PDA

View Full Version : Christ of the Hills monastery, and the question of sacraments



Dionysios DiGregorio
13-11-2007, 09:13 AM
As some of you may know Christ of the Hills was a monastery in Blanco not far from where Holy Archangels is now. Unlike Holy Archangels, the founders of this monastery had dubious roots - besides the well known fact that the founder was a real estate (some say snake oil) salesman already notorios in San Antonio as "SA Sam Greene" and "Sam the Land Man." a real estate blogger (http://www.realestateblogg.com/node/22606?PHPSESSID=ab71264229ef14a668f51dfccdece34d) writes "He always had to have a gimmick. It couldn't be a straight sale,"

- Now I may be wrong, forgive me if I am and it's not my intention to sound unkind, but as I try to recall everything I remember hearing about them I recall hearing that they were first affiliated with a Catholic Church or organization (or something) and at one time raised some breed of dogs (for resale), I understand that they existed for a time as a "Benedictine Monastery" (apparently they had a "miraculous" Christ icon at this time) and that it was during this period that Sam Green became "Bishop Benedict" - they formed an organization called Ecumenical Monks Inc. (very scary) and I understand that they were briefly affiliated with the Order of Mans (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Order_of_MANS). I live in Austin, Texas (and have off and on since age 22) - which is not exactly a well-spring of Orthodoxy. The monastery in Blanco, along with my Parish Church in Austin, was actually instrumental in my conversion and in fact it was on a chance discovery of that very monastery that my interest in Orthodoxy began.

When I discovered them they were a non-canonical "Orthodox" monastery claiming to have been brought to Orthodoxy by some wandering bishop that was supposedly living in Mexico among the poor. At the time I didn't even know what it meant to be "canonical" but soon learned of it's importance as I was catechized by my Parish Priest. Shortly after that, probably through the slick salesmanship of Mr. Green, they were accepted into ROCOR where they remained for a total of 8 years. It was during this 8 year period that I developed my own relationship with them. I spent many retreats out there, and it was only at the obedience of my Spiritual Father of the time that when I spent two years at a monastery as a novice it was a different one, had I been left to my own devices I would have surely gone to the only place I knew. My Spiritual Father/Parish Priest directed me to go elsewhere and I thank God that was the case because I would have been there when the scandal broke. As it happened, the scandal began to break just as I was returning to Austin. I never went out there after the affliliation with ROCOR ceased, but if someone would have told me that my last visit out there would be my last I would have never believed it.

When allegations of sexual impropriety first surfaced I saw nothing but support from the Orthodox community. Many, myself included, assumed that the allegations were false. Sadly, what slowly came to light was worse than most could even imagine. Amidst allegations of impropriety and habitual drug use was a continuance of a covert homosexual lifestyle amongst the "inner circle" of monks. The "weeping icon" that brought so many visitors to the site was proven fraudulent, as "Tears of Myrrh" were reportedly placed on the icon by the monks. Sadder yet is that about two months ago Sam Green, who was morbidly obese and in very bad health, was successful in what was supposedly his second attempt to commit suicide.

Father Joseph Huneycutt writes (in his blog (http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html)):"The travesty and tragedy that was Christ of the Hills Monastery is, for some, an enigma; for the families of the victims: an open wound. Lord have mercy. For those (and I've met a few) who had prayers answered, even miraculous cures, through their relationship with that monastery ... well, adding confusion to mystery rarely results in rational answers."

An article (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA103007.05B.strangemonk.346bdd3.html) in the San Antonio Express reports: "Some courtroom observers expressed disgust at the revelations about the supposed orthodox monastery where chastity, poverty and obedience to God seemed foreign concepts.

"It's a giant betrayal to our faith," said Gene Yentzen, 65, an Orthodox Christian from Johnson City. "What about the people they may have married, baptized or buried?" -"

Father Ernesto comments on Father Joseph's blog "Orthodixie" as if to answer Mr. Yentzen: "Cyrus the Persian, the heathen conqueror, was called God's anointed in the Old Testament. And, he did "save" Israel and send them back to the Promised Land. (This is a plug for reading the Old Testament.) This does not mean that Cyrus is necessarily in glory.

