You Sunk My Vatican II

His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew I (and I am compelled to use his full title out of respect for the office) is suffering the worst embarrassment of his tenure which began in 1991. The Holy and Great Council of Orthodox Patriarchs, which has been in the works for the better part of six decades, has fallen apart in the space of about a week.

The Council was originally going to be held in Turkey, the domain of the sitting Ecumenical Patriarch, and this itself was a controversial sticking point, as Russia has long grumbled about the fact that the ‘first among equals’ heads up an infinitesimally small flock in the district of Phanar. The venue became untenable after the shooting down of Russian fighter jet by the Turks in November of last year, and was moved to Crete instead.

On the agenda were some long burgeoning issues of a rather harmless nature. Coming to a consensus on what was to be done about autonomous churches in the non-Orthodox world which lie under the jurisdiction of larger churches (i.e – the Church of Japan under the Moscow Patriarchate), overlapping jurisdictions within the Orthodox diaspora in countries like the United States, the order of the diptychs (a largely ceremonial ordering of Church seniority), and some questions surrounding calender differences as well as fasting. There was also likely to be a statement on marriage, but not much in the way of changing current Orthodox teaching, perhaps only clarifying it.

The contentious element of the council’s agenda was the ecumenical movement, which involves the Church’s effort to mend relations with non-Orthodox Christians around the world, not only Roman Catholics, but Protestants, as well. Wrapped up in ever-shifting geopolitics and historical grievances, such efforts will always be difficult for the Church. Patriarch Bartholomew’s prayers with Pope Francis are what led the monks of the Esphigmenou Monestary on Mt. Athos, a spiritual center for the Orthodox world, to cease praying for him and defy his orders to leave their residence in a dispute that continues to this day. In their words:

There is not a single saint of the Church, ever, who believes in what Patriarch Bartholomew teaches and practices with regards to ecumenism, and this has caused great concern on the part of the monks.

What we see here is the authority of the dead, which I have spoken about before coming into play. Since Church relations were normalized with the rescinding of mutual excommunication in the 1960s, there has been much suspicion about the ecumenical movement, not all of it unwarranted. It seems that while not opposed to beneficial dialogue with outsiders, many within the Church are not happy with the language of the ecumenical movement, nor its approach to the external relations of the Orthodox Church. While this has been the root of much spiritual consternation, it wasn’t the primary reason the council was a threat to Orthodox integrity.

As Katehon reported, the presence of one Alexander Rondos raised immediate alarm bells. A friend of George Soros, he has been the benefactor of various ‘color revolutions’, and is politically connected to Western intelligence agencies. Another ‘point man’ it seems, with a lot of pull in the Constantinople Patriarchate:

Wherever Alex Rondos appears, he lobbies the same interests of his American masters, promotes Soros’ initiatives, changes regimes, and bolsters unipolar American hegemony by means of network war strategy.

Considering the broad, long-term goals of the Cathedral it is obviously necessary to weaken Orthodoxy by liberalizing it. We must remember that Modernists of every stripe were overjoyed by the Second Vatican Council in 1959, during which they finally managed to de-fang the Roman Church which had been a thorn in the side of Modernity and its attendant values for the longest time. It was after all Roman Catholic traditionalists who had opposed the French Revolution, and during the 1930s, many regimes of an explicitly Catholic stripe peppered Europe, almost putting Liberalism itself out of business for good. The Society of St. Pius X related via their website:

More gravely, the Council was hijacked by the liberal elements within the Church, who from the very beginning schemed to have rejected the pre-conciliar preparatory schemas and replaced by progressive ones prepared by their own “experts.” The liberals were also able to get their members onto the Council Commissions. The new schemas, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions, and declarations, contain, more or less explicitly, some of the same doctrinal errors for which liberals in the past had been condemned.

For more information on such past condemnations, Fr. Sarda’s ‘Liberalism is a Sin is a good place to start.

It has become obvious within the last few years that the Western globalist powers have their sights set on the Eastern Christian world, the post-communist sphere. Everything from revolutionary seeding to NGO social engineering is party to this effort, for as Orthodoxy emerges to a renewed strength in this part of the world, liberalism is keen to see it squashed, and there can be no better way to undermine the Church’s beliefs than to target the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is prestigious at the same time as it is isolated and weak.

