Red - Abstain from meat, fish, dairy, eggs, alcohol, oil
Green - Abstain from meat, fish, dairy, eggs
Blue - Abstain from meat, dairy, eggs
Gold - Abstain from meat |
ŒCOCW Press Room
Decree of Authority of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide |
| Special Notice to Old Catholic Orthodox Church/ ŒCOCW Members/Affiliates |
Do Not Be Misled
Do not be misled by claims of successorship for universal jurisdiction of +JORGE Rodriguez-Villa's Old Catholic Orthodox Church (1 Corinthians 15:33). Please be informed that the only legitimate and canonical authority rests with the Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide. Therefore, all Episcopal or apostolic matters should be referred to His Eminence +SCHOLARIOS-GENNADIUS III, OSB; Protosyncellus
|
| Old Catholic Orthodox Church (Sede Vacante) |
| African Orthodox Church of Africa |
| Anglican Church of Virginia |
| International Association of Married Orthodox/Catholic Bishops |
 |
| ŒCOCW Press Releases |
| Preachers Institute |
Contact Information:
+Catholicos Scholarios-Gennadius III, OSB
+Catholicos Gregory of Canada
+Archbishop Matthew of Portland, OR
+Mar Dawad of Toledo, OH
+Archbishop Bill Malloy
+Archbishop Heyward Ewart
+Arzobispo Antonio Camacho Ramón-Díaz
+Obispo Fabio Andrade |
|
+Obispo Antonio Calvijo |
| |
| |
|
Death of Pope Shenouda Leaves Vacuum for Egypt's Copts
March 20, 2012
By Dina Demrdash BBC News, Cairo
 The death of Pope Shenouda III, the spiritual leader of Egypt's Coptic Christians, has left many of them fearful about what the future may bring.
"He left us in such a crucial time," Michael Boles, an engineer from Cairo, told BBC Arabic.
"I just hope that the successor, whoever he is, has the same kind of wisdom this man had," a tearful Mr Boles added.
Pope Shenouda died on Saturday aged 88, after a long battle with liver and kidney problems.
He had led the church of nearly 12 million Coptic Christians - making up about 10% of the country's population - since 1971.
Turbulent time
The pope's death comes at a time when the Christian minority feels more vulnerable than it has ever done before.
The past few years have seen a series of attacks on the community.
The most deadly was a suicide bombing targeting a church in Alexandria on New Year's Eve 2011, only days before the eruption of the uprising against former President Hosni Mubarak on 25 January.
Even after the revolution, attacks on Christians and rising sectarian tension have added to the minority's feeling of being under siege.
Many Copts are concerned about the growing power of the Islamists, who were banned under Mubarak.
The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party and the more radical Salafist Al-Nour party made sweeping gains in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary elections, together winning about 70% of seats.
Many fear losing Pope Shenouda at such turbulent time could prove costly.
"We lost a great icon. His presence was crucial in repelling many threats against our country," MP and prominent Christian politician Amin Eskandar told state TV on Saturday night.
"His patriotism and wise approach to any issue were very helpful."
Seen as the guardian, Pope Shenouda was the first leader in the history of Egypt's Orthodox Church to gain such power and influence, and not only within his community.
Since he became the 117th pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St Mark, Pope Shenouda had fought for the rights of Christians, especially when it came to laws governing personal morality.
Conservative
But some Copts objected to the strict Christian doctrine espoused by the pope, especially his support for a ban on divorce except in cases of adultery.
Pope Shenouda is also seen as having politicised the church to a much greater degree than any of his predecessors did.
He criticised former President Anwar al-Sadat for his "religiously-based" policies, and voiced opposition to the Camp David peace agreement with Israel.
The authorities responded by banishing him to a monastery in the Wadi El Natrun, a desert area to the west of Cairo.
Pope Shenouda is also remembered for his firm rejection of normalising diplomatic ties with Israel, as well as for banning his church's followers from going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
"We will enter Jerusalem together with our Muslim Palestinian brothers," he repeatedly said.
Others say the pope failed to embrace change and reform under the Mubarak era, and led Egypt's Copts into ghettoisation.
Some Muslims, meanwhile, accuse Pope Shenouda of encouraging sectarian divisions.
In recent years, there have been tensions over reports that Christian women were allegedly hidden by the Coptic Church to stop them converting to Islam. The rumours were picked up by Islamist groups and prompted angry demonstrations.
The church denies holding the women.
However, many Christians say it was pope's wisdom that led to many potentially costly conflicts of recent years being brought to a peaceful end.
One example frequently given is his reaction to the deadly protests at state TV headquarters in October 2011, when soldiers killed and wounded scores of Christians protesting against attacks on churches.
"Our cathedral is packed with all of Egypt's Islamist leaders," Pope Shenouda told those attending Orthodox Christmas services in January, a few months after the protests.
"Everyone is united in favour of stability and in love of this country. Everyone - both Muslims and Copts - are working for the good of Egypt."
|
Pope Shenouda III dies at 88; Leader of Coptic Orthodox Church
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times
March 18, 2012
Reporting from Cairo—
Pope Shenouda III, the charismatic patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church whose shrewd grasp of religion and politics guided Egypt's Christians through deepening animosities with Muslims, died Saturday. He was 88.
