study Bible notes are far from Patristic writings its just all I have at the moment.

Saint Chrysostem says of Romans 11:13-24 :

“In this passage he calls by the name ‘first fruit’ and root of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob: the prophets, the patriarchs and all those who were of note in the Old Testament, and those who believed.. While he seems to be speaking for them, and devising a solace for them, he aims a secret blow at them and shows, that they are devoid of all excuse, even from the root , from the first fruit… For what he wanted to say was that they had nothing in common with them. For if the root is holy, and these are not holy, then it follows that these are far away from the root.. He again lays their pride low by proceeding to say, ‘do not be high-minded, but fear.’ For it was not God who cut them off, but they have broken themselves off and fallen. You see what a great thing a mans free choice is, and how great is the efficacy of the mind. For none of these things is immutable, neither their good nor his evil.. If then faith was able to do what was contrary to nature, much more will it do that which is according to nature.

Romans 11 says :

“Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake “ In other words they do conspire against Christ and the Church just as I said.

“But concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of their fathers” Despite their evil Christ still loves them and remembers their fathers according to the flesh (though spiritually their** father is the devil)
** "Their" being the Jews who reject Christ

“For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” He still offers them the gift of salvation and being his chosen people if they will accept it and repent of their sins.

Basically I see nothing that would make me think more positively about Talmudic Judaism . Nor do I see anything that would prevent followers of the said religion from conspiring against the Church. I do see that St Paul urges Gentile Christians not to be boastful towards the unbelieving Jews but I don’t see pointing out the evil nature of a false religion as boasting. I have a book with more Patristic commentary on the book of Romans (right now all I have is that quote by St Chrysostem.. I will get it back soon I lent it out to a friend.)

Fr Seraphim (Black)

26-08-2006, 08:10 PM

I have spent the better part of my life since the year 2000 in Romania. In my post #26 under 'Monastic Structure', 'Is there a monastery for me' I gave an account of my visit to the former home of Elie Wiesel, in Sighet, Romania, and subsequent reactions among some Romanians.

I feel that Fr. David gave a very good and important reply, and Owen's post called to mind the following words of Saint Silouan the Athonite:

'There are people who say that monks ought to be of some use in the world, and not eat bread they have not toiled for; but we have to understand the nature of a monk's service and the way in which he has to help the world.

'A monk is someone who prays for the whole world, who weeps for the whole world; and in this lies his main work.

'But who is it constrains him to weep for the whole world?

'The Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, incites him. He gives the monk the love of the Holy Spirit, and by virtue of this love the monk's heart forever sorrows over the people because not all men are saved...

'The same Holy Spirit the Lord gave to the Apostles, to our holy Fathers and to the pastors of the Church. This is how we serve the world. And this is why neither pastors of the Church nor monks should busy themselves with secular matters but should seek to be like the Mother of God, who in the Temple, in the 'Holy of Holies', day and night pondered the law of the Lord and continued in prayer for the people.' - "Saint Silouan the Athonite" by Archimandrite Sophrony, pg. 407

This is why monastics do not use their last name (that is, the name of their biological family), nor do they vote in political elections. Monastics have left their family and have no country (in the political sense).

Sadly, I have seen and heard much in Romania which is not Christ-like, but I can say the same of Canada.

I did check out the one site with the photographs, and found them disturbing.

Our Lord commands us to love all humankind, and He gave His life for everyone, without exception.

Alec Lowly

27-08-2006, 01:14 AM

Clearly implied in Romans 11 is the continuance of the Jewish religion by God's permissive grace "until the fullness of the gentiles has come in" (verse 25) -- in other words, until the last days.

Of verse 26, Blessed Theophylact has written, "The hardness has not happened to the whole of Israel, but a part of it. For many believed, whom God foreknew, as (the apostle) says earlier, and again in the future they shall believe. For the Israelites are hardened until all those of the nations, foreknown of God, should be saved, and then all Israel shall be saved, that is to say, those having believed."

Romans 11 indicates that the Lord always has a "remnant" among the Jews, past, present, future, which the apostle describes as "a mystery."

