Re: It's money - sorry, corrected messsage - on the trail of possible fraud
Galina Schneider writes: >I was comparing the prices of various products from the cult Celt church > website and frm ordinary bookstores online. I will redo the posting > below as it does not show the book from the Celt cult . > Here is one of the items that the Celtic Cult sells .
Galina's post is the kind that substitutes namecalling for argument. "Celt cult" twice in a paragraph. And then into the next one. And on and one in her post. It'd be the same as if someone kept referring to her as "self-appointed witch hunter" over and over in the hopes of coloring the argument so that one can't support Galina without being in favor of witchcraft. It is the substitution of slogans for substance - like substituting "the nazi ultra-conservative right" again and again for simply "my opponents". One is tempted to ask if Ms. Schneider really believe this will persuade anyone who is worth persuading, or if it's mere baiting, or simply a means of self-justification by picking out the 'monster' in the crowd and crying out for the torches and pitchforks. It's shameful, and beneath the dignity of the faith Ms. Schneider presumes to tout.
> Note price, Aol contact address and surprising resemblance to publication > listed below that we are all aware of.
Innuendo. State that the item is plagiarized, or do not state it; but have the courage to do one or the other, not this cowardly flinging of suggestions.
> I could find not one mention of the Farrell translation of the Mystagogy > online.
This is a commentary on the researcher, and a sad one, actually, rather than a commentary on the text. In fact, there are dozens of references, including footnotes within essays and numerous references to the text's contents, not to mention sources for ordering the now rare but still standard in the field of patristics text. One may begin with Holy Cross' book list. Also, if one wishes to online references besides the WWW, a consultation w. the local reference librarian will produce even more.
Even if one were not able to find these rather obvious references, one wonders what a lack of references online might demonstrate. The text was published in 1985. Was the researcher 'online' at this time?
> One can find quite a number of reviews for the Azkoul translation and numerous > library acquisitions of the same. But not the Celt Cult version
As the argument is aimed at the 'legitimacy' of the text, calling it vaguely into question, and supporting the innuendo with, among other things, numbers of references (there are several fallacies of relevance involved), we may ask, 'By what logic does number of references on the WWW make one text superior or inferior to another, let alone legitimate or illegitimate?' Is the Muzzey history of the US a 'suspect' work because it is now lesser known than the plethora of works to which there are far more references on the web. By this logic, we should cast suspicion on our septuagint and consider perhaps the NIV. In fact, let us change religions entirely, since there are far more references to Roman Catholicism than to Orthodoxy. If we are to offer up our power of judgement to a majority of WWW references at any given time, I would suggest that we should be meditating on internet pornography rather than patristics. Personally, I'm not ready to do yield up judgement to a conglomeration of documents just yet. That is the difference between us and the proponents of 'Sola Scriptura'.
> (please feel free to correct me on this perception if I am wrong - Oh, and > by the way, insults do not comprise correction of a misperception.
This is an interesting poisoning of the well. After all, Ms. Schneider is more than willing to shell out insults, but seemingly unwilling to receive them, or even wait until they are meted out. If she wishes to insulate herself from attack, and stick to the attack of arguments, she should model the behavior. It is Ms. Schneider who puts this on a personal footing. We should be more than happy to abide by what she says, rather than what she does in the matter.
> And please DO use citations. I dislike people trying to use the word > Orthodox who are not Orthodox.
I am not aware that Ms. Schneider has used citations, much less that citations demonstrate the Orthodoxy or Hetereodoxy of an individual. Does she mean that in order to refute her arguments, though, one must be orthodox? That would be an implied ad hominem. Perhaps she means references, rather than citations - as in the pedigree of one's succession, or one's Bishop's succession? Is the argument that Dr. Farrell's works are suspect, possibly plagiarized, and that his credentials are dubious only able to be refuted by an Orthodox Christian? If so (and that is another ad hominem), one wonders if a heterodox person can do ought but take the opposite position. Is the debate about the arguments Ms. Schneider has put forth, or is it about the debaters' pedigree? Or is it simply about giving Ms. Schneider only responses that she doesn't "dislike"? One needs to know.
