OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 06:57:43 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Question for greekischristian and Anastasios  (Read 4277 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« on: December 06, 2006, 07:32:35 PM »

On another thread, http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9895.45.html, greekischristian wrote this:

Quote
As a point of clarification, though there will certainly be individuals who disagree, our Patriarchs have defined 'prayer' in this context to mean formal, sacramental, liturgical concelebration. So unless you're fully vested and concelebrating the Eucharist with a Lutheran Minister, these canons do not apply in the opinion of the Ancient Patriarchates who initially ratified these canons.

I noticed that Anastasios was in disagreement, and being that that thread seemed not to be the place to carry it on, I thought i would ask about it over here.  Can y'all elaborate on what was being discussed above?  Was it the rule forbidding prayer with heretics, or was it something else?  That is an issue I have an interest in, and no knowledge really, since my church, Rome, is heavily engaged in ecumenical services and activities.  My intention is not to argue about it, as I know nothing in the first place to argue about, but would really like to know more.

Many thanks,

Patrick
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2006, 07:39:47 PM »

On another thread, http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9895.45.html, greekischristian wrote this:

I noticed that Anastasios was in disagreement, and being that that thread seemed not to be the place to carry it on, I thought i would ask about it over here.  Can y'all elaborate on what was being discussed above?  Was it the rule forbidding prayer with heretics, or was it something else?  That is an issue I have an interest in, and no knowledge really, since my church, Rome, is heavily engaged in ecumenical services and activities.  My intention is not to argue about it, as I know nothing in the first place to argue about, but would really like to know more.

Well, I am a bit curious how Anastasios disagrees with my statement as well, for one will observe that I was very careful to neither opine nor speak dogmatically. I only presented the (I assume universally recognized) opinion of the Ancient Orthodox Patriarchates: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Furthermore, I presume that Rome also shares these beliefs, making the opinion unanimous amongst the Five Ancient Sees.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2006, 07:44:27 PM »

I'll try to elaborate later. I'm still at work, yawn.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2006, 07:48:15 PM »

To more directly answer your question (rather than take a jab at Anastasios...sorry, couldn't resist Grin), yes we were discussing the issue of prayer with heretics, and what falls under this canonical condemnation. The GOC has a substantially stricter interpretation of the canon than Constantinople and most those in communion with Her. The latter would define forbidden prayer as prayer with those whom she is not in communion with that is both sacramental and liturgical in nature. The former would apply it to all prayer, even informal and private prayer with those who hold heterodox beliefs.

I tried to be (somewhat) objective here, but I'll give Anastasios a chance to elaborate before I say any more.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
nickg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2006, 08:19:56 PM »

GiC, can you provide some literature supporting your claim that this is the opinion of the Ancient Patriarchates?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 08:20:15 PM by nickg » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2006, 09:38:31 PM »

I suppose GisC worded it carefully enough that it is hard for me to dispute what he is saying, namely that "the patriarchs" interpret the canon that way. However, let me present a few points.

First of all, the Jerusalem Patriarchate has repeatedly condemned the kind of prayer you mention.

Secondly, I find it hard to say that the patriarchs are interpreting the canon that way, namely that prayer only refers to liturgical prayer, when the canons themselves make a distinction between liturgical prayer and sacerdotal function:

-----------------------------------------
On Praying with Heretics

Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles:

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed."

Canon LXV Of the Holy Apostles:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated."

Canon IX of Laodicia (Also approved by the Ecumenical Synods):

"Concerning the fact that those belonging to the Church must not be allowed to go visiting the cemeteries or the so called martyria of any heretics, for the purpose of prayer or of cure, but, on the contrary, those who do so, if they be among the faithful, shall be excluded from communion for a time until they repent and confess their having made a mistake, when they may be readmitted to communion."

Canon XXXIII of Laodicia:

"One must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics."
------------------------------------
(yes, these are the same quotes that get posted on the subject often.  If the saints could have patristic summaries so can I!)

Now to the point:

Admittedly, some people approach this topic in a spirit of rules and regulations. For me, however, the central issues are fidelity to what we have been given (always cautious not to make our own beliefs) and mission.  As a Catholic, I really believed the Orthodox thought we were ok and that we were on the verge of union. Ecumenism held me back from becoming Orthodox. I don't want this to happen to anyone else.  Branch theorism obscures the faith and gives a false hope to the non-Orthodox instead of offering them the chance to accept Orthodoxy on its own terms.  That you GisC could advise someone to go elsewhere even for a time shows me that branch theorism has truly matured into down to earth day to day fruition.  Please, think about what you are doing and saying. Think about the fact that you are deciding who is worth offering the fullness of Orthodoxy and who is not in a sense.

