Is Crete Being Derailed?

To all my readers, please forgive what follows but something seems afoot.

Not fifteen minutes ago I received a text from one of my many contributors. According to this source His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew is convening an “emergency meeting” of the Holy Synod at the Phanar. It appears that last-minute concerns from several quarters in Greece, Athos, Antioch and Russia, as well as the backing out of the Bulgarian and Georgian Churches is causing the entire council to unravel.

The sticking points at present are:

1. concerns about marriage and impediments to it,

2. the continued rivalry between Antioch and Jerusalem over Qatar, and

3. relations between the Orthodox Church and other Christian traditions (i.e. whether they should be considered as “churches” and if they should be granted observer status at Crete).

In addition, just the other day, the Russian Orthodox Church requested (demanded?) that an extraordinary “Pan-Orthodox Council” take place immediately in order to address these and other concerns in preparation for the upcoming council. Since this council is to take place in exactly two weeks, this last demand is nothing more than a wrench being thrown into the works.

More to follow as events warrant.

Comments

  1. Alan Hampton says

    So many things about this gathering is just wrong. The preparation for years and all the money spent only to have Istanbul craft this council to its own agenda. Some canonical Orthodox Churches weren’t even formally invited. A council like this should be open to ALL Orthodox and those not in communion welcome as observers. This would probably mean a small stadium. Why not an Olympic stadium not in use and surrounding apartments used for athletes? Further, an open agenda besides the structured topics to be discussed. Snubbing other Orthodox Churches nor trying to enforce the “Diptychs” as a means of church organization and authority in territories is non-canonical. Time for the Orthodox to get real and move out of the 9th century. Istanbul/Constantinople is no longer the center of Orthodoxy; there is no Emperor nor Byzantine Empire. The Church should not be stuck in irrelevant times.

    • “Open agenda”

      No thanks! We don’t need to put everything on the table when we can’t even agree on where everyone will sit.

      • Ok, now pay attention because this is important:

        The agenda is not the most important thing. It is true that earlier councils were usually called in response to some rending of the garment of the Church but in reality, if there were to be a true “Great and Holy Synod” to occur in the near future, it would be seen in retrospect as focused on the ontology of the Church and its relation to the heterodox. That is the emerging issue.

        Now, down to cases: It is important that attendance be relatively limited to bishops and to those who have attained some serious degree of theosis. Those who pray constantly, live in the Spirit and have the inner light turned on with some brightness.

        The reason is that you want the Spirit to have the clearest avenue possible to express itself and not to be convoluted by cacodoxy. That would render it a Robber Council. I’m not saying advisors or some limited contingents are off the table, but the bishops at these things form a “Spirit Catcher” so to speak and so clarity should be a priority, if we’re serious about this thing.

        • I think the reason for the strict agenda and the long, drawn-out preparation is to avoid having a disaster like Vatican II—if everyone is in agreement beforehand and the council simply rubber-stamps it for the world to see, then there won’t be any surprises.

          But you’re right, that does not allow for the Holy Spirit to act in a dramatic way. And maybe He doesn’t have to; we are not facing any heresies to the degree that the Seven Councils did. (Though a case could be made for the New Baptismal Theology and our relationship with other Christian bodies, as you note.)

          But if we are so afraid (and perhaps rightly so) that it will end in disaster if it’s not all pre-determined, then perhaps the Church lacks sufficient faith to hold such a council. Perhaps defining matters of faith is not something given to this age, and right now God is merely calling us to be faithful to what we have been given, and leave this to future generations that may be far better than we are.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            Perhaps the Holy Spirit IS acting in a dramatic way and we’re seeing evidence of that through those who have carefully reviewed the agenda and are making their concerns known.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          “Those who have attained some serious degree of theosis” weren’t consulted when they created the agenda. I do not understand why they would go so far down this road without the blessing of The Holy Kinot.

          http://katehon.com/article/open-letter-holy-mount-athos-kinot-patriarch-constantinople-bartholomew-i

  2. If the council fails to convene, it will be the answer to many prayers. As I heard one Orthodox Metropolitan say, “Nothing good can come of this council.”

    • Amen. I have been hoping that it would either be delayed or cancelled outright, despite the cheerleading from various circles.

  3. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    “Derailed?” It never got out of the station!

  4. George,

    The answer to your question, “Is Crete being derailed?” is “yes”.

    Slowly, over the last several months, after the publication and widespread discussion of the preparatory documents for the council, opposition has mounted against what these documents propose. Yet it seems to be the case that there is no provision for the documents to be amended at the council.

    In the last few days, the Church of Bulgaria essentially pulled out. They will not be attending. They have requested that the council be postponed until there can be some agreement reached on the subjects of the proposed documents. They are correct in the fact that no consensus presently exists. They have proposed a one year delay.

    The Russians are simply reflecting the reality of what has transpired. There is no reason to have a council if the only possible resolutions of the council would be unanimous and there is not only no unanimity on the subjects in question, but there is at least one (Bulgaria) and possible other local churches (Antioch, others?) which will not be in attendance.

    We’re talking a lot of expense for a hierarchical meet and greet photo op.

    The question has always been whether the rest of Orthodoxy was going to follow the Phanar down the rabbit hole of ecumenism and the new Baptismal Theology which changes the Orthodox definition of what the Church is.

    We now know the answer to that question, which is “no”.

  5. Does anyone know specifically what problems Antioch has with the marriage document?

    • Gail Sheppard says

      I don’t think they even care to comment on the marriage document. They see the whole process as being flawed. http://www.antiochian.org/statement-secretariat-antiochian-holy-synod

    • Arimathean says

      A guess: Section 2.5.a of the document says, “The marriage of an Orthodox Christian with a non-Orthodox Christian is forbidden in accordance with the canonical acribia and is not celebrated in the Church.” In the Middle East, where the Christian population is rapidly dwindling, marriages of Orthodox Christians to Non-Chalcedonians and Catholics are quite common, and the churches accommodate them as a matter of pastoral necessity. This is a matter best left to the pastoral discretion of the local church.

      • That’s what I suspected. Hopefully it isn’t in reference to marrying Muslims, which is forbidden but is known to happen among those who value culture over fidelity.

      • Irenaeus says

        Considering Antioch will commune non-Chalecdonians, that would make sense.

  6. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94013.htm

    Romania may be next. FYI, it is the second largest local church.

  7. I have no ill will towards the EP+ but based upon the Churches that are now expression caution I would definitely listen.

    It seems the Holy Spirit works in anticipation of a Great and Holy Council.

    And I agree – even Churches that are outside of communion should be invited to attend.

    • Michael Bauman says

      It makes no sense to invite any non-Othodox.

      • Not non-Orthodox, albeit I think even they have been invited in the past. I was thinking more in the lines of Orthodox Churches that are currently not in communion. And not necessarily to take part.

  8. Ok, so they’re going to revise these documents by way of internet over the next two weeks? Is this the way the Orthodox roll?

    Modest proposal: Just invite all the bishops to Crete to resolve all issues and let the Holy Spirit guide the Church. Or don’t. But don’t try to predetermine the outcome. If it’s going to be significant, He has to be involved.

    Now, do we really have faith in Him, or not?

    http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94019.htm

    I’d be happy to join them. I could use a vacation. Or not. I’m not a bishop so I’m not sure why they would want me, or anyone other than bishops.

  9. Having read the concerns of ROCOR and the ROCIR, it is abundantly clear that the documents to be discussed and, I suppose, voted on at this council are seriously flawed. To go forward and try to ramrod these proposals under the guise of that the Holy Spirit guided this process would be a travesty. Yes, perhaps it is, indeed, the Holy Spirit working now to stop the Church from making some really poor decisions.

    Given that this council has been in the works for at least 60 years, another year is not going to hurt anyone. Patience is a virtue.

    One other interesting document to read is the recent pronouncement by the Orthodox Church in America. Anyone know who wrote it? It has that wonderfully pedantic feel to it. The author posits that the council should go forward despite the serious problems with the documents because “more dialogue is better.” In some cases this is certainly true, but this isn’t one of them. It is not appropriate to convene a council with no actual discourse over the subject matter. In this case the Phanar came up with a number of extremely poorly drafted documents and got caught. Amusingly, the insistence by the OCA that the council go forward with the council and basically “accept” the proposed documents is eerily akin to some former OCA administrations (amazing how how some things never change isn’t it?). Another shame on you for the entire Orthodox Church — how the heck did it get this far before anyone ever actually read and studied the documents? Thank God for the more conservative parts of Holy Orthodoxy such as ROCOR and the Holy Mountain for actually reading and studying the documents before this stuff was enacted.

    • Everyone should check out the latest response from the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese (www.antiochian.org). Clearly, their Holy Synod gave this a great deal of thought (it’s more than I can say for some others).

    • Gail Sheppard says

      RE: “The author posits that the council should go forward despite the serious problems with the documents because “more dialogue is better.”

      The expectation was that they would rubber stamp the agenda, not talk about it.

      • Vatican II was also supposed to simply rubber-stamp some documents…

        • George Michalopulos says

          What gets me is that Dn Chryssavgis points to Vatican II with pride. In my fifty-seven years of life, I have yet to meet a Catholic who thinks that Vatican II was anything but an unmitigated disaster.

          I dare say that that 99.99% of the readers of Monomakhos would agree that their Catholic friends think the same thing.

          • Nonsense. While my conservative Catholic friends certainly have reservations about some of the American hierarchy’s responses to Vatican II, not one of them would call the council “an unmitigated disaster”. Radicals made a concerted effort to hijack Vatican II, interpreting it as implicit permission to jettison Tradition. But the last two popes largely turned back that assault, though mop-up operations continue. Even the supposedly liberal Francis has proclaimed that Vatican II must be interpreted according to a “hermeneutic of continuity” – the phrase that designates the conservative interpretation of Vatican II associated with John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

            In particular, Vatican II gave Catholic theologians permission to step outside the Scholastic framework of theology and return to the sources – i.e., the Fathers. As a result, recent Catholic teaching has deemphasized medieval accretions and re-acquired patristic perspectives.

            • Francis’ only hermeneutic is creating chaos. Most of the conservative Catholics I know are praying for a close to his pontificate.

            • Mark E. Fisus says

              The Catholics love that word, “hermeneutic,” don’t they? Hermeneutic of continuity, hermeneutic of conspiracy …

              As a result, recent Catholic teaching has deemphasized medieval accretions and re-acquired patristic perspectives.

              Hopefully at some point that includes the principle of equality of bishops.

  10. Michael Kinsey says

    Sticking points on Marriage??? The Orthodox have no false doctrine concerning marriage. Baptistized, adult male and female in free willed mutual consent of the union. That being the facts and the ground, the only sticking points I can surmise are sticking it to authentic Chrisrtianity, by the great whore plagued homosexual agenda. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

  11. Mark E. Fisus says
    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      How in the world can the EP go forward if the bishop’s from Antioch and Bulgaria are not there?

      I have the distinct and very strong feeling that someone/something is pushing this council to happen and it’s not the EP. The EP is complicit, but someone else is calling the shots.

      The RCC had a council on the family that it did not need, and is causing havoc in the RCC, and now after 60 years we NEED to have our council when so many in the Church have serious concerns about its agenda?

      Something is not right here.

      Peter A. Papoutsis

      • Michael Bauman says

        Peter, he can go forward because he is the EP and no one else is. It is just more of him trying to be the pope of the East.

        The fact that he is not nor can he ever be and still be Orthodox does not seem to enter his mind.

        Maybe what is driving this gathering and always has been driving it is Rome?

        The quest for “unity” even Orthodox “unity” has always seemed like a red herring. It has become an idol and therefore a lie.

        “Seek first the kingdom of God…”

        I have never seen that principal at work when talk of unity comes up. Yet if we did do as our Lord commands, we would have unity. Not everybody would be in one conglomeration, but we would have unity–real unity.

        The big lie is that unity means everybody always agrees. That is the modern heresy of egalitarianism.

        BTW Met Joseph has instituted a more stringent procedure for those seeking to remarry in the Church.

        Not solely up to the parish priests any more.

      • Peter, welcome to NWO.

        Does anyone know what Antioch’s issue is with the date of Pascha?

      • This is kind of what I thought might happen, but dearly wished would not. Pat. Bartholomew could take this in one of two ways, in humility or in pride.

        The humble route would be to say, “Ok, mistakes were made, we tried to project our vision and get some type of council with some arguable authority to rubber stamp it. That failed. Let’s see what God wants to do here and set aside our own vision for a moment.” He might then postpone or extend and broaden the council as I and others have suggested.

        Or

        There is the road of pride: “How dare these fundamentalists derail my council! Well, regardless, we will go forward. Sometimes one has to be ahead of his time and ‘let the church catch up’. We’ll show them. We’ll move closer to our Catholic brethren and now, liberated from the dead weight of the retrodox, we can move forward as we had planned. We tried. It is their fault that unity could not be preserved.”

        It appears as if Pat. Bartholomew may be headed down the prideful road. That would be unfortunate.

        There are people behind the scenes who know more than any of us do here on Monomakhos. Some of these defections could be for reasons other than the obvious. If Constantinople were planning on some grand ecumenical feat to be accomplished and only revealed its plans to other patriarchates late in the game, that could explain the defections.

        I wondered about Antioch.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          If the EP goes forward with less than the whole Church the council will be a robber council and he will validate all the criticisms against him.

          Unfortunately you may be right. I hope we are both wrong and the EP takes the more reasonable path.

          We all need to pray for God’s help and protection.

          Peter

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        Here’s the latest from Patriarch Bartholomew’s archdeacon and theological adviser:
        “”If ONE OR MORE churches doesn’t attend, or withdraws during the council, or is not present and doesn’t vote, all the decisions made will still hold and be binding for all Orthodox churches.”
        Somebody is DELUSIONAL!

        • Gail Sheppard says

          How does one go about removing an Ecumenical Patriarch if he shows signs of incompetence, specifically, lacking the necessary qualities for effective action?

          • The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate would have to do it. No other Church has a say in who the Ecumenical Patriarch is. (Because, unlike the modern papacy, the EP has no authority outside his diocese.)

            If the other Churches don’t like the EP, they simply ignore him. Such is the Orthodox way; such is the way the Pope was dealt with before the schism.

            • The EC would be removed in the same manner as the JP partriarch was a number of years past.

    • Carl Kraeff says

      There are quite a few procedural anomalies that were noticed by the Holy Synod of Antioch. Such anomalies should not exist at this late date; it is as if the EP is doing its own thing. To paraphrase the Captain, what we’ve got here is failure to coordinate. I am referring to the following:

      “1. That the remarks and reservations of the Antiochian Church related to the internal regulations of the Great Council and the decisions taken by the Synaxis of Primates of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches between January 21 and 28, 2016, which are both documents not signed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, have not been taken into consideration until now, contrary to the observed rules within the common Orthodox work established by His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I when he launched the preparation for the Great Council, and which focuses on the need for unanimous agreement of the Autocephalous Churches on all the decisions;

      2. That the document related to the sacrament of marriage and its impediments is still listed on the agenda of the Great Council although it has not been signed by the Church of Antioch and the Church of Georgia;

      3. That the issue of diaspora has been included in the agenda of the Great Council without any evaluation of the work of the Episcopal Assemblies, regardless of the repeated Antiochian call for a special meeting to evaluate the activity of these assemblies and suggest the convenient ecclesial solutions before the convention of the Great Council. These assemblies had been created “as a transitory step preparing the ground for a sound canonical solution to the diaspora issue, on condition of being limited to the period of preparation for the Great Council which will find a canonical solution to this matter” (paragraph 1.b. of the text of the decision related to the Orthodox diaspora taken by the fourth Orthodox Pre-conciliar Conference, Chambésy, June 6-12, 2009). Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the work of these assemblies before the convening of the Great Council, so that the Council won’t have to directly address the issue of diaspora and Episcopal Assemblies without pre-conciliar preparation;

      4. That the issue of the “Church Calendar and unifying the date of celebrating Pascha” has been removed from the agenda despite its importance to the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian See, awaiting from the universal Orthodox Church a pastoral position in this respect;

      5. That the section related to the evaluation of the dialogue with other Christians that was supposed to be drafted sometime soon, before the convening of the Great Council, in order to be included in the document about “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”, has neither been drafted nor approved until now;

      6. That the content of the document “Autonomy and the Means by which it is Proclaimed” needs approved before listing it on the agenda of the Great Council;

      7. That the latest pre-conciliar phase was characterized by the absence of real and effective contribution of the Orthodox Churches to the preparatory work, by the secretariat’s slow pace and by the lack of clarity regarding the schedule and proceedings of the sessions; posing a possible risk of failure to the synodical sessions…”

      • Carl,

        I don’t think you understand. I’m now convinced that there was no failure to communicate. The Phanar knew what it was doing. It was merely playing its part in a plan.