Early Christians had a serious argument complete with mini-split (the Novatians) as to whether the personal righteousness of the minister affected the efficacy of the sacraments. In other words, if a heretic celebrated the Divine Liturgy was it still Eucharist? The answer was that it was still Eucharist.

They were evil, apostate, and heretical monks, yet God chose to work through them. I do not understand God, but at least I am in the good company of many of the saints who also did not understand Him either.

We ought to do our skeptical research when specific miracles are claimed. Yet we need to balance skepticism with openness to His workings. And we need to have the certainty that if we are fooled, yet God is faithful and He will still seek to bless our faith."


Apostolic Canons, Canon 46: "We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for "what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?"


Canon 47: "If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests."

For those who are healing from the wounds of this scandal, myself included to some degree, what unfolded out at the Christ of the Hills Monastery of "New Sarov" is nothing less than traumatic. In gratitude I echo the sentiments of the writer of this article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_30edi.ART.State.Edition1.422489b.html) when he writes: "Monk was a fraud, yet now I am blessed." and I can also say, as he writes, that "So much of what I cherish, I owe to that miserable man" - thank God I also had many pious and sincere teachers along the way, but none the less, I can't deny the importance that Sam Green's place held for me, even knowing what I know now; I still remember it as a special place.

The question I pose is much like that asked by Gene Yentzen, 65, an Orthodox Christian from Johnson City in the referenced article. "What about the people they may have baptized?"

In cases where the fraudulent monks posed as "Godparents" (which monks don't usually do anyway from what I understand), now that many of the baptismal records are lost and unavailable (I know at least three people that were baptised by them and none of them have any documented "proof" of their baptism), and it being clear that despite the possibility of good intentions it's clear that at least some who served as Priests were liars and heretics (how can one possibly be doing these things and not be a heretic), don't you think that baptism by a Canonical Priest MIGHT be in order? How would you counsel someone who was baptised by them? If you're a Priest how would you receive someone into your fold were this their background? What about the validity of their sacraments? Is there more than one answer to this question? If you were to consider other factors, or take each case individually, what sorts of things would you consider?

Please share your thoughts with me on this. I'd love to know what you think.


Glory to God,
Dionysios

Herman Blaydoe
13-11-2007, 01:40 PM
The authority of the sacraments belongs to the bishops. The priest only acts in the place of the bishop and is only an extention of the bishop. If the bishop at the time was legit, then the sacrament was legit. If the bishop they were under was of questionable lineage, then the best we can say is, we don't know.

The authority comes from the Holy Spirit and does not depend on the man. I remember some time ago reading a story about a priest in the Soviet Union, who was a communist plant. His job was to listen to confessions and report back to headquarters. And yet, when he stood at the altar and blessed the Eucharist, he would think: "O no, not YOU again!" as the Holy Spirit descended. He eventually became a true Christian and martyr for the faith.

When all else is said and done, this is one of those things the bishops are here to sort out.

Paul Cowan
13-11-2007, 04:15 PM
Somewhere it says when God's Word goes out around the world it does not come back empty.

Herman Blaydoe
13-11-2007, 05:34 PM
"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11)

Paul Cowan
14-11-2007, 06:12 AM
"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11)

That's the one. See? I was paying attention in Sunday school. sorta.

I will say though they made good incence. We are still using it in our parish.

Dionysios DiGregorio
15-11-2007, 02:44 AM
It sounds to me like the validity of their baptisms is unquestionable then, at least as far as I'm concerned - I don't know of anyone baptised out there before they were accepted by ROCOR, though I guess there were a few. My only other question would be concerning records; baptismal records - shouldn't ROCOR have record of the baptisms that were done out there?