In Christ,

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2006, 09:47:00 PM »

The GOC has a substantially stricter interpretation of the canon than Constantinople and most those in communion with Her. The latter would define forbidden prayer as prayer with those whom she is not in communion with that is both sacramental and liturgical in nature. The former would apply it to all prayer, even informal and private prayer with those who hold heterodox beliefs.

Are you referring to the Greek Orthodox Church or the Greek Old Calendarists? 

I know when Pope John Paul II visited Greece a few years ago, Archbishop Christodoulos prayed the Paternoster with him.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2006, 09:50:42 PM »

GiC, can you provide some literature supporting your claim that this is the opinion of the Ancient Patriarchates?

No, not at the time being...being on the road I have neither the resources or the time to do so. (Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a proceeding from the Synod of Alexandria, for example? I'm sure that there are several that say far more than I need for my purposes from the reign of Meletios, but good luck finding them.)

However, I will point to the actual conduct of these Patriarchates and their Participation in Oecumenical Gatherings and the WCC (Perhaps I could find a declaration from the WCC they approved? Maybe I'll look later if I have a bunch of down time.). As a specific case relating to Constantinople, take the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, they even went to the extend of joint liturgical prayer...but drew the like at sacramental concelebration. Similar examples can be readily found with Antioch and the Non-Chalcedonians. I konw that there are some similar instances involving Jerusalem, though I can't recall them off the top of my head (Perhaps one of the old-calendarists would know one of these examples, giving them a reason to anathematize the Patriarch of Jerusalem Wink). As for Alexandria, again I can think of no specific instances off the top of my head, but I can say with certainty that Constantinople has no more loyal supporter.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2006, 09:51:35 PM »

Are you referring to the Greek Orthodox Church or the Greek Old Calendarists? 

I know when Pope John Paul II visited Greece a few years ago, Archbishop Christodoulos prayed the Paternoster with him.

I'm refering to the Old Calendarists; the Church of Greece is involved in the Ecumenical Movement along with the Pariarchate of Constantinople, as you correctly noted.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2006, 10:38:56 PM »

This is quite fascinating to me.  I had honestly always understood that any prayer with non-Orthodox was seen as forbidden, and that no other view existed.  To see a suggestion that perhaps this issue had nuances of interpretation was a bit suprising, though maybe it should not have been.  Most issues do after all.  I have to wonder just what kind of disputes and troubles arise from events like what just happened in Turkey with Pope Benedict.  Are anathemas thrown about fairly regularly when these things occur?

Many thanks again for the clarification,

Patrick
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2006, 10:42:07 PM »

Anathemas are big deals and are not applied often. Anathemas cut someone off from grace totally.  They are rare.

Whether bishops doing this nonsense put themselves outside the Church is another story and something I try not to debate too much.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006, 10:47:48 PM »

On Praying with Heretics...

I could offer my own commentary on these canons, but I'm sure everyone knows exactly what I'm going to say; furthermore, I've learned long ago that I can make the canons say whatever they want, so it's an exercise of little worth, unless you're actually looking to 'win' (which is usually the case with me, but not tonight). I'm willing to bet that I could argue, from the canons, many traditionalist posistions better than the overwhelming majority of people here, and perhaps even better than I could argue my own posistions; but while I dont know who those arguments might convince, they clearly wern't enough to convince me.

Quote
Now to the point:

Good Wink

Quote
Admittedly, some people approach this topic in a spirit of rules and regulations. For me, however, the central issues are fidelity to what we have been given (always cautious not to make our own beliefs) and mission.

I would agree, but where we probably disagree is in what we believe our mission to be. I do not believe that it is our mission to convert our neighbour, but rather to love him. And, no, I dont buy the propaganda that says if we love our neighbour we will proselytize him. We all know what love is, and we all know it isn't trying to force someone to think like we do. Of course, I do believe that if we truly love our neighbour we will bring about their conversion in this life or the next, or at least the Holy Spirit will through us, as we can not accomplish that on our own.

Quote
As a Catholic, I really believed the Orthodox thought we were ok and that we were on the verge of union. Ecumenism held me back from becoming Orthodox. I don't want this to happen to anyone else.