        • Carl Kraeff says

          By failing to properly coordinate, Constantinople has opened a bigger can of worms than the disagreements over the “agreed upon” statements. She has proven herself to be incompetent to be the First Among Equals in probably the most important function that that honorific implies–coordination. One of these days, I expect some local Church to propose giving the job of convening and coordinating to a church that can do so.

          It looks like we may be faced with two possibilities that will be very serious: (a) Constantinople officially declares herself the be the First Without Equals, and as such, declares herself to be the Eastern equivalent of the Pope of Rome (in which case there will be schism not seen in 1,500 years); or (b) The Church will be split along conservative/liberal or Greek/Slavic lines.

          • Carl,

            There was no failure to coordinate. Don’t be naive. Here’s what happened for those who haven’t caught up yet:

            Over a long period of time – at least since the 1920’s, perhaps earlier – Rome has been plotting to subvert the Orthodox Church from within. The end game was just hatched and failed. I will leave out the history of the OCA and the Ukrainian Uniate influx for the moment because I’m not sure whether that was a factor in it all or not. But we do know that the Paris School and the Phanar are complicit – the Paris School having been under the omophor of Constantinople and thus its theological/ecclesiological influence; and the Phanar being run by Latin educated Western operatives.

            For decades, there was an ecumenical movement within Orthodoxy spearheaded by the Phanar to westernize Orthodoxy. It stems from an inferiority complex, greed and a sense of entitlement. In a word, Pride – the original sin of the evil one.

            A calendar change was made by Pat. Melletios IV, a real character and primate of several sees. It was not the only change he proposed, but that was the only one that really stuck. Pat. Athenagoras presumed to unilaterally end the Great Schism and end the Orthodox excommunication of Rome by lifting the anathema of Constantinople against Rome. Other local churches did not follow and many on Athos ceased commemorating Athenagoras until the day he died.

            This is significant because, according to the Phanar, apparently, Rome is no longer either heretical or schismatic:

            “Another very important and significant event that is often ignored not only by the antagonists of the participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, but by many Orthodox in general, is the lifting up of the anathemas of 1054 between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople at the end of the Second Vatican Council, on December 7th, 1965. As the Church historian and canonist Vlassios Phidas writes, “it is obvious, from a canonical point of view, that this ecclesial situation of the rupture of communion (akoinonesia) is clearly distinguished from the state of an accomplished schism, since, by the lifting up of the anathemas of 1054, we are now standing in the situation we were before their imposition”.[9] Therefore, if the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are now in a state of rupture of communion (akoinonesia), due to historical events and theological disputes, while both sides wish today to restore the full ecclesiastical communion, how can some dare, even through the voice of a local synod, not to acknowledge the Church of Rome as a Church, or to consider her members as schismatics, or even, as heretics?” – https://www.orthodoxcouncil.org/-/the-ecumenical-significance-of-the-holy-and-great-council-of-the-orthodox-church?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2F

            Thus, resumption of communion, for the Phanar, is a formality complicated only by minor disagreements about the minutiae of faith. Seen in this light, Pat. Bartholomew’s actions make perfect sense. Prompted and aided by Rome, Bartholomew deployed an end game to “heal” the Great Schism. Essentially, it was a Vatican/Jesuit trick. Bartholomew circulated proposed pre-conciliar documents which initially received the tacit approval of the primates.
            Evidently, some were too lazy to actually read what was in the proposed documents or simply assumed they could be cleaned up at the council. But this was an unwarranted assumption since the deck was already stacked. The document on relations with the heterodox was full of, well, heterodoxy. Many later sounded off. Fathers in Greece, on Athos, in Rus, Romania, Bulgaria, Antioch, Georgia, etc. all called attention to the fact that a New Baptismal Theology was being spearheaded into the Orthodox Church which was even more radical than the Anglican Branch Theory. Fr. Peter Heers was among those instrumental in bringing this to the world’s attention.

            You see, if you read Article 11-13 of the Organization and Working Procedure for the council agreed to earlier this year, you will note that any proposed changes need to be made at the council itself and require unanimous approval to become part of the final statement of the council. Moreover, Article 13 specifically contemplates that the pre-conciliar draft documents listed on the agenda would be the ones to be signed, though it seems as if a voting process is also contemplated:

            “The unanimously approved texts on the agenda of the Council shall be produced in the four official languages and shall be equally valid. They

            1) shall be signed by the initials of all the Primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches on each page and in all the official languages of the Council and on the final page by the Chairman and all members of the Council;

            2) the Council’s signed decisions as well as the Message of the Holy and Great Council shall be sent out by Patriarchal letters of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches who shall bring them to the notice of their Churches. These documents shall have a pan-Orthodox authority.” – https://mospat.ru/en/2016/01/28/news127391/

            It is as if they unconsciously forgot to mention that the documents might be amended. Or perhaps it was the conscious knowledge that the documents would not be amended because Constantinople would not agree, the decision having to be unanimous? Who can say?

            Yet what it certainly meant is that the pre-conciliar documents could be claimed as pre-approved by the Phanar and that the process at the council was engineered to obstruct any amendment.

            So, to summarize: Any local churches participating in the council would come to Crete and face a fait accompli – The pre-conciliar documents had already received their prior approval, could not be amended unless Constantinople agreed since unanimous consent is required for amendment and so, if the council is to issue a statement, it would be the pre-conciliar one.

            The harsh realization that any local church in attendance would come to would be that by having come to Crete, they lent credibility to a heterodox statement of faith since with a sufficient critical mass of Orthodox in attendance, the Phanar could claim Pan-Orthodox authority.

            Now, tell me this plan was hatched in the Phanar and not by Jesuits in the Vatican.

            Seriously?

  12. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    According to the EP the council is still going forward. This will be interesting to see.

    Peter

    • “The council is still on,” Chryssavgis told Crux in a June 6 interview, just ahead of his departure for Crete. “If one or more churches don’t attend, all the decisions made will still hold and be binding for all Orthodox churches.”

      Does anyone else find this viewpoint troublesome? I really hope Rev. dn. Chryssavgis was misquoted.

      • He can say whatever he likes, but if the Council is not received by the Church, it is not binding.

      • “If one or more churches don’t attend, all the decisions made will still hold and be binding for all Orthodox churches.”

        I thought this was satire when I first read it.

        • Diogenes says

          I guess it shows that that the EP has a tremendous sense of humor. Either that, or maybe they should call it the Ecu-maniacal Patriarchate. I guess that living under 560+ years of Turkish (mis)rule is bound to drive anyone completely nuts.

        • There was never a possibility of a binding decision being issued in the first place. All bishops must be invited for that to even be a possibility. Moreover, the rules they agreed to are not compatible with recognition of the proceedings as an ecumenical council. At most, a council decision could be ratified by the various local churches and then have authority for the churches ratifying. But that’s it. And Chryssavgis should know this.

          This stinks to high heaven. I’m increasingly concerned that they’re planning to apostacize.

          Read the entire interview, and between the lines regarding “unity”. I think it’s over, it just has to play out now:

          http://byztex.blogspot.com/2016/06/chryssavgis-if-one-or-more-churches.html

          If you don’t believe me that it is already done, read the following paragraph from the EP official website:

          “Another very important and significant event that is often ignored not only by the antagonists of the participation of the Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, but by many Orthodox in general, is the lifting up of the anathemas of 1054 between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople at the end of the Second Vatican Council, on December 7th, 1965. As the Church historian and canonist Vlassios Phidas writes, “it is obvious, from a canonical point of view, that this ecclesial situation of the rupture of communion (akoinonesia) is clearly distinguished from the state of an accomplished schism, since, by the lifting up of the anathemas of 1054, we are now standing in the situation we were before their imposition”.[9] Therefore, if the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are now in a state of rupture of communion (akoinonesia), due to historical events and theological disputes, while both sides wish today to restore the full ecclesiastical communion, how can some dare, even through the voice of a local synod, not to acknowledge the Church of Rome as a Church, or to consider her members as schismatics, or even, as heretics?” – https://www.orthodoxcouncil.org/-/the-ecumenical-significance-of-the-holy-and-great-council-of-the-orthodox-church?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2F

          • “We could go to the Council, but according to the accepted Conciliar regulations no amendments will be accepted there.

            This is because the regulations are such that first a commission must decide whether to introduce what we want as a question for the vote of the Council, and even if it’s accepted, if the Council doesn’t unanimously vote upon it, it means it cannot be changed.

            And what does that mean? It means that some document is accepted by commission, but these commissions are not the Council. The regulations were also not voted upon by Council, but the patriarchs, and they also are not the Council. And in the end it will be impossible to introduce any amendments to this document, or to any other either, because not even in one instance will every Church vote unanimously in favor, but there will be those who are against.

            This means that we would be going to a Council where the decisions are already predetermined.

            And why is this not taken into consideration? It’s a Council; it’s serious work!” – http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94090.htm

            Having read this, I have to reconsider. It is probably best if Russia pulls out and guts this thing before it takes on life. It is a Frankenstein they seek to create.

            If Constantinople has a veto over any amendments to its pre-conciliar proposals and is wholeheartedly dedicated to “unity” then they will not allow any changes. This means that the only resolution that could come out of the Council as being approved are the controversial “pre-approved” ones which are heterodox. Thus if there is some critical mass in attendance and the Phanar decides to issue the controversial documents as the agreed opinion of the Council, even if some walk out or dissent, the impression may be maintainable that there was an actual Great and Holy Council which decided these things.

            The only way to avoid this is if that critical mass does not attend. That means Russia, Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria, etc. need to stay away.

            This has “Vatican” written all over it. Bartholomew is not this slick.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              If the agenda is passed by those in attendance, does this mean that Antioch, Bulgaria and possibly Russia will no longer be in communion with those who did? To me, someone who knows next to nothing about how these things work, it appears as if this will be the schism of all schisms. Am I wrong? Perhaps Antioch, Bulgaria and Russia SHOULD attend and say they do not agree for all the reasons they’ve stated. Surely, whatever the costs in travel, it is worth it to prevent the Church from splitting in two.

              Forgive my ignorance, but how can ANY Counsel reinvent the teachings of the Church? Why are things like marriage on the table when it is already abundantly clear how the Church defines marriage? How can they entertain the idea of calling any faith, outside the Church, Orthodox, without redefining what Orthodox means? I am completely baffled and upset by this. If either contingent is complicit in allowing this craziness to ensue, I won’t be able to call myself Orthodox, because I won’t know what that even means.

              But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matt 18:6)

              I won’t be the only casualty for whom they will be accountable.

              • I could see Antioch breaking communion with the EP, but not with anyone else. It’s the EP’s prerogative to cancel the meeting and they are answerable for not doing so.

              • Add the Serbian Orthodox Church to the list of autocephalous churches who are asking that this council not take place right now.

                https://mospat.ru/en/2016/06/09/news132775/

              • Gail,

                I think that Russia, Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria, Serbia, etc. should not attend. The reason being that Francis set this up so that Bartholomew could say at the end of the council, whatever else happens, that the pre-conciliar documents reflect the mind of the Church since they have already been approved and because they were not amended at the council itself. In order to amend pre-approved documents, there has to be a unanimous vote to do so. Bartholomew has a veto on that.

                Now normally the Orthodox don’t say that the Holy Spirit operates through pre-conciliar mechanisms like the circulation of drafts. That is why these other churches must not attend. If the resulting “council” does not represent Orthodoxy as a whole, it will be that much more difficult to claim it is ecumenical and binding on the Orthodox. Bartholomew is already claiming it will be binding regardless of who attends.

                This . . . is . . . a . . . Vatican . . . Jesuit . . . trap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                I cannot possibly stress that enough. Bartholomew and Co. did not hatch this monster on their own. Francis and his entourage had to have been hip deep in this.

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Misha, I know you are right. It sends a powerful message that the EP does not control the Church.

                  I hope that those who do attend respond with a resounding, “NO,” to everything on the agenda on the basis that their brethren are not all present. That would show the EP, as well as the rest of the world, that he stands alone and can only speak for himself.

                • Gregory Manning says

                  BEHIND THE SCENES–Francis and his crew have launched a sneak attack while the fussy Orthodox quibble over the niceties of baptismal theology. Cheeky bastards! Cut into our customer base will they?!

                  • For anyone who hasn’t read the bottom of the linked webpage: the source for this article is the Babylon Bee, “Your Trusted Source for Christian News Satire.”

                    I must admit, the linked item is well done! Photo and all! 🙂

          • Gail Sheppard says

            Hey, if the RC want to become Orthodox, then I’m all for it, as long as they come into the Church the prescribed way and renounce everything they’ve done in the past that deviates from Orthodox practice. That goes for any Christian faith. They have to BECOME Orthodox to be Orthodox. What can’t happen is accepting Christian faiths who embrace teachings that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. That would mean there is no such thing as “right teaching,” and therefore, no such thing as Orthodox. Instead of the beacon we were intended to be, we would become one of many, with the EP operating as some kind of pope. Hasn’t he created enough confusion all these years by saying he speaks for the entire Church? He actually BELIEVES that and the rest of the world is beginning to believe it, as well. Look at the havoc he has caused. He needs to be removed; not ignored. He is delusional and now has become an outright threat. I believe is under the influence of pure evil, poor man. He will infect our entire Church if he is not immediately put in check.

          • Misha,

            They’ve already fallen… unfortunately, no need to plan. Theyre planning for us to follow them. God forbid! God grant them repentance!

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        I have a very bad feeling about this. This is wrong. Will the ROC still attend? Will ROCOR? What in the world is happening? I hope the Russians step up and end this mess.

        • The MP is holding an emergency session of its synod. I expect that they will pull out and thus the largest local church will not be there. That should delegitimize the council. If they didn’t realize what happened before, they should now. After all, it is the land of chess.

          “But I didn’t know until today that it was Barzini all along.”

          • Mark E. Fisus says

            Yeah, Constantinople brushed aside Moscow’s earlier conciliatory proposal, to have an emergency meeting before the council. I expect Moscow to play hardball from here on out.

            Papa Bart overplayed his hand.

      • πολύ ενδιαφέρον! says

        Wow, someone needs to give the good Rev. Dcn. Fr John Chryssavgis a healthy dose of humility. He sounds like a political hack who puts forth lies in the hopes that the uneducated masses will simply believe them. Does he not know or understand church history? Has he never heard of St Mark of Ephesus?

        It seems that these days it is the Church of Russia that artfully hands out these healthy doses of humility…. Thanks be to God that someone is doing it.

        After the Cretan “council,” perhaps the good Fr Dcn John can get a job with the Hillary campaign, given his apparent skill as a political hack! Isn’t the democrat party buddy-buddy with the EP anyway? I seem to recall that the EP cozied up to Joe Biden when he visited there recently. Let’s just conveniently ignore their political platform on abortion and various other social issues….

  13. Alan Hampton says

    Catholic World News
    Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople invites Vatican cardinal to join in Divine Liturgy

    June 06, 2016
    Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Eastern Churches, has been invited to join Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on June 11, the name-day of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

    Cardinal Sandri will visit the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Phanar during a trip to Turkey this coming weekend for the episcopal ordination of Msgr. Ruben Tierrablanca Gonzalez, the newly appointed vicar apostolic for the Byzantine-rite Catholics of Istanbul.

    • In precisely what role has he been invited, guest or concelebrant?

      “The programme includes his participation in the Divine Liturgy in the Phanar, upon invitation by His Holiness Bartholomew, in the morning of Saturday 11 June, the Patriarch’s name-day.” – http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2016/06/06/160606c.html

    • Well, I suppose the good news is, that if this is an actual concelebration, and not just a “hey, you’re invited to attend our Liturgy!” (just like everyone else in the whole world), then this would be clear and unequivocal grounds for the deposition of the EP by the Council he so ironically pushed for. Wouldn’t that be delicious?