John Chryssavgis, spokesman for the Patriarchate, spoke of the planned council in terms that are reminiscent of a TED talk rather than a serious meeting of the ancient Church.

It needs to deal with issues such as bioethics, climate change, human rights and discrimination — taking them seriously and embracing them in an inspiring, prophetic, constructive and consoling way.

Such things of course bely presuppositions that are alien to Orthodoxy, and alien to the majority of cultures represented. They have come from the outside. The Patriarch’s agenda was never to resolve the various procedural and jurisdictional disputes, which is why he chose to ignore things like the now very serious dispute between Antioch and Jerusalem over who has authority in Qatar, but rather the aim was to begin setting the Church on the path to surrender in the face of the encroaching intrusion of the modern world.

Thankfully, this plot was not allowed to unfold. Unlike the Papal Office, the Constantinople Patriarchate does not have explicit authority to command anything and have it be binding. The veracity of councils within Orthodoxy is determined by consensus and consent of the full body of churches. This makes change incredibly easy to derail, and just such a derailment was deployed against the pan-Orthodox council to great effect. Fr. Andrew Phillips gives a great summation of the collapse of the council, with a succession of churches refusing to participate:

Each had its own reasons for not participating, apart from disagreement with the ecumenist agenda. Antioch because of its anger at Jerusalem’s invasion of its canonical territory and the fact that Constantinople foolishly told it to ignore such a question of principle until after the Council, even though the problem has been dragging on for years; the Georgians and the Bulgarians are not participating for being insulted by the US-controlled Patriarchate of Constantinople, which declared last April that the Georgians were fundamentalists and the Bulgarians were thieves, actually creating a diplomatic incident in Bulgaria. As for the Serbs, I think their problem is that of essentially everyone else – that Constantinople simply ignores any criticism, blindly trying to impose its will regardless of others, as if it were an Eastern Papacy. Of course, the Serbian Church, racked by a US-caused schism in Kosovo and under immense pressure from Washington/the EU/NATO and the masonic government in Belgrade, then decided to attend the meeting in Crete conditionally, but that is another story.

And so a total of four churches have defected, those of Antioch, Georgia, Bulgaria and Russia (the most populous of the patriarchates). While Antioch’s resentment against Constantinople has been festering for years, it was the actions of the Church of Bulgaria that set things into motion. Many have speculated the Bulgarians were working at the behest of the Russians. If accurate, it is a masterstroke of Russian Church diplomacy in action. A naked rejection of the council instigated by Russia would only play into Constantinople’s hands, providing evidence for the baseless assertion that the Russians were trying to usurp Bartholomew’s authority and sow discord. By having the Church of Bulgaria object to the seating plan of all things and torpedo the council this way, the smaller church takes the bullet with little to no consequence.

Bringing together the Orthodox faithful is difficult, as it should be. There is no uniformity among peoples, and each Orthodox nation embodies its own unique blend of both the Christian revelation and the innate characteristics of a people and their culture. For such a diverse collection, reaching any kind of consensus relies on the conclusion being extremely evident. Liberalism will never fill this criteria, and efforts such as that attempted by the Ecumenical Patriarch will be destructible via attacks on its representative bona fides. Continuing to expose the Western puppet strings that stretch from the USG to the Patriarchate of Constantinople is vital to bringing these attacks to fruition, and is the duty of diligent Orthodox Reactionaries.

Liberals were outraged at the collapse of the council, with Bloomberg gnashing its teeth through an article by Leonid Bershidsky, who is rather ridiculously described as a ‘Russian writer,’ even when the slightest bit of research reveals him not to be Russian at all.

The ultraconservatism and inflexibility of the faith is an underestimated factor that’s hindering the modernization of countries such as Russia and Greece. Until Orthodox Christianity takes steps toward the rest of the Christian world and starts relaxing its harsh dogmatism, these nations will continue to feel the pull of their distant past.