The state news agency reported that Shenouda, who led the church for four decades, had struggled with respiratory and liver ailments. There was no announcement about a successor.
A stately figure with a flowing gray beard, the pope had attempted in recent months to buttress Egypt's estimated 9 million Copts against persecution from Islamists following the revolution that overthrew former President Hosni Mubarak.
Shenouda had watched the nation's fabric change dramatically from secular autocratic rule to the rising prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood and ultra-conservative Islamists. Thousands of Copts fled Egypt over the last year as the church that traces its legacy to St. Mark in the 1st century tried to calm religious tensions in the Muslim-dominated country of 82 million.
The pope was dogged in protecting Coptic interests. He angered President Anwar Sadat in 1981 by not holding Easter celebrations after attacks on Christians by Islamic radicals. The pope, who blamed Sadat for not stopping the violence, was internally exiled for more than three years. He later backed Mubarak — a stance that angered Islamists — while pushing behind the scenes for broader Christian rights.
Copts felt increasingly isolated after Mubarak was toppled. Violence against them rose, including an attack by thugs and soldiers that killed at least 27 people during a Christian demonstration.
"Shenouda was different than any other Coptic pope," said Rafik Habib, a Coptic writer. "He wasn't shy to openly address problems faced by Christians, and he had the courage to clash with politicians.... He changed the profile of who the pope should be."
In a move to stem religious differences, Shenouda led a Christmas celebration last year attended by leading Muslim clerics and members of the ruling military council. He told them that they had to "work with Copts as one hand for the sake of Egypt."
A scholar and prolific writer, Shenouda was born Nazeer Gayed on Aug. 3, 1923, in the southern town of Assyut. He spent years in a monastery and became pope in 1971 after the death of Pope Cyrilos VI.
|
Anglican Leader to Step Down
March 17, 2012
By GAUTAM NAIK
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury who has overseen a turbulent decade as spiritual leader of about 80 million followers of the Anglican faith, said he would step down at the end of the year and take up a new post as master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
Known for possessing a scholarly and versatile mind, as well as a gift for the common touch, Dr. Williams leaves as the institution faces divisive debates over homosexuality and gender.
For the past decade, Dr. Williams has tried to blend progressive views with Anglican theology and thus adapt the church's doctrine to modern society. For example, the Church of England is nearing a final vote about allowing women to become bishops; Dr. Williams has tried to balance the demands of those who support the idea with those who don't.
In a statement on his web site, Dr. Williams, 61 years old, said it has been an "immense privilege to serve as Archbishop of Canterbury over the past decade, and moving on has not been an easy decision." He didn't explicitly say in his statement why he planned to resign.
In an interview with the British news agency Press Association, however, he nodded to the difficult choices on the horizon. The looming final vote on female bishops was one of the "watersheds" this year that persuaded him to consider moving on, Dr. Williams said in the interview.
"I think that it is a job of immense demands and I would hope that my successor has the constitution of an ox and the skin of a rhinoceros," Dr. Williams said.
It hasn't been an easy decade. Dr. Williams has written in sympathetic terms about gay relationships and thus drawn disapproval from conservative members of the church. Meanwhile, the liberal wing has expressed frustration that the Archbishop's socially liberal stance hasn't engendered enough real change in the church.
"He's been attempting to hold both theological liberals and conservatives together, and that has meant that he's suppressed his own views," said Paul Handley, managing editor of Church Times, a leading Anglican weekly newspaper in the U.K. "As a result, he's been battered by both sides."
Dr. Williams is in the midst of a key battle right now. He has backed a deal, known as the Anglican Covenant, that would effectively prevent openly homosexual clergy from becoming bishops—a pact aimed at preventing the church from splitting.
The document was conceived in 2003 after Gene Robinson was elected the first openly gay Anglican bishop by the U.S. Episcopal Church. Conservative priests—especially those in Africa—protested, and Dr. Williams set up a commission to mend the rift.
Dr. Williams unveiled the covenant in 2010 and called for it to be endorsed or risk seeing the "piece-by-piece dissolution" of the Anglican Church. Branches of the church around the world are mulling whether to adopt the covenant.
Anglicanism arose from the 16th-century rift between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church, and is the world's third-largest group of Christians after the Catholics and the Orthodox. The queen of England is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and formally appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury.
But unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church is a loose federation and the Archbishop of Canterbury has few powers to enforce unity among its 38 autonomous provinces.
The Anglican churches in richer countries, including the Episcopal Church in the U.S., the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada, tend to be more liberal. Their counterparts in Africa and other parts of the developing world are bigger and are often more conservative.
Dr. Williams was confirmed as the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury in December 2002. He has written more than two dozen books on subjects ranging from history and poetry to economics, theology and the writing of Fyodor Dostoevsky. He is a fan of the TV show "The Simpsons."
|
ŒCOCW Joins Eritrean Orthodox Church Campaign to Free Imprisoned Eritrean Patriarch
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 15, 2012
ŒCOCW Joins Eritrean Orthodox Church Campaign to Free His Holiness Patriarch Antonios
The Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide (ŒCOCW) following a series of meetings with loyal clergy of the Eritrean Orthodox Church in Diaspora has officially committed itself to join forces to advocate for the release of His Holiness Patriarch Antonios who has been unlawfully detained for approximately seven years without just cause or humanitarian medical care.