      • If a Latin bishop is permitted to enter the sanctuary and stand at the altar, every patriarch who does not immediately walk out of the church is in schism.

      • Kosta Langis says

        As a lifelong member of the GOARCH it’s obvious that Patriarch Bartholomew and the majority of his synod needs to be deposed for heresy.
        It’s irrelevant what happens in Crete, the cats out of the bag and he needs to go. From violation of canons, heretical texts with his signature, speeches on file promoting ecumenism, and neo-papalism. I will be doing my best within the GOARCH to awaken the laity to this man’s delusions.

  14. Imagine if You Can says

    I would be much happier if the all the council participants were locked in a church for 40 days, and maintained a full cycle of services. Can you imagine what might emerge from that experience?

    • Michael Bauman says

      Good idea. The mere fact that the preparation has gone on for generations makes it all suspect

  15. r j klancko says

    first of all what we need most importantly is transparency – so invite the world to watch. that will keep the pettiness down.

    Also, the reality is that the byzantine empire no longer exists, moscow is the third rome and the leader of the orthodox church, not by archaic canons that cannot be accurately translated, but by size, wealth, and resources. Jerusalem and anrioch – get over yourselves you are like little children in a sand box — oops quatar is a sand box.

    the oca is not seated, yet they cow tow to the phanar with pedantics — they have been autocephalous for close to 50 years now — is the phanar afraid that washington will become the fourth rome? time for the oca to stop be eunichs, grow a set guys – don’t ask, just do.

    If there is a great council, it should be one of unity – bring in the old calendar groups, bring in the old believers – create one unified church – not little fifedoms as we presently have. One church for the americas, one church for africa, one church for europe and let us all get on the same page. the leaders should of the countries and areas involved not by ethnics from outside the boundaries.

    there is an elephant in the room and we are allowing it to grow – we and all of christianity are now in survival mode – we are out of the middle east in all respects, what else is next?????????????

    we are hidden under the shadow cast by the umbrella of the roman catholic church, our partiarchs come ot the usa and there is no media coverage – who cares? our ethno-centricity gets in our way

    the message of the council needs to be clear and concise – we are one church, we are a church of love and compassion, we need to live in harmony — time to return to our christian roots and stop nit picking — we have become like nero, fiddling while the church begins to crumble — it is evident that these supposedly humble men allow their egos to get in the way – they abuse economy as it befits them yet when economy is truly needed they become pharises – the time is not right for the council – the leaders need to mature and not only read the bible but believe in its message — as patriarch kohren of cilicia lebanon said on cbs tv some 50 years ago – unity would be here today if we threw all the theologians in jail – would our church be better if we threw all the patriarchs into one room and closed the door?

    we certainly need mercy and lots of it – we are in a woeful state – and all of our christian bretheren know it, how can we criticize them when our leaders act like 4 year olds

    this situation is both embarassing and depressing

  16. Does anyone have knowledge of the perspectives of the special consultants invited by the EP? I have read some writings of Elizabeth Prodromou PhD online with concern about her perspective and agenda. Thank you for any information

  17. Tommy Tomopolous says
  18. ReaderEmanuel says

    It cannot be a true “Pan-Orthodox” council if ALL the bishops are not invited. This, at best, is a Robber Council that will not have the consensus of the whole Church. It’s a power grab.

  19. Gail Sheppard says

    Mark Stokoe says, “only celibate bishops were able to discuss the issue” of marriage. (sigh)

    http://www.wheeljournal.com/blog/2016/5/13/mark-stokoe-on-the-great-and-holy-synod-the-oca-and-the-future

    * * *

    “Leading cleric says Orthodox Church’s ‘Vatican II’ is a go

    Remember that Patriarch Bartholomew was present at the pope’s inaugural Mass, which was the first time that ever happened in history. There have, in fact, been times in the past when a pope was present in Constantinople for the change of a patriarch, but still never attended. When asked why he went, Patriarch Bartholomew said he felt there’s something different about this man, and he had to be there.

    I don’t think it’s by chance that these two people are the leaders of their respective churches at this moment in time. I don’t believe that’s a coincidence.”

    https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2016/06/07/leading-cleric-says-orthodox-churchs-vatican-ii-go/

    • George Michalopulos says

      Gail, regarding the “celibacy of bishops” Mark worries too much. We need to put his mind at ease.

    • Carl Kraeff says

      Thanks Gail for posting Mark Stokoe’s essay, which shows yet again why OCAN was so successful. I do not agree with everything that he wrote, but in the main he does make sense. By the way, you quoted a small part of a paragraph that makes eminent sense, even though the quote does make much less sense when left on its own. Here it is:

      “Consensus has been reached on the following agenda items: fasting, about which there was never any debate; the diaspora, although no non-Greek bishops from the diaspora were actually invited to join the discussions; autonomy, although no bishops from any autonomous churches were invited to participate; and marriage, although only celibate bishops were able to discuss the issue. The way forward is apparently ever so much clearer when there is no one with actual experience in the discussion.”

      • As a new Orthodox Christian, I’d like clarification on this point:

        Bishops have been raised from (I believe) priests. Priests may be married; bishops may not. Thus there are two classes of priest “eligible” for raising to the episcopate (and this is my question):
        –those never married and
        –those widowed.
        Or are bishops chosen *only* from never-married priests?

        Thank you all!

        • Tim R. Mortiss says

          No, many bishops have been widowed men. Just thinking of only one that I personally long ago heard preach: Bp. Basil Rodzianko.

        • Bishops can be chosen from both categories, provided they take monastic vows. There is a third category, quite rare, but possible: a married man may take monastic vows (and thus be eligible to the episcopate) if he and his wife agree to suspend their marriage and both enter monastic life (in different communities).

          A man who had married can take monastic vows only if he has no children under his care. Therefore, all the children from the marriage must be independent and self-sufficient.

          There is one famous example of widower among the holy Bishops of the Church: Saint Spyridon the Wonder-Worker, who had a daughter from his marriage, before being a widower, then a monk, then a Bishop.

          One aspect, however, should be given much attention (usually, it receives next to none…).What happens if a widower monk is elected as a Bishop, and has one or more sons who serve as priests? (this was the case of the late Metropolitan Basil of Warsaw). Here arises the danger of a very unpleasant interference of these “first sons” into the diocesan life, often occupying places of importance in the diocesan administration (anyone familiar with the Polish Orthodox Church may witness to this point), to the detriment of others… These are indeed rare cases, but should give us food for thought about the idea of electing to the episcopate any non-monastics (who, more often than not, would be married priests with sons serving as priests, and who would turn our diocesan administrations into dynastical family holdings).

  20. Alan Hampton says

    There is no reason to continue the sham of insisting that bishops are celibate & monastics. In the early church, married bishops were the norm and all black wasn’t worn. In fact, kamalafkas with veils were an invention imposed by Muslims on the Orthodox. The “REASON” the Church turned to monastics was that monks were EDUCATED. The monasteries were where the libraries were and monks knew the services and how to serve. Today, this is not the case. The insistence on a monastic, celibate episcopate is contrary to Orthodox thought and practice. Marriage is an honorable estate and 11 of the 12 Apostles were married. This is a clear case where a practical, pragmatic practice of the past has become misconstrued as the NORM – it’s NOT! Marriage HAS NEVER BEEN an impediment for ordination nor the episcopate. To continue with this is just theologically wrong.

    • Carl Kraeff says

      As late as the Council in Trullo (692 AD) there were married bishops. At that Council, however, the Church imposed couple of disciplinary rules that insisted that (a) married bishops had to separate themselves from their wives if they were to continue as bishop, and (b) for married candidates to separate from their wives before they could be ordained. Over the subsequent centuries, all of local churches required that no married persons, except for widowers, could become bishop. In doing so, I think the Church eliminated one obvious flaw that permeated Trullo’s two canons: non-cohabitating, celibate husbands and wives are contrary to the Christian understanding of marriage. That said, since this is only a disciplinary rule and not a theological one, it can be changed, preferably by an Pan Orthodox Council. I just do not see too many folks clamoring for it.

      • Alan Hampton says

        Carl:

        You are correct! Some canons can be contrary to Orthodox Theology and this is one of them. Marriage is not a theological impediment. In fact, if one were to study why this canon was instituted, I’m sure they would find Western influence was afoot. No reason for separation from their wives; in fact, earlier canons forbid such activity.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          My point was that Mark is stating that we have noncelibate bishops. None of our bishops are married today so some of our bishops are having sexual relationships outside of marriage. I obviously know this is true, but it is pretty shocking to see in print. – Gee, if they’re able to do it, I might as well do it, too. Why should I be celibate? (Kidding)

          • Carl Kraeff says

            Gail–I don’t think so. I think that Mark’s point was a larger one: the build up to the Council was a flawed one. It bears to repeat what he actually said:

            “Consensus has been reached on the following agenda items: fasting, about which there was never any debate; the diaspora, although no non-Greek bishops from the diaspora were actually invited to join the discussions; autonomy, although no bishops from any autonomous churches were invited to participate; and marriage, although only celibate bishops were able to discuss the issue. The way forward is apparently ever so much clearer when there is no one with actual experience in the discussion” (my emphasis). The bolded sentence was his main point.

            Mark’s meaning would have been even clearer if he had written something like this: “…and marriage, although only bishops (who are necessarily celibate) were able to discuss the issue.” You can see at once that this more precise version would have broken the rhythm of his paragraph. In any case, you can rewrite the paragraph with some obvious fixes to the problem to see what he was driving at.

            “Consensus has been reached on the following agenda items: fasting, about which there was never any debate (why even have this item on the agenda?); the diaspora, although no non-Greek bishops from the diaspora were actually invited to join the discussions (next time please invite non-Greek and non-ethnic bishops from the so-called diaspora); autonomy, although no bishops from any autonomous churches were invited to participate (even though they may make it to the Council as part of the delegation of their mother churches, it would have been much better to formally invite delegations from the autonomous churches); and marriage, although only celibate bishops were able to discuss the issue (why not priests/theologians who are married? ) The way forward is apparently ever so much clearer when there is no one with actual experience in the discussion.”

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Well, that makes me feel better, Carl. I’m glad I read it wrong! With everything so upside down, I immediately assumed the worst.

              Mark and I had a very brief discussion about gay marriage several years ago. He assured me that gay marriage was on no one’s agenda; however, later he posted a few articles that seemed to float the idea. There was something about that icon of Saints Peter and Paul embracing each other and about how, in the past, gay relationships did not have the stigma that they do today. I remember telling him that gay marriage in the Church was ‘bridge too far” and he would have a fight on his hands.

              I’m not sure I believed Mark when he told me it was on no one’e’s agenda. If I were gay, in a “committed relationship” (whatever that means) and loved the Church, I would be miserable with my situation. Being married in the Church would mean everything to me. I also think there ARE bishops, who are not celibate, who may support gay marriage and were not consulted.

              However, your explanation makes more sense. I don’t think Mark would go that far.

              I appreciate the perspective.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                Thank you Gayle. I am a glass-is half-full type and tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt, until there is clarity. In the case of Mark, initially I had discounted his homosexual life style as a red-herring by the supporters of Metropolitan Jonah. Looking back at OCAN, I have not discerned a homosexual agenda-driven posts or themes. I still think that he was careful to maintain journalistic integrity. That said, only God knows if the last phrase about celibate bishops was meant to be interpreted in a way that would make folks think of same-sex marriage. I did not take it that way simply because the internal logic of that wonderful sentence would not allow it. With Best wishes, Carl

                • Gail Sheppard says

                  Carl, this is one of the articles I was talking about.

                  7.27.11
                  ORTHODOX PASTORAL RESPONSE IN THE PAST TO SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR
                  By Anonymous

                  http://www.ocanews.org/news/PastoralResponse7.27.11.html

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    Gail, this does not seem to be an article that floats the merits of same-sex marriage or of homosexual conduct. Rather, it says pastoral approaches to sins have evolved over the centuries. And, for the specific sin of homosexual activity, it appears to appeal for a pastoral approach other than utter rejection.

                    One can think that the anonymous author (and by extension Mark) may be asking us to be lenient with homosexual acts as we have become lenient with other sins. Or, we can reconsider out leniency instead. Do we excommunicate and cast out couples who cohabitate and commit fornication? Do we excommunicate and cast out perjurers and liars? Do we excommunicate and cast out those politicians who have voted to support abortion? How about adulterers, liars and perjurers? The answer to all those questions above is “no,” at least from a layman’s perspective, but our approach to those sins are certainly not as hard as they used to be (as claimed by the article). At least to me, the article’s main point is that we should find a way to deal, somewhere between acceptance and utter rejection, with our brothers and sisters who are committing the sin of homosexual activity. Unfortunately, a calm discussion of this subject seems impossible as, in today’s society, most homosexuals in the public eye urge us to consider their acts to be acceptable (not sinful) and to laud them for their courage.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Carl, are you equating homosexuality with perjury, extortion and fornication? Because if you are, then you are a wrongthinker. If you said this at your job you’d probably lose it forthwith. (To say nothing about what the luminaries at The Wheel will think about you.)

                    • Gregory Manning says

                      Carl,
                      As a repentant Orthodox gay man I reject your analogies. Let’s try re-stating them more accurately.
                      Do we cast out couples who cohabitate and commit fornication and advocate for an acceptance of the practice, and accuse the Church of being intolerant when She will not accept them? Yes.
                      Do we cast out perjurers and liars when they advocate for the acceptance of such practices and accuse the Church of being intolerant when She will not accept them? Yes.
                      Do we cast out politicians who vote for (advocate) abortion (quaintly known as murder among traditionalists)? Yes.
                      As a repentant gay man there is no way I’m going to even hint to another gay man that his SS desires will ever truly be fulfilled. I know one recovering alcoholic and one recovering crack-head who will never suggest to another human being that there is a middle ground between using and rejecting. I know two repentant serial adulterers who will never suggest that there is a middle ground–somewhere between acceptance and rejection.
                      The advantage that I and the individuals I’ve mentioned have is that we’ve actually experienced the failure, the missing-of-the-mark, the sin of our experiences. So when the Church identifies these practices as sins, we are true believers. We know that there is no middle ground. Those who have not truly confronted the dismal failure of their own sinful lives can (and will) indulge in opinions arising out of doubts. They will almost certainly become enablers of sin in others. My friends and I know that sin leads to death. Everybody else, including those in the Church leadership, who should know better, clearly don’t. Too often I hear advice which strongly suggests that people should turn away from sin. NO! FLEE!And don’t fall into the trap of comparing your sin to mine in an effort to console yourself that your circumstances are not so bad after all! If you truly knew your sin you wouldn’t wish it on anybody!

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      George wrote: “Carl, are you equating homosexuality with perjury, extortion and fornication?”

                      First, I was not equating them in any meaningful way, except in the sense that they are all sins. What I mean by that is that I did not attempt to rank order them in their sinfulness and I do not think I should.

                      Second, they were listed by no less than Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians in a passage that I have quoted often to demonstrate that homosexual conduct/acts are sins indeed.

                      Third, I am no longer in the military where all of us were sensitive to our folks’ off-duty activities, as some of those activities were more conducive to blackmail than others. Homosexuality was one of them, but, love of money/greed was even more attractive to foreign intelligence recruiters. (However, I do appreciate your concern with my employment status).

                      Finally, I return to what I was trying to relate to Gail. I did not get around saying it outright, so I will do so now. The way I feel about homosexuality is the way I feel about any other sin, as exemplified by John 8, the well known incident of the woman who was caught in adultery.

                      “3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

                      7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.”And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

                      12 Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

                      I have a tendency to have strong convictions but I am afraid of being like the scribes and Pharisees–to judge and condemn folks for their sins. It is one thing to believe that homosexual activity is a sin, it is another thing to accuse specific individuals. We have bishops, priests and father confessors to take care of our multitude of sins in a confidential manner, which is a very good thing in controlling the flare-up of righteous Christian mobs hell-bent on some virtuous fight to save the Church from the sinners de jour. As for me, I fall short every day and struggle with sinning no more. I don’t personally know of anyone who does not.

    • “celibate episcopate is contrary to Orthodox thought and practice … Marriage HAS NEVER BEEN an impediment for ordination nor the episcopate.”