The article was titled ‘The Orthodox Church stays in the Dark Ages’. Those with any sense should be overjoyed at this development, because the future could scarcely look darker.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

27 Comments

  1. Patriarch’s prayers with Bergoglio wasn’t what led the “monks” of the Esphigmenou becoming schismatics. They were officially excommunicated in 2002 when Wojtyła was still the pope. They roused trouble since the seventies, flirting with the Old Calendarists, and a lot was tolerated, but they refused to repent and became only worse with time. The amount of Satanic pride it takes for common monk to dare to anathematize his Patriarch is astounding. Now they’re no better than SJWs/Jihadis (notice how a low-church fundamentalist mentality permeates both the Old Calendarists and the Sedevacantists) threatening to blow themselves up if someone were to expel them from the monastery grounds they illegally hold. Of course, monks gone rogue doesn’t mean that Ecumenical Patriarch is right to suck-up to the Cathedral in order to become relevant.

    1. Thanks for the clarification on that point, Ahote. Technically the rift began with Patriarch Athenagoras in the 70s, this is correct.

      1. You’re welcome. It would be interesting to analyse what Phanar is doing from the context of de Jouvenelian power analysis. Unlike Bergoglio who seems to honestly believe the Leftist talking points he espouses, Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t strike me as a true believer in the religion of Progressivism. He seems to be doing it only to become relevant (he, who is low, is allying with the Cathedral, which is high, against the Orthodox bishops, the middle), in private he appears to be a rather conservative fellow. It is of utmost importance to solve the diaspora problem, but I think that Orthodox decentralization is good, because it prevents both a sellout Phanar, and the FSB-owned MosPat from gaining too much power (currently FSB-backing is a good thing, but don’t forget that KGB-backed the Living Church movement).

        1. From a Moldbuggian perspective, the Orthodox church has real, functional decentralization. To throw that away is both difficult and foolish.

        2. Hieromonk Joshua + July 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm

          There are Three Divine Persons in the All Holy Trinity and you – Ahote – are NOT one of them.

          The Holy Spirit leads the Holy Orthodox Church not the pope, not the EP and, of extreme importance, not you.

          Your or anyone’s insertion of politics – visceral national geo-politics or even unconsciously that of an individual persons desires – into the workings of an Ecumenical Council will end in naught and dust.

          After all the political macinations – of American soft-Stalinism or Ortho-potantates – God, The All Holy Trinity, has the last word.

          Orthodox monks (I am both a Priest and a monk) are not the political animals you make us out to be. We strive, like all the Baptised, for holiness as in Theosis. We speak “truth to power” in the honest, authentic and traditional way not the dishonest, manipulative and wicked Liberal way. In fact, because of tge Passion, Death and Resurrection of Christ the humble always win.

          As a fellow traveler with the politicos of the Roman and Protestant and Socialists “of this world which is passing away” know that the practical Atheists of your brand and of others commenting or confronting Holy Orthodoxy in any form – “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Holy Orthodox Church.

          As a recently glorified Saint glorified by the EP said: “In the end God wins. This fact has made all the difference in my life.”

          1. Hadley Bishop July 1, 2016 at 5:12 pm

            I’m going to leave this comment up, but cut out the personal attacks in future remarks.

  2. Let me preface this by saying that I’m in large agreement with you. Furthermore, I admire the rigorous denial of the Orthodox Church, and I think you’re right in your analysis of its causes.

    All that said, let’s be clear about the state of the Roman Church.

    Very simply, Vatican 2 (or large parts) and the Novus Ordo are doctrinally and legally invalid. The modern Roman Church exists in a hermeneutic of rupture with the past.

    Firstly, Pope Paul VI never officially promulgated or even allowed the Novus Ordo. You can look for documents in which he did so, but, contra Wikipedia, they don’t exist. (JP2, on the other hand, did.)

    Secondly, setting aside the special case of the Novus Ordo, the council of Vatican 2 and much that comes after it (Amor Laetitia, anyone?) is necessarily de jure non-binding. This is because it is contrary, in its documents and in its effects, to:
    – The Ordinary Magesterium of the Church
    – The Extraordinary Magesterium of the Church (to wit, the Pope’s ex cathedra pronouncments, e.g. Quanta Cura)
    – The Council of Trent (and the Pope’s explicit, ex cathedra pronouncements on its Articles)

    You can pick just one of these for invalidation, but you don’t even have to. We have all three.

    So where does that leave the Roman Church? In a grave position indeed: a hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. Much of what the Church does these days is invalid because of it. But that’s not to say that it has ceased being the Church. There is an ongoing internal struggle, and I pray that, with the blessing of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise never to abandon us, those of us who love Tradition are slowly winning.

