impediments to the priesthood?

[Michael G]

Let's also remember that in our Church there is a canon that states that if you urinate while facing Eastward, you must make 300 prostrations. My bathroom faces East. I'd be in a lot of trouble if we followed that.

Just think of the shape you would be in if you were to do that each time you urinated!

 

[DonVA]

By the time I finished with the prostrations, I'd have to go again!

 

[Michael G]

Divorce is an impediment to priesthood. Being divorced is an impediment, and having a spouse who was divorced prior to your marriage (even if it is your first marriage) is an impediment. Most bishops will not overlook a man being divorced, but some will overlook a man's wife having a previous divorce (as long as the man is not divorced).

 

[Matrona]

Let's also remember that in our Church there is a canon that states that if you urinate while facing Eastward, you must make 300 prostrations. My bathroom faces East. I'd be in a lot of trouble if we followed that.

My toilet faces west, so a man would pee eastward, but I'm a girl so I face west. At my baptism, I spat on the West, and apparently I pee on it, too.

 

[repentant]

Fornication is not an impediment. I brought this question up to my spiritual father and he said it is not the case and had some very harsh words for those who thought that a person who had committed such a sin and had repented couldn't be a priest. Look at Augustine's life of debauchery. There are countless saints who committed fornication and were forgiven and became clergy. Bishops even. Please. Repentance? Anyone remember that word?

I beg to differ..

The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles


Canon LXI.

If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or adultery, or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be promoted to the clergy.

And not all the Saints who commited such sins in their former life were clergy. The only thing that could possibly Canonically let someone become Priest after commiting these sins is the Monastic tonsure. And even then it could be tough depending on your Spiritual Father or Abbot.

 

[Oblio]

I didn't realize that laity here were qualified to interpret the Holy Canons.

 

[Matrona]

I didn't realize that laity here were qualified to interpret the Holy Canons.

I always thought it helpful to think of the canons as being more like the pirate's code than anything. They're more what you call guidelines....

 

[repentant]

Oblio,

You shouldn't make assumptions.

And Matrona,

Canons are not guidelines as you say set forth by the Church, but rules. It is like saying our national or state laws are not laws or rules, but only guidelines that can be or not be followed based on certain discrections. I think people need to wake up and realize that the canons being so called guidelines are a modernist thing within the Church. Canons are met to be followed period, point, blank. That's it. Do you notice any if's, and's or but's in them?

 

[Oblio]

Oblio,

You shouldn't make assumptions.

OK

And Matrona,

Canons are not guidelines as you say set forth by the Church, but rules. It is like saying our national or state laws are not laws or rules, but only guidelines that can be or not be followed based on certain discrections. I think people need to wake up and realize that the canons being so called guidelines are a modernist thing within the Church. Canons are met to be followed period, point, blank. That's it. Do you notice any if's, and's or but's in them?

My Bishop disagrees with you.

 

[repentant]

I am sure there are alot of Bishops who disagree, like I said it's a modernist thing within the Church. But he doesn't disagree with me, because this