Well, we may not be as close as you once thought...but in the past hundred years we've been the closest we've been since the Great Schism. Would not the restoration of communion be a great thing? It would not bring only a handful back into the Church, but much of the world. Surely that is a goal worth striving for?

Quote
Branch theorism obscures the faith and gives a false hope to the non-Orthodox instead of offering them the chance to accept Orthodoxy on its own terms.

I don't think anyone here has adovcated 'Branch Theorism,' least of all myself. I did not say that the Orthodox Church was not the fullness of the faith Christ gave us, I did not say that the Church was incomplete, I did not suggest any equality between the Orthodox Church and other churches or faiths, nor did I suggest any dependency of the former on the latter.

What I did say is that God is bigger than even his Church, that while the Church may hold the fullness of the faith and be blessed with the overabundant Grace of God, she does not, in a limiting fashion, contain God. Furthermore, I asserted that the Love of God transcends all, including the dogmas and and teachings of the Church; and, thus, that the Love of Christ can be expressed and experienced by those who are outside the Church, and the fact that they are outside the Church, does not make the Divine Love any less real, uplifting, or edifying.

Quote
That you GisC could advise someone to go elsewhere even for a time shows me that branch theorism has truly matured into down to earth day to day fruition.

I dont believe I actually advised anyone to do any such thing, but rather when confronted with one who had made this decision I choose to respond in love rather than condemnation. Now I'll admit, as I don't have too much experience in this whole 'love' thing (other than using it as an abstract concept to shove down other's throats, of course Wink), so I probably made a mess of it...I probably would have looked more elegant if I had simply found four or five good anathemas to read off with a bit of rhetorical flare, I'm actually good at that. However, I dont believe I actually said anying that was untrue. I expressed the omnipresent nature of God and transcending nature of Divine Love. I expressed my concern at the lack of Divine Love often experienced from some Orthodox Christians (surely you've met one or two people like that). And I expressed that I did not believe in the mantra 'no salvation outside the Church,' and that God would not simply condemn someone to hell because of difficulities they encountered in their spiritual struggles (some may think that to be heretical, but, as you could probably have guessed from some of my previous posts, I clearly do not).

However, if charity is the logical result of 'Branch Theorism,' perhaps we should take a second look at it... Wink

Quote
Please, think about what you are doing and saying. Think about the fact that you are deciding who is worth offering the fullness of Orthodoxy and who is not in a sense.

That is not at all what I was deciding. Rather I was saying the we welcome all, but force none to come to us. We offer all a home, but force none to stay. And while we may grieve to see someone depart, we maintain home for their salvation, because we know of the Greatness of our God. And while anathemas may be most appropriate for heresiarchs who openly opposes the Christian Church, they are not appropriate for those who are merely struggling in their faith and convictions.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2006, 10:52:17 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2006, 11:03:19 PM »

This is quite fascinating to me.  I had honestly always understood that any prayer with non-Orthodox was seen as forbidden, and that no other view existed.  To see a suggestion that perhaps this issue had nuances of interpretation was a bit suprising, though maybe it should not have been.  Most issues do after all.  I have to wonder just what kind of disputes and troubles arise from events like what just happened in Turkey with Pope Benedict.  Are anathemas thrown about fairly regularly when these things occur?

Many thanks again for the clarification,

Patrick

When Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras mutually lifted the excommunications of 1054 and prayed together 40 years ago, there were strong reactions. The monasteries of Mount Athos, for example, went into schism (all but one have since reconciled). You could say that most of the twentieth century has seen disputes between hardliners and those more friendly to ecumenism. A good deal of the hardliners are now separated from their former churches, but the disputes continue.
Logged
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2006, 11:05:16 PM »

Anathemas are big deals and are not applied often. Anathemas cut someone off from grace totally.  They are rare.

Whether bishops doing this nonsense put themselves outside the Church is another story and something I try not to debate too much.

I didn't realize this.  What would be the difference between being anathematized and putting oneself outside of the Church?  To my Latin ears it sounds like it would be much the same.

Thanks,

Patrick
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2006, 12:18:07 AM »

Whether bishops doing this nonsense put themselves outside the Church is another story and something I try not to debate too much.

Not here, at any rate.  But you have made your views clear on this subject over at the E-Cafe.  Wink   I do accept that it's not in your nature to be polemical.  Perhaps we can all learn from this.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 12:20:32 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2006, 12:28:35 AM »

I didn't realize this.  What would be the difference between being anathematized and putting oneself outside of the Church?  To my Latin ears it sounds like it would be much the same.