      Hilarious. Then where are all the married bishops?

      At one time the Eucharistic celebration was part of a larger meal. Now it’s not. Things change.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        In the OCA, we have Archbishop Nikon of Boston. I am sure that there are others as well all around the world, as priests whose wives have passed on are allowed to become monks and thus bishops.

    • Pdn. Brian Patrick Mitchell says

      One of the reasons for married bishops in the past was that local churches picked for their leaders wealthy, educated men of standing in their communities, not just their church communities, but in their cities, towns, and provinces. These were men who could represent the Church to the world. They were expected to put their wealth to use for the Church. They were also expected to provide for themselves and their families without assistance—no salary, no benefits. This financial self-sufficiency contributed to their independence, impartiality, and liberality.

      Know anybody like that now? I don’t.

    • Agree completely with Alan.

    • Mark E. Fisus says

      If we bring back married bishops, are we going to bring back female deaconesses?

      That’s a Pandora’s box (forgive the pagan allusion) I’m not sure we want to open.

      I do agree that the candidate pool for the episcopacy is lamentably small.

      • I don’t see the correlation.

        Besides, we already have the Deaconess on a ‘need’ basis.

      • Alan Hampton says

        Understand that Orthodoxy follows the “TRUTH” and marriage DOES NOT negate a man from the episcopate. It was “pragmatic” to chose an educated monk who could read & write. Today, there are many married priests who could serve as a bishop & should. Smaller dioceses for more direct oversight. To insist on only celibates is saying they are more worthy because they don’t have sexual relations and THIS is heresy. Regarding female deacons; they were specifically appointed to serve the women of the church. Not a bad idea!

        • Why does a woman need a sticharion in order to serve other women in the church?

          Besides, ancient deaconesses did not possess holy orders, and there are far less social taboos about unrelated men and women having close contact than there was 2000 years ago. There is no purpose for deaconesses in today’s world, any more than there is for ordained taper-bearers. These things died out, and liturgical archaeology most certainly is not Orthodox.

          Perhaps if we were running out of celibate men who could be bishops, you would have an argument, but we don’t. It seems to me that your continuing and loud insistence on changing the Church’s practice may be based on some kind of belief that celibates are somehow deficient and incapable of dealing with various issues for the mere reason that they do not engage in sexual intercourse. (Note that we have a fine tradition of ordaining widowers.)

          Bishops are celibate for various historical and practical reasons, as well as symbolism, as well as canonical and theological reasons. Just because you don’t agree with them does not mean they are invalid, O Protestant.

          • Carl Kraeff says

            Ages–For somebody to throw out the derogatory epithet “O Protestant” at Alan, you sure betray profound ignorance. Your statement “ancient deaconesses did not possess holy orders” is flat out wrong, O Hyperdox!

            • Archprist Alexander F. C. Webster says

              RE: “Your statement ‘ancient deaconesses did not possess holy orders’ is flat out wrong, O Hyperdox!”

              Mr. Kraeff, your certitude is unwarranted. From its inception in the third century until its demise in the thirteenth, the order of deaconess was neither universal in the Church nor understood and practiced the same way or with regularity in various times and places. Conflicting liturgical orders suggest either cheirotonia or cheirothesia (the latter akin to the “setting aside” of lesser or minor orders such as subdeacon or reader that we do not, properly speaking, include in the three-fold priesthood of bishop, priest, and deacon through the Holy Mystery of Holy Orders).

              The best scholarly study I’ve read is, ironically, by a Roman Catholic: Aime George Martimort, Deaconess: A Historical Study (Ignatius Press, 1986). He demonstrates how the order of deaconess was most common in the middle eastern regions of the Church (Egypt and Syria), utilized here and there in cathedrals and larger churches in the Byzantine Empire, but never operative in Rome or the Latin-speaking regions!

              Beware of radical advocacy groups such as the editorial staff of the so-called St. Nina Quarterly and certain Orthodox scholars with a similar agenda whose scholarship on the topic is rather shoddy.

              • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                Not actually Egypt. Martimort says emphatically that there were no deaconesses in Egypt.

                They were most common in Syria and Asia Minor. Almost all the information we have about their duties and status comes from Syria and Constantinople.

                • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                  Thanks, Protodeacon Patrick. Of course, you’re right about Martimort. I had forgotten that he did not include the Patriarchate of Alexandria (and later the Copts) as people whose language was not Semitic.

                  That reminds me of another great insight by Martimort–namely, the linkage of the proliferation of the minor order of deaconess to two parallel developments: (1) the gender of the word for “spirit” or “Spirit” in Semitic languages such as Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic (feminine), Greek (neuter), and Latin (masculine), and (2) the tendency, later popularized, unfortunately, by the late Fr. Thomas Hopko, to identify the order of deaconess with the role of God the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation and the ministry of the Church. Where the linguistic gender of the “Spirit” was feminine (the Semitic-speaking lands of Syria and contiguous regions), the order of deaconess seemed to flourish (for the most part); where the linguistic gender of “Spirit” was masculine (Rome, western North Africa, and the rest of the Patriarchate of the West), the order was unknown or eschewed; where the linguistic gender of the “Spirit” was neuter (Constantinople and surrounding regions), the order enjoyed a sporadic existence.

                  That historic situation would seem to speak well of the ancient Roman patriarchate.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                If ages had written anything close to what you wrote above, I would not have disagreed with him. Logically, if we find even one instance of ordained female deacons (or deaconesses), his categorical statement is refuted, is that not so? I will cite just one case, the Armenian Church that was part of The Church until the middle of the Sixth Century. You of course, alluded to other possible exceptions, when you mentioned that deaconesses were “utilized here and there in cathedrals and larger churches in the Byzantine Empire.” The idea that women deacons had no liturgical functions at any time, anywhere is easily disproved if one is willing to do some reading. One can start with this from a “neutral” source:

                Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, by Dr. Valerie A. Karras (Dr. Karras has earned doctorates in patristic theology from the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki and in church history from The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. She also holds a Master of Theological Studies degree from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
                http://web.archive.org/web/20060825124107/http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/483/21/

                • Monk James says

                  There are more than a few discontinuities at work here.

                  First, all the deaconesses of the armenian church were/are(?) nuns and ‘of a certain age’. Then, since the Armenians accept canons decreed only prior to Chalcedon, they are not subject to canons, rules, and customs emplaced by later ecumenical synods. So, e.g., armenian deacons are ordained rather young and allowed to marry after ordination. Finally, in isolation from the orthodox except for occasional (and sometimes very unedifying) correspondence unhappily ever after, why would the Armenians NOT have assumed that their deaconesses functioned exactly as deacons do in the services?

                  But there’s more.

                  In our own time, of course, communications are much more regular and open, and considerably less hostile. Perhaps it can be expected (or at least hoped) that some of the practices which distinguish Chalcedonians from Non-Chalcedonians will disappear as we finally come to formal agreement in christology, and re-establish communion.

                  In any event, no matter how many academic credentials some authors boast of, it helps them and their students and readers to have a broad and deep appreciation of the history of the concepts at issue, not to mention a modicum of common sense, so as to benignly challenge them and their postulations into clarity and utility.

                  I find such an expansive field of knowledge often lacking in ‘experts’ who have gone into print unprepared. May the Lord be merciful to them and to those who are led astray by their errors, intentional and unintentional, and to us all.

                • Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                  In what sense is Karras “neutral”? She provides a plainly feminist reading of the issue, buttressed by a plainly feminist anthropology.

                  Of course, Ages should not have said “ancient deaconesses did not possess holy orders,” because those words lack the precision required by the subject matter, which is quite complicated.

                  What we can say precisely is that some women presumably were ordained using the rites preserved in a handful of Byzantine euchologies, although we don’t actually know for sure that any were.

                  We can also say precisely that many and very likely most “deaconesses” were not so ordained, since the title began and ended meaning something much less than “major clergy.”

                  We can also say with absolute certainty that deaconesses were not female deacons. Nowhere did they do what male deacons did. Nowhere did they outrank male deacons with less seniority.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    There can be no such thing as “neutral” as that is a secular lie made up to promote a philosophy that denies both the existence of God and His Incarnation.

                    Everybody who writes about such things has both a point of view and a bias. The more honest are clear about both.

                    Jesus would have us be either hot or cold. The neutral he spews from His mouth.

                  • I readily admit I don’t have the canonical education to articulate it the way you have, but the way you explain it is how I meant it. In particular your last paragraph.

                    As to Mr Kraeff’s assertion that “if we can find one counter-example, your point is disproven,” I’m sure we could find counter-examples to virtually every point of proper Church order. That does not legitimize them, and certainly not when 1000+ years have transpired since then.

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    Actually, I am inclined to side with you. I do not have the scholarship to declare that female deacons should be reinstated as a major order. Nor am I capable to take the opposite stance. That said, I do think that we should carefully consider what scholars say, both male and female, and regardless of their anthropology. I am sure that reasonable folks can make allowances for chauvinists of either gender. Regarding Dr. Karras, I brought her in for two reasons: First, her article was published by the Antiochian Archdiocese (thus the “neutral” source). Second, I merely wanted to strengthen my main argument; that there is at least one indication that female deacons existed. Thus, my attention was drawn to the following sections of her article, which cannot be readily attributed to her “feminist anthropology.”

                    “Ecumenical councils set a minimum age for deaconesses,(n13) and Justinian’s legislation regarding clergy at the great imperial churches of Hagia Sophia and Blachernae in the mid-sixth century included female deacons, for whom he also promulgated strict laws enforcing chastity.(n14) There was even a neighborhood of Constantinople, attested to from the eighth through at least the eleventh century, known as that “of the Deaconess”–presumably it was named after a deaconess of the seventh or eighth century, perhaps the sister of the seventh-century patriarch Sergius.(n15) The Barberini codex, containing a liturgical manual (euchologion) from the liminal period of the eighth century, provides an ordination rite for female deacons that is more analogous to that of male deacons than are the less detailed, late antique Eastern Church orders of several centuries earlier; in fact, the ordination rite for female deacons in the Barberini codex is virtually identical to the male deacons’ rite.(n16)” Since the last point cited is bound to be the most controversial one, I am including Note 16 here:

                    “(n16.) Barberini gr. 336 preserves the oldest extant Byzantine euchologion: L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (Ff. 1-263), eds. Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, Bibliotheca “ephemerides Liturgicae” “subsidia,” vol. 80 (Rome: C.L.V.–Edizioni Liturgiche, 1995). The ordination of the female deacon (secs. 163-34, in Barberini, 185-88) will be thoroughly examined in Section V, below.” So, let’s go to the ordination rites (in Section IV and not V):

                    “By the middle Byzantine period, the distinction is clearer between major and minor orders, in part through increasing, though not yet complete, consistency in the use of the ordination terms cheirotonia and cheirothesia.(n124) In his seminal work on the distinctions between these two types of ordination, Greek theologian and church historian Panayiotes Trembelas notes that the cheirothesia rite–for ordination to lower orders–is characterized principally by (1) its physical location outside the bema (altar area); and (2) its temporal location outside of the divine liturgy.(n125) By contrast, the cheirotonia type of ordination-that is, for major orders–occurs at the bema and in the course of the Divine Liturgy;(n126) in addition, there is an allusion to the candidate’s election to the clerical order. The terms were still in flux in the middle Byzantine period–for example, cheirotonia was used in the euchologia for the subdeacon’s ordination, although it followed the cheirothesia format(n127)–but the distinction Trembelas draws on the basis of physical and liturgical location is clear and consistent. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons were ordained at the altar in the course of the liturgy; subdeacons, readers, and so on, were not.”

                    “…Two important euchologia from the middle Byzantine period that preserve the ordination rite of the female deacon together with other major and minor orders are the eighth-century Barberini codex 336(n128) from a Greek-speaking region of Italy and an eleventh-century codex from Constantinople, Grottaferrata G.b.I., the primary manuscript source for the massive euchologion collection published by Goar in the seventeenth century.(n129) The rites and prayers for the ordination of the deaconess in the two manuscripts are identical. Given their geographic and chronological separation, this indicates that in the Byzantine period the ordination rite for the female diaconate was widespread and standardized, thereby suggesting that so was the order itself.(n130)

                    As for the content of the ordination rite for the female deacon, the most outstanding feature is that, far more explicitly than in the Apostolic Constitutions, its structure is analogous to the ordination of the male deacon; in fact, while the prayers are distinct for the two ordinations, the wording of the rubrics is virtually identical,(n131) a point underscored in Goar by a separate, short set of rubrics that instructed that “One must perform [the ordination rite] for the deaconess as for male deacons, except for a few things.”(n132)

                    According to the Barberini and Grottaferrata euchologia, the deaconess was ordained during the Eucharist, at exactly the same point in the liturgy as for the male deacon–that is, immediately following the end of the anaphora section, after the royal doors are reopened.(n133) As with the male deacon, she was brought to the archbishop(n134) (an indication that the ordination occurred at the altar, where he would be at that point in the liturgy(n135)). She bent her head as the archbishop placed his hand on it; then, making a cross three times (presumably, over her head), the archbishop read the following prayer:” A lengthy and detailed descriptions follows.

                    However, Dr. Karras does note that “As noted earlier, modern scholars have been far from unanimous in their analysis of this ordination rite, variously weighting the significance of the differences between the male and female deacons’ ordinations. Some scholars find the similarities strong enough to assert that the female diaconate in the Byzantine Church constituted a major order.(n145) Others have focused on the differences noted above and claim that it definitely was not,(n146) while a few express ambivalence or simply avoid dealing with the issue, considering the female diaconate so unique and anomalous in the history and theology of clerical orders that they cannot place it definitively within either the major or minor category.(n147)”

                    What we have here is evidence that must be considered and not rejected on account of Dr. Karras’ gender, her alleged feminism or even her leading role with St Nina Quarterly. That said, I agree with Fr Alexander that we should be careful in our selection of sources and authorities, carefully separating fact from opinion, and not to gravitate toward those who support our preformed opinions.

                    • For its proponents, the question of the female diaconate can ONLY be argued from history because there is simply no other argument for it. As the argument goes, it was the practice of some Churches at given times; therefore, there is no reason it cannot be done today. Fair enough.

                      There were, in fact female deacons in some places during certain periods of history. They were consecrated for their role as servants of the Church (whether in the Alter or not). They served close to, although outside, the Alter as Cantors and keepers of order. They assisted the bishop in the (naked) baptisms of women. They brought the Eucharist to home-bound women. They were consecrated, celibate women ‘of a certain age’ whose primary service was to lead and to care for women in the Church on behalf of the bishop…

                      So what?

                      What does any of this have to do with modern, distorted ideas of equality? What does any of this have to do with the dignity of women or with ‘feelings’ of not being ‘validated,’ of being ‘unrecognized,’ or other self-centered modern psychological nonsense?

                      Is anyone saying that the role of women in the Church is unimportant? Is anyone preventing women from serving the Church? Is anyone preventing women from singing in – or even leading – a choir (which, unlike those times, in our modern parish settings typically includes leading the male singers as well), as they say these deaconesses did? Is anyone preventing women from leading and serving the women of the Church, as they say these deaconesses did? Is anyone preventing women from serving in leadership roles on parish councils, a leadership role which these deaconesses did NOT have. Parish Council members, by the way, are also prayed for and consecrated for the task, as they say these deaconesses were for theirs. Is anyone ‘keeping women down,’ not allowing them to pursue theological studies, etc.? Is any woman being denied her dignity by having to expose her nakedness to a member of the clergy? Is any shut-in woman denied Holy Communion from the clergy because it is improper for him to visit her at home?

                      Moreover, is anyone preventing women from being consecrated to a life of celibacy (as these deaconesses were) or even from being leaders of orders (i.e., Abbesses)? Are these women who are arguing for the female diaconate flocking to the monasteries in droves for the ‘validation’ they claim to be seeking from serving the Church?

                      Although the need for the office of consecrated deaconess has passed for all the reasons above, I personally, would have no objection to reviving the office as long ALL the original, historical qualifications and rules of the office were maintained PRECISELY as they were, in which case the office would be as it was when the office was active – one of self-sacrifice, life-long commitment to celibacy, total obedience, and service to the Church on behalf of the bishop.