It is therefore contrary to the apostle's teaching to argue that the Jewish religion is bogus or that "the very existence of their faith is an insult to God." The Jews are still somehow part of the Lord's plan of salvation. Paul says this, explicitly.

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 01:42 AM

Here are some quotes I found on Romans 11

11:1

“God has not rejected his people, because Paul himself was one of them. If God had cast them off, he would not have chosen one them as the one whom he entrusted all his preaching, the affairs of the world, all the mysteries and the whole message of salvation” St Chrysostom Homilies on Romans

11:4

“This is clear, for Paul shows that not only Elijah remained as one devoted to God who did not worship idols, but that there were many who remained faithful to God, just as there were not a few Jews who believed in Christ.” “Amborsiaster” (sometimes attributed to Saint Ambrose) Commentary of Pauls Epistles

11:5

“Not only the Gentiles are benefited by the coming of Christ but also some who belong to the divine race, many of whom have been called to salvation” Origen , On First Principles

“The Remnant of the Jews proclaimed the sign of the Lord to all the Gentiles and has joined to God in one people, drawn to him, the souls of the Gentiles which are brought out of destruction to the knowledge of the Lord” Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel

“The remnant refers to the Jews who have believed in Christ. Many of them did believe in the days of the apostles, and even today there are some converts, though very few.” St Augustine , Predestination of the Saints.

11:6

“Grace is given not because we have done good works but in order that we may have power to do them, not because we have fulfilled the law but in order that we may be able to fulfill it “ St Augustine , The Spirit and the Letter

11:7

“Israel tried to find righteousness in the type which was the law but did not obtain it. However, those who were sealed were elected and did obtain it on account of their belief, being justified by their faith. The rest were blinded, being hardened and rebellious” St Cyril of Alexandria, Explanation of the Letters to the Romans

11:8

“The Spirit of stupor prevented them from making the hard choice of repentance and conversion”
Genadius of Constantinople

11::9

“This means : let their comforts and all their good things change and perish, and let them be open to attack from all sides “ St Chrysostem, Com. On Romans

11:11

“After showing that the Jews were guilty of evils without number, Paul devises something in mitigation. Note that he accuses them on the basis of the prophets but modifies the condemnation by his own words. For nobody will deny that they have sinned greatly. But let us see if the fall is of such a kind as to be incurable… no, it is not!” St Chrysostem, Homilies on Romans

11:12

“Consider the wisdom of God in this. For with him not even sins and lapses are wasted, but whenever someone rejects freedom of his own accord, the dispensation of divine wisdom makes others rich by using the very failing by which they have become poor…. Now indeed, until all the Gentiles come to salvation the riches of God are concentrated in the multitude of believers, but as long as Israel remains in its unbelief it will not be possible to say that the fullness of the Lords portion has been attained. The people of Israel are still missing from the complete picture. But when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and Israel comes to salvation at the end of times, then it will be the people which, although it existed long ago, will come at the last and complete the fullness of the Lords portion “ Origen , commentary on the epistle of the Romans

11:14

“Paul appears to be blaming the Gentiles and to be humbling their conceits, but he gives a gentle provocation to the Jews as well. He tries to veil their great ruin but he cannot do so because the facts are so clear” St Chrysostem, Homilies on Romans

11:15

“This also condemns the Jews, because although others gained from their sins, they did not profit from the good works of others” St Chrysostem Homilies on Romans

11:17

“ The graft uses as soil the tree in which it is grafted. Now all the plants sprouted forth simultaneously in consequence of the divine order. Wherefore also, though the wild olive is wild it crowns the Olympic victors… Now we see that the wild trees attracts more nutriment because they cannot ripen..” Clement of Alexandria

11:18

“Whenever I see a synagogue, the thought of the apostles always comes to me- that we should not boast against the olive tree whose branches have been broken off but rather fear. For if the natural branches have been cut off, how much more we who have been grafted on the wild olive should fear , lest we become like them.” Saint Jerome

11:20

“who is the one from whom they have been broken off but he whom they have not believed “
Origen

11:26

“Not all the Jews were blind , some of them recognized Christ. But the fullness of the Gentiles comes in among those who have been called according to the plan, and there arises a truer Israel of God… the elect from both the Jews and Gentiles “ St Augustine Commentary on Pauls Epistles

11:27

“When the Gentiles believed the Jews became even more obnoxious. But even now God has not stopped calling the Gentiles. He is waiting for all of them who are to believe come in, and then the rest of the Jews will come as well “ St Chrysostem Homilies on Romans

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 01:47 AM

ndicates that the Lord always has a "remnant" among the Jews, past, present, future, which the apostle describes as "a mystery."