The ŒCOCW represented by +Metropolitan Scholarios-Gennadius III, OSB, Protohierarch has taken up the cause with assistance from a concerned and committed Anglican episcopate in the person of +Bishop Cyril-Mark to publicly advocate and garner assistance from the worldwide Christian community, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice for release and restoration of a canonically chosen man of God.
The Holy Synod of the ŒCOCW is a staunch supporter and advocate for international religious freedom, social justice and human rights for all of humanity. In recognition of this commitment, the ŒCOCW is committed to working with its sister church the Eritrean Orthodox Church in Diaspora, as well as her loyal clergy of Monks, Priests and Deacons around the world who have in effect become political refugees for the just restoration of His Holiness, Patriarch Antonios to his rightful place on the throne of the Eritrean Orthodox Church.
The Holy Synod of the ŒCOCW and the Eritrean Orthodox Church in Diaspora hereby request the support of the entire Church Universal, all Christian and religious organizations that support religious freedom and human rights to join us in this most worthy struggle.
Any questions or concerns regarding this important matter may be addressed to +Metropolitan Scholarios-Gennadius III, OSB at bpscholarios@yahoo.com.”
The Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide and the Eritrean Orthodox Church in Diaspora
|
Anglicans and Orthodox Churches formalise ecumenical relationship
Christian Today
Posted: Monday, February 6, 2012, 20:38 (GMT)
The Church of England and Oriental Orthodox Churches have formalised their ecumenical relationship.
The two Churches have formally established the Church of England-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum (AOORF), which has existed in an informal capacity for some years.
For the first time, the role of the forum has been clarified in a document that sets out its aims and objectives.
The forum brings together representatives from both Churches to encourage unity through common prayer, worship, witness and education.
It also gives space for them to consider documents from international dialogues and their significance, and discuss current pastoral, social and political issues, with the possibility of making responses.
The forum is Co Chaired by the Anglican Bishop in Europe, the Rt Rev Dr Geoffrey Rowell, and the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Bishop Angaelos.
Bishop Rowell said he was "delighted" that the informal channel of communication between Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox in England was now "put on a firmer footing".
"With the increased numbers of Christians from the Oriental Orthodox Churches living in this country it is important that Anglicans build closer relationships with these churches.
"The appointment of Bishop Angaelos as an official ecumenical representative at the General Synod is a sign of this and is greatly to be welcomed.”
Bishop Angaelos said: "At a time of increased challenge to the basic principles of morality and hope, concrete and visible unity in the life and witness of the Church is needed as a real support for our faithful and the wider community, and an affirmation of the viability and applicability of the Christian message.
"I feel that working together through AOORF provides a very real opportunity for our role to be even more prophetic in the United Kingdom as individual Churches, and the wider Church."
|
The Church as Conscientious Objector?
.jpg) By †Metropolitan Scholarios-Gennadius III, OSB
Protohierarch
Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide
http://theglobalherald.com/the-church-as-conscientious-objector/27499/
February 8, 2012
In response to the religious and moral insensitivity of the recently publicized federal mandate requiring religious institutions to include life terminating and contraceptive procedures as part of employer provided healthcare the face of the conscientious objector has changed. This change has resulted in many of the most charitable religious and social organizations such as Catholic Charities being morally forced to declare a conscientious objection defense that possibly puts them in defiance of federal law.
America’s most philanthropic organizations are being forced by this short sighted and insensitive mandate to face the unnecessary possibility of “political extinction” in order to observe their constitutionally protected religious rights. The irony of this evolution is that one of the most moral and ethical bulwarks within American society “the Church” is being forced to defy the very laws and legal protections that most religious organizations rely upon for their constitutionally protected freedoms.
The Obama Administration’s actions in connection with the implementation of the “Affordable Care Act,” which unfortunately includes this contentious mandate is short sighted at best, and constitutionally worrisome in the broadest sense of the term. Catholic-based religious organizations that include the various Orthodox rites and jurisdictions have a long and revered religious tradition that opposes non-life threatening extinction of human life by such means as abortion, sterilization and similar are understandably at odds with this approach to “affordable health care,” which supports providing life enhancing procedures for one human, while accelerating the demise of another.
This mandate leaves no alternative for the Church but to become a “Conscientious Objector” not just as individuals, but as a universal religious being composed of many colors and hues, as well as religious traditions of many fabrics and languages reminiscent of the Apostle Paul’s “one body” metaphor (Romans 12:5). Consequently, this unfortunate act of our Federal Government has resulted in pitting those religious institutions against the legal authorities to which they look for constitutional protection against just such unfair and questionably ethical intrusion and violation. Just as many patriotic Americans were forced to declare themselves as “conscientious objectors” in the recent past, sadly today this has also become necessary.