Thanks,

Patrick

Even in your Church at least there was a difference.  An anathema is applied by a Synod and I am not sure if it can be removed except on a deathbed (I am not sure--please don't quote me). An anathema is like for someone who totally does something persisently off the wall in a heretical sense and just won't give up, warring against the Church, etc. etc. But someone who is anathematized is not generally someone who would tend to repent so the punishment reflects the sin, not the other way around.

Normally heretics are just excommunicated, which can be undone upon simple repentance or at the end of a fixed term.

Anastasios
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 12:29:38 AM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
nickg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2006, 12:37:29 AM »

However, I will point to the actual conduct of these Patriarchates and their Participation in Oecumenical Gatherings and the WCC (Perhaps I could find a declaration from the WCC they approved? Maybe I'll look later if I have a bunch of down time.). As a specific case relating to Constantinople, take the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, they even went to the extend of joint liturgical prayer...but drew the like at sacramental concelebration. Similar examples can be readily found with Antioch and the Non-Chalcedonians. I konw that there are some similar instances involving Jerusalem, though I can't recall them off the top of my head (Perhaps one of the old-calendarists would know one of these examples, giving them a reason to anathematize the Patriarch of Jerusalem Wink). As for Alexandria, again I can think of no specific instances off the top of my head, but I can say with certainty that Constantinople has no more loyal supporter.

GiC, these seem like modern day examples relating to this issue. In my opinion, this topic has greatly changed in the last 100 years. If you could give me some examples of church fathers (not from modern times) sharing this type of interpretation of the canon's as you claim, then maybe I'll start to consider your position. Until then, I just feel that this view/interpretation of praying with non-Orthodox is something rather new, and not of Orthodox tradition.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2006, 01:10:46 AM »

Anathema, as it developed in Catholic practice, was sort of a super-excommunication, an excommunication solemnified by a papal ceremony that involved the shutting of books and ringing of bells and the snuffing out of candles. It was very rarely used, only for the most serious offenses. Of course, like in "minor" excommunications, a tribunal could return the offender to the fold upon repentance.

In the early Church, there was no distinction, and currently there is none now. The Code of Canon Law (1983) even abolished the ceremony, and the word is not even mentioned. The existing "medicinal" penalties are simply excommunication, interdict, and suspension.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 01:12:55 AM by lubeltri » Logged
FHL
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 65


« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2006, 04:44:47 AM »

I've got a question since this topic is related to a concern of mine. Does this talk about deliberatly going to another faith's house of prayer, or, by chance, finding yourself in a situation where someone of another faith is praying with you?

I'm wondering becuase there was an incident not too long ago where I did pray with a muslim man. I never prayed muslim prayers, and I did mention the Lord Jesus Christ audibly. What happened was that this muslim guy is a friend of mine and we were both in his car when we almost got into a severe accident. Everything was alright, thanks to God, but it could have been much worse, maybe even fatal. After we got out of the car, my friend said we should pray to God in thanks of His protection, which actually humbled me a bit becuase the thought of thanking God hadn't entered my mind. So we both privately prayed our prayers, each audibly but in a low enough voice that we didn't interrupt each other.

I can't really imagine having done anything else though. It seemed oddly innappropriate, even spiritually, to refuse praying in this situation, as if my lack of prayer was out of spite or false personal pride. I thought if I had said "no", it could have been seen as my having a disbelief in God or His power, and I didn't think this wise, since I care about my friend and hope for him to become a Christian sometime in his life (I know this hope is statistically extremely slim, not many muslim conversions to Christianity occur, but I can't just give up). And it's not like I acknowledged the islamic god or anything, all my prayers were directed to God.


What should I have done in this situation? Is this something I need to confess? If prayer with heterodox, but still Christian, people warrants excommunication, I'm really worried about what I just did now.
Logged

"Let us love one another first, then in an atmosphere of love we can discuss theological matters." - H.H. Pope Shenouda III
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2006, 06:04:37 AM »

What should I have done in this situation?
Exactly what you did do- give thanks to God for His mercy and providence.
And shame on you for not thinking of it before your Muslim friend! Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2006, 06:19:59 AM »

FHL,

I gather from your first post on this forum that you're Coptic, yes? I don't think our Church interprets/applies the canons in question as strictly/narrowly as Anastasios' Church does. The position reflected in GiC's posts would be more reflective of our Church's position, I believe. Don't stress.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 06:20:38 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
FHL
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 65


« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2006, 06:30:15 AM »