    Still, it’d be much better if this weren’t the case at all. And I fully agree and recognize that, as a political entity, Rome is effectively just another USG vassal. A little uppity sometimes, but Nancy Pelosi feels no qualms about communication.

    Even if the act does shove her further into perdition every time.

    1. Thanks for some in-depth information on the nature of Vatican II. I think this topic has been somewhat neglected in the Reactosphere, and ought to be fully addressed in an expansive analysis by Catholic Traditionalists, also understanding principally where orgs like SSPX and the Sedevacantists stand with relation to the Church.

      My contention I would not want to be mistconstrued as that Roman Catholics are importing Liberalism to Orthodoxy via the Ecumenical dialogue. I don’t see any solid evidence for that, so while I think those who have raised concerns about Ecumenism on the Orthodox side are making legitimate points, these don’t have a great deal to do with the threat of Liberalization.

      Liberalization instead is coming directly through the Patriarchate of Constantinople which is of course in an unenviable geopolitical situation. There is a Liberal contingent within Eastern Orthodoxy. It is much much smaller than it is in Roman Catholicism, but it is determined, with US backing, and I believe it has ensnared the first among equals, or at the very least the Patriarch’s retinue should be treated with the utmost suspicion. This is why Russia is correct to be very skittish around any proposed ‘councils’, as is Georgia whose lodged complaints related to marriage.

      1. Yes, in reply both to you and Rhetocrates, I would say that Catholics need to come to grips with the full reality of the crisis in the Church, and it is my goal to do a series of articles on this in the near future on my blog, addressing the various groups, whom we can certainly reckon to be in/out of the Church, what the course of action will have to be in future, etc.

        It is sometimes wryly amusing for me, as an ex-Orthodox Christian myself, to be in the position of rejecting the man whom most would call “pope,” after converting to Catholicism precisely on the grounds of a reconciliation with the papal primacy (amongst other things). Yet, part of my reconciliation to that primacy, was realizing that the Catholics certainly acknowledged real limits on it – limits which the popes since Pius XII have manifestly transgressed, as men in less “tolerant” eras would have swiftly recognized. The authority of the dead, i.e., Holy Tradition, is just as binding for us; just as an Orthodox Christian knows who is still an Orthodox Christian by what Faith he confesses, and not merely to which organization he professes to support, so it is for Catholics. The only difference, is that the Judaeo-Masonic-Protestant activity has been at work for much longer in the West, and so there are many more pseudo-Catholics at present than there are pseudo-Orthodox.

        But, obviously, the pseudo-Orthodox would love to destroy all trace of Tradition in the East, as well, which, I imagine, is why they are keen to settle the details of authority first off – to minimize as much as possible any break-away movements that would rely on the decentralization in modern-day Orthodoxy. Many will now go along with their whims in any case, as I saw well in my time amongst the Antiochian and Greek parishes of the USA. Those places are full of syncretists who love icons and veganism and dabbling in hesychasm, but who would be flatly embarrassed to seriously and fully profess the Orthodox Faith and morality, if they even knew it.

        I and most of my (at the time) fellow Orthodox knew that any “Great and Holy Council” would just be a Vatican II of the Orthodox Church, though the confusion about leadership in Orthodoxy in the absence of the papal office of the early centuries, which now prevents Orthodoxy from accomplishing many positive things, also allows it to sidestep many negative things with some ease… just as the papal authority accomplished the great feats of evangelizing the whole world and clearly identifying, condemning and organizing the most effective possible resistance to the Modernist and Liberal heresies, but, when at last its trappings were coopted by heretics after so many centuries without an antipope or crisis in the primacy, the damage done by its centralization of the institutions of the Church, was on a much higher order of magnitude than anything an heretical Patriarch can inflict.

        Such is the reality of the modern West: Christ’s Faith nullified as a “spice of life,” rather than the Fountain of Life itself. And the institutions built by the Church, that used to serve as aqueducts of this Water of Life, now in the hands of Masons and apostates, are used to pump sewage into the (formerly) faithful souls. Kyrieleison.

        1. Check your e-mail, Aurelius.

        2. Jailgunner Toe June 27, 2016 at 6:20 pm

          I find it very odd that people that believe themselves to be Traditionalist Catholics think having an internet blog gives them the authority to declare the entire Church hierarchy heretical and invalid. Sedevacantists have the same thought process as low-church protestants, even if their views on the liturgy are as far apart as possible. It all comes down to private interpretation. The Church is no longer a “thing” (as Belloc would call it) with a corporate identity, but an “-ism”, with doctrinal points acting as things like the Augsburg Confession does for Confessional Protestants.