The question is whether it will prove to be politically expedient for the Obama Administration in its zeal to court political favor with a few well financed groups to bankrupt organizations who have so faithfully served those in need? Will American history record the deliberate assault against one of the most celebrated constitutional protections as the seminal act of President Obama’s presidency that also ushered in the extinction of American religious freedom?
|
Record of Protest Against the Infringement of Religious Liberty by the Department of Health and Human Services
 The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, which is comprised of the 65 canonical Orthodox bishops in the United States, Canada and Mexico, join their voices with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and all those who adamantly protest the recent decision by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and call upon all the Orthodox Christian faithful to contact their elected representatives today to voice their concern in the face of this threat to the sanctity of the Church’s conscience.
In this ruling by HHS, religious hospitals, educational institutions, and other organizations will be required to pay for the full cost of contraceptives (including some abortion-inducing drugs) and sterilizations for their employees, regardless of the religious convictions of the employers.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care. We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.
|
Notice of Ecclesiastical Release
ŒCUMENICAL CANONICAL ORTHODOX CHURCH©/
OLD CATHOLIC ORTHODOX CHURCH©
Worldwide Headquarters
Sacramento, California
United States of America
Notice of Ecclesiastical Release
By the unanimous consent of the Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical
Orthodox Church Worldwide
I, †SCHOLARIOS-GENNADIUS III, OSB
Protohierarch-Metropolitan of the Holy Church of Jesus Christ
By the power invested in my Apostolic Office
Do hereby Release
†Bishop Guadalupe Ruiz, OSB
From the Apostolic See of
Corona, California
And the office of Bishop within the worldwide jurisdiction of the
Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide
Effective this 1st day February in the Year of Our Lord Twenty-Twelve (2012)
†SCHOLARIOS-GENNADIUS III, OSB
The Least of All Servants
Protohierarch-Metropolitan |
ŒCOCW Office of Morals, Doctrine and Spirituality
 January 30, 2012
It has come to the attention of the Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide (ŒCOCW) that the canonically chosen, consecrated and enthroned patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewhado Church, His Holiness Abune Antonios has been shamefully subjected to religious persecution by the Eritrean government.
The Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide along with the entire Orthodox community is deeply aggrieved by this particular unlawful act and unprovoked intrusion into religious affairs. The ŒCOCW likens this atrocious act to the similar atrocities suffered by such historical luminaries as the blessed patriarchs St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom from the Holy See of Constantinople.
These holy men were ultimately restored to their deserved places of dignity. Therefore, on behalf of the voiceless faithful clergy, the entire community of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, the worldwide Christian faithful, community of religious freedom and all Orthodox Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, Hierarchs, Monastics, Priests and Deacons, the Holy Synod of the ŒCOCW respectfully petitions the Eritrean government for the release of His Holiness, Patriarch Antonios. We also appeal to the precious court of public opinion and the International Court of Justice (World Court) to intervene on behalf of His Holiness and all religious leaders.
International Religious freedom is a basic moral human right and therefore deserves international protection for which the ŒCOCW hereby appeals on behalf His Holiness Antonios. Further, the Holy Synod of the ŒCOCW calls upon the hierarchy and Synod of the Eritrean Orthodox Tewhado Church to return to their faithful and mandatory canonical obligation to protect, defend and support the rightfully elected and enthroned Holy Father who is their ecclesiastical superior and holy representative which is their divine duty.
The Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide encourages all of the Patriarchal Sees and all Orthodox, Catholic and Christian churches, as well as all religious communities around the world to rally to the cause of our beloved brother in Christ, His Holiness, Patriarch Antonios as a demonstration of concern for full religious freedom for all believers wherever they may reside.
The Holy Synod of the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide
†Catholicos Scholarios-Gennadius III, OSB
Protohierarch-Metropolitan
|
Persecution of Christians continues in Eritrea, clerics charge
|
The Dogmatical Basis for Prohibiting the Remarriage of Sacred Ministers
The struggle of the "spirit of error" (I John IV:6) against the revealed teaching given in the Sacred Scriptures (I Timothy III:2,12; Titus I:6) and in the Sacred Tradition (Apostolic Constitutions 17; Basil the Great 12; Trullo 3) about the incompatibility of remarriage with the sacred ministry, a teaching which concerns the desires of our fallen human nature and thus serving as a subject of attacks since the beginning of the III century, has once again manifested itself in our time. According to press reports certain Orthodox Churches are on the verge of repudiating this teaching. These reports are confirmed by the recently announced resolution of the "Pan Orthodox Congress" held in Constantinople. This resolution reads:
"The Pan Orthodox Congress convened under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Lord Meletius IV, having devoted the sessions of 25 and 30 June 1923 to the study of the question of a second marriage for priests and deacons who became widowed following the death of their wives, which question having been raised by certain local Churches, and having taken into account the ancient practice of our Church, such practice having a Canonical basis, find that it is not immutable by virtue of its sacredness or not unchangeable by virtue of its authority and as such, is subject to change, which change is dictated by the imminent needs and circumstances of individual local autocephalous Churches, such changes having as their aim the good of the members of the Orthodox Church, resolved:
To consider a second marriage allowable for priests and deacons who, as a result of their wives' death became widowers, since this does not contradict the spirit of the Evangelical teaching and even removes any possibility of censure from the situation of the sacred minister.
1. The Synods of the local Churches have the right, following the receipt of the opinion of the appropriate bishop and upon the petition of widowed priests and deacons, to permit the conclusion of a second marriage.