                      And if this restoration/revival of the order of deaconess were to occur precisely in the manner that some of the more honest among their own scholars say it once existed in some places, could it not also easily be predicted with a high degree of accuracy that the vast majority of those who are arguing most strenuously for the revival of the office would be among the first to eschew it as being beneath their dignity, incompatible with their level of personal sexual commitment – and, above all, beneath their ambition?

                      For the record, my wife (who can in no way be said to be shy about expressing herself or contradicting a man simply because she is a woman) read this prior to posting, and she heartily agrees.

                    • Carl Kraeff says

                      Brian “replied” to my post above with some vehemence. For the record, I agree with most of what he wrote. However, I do not agree with his insinuations regarding my position. I am for the reinstatement of deaconesses–their use to be determined by the Church. I am not actively agitating for it and I do not live in fear that it would be an opening to additional “innovations.”

                      I am also for the wide-scale use of the male diaconate as it was at the earliest era and not as a mere stepping stone to the priesthood or with its use only liturgically. Thus, I do not share the fear of many that women in the diaconate would be just a stepping stone to women priests and bishops.

                    • Sorry, Carl. Although I did indeed “reply” to your post, this wasn’t aimed at you – only the subject itself.

                      I also do not live in fear that a TRUE restoration would open any doors to innovation. If they kept to the same rules all would be well because only the worthy (those with the humility, continence, and commitment) would be qualified to serve.

                      Having struggled for decades against the so-called ‘scholarship’ of those fascinated with ‘Gender Studies’ in the ecclesiological realm, I can attest to the certainty that only an infinitesimal percentage of those who pursue it do so apart from the very specific agenda of promoting the ideological fiction of complete and total ‘equality’ (in the distorted, modern sense of the word). The few who do not are extremely rare.

                      Pardon the vehemence, but the vast majority of those promoting this agenda with their ‘scholarly works’ are quite open about it, although most people simply don’t bother to read everything they write. And even those who are more circumspect in their published works mingle freely with this majority in academic circles (not unlike the mingling of Fr. Arida and Maria McDowell). And yet we continue to allow their works to be published in our Orthodox journals, allowing them a forum to seduce us into believing that the lies of Modernity (to which all of us, without exception, have been subjected all our lives) are either compatible with Orthodoxy or even worse, ARE Orthodoxy (“See, the Church did this…How wonderful she used to be before she was corrupted by…), all neatly packaged as legitimate Orthodox Christian theological inquiry.

                      It is acknowledged that there are those in Orthodoxy who fear change of any kind. Such people can be said to be merely ‘conservative,’ and they tend to view those who believe it is time to change certain aspects or practices that express our Faith truly as ‘liberal.’ It would be a serious, albeit virtually inevitable, mistake for those who are seduced by the sort of change these ‘scholars’ are pushing for to confuse steadfastness with mere conservatism. Therefore, let not the accusation be leveled that objections to such innovations are motivated by fear of change. Faithfulness to the truth cannot be equated with mere conservatism. (This is not directed at you, Carl.)

                      As my wife, whose eloquence rarely equals her purity of heart, would say, “I am sick of stupid.”

                    • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                      Mr. Kraef, I refrained from mentioning names in my first post on this thread (10 June @ 7:51 pm) when I referred to “certain Orthodox scholars with a similar agenda whose scholarship on the topic is rather shoddy.”

                      Now that you have cited and quoted profusely from Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church by Dr. Kyriaki Karidoyanes Fitzgerald (contra Valerie Karras), I am compelled to address that particular book.

                      When it was published in 1998, I declined politely to write a book review for a certain theological journal. Having known the Fitzgeralds (Kyriaki and Fr. Thomas) since my four years in Cambridge and Boston, MA, I was loathe to write a sharply critical review of the book for publication, even after I suggested to Dr. Kyriaki Fitzgerald (alas, unsuccessfully ) that she try to revise a few key sections before the next printing by Holy Cross Orthodox Press to spare herself and others needless embarrassment.

                      Three glaring problems with the work should highlight my concerns.

                      First, the “Letter from His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew” in both Greek and English that serves as a kind of foreword on pp. viii – xi of the book contains this astonishing admission by His All Holiness: “we have yet to find the proper time to read it” (i.e., the book in question)!

                      Second, Dr. Fitzgerald in her Preface (p. xiv) announces the following terminological preference : “‘Woman deacon’ will be used as the nominative term when referring to this expression of ordained ministry. ‘Deaconesses’ will also be utilized as an alternate expression.” Instead of proposing a thesis and presenting an evidence-based argument for a conclusion, she chose, inexplicably, to assume in a mere preface to a 200-page monograph what she had yet to prove–namely, that at least some women in the ancient and medieval Church were, in fact, ordained as deacons, equivalent to, if not identical with, “male” deacons. The normative English translation for the Greek word in question is “deaconess.” A more prudent, objective scholar would have used “deaconess” throughout the text (with a preliminary caveat that she would attempt to render that translation obsolete by the force of her argument in the book).

                      Third, to cite only one example of the kind of content that raises serious doubts as to Dr. Fitzgerald’s ideological dispassion and neutrality, I would offer her odd choice of biblical translation for quotations in the book: The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha (p. 15 n3). Thus, in her quotation of Timothy 3:8-13 on p. 6, she renders v. 11 (with italics added, no less) as the following: “Women in this office must likewise be dignified, . . . ”

                      By contrast, the RSV, for example, renders the beginning of v. 11 this way: “The women likewise must be serious, . . . ” Here is the original Greek (in the Textus Receptus) of the first part of 1 Timothy 3:11: γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς. There is no word in that phrasing for “office.” Dr. Fitzgerald’s preferred biblical translation invents it out of whole cloth, perhaps to effect a male-female diaconal equivalency that does not appear in the New Testament itself.

            • Monk James says

              Oh, how true this is!

              The main difference between the ancient functions of deaconesses and our contemporary insistence (mostly among Feminists) for the restoration of this order is that our modern proponents seem to think that deaconesses had a clerical role in the services, but they did not, apart from bringing Holy Communion to shut-in women and assuring the modesty of women at their naked baptism, and — per St John Chrysostom — ‘keeping order among the women’ in church.

              Deacons and deaconesses had (and have) very different responsibilities in The Church. Since the responsibilities of the deaconess have largely died out, there is now no need to ordain women to that office except in the most unusual circumstances.

              • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

                Father James, I would not concede even “the most unusual circumstances.” Some nuns already have a blessing from their bishop to enter the altar for specified purposes other than liturgical roles. Nor is a deaconess needed to bring Holy Communion to shut-in women or any women after “respectable” hours of the night, since priests now do that routinely. Nor do we catechize men and women separately. The only other historic function of deaconesses was, as you have noted, assisting with the anointing and baptizing of female catechumens when the latter were baptized naked–a practice nowhere found in Orthodoxy today.

                No, the movement to restore the ancient order of deaconess is merely a form looking for a function. And so some of its feminist or crypto-feminist activists have even called for “new” roles and purposes for deaconesses to “enhance the dignity of women” in the Church and, thereby, to justify a restoration of a unique but obsolete minor order in a bow to innovation, modernity, and political ideology. I wonder how many of those activists would be willing to bring back the order of deaconess in accordance with the canonical requirements: celibate women at least forty years of age–that is, five years older than the minimum age of bishops and fifteen more than the intrinsically male order of deacons. There never was a “female diaconate” in the literal meaning of that term, nor, for the most part, were deaconesses “ordained” in the theological and historical meaning of that term.

                I hope and pray that the none of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches yields to that political Trojan Horse.

                • Thank you for the additional helpful details, Father.

                  There is a false opinion that is widely spread today, that active participation is the only kind of participation. From this comes a stronger emphasis on benign things like congregational singing, and more concerning things like congregational responses at the consecration; but taken to extremes it brings about the idea that everyone must be able to perform every action.

                  Nothing could be further from the truth. Every member of the body has its own important function to play. The eyes and mouth have important visible roles to play, but so do the silent, hidden parts like blood cells.

                  Vestments are not a participation award.

                  • I have been honored by being asked to repair some vestments of our church so that they can continue to be used in the Divine Liturgy and other services. It goes without saying that I will do my very best work in bringing them to the best possible condition.

                    However, I doubt that I’ll ever be able to look at a sticharion again without “Vestments are not a participation award” going through my mind! 🙂

                    As a new Orthodox, I’m as active in my parish as my skills and energy allow: I sing in the choir at both Vespers/Vigil and Divine Liturgy as well as special feasts, I attend religious classes offered by the parish, and now I’ve been asked to attend to the vestments that need assistance in looking their best.

                    After seeing “my” priest at the Pascha service in 2015 (my first weekend ever in an Orthodox church), I came home and told my husband that women would never, but never, be priests in Orthodoxy. He was surprised, since I’m very much for the equality of women and men under civil law. “OK, why?” he asked.

                    “No woman alive, except maybe for a body builder,” I replied, “could hold up a censer in her left hand and a brass triple candlestick maybe 2 feet tall in her right hand for 20 to 25 minutes without simply giving out. And that theoretical body builder is extremely unlikely to be Orthodox in the first place.”

                    Even were it theologically possible for women to be ordained to the priesthood, the physical necessities of conducting the services are beyond the physical strength of (almost) all women.

                    (I speak as a former power lifter and gym rat. I saw many other women work out over the years, so I’m not simply generalizing from myself to all other women.)

              • Gail Sheppard says

                From the 70s forward, women insisted we “have it all,” which meant doing everything we always did AND doing what men do. Not only did we have to do what men do, we had to do it BETTER.

                “Having it all” was a big, fat lie. From the outside, it looked like I was living the dream, but while I was at work, I was fretting about my responsibilities at home and I when I was at home, I was fretting about my responsibilities at work. No one can do two jobs equally well. It is physically, emotionally and spiritually impossible. 100% of the time, I was fearful that the ball was going to drop. I quit working when my daughter was two and didn’t go back until she went to college. I wish I had done it sooner when my son was younger.

                I LOVE that there is one arena, i.e. the Church, where “all” is not expected of women. – I don’t support ordaining women in any capacity. There are plenty of opportunities to serve God in other capacities.

            • Fr Alexander and Monk James have already answered; I would only add that the Roman Church has studied the ancient role of deaconesses for many years, and there are plenty of liberals who would bring them back if there was the tiniest excuse to do so. However, none has been found.

              The deaconesses were not “female deacons” per se, any more than ancient brotherhood ceremonies were homosexual marriages.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            The vast majority of Protestants don’t have bishops, so “O Protestant” doesn’t really fit as an epithet in this context…..

            • He protests vigorously against church tradition and teaching. Ergo, Protestant.

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              Tim, the largest Protestant faith community in the world is the Lutheran Church. In Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany Lutherans have Bishops, called Bishops. Likewise, the Anglican community world wide is governed by bishops. So, “O Protestant” would NOT be inapt in the context cited on the basis you offered us. Of course, in America, when Lutherans immigrated they faced a populace that feared Catholics “taking over” exactly like they fear Moslem immigrants today imposing Shariah and Dhimmitude! So Lutheran immigrants often did not even put crosses atop their Churches and called their Bishops “Superintendants.” Their clergy even adopted the Geneva gown and sometimes the bands! Do not forget that, as many even Lutheran Americans may not be aware, in the official doctrinal collection called The Book of Concord, it is stated “We believe, teach, and confess that the virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ Who is both God and man so she is rightly called AND TRULY IS “the Mother of God.”

          • Alan Hampton says

            Sorry, Ages, NO THEOLOGICAL REASON; purely PRAGMATIC. A bishop did not have to worry about a wife & family. Furthermore, besides monks being better educated, had no children. A bishop was GIVEN the property of churches to care for. Upon his death, progeny inherited the church property and sold it, etc. This again, is not the case today. A married bishop would be more atune to marriage & family issues.

            • It doesn’t really matter. The church has changed her standards on numerous issues over the centuries and we don’t go backwards.

              Should we also let people take some of the Eucharist home with them, because you might think it’s a nice idea?

              • Carl Kraeff says

                “We do not go backwards” is not an Orthodox concept. However, it fits nicely with the Roman Catholic thinking. I have addressed this elsewhere, but I will limit myself to two restorations of Apostolic praxis: frequent communion and correcting the civil calendar so that it functions in relation to the Church calendar as it it in the Apostolic Era.

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  Too bad nobody restored Penance to what it was when frequent Communion was the norm…On the contrary! In many places the only person to SPEAK oF his sins in “Comfession” is THE PRIEST! EVEN ST jOHN OF KRONSTADT REQUIRED EVERYONE TO SPEAK ALOUD THEIR SINS IN THE HEARING OF THOSE STANDING NEXT TO THEM. iT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN VERY NOISY! Now everyone keeps his mouth shut and listens to the Priest own up to all sorts of things, and that is called “General Confession!”
                  THAT too, would appropriately inspire a cry of “O Protestant!”

  21. https://oca.org/media/photos/archbishop-demetrios-delivers-commencement-address-at-stots-graduation

    Ok, folks. “Bartholomew[who looks nothing like Elvis] has left the building.”, so to speak. The details will play out over the next two weeks or so. Any bets on who will follow him out the door?

  22. Alan Hampton says

    ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN PAN-ORTHODOX COUNCIL UNTIL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED – ANTIOCHIAN SECRETARIAT

    Source: Antiochian Patriarchate (Facebook)

    Balamand, June 6, 2016

    From the secretariart of the Antiochian Patriarchate:

    During the course of its seventh exceptional session still open since the 25th of May 2016, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch held a meeting on the 6th of June 2016 presided by His Beatitude Patriarch John X and in the presence of Their Eminencies the Bishops, to study the positions of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches related to the Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Council (mentioned hereafter as ”The Great Council”) and the issues listed in its agenda, and in order to formulate the appropriate Antiochian position in this respect, taking into consideration the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of May 31, 2016 about “the formation of a committee of representatives of the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate responsible for its coordination, which would meet immediately after the Great and Holy Synod”, to work on a solution to the violation of the Church of Jerusalem of the canonical jurisdictional boundaries of the Church of Antioch in the Emirate of Qatar.

    After considering the positions of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, the fathers of the Antiochian Synod realized

    1. That the positions of a number of these Churches concerning most of the issues listed on the agenda of the Great Synod are still divergent, and that a number of Churches refuse certain documents as submitted to the Great Council in their actual form, as mentioned in clear and explicit decisions taken by their respective holy synods;

    2. That a number of Churches are expressing essential reservations as to the organizational aspects of the Great Council as well as its financial costs, and to the way of applying the agreements reached by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches in Chambésy, 2016;

    3. That the Bulgarian Church issued, on the 1st of June 2016, a synodical decision in which it mentioned its reservations and asked His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch to postpone the convening of the Great Council to a later date while actively continuing its preparatory works, otherwise it refrains from taking part in it;

    4. That the Church of Russia has taken, on June 3, 2016, a synodical decision suggesting to convene a conference preceding the date of the Holy Council in order to study the unsolved problems and reach a consensus about the remarks of the Churches on the synodical documents. This decision also emphasized the respect of the consensus principle through the participation of all Autocephalous Churches in this Council;

    The fathers of the Holy Antiochian Synod also noticed:

    1. That the remarks and reservations of the Antiochian Church related to the internal regulations of the Great Council and the decisions taken by the Synaxis of Primates of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches between January 21 and 28, 2016, which are both documents not signed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, have not been taken into consideration until now, contrary to the observed rules within the common Orthodox work established by His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I when he launched the preparation for the Great Council, and which focuses on the need for unanimous agreement of the Autocephalous Churches on all the decisions;

    2. That the document related to the sacrament of marriage and its impediments is still listed on the agenda of the Great Council although it has not been signed by the Church of Antioch and the Church of Georgia;

    3. That the issue of diaspora has been included in the agenda of the Great Council without any evaluation of the work of the Episcopal Assemblies, regardless of the repeated Antiochian call for a special meeting to evaluate the activity of these assemblies and suggest the convenient ecclesial solutions before the convention of the Great Council. These assemblies had been created “as a transitory step preparing the ground for a sound canonical solution to the diaspora issue, on condition of being limited to the period of preparation for the Great Council which will find a canonical solution to this matter” (paragraph 1.b. of the text of the decision related to the Orthodox diaspora taken by the fourth Orthodox Pre-conciliar Conference, Chambésy, June 6-12, 2009). Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the work of these assemblies before the convening of the Great Council, so that the Council won’t have to directly address the issue of diaspora and Episcopal Assemblies without pre-conciliar preparation;

    4. That the issue of the “Church Calendar and unifying the date of celebrating Pascha” has been removed from the agenda despite its importance to the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian See, awaiting from the universal Orthodox Church a pastoral position in this respect;

    5. That the section related to the evaluation of the dialogue with other Christians that was supposed to be drafted sometime soon, before the convening of the Great Council, in order to be included in the document about “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”, has neither been drafted nor approved until now;

    6. That the content of the document “Autonomy and the Means by which it is Proclaimed” needs approved before listing it on the agenda of the Great Council;

    7. That the latest pre-conciliar phase was characterized by the absence of real and effective contribution of the Orthodox Churches to the preparatory work, by the secretariat’s slow pace and by the lack of clarity regarding the schedule and proceedings of the sessions; posing a possible risk of failure to the synodical sessions;

    8. That the latest decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate dated May 31, 2016, suggesting to postpone the solution of the dispute with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem until after the Great Council, neglects the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch (5 April 2016) and the Antiochian response to it, and disregards the depth of the matter and its effects on the Holy and Great Orthodox Council. The Holy and Great Orthodox Council cannot take place while the communion between two Apostolic churches is broken, given the Eucharistic character of this Council. Issuing this decision before the convening of the Council leaves the Antiochian Church the one and only unacceptable choice of participating in the Great Council without concelebrating at the Eucharist because of not finding a solution to the ongoing violation committed by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem for more than three years (see the statement of the Antiochian Synod of June 1, 2016 regarding this dispute).