Thanks for the quick replies, that definatly relieves me  Smiley. And yes, I am Coptic, but even though I was born into the faith, I was seperated from the church due to a physical geographical distance between me and the nearest Coptic church. Only recently have started to learn about it and even go to church on a regular basis. I know I probably shouldn't say this cause it might confuse people, and I definatly don't mean it in the Protestant way, but I'm sort of recently "born again" in the faith, meaning I haven't really been involved in my faith and church life until now. Just clarifying that to explain why I seem rather uninformed over many of our church's teachings.
Logged

"Let us love one another first, then in an atmosphere of love we can discuss theological matters." - H.H. Pope Shenouda III
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2006, 06:41:49 AM »

Well, for the purpose of this thread, rest assured that no Coptic authority is going to ex-communicate you for what you did in the incident you have recounted above.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2006, 11:43:11 AM »

Even in your Church at least there was a difference.  An anathema is applied by a Synod and I am not sure if it can be removed except on a deathbed (I am not sure--please don't quote me). An anathema is like for someone who totally does something persisently off the wall in a heretical sense and just won't give up, warring against the Church, etc. etc. But someone who is anathematized is not generally someone who would tend to repent so the punishment reflects the sin, not the other way around.

Normally heretics are just excommunicated, which can be undone upon simple repentance or at the end of a fixed term.

Anastasios

Thanks for the clarification.  I suppose that I had always just thought it was a fancy term used by councils to mean excommunication.  Just goes to show what making assumptions will get you.

Many thanks,

Patrick
Logged
Isaac
Orthodox law student
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56

OC.net


« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2006, 04:33:31 PM »

I think it might be important in this situation to bring up the fact that just as Orthodoxy is not "sola scriptura" it is also not "sola canona" (or whatever).  By this I mean that canons many times do not interpret themselves, and require the overarching Orthodox tradition to provide an interpretational framework. 

So far, the discussion has only focused upon the meaning of "prayer" in the canonical texts.  While I see the points of both sides, this isn't the only issue.  What, for instance, do these canons mean by "heretics"?  The reason I ask is because St. Basil and many others distinguish among those who are separated from the Orthodox Church in various ways.  Heretics, St. Basil says, are those who differ with respect to the very faith in God-- issues like not believing in the Trinity:  pagans, Arians, Montanists, Manichaeans.  Schismatics, on the other hand (according to the usage of St. Basil) are those who were separated but who nevertheless held errant beliefs on other issues (though still important). 

The reason I bring this up is not to attempt to interpret the canon myself, but instead to perhaps provoke a deeper insight into the canon's intentions.  I absolutely agree with Anastasios-- I think the intention of the canon is to protect the boundaries of the Church, and also I think it is to protect believers from praying with other heterodox groups which might tempt him to apostatize.

Other applications of this canon seem less certain to me.  Does it mean to forbid prayer just simply when heretics are around?  Or does "with" mean that heretics also must be praying for it to be forbidden?  Does it matter who is leading the prayer?  If Orthodox cannot lead a prayer in which heretics join in, then I suppose no one but Orthodox would be able to go into Orthodox temples during services.  What about grace at the table?  If we eat at  a Protestant's house, must we insist on praying or perhaps just not bow our own heads while they pray?

My wife and I went to her best friend's wedding at a Roman Catholic Cathedral.  Very mindful of this canon, I made sure it would be ok for us even to show up by asking many Orthodox priests.  They said it would be fine.  One even mentioned to me that St. Nicholas II of Russia had his wedding blessed in a Lutheran Church because at the time his wife was Lutheran.  This encouraged me, but ever mindful of the canon, I was wary about bowing my head or crossing myself. 

My wife, not really thinking about the issue, crossed herself at the wedding rehearsal when the priest invoked the Trinity-- the priest stopped what he was doing, looked at her, and in front of about 80 people, exclaimed delightedly, "Are you ORTHODOX???"  She quietly said yes.  Anyway, that was a big thing... everyone at the wedding that evening and the next day came up and asked us about Orthodoxy and a few said they were going to visit an Orthodox Church.  Thank goodness she wasn't the "canonical rigorist" that I considered myself to be, because we most likely would have missed out on an opportunity to talk about Orthodoxy to other people.