2. This measure is considered to be canonically in effect until the convening of an All Orthodox Council, which alone has the power to provide this decision with Conciliar authority.
At the Patriarchate, 5 June 1923
Patriarch Meletius of Constantinople, Metropolitan Callinicus, Archbishop Alexander of North America, Metropolitan Gabriel, Metropolitan Basil, Metropolitan Jacob, Archimandrite Julius Skriban, V Antoniadis Secretary Archimandrite German chief Synod secretary."
Without a doubt a future historian of the Orthodox Church will note this resolution as a sad example of the decline of theological thinking and Church discipline.
In the first place the organization of the "Congress" places its authority under a large question mark. In the Orthodox Church there are not and cannot be other organs of power which extend to all or some of the local Churches except local or ecumenical Councils and the resolutions of whatever other organizations can only be looked upon as private opinions of its participants which are not binding on anyone. Specifically this is the only significance which can be attributed to the resolutions of the Constantinopolitan Congress", which was organized in imitation of political congresses and conferences, consisting of a mere handful of hierarchs and improperly calling itself "Pan Orthodox", and which lacked plenipotentiary representatives from many Orthodox Churches.
Furthermore the Congress, giving the Synods of local Churches permission to violate the decisions of Ecumenical Councils not only places itself higher than those Synods, but also on the level of the Ecumenical Councils themselves even though, contradicting itself, it recognizes that only an All Orthodox Council can grant Conciliar authority to the resolutions of the Congress, i.e. in other words it itself recognizes that the resolutions of the Congress have no authority inasmuch as the Orthodox Church knows of no other , except Conciliar authority in such matters.
We will not subject the resolution to a detailed analysis, although its deficiencies -- extremely weak argument, an ignoring of commonly known conclusions which are contrary to the views of the Congress, and internal contradictions -- are quite obvious. For example the assertion that the established practice is not immutable is without foundation. It is also not clear why this practice which was in existence as long as the Church all of a sudden is in need of such rapid change that the Congress cannot find it possible to place the resolution of this problem before the future Council which it considers as the only competent organ in this case. It is also not clear why the Congress refers only to canons and says nothing about the fact that this practice is established in the first place on the basis of the Holy Scripture itself. Without going into detail about all these topics we will stop only on one decision of the Congress which is that the remarriage of sacred ministers is not contrary to the spirit of the Evangelical teaching, i.e. in other words it is not contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Church which, according to Orthodox understanding, is the only authoritative interpreter of the Evangelical teaching.
This is a completely erroneous thought, and actually the prohibition of remarriage for sacred ministers is an inevitable strictly logical conclusion from the Orthodox teaching about two sacraments -- Ordination and Marriage, thus to rescind this prohibition -- means in effect to depart from these two sacraments and in the end, to depart from the essence of the internal unity of Orthodox teaching and from Orthodoxy itself.
According to Orthodox teaching, in addition to the priesthood of all believers in the Church, there must also be a special sacramental public hierarchical priesthood consisting of certain authorized individuals taken from the ranks of the former. This selection is objectively realized through ordination but this objective selection through ordination is conditioned upon personal selection, based on certain qualities which the candidate for priesthood must possess. This is precisely the teaching of the Holy Scripture. The founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, does not call everyone to the apostolate but only persons who possess certain high moral requirements even though not without the possibility of falling. The Apostle Paul in directing the ordination of presbyters, at the same time lists those qualities which they must possess among which is monogamy or more specifically non-digamy.
Among the list of moral qualities of the candidate for ordination monogamy has an especially important meaning. All the other qualities (e.g. temperance, sensibility, hospitability) have more or less conditional and relative character and their meaning can change according to the circumstances of time and place.
No one will disagree that a drunk is unworthy to be a sacred minister, but the understanding of what is a drinker is considerably conditional and the Apostle Paul himself urges Timothy to take a little wine (I Tim. V:23).
The same can be said about being greedy or an apt teacher, etc. Furthermore all such moral defects are not necessarily evident and can be more or less kept hidden and not become a subject for the temptation of the flock.
Monogamy is an entirely different matter. Here the moral requirement is manifested in the external legal ecclesiastical and civil institution of marriage, having a definite, visible and obvious character. Nothing here is more or less, maybe yes or maybe no, a person can either be a digamist or not. And his status must be known to his whole flock since marriage is an institution of an obvious character and the Orthodox Church does not recognize secret marriages. Thus of the requirements of special qualities from the sacred ministers, which are based on the dogmatic teaching about the priesthood as a special office, only the prohibition of digamy (a second marriage after the termination of the first) receives its fully concrete and fully definite expression and as a result, it becomes a symbol of the teaching about the sacrament of ordination or, as the Blessed Augustine writes, it is "a certain norm of the sacrament", "a necessary sign for ecclesiastical ordination" ("normam quandam sacramenti", "ad ordinationem ecclesiasticam signaculum necessarium") Thus in the history of theological thought the question of allowing remarriage for sacred ministers was always linked with the question of the existence of sacramental priesthood, with those who erroneously denied the sacramental priesthood advocated for the abolition of the restrictions against clerical remarriage. "What would be the distinction between the people and the priest if they were to abide by the same laws?" asks St. Ambrose of Milan, in demonstrating the unconditional prohibition of the remarriage of sacred ministers. "The life of the priest must be preferential just as grace is preferential."