          1. This is a real and valid criticism, which is effectively why I am not a sedevacantist.

            I just believe that thing with its corporate identity is undergoing a severe crisis, probably the worst it ever has.

  3. Mark, this is the best thing I’ve ever read from you. It sounds like you’ve introduced us to religious geopolitics. This is a great analysis of the interplay between a traditional church as an institution, and intelligence agencies and newspapers as institutions working in concert.

    To me, you’ve bridged the analytical gap between “religion” and “geopolitics.” The two are usually separate, since it requires a strong background in both to grasp the full implications and convey them to an audience effectively.

    The Church is without question the backbone of Western civilization and the most vital institution to it, yet we, as a zeitgeist and contemporary civilization, have almost no expertise analyzing and understanding it. If we ever did, we’ve lost it all. This is beyond a travesty.

    What’s your e-mail? Contact me at markyuray@mail.com please, we should talk.

    1. Hadley Bishop June 27, 2016 at 4:18 pm

      Agreed. This is easily Citadel’s best.

  4. The Orthodox Church’s rather Byzantine structure (pun intended) in this scenario, as Mark points out, is actually an advantage in the current geopolitical situation. Even if the council had taken place, I doubt anything drastic would have happened. Certainly not anything near the radical changes which took place, especially with the liturgy, at Vatican 2.

    The genius of Orthodoxy is its emphasis on Tradition and its autocephalous structure. This enables it to resist negative change much more effectively than the West’s top heavy structure (which emphasises authority above all else). Even before Vatican 2, Orthodox theology and practice have experienced much less change, or “development” than Roman Catholicism has (for better or worse).

    Furthermore, its autocephalous nature enables a certain kind of independence. Say the Patriarch and a few churches decided to unilaterally recognize SSM, the other churches would simply break communion with them. Since their legitimacy does not derive from their communion with a certain Apostolic See, as it does in Roman Catholicism. In theory, a church is complete if it has at least 1 legitimate bishop and follows Tradition.

    There’s obviously a lot more to this, but these are the main issues as I see them.

    And yes, this piece is great. During the 20th century, religion rarely played into Geopolitics in any serious way. This will not be the case in the 21st. Religion is a pillar of Identity and Identity will be the main issue of 21st century Geopolitics.

    1. “And yes, this piece is great. During the 20th century, religion rarely played into Geopolitics in any serious way. This will not be the case in the 21st. Religion is a pillar of Identity and Identity will be the main issue of 21st century Geopolitics.”

      Au contraire, I think organized religion played massively into geopolitics in both the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as earlier. I think the reason we tend to forget about it is that we lack the backgrounds to understand it fully, not that it didn’t happen. Could you effectively parse power-plays between bishops and cardinals, or between autocephalous Orthodox churches? I definitely couldn’t, any more than an alien could parse power-plays between parliaments, assemblies and congresses of various states (that’s hyperbole, but eh).

      Organized religion playing important geopolitical roles:

      – Vatican Concordat with Hitler in the 1930’s. That’s important.

      – Papal State wasn’t gone until 1870. That’s pretty recent. The Vatican City was reinstated in the 1920’s, at Mussolini’s behest IIRC. Also important, notable.

      – Russian Orthodox Church as actor in the fight against Soviet communism, then as KGB/FSB-infiltrated state organization. That’s also important.

      – Catholic Church in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930’s. IIRC, the Church was very active and very vehement in its support for monarchists and fascists, and in the bloody fight against communists and socialists.

      1. Sure, but I think my point is that in the 20th-century Religion as a Geopolitical force seemed to be in retreat. The examples you cite are good ones, important ones. But they pale in comparison to events in previous centuries. Compare the Influence of the Catholic Church in the 20th century to its influence in the 17th for instance, big difference in geopolitical influence I’d say.

        Especially during the Mid-Part of the 20th-century religion as a Geopolitical force was almost nonexistent. The big ideologies were the players, even in the Muslim World. Islamism basically didn’t exist in the 1970’s for instance, it was all Arab Nationalism. Even the Arab-Israeli conflict was mostly seen through the lens of ideology.