Father David Moser
16-11-2007, 07:04 PM
It sounds to me like the validity of their baptisms is unquestionable then, ... My only other question would be concerning records; baptismal records - shouldn't ROCOR have record of the baptisms that were done out there?

The metrical records of baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc in a parish are th responsibility of the parish rector (or the case of the monastery by the abbot or whomsoever he would delegate). In a normal orderly parish/monastery, there would be no need or requirement for records to be kept by the synodal office. In the event that a parish/monastery is closed/transferred, those records, like the antimins, chrism, holy vessels, relics, etc, belong to the diocese and should be returned to the ruling bishop. I suspect that the closing of Christ of the Hills was not done in an orderly fashion (due to the rebellion of the monks) and thus those records may still be in their possession (if indeed they still exist). The ruling bishop of the diocese, if he has the records can provide verification of baptism from his records (at this point in time, queries could be forwarded to Bishop Gabriel of Manhatten who was the vicar at that time and who has been, all long the secretary of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR) or at least he would be able to offer a statement that a person is a "member in good standing" (ie baptized, chrismated, communing, not under ban) of the particular parish of which they are a member. This can be facilitated by the parish rector.

Fr David Moser

Eric Peterson
17-01-2008, 05:58 PM
This is a very important discussion to have, it seems to me. In today's ecclesiastical situation in America, and in the general spiritual situation in the world, the lines between real and imagined or blatantly deceptive (demonic) spiritual experiences are often blurred, especially when they occur under circumstances out of the "ordinary" (by "ordinary," I mean such as in the Lives of the Saints or the writings of the Church Fathers, etc.).

Regarding spiritual experiences occurring while the Christ of the Hills Monastery was under ROCOR, it seems to me the regular "rule" applies. That is, one must always exercise a kind of skepticism and never rush into believing anything, especially if it is "miraculous" or some kind of wonderful transformation. Too often these sorts of things happen and a person then becomes attached to an object, a place, a person--all something earthly, and could lose whatever little attachment he or she had to God. The sacraments and anything else from God is from God. The person through whom a wonder is worked is irrelevant. The Saints were the first to admit this about themselves. When people tried to thank them for a miracle, they would even become angry, telling the person, truthfully, that it was God Who did the miracle.

Anything that might have happened after leaving ROCOR is doubly suspect, for God would have been working entirely on His own. This might be a Latinist distinction, but it seems to me that God does not work "through" heretical or immoral people, but rather "around" them. In such cases no importance whatever should be attached to a person or place. It may be even better just to thank God that He delivered one from such a situation, from such people.

Eric

Kevin Steven
09-07-2008, 05:54 AM
When I discovered them they were a non-canonical "Orthodox" monastery claiming to have been brought to Orthodoxy by some wandering bishop that was supposedly living in Mexico among the poor.
Dionysios

Dionysios,
The wandering bishop statement is true. I've met the Elder and stayed with him for several months when I was young man. He died years ago. This Elder and several others friends brought me to Orthodoxy. I'm not sure what he would have done if he knew what went on there. I visited Blanco, TX before all of this happened and met with Fr. Benedict personally with the a Bishop of my old jurisdiction and suspected nothing. Everyone was happy and in good spirits. I purchased some items in the bookstore, venerated the icon and St. Seraphim's relics and went on my way. Bishop Constantine blessed my icon with holy water of St. Seraphim at the last minute. Its hard to believe this scandal went on!

I myself, am still having a hard time with it all. In particular the icon. I know the person who found the icon weeping, and it wasn't any of the monks in Blanco. I believe an Icon is holy, it was commissioned, written and blessed. It should not be held in police custody as evidence. Even if it was exploited. Please return it to the church so that the Mother of God can be properly venerated...

Please forgive me for withholding some names. I have just learned about the suicide and its a very sensitive subject for me.

Yours in Christ.
KS

Andrew
10-07-2008, 05:33 PM
Does anyone have more information about Elder Theodore? I've seen little bits about him here and there, but it seems that there isn't a whole lot of information written about him... so, was he a legitimate elder?