St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that remarriage is prohibited for sacred ministers "because of the preferential importance of the sacred ministry," "because of the high honor of the priesthood; because of its sacredness." The priestly calling is of such height that they are not allowed that which is not considered a fault by other Church members," writes St. Leo the great, and he concludes from this that "a priest cannot be the husband of a second wife" and St. Gregory Duologos calls the ordination of a digamist "a desecration of the sacrament," and in later times authoritative Orthodox theologians in defending the Orthodox teaching on the priesthood simultaneously defended the prohibition of remarriage as one of its basic conditions. This can be seen for example in Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Alexandria Metrophanus Kritopoulos, Metropolitan Peter Moghila of Kiev, and others.
This unbroken link between the prohibitions of remarriage with the teaching of the hierarchical priesthood as distinct from the priesthood of all believers is noticed among the wrong-thinkers and their teaching is proof of the inseparable connection e contrario. Tertullian, during his Montanist period mixes the sacramental priesthood with the priesthood of all believers and extends the former on all the faithful and at the same time extends the prohibition of remarriage on all the faithful. On the other hand the Nestorians, those Eastern Rite Protestants, advance the teaching of the universal priesthood and at the same time rescind the prohibition for the remarriage of sacred ministers. Likewise the Protestants, who completely lost the teaching of the sacramental priesthood, abolish the prohibition for remarriage for their clergy and the polemics against the prohibition of digamy is conducted by them together with the polemics against the teaching of the Roman and the Orthodox Church on the sacramental priesthood as distinct from the universal priesthood. And yes, the recent so-called "Pan-Orthodox" Congress, moving along not without secret pressures from the protestantizing Anglican Church, which has a hierarchy but which rejects the teaching on the priesthood as a sacrament while at the same time permits a repetition of marriage for its clergy.
To rescind the prohibition against the remarriage of clergy would be to reject the Orthodox teaching not only about the sacrament of Orders but of the sacrament of marriage as well. This teaching is strictly Evangelical and at the same time strictly orthodox since only the Orthodox Church preserved undamaged the strict evangelical teaching that only absolute monogamy is the norm for a Christian marriage.
The sacrament of marriage which was established in paradise suffered two world-wide catastrophes, the Fall and the Flood, thus the task of the Christian Church is not to establish a new sacrament but to purify it from the accruements of Jewish (Mt. XIX:8) and pagan (Rom. I:26-27; Eph. IV:19) distortions of the "hardness of heart" and to restore it to its state in paradise. Thus, as the Founder of the Church himself (Mt. XIX:4; Mark X:7) and his Apostle (I Cor. VI:16; Eph. V:31), whenever the question of marriage arises simply refer to the teaching on marriage in the first two chapters of Genesis, the Old Testament gospel. And the distinguishing feature of the marriage in paradise is its complete, absolute monogamy since ". . .the one who created them in the beginning made them male and female" (Gen. I:27; Mt. XIX:4).
It is true that Jesus Christ makes this general observation only as a proof against only one type of distortion against monogamy, the remarriage following divorce, but only because this refers to the test advanced by the Pharisees. That the marriage in paradise would exclude the possibility of a remarriage following the death of a spouse is self-evident: there could be no such marriage in paradise since there would be no death. Thus the Blessed Jerome correctly interprets the words of Christ writing: "He (i.e. Jesus Christ) says "man and woman" to show that it is necessary to avoid a second matrimonial union". A more authoritative commentary on the words of the Savior are the epistles of St. Paul. He writes unfavorably about a remarriage and considers it permissible for all according to the Old Testament law (Rom. VII:3; and I Cor. VII:39) but in the Christian Church he considers it allowable only for the morally sick, for the incontinent and for the prevention of something worse: passion (I Cor. VII:8-9), but in any case it is incompatible with the highest moral perfection (I Cor. VII:40).
Commenting on the words of the apostle St. Theodore the Studite writes, repeating St. Gregory the Theologian, "In the Christian Church a second marriage is not a law but condescension. Condescension presupposes a certain degradation and a reproachable act. This is precisely what the divine Apostle said: ". . .if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry (I Cor.VII:9)"since lack of control is closely linked with degradation and sinfulness.
If the Apostle advises young widows to marry in the first epistle to Timothy (V:14) it is to prevent something worse, "for some have already turned away to follow Satan (v. 15)", but he still speaks of those widows that ". . .they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge (v. 12)."
The Orthodox Church preserved the teaching of the unequal dignity of the first and subsequent marriages in its fullness. "There is one marriage in nature, just as there is one birth and one death," as St Gregory of Nyssa clearly expresses to his sister St. Macrina, who declined to remarry following the death of her fiancé.