    9. That the issue of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem’s violation has taken on worrying and dangerous dimensions due to the declarations of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in its correspondence with the Patriarchate of Antioch, that other areas within the canonical jurisdiction of the Antiochian See belong to the Jerusalem Patriarchate;

    And given the fact that the Church of Antioch deployed considerable efforts to preserve Orthodox unity, and this is what it assured and reiterated since the launching of the idea of the Great Council in 1961, and it remained faithful to the path and approach of Patriarchs Elias IV and Ignatius IV of thrice blessed memory, who largely contributed to the progress of the pre-conciliar conferences for the Great Council. The Church of Antioch still endeavors, in the person of her Patriarch John X, to preserve this unity with care, steadfastness and sacrifice;

    And knowing that the Antiochian Church, although it didn’t sign the decisions of the Synaxis of the Primates of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the Phanar (March 2014), it took part in the preparatory committees of the Great Orthodox Council and in the work of the fifth pre-conciliar conference in Chambésy 2015, and in the Synaxis of the Primates of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Chambésy 2016. And although it didn’t sign any of the latter Synaxis’ decisions, it participated in the work of the preparatory committees of the Great and Holy Orthodox Council, in order to facilitate the joint Orthodox work and accompany it, as it did over the past decades in the hope to solve all problems before the convening of the Great Council;

    The Antiochian Church granted this event, which is the greatest and most beautiful in the life of the contemporary Church its deserved place, in making all its draft documents available in Arabic and accessible to its flock. The Antiochian Holy Synod also accompanied the preparatory work for the Council and suggested convenient amendments to its documents.

    From the above mentioned, it appears that the convening of the Holy and Great Council, which has been being planned for generations, is jeopardized by a number of difficulties and it still needs more preparation as to the issues it will treat, and the practical details related to its convocation and its proceedings;

    The Antiochian Church, in the light of all the difficulties it is facing and which are considered the most dramatic in its history and despite the sorrowful situation of its flock, especially in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, didn’t spare any effort, time or prayer for the sake of facilitating, and for the success of the endeavors leading to the convention of the Council in these days and to participate in it, in spite of the human and economic crisis it experiences;

    If the Council convenes whilst two Apostolic Churches are not in communion with each other, this means that participation in the synodical sessions is possible without taking part in the Holy Eucharist, which deprives the Council of its ecclesiological character and grants it an administrative quality, contradictory to the steadfast Orthodox synodical tradition;

    This Council is convening to express Orthodox unity which requires an atmosphere of love and brotherhood in Christ and a much caring for men today which means achieving an agreement of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches around a large number of subjects and guaranteeing their participation in the proceedings of the Council and unanimously accept its decisions;

    Additionally, the Antiochian flock, after learning the agenda of the Council and its documents, expressed its great regret that the Council will not deal with the challenges facing believers, especially the challenges of the youth. The flock of believers expressed its worry about this Council drifting away from the original principles which were behind its convention, i.e. facing together the challenges of the Orthodox Church in this time and presenting a common witness to today’s world;

    Therefore, the fathers of the Holy Antiochian Synod unanimously decided the following:

    1. To ask His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch to work on achieving a consensus about the reservations raised by the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches related to the Holy and Great Council in the time separating us from the date of its convention. In case this fails, the Antiochian Church asks for postponing the convention of the Great Holy Council to another date, when peaceful relations between the Autocephalous Churches prevail, and an Orthodox consensus about the Council’s agenda, regulations and executive and practical procedures are guaranteed;

    2. The Antiochian Church will not participate in the Holy and Great Council until the reasons which prevent participation in the Holy Eucharist during the Council disappear. That is, by finding a final solution to the violation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem of the canonical jurisdictional boundaries of the Antiochian See, which led to the breaking of communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem;

    3. To re-empahsize the importance of the participation of all Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the Holy and Great Council and that its decisions should be taken in their presence and approved by them unanimously, according to the essential principle of a Pan-Orthodox Council and to preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church.

    4. Communicating with all Orthodox Churches and informing them about the content of the Antiochian position and the necessities that led to it.

    5. Asking the believers to participate along with their pastors in prayer that the Holy Spirit might inspires the Church in its journey towards unity, for the sake of its unified witness for Christ in this world.

  23. Alan Hampton says

    Pan-Orthodox synod in doubt amid inter-church wrangling
    By Vladimir Isachenkov | AP June 8 at 12:32 PM

    MOSCOW — Plans to bring together leaders of all the world’s Orthodox churches for the first time in more than a millennium appear in jeopardy amid the wrangling over the meeting’s agenda, with the Russian Orthodox Church warning that the gathering would make no sense if at least one church fails to attend.

    Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, who ranks as “the first among equals” hoped that the gathering of leaders of 14 independent Orthodox churches later this month on the Greek island of Crete could promote unity among the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians.

    However, after 55 years of preparation, the fate of the Holy and Great Council appears in doubt now after the Bulgarian Orthodox Church last week declared its refusal to attend citing differences over the agenda.

    Unlike the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox churches are independent and have their own leadership.

    Bartholomew I’s Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople — which has been the driving force behind efforts to convene the pan-Orthodox synod — said Wednesday that no church has yet notified that they will not be participating.

    But the Moscow Patriarchate, which leads the world’s largest Orthodox flock of an estimated 100 million believers, warned that the decision of the Bulgarian church and similar moves being considered by some other churches presented a serious obstacle to holding the synod.

    Hilarion, a bishop who heads the Moscow Patriarchate’s department of external church relations, said Tuesday in televised remarks that the Council should help unity and not present “any unpleasant surprises.”

    He noted that the Moscow Patriarchate had proposed holding a preliminary meeting to discuss the controversial issues raised by the Bulgarian church and others.

    “If these issues are resolved, it means that the Council will be held,” Hilarion said. “If they are not, it will be better to postpone it.”

    As the Moscow Patriarchate has insisted, decisions made by the synod will require unanimous approval. Hilarion argued that if at least one church fails to attend the gathering, “it will mean a lack of consensus.”

    WorldViews newsletter
    Important stories from around the world.
    Sign up
    “What kind of legitimacy will the Council have? How will its decisions be seen by a church refusing to attend?” he asked.

    Orthodox church leaders haven’t held such a meeting since the year 787, when the last of the seven councils recognized by both Orthodox and Catholics, was held. The “great schism” that divided the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox followed in 1054 amid disputes over the Vatican’s power.

    Russian Orthodox Church spokesman Vladimir Legoida warned that the Constantinople Patriarchate’s failure to date to heed the Moscow Patriarchate’s call for a preliminary meeting before the council means that the differences remain unresolved.

    “It represents a crisis in preparations for the pan-Orthodox event, since the Council makes no sense without full participation,” he said in Wednesday’s remarks carried by the Tass news agency, stopping short of saying how the Moscow Patriarchate will act.

  24. Gregory Manning says

    George,
    I would like to call attention to yet another analysis of the coming council which may have been overlooked. Though lengthy, Fr. Bitar manages to “cut to the chase” on so many key points. The following excerpts are two of many worthy of note, but I’ve chosen these in the expectation that they will hook peoples curiosity and lead them to read the whole thing. There is so, so much here.

    “In light of the above, Constantinople is in a situation in which it cannot remain for long. It is shrinking on its own territory to the point of almost disappearing. It is in dire need of a council that will return to it, on the earth, the role fitting its bye-gone nobility and privilidges (sic). In preparing for the great council over the past twenty years, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been racing against time. The one thing constant in the prepared papers has been the leading role of Constantinople!”

    “The Orthodox are crazy, no doubt. For this reason, they are not controlled! This is the mystery of God in them and the mystery of the Opponent’s inability to beat them! There is nothing easier for the Enemy than to crush rational people! “You are all fair my love, there is not a spot in you” (Song of Songs 4:7) and this is how your Lord has seen you, O my Church!”

    Read the whole thing.

  25. Gregory Manning says

    George,
    I would like to call attention to yet another analysis of the upcoming meeting in Crete. Fr. Touma Bitar has written a wonderful article which “cuts to the chase” on so many fronts. I have excerpted three remarks (out of so many to choose from!).

    “that the See of Constantinople, represented by the patriarch and the synod, insofar as it is no longer over a people or a church existing in a territory that bears its name– that is, Constantinople– establishes its authority over a phantom church! So you have a see, or rather, a group of bishops over no people and no church! Therefore, the work of the See of Constantinople is not normal in the Church and is not for shepherding the Church.”

    “In light of the above, Constantinople is in a situation in which it cannot remain for long. It is shrinking on its own territory to the point of almost disappearing. It is in dire need of a council that will return to it, on the earth, the role fitting its bye-gone nobility and privilidges (sic). In preparing for the great council over the past twenty years, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been racing against time. The one thing constant in the prepared papers has been the leading role of Constantinople!”

    “The situation is dangerous! Therefore, let us not talk about it. Let us walk in faith, not by sight.”

    “I do not want to delve into where the journey of this “Great” Council may lead. That is the reckoning of the people of the world. In human terms, the Orthodox world is swimming in an inner sea and an outer ocean, where adverse winds are increasing and the fish are sharks! But the spirit of Orthodoxy is bold, and your Lord has grown bored with monotony and inaction and souls in many breasts have grown restless. Until when? Paul said to the people on the boat, on his journey to Rome (let the reader understand), “I perceive that this voyage will end with disaster and much loss…” ”

    ” The Orthodox are crazy, no doubt. For this reason, they are not controlled! This is the mystery of God in them and the mystery of the Opponent’s inability to beat them! There is nothing easier for the Enemy than to crush rational people! “

  26. Gregory Manning says

    Dang! Forgot to insert the link to Fr. Touma’s article.

  27. Peregrinus says

    Speculation is all really quite futile at this point. Why don’t we hold off on our armchair expert commentaries until the room stops spinning and we have our footing once again?

    It’s hard to interpret and evaluate events which are unfolding by the hour. I swear, most of these comments are as bad as 24-hour news. Itching ears, I say.

    • Gregory Manning says

      That’s like advising that monitoring and speculating on the path of an on-coming hurricane is futile. “Wait until it blows over then choose your escape route, safety shelter, survival strategy, etc.”

      “It’s hard to interpret and evaluate events which are unfolding by the hour.” In Florida we and our weather people did it all the time–much like “24-hour news”.

      “Why don’t we hold off on our armchair expert commentaries…” My DEAR! You have come to the wrong place. This is THE home of “armchair expert commentaries” but it is also the home of quite a bit of expert commentaries.

      Those who swoon over “spinning rooms” don’t stay for long anyway.

  28. This is a good assessment of what is happening / what happened:

    http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/after-the-farce-towards-a-real-council/

    Simply put, the outside meddling is getting obvious, but at least things are getting clearer for those do can’t bring themselves to believe it yet.

  29. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    What we have here……is another Metaxakis of thrice wretched memory.

    St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!

    • Kosta Langis says

      Absolutely. This council should have anathemized Meletios of sorry memory, disavowed the 1923 pan orthodox robber congress, and reinstated the Julian calendar.

      Since that won’t happen Bartholomew the new Bekkous needs to be deposed along with Zizioulas and Elpidophoros for the heresy of ecumenism, neo-papalism, and violation of the sacred canons.

      • Serbia is out too. Russia will follow shortly. That makes Antioch, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Greece, Athos, Kiev Lavra . . . all have either withdrawn or registered insurmountable, irreconcilable differences with the pre-conciliar documents. That is the vast, vast majority of the Orthodox people and the conscience of the Church which are opposed to what is being done.

        http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94122.htm

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          If the Russian Orthodox Church does not go the council will be invalid. Once the ROC is out the EP needs to immediately cancel the council and postpone it until the agenda and the documents can be fixed OR nixed all together. It would seem that the Holy Spirit has spoken. Time to listen.

          Peter

  30. The only serious alternatives I see at this point are for the MP, Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria, et al. to forego the council and thus stymie efforts to adopt the pre-conciliar documents as the decision of the council or devise a means to prevent this from happening at the council if they chose to participate.

    Bartholomew has a veto over any changes to the pre-conciliar documents which must then be adopted as authoritative if he does not agree to amend them. So, going to the council, one would have to persuade him to change the documents or hijack the council somehow.

    Hijacking the council boils down to whose name is on the deed of the property in which the council is to meet. If the Phanar controls legal possession of the property, then they could have others removed as trespassers if they so choose. Thus, if I were even going to consider going to this council, I would make sure I controlled whomever has legal possession of the property upon which the council is scheduled to meet. Failing that, I would not attend. Period.

    • Jim of Olym says

      MP, Romania, Antioch, Bulgaria, et al. can have their own ‘council’ and invite Finland and the OCA besides! They can call it the ‘Lesser and Lowly council’ in contrast to the “Holy and Great’ one. I’m sure there are hotels in Moscow which could accomodate the hierarchs etc.

      • Jim,

        Such a council would, of course, represent the majority of the Orthodox. Russia and Romania are the largest Orthodox churches. Under them alone are about 140 million, depending on how you count heads.

  31. Michael Bauman says

    There is a great shame at work here. My usual response to shame is to get angry and self-righteous but that is not Christian. In refusing to acede to what is wrong we must realize and by grace enter into the shame at work here, the same shame Adam and Eve felt when they hid from God. Only then will we find Him and be able to properly pray for our bishops. Only then will we see how to live as He would have us live.

    Robber Council it may be but even in that it will bring greater clarity regarding the sin and unbelief in our own hearts.

    Glory to God, may He have mercy on all for it is utterly sad.

  32. Mark E. Fisus says
  33. Serbia is out.

    http://www.spc.rs/eng/referring_holy_and_great_council_orthodox_church

    We deem it unnecessary to stress the measure of hope, sincere commitment and contribution, according to our capacity, with which our Church participated in the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Catholic Church.