I agree. but, that remnant among the Jews are those who reject Talmudic Judaism and embrace the Holy Orthodox Faith. Its not like St Paul is saying "God has perserved a remnant and that remnant are the Jews who follow the Pharisees" no the remnant are St Peter, St Paul, etc...

Clearly implied in Romans 11 is the continuance of the Jewish religion by God's permissive grace "until the fullness of the gentiles has come in" (verse 25) -- in other words, until the last days.

God does allow the Jews to continue in blindness and carry on with their satanic religion untill the fullness of the Gentiles comes in... Gods permissive will also allowed the Soviet Gulags , the 9/11 attacks, Abortion, etc and as always Christ can bring good out of evil. I could agree with that.

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 02:08 AM

It is therefore contrary to the apostle's teaching to argue that the Jewish religion is bogus or that "the very existence of their faith is an insult to God." The Jews are still somehow part of the Lord's plan of salvation. Paul says this, explicitly.

If by Jewish religion you mean the faith of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob then sure it would be height of blasphemy to proclaim it a false religion (and that religion continues in the Orthodox Church). But if we are talking about the faith of the Pharisees or talmudic Judaism that is a horse of a different color. That religion is NOT the religion of the Old Testament it is the religion of the devil and Christ himself points out that those who practice it are not of Abraham but of their father the devil. The fact that God works to bring good out of the evil of the Jews rejecting him does not prevent their rejection (and continuance of the false religion that killed him) from being an insult. Yes God will work to bring good out of it but we shouldn’t support the evil. Christ asks us to pray for the conversion of the Jews not say "keep rejecting Christ because God lets us gentiles in while you do that ". Christ is all powerful he could have let Gentiles in even if the Jews had not rejected him. He was simple making good use of the situation that (fallen) human free will brought about. Christ does will the continuance of ethnic Israel because he has a plan to save them but I doubt that he is all about people following the religion of the Pharisees.

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 02:44 AM

It is therefore contrary to the apostle's teaching to argue that the Jewish religion is bogus

The fact that one is ethnicaly a Jew does not prevent one from holding a bogus religion. If the Jews embraced a religion simmilar to scientology for example that was specifically designed for Jews would that prevent that religion from being bogus ? Or if there was a Jewish cult that believed in UFOs behind the hale bop comet and drinking special cool aid? Personaly I do not see modern Talmudic Judaism as being the religion of Abraham. The fact that Jews follow it does not make it the religion of the Old Testament any more then the fact that a Jew might have been in the hale bop cult made that the religion of the Old Testament.

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 07:08 PM

Thank you Fr Seraphim Black for your post

This is why monastics do not use their last name (that is, the name of their biological family), nor do they vote in political elections. Monastics have left their family and have no country (in the political sense).

That does make sense. Though I assume there is nothing wrong with monks pointing out evil in high places and antichrist governmental authorities and such to their spiritual children right ? Don’t monks also venerate Emperor saints and political leaders who have been recognized as saints such as Saint Constantine, etc.. I'm not saying Codreanu is a saint I'm just talking in general. I think I understand what you are saying though. Monks have to dedicate their every waking moment to the struggle against sin and worrying to much about external affairs like that might just cause needless stress and threaten their silence and peace. In other words its an ascetic safeguard to avoid politics.

I also understand that we are to love all people. I don’t think pointing out certain political and religious realities (for example the evil of talmudic Judaism) prevents people from having love. if I said " Satanism is an evil religion and its adherents conspire against Christianity" would that mean I hate the people who are under the delusion of the false religion or would it simply be me pointing out a reality of life. When Christ called the Pharisees sons of the devil that didn’t prevent him from having love for them... The book of Rev. talks of those who call themselves Jews but lie and are the Synagogue of Satan.. that is tuff language but it didn’t come out of hatred for anyone.