> And I dislike it even more when Orthodox Christians and people enquiring about > Orhtodox get taken in by cults like yours):
How many times has the buzzword "cult" been thrown out so far? And again, is this or is this not simply a debate about Ms. Schneider's preferences - her "dislikes". If the argument is not more substantive than that, is it worth making? And if the Faith into which one is enquiring is not capable of outliving her dislikes, it is worth liking in return?
> Commentary - Your translation (called a "revised translation") possibly > derives from and is possibly trading on the reputation (note title) of > the Azkoul original.
Probably? Does Ms. Schneider have anything in fact to offer in accusation against this text besides innuendo? I will remind the reader that false accusation, a thing chided in the holy commandments, is not merely the accusation of something one *knows* is false, but also the accusation of something that one does not know to be true. Let her bring forth her facts rather than conjure up her suspicions. The latter are not a pleasing aroma.
> The price difference is astounding. You want $100 for a hardcover copy of > your , probably less expert (don't know - no reviews)
Again with the "probably". Probably less expert. Is Ms. Schneider an expert? Has she done textual analysis of the work? Does she own a copy? I own both of the texts she compares. How is it exactly that one accomplishes a comparison using only one of the two items compared? She has nothing but 'probably' because she's guessing. Run, dear reader, from accusations that rely on supposition and suspicion and ask to be treated as defending the Faith, to be protecting you from cults. Better the honest and forthright cult than the cult of cult-hunting.
> REVISION of a translation (whose translation? Azkoul's?) when the > original is a classic.
Again a non-accusation accusation. An innuendo. The translation is quite original. A minor amount of research would reveal this. Texts do, in fact, have a pedigree that can be traced far more reliably than those of persons. This is shameful. It's shoddy salesmanship. "here, I suspect this product which you haven't seen, and I haven't either, which is offered by those 'other' guys, to be a sham, but the work I'm holding up is "classic". If this were a call offering a long-distance plan, the discerning listener would have hung up by that point.
> OK, let's take a look and see if we can find this publisher your "bishop" > is using, "Seven Councils Press" - sounds Orthodox , doesn't it? But > doesn't have a street address. Hmm, could it be like your supposed > churches (private residences - censing a doorway doesn't have that, um, > feel that censing in front of the iconostasis has -
Again casting of suspicions. Last I checked, there are precious few private residences that exist within PO Boxes. There are, however, a plethora of reputable publishers that have them. As does Holy Transfiguration Monastery, the very source and publisher of the book/translation Ms. Schneider offers as an alternative! Holy Transfiguration Monastery P.O. Box 217 Redwood Valley, CA 95470-0217 U.S.A. As do a number of official arms of the OCA. But from the lack of a street address on a web site, we are to draw what conclusion? That HTM is a fraud? As easily as we are to assume that the publisher in question is a fraud, by that logic. Really, this is getting silly.
> Some of the Celt Cult books are sold by something called "Russian Orthodox > Church in London" with a website that no longer functions.
I remember when the web site of St. Seraphim's Cathedral (OCA) in Dallas 'no longer functioned' for about a year. I have yet to see the logic that they are therefore a cult, let alone a mere 'something'.
> None of the Google, Yahoo, etc. references have any information about Seven > Councils Press except through the Celt Cult's PO box. Oops, found it on a > further websearch.
Actually, that isn't true. I've found half a dozen with a casual search. Searching Amazon, Borders, and Barnes & Noble yields even more. But again, this is more a commentary on the research skills (and mentality) of the critic than on the work under accusation. And, after all, I can't find a reference to Sam, Sam the Garbage Truck Man (a childhood favorite) anywhere on the web, and yet I don't believe that the publisher is either a cult or that the book is going to lead me into darkness and oblivion, or that it's author censes doorways, however that may be related.