    However, having taken into consideration:

    1. the dissatisfaction and critical remarks of certain local Churches in regard to particular texts, prepared in the pre-Synodal period;

    2. the irrevocable decision of the Patriarchates of Antiochia and Bulgaria to refrain from participating in the Synod;

    3. the problems in relations and communion between Churches (Jerusalem — Аntioch because of Catar; deteriorating relations between us and the Patriarchate of Romania, which are now hard to overcome, due to the anti-canonical incursion of the latter into Eastern Serbia and the founding of a parallel diocese there, which will lead to severing of liturgical and canonical communion of the two neighbouring Churches if the behavior described above is not terminated, and so on), conjointly with the perspective of allowing these problems to not be solved at the Synod but, rather, to be deferred to the post-Synodal period, as if any commission can be an organ higher than the pan-Orthodox Synod, and

    4. the lack of will from our Mother Church of Constantinople to have at least one of the proposals of our Church (such as the discussion on autocephaly, right of bishops to vote at the Synod, on regarding the synods from the ninth and fourteenth centuries as ecumenical already, in the consciousness and practice of the Orthodox Church, and some other ones, perhaps less significant) included into the thematic and agenda of the Synod, and, as long as we remain obligated by the standpoints of the Holy Assembly of Bishops of our Church, officially formulated two years ago, as well as recently, at the end of the past month of May,

    we are compelled, with sadness — but also with full feeling of our pastoral and, generally, ecclesial responsibility — to inform Your dear and respected Holiness and Your Holy and Sacred Synod that, since all this is so, our Church feels it difficult to participate in the summoned Holy and Great Synod, and proposes that it be postponed for a certain time: while our pending gathering at Crete, with the help of God, would be regarded as a pre-Synodal inter-Orthodox consultation with the aim of additionally preparing the Synod and improving its texts, or, at the most, as the inaugural phase of the whole synodal process, which is to be completed in subsequent continuation, in the next phase, when all disagreements are removed in favor of unity of mind and consensus of Churches. In this way, with the aid of God, the fruit of the Synod will be seen as witness given to our uncorrupted faith, answer to hope which abides in us as the message of salvation in Christ, directed to all, both to those who are close to us and to those who are remote, and in no case, God forbid, as germination of new pestilent schismas and para-synagogues under the excuse of falsely proclaimed zealousness and alleged preservation of Orthodoxy.

    • Anonymus per Scorilo says

      deteriorating relations between us and the Patriarchate of Romania, which are now hard to overcome, due to the anti-canonical incursion of the latter into Eastern Serbia and the founding of a parallel diocese there,

      This is just two-for-a-dollar pre-conciliar posturing. The Serbian Patriarchate has been having a diocese + bishop in Romania and the Romanian Patriarchate has been having a diocese in Serbia ever since WWI. The Serbian diocese in Romania stretches over 3 or 4 dioceses of the RomOC, and its priests and bishop receive a salary from the Romanian state.

      Hence, all these “incursions in the canonical territory” have been the mutually-accepted norm of the relations between the two churches in the past almost 100 years. And then, one morning, (by absolutely pure coincidence just 2 weeks before the big fat synod) the SOC synod wakes up and just realizes the canonical enormity of the situation and goes into a tantrum, threatening to break their ties to the Romanian Orthodox Church, etc.

      P. S. Too bad they forgot to threaten also the breaking of their ties to the Romanian state payroll…

      • Hristos S-a Înălțat!

        Anonymous,

        your comments on the Romanian Church are often extremely insightful and have helped me a lot (nota zece, if I may say so), but this treatment of the Serbian-Romanian conflict in Banat looks unilateral to the point of disgust.

        It is an accepted practice within sister Orthodox Churches that a minority living in the territory of one Church but linked to another Church may be entrusted to the pastoral care of the latter, but only with the permission of the former. This is the reason why Latin parishes existed lawfully in Constantinople, when the see of Rome was still in communion with the Church.

        It is true that Serbs and Romanians have “cared for their own” in each other’s territory for a long time (since no conflict arose, we have to presume that the permissions were given and accepted througout the years).

        However, it is NOT true, as you say, that “The Serbian Patriarchate has been having a diocese + bishop in Romania”: the Serbian presence was demoted to a vicariate since the Communist takeover (long enough for you to take notice, methinks…), and no Serbian bishop has been appointed to Romania. If you mantain that there is a Serbian bishop occupying a see in Romania, then the burden of the proof is on you: just name the bishop and the see, please…

        It is especially NOT true that “the Romanian Patriarchate has been having a diocese in Serbia ever since WWI”, since the Romanian Vicariate in Serbia was raised to the level of a diocese only in 1997, when Bishop Daniil (Stoenescu) was installed in Vrsac without any prior consultation or approval from the Serbian Patriarchate. Now, 1997 is a wee bit later than WWI, but not quite as recent as ” just 2 weeks before the big fat synod”. Whether it was a morning or an evening, it makes little difference: the Serbian Patriarchate has been condemning this intrusion for almost 20 years. Make what you want of it, but there is no justification for calling this disagreement “a tantrum”.

        Incidentally, the Qatar conflict is an absolute copycat of this situation, with a Patriarchate having a pastoral presence on the territory of another one (to which the later raised no objection), and then abruptly and unilaterally declaring the birth of a diocese.

        Hoping I’ve not been too controversial, and looking forward to further (unbiased) contribution of yours,

        Hegumen Ambrose
        Turin – Italy

        • anonymus per Scorilo says

          If you mantain that there is a Serbian bishop occupying a see in Romania, then the burden of the proof is on you: just name the bishop and the see, please…

          The Serbian Bishop is called Lukijan Pantelic
          Here are some links in Romanian, Serbian and French

          https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukijan_Panteli%C4%87
          https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89parchie_de_Timi%C8%99oara
          http://www.episcopiaaradului.ro/2016/01/sfantul-ierarh-sava-al-serbiei-praznuit-de-sarbii-din-arad/

          • Mulţumesc mult!

            The Bishop is undoubtedly Vladika Lukijan… as for the see, let’s have a look at where his “Budimska Eparhija” (which, for the non-initiates, means “Diocese of Budapest”) is located:
            https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eparhija_budimska
            Canonical territory: Hungary and the Czech Republic
            See: Szentendre (Northern Hungary)

            Vladika Lukijan is the “administrator” of the Serbian vicariate in Romania, and as such, Archbishop Timotei of Arad had no problem in concelebrating with him (as witnessed by the Romanian link that you kindly provided). Apparently, he does not occupy the see of Timişoara or any see within Romania, even more so in defiance of the Romanian Patriarchate.

            The (no longer functioning) Serbian Eparchy is run by an administrative Vicar (which, by the way, was the very same way the Romanian Vicariate was run in Serbia… until the unilateral installment of Bishop Daniil).

            Further info on the Serbian Vicariate on this site run by the competent authorities of the Romanian government:
            http://www.culte.gov.ro/episcopia-ortodoxa-sraba-de-timisoara

            My antennae still detect a blatant disparity of treatment… nice try, though.

            • anonymus per Scorilo says

              The Serbian church structure in Romania is not a vicariate, it is an “episcopia” whose name and cathedral are that of city – Timisoara – where there is already a hierarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. (as a side comment, in Western Europe the Orthodox usually avoid giving an “episcopia” the name of a city even when a RC or an Anglican bishop has a see in that city. They either use the name of the whole country or some non-existent old-country bishopric.)

              The link you so kindly provided also mentions that the Serbian episcopia of Timisoara has a bishop position, occupied by a an administrator-bishop – Vladika Lukijan.

              If you want to see the excel file with the salary he receives from the Romanian state for occupying this position, you can find it at
              http://www.culte.gov.ro/detaliu-noutati/vrs/IDnews/15

              So I totally agree with you there is a blatant disparity of treatment. Perhaps, for the sake of resolving this disparity you can also provide a link with the salary Bishop Daniil receives from the Serbian state ?

              So, to summarize, I stand by my position that both the SOC and the RomOC have dioceses in each other’s “canonical territory,” and the recent Serbian indignation about the non-canonicity of this state of affairs is not consistent with almost 100 years of history, and hence not much more than a pre-synodal tantrum.

              • Thanks for the added info!

                I am afraid that we are close to start beating about a bush… or rather, beating about a bishop… or maybe, to use the charming Romanian expression, a tăia frunze la câini.

                All right, in Timişoara there is still a name and a cathedral pointing to an “episcopia” (you conveniently overlook the fact that it is no longer a factual bishopric at least from the times of Anna Pauker, but… never mind).

                The point is: is there still a bishop? Simple and correct answer: NO, THERE ISN’T. There is an outside administrator (…because somebody has to perform administrative acts, like ordaining the clergy of the “episcopia” according to proper canonical order, right?). That bishop is in Hungary, where he is a regular and resident bishop of a certain city. Pretty much the same thing (i.e. an outside administator making visits and ordinations) was made – I dare to presume – for the Romanian vicariate in Serbia, prior to the 1994 invasion (not even notified to the Serbian Patriarchate… so long for the proper canonical order).

                (As a side comment, the “titular” Orthodox bishops in RC and Anglican sees are apples and oranges with this case, since the titles are used only as a measure of respect and not as a bi-lateral relation between sister Orthodox Churches, and more so because the bishops are really present in those cities).

                And now, let’s move to your “real” cause of disparity: the salaries! Much to your joy, I have to report that Bishop Daniil does not receive a salary from the Serbian state. Care to know why…? Because the Serbian state refuses to recognize the diocese. On the other hand, much to your disappointment, I have to say that the Serbian state does recognize the vicariate, and pays its clergy (salaries for teachers, health and pension insurance for priests as those for Serbian Orthodox teachers and priests). The funny thing is that the Romanians in Timok pretend to be a diocese, but readily accept to be a vicariate before the Serbian state… in order to get their money. Double standards, anywhere?

                Again, the Serbian indignation is not “recent”. Their indignation is consistent with 20 years of Romanian injustice! What more (or what less, in this precise case) would you expect them to do?

                • anonymus per Scorilo says

                  You have to be a bit self-consistent here:

                  Either the Serbian Church structure in Romania is a diocese, with a bishop position and the salary that comes with it, or it is not.

                  The Romanian state would say yes, and it consequently pays the salary of the person occupying the bishop position. Moreover, the Serbian name of this structure is eparchia, which is also equivalent to diocese. Furthermore, Vladika Lukijan himself, by occupying the bishop position and accepting the corresponding salary from the Romanian state is accepting that this structure is a diocese.

                  If, on the other hand, either him or the Serbian Holy Synod considers this structure not to be a diocese but to be vicariate (as you keep on calling it), then the moral thing for Vladika Lukijan to do is to stop occupying the position of “bishop of the Serbian diocese of Timisoara/Temesvar” and to petition the Romanian state to change its name to vicariate and erase the bishop position from the payroll. I am sure this can be easily arranged.

                  So there are only only two logically and morally self-consistent things that the Serbian Holy Synod can do:
                  1. Either accept that its structure in Romania is a diocese and therefore accept that the Romanian church can also have a diocese in Serbia. Paying the salary of bishop Daniil from the Serbian state budget would then make the situation even.
                  2. Continue to deny the right of the Romanians to have anything more than a vicariate on Serbian soil, and consequently accept the downgrading of their structure in Romania to a vicariate, without the corresponding bishop position and salary.

                  The current position of the Serbian Holy Synod, of threatening to break communion because of the Romanian bishop in Serbia, but gladly accepting the salary the Romanian state pays to their Bishop, is logically inconsistent. Therefore, it can either be explained it as a pre-synodal political game, or as coming from a disingenuous attitude. In deference to the holy fathers on the SOC Synod, I have tried to explain it as a pre-synodal tantrum, but if you have evidence to the contrary I am willing to stand corrected.

                  • Haidem să mai batem apa-n piuă…
                    (“let’s keep on grinding water into a mortar”)

                    If 20 years of protestations against an uncanonical act are of no avail for you to stand corrected, then I suppose nothing else will, so let’s agree to disagree.

                    It all boils down to this little point: if we are admitted to each other’s home only at certain conditions, first of which is the permission of the house owner, then if you rush into my home uninvited, unannounced and crashing my window, you are a trespasser, full stop. It is of little help that you try to justify your forced entry by saying that there is a disparity in our former visits, and that I exerted slightly more privileges than you did.

                    If your “self-consistency” stands only in the difference between the salary of a Bishop and a vicar (you provided no exact difference in motani lei between the two), there is nothing more that I can say, and perhaps nothing more that I should say.

                    Să traiţi cu sănătate, pace şi bucurie!

                    unanonymous Ambrose

          • Monk James says

            A ‘see’? Is this man a RC bishop? Does he have a chasuble and a crosier?

            Please, friends, let’s speak orthodox as our churchly language if we’re talking about The Church. There is an orthodox way — even in English (with some help from Greek) — to express EVERY single word important to our life as The Church.

            The heterodox have their own vocabulary, and there is absolutely no reason for us to adopt their way of speaking any more than their way of thinking.

            Given the history of uniatism. we must admit that using their words makes us more likely to assimilate their ideas, intentionally or unintentionally.

            We pray to be forgiven such sins.

            • All right, dear Father James, by all means let’s speak Orthodox!

              Sincerely, it’s the very first time in twenty years of Orthodox service that I am told that the old Latin word sedes is unbecoming for an Orthodox mind; yet, I am prepared to stand corrected, and to use καθεδρα, епископский престол or whatever…

              As a matter of fact, since I am translating a plethora of documents and essays about the forthcoming Council (…is this accepted Orthospeak, or should we always call it Synod?), I can attest that the vast majority of texts (even the most anti-Uniate ones) have no qualms to use the term “episcopal see” throughout their narration. Even the page about the Serbian Orthodox eparchy that I quoted calls the eparchial centre (in Serbian) sjedište, which is obviously derived from the Latin sedes.

              Incidentally, it would be nice to have a univocal term for the sake of the poor… automatical translators, which have a hard time discening when the term “see” is used in the sense of “episcopal throne” and when it merely means “to see”, with certain funny outcomes.

              Which term would you suggest us to employ?

              • Monk James says

                Eparchy. That’s what we get when we translate english ‘diocese’ into any orthodox language. Otherwise, ‘seat’ is fine as a direct translation of kathedra, if we don’t want to leave it in Greek, hence we can call a kathedrikos naos a ‘cathedral (church)’ without doing too much damage. On the other hand, ‘throne’ means something else in both English and Greek; in church we might better reserve that for thronos and synthronon.

                In Greek, the words ‘synod’ = synodos and ‘council’ = boulE or symboulE. These are not the same things, so it depends on which word we’re translating at the moment.

                In my own work of orthodox translation over more than forty years, I’ve developed several principles which serve me well, and I’ll share one here. Although it can’t be applied with complete consistency, it works just fine most of the time. The standard I apply is that if Church Slavonic/Russian translates a greek word, I translate the greek word into English. So, e.g., ekklesia = tserkov’ = ‘church’.

                But if CS/Russian merely imports a greek word, then I (mostly) tend to leave it in Greek. So kontakion = kondak” = ‘kontakion’.

                Although it’s not the only one, there’s a major inconsistency in Theotokos = Bogoroditsa = ‘Theotokos’. Romanian translates it particle for particle, but I’m not sure that there’s enough room here for such a long word. And, although it sort of works in Romanian, in English I resist barbarisms such as ‘Birthgiver of God’.

                Hope this helps a little….

                • Pdn. Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                  The Greek word diocese is perfectly Orthodox. I expect it’s also much older than eparchy, which is probably a late invention influenced by hierarchy, which does not appear until the early sixth century.

                  There is nothing un-Orthodox about using see to mean the main city in a bishop’s care, where he is expected to reside.

                  There is also no difference in English between a council and a synod. You can invent a difference if you like, but we are not obliged to respect your invention.

                  • Monk James says

                    Ouch!
                    This seems a bit too personal, more like a rejection of me than of the ideas I’ve put forth, ideas which I offered without chapter and verse since they are easily verifiable.

                    On the other hand, Pdn. Brian Patrick Mitchell, gratuitously states: ‘The Greek word diocese is perfectly Orthodox.’ I don’t find this to be so, but rather that it is a term referring to an imperial roman jurisdictional entity. I don’t doubt that, in a latinized form, it was used in the preschismatic western churches, but that’s not our heritage. I’d be grateful to him for attestations of ecclesial use in Greek.

                    The same goes for ‘see’ and ‘council’: there are churchly usages and secular usages made clear in Greek but less so in Latin and sometimes not at all in English, but for us eastern Christians, the greek originals from which we must translate set the standards of translation.

                    We cannot rely on the opinions of individuals who’ve become inured to western and heterodox terminology and don’t want to be dislodged from their comfort zone.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    Personally, I believe that insisting on distinctions between “churchly usages and secular usages” for terminology, particularly when everyone knows exactly to what is being referred, is mindless fluff. And fluff, however, is certainly not worthy of offense.