The Orthodox Church as well as the sacred scripture always looked upon subsequent marriages as an institution foreign to the Christian ideal, as an inescapable concession to the pre-Christian "hardness of heart." The concept of the non-sacerdotal character of subsequent marriages was quite evident at the time not long after the earthly life of the Divine Founder and his apostles, when the Church was under no obligation to be concerned with State laws on subsequent marriages. This teaching is defended by all writers of the early centuries, and not only those inclined towards excessive rigorism, thus Tertullian is in full accord with Clement of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia, disagreeing only in final conclusions. The ancient Christian writers explain that subsequent marriages do not reflect the Christian ideal of marriage not only because they violate the divinely established monogamy in paradise but because, according to Christian teaching, death is not the final end of things and thus does not destroy marriage, according to which remarriages are violations of the first marriage as if by clandestine adultery. "A second marriage is respectable adultery. He who separates from his first wife, even though she dies, is a secret adulterer, since he goes contrary to God's plan, since in the beginning God created one husband and one wife, and he thus destroys the unity of one flesh through the coupling with the other" writes Athenagoras.
The Apostolic Constitutions state: "You ought to know this, that once marrying according to the law, is righteous, as being according to the will of God; but second marriages, after the promise, are wicked; not on account of the marriage itself, but because of the falsehood. Third marriages are indications of incontinency. But such marriages as are beyond the third, are manifest fornication and unquestionable uncleanliness. For God, in the creation, gave one woman to one man; for they two shall be one flesh (Gen. I:24)."
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are very clear on the subject that death is not an end of everything and thus is not an end of marriage. Tertullian writes: "Are we going to be nothing after death. Perhaps according to Epicurus but not according to Christ," concluding that a second marriage is an insult to the memory of the departed, and calls it "a form of adultery."
Clement of Alexandria explains that a Christian dies to the Old Testament law in baptism, but not to the law of paradise given by God himself, and that the law of paradise on monogamy is mandatory and for him a marriage according to the law (in paradise and Christian) refers only to a first marriage. The same thought, i.e. that subsequent marriages are foreign to the Christian church, even if permitted, can be found in other ancient writers. "Our Teacher (i.e. Jesus Christ) considers those who, following the law of man, enter into a second marriage, as sinners" writes Justin Martyr. "The digamist will be expelled from the assembly of the first-born and the righteous, having no stain or sin. Such nuptials will exclude us from the Kingdom of God", writes Origen.
When the Church became established in the State and was required to be concerned with the State's recognition of subsequent marriages and was even compelled to do so, it not only remained faithful to its reprehensible view towards such marriages but for the longest time did not change her practice in relation to them. The codex of canons which was compiled during the epoch of the Ecumenical and local councils and which became obligatory for the Orthodox Church, does not know of repeated marriages as an ecclesiastical institution, and not only prohibits their crowning but even the presence of the priest at the wedding feast. In fact at that time remarriages took place only according to the civil order "with human rites," according to Theodore the Studite, which meant an announcement by the husband before ten witnesses that he "takes this woman to be his wife", as explained by Nicephorus Confessor.
The Church's part in remarriages for the longest time consisted of intervention, as in all cases of violations of canons, by the assignment of lengthy penances (Ancyra 19, Laod. 1, Neoces. 3, Basil Gr. 4).
In this way the Church looked on remarriages as examples of the sacrament of penance and of obvious repentance. Thus no ancient writer refers to a remarriage as a sacrament of matrimony and in ancient lists marriage does not appear at all (having been established in paradise and not by the Christian Church), or the sacrament is called "the first virginal marriage in the Lord."
If the Church later permitted the marriages of digamists, this was not as a result of a change in its teaching about such marriages but as a result of civil orderly procedure. At first the marriage of digamists was a manifestation of illegal pressures upon the Church on the part of the State. Theodore the Studite thinks that the practice of marrying digamists began during the reign of the dishonorable Constantine Copronymus and iconoclast (741-775) as a result of his trigamy since "it was not so before that." For a long time marriage of digamists was a rare exception and there were patriarchs who with their own hands prevented twice-married emperors from entering the Church, there were pastors, according to Theodore the Studite, who would rather sacrifice their whole life, confront danger, exile or death rather than agree to dishonor and violate Christ's gospel and marry a digamist, and Emperor Leo III's fourth marriage brought about a lengthy discord between the Church and the State, ending in the year 921 with the proclamation of the "Tome of Union" which would be read from the Church's cathedras every July and which sharply spelled out the Church's position on subsequent marriages. However there were patriarchs who feasted at an emperor's second marriage which Balsamon notes with great sadness.
It was only when a church wedding was mandated by imperial law to make a marriage valid and as a result of which a refusal of a wedding ceremony was tantamount to the declaration of the union as simple adultery, did the Church permit the marriage of digamists and at first this was allowed only in Constantinople and this special rite was not found in other churches even in the XIII c. and it is not known in Rome to this day.
The Eastern Church in allowing the marriages of digamists as a result of imperial necessity, did not treat them as equal to a first marriage and to this day in various ways, it expresses its loyalty to the New Testament teaching of the reprehensibility of such marriages. In the first place, contrary to imperial legislation which did not (until 800 c.e.) limit the number of marriages, the Church would not go beyond three. Secondly, the order of service for a subsequent marriage was a special one, differing from the crowning of a first marriage and harking back to the ancient order when subsequent marriages were considered by the Church as penitential. Furthermore the Church would not allow such marriages to be crowned, i.e. the placement of crowns on the heads of the bridal couple. Then as Theodore the Studite writes referring to the answers of Metropolitan Nicetas and to Symeon of Salonica, the Church did not permit another important element at such weddings in place prior to the 17th c., the joint reception of communion by the bridal couple, to which the digamists were not entitled since they were under penance for at least a year. Finally the order for second marriages contains prayers of a purely penitential character.