Scott Pierson

27-08-2006, 10:46 PM

I finished reading a good book today " A Second Look at the Second Coming; Sorting through the speculations" by T. L. Frazer (an Orthodox Author). Some of the book was only so so but the parts in which he debunks the view that talmudic Jews have a right to Israel because they are the Israel of God (and not the Church as Orthodox traditionaly believe) is good, and it shows the problems with Christian Zionism.

Here are a few good quotes from it.

“ Back in 1990, a group of Israeli settlers moved into St. John’s Hospice in the Christian quarters of Jerusalem. These settlers had bought the hospice from Patriarch Diodoros 1 of the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem located between the ancient Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Greek Convent of St John, the hospice had been owned by the Orthodox Church for many , many centuries. The takeover of the Hospice sent shock waves throughout the Christian world.

Choosing the Orthodox Holy week of Pascha as the time to move in, 150 Jewish settlers took over the premise on Great Thursday and covered the Christian symbols on the face of the building with Israeli flags. The settlers seemed intent upon provoking Christian sensibilities by moving in right before Easter and covering Christian Symbols: but they could afford such bold affronts as they had the Israeli army standing guard while they took possession of the property. Understand the traditional Orthodox procession wound its way down the street to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Christians tried to remove the flag covering the cross. In response the Israeli army shot tear gas at the crowed ( at a concentration to toxic to be legal in this country). The International community was outraged, and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was closed during Easter for the first time since it was built by Emperor Constantine the Great in the 4th century.

Patriarch Diodors and several members of the Holy Synod went to the Hospice to make a protest, but “were roughed up by soldiers and tear gassed in front of television cameras” The Patriarch claimed he had no idea he was selling the property to the govt to allow for a Jewish settlement in the Christian part of the city …

Gary Burge, an evangelical NT scholar was in Jerusalem while all this was occurring. He reported seeing what looked like sheets over the Christian symbols on the building and the star of David “spray painted generously on the walls.” While at the same time he had a conversation with two teenage soldiers.

“We have bought what is ours anyway, and how we did it doesn’t matter”, they said

I asked if it were not true that the Greeks {Orthodox Christians} had owned this property for hundreds of years--maybe even a thousand years.

“It doesn’t matter,” they answered. “ God gave us this country and this city and the Jews can live anywhere.”

I reflected on the fact that Greek Christians could not buy land in the Jewish Quarter.

“We are only taking what is ours by right. These people {the Christians} have no right to be in this city.” they replied……… “God gave this land to Abraham and we are his descendents, it belongs to us. Everything that happened in between simply doesn’t matter. The Palestinian Christians should just get out.”

This conversation struck me as odd because these boys were American. They were from New York and had been in the country only a few years. And here they were ejecting an ancient Christian community that could trace its history to this bit of real estate for more then a thousand years.

What is more odd to Orthodox Christians is that many calling themselves Christians would agree with these two American Jewish boys. Indeed today’s prophecy pundits emphatically assert that God forever gave the land to Israel: and in 1948 He not only renewed the lease but also set the prophetic clock ticking….

Unfortunately this uncritical support of Israel encourages anti Christian activity in the Holy Land. Three years after the St John Hospice incident during Easter of 1993 , there was even more blatant anti Christian persecution. In Bethlehem, police beat and abused Christians as they gathered to await the flame from the Church of the Holy Sepulcher during Easter services. At the same time in Beit Jalla, over four thousand people awaiting the Easter Fire were tear gassed by Israeli Soldiers in front of Santa Maria Church. As the bells of the Church rang at the approach of the light, soldiers began shooting at the bell, the clock on the steeple, and the cross itself. The Christians themselves were gassed and many were arrested on trumped up charges. Despite the unswerving devotion of “Christian Zionists” to the state of Israel, the Israelis clearly want Christians- including Christian Zionists- out of “their Land”.