The intention of the canon seems to be to protect Orthodoxy from admixture with error.  The Holy Canons don't exist in vaccuums and I dare wager that any Orthodox Church that doesn't have some minor canonical issues hasn't been around very long.
Logged
Isaac
Orthodox law student
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56

OC.net


« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2006, 04:43:35 PM »

Let me also briefly mention the fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate seems to be the most LIKELY proponent of an interpretation of the canon which would likely only forbid formal liturgical concelebration, because the biggest service of the year for the Patriarch of Jerusalem is one which is canonical chaos-- the Holy Fire.  Here you have all the Orthodox, along with the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Latins.  The Armenian and Coptic Bishops even go into the Tomb to pray with the Patriarch, I believe.  Thank God, Christ still sends the Holy Fire, and yet this mutual prayer of all the Christians in the Church of the Resurrection is perhaps forbidden by the canons?   
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2006, 04:53:06 PM »

My wife, not really thinking about the issue, crossed herself at the wedding rehearsal when the priest invoked the Trinity-- the priest stopped what he was doing, looked at her, and in front of about 80 people, exclaimed delightedly, "Are you ORTHODOX???"  She quietly said yes.  Anyway, that was a big thing... everyone at the wedding that evening and the next day came up and asked us about Orthodoxy and a few said they were going to visit an Orthodox Church.  Thank goodness she wasn't the "canonical rigorist" that I considered myself to be, because we most likely would have missed out on an opportunity to talk about Orthodoxy to other people.

The intention of the canon seems to be to protect Orthodoxy from admixture with error.  The Holy Canons don't exist in vaccuums and I dare wager that any Orthodox Church that doesn't have some minor canonical issues hasn't been around very long.

What a nice story. I'm so glad you got a warm welcome.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 05:53:16 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2006, 04:59:07 PM »

Let me also briefly mention the fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate seems to be the most LIKELY proponent of an interpretation of the canon which would likely only forbid formal liturgical concelebration, because the biggest service of the year for the Patriarch of Jerusalem is one which is canonical chaos-- the Holy Fire.  Here you have all the Orthodox, along with the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Latins.  The Armenian and Coptic Bishops even go into the Tomb to pray with the Patriarch, I believe.  Thank God, Christ still sends the Holy Fire, and yet this mutual prayer of all the Christians in the Church of the Resurrection is perhaps forbidden by the canons?   

He is kind of constrained by a variety of factors and would most likely prefer that all of the other groups not be there.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,456


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2006, 05:00:51 PM »

For the definition of heretic, there was a deliberate attempt at the seminary I attended to bring out the ancient distinction between heretics and schismatics and claim that RCs are not heretics but rather only schismatics.  I find this to be unconvincing since so many RC teachings are formally condemned by the Orthodox Church in ecumenical Synods and Pan Orthodox Synods, so in the end I did not accept such an argument. But others do, for the sake of disclosure.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2006, 05:03:48 PM »

I think it might be important in this situation to bring up the fact that just as Orthodoxy is not "sola scriptura" it is also not "sola canona" (or whatever).  By this I mean that canons many times do not interpret themselves, and require the overarching Orthodox tradition to provide an interpretational framework. 

A very interesting post, Isaac.  Quite a story about the wedding, too!
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2006, 05:05:51 PM »

For the definition of heretic, there was a deliberate attempt at the seminary I attended to bring out the ancient distinction between heretics and schismatics and claim that RCs are not heretics but rather only schismatics.  I find this to be unconvincing since so many RC teachings are formally condemned by the Orthodox Church in ecumenical Synods and Pan Orthodox Synods, so in the end I did not accept such an argument. But others do, for the sake of disclosure.

Yeah, there does seem to be an inconsistency here, I agree.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Isaac
Orthodox law student
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56

OC.net


« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2006, 05:27:56 PM »

I think the inconsistency is capable of being resolved. The Church uses "heretic" in different ways at different times-- St. Basil divided them up one way, other fathers do so differently.

St. Mark of Ephesus called the Latins "heretics" but recommended that they only be chrismated rather than baptized.  This "chrismation" category is the category that St. Basil assigns to schismatics, not heretics. 

Even Timothy of Alexandria (I think it's 'of Alexandria'?) mentions that there are heretics "of the first rite, the second rite, and the third rite" (by which he refers to the manner of reception which is to be used by the Church in reconciling them).  Here it seems to be the same distinctions that St. Basil uses, only he divides between "heretics, schismatics, and parasynagogues"... but the differing manners of reception make it clear that the fathers are using different words in different ways but mean the same thing.
Logged
Tags: GOC Old Calendarists schism prayer traditionalist 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.117 seconds with 58 queries.