In this way there is not the slightest doubt that the Orthodox Church does not recognize an equal worthiness of subsequent marriages in relation to a first marriage. There is no evidence of any influence of a false asceticism in this teaching, as not only the protestant theologians object, but those protestantizing theologians within the Orthodox Church itself as well. Ambrose of Milan expresses the true basis for the Church's position on subsequent marriages when he writes "The more I object to second marriages the more I exhalt the first."
Thus the Church stands opposed to subsequent marriages not because of some aversion towards marriage but precisely because it holds it in such high esteem. This position of the Church is founded on profound psychological bases. Nuptial love has an absolutely exceptional character. The one who loves sincerely is always convinced that his love is eternal. The very thought of the possibility of replacing one object of love by another, even in the event of death, is already a betrayal of love, a clandestine adultery, which imperceptibly but destructively impinges on the sanctity and the purity of family life. The Church's teaching on the reprehensibility of repeated marriages has a deep, benevolent influence on the evil human nature. This is the salt which will preserve from decay man's sexual life which is so inclined, it proclaims an ideal character to the marriage and through this it acts to heal the whole social structure.
However, the teaching of the reprehensibility of subsequent marriages stands and falls with the prohibition of remarriage for sacred ministers.
Verba docent, exempla trahunt, and this prohibition stands as a permanent, living and therefore valid sermon on the ideal marriage. This is how it is explained by ancient Church writing: "Grant that his (bishop and presbyter) morals will be higher than that of ordinary people, that they may imitate their superiority." we read in the oldest (circa 200 c.e.) known ordination rite. "Presbyters and deacons must give themselves as an example and affirm others by their conduct and morality. How else can they lead others towards chastity and restraint?" writes Cyprian of Carthage. St Ambrose of Milan, on the same theme, asks about a remarried cleric: "On what basis can he console a widow, to be honorable and preserve her widowhood, to remain loyal to her husband, if he himself had not done so with respect to his first wife?"
Almost contemporaneously with these Western pastoral teachers a parallel question is raised by the Eastern pastoral teacher John Chrysostom, "How can he be a good leader who did not preserve any concern for the departed one," and after six centuries the same point is made by the blessed Theophilact of Bulgaria "How can he who did not preserve any loyalty to the departed one be diligent towards the Church?"
Thus according to the Fathers the digamist does not have that spiritual wholeness, that loyalty to himself and to others which is essential for one who serves the Church. Marriage in itself is not an impediment to sacred ministry since there is in essence, no contradiction between one and the other, according to Chrysostom the narrow sphere of the family is expanded in the sacred ministry and he who is loyal in little things, loyal within the family which itself is a "little Church" according to Chrysostom, will be placed over greater things. Thus the repeal of the prohibition of remarriage for sacred ministers is a refutation not only from the necessity of hierarchical priesthood in the Church, but from the teaching of absolute monogamy as a norm for a Christian marriage. In permitting a remarriage for sacred ministers the Church must logically do away with the special rite for remarriage, to recognize the equal significance of all marriages and permit the repetition of marriages ad infinitum, permitting this not only to laity but to sacred ministers and to consider its motto not the exhalted dictum of Gregory of Nyssa: "marriage by its nature is one, as is one birth and one death," but the free expression of one of Protestant teachers, Kalovius (+1686) who married at age 72 to his sixth wife, "as long as the Lord God doesn't tire of depriving me of wives, I will not tire of marrying."
S. Troitsky [Holy-Trinity/Morality/Marriage]
[Translated from "Tserkovnyya Vedomosti" [Church Herald] 1923 Nos 13, 14, 15, 16, a publication of the Russian Synod Abroad by Alvian Smirensky]
|
ŒCOCW Holy Priesthood
The ŒCOCW Welcomes All
Have You Considered the Priesthood?
If you have perhaps service in the Œcumenical Canonical Orthodox Church Worldwide (ŒCOCW) is for you.
- The ŒCOCW is open to married men seeking the priesthood
- Possesses a “married” Episcopacy (Bishops)
- Hosts St. Theodore the Studite Orthodox Seminary
- Is a member of the International Conference of Orthodox Catholic Bishops
- Offers a hands on approach to training and preparation for the priesthood
- Follows the guidance of the Seven Historic Ecumenical Councils
- Does not participate in the ordination of women
- Does not accept those practicing alternative lifestyles for ordination
The ŒCOCW in partnership with the African Orthodox Church of Africa jointly operates St. Theodore the Studite Orthodox Seminary for the education, training and preparation for the Holy Priesthood.
St. Theodore the Studite offers affordable theological education and training, as well as a comprehensive selection of academic instruction.
Interested? Contact the ŒCOCW today for information on how you can answer the call to Holy Service.
vocations@ŒCOCW
Some of the geogrpahical areas where clergy is greatly needed include:
Canada (Eastern) - California - Oregon - The Atlantic Seaboard - Ohio - Florida. Applicants are also being encouraged to apply for all geographical areas. |
|
|
|