“Many believe the brand of Zionism widely espoused by Orthodox Jews and dispensationalist millenarians borders on this racist extreme. Zionism, in the extreme form so prevalent in Israel today, exclude people on the basis of race and or religious creed, and has resulted in the “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians people. Indeed , the United Nations, representing the international community, on Nov 10, 1975, actually declared Zionism a form of racism because of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians minorities.

Dispensationalist, in their idealization of Israel, rarely consider the issue of human rights in connection with the Palestinians. In the west bank while it was under Israeli occupation, a Palestinian needed special permission to do such basic things as travel, build a house, or even dig a well in his own backyard. In fact permission to dig for water was routinely denied in order to force the Palestinians off their land.

Israel issues ID cards designating whether one is a Jew or an Arab, and from what part of the country one comes from. If an Arab is caught not carrying his ID card, he is automatically given six months in prison and his possible deportation (needless to say such punishment does not apply to Jewish Israelis caught without their ID cards). An Israeli prison is no place to be, not even for six months. Israeli prisons-- particularly Ansar in the southern Negev- are notorious for their use of torture. For the “crime” of forgetting an ID card, one can find oneself for days in a sewage filled cell with a wet bag tied over ones head. Beatings, electric shock, prolonged sleep deprivation and exposure to scorpions and the sun are routinely reported.

Historically, Israeli policy toward the Palestinians has been oriented not toward peaceful co existence, but toward driving Palestinians out of the land they have known for centuries. The Israeli govt has consistently confiscated Palestinian land, both public and private , so that upwards of four hundred Palestinian villages have utterly disappeared since 1948. Between April, 1948 and July, 1949 when Israel seized 23% of the land designated for a Palestinian state, the UN reported that 758.000 Arabs were driven from their homes by Israeli Soldiers. Many were killed in cold blood. This policy was known as Plan Dalet (now made public through the opening of Israeli Defense Force Files), and involved in the massacre at Deir Yassin, a small village near Jerusalem with no armed militia which had signed a non aggression pact with neighboring Jewish towns. Led by the future Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, the Stern Gang took over the village and slaughtered 254 people including women and children. Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation- but it has no right to deny existence to others.

Israel’s deplorable human rights record has been well documented over the years and is readily available to anyone who cares to look. The modern state of Israel is a secular state driven by a frequently extreme form of nationalism; in no way can the modern state of Israel simply be equated with the Israel of the OT which was a theocracy built on the Mosaic Covenant.”

Charles Krafft

16-10-2006, 09:25 AM

Those wishing further information on the history of The Legion Archangel Michael should contact the Dept. of Publicactions of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America (ROEA) in Grass Lake, Mi for two inexpensive and highly informative books:

RELIGION AND POLITICS: Bishop Valerian Trifa and His Times by Gerald Bobango, East European Monographs, Boulder, CO. l981.

MARGINAL NOTES ON A COURT CASE by Valerian D. Trifa, Archbishop, Romanian American Heritage Center, Jackson, MI, l988.

Recommended also is THE SUICIDE OF EUROPE by Prince Michael Sturdza (former Foreign Minister of the Romanian Legionary Government), Western Islands, Boston, Los Angeles, 1968.

Pancone

17-10-2006, 11:14 PM

Michael Sturdza's book is good.
Valerian Trifa had some real difficulties in US, because of the regime from our country.

Charles Krafft

18-10-2006, 11:38 PM

I have been to Bucharest twice to research the truth about the story of the Bucharst abattoir. Bishop Trifa said this horrible story was first reported by an American foreign correspondent working for the JTA (Jewish Telegraph Agency) named Leigh White. What Trifa said is true. Leigh White was not even in the city when the coup d'etat broke out. He filed his story from Bulgaria. Just yesterday, I read in a book that the US Ambassador to Romania at that time, Mr. Franklin Mott Guenther, reported by diplomatic transmission to Washington DC, that 700 Jews were slaughtered on January l9-23, l941 with 60 of them skinned alive at the municipal abattoir on Splai Unirii.