                    First, an essential distinction must be made between the Greek βουλαῖος/βούλεον which is an archaic reference to “council,” (e.g. council of the elders [βουλ ὴν ἷζε γερόντων], a member of the Roman Council [ἀνὴρ βουλῆς τῆς Ῥωμαίων], or public officers who were elected at Athens [βουλ ἀπὸ κυάμου – and κυάμου is the name of a white bean, vicia fava, by which officers were drawn by lot); the other being βουλή/βουλῆς/ βούλομαι which refers to “counsel,” as in a “deliberate plan or purpose (e.g. “The Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the the counsel of God [τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ]” (Lk.7:30), or “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being foreordained according to the purpose of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will [τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ] (Eph. 1:11). In any case, neither of these words have any bearing on the matter at hand.

                    The Fathers referred to councils and Councils as σύνοδον, as in σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν. It was first used by Aristotle in his Metaphysics to indicate “the union of matter and form [ἡ σύνοδον ἡ κατὰ [τὴν οὐσίαν] λεγομένη].” It should strike anyone concerned with the importance of EVERY single word, that Aristotle refers here to “concreteness,” τὴν οὐσίαν, the “essence/nature.”

                    Its derivative appears in Lk. 2:44, “But they, supposing him to have been in the company [συνοδίᾳ], went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.” St. Chrysostom uses the term in his 77th Letter: “The Word has the strength and the power to assemble [συμφέροντας] into council [σύνοδον], complete in all its parts [καὶ τὴν ὅλην], in elegance and gracefulness, and even better a given order, that which was in disorder.” Its further derivative ὁδός (think συν-ὁδός/ὁδὸν), means systematically [ὁδῷ] travelling or journeying together on a course of action [ὁδὸν ἥντιν᾽ ἰών], on the way, with the obvious allusion to the Christian life as the way: “I am the way [ὁδὸς], the truth, and the life.” (Jn. 14:6) and “many will follow after their wantonness, and the way [ὁδὸς] of the truth will be blasphemed.” (2 Pet. 2:2). And notably, you could further pursue συνάγω, to gather together, collect, or assemble, which occurs 59 times in the New Testament, but suffice it to say that you may safely use the words “council,” and synod” and feel quite Orthodox in doing so.

                    Finally, it seems nonsense to me to accept θρόνος, which specifically refers to the throne of a king, a teacher, a dignitary – and obviously, the King and the Teacher – yet καθέδρα “seat” is “fine,” though it carries quite an ugly reputation, if you recall, τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων, “the seat of the sellers” (or “moneychangers”) (Matt 21:12) that provoked the anger of the Lord, paralleled in the ancient Greek whisper about the “seated sellers, ἔρωμαι ὁπόσου πωλεῖ,”ask him how much he wants for it…” Words do have meaning, so if you would instruct, do your homework. “The Eparchy of San Francisco and the West.” I just don’t feel it, Vladyka Tikhon.

                    • Monk James says

                      Not ‘feeling it’ is a tragically individualistic, narcissistic, egotistic way of responding to larger concerns, and is almost always wrong. Here, it’s definitely wrong.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      “Ouch! This seems a bit too personal, more like a rejection of me than of the ideas I’ve put forth.” The Protodeacon offered a critique of your scholarship, and while indicating that you could easily refute him “chapter and verse since they are easily verifiable,” instead you chose to belittle him as someone who has “become inured to western and heterodox terminology.” What I offered was detailed scholarship that indicate the Protodeacon is, in fact, correct in his critique.

                      In the real world, you would have addressed the Protodeacon’s critique with scholarship – as you have already stated you can refute the critique, “chapter and verse since they are easily verifiable” – and let the scholarship speak for itself. If you could not correct the critique, you should immediately ceased the authoritative posturing, admitted your error, and certainly not chosen to belittle him.

                      Let me share a “tip” from my more than forty years of research and study, suitable for printing:

                      Never publish a statement you are not reasonably certain is correct (otherwise known as wisdom), and when challenged and demonstratively found to be in error, promptly admit it and correct yourself (otherwise known as humility).

                      ADDENDUM: “The Eparchy of San Francisco and the West.” Mindless fluff that you would have to needlessly & constantly explain, when everyone understands the word diocese. What’s the “sin” in saying “diocese,” Vladyka Tikhon?

                    • May I be the first among many to humbly entreat you two, M. Stankovich and Monk James, simply to forgive one another for any wrongs, real or imagined, against one another?

                      And forgive me as well, as I know with certainty that I have believed things and written things that are untrue, incorrect or were based only upon my own over-glorified perception of reality; that I have spoken things and written things, though I believed them to be true (and perhaps were, in fact true), that were nevertheless unkind and accusatory; that I have made errors in judgement; and that I have in the pride of my own darkened heart nurtured the root of bitterness against brethren whom God loves.

                      Disagreement is inevitable, Healthy debate is often a good thing. But God forgive us all for not loving one another as He loves us.

                      Forgive me, brothers, for God forgives all.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      If this is the same Brian with whom I have exchanged numerous comments, and who has previous commented about me, you know that I value & appreciate your observations (If it’s not the same Brian, I appreciate your observations!). As I have already noted to Anonymous in another thread – who labeled my responses as “hostile,” your observations are correct as well, and I certainly cannot “defend” myself out of the reality of your point.

                      Nevertheless, the solution, as I see it, is not about forgiveness, but about the truth. You, of anyone, know that I hold the position that if you demonstrate I am wrong, I will immediately admit my error and amend my position. When others are demonstratedly in error, yet refuse to acknowledge their error – even resorting to attempting to use their position to intimidate, I am infuriated. It does not, however, give me license to be “hostile” and childish. I will again make my best effort to contain myself.

                    • Michael,

                      I am that same Brian. At least I assume so since I am the oldest Brian on this forum of whom I am aware.

                      While I hear you and empathize to a degree, I have come to question the importance of being right in terms of how it relates to truth. It is one thing to be right, to argue and quash our opponents ‘in the dust,’ as it were. It is quite another, I think, to be true. As much as I try to be ‘right’ or even submit to being corrected (and thus become ‘right’ once again), I cannot escape the fact that “…there is none right; no not one.”

                      This is not to say that truth doesn’t matter or that it cannot be known – quite the contrary. It is to say that He who is Truth is inseparable from Him who is love. And He conquered his enemies (us) by taking our unrighteousness/falsehood/sin upon Himself, putting it to death, and thereby reconciled us to Himself via the Way of love. To be sure, His is not the compromising, wishy-washy, let’s all get along, feel-good love of the world. His is the true, full measure of love that submits to the Cross and bears the shame of His enemies. He was/is always right and true in the ultimate sense. But His is a righteousness and truth I will never know truly apart from bearing the shame of my enemies. And His is a vindication in which I will never share apart from sharing in the measure of His love.

                      I know all this. You know all this. Now comes the hard part for us both…

                    • Brian McDonald says

                      This is meant to reply to Michael Stankovich’s request to know if “Brian” is the same “Brian with whom I have exchanged numerous comments.” I wonder if I am also a candidate for “Brianhood”? I used to comment quite frequently on Monomakhos and interacted with you at time, perhaps not numerously, but in at least one occasion somewhat significantly, I believe. That was when I attempted some “mediating” posts between you, Alf Kentigern Siewers, and Fr. Hans Jacobese. In one other exchange, I happened to mention that the Holy Dormition Monastery of the Romanian Episcopate was a wonderful example of monastic life and you later posted that you had gone there and felt my recommendation was justified.
                      .
                      Brian (solo name) is indeed the senior poster of that name, if he is the one on one occasion several years ago asked me to use another moniker besides a simple “Brian” so people wouldn’t confuse me with him. At any rate, I share his view on the value and thoughtfulness of your posts, and I can say that the knowledge and perspective you’ve provided have on more than one occasion helped enrich or alter my perspective on important issues that are tearing apart our society, our church and sometimes clash explosively on this website. Like Brian I also wish you could dial back the intemperance on those occasions when you get “lit” by what someone else say. I do hasten to add that I also recognize and appreciate that you’ve on more than one occasion apologized for that intemperance and I’m astounded to actually see an Internet poster who does this!

                      I have nothing worthwhile to contribute now, but I have something about which I’d like correspond with you. I know you have a website; unfortunately I have lost track of the name and can’t locate it. Could you let me know where it could be found? I assume that it would provide an opportunity for email contact.

                      Thanks!

                      Brian M.

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Brian McDonald,

                      Email to dead_on_it (at) traditionvivante (dot) fr

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  Perhaps Monk James is influenced by the almost universal use of “eparchy” by the various Slavic Uniate organizations?

  34. Dean Calvert says

    As of this morning, another casualty.

    http://www.pravmir.com/serbian-orthodox-church-refuses-to-participate-in-pan-orthodox-council/

    It’s pretty sad..this proves there are some pretty serious disagreements on the fundamentals. Constantinople apparently tried to pull a fast one by allowing everyone to “live with their illusions” (i.e. we’ll settle the disagreements at the Council) only to later “handcuff the process” by allowing no amendments.

    As they say in Kentucky, “I may be dumb…but I ain’t stupid!”

    I continue to believe the real problem is the inherent tension between “live” churches (Moscow, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania) and “dead” ones (certainly C’nople and Jerusalem, perhaps Alexandria) which has surfaced since the end of the Cold War.

    We need to pray for our bishops!

    Dean

    PS Archim. Bitar’s article (posted above somewhere) hits the nail on the head. While I’ve been a fan of Notes on Arab Orthodoxy for years, this piece shows insight and wisdom beyond anything i’ve ever read there. AXIOS!!!

  35. Gail Sheppard says

    Hey, if RCs want to become Orthodox, then I’m all for it, as long as they come into the Church the prescribed way and renounce everything they’ve done in the past that deviates from Orthodox practice. That goes for any Christian faith. They have to BECOME Orthodox to be Orthodox. What can’t happen is accepting Christian faiths who embrace teachings that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. That would mean there is no such thing as “right teaching,” and therefore, no such thing as Orthodox. Instead of the beacon we were intended to be, we would become one of many, with the EP operating as some kind of pope. Hasn’t he created enough confusion by saying he speaks for the entire Church? He actually BELIEVES that and the rest of the world is beginning to believe it, as well. Look at the havoc he has caused. He can no longer be ignored. He is clearly delusional and probably under the influence of pure evil, poor man. He will infect our entire Church if he is not immediately put in check.

    • Kosta Langis says

      Amen Gail,

      I am in the process of writing letters to several heirarch of the Church of Greece asking to bring charges against several bishops of Constantinople on grounds of heresy. As the greek bishops of Greece are the best to handle this situation and a few of them would certainly be interested in rocking the boat.

  36. Niño Jorge says

    Correction: the Serbian Church is not out, we just said it should be postponed until more adequate preparations, OR it should proceed and be considered a pre-Conciliar preparation, OR it should be considered the begining of the Council in view of the other Orthodox Churches joining at some later point … it’s a little more complex than saying we’re out…

  37. Gail Sheppard says

    VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Pope Francis will send high-level observers to the pan-Orthodox council meeting in Crete as a sign of respect, support and encouragement of the Orthodox Church.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/the-holy-and-great-council-pope-sending-observers-to-orthodox-meeting.cfm

    So Antioch, Bulgaria, Russia and Serbia won’t be attending, but the RC Church will. Could the writing on the wall be any more clear?

    • Having non-orthodox observers is the mentality of a two-year-old seeking approval of his crayon scribbles.

      • Monk James says

        How dourly droll.

        Perhaps it would help to remember that several of the orthodox churches, at the Vatican’s invitation, sent observers to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

        Inviting RC observers to Crete is probably just a cordial reciprocation of that experience with no ecclesial implications whatsoever. And they will be our guests for a MUCH shorter time than we were theirs.

        • Gregory Manning says

          I don’t know, Monk James. Somebody has already pointed out that historically, the only time those who had fallen away from the Church were ever invited to any of the 7 Councils were not as observers but as defendants to answer for their waywardness and repent.

  38. Gail,

    Hard to say what exactly will happen next. I expect that the council will go through with sparse attendance and that the Latins will be present. Bartholomew could leave well enough alone and not push the envelope any more, but I expect he will. I expect that if the Latins do not concelebrate, that they will at least be offered communion.

    This will be difficult for the Church. You see, contrary to the policy of the Church Abroad, at one point, during the time that it purported to convey autocephaly on the OCA, the Church of Russia was routinely communing Roman Catholics. The resolution of the Synod that allowed them to do this was suspended but I’m not even sure if it has ever been overturned.

    So then all the local churches will face a stark choice: Are we in communion with the Latins or not? The Orthodox will not intercommune, the newly heterodox will.

    All I can say is: Don’t drink the kool-aid.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Talk about drinking the kool-aid. Are these scholars unable to count? (RE: Small Minority vs. Overwhelming Majority) It’s getting to the point where I flinch when I see “Dr.” in front of someone’s name.

      OPEN LETTER OF ORTHODOX SCHOLARS AROUND THE WORLD TO THE HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL OF CRETE

      “We, the undersigned international group of Orthodox scholars, address this letter to the leadership of the Orthodox Church, to all Orthodox Christians around the world, and to all people of good will. We write out of profound concern for our Church, whose unity makes the new life in Christ visible to all mankind. We pray that the impending Council, so much anticipated and so long prepared, will bear forth the fruits of the Spirit, the first among them being the Pan-Orthodox unity. Hence, we support the agreement of the Orthodox leaders, publicly announced at the Pan-Orthodox Synaxis in January 2016, to gather together for the Holy and Great Council in Crete in mid-June 2016.

      We believe that there are no insurmountable difficulties to beginning the Council in June, despite the significant questions that have been raised regarding the drafts of the conciliar documents and conciliar proceedings. We acknowledge the legitimacy of some questions, such as the request to reopen the discussion of the drafts of the conciliar documents. We also concur that there are many other issues dealing with the Church in the twenty-first century that would require future Pan-Orthodox attention. Nevertheless, we are convinced that the best venue for settling significant disputes today, as in the times of old, is the Council itself. To postpone the Council once again, is to fail to live up to the principle of conciliarity on a global level.

      Nobody can expect the Council to settle all important questions and to heal all jurisdictional disputes in ten days. But we hope that this Council will be a beginning of the healing process and that it will usher in a new era of global conciliarity and unity. A SMALL MINORITY that wishes to jeopardize the work of the Council by further delays should not intimidate the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Orthodox leaders that wish to carry out the commitment to have the Council on this year’s Feast of Pentecost.” (Emphasis, mine) “In the last century, the Orthodox Church has witnessed to the world through a rich theological legacy and the blood of new martyrs. The Holy and Great Council occasions an opportunity to commence a new phase of Orthodox witness. As the eyes of the whole world are upon the Orthodox Church, we beseech all of our leaders to hear the Spirit’s call to conciliar unity.”

      Signed so far:

      Rev Dn. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko, Loyola Marymount University (Orthodox Church in America)
      Dr Paul L. Gavrilyuk, University of St. Thomas (Orthodox Church in America)
      Dr Brandon Gallaher, University of Exeter (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
      Dr Smilen Markov, Sofia University (Bulgarian Orthodox Church)
      Dr Gayle Woloschak, Northwestern University (Ecumenical Patriarchate)

      http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/5680/0/scholars-warn-orthodox-leaders-don-t-derail-the-holy-and-great-council

  39. Michael Warren says
  40. Joseph I. says
  41. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Well, the conclave of miscellaneous Orthodox primates is taking place….Not so “Great”===Not so “Holy!” I shudder to think of them–how they must be gossiping Can you imagine!
    I remember how the deposed Filaret Denysenko ran to Istanbul with a suitcase full of cash when Demetrios of blessed memory was Patriarch—-He was received warmly but NEVER addressed as anything but MISTER Denysenko! Will Bartholomew act as if he forgot what his predecessor did? Anybody? Are the Denysenkoites doubling the proposed bribe?

  42. Gregory Manning says

    What’s this?! Gag Orders?

  43. Monk James says

    For a deep and thorough observer’s reactions to Synod at Khania, I heartily recommend an orthodox layman’s reportage here:

    http://incommunion.org/category/solomonsporch/

    You’ll have to scroll down to the bottom of the page to read the first entry, and then scroll up again to read the more recent reports.

    The Orthodox Peace Fellowship’s accredited correspondent will continue to send his reports for the duration of the Synod’s meetings, so please tune in again while it’s in session and even afterward, since it’s likely that his astute observations will remain there for a while.