> OK, that was not illuminating as to whether this parish that sells your > self proclaimed bishop's retranslation in its bookstore is itself > legitimate or not.
And here it comes. The Roman Catholic - Protestant issue of "legitimacy". As an external thing, judged apart from the actual orthodoxy of a thing. Determining and so circumscribing the orthodoxy of a thing. Folks, the test of orthodoxy is orthodoxy. It is not some external quality of "legitimacy". When this is whipped out, is when you see the true character and origin of the ideas that produce this kind of cult-hunting public-service psychology. Personally, I pray that I may never find legitimacy and die without ever having succumbed to it. Let it be etched on my tombstone that I fore-went "legitimacy" for the sake of orthodoxy. And friendly reader, let us have our own minds, capable of judging a thing without an official stamp, without a list of approved books, without a list of banned books, without mental bonfires on which the evil texts are heaped. Let our Fahrenheit 451 be for the lists, not the books they contain. When one persuses, through their writings, the volumes contained in the libraries of the holy fathers, we see Plato, Aristotle, and even Plotinus. I would shudder to think how many divisions would plague us if instead of reading those who differ with us but claim our pedigree, we simply intellectually ghetto-ized them, cordoned them off, and made them wear little badges that say "illegitimate". It is precisely the character of our fathers that they strived to reconcile, but also that they did it literately.
>Yep, seems to be in the Moscow Patriarchate. Now, I am tediously downloading >their PDF English catalogue.
One hears so much frustration - so many likes and dislikes, and now this tedium, that one wonders that if the labours of this person should not better be abadoned for something less stressful and more edifying. But such is the self-appointed martyrdom of the inquisitor.
> Evidently , the bookstore of the Moscow Patriarchate does sell 2 books by > your Joseph P. Farrell, as follows. :
Evidently, yes. As do several other incontrovertably "legitimate" jurisdictions.
> Anyone with an Orthodox (or other religious title) is so marked in the > catalogue, as Father , Bishop, etc., by the way, but not your Mr. Farrell.
The first clever insight. Except that she doesn't know where to go with it, because she's caught up in the issue of "legitimacy".
> By the way, why did Joseph Farrell leave the OCA?
Relevance? Lots of people have left the OCA for the Moscow Patriarchate, for instance. Again, fishing, innuendo, suspicion, but nothing of substance. For goodness sakes, why doesn't she just ask him? That's just it, all of this witch-hunting reduces a person to an idea - to an operation. Only then can we forget that we're dealing with human beings. It's not surprising that Ms. Schneider would have problems w. the Farrell translation of St. Photios' Mystagogy. After all, it was St. Photios, in said text, that points out this very process as the heart of heterodoxy. By substituting in our treatment of others, ideas for persons, we lose sight of the need for charity, integrity, and honesty - the war - the battle - the witch-hunt consumes us and obscures the truth. Rather than rhetorically burning the book, perhaps reading it would be a more profitable task.
> Was he ever in the OCA?
Hard to leave something that one wasn't "in" in the first place. We are reminded, of course, that laypersons are not actually "in" jurisdictions in the first place. The system of jurisdictions, as we have come to treat them, is as artificial as the system of "legitimacy" based upon the affiliation. Is he Orthodox? Has he received the Body and Blood of Our Lord? Then he is in the Church, and we take great risk to ourselves to presume against it. It is a spiritually dangerous exercise.
> Where and by whom was he made a Reverend Doctor? We know he has a > doctorate from Oxford, but what about his REverend ? Well, we need > look no further than the aforementioned website:
Actually neither the web site, nor Ms. Schneider answers the question. It is another fishing expedition, innuendo, suggestion. But look at the conclusion (an incorrect one on several key points) to which she jumps:
> So basicallyt, he went to a couple of protestant schools, and as a > protestant studied with Timothy Ware resulting in a probably decent thesis > which was published by St Tikhon's which gave him a teaching job.
We'll leave it to the reader and to Ms. Schneider to find the factual errors in the above comments. It is so easy, when one gives free range to suspicions, to begin to treat them as facts. It is a temptation, an allure, a pitfall. One which we must avoid, or else imperil the very thing we are seeking to defend and protect. One which we must escape, or else fall into the trap - the very accusations - we have set for others.
> He is no longer there, which says something.
Does it? Does Mrs. Schneider know all (or any) of the circumstances? Again, the transformation of suspicion into supposed fact. And not even specific fact. The something is a variable that can be filled with whatever feeling, suspicion, or assertion that one has on hand or is inclined to at the moment. This is spiritually dangerous, folks. It's as demonic as any cult. Don't enter in.
> Since I know a buncha people at St. Tikhon's maybe I'll email them and ask > what went on? Or, Nick, maybe you can ask?
And if this were to happen, would the hearsay, or the testimony of those who remain, be taken as fact, over against the ad hominem candidate whose own testimony - the work - can apparently mean nothing? Especially if it isn't even read? Especially if the importance of it is said to be not its orthodoxy but it's "legitimacy"?
And truly, one must ask - since Ms. Schneider does not make the logical connection... if St. Tikhon's published the book - an incontrovertably "legitimate" orthodox seminary - is her own preceding series of arguments, warnings, charges, suspicions, innuendos, and suggestions not now overturned? Which is it? Is the book the product of a suspicious publisher on behalf of a cult without 'legitimate' orthodoxy -- or is it the publication of an Orthodox seminary with impeccable 'credentials'? And so is she repenting of her words, overturning her argument and foregoing work, or is she simply looking now for some personal ad hominem attack on the author? What's the argument now? All this in the same e-mail message. By Ms. Schneider's logic, not only has St. Tikhons been slandered as a cult, and the Orthodoxy of one of it's albeit patristics professors been suggested away... but now a work is right and good for as long as it is published by someone "legitimate" (i.e. her version of the Church), but becomes wrong and bad the moment the same text is published by a "celtic cult". Last I checked, the King James Bible, a solid Anglican translation, was still approved for use in Orthodox churches. And her touted Azkoul/HTM book makes positive reference to several works published or translated by 'pagans' or the heterodox. If a cult says "Christ is Risen" have the words and the truth of them become suspect?
This level of Protestant Fundamentalism is both the origin and result of the cult-hunting paradigm. And yet, Ms. Schneider says "And of course I know people who are Buddhists and athiests quite adept at translations." So, "celtic cult" members can't be? So, all these substance-lacking attacks heaped on a text only to say, in the end, that it could easily be just fine? Again, one wonders if the time wouldn't better be spent on something that at least is consistent.
> At any rate, I don't see anywhere in your website where this dude Farrell > ever got ordained as an Orhtodox cleric, even minor clergy >(reader, subdeacon, etc.) And of course I know people who are Buddhists > and athiests quite adept at translations.
Dude? You know, I don't think calling Mother Theresa (or Galina) a "chick" simply because we may question whether what she does is Orthodox is really called for. The flippancy is failure of basic reverence for people. When we pass a cemetary, we cross ourselves because we do not know who may be a Saint. As observed, it is only the reduction of people to ideas, a certain anthropological flippany, a certain loss of respect for our fellow man, that can allow our private inquisitions to occur. We must renew our minds with the teachings of our fathers, including Patriarch St. Photios, so that we are shielded from temptation. And if we are tempted, it is better if we do not wash our filthy rags into the public stream for all to read. Better that we endure, go to confession, and make ourselves clean in solitude with fasting and prayer.
Wherever you are, Dr. Joseph Farrell, I pray forgive us our presumption. You have given us no reason to attack you, and in the form of quite orthodox texts every reason to praise the work of your hands, as many of us still do, and yet, in the name of the Faith we all share, we have belittled and ridiculed you. By your prayers, save me.
|