When i was in Bucharest I called Prof. Dinu Girescu at his home and I went to the old "Tailor's Synagogue" on Mumalari St. to speak with Lya Benjamin, a noted Jewish historian. I asked them both to show me documents (a purported morgue report from the Medico- Legal Institute Mina Minivici) to prove any Jews had been killed by maurading Legionaries at the abattoir. Both of these historians, who now claim 10 Jews and one German were killed there, could not show me any official Romanian police, army or coroner's report to prove this story which is repeated by everyone who has ever written about Romania in WWII. They can only quote Matatis Carp, a Jewish lawyer who wrote to Antonescu for reparations after the turbulence.

I left Bucharest empty handed. There is no official document at Yad Vashem, or at the USHMM. I wrote to Radu ioanid and Jean Ancel. They say my citation numbers are wrong, but they come straight from Lya Benjamin's book on the history of Romanian Jews
in WWII.

I talked to Ion Coja, Tudor Ionescu and Serban Seru. I said told them, "Look here. This is the document number in the SRR archive to prove if anything ever happened at the infamous Bucharest abattoir. Go find out." That was two years ago. I am still waiting for these lazy Romanians to find that file for me!

There is an unpublished book about the Trifa case written by United States District Court Judge George E. Woods. I have this mss. It is a sad story about a decent man who was persecuted for years by American Jews in collusion with Romanian Communists. Defector and ex-Securitate chief Ion Pacepa admitted in his book RED HORIZONS that he fabricated false evidence against Trifa to feed to the OSI (US Justice dept. Office of Special investigations) so that Romania could retain it's favored nation trading status. This fact is left out of the self-congratulatiory book recently published by OSI scholars about Nazis in America.

Ana Botez

14-02-2007, 12:25 AM

Dear all,

I have just went through this thread a second time. There are many things in here that don't belong on an Orthodox Christian forum, at least in my opinion. Nationalism and Orthodoxy are two different things. Moderate nationalism, i.e. supporting a nation's culture, language, and so forth is of course a good thing, but extreme right nationalism is not. I think it is obvious why; only because fascists and communist fought against each other doesn't mean they can't be both wrong. I think the Orthodox should not be overly nationalistic anyway (I find the use of national flags around churches inappropriate), but I find it very disturbing to see the Orthodox Church associated to extreme right organizations.

I am not surprised to see a certain group seeking legitimation in the Orthodoxy of their values (or at least some of them). With deep regret, I have to admit I'm not surprised either to see some Orthodox looking with interest to the political discourse of such a group. They perceived it as a more viable alternative to the mainstream discourse and its secular values. However, reviving the Iron Guard today (or the Legion if you prefer), seems to me rather a political phantasy, and the claims for its Orthodox character highly misleading. The fact that some of the values supported by the Legion were indeed Orthodox, and the beginning of the organization was peaceful, should not prevent the discerning Orthodox from being critical of their values which are not Orthodox, but purely fascist. This probably applies to "Noua Dreapta" too (I am not very familiar with them, and this is because the tone of their poster campaigns in Bucharest determined me not to be interested).

So why should an Orthodox be suspicios about the Orthodox character of the Iron Guard and its political offspring? First of all, because of the political character. The Orthodox are not called to build Orthodox countries on this earth, but should be concerned first of all about conquering their citizenship of the heavenly kingdom. Through our Lord's mercy, there were indeed Orthodox countries and emprires on this earth, but not any more. All traditionally Orthodox countries have secular governments now. This is not necessarily a bad thing, insofar as the rights of the Orthodox, such as giving an Orthodox education to their children, are not hampered. Such should be the political concerns of the Orthodox, if they decide to have any. The majority, even if Orthodox, leads a secularized life and this will not change through political action.

Then, they should be suspicious of the Legion's evolution toward violence. Was it really an accident, or something consistent with the original ideology? Claiming it was an accident is very much like saying that Lenin and his followers misunderstood and misapplied the noble ideology of Marx and Engels.

And last but not least, their attitude towards the Jews is definitely not Orthodox. The Fathers of the Church described Judaism as a heresy and they were right to do so, but they also taught us to love all people and not show hatred or contempt for them.

About the Orthodox position towards the Jews:

http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/jewish_1.html

There is another article, even more interesting, that I've read a while ago, but unfortunately I couldn't retrieve it.

Best regards,

Ana