        It’s true that many of Organized Religion’s machinations escape our gaze simply because we don’t know what we are looking at. At the same time it’s also true that Organized Religion’s influence ebbs and flows depending upon a particular age’s Zeitgeist.

        1. It’s fair to say it was in retreat, but you’re talking about massively powerful organizations spanning the globe. They were still giants, and we’re still not quite sure what they were up to, or what was going on with them with regards to intelligence agencies, political parties, terrorist groups, etc.

        2. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 10:05 pm

          Religion is by no means in retreat – the sciencey-dogmatism, cult of equality, the reified People – everyone one of these is as hidebound, supernatural and moralizing as any Christian church – in many vvays parallel. It’s a mistake to see progressivism as anything BUT a religion; though like any religion it has its canons that do the administrative side of things. Crypto-Communism is a theocracy based on pure magical thinking, in many vvays it’s far more absurd than any debate over the Trinity.

      2. Jailgunner Toe June 28, 2016 at 7:17 am

        The Church’s support for Franco outside of Spain was actually fairly lukewarm. Franco honestly presented his regime as the most Catholic on Earth, and it probably was, but the fact that he was aided by the Italians and Germans during the civil war, and that there was at least one part of the Popular Front made up of Catholics (the Basque Separatists) gave the Vatican some concern. I don’t believe the Vatican was in great terms with Franco until the 50s. (I’m basing this on center-right historian Stanley Payne, though)

        1. True, but I’d say we could point to other similar regimes that received more explicit support, i.e – Salazar’s Portugal or Tiso’s Slovakia, correct?

        2. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 10:07 pm

          The church post-VVestphalia proved unable to put up a good defense against nation states, and its support for Catholic rulers vvas undermined by its de-facto anti-Catholic clergy in those respective countries. Catholicism vvas vvounded by Napoleon’s destruction of the Ancien Regime, but it’s dying by suicide.

      3. R. J. Moore II June 28, 2016 at 10:09 pm

        Franco’s Falange vvas hardly fascistic, though the original Falange vvas an actual-fascist (i.e. syndicalist nationalist revolutionary) group it became totally neutered into a rather typical authoritarian regime. Sauce: Stanley Payne, Paul Gottfried.

  5. the Orthodox church has real, functional decentralization. To throw that away is both difficult and foolish.

    The Orthodox I’ve met feel the same way. It’s the only way Orthodoxy makes any sense at all; 1,000 years of popes and councils…then nothing? The only way to logically justify this? Believe the days of councils are over, God ordained it that way. Sort of like how many Protestants or Mormons “draw a line” between the early Church and today.

    Regarding Catholics who think Vatican II was invalid? Sheese, why not just convert to Protestant or Orthodox and save the rest of us the noise? If you truly think a council can be false, this is the very definition of Protestant, or at best Orthodox. Luther did the same thing with Trent, and died waiting for Rome to “come back”…and look where his linage is today.

  6. This article could include the serious doctrinal and canonical reasons Bulgaria, Georgia, Antioch and Russia balked. Those four churches have been quite outspoken and straightforward in expressing their reasons for denying the council and they are not the political reasons cited here. They stayed home because two of council documents promote heresy and they rightly recognized little hope to influence corrections.

    1. Ah, but politics and heresy are completel entwined. There are political motivations for promoting heresy, which is why the enemy does it so readily.

      From what I could tell, accusations of heresy were absent from the dissent of almost all the churches.

      Antioch refused to attend because it could not share a chalice with Jerusalem, as the two are no longer in communion.

      Bulgaria’s objection was over the selection of seating and the fact that it felt the council was addressing trivialities rather than substantive issues which has been ruled out for discussion.

      Russia objected lastly on the grounds that the council could no longer be considered pan-Orthodox

      The only Church that came close was Georgia who raised serious concerns over the likely statement on marriage which was set to clarify a previously gray area on Orthodox marriage to non-Orthodox, and the outcome of which Georgia anticipated it would not be able to conscion.

      There may have been other tertiary concerns as well as those listed, but these seem to be the main stated reasons.

  7. Antioch refused to attend because the EP Bartholomew didn’t adjudicate the dispute between it and Jerusalem. This request for adjudication of the matter was requested over two years go.

Comments are closed.