OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 02:41:47 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: Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:  (Read 2200 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« on: September 04, 2013, 06:43:46 PM »

Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:
Quote
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
(source)
such that on Sundays and the fifty days between Easter an Pentecost, there is no kneeling during Liturgy.

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?

Disclaimer: this is not to start a fight between the Catholics and Orthodox! I do not want to witness a similar argumentation of the Filioque or others.

I first heard about this canon on an Orthodox Ancient Faith Radio podcast and read about it again in The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos, though I never heard about it as a Latin rite Catholic, so I had to look it up for myself.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2013, 07:17:56 PM »

Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:
Quote
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
(source)
such that on Sundays and the fifty days between Easter an Pentecost, there is no kneeling during Liturgy.

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?

The Nicene canon takes for granted the association of kneeling with penance.  Even though this association remains within the Orthodox consciousness (as well as within the rubrics of the traditional Roman Mass), it would be interesting to see when and how the understanding of kneeling expanded to include worship, adoration, etc.  Depending on the particular tradition, you will (sometimes?) see kneeling on Sundays and during the Paschal season even in the East, and it's not always because of Latin influence.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2013, 07:52:17 PM »

Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:
Quote
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
(source)
such that on Sundays and the fifty days between Easter an Pentecost, there is no kneeling during Liturgy.

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?



The Nicene canon takes for granted the association of kneeling with penance.  Even though this association remains within the Orthodox consciousness (as well as within the rubrics of the traditional Roman Mass), it would be interesting to see when and how the understanding of kneeling expanded to include worship, adoration, etc.  Depending on the particular tradition, you will (sometimes?) see kneeling on Sundays and during the Paschal season even in the East, and it's not always because of Latin influence.   


All time favorite Orthodox answers to difficult questions: 1 . "Sit down and let me explain, it's a mystery....."  2." Sit down and let me explain, it depends." 

Seriously, apart from what is expressed in the Creed, within Orthodox teaching not many things are able to be reduced to a "one size fits all" answer.

Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,803



« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2013, 12:28:52 AM »

Here, STAY STANDING UP NO KNEELING let me explain it to you silly people... the answer is,

I don't know

 Grin
« Last Edit: September 05, 2013, 12:29:18 AM by Gunnarr » Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,116



« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2013, 04:09:15 AM »

Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:
Quote
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
(source)
such that on Sundays and the fifty days between Easter an Pentecost, there is no kneeling during Liturgy.

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?



The Nicene canon takes for granted the association of kneeling with penance.  Even though this association remains within the Orthodox consciousness (as well as within the rubrics of the traditional Roman Mass), it would be interesting to see when and how the understanding of kneeling expanded to include worship, adoration, etc.  Depending on the particular tradition, you will (sometimes?) see kneeling on Sundays and during the Paschal season even in the East, and it's not always because of Latin influence.   


All time favorite Orthodox answers to difficult questions: 1 . "Sit down and let me explain, it's a mystery....."  2." Sit down and let me explain, it depends." 

Seriously, apart from what is expressed in the Creed, within Orthodox teaching not many things are able to be reduced to a "one size fits all" answer.



Pffh, as if Orthodox ever sit down.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,629



« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2013, 04:48:19 AM »

I think interpretation of the canon is best reserved for the clergy.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 04:48:54 AM by WPM » Logged
WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,629



« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2013, 04:51:58 AM »

Canon XX of the First Council of Nicea states:
Quote
On Lord's days and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.
(source)
such that on Sundays and the fifty days between Easter an Pentecost, there is no kneeling during Liturgy.

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?

If someone wants to come in and kneel during the service; he can. 
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2013, 07:14:31 AM »

I know that this is a traditional practice and not a Traditional doctrine, but I cannot help but wonder: when did the practice of kneeling during the Liturgy during this appointed time happen in the West? What were the reasonings?

"Homage"

Adoptic feudal practice into worship.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,451


fleem
WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2013, 08:00:11 AM »

My priest said that kneeling was allowed during the times when daily liturgies were more common. Then a lot of churches stopped having service every day (except Sunday), but out of habit people would come in and kneel on Sundays. So they don't prevent you anymore, if you want to kneel on Sundays.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2013, 09:22:20 AM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #10 on: September 07, 2013, 09:27:14 AM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.


+1
Logged
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,116



« Reply #11 on: September 07, 2013, 10:47:00 AM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

It's not just laity. My Godfather, who happens to be an Archpriest, was told by his bishop not to study the canons.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #12 on: September 07, 2013, 10:53:51 AM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

It's not just laity. My Godfather, who happens to be an Archpriest, was told by his bishop not to study the canons.

So that's the first item on the new Orthodox Index librorum prohibitorum. What's next?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #13 on: September 07, 2013, 10:58:27 AM »

Just so long as no one lets bears into church.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
lovesupreme
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,116



« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2013, 11:30:40 AM »

Just so long as no one lets bears into church.

As long as they're Jewish bears.
Logged

I am prone to bouts of sarcasm. Please forgive me if my posts have offended you.
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 129


« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2013, 12:04:12 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

But this goes to the heart of ecclesiology. The canons of the ecumenical councils were not ratified for fun. There must have been a deep reason why the fathers decided that all faithful must follow canons, otherwise, they would not have bothered with canons at all (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). If we now claim that some canons are optional (or not even worth knowing) and other canons are CANONS (ie, absolutely mandatory) then there are only two logical conclusions: (1)We don't understand the intent and purpose of the canons and we should follow them anyway submitting to the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the fathers or (2) the fathers were wrong to create canons and canon practice is dependent on local (subjective) interpretation. Either way, it says Orthodox ecclesiology is subjective (unlike Christology). And if ecclesiology is subjective than the ecumenicity of the councils is subjective. And if the ecumenicity of the councils is locally subjective, then by definition the councils can't be ecumenical. It would seem the worst possible answer is to sweep all canons and ecclesiology under the rug (or leave it on the shelf). It seems intellectually and spiritually dishonest to cherry pick and choose which part of Orthodoxy is mandatory and which part is "ahh whatever".
Logged
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 129


« Reply #16 on: September 07, 2013, 12:10:01 PM »

So that's the first item on the new Orthodox Index librorum prohibitorum. What's next?
Thank you for proving my point. According to Wikipedia, the Index librorum prohibitorum was a list of books "to protect the faith and morals of the faithful by preventing the reading of immoral books or works containing theological errors.." If this is the case, then one has concluded by the lack of practice that the Ecumenical councils and their canons contain "theological errors". It's a sad shame that some Orthodox are following this trend.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 07, 2013, 12:47:24 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.


I agree, that is sound advice for most people.  

I don't know if I agree with a rigid distinction between canons/CANONS, though.  Sure, some are enforced more seriously than others (and in that sense the distinction is fine, maybe that's all you meant), but what would be the list of CANONS?  I think there'd be several such lists, and I think that itself would argue against such a rigid distinction.

Going with it for now, though, I believe the canon against kneeling is more CANON than canon.  The theology behind it features in our liturgical texts.  For instance, some Syriac examples, from the Kneeling Prayers on Pentecost:

Quote
Christ our God, you taught us that, when we gather together on the days of Pentecost and on holy Sundays, we ought to offer prayers standing upright, not only because you raised us from the fall of sin by your God-pleasing resurrection, but also because Sunday and Pentecost is the image of the coming world...

We, therefore, do not kneel on the ground when we pray until the day of Pentecost, and against our enemies we sing with the divine Psalmist and Prophet David, saying "They are bowed down and fallen, but we are risen and stand ready!"  But when, in the likeness of fiery tongues, the Holy Spirit appeared and was revealed to us, we fall prostrate in a divinely befitting manner because we are altogether unable to bear the sight of him.  


It's unheard of for there to be kneeling on Sundays or during the Paschal season, and even during the Liturgy and on the day we have communed, not simply because of Nicene legislation but because of the importance of standing as a resurrectional and eschatological sign.  And yet, at particular moments in the Liturgy, the priest himself will kneel, an exception proving the rule and in the spirit of what is prayed above.

Again, I think it's more of a CANON than a canon because of how the liturgy treats it.  But at some point, the understanding of kneeling underwent a transition, and not just in the West.  I don't know exactly how that happened, but it would be interesting to learn about it.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 07, 2013, 12:55:57 PM »

But this goes to the heart of ecclesiology. The canons of the ecumenical councils were not ratified for fun. There must have been a deep reason why the fathers decided that all faithful must follow canons, otherwise, they would not have bothered with canons at all (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). If we now claim that some canons are optional (or not even worth knowing) and other canons are CANONS (ie, absolutely mandatory) then there are only two logical conclusions: (1)We don't understand the intent and purpose of the canons and we should follow them anyway submitting to the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the fathers or (2) the fathers were wrong to create canons and canon practice is dependent on local (subjective) interpretation.

It's not that some canons are optional and others mandatory, but rather that the interpretation and application of the canons has always been left to the bishops.  It's not that the councils issued canons the way God wrote commandments on stones on the summit of Sinai.  They are important, and have reasons behind their existence, but it has always been the prerogative of bishops in their local Churches and synods governing regions to apply them with greater or lesser strictness. 

Quote
Either way, it says Orthodox ecclesiology is subjective (unlike Christology). And if ecclesiology is subjective than the ecumenicity of the councils is subjective. And if the ecumenicity of the councils is locally subjective, then by definition the councils can't be ecumenical. It would seem the worst possible answer is to sweep all canons and ecclesiology under the rug (or leave it on the shelf). It seems intellectually and spiritually dishonest to cherry pick and choose which part of Orthodoxy is mandatory and which part is "ahh whatever".


No.  What it says is that the principles undergirding the canons are solid, theological, and always applicable, but the intepretation and application of the letter of the canon is left to the judgment of the bishop/synod as a function of their ministry of oversight and shepherding.  It's not subjective in the sense of "ahh whatever", it's subjective if we understand that to mean that the letter kills but the spirit gives life, and not every person or community will benefit from a one size fits all solution.  Some will, but not others.  Square pegs in square holes and all.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #19 on: September 07, 2013, 03:40:14 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

It's not just laity. My Godfather, who happens to be an Archpriest, was told by his bishop not to study the canons.

The fathers on the other hand, extolled the virtues of studying the canons and applying them with proper discrimination. How can the confessor know, for example, how to cure people of their passions, if he does not even study the canons for guidance? (That is not to say, by the way, that he should apply akriveia all the time, but rather that he should let his decisions be guided by the canons)
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 07, 2013, 04:51:12 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

But this goes to the heart of ecclesiology. The canons of the ecumenical councils were not ratified for fun. There must have been a deep reason why the fathers decided that all faithful must follow canons, otherwise, they would not have bothered with canons at all (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). If we now claim that some canons are optional (or not even worth knowing) and other canons are CANONS (ie, absolutely mandatory) then there are only two logical conclusions: (1)We don't understand the intent and purpose of the canons and we should follow them anyway submitting to the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the fathers or (2) the fathers were wrong to create canons and canon practice is dependent on local (subjective) interpretation. Either way, it says Orthodox ecclesiology is subjective (unlike Christology). And if ecclesiology is subjective than the ecumenicity of the councils is subjective. And if the ecumenicity of the councils is locally subjective, then by definition the councils can't be ecumenical. It would seem the worst possible answer is to sweep all canons and ecclesiology under the rug (or leave it on the shelf). It seems intellectually and spiritually dishonest to cherry pick and choose which part of Orthodoxy is mandatory and which part is "ahh whatever".


I think you, and others, are not getting my point. Mor amplified what I was trying to get across.

The Rudder and the interpretation and applications of canons should be viewed like the DSM-5 (the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the medical discipline of psychiatry. If you are not trained as a medical professional (after years of study and preparation) merely reading the DSM-5 will do little more than confuse one and even cause unnecessary fear and harm if you try to self diagnose. Likewise having a full set of Corpus Juris Secundum doesn't make you capable of practicing law.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 04:53:51 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2013, 06:20:25 PM »

Though it doesn't have to do with canons such as those we are talking about, I would recommend taking a look at this page for the beginning of a basic understanding of how canons are applied.  Though I don't often recommend Patrick Barnes' website for a number of reasons, I am not one to condemn it or him--pages such as this are the reason for that.  There's a lot of good stuff there, even if there's also quite a bit that's iffy.  
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 06:21:54 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2013, 08:34:33 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

But this goes to the heart of ecclesiology. The canons of the ecumenical councils were not ratified for fun. There must have been a deep reason why the fathers decided that all faithful must follow canons, otherwise, they would not have bothered with canons at all (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). If we now claim that some canons are optional (or not even worth knowing) and other canons are CANONS (ie, absolutely mandatory) then there are only two logical conclusions: (1)We don't understand the intent and purpose of the canons and we should follow them anyway submitting to the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the fathers or (2) the fathers were wrong to create canons and canon practice is dependent on local (subjective) interpretation. Either way, it says Orthodox ecclesiology is subjective (unlike Christology). And if ecclesiology is subjective than the ecumenicity of the councils is subjective. And if the ecumenicity of the councils is locally subjective, then by definition the councils can't be ecumenical. It would seem the worst possible answer is to sweep all canons and ecclesiology under the rug (or leave it on the shelf). It seems intellectually and spiritually dishonest to cherry pick and choose which part of Orthodoxy is mandatory and which part is "ahh whatever".


I think you, and others, are not getting my point. Mor amplified what I was trying to get across.

The Rudder and the interpretation and applications of canons should be viewed like the DSM-5 (the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the medical discipline of psychiatry. If you are not trained as a medical professional (after years of study and preparation) merely reading the DSM-5 will do little more than confuse one and even cause unnecessary fear and harm if you try to self diagnose. Likewise having a full set of Corpus Juris Secundum doesn't make you capable of practicing law.
Seeing the practice of some (not the poster), I'm not so sure of that last point.  Particularly here in IL and DC, where a lot of our elected lawyers end up doing time. (What's the difference between a lawyer and a philosopher?  The philosopher seeks the truth).

On the first part: I remember when I was bit by a dog in Egypt that the head of top medical center in Cairo told me one should never read clinical literature and manuals (in that case, rabies).

Canons are not dogma.  They should not be treated as such.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 08:35:22 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Clemente
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 285


« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2013, 08:57:01 AM »

Though it doesn't have to do with canons such as those we are talking about, I would recommend taking a look at this page for the beginning of a basic understanding of how canons are applied.  Though I don't often recommend Patrick Barnes' website for a number of reasons, I am not one to condemn it or him--pages such as this are the reason for that.  There's a lot of good stuff there, even if there's also quite a bit that's iffy.  

Thanks. That is helpful. I actually love that site. Not everything, but almost.
Logged
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 889


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #24 on: September 08, 2013, 11:15:28 AM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.


I've heard that same advice.  Canons are for bishops and priests to apply, not lay people.  They are to be used for healing, not for punishment.  Lay people would probably tend to use them the other way around.
It is funny how people think the canons should be strictly applied.  I remember reading a book on confession by a Russian bishop in the early 1900's (translated into English), and he said that if canons were strictly applied, almost nobody would be able to receive Communion--they would all be under some kind of penance.  If that was true then, it would be even more true today.  Probably all those people who want canons strictly applied wouldn't be able to receive either along with everyone else.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #25 on: September 08, 2013, 11:53:07 AM »

Canons are like the Mosaic Law: for instance, the rabbis said that the capital punishment was seldom if ever enforced in Israel. Nevertheless, because they knew how certain sins ought to be punished, people had a God-appointed standard to help them realize the gravity of their sins.  

Since ignorance of the Torah is not commendable...
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 11:58:26 AM by Romaios » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,812


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2013, 05:46:51 PM »

Heres the problem, there are canons and there are CANONS. If you try to get a handle on the whys of all of them, you will go insane. The best advice I ever heard for how the faithful should use the Rudder was given by a priest at a Q and A after he finished a talk on the canons. When asked by one of the audience how one could get the most out of the Rudder, he replied that for the average parishioner, the best use of the book was to leave it on the shelf.

But this goes to the heart of ecclesiology. The canons of the ecumenical councils were not ratified for fun. There must have been a deep reason why the fathers decided that all faithful must follow canons, otherwise, they would not have bothered with canons at all (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). If we now claim that some canons are optional (or not even worth knowing) and other canons are CANONS (ie, absolutely mandatory) then there are only two logical conclusions: (1)We don't understand the intent and purpose of the canons and we should follow them anyway submitting to the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the fathers or (2) the fathers were wrong to create canons and canon practice is dependent on local (subjective) interpretation. Either way, it says Orthodox ecclesiology is subjective (unlike Christology). And if ecclesiology is subjective than the ecumenicity of the councils is subjective. And if the ecumenicity of the councils is locally subjective, then by definition the councils can't be ecumenical. It would seem the worst possible answer is to sweep all canons and ecclesiology under the rug (or leave it on the shelf). It seems intellectually and spiritually dishonest to cherry pick and choose which part of Orthodoxy is mandatory and which part is "ahh whatever".


I think you, and others, are not getting my point. Mor amplified what I was trying to get across.

The Rudder and the interpretation and applications of canons should be viewed like the DSM-5 (the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the medical discipline of psychiatry. If you are not trained as a medical professional (after years of study and preparation) merely reading the DSM-5 will do little more than confuse one and even cause unnecessary fear and harm if you try to self diagnose. Likewise having a full set of Corpus Juris Secundum doesn't make you capable of practicing law.
Seeing the practice of some (not the poster), I'm not so sure of that last point.  Particularly here in IL and DC, where a lot of our elected lawyers end up doing time. (What's the difference between a lawyer and a philosopher?  The philosopher seeks the truth).

On the first part: I remember when I was bit by a dog in Egypt that the head of top medical center in Cairo told me one should never read clinical literature and manuals (in that case, rabies).

Canons are not dogma.  They should not be treated as such.

Likewise one should stay away from "The Do it Yourself, Illustrated Guide to Neurosurgery" or "Nuclear Power for Beginners."
Logged
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 129


« Reply #27 on: September 10, 2013, 02:09:42 PM »

I think you, and others, are not getting my point. Mor amplified what I was trying to get across.

The Rudder and the interpretation and applications of canons should be viewed like the DSM-5 (the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and the medical discipline of psychiatry. If you are not trained as a medical professional (after years of study and preparation) merely reading the DSM-5 will do little more than confuse one and even cause unnecessary fear and harm if you try to self diagnose.
You can't use the DSM as analogy of canons because I am not saying lay people have the same understanding and authority of bishops. I am first saying that the bishops do not agree with the intent and application of canons. The DSM-5 means nothing if specialists in the medical discipline of psychiatry do not agree on the basis and interpretation of the material in the DSM. The mere presence of un-DSM attests to the fact there is something inherently wrong with the DSM. If the behavior of Christians contradicts the canons, then either there is something inherently wrong with the canons or there is something wrong with the interpretation (even if advocated by a bishop). 


[quote Likewise having a full set of Corpus Juris Secundum doesn't make you capable of practicing law.
[/quote]
It doesn't take a law degree and passing the bar or the full set of Corpus Juris Secundum to know that if I break the speed limit, I can't plead not guilty by saying the speed limit laws don't apply or that only attorneys can determine who breaks the speed limit or how the law applies. This is what is happening with the canons. There is a canon that says don't kneel down, we don't follow it saying the canons are good but the interpretation of canons is left to the bishops. Of course there are reasons for bishops to allow certain practices that seem uncanonical. There are reasons why kneeling down is good. But the 315 bishops at Nicaea saw a practice they felt was inappropriate for Christendom. Their decision was to establish guidelines in the form of canons to minimize the unwanted practice. Exceptions are allowed but not to an extreme. When an exception becomes the norm, the rule is meaningless. And if people advocate ignoring the rule to the point where the rule is erased from memory, then this is a declaration that Nicaea got it wrong.

I am not saying laity should make a unilateral decision of canons over the bishops. I am saying the practice of claiming allegiance to the Ecumenical councils (and their canons) are a requirement of Orthodoxy and the ecumenicity of church councils as part of the faith while simultaneously saying their application is completely subjective on local interpretation is a form of backsliding.  It seems the canons are only referenced when people want to show how others are not Orthodox. But this standard doesn't apply to oneself (i.e., those who are pointing out the heterdoxy in others).

I agree that canons are not dogma. Their interpretation and application is dependent on individual pastoral care. But in a communal, ecumenical sense, do you think our ancient fathers would approve of such a divergence from the canons they established?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,092


"My god is greater."


« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2013, 03:53:48 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,956



« Reply #29 on: September 10, 2013, 04:45:04 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Yes, we can. We just have to point Greeks too.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,239


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2013, 04:50:03 PM »

Yes, we can. We just have to point Greeks too.

And Antiochians.  police
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2013, 04:50:27 PM »

I am not saying laity should make a unilateral decision of canons over the bishops. I am saying the practice of claiming allegiance to the Ecumenical councils (and their canons) are a requirement of Orthodoxy and the ecumenicity of church councils as part of the faith while simultaneously saying their application is completely subjective on local interpretation is a form of backsliding.  It seems the canons are only referenced when people want to show how others are not Orthodox. But this standard doesn't apply to oneself (i.e., those who are pointing out the heterdoxy in others).

I agree that canons are not dogma. Their interpretation and application is dependent on individual pastoral care. But in a communal, ecumenical sense, do you think our ancient fathers would approve of such a divergence from the canons they established?

I don't know that I agree with you, but whether that is definitely the case remains to be seen.  Obviously you find the current situation problematic, and by comparing it with civil law, where violations are definitely penalised without reference to contextual considerations, you must feel there is a better way of enforcing the canons.  What would you recommend to improve the situation?  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,956



« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2013, 04:55:25 PM »

Yes, we can. We just have to point Greeks too.

And Antiochians.  police

Finns don't kneel on sundays. We prostrate outside of Easter period but we don't kneel.
Logged

mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2013, 06:01:09 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

It used to be a practce here: kneeling on anapphore, Lord's prayer and, in some places, cherubim's hym. It gradually stops however and I see less and less people kneel on Sundays (or weekday Liturgies). Not sure it's good or bad.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,447


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2013, 06:23:12 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Not just Greek-American. It is the case everywhere, including in Greece itself. It's the Venetian influence. The Greeks who tend not to kneel are those from the northern provinces, or whose clergy were from there.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2013, 06:27:30 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Not just Greek-American. It is the case everywhere, including in Greece itself. It's the Venetian influence.

OK, I know we were taken over by Poles, Russians, French, Swedes, and Germans but I do not remember any Venetians Huh
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,447


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2013, 06:29:27 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Not just Greek-American. It is the case everywhere, including in Greece itself. It's the Venetian influence.

OK, I know we were taken over by Poles, Russians, French, Swedes, and Germans but I do not remember any Venetians Huh

Please read my post carefully, Michal. I was referring to the Greeks, not the Belorussians.
Logged
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,477


« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2013, 06:31:22 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Not just Greek-American. It is the case everywhere, including in Greece itself. It's the Venetian influence.

OK, I know we were taken over by Poles, Russians, French, Swedes, and Germans but I do not remember any Venetians Huh

Please read my post carefully, Michal. I was referring to the Greeks, not the Belorussians.

You were referring to the practice.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2013, 06:35:13 PM »

^ My guess is it's fatigue or laziness camouflaged as piety.  police
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,447


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2013, 06:37:44 PM »

By the way, a GOARCH parish I attended kneeled on Sundays (I think it was during the Our Father). My understanding is that this practice is common in Greek-American parishes, so we can't really point fingers at the Catholics.

Not just Greek-American. It is the case everywhere, including in Greece itself. It's the Venetian influence.

OK, I know we were taken over by Poles, Russians, French, Swedes, and Germans but I do not remember any Venetians Huh

Please read my post carefully, Michal. I was referring to the Greeks, not the Belorussians.

You were referring to the practice.

I was replying to Iconodule's post, where he mentions Greek-Americans. My reply expanded on that, with reference to Greeks outside the United States. That much should be obvious to everybody, though not to you, it seems.  Roll Eyes

Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2013, 11:35:52 PM »

Please not another who kneels and who does not thread.
Logged

NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #41 on: September 11, 2013, 12:46:01 AM »

We need to come up with a cool pejorative name for this practice; it has to be based on some sort of out of context biblical reference.

Then we need to find some schismatic leader willing to make a petition against it and have it signed by a bunch of impressive-sounding people nobody has ever heard of.

How about "Cerberites", because cerberus is the three headed dog, as dogs represent uncleanliness, and Satan asked that he be knelt before during the third temptation.

"The hermit-abominating Cerberites fall under anathema. Signed: Metropolitan-Deacon Kalamatos of Sargenton, Protos Fetos of Ionia, the reverend Dogmatoi of Old Cave Older Calendar hermitage in Eugene, Oregon, etc."
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 12:50:57 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 129


« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2013, 10:02:10 AM »

I am not saying laity should make a unilateral decision of canons over the bishops. I am saying the practice of claiming allegiance to the Ecumenical councils (and their canons) are a requirement of Orthodoxy and the ecumenicity of church councils as part of the faith while simultaneously saying their application is completely subjective on local interpretation is a form of backsliding.  It seems the canons are only referenced when people want to show how others are not Orthodox. But this standard doesn't apply to oneself (i.e., those who are pointing out the heterdoxy in others).

I agree that canons are not dogma. Their interpretation and application is dependent on individual pastoral care. But in a communal, ecumenical sense, do you think our ancient fathers would approve of such a divergence from the canons they established?

I don't know that I agree with you, but whether that is definitely the case remains to be seen.  Obviously you find the current situation problematic, and by comparing it with civil law, where violations are definitely penalised without reference to contextual considerations, you must feel there is a better way of enforcing the canons.  What would you recommend to improve the situation?  

Civil law, in general, do allow reference to contextual considerations. Take the example of motor vehicle law and speeding violations I used earlier. Even if you broke the law and sped over the speed limit, the law is written so you have the ability to make a case for consideration. My last speeding ticket was reduced because the court took into consideration that I was responding to a medical emergency. Here we see both an individual consideration as well as a broader consideration for the law itself are acceptable. On a broader scale, the legislature and the courts have agreed that consideration for the public is more important than absolute enforcement. The court recognized the public safety in a medical emergency is more important than individual violations. The court didn't remove the violation. By that action, the court is stating that a general indifference of the law is in itself detrimental to the public. The only thing the courts, the legislature and thousands of years of jurisprudence do not condone are claims of exemption from civil application just because they are in a self-proclaimed unique class.

What would I recommend to improve the situation?
1. Acknowledge that there is a problem when laws (even canons and guidelines) are not followed. There is a problem when we justify violations of canons.
2. Remember that Orthodoxy is not an exclusive aristocratic club where people are automatically exempt for being Orthodox. (There is plenty of scripture evidence to support this).
3. Recognize that some canons were erroneously proposed and ratified for ulterior reasons such as political maneuvering. There some canons that say the exact opposite of another canon. These type of canons should fall into a class of its own and the local bishops can justifiably revoke or regulate their practice. (This does require advanced education and spirituality to enforce this)
4. Most importantly, if one can't find a legitimate reason why a canon is not followed, then repent (as an individual and as a church). The normal paradigm nowadays is "if I don't agree, I am not doing it." Instead the Orthodox paradigm is "There are mysteries I will never understand. I will submit my own will and do it."
5. Enforcement is not the goal. Voluntary submission and spiritual growth is. Educate. Educate. Educate. Educate people about the canons, not hide them.

Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,386


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2013, 01:23:10 PM »

Civil law, in general, do allow reference to contextual considerations. Take the example of motor vehicle law and speeding violations I used earlier. Even if you broke the law and sped over the speed limit, the law is written so you have the ability to make a case for consideration. My last speeding ticket was reduced because the court took into consideration that I was responding to a medical emergency. Here we see both an individual consideration as well as a broader consideration for the law itself are acceptable. On a broader scale, the legislature and the courts have agreed that consideration for the public is more important than absolute enforcement. The court recognized the public safety in a medical emergency is more important than individual violations. The court didn't remove the violation. By that action, the court is stating that a general indifference of the law is in itself detrimental to the public. The only thing the courts, the legislature and thousands of years of jurisprudence do not condone are claims of exemption from civil application just because they are in a self-proclaimed unique class.

Despite wording my earlier comment poorly, I do accept that the civil law allows for "exceptions".  What I reject is the idea that ecclesiastical canons operate just like civil law.  There are certainly similarities (e.g., stipulating policies, penalties for violation), but at their core canons are not laws.  Their application, enforcement, whatever you want to call it are not going to be done properly if they are forced into a legal framework.

That said, most of what you wrote above could apply, I think, to the canons.  Even when an exception is made to the canonical standard on a given matter, the canon still remains intact proving that the exception is just that.  What I don't understand is the relevance of the part I bolded.  What does it mean?   

Quote
What would I recommend to improve the situation?
1. Acknowledge that there is a problem when laws (even canons and guidelines) are not followed. There is a problem when we justify violations of canons.

No one disputes that there is a problem when laws are not followed.  No one disputes that there is a problem when canons are violated.  The problem, I think, is that you're looking at the canons as if they're laws.  The binding force of a canon is not the council or the father who laid it down.  The legitimacy of a canon is in the fact that it reflects the ultimate canon, our Lord Jesus Christ.  Because of this reference to Christ, the canons are never outdated, amended, abrogated, purged, etc.  All the canons we have inherited we preserve as valid and "in force". 

But the canons were drawn up in response to particular problems, not as a "Constitution and By-laws" laying out for a group its policies going forward.  They are the application of gospel principles to resolve contentious issues at all levels of ecclesiastical life--local, regional, and universal.  Consequently, we have canons that conflict with each other but are still "valid" and "in force".  Absent our own in-depth knowledge of how the canons work, and even with such knowledge, we depend on the hierarchical authority of the pastors of the Church in order to know what applies to us and how it applies to us.  They interpret for us how we ought to live our lives in accordance with those principles so that our lives are "canonical".  It's not the case that you can just pick up a book of canons and figure it out on your own. 

This is not a justification of violating canons; on the contrary, we seek in this way to know how to live canonically rather than just obey laws and disregard their spirit.   
     
Quote
2. Remember that Orthodoxy is not an exclusive aristocratic club where people are automatically exempt for being Orthodox. (There is plenty of scripture evidence to support this).

OK, but what is the relevance of this point?  This is more of a pastoral matter than a canonical one.   

Quote
3. Recognize that some canons were erroneously proposed and ratified for ulterior reasons such as political maneuvering. There some canons that say the exact opposite of another canon. These type of canons should fall into a class of its own and the local bishops can justifiably revoke or regulate their practice. (This does require advanced education and spirituality to enforce this)

In general, this is wrong.  Yes, there are canons that conflict with each other (as I admitted above), but you have to figure out why they conflict.  Many times, it's because they are local solutions for local problems that have been accepted throughout the whole Church not necessarily because those solutions will work everywhere at all times forever, but because they reflect Christ and the gospel.  As such, the bishops can't revoke them anymore than they can revoke the gospel, but they can regulate their application, just as they can with just about any canon. 

What canons were "erroneously proposed and ratified for ulterior reasons such as political maneuvering"?  I'm very interested in hearing more on this.   

Quote
4. Most importantly, if one can't find a legitimate reason why a canon is not followed, then repent (as an individual and as a church). The normal paradigm nowadays is "if I don't agree, I am not doing it." Instead the Orthodox paradigm is "There are mysteries I will never understand. I will submit my own will and do it."

Yes, but this is such a general statement that it is quite acceptable but also of little value unless you apply it to a particular situation. 

Let's consider Nicaea 20.  It's quite clear in its proscription of kneeling on Sundays and during Paschaltide.  And yet, we see various Orthodox Churches, as well as the RCC, not only allowing kneeling on those days but also promoting it.  We can say that those communities are violating the ecumenical canon and need to repent.  But we also ought to ask how such a change happened in the first place.  In those Churches where the canon is better enforced, it's because its underlying rationale has been better preserved in popular piety: kneeling is still a penitential practice in those contexts.  Where the canon is violated, is it because generations of people have believed that penitential practices are laudibly performed even on "prohibited" days, or is it because there's been a transformation in the understanding of kneeling?  If it's the former, that's a pastoral issue that needs to be addressed, but I think it's the latter.  We generally associate kneeling more with reverence, submission, devotion, and other such notions than we do with penance (and such associations are certainly Scriptural).  If that's the understanding that people have regarding kneeling, is the canonical solution to change their idea of kneeling to conform with Nicaea?  I'm not convinced that this should be so when the "misunderstanding" is just as Orthodox.   
     
Quote
5. Enforcement is not the goal. Voluntary submission and spiritual growth is. Educate. Educate. Educate. Educate people about the canons, not hide them.

Education is not a matter of exposing the people to the canons.  Not only would you have to teach them "the letter of the law", but the basis of their authority, who applies them and how they get applied, etc.  Rather than make everyone do a Master's in canon law, it's easier to teach canonical spirituality and piety.  But I think the Churches are basically doing just that, even if sometimes "the letter of the law" is violated.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,932



« Reply #44 on: September 11, 2013, 02:26:45 PM »

IMHO, canons have three dimensions: (1) their literal meaning in the context of their times; (2) the principle that is embodied or reflected in them, and (3) their current application by someone who has the kerygma to do so. The OP has asked a specific question about Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council. I do not think that we should lump this canon with all others, particularly as expounded upon in the Rudder. On its face, it is simple enough. As explained by Hammond, we start to understand the principle of this seemingly trivial practice:

"Hammond.
Although kneeling was the common posture for prayer in the primitive Church, yet the custom had prevailed, even from the earliest times, of standing at prayer on the Lord’s day, and during the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost.  Tertullian, in a passage in his treatise De Corona Militis, which is often quoted, mentions it amongst other observances which, though not expressly commanded in Scripture, yet were universally practised upon the authority of tradition.  “We consider it unlawful,” he says, “to fast, or to pray kneeling, upon the Lord’s day; we enjoy the same liberty from Easter-day to that of Pentecost.”  De Cor. Mil. s. 3, 4.  Many other of the Fathers notice the same practice, the reason of which, as given by Augustine and others, was to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured.  This canon, as Beveridge observes, is a proof of the importance formerly attached to an uniformity of sacred rites throughout the Church, which made the Nicene Fathers thus sanction and enforce by their authority a practice which in itself is indifferent, and not commanded directly or indirectly in Scripture, and assign this as their reason for doing so:  “In order that all things may be observed in like manner in every parish” or diocese."

So, not kneeling is not commended directly or indirectly in Scripture, but it was a common practice for good reasons "to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord, and to signify the rest and joy of our own resurrection, which that of our Lord assured." Another reason was standardization of Orthopraxis between parishes/dioceses. It seems to me that folks should take this canon seriously both because it was common practise but also because it has deep, theological meaning. At the very least, it should be standardised in each local church.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Tags:
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 0.17 seconds with 73 queries.