It's money - sorry, corrected messsage - on the trail of possible fraud
Asher Black
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.
-- Asher Black
--
This is the only article in this thread