The Desperate Days of the 2016 False Council

[Maria]

This "conciliar" document has just been published.

And people are questioning if the use of the term "impediments" to marriage will usher in annulments like the Roman Catholic Church uses, and if it will pave the way toward a false unity with Rome.

Notice how vaguely worded some of the paragraphs are. In particular, look at paragraph 10. I have bolded and even used color for emphasis. Notice that I am only including certain paragraphs for discussion purposes. Anyone, if they wish, may quote other paragraphs that may raise concerns that I have not observed. However, my treatment here is not exhaustive, nor is it intended to be. Thus, I invite further discussion.

In the First Section:
Paragraph 1 -- does not mention forced or arranged marriages, which still occur in some cultures, and which are still considered "valid".

Paragraph 4 -- while it does mention that faith in Jesus Christ is a necessary condition, it does not mention that sharing the Holy Orthodox Faith is essential. For a marriage to be sacramental and truly life-giving, both parties must share the same holy faith. This paragraph was obviously a concession to those World Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA which increasingly allow church marriages between Orthodox Christians and "non-Orthodox Christians". Notice the word "heterodox" is avoided to avoid offending Catholics and Protestants.

• See Section Two, paragraph 5 - which allows certain jurisdictions to execute economia and allow for marriages between Orthodox Christians and "non-Orthodox Christians".

Paragraph 6 - the inclusion of the lengthy sentence on pastoral sensibility promotes vagueness, as if each individual pastor can modify the church rules in particular situations. This provides a huge loophole.

Paragraph 10 - is extremely vague. The bolded sentence seems to indicate that World Orthodoxy may in time allow for same-sex marriages. "The Church does not allow for her members to contract same-sex unions ... apart from marriage."

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/94722.htm

I. On Orthodox Marriage

1. The institution of the family is threatened today by such phenomena as secularization and moral relativism. The Orthodox Church maintains, as her fundamental and indisputable teaching, that marriage is sacred. The freely entered union of man and woman is an indispensable precondition for marriage.

...

1. The union of man and woman in Christ constitutes “a small church” or an icon of the Church. Through God’s blessing, the union of man and woman is elevated to a higher level, for communion is greater than individual existence because it initiates the spouses into the order of the Kingdom of the All-Holy Trinity. A necessary condition of marriage is faith in Jesus Christ, which must be shared by the bridegroom and the bride, man and woman. Consequently, unity in Christ is the foundation of marital unity. Thus, marital love blessed by the Holy Spirit enables the couple to reflect the love between Christ and the Church as a mystery of the Kingdom of God—as the eternal life of humanity in the love of God.

...

1. It was always with the necessary strictness and proper pastoral sensibility, in the compassionate manner of Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:12-15, 39), that the Church treated both the positive preconditions (difference of sexes, legal age, etc.) and the negative impediments (kinship by blood and affinity, spiritual kinship, an existing marriage, difference in religion, etc.) for the joining in marriage. Pastoral sensibility is necessary not only because the biblical tradition determines the relationship between the natural bond of marriage and the sacrament of the Church, but also because Church practice does not exclude the incorporation of certain Greco-Roman natural law principles that acknowledge the marital bond between man and woman as a communion of divine and human law (Modestin) compatible with the sacredness of the sacrament of marriage attributed by the Church.

...

1. The Church does not allow for her members to contract same-sex unions or any other form of cohabitation apart from marriage. The Church exerts all possible pastoral efforts to help her members who enter into such unions understand the true meaning of repentance and love as blessed by the Church.

...

In the Second Section:
Paragraph 2 - Notice the use of the word "annulled" -- a word imported from Rome.

Paragraph 4 - This paves the way for future marriages for priests who have lost their wives.

Paragraph 5 - was discussed above under Paragraph 4.

II. On Impediments to Marriage and the application of economy
...

1. A marriage that is not completely dissolved or annulled and a third marriage constitute absolute impediments to entering into marriage, according to Orthodox canonical tradition, which categorically condemns bigamy and a fourth marriage.

...

1. Priesthood in itself does not constitute an impediment to marriage, but in accordance with the prevailing canonical tradition (Canon 3 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council), after ordination entrance into marriage is forbidden.

2. Concerning mixed marriages of Orthodox Christians with non-Orthodox Christians or non-Christians:

   • 1. Marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians is forbidden according to canonical akribeia (Canon 72 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council).

3. With the salvation of man as the goal, the possibility of the exercise of ecclesiastical oikonomia in relation to impediments to marriage must be considered by the Holy Synod of each autocephalous Orthodox Church according to the principles of the holy canons and in a spirit of pastoral discernment.[/list]
   ...

[Agios_Irineos]

Let there be no doubt that the desperate days continue as the EP and its sycophants attempt to convince the world that something of significance actually happened in Crete. The author styles himself an Orthodox theologian and historian, but he holds the "Aquinas Chair" at a Catholic University and has had appointments at no less than two other Catholic institutes, even teaching at a Uniate college in the Ukraine. He has never taught in even a world orthodox seminary. He is also apparently a beardless deacon with the OCA.

He remarks how he had the "rare privilege of serving as an external correspondent for the Press Office of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, under the leadership of the Rev. John Chryssavgis." He then praises the EP and denigrates Moscow and all the local churches that withheld participation. He blames Russia for this, wholly failing to acknowledge the Antioch-Jerusalem schism. Most telling, of course, as to the motives of the Ecumenists, he wrote this article for the Jesuit national magazine.

Although not a concern for us in the GOC, it is interesting to see the shift of the OCA away from Moscow and to the EP. It certainly fits their modernist tendencies. With Met. Tikhon's Palm Sunday fly in to the Phanar, now an OCA deacon is dispatched to rail against their mother church. There has long been discussion in the OCA that the central administration wants to sell out to the EP. The events preceding and following the council certainly seem to indicate this is the case.

Historic Orthodox Council Meets Despite Absence of Four Churches

[Barbara]

Maria,
I was meaning to return to this. Thank you for posting that analysis of the final document. Isn't that dreadful Number 10 appalling ?? How do they think they can get away with such scandalous talk ?

Are Orthodox around the world screaming and howling ? Or few noticed that glaring permissiveness.

Fr Irineos,
Thank YOU too for updating us really well. I had lost interest in that empty Council. You have shown, though, that it is imperative to keep an eye on the REAL significance of the moves of the various actors. I remember the pictures of OCA's metropolitan's concelebration with the Phanar. But I didn't realize what it signified. [ I remember, too, that Met Tikhon was given one of the last places in the EP lineup for the procession, I think it was. ]

How do you see this proceeding ?
Will the OCA petition for transfer to the EP from the MP - ?! Would the MP ever let go of the OCA ?
And WHY is the OCA more comfortable with the EP ?

[Agios_Irineos]

Fr Irineos,

How do you see this proceeding ?
Will the OCA petition for transfer to the EP from the MP - ?! Would the MP ever let go of the OCA ?
And WHY is the OCA more comfortable with the EP ?

Barbara,

Remember, the OCA received "autocephaly" from the MP. The MP and the churches in its orbit recognize the OCA as autocephalous. The EP and its compatriots have never recognized the OCA as anything but a part of the MP. The OCA craves acceptance and worldly recognition. These maneuvers, I believe, are part of an effort to ingratiate itself with the EP, supporting the EP over the MP, because there is nothing left for Moscow to give the OCA. I have to believe that the OCA knows that the EP will never recognize it as autocephalous because of the dependence of the EP on the support of the GOAA. Rather, I think you could see the OCA "renounce" it's autocephaly in exchange for recognition within the EP in the way that the ACROD has recognition. They would pledge allegiance to the EP, whose politics are much closer to their politics than Moscow. Remember, there has even been talk of the EP moving to New York due to the oppression in Turkey. Both the OCA and the GOAA are headquartered in New York. The OCA's support for a council they weren't invited to (does that sound like an "autocephalous" church?) is just more political maneuvering to curry favor with the EP.

[Barbara]

Thank you, Father, for the very shrewd analysis. I learned a lot plus put pieces together that I had known about separately, such as the fact that EP might shift its headquarters to New York.

Is there any scouting around for real estate, by the way ? Have you heard of advance parties checking the lay of the land for the grand transfer from Phanar ?! Should this relocation take place, of course.
Do you rate it as likely ? If so, when would it happen ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

Would it be suburbs of NYC ? Or elsewhere in New York State ? Rocor is also headquartered in NYC, too, but seems to steer a serene course clear of this bickering and acrimony.

Next, why is the GOA at loggerheads with the OCA ? That is what I deduce from what you wrote here. Or did I misread ? Would the GOA seek autocephaly too ? Is that "the fear of Phanar" if it allowed the OCA to be given free rein that way ?

I don't know anything about ACROD ; just see mentions once in a long time.

I didn't realize that the OCA didn't receive an invitation to Crete ! I assumed it must have been invited. Hmmm....

Also, if you feel like explaining this, how is the OCA politics closer to the EP's than to Moscow ? The OCA is surely more ecumenical - leaning. More pro-Western. What else ? Or how do you explain this more precisely ? That's a good point which I hadn't thought of.

[Agios_Irineos]

Thank you, Father, for the very shrewd analysis. I learned a lot plus put pieces together that I had known about separately, such as the fact that EP might shift its headquarters to New York.

Is there any scouting around for real estate, by the way ? Have you heard of advance parties checking the lay of the land for the grand transfer from Phanar ?! Should this relocation take place, of course.
Do you rate it as likely ? If so, when would it happen ? 5 years ? 10 years ?

I think it is mostly talk unless Turkey continues to radicalize. Then it might be a more real option. Right now I think it is mostly cloud talk designed to appeal to the ego of the Phanar. It reinforces the idea that the EP is so important he should be in a major international city where he is free to lead the flock, hobnob with the UN and sO forth.

Next, why is the GOA at loggerheads with the OCA ? That is what I deduce from what you wrote here. Or did I misread ? Would the GOA seek autocephaly too ? Is that "the fear of Phanar" if it allowed the OCA to be given free rein that way ?

The issue of the EP recognizing the autocephaly of the OCA is this: if there was an autocephalous church in the United States, no other jurisdiction could canonically operate here. The GOAA is not about to let itself be absorbed by the much smaller, much poorer OCA. The EP depends on the GOAA for its financial survival. Thus, the EP can never recognize the OCA as autocephalous. The best the OCA can hope for is some kind of separate possibly semi-autonomous status within the EP.

Also, if you feel like explaining this, how is the OCA politics closer to the EP's than to Moscow ? The OCA is surely more ecumenical - leaning. More pro-Western. What else ? Or how do you explain this more precisely ? That's a good point which I hadn't thought of.

The OCA is trending liberal. There are people like Fr. Robert Arida who thinks it is time to reinterpret the Fathers. His cathedral communes married gays reportedly. Traditionalists are being marginalized and deposed or forcibly retired. It fits much more closely with the culture club that is the GOAA and the liberal modernist EP, than with a Russian hierarchy that at least pretends to support traditional orthodox theology.

[Cyprian]

Moscow is trending liberal as well. Simply look at Kirill's recent meeting with the pope which a genuine Orthodox Patriarch would not have done, and then the two heretics issued a heretical joint-declaration together. The EP and the MP are birds of a feather, flocking together. Neither are Orthodox, they are both liberal and equally unworthy of any serious attention. They are both Masons and traitors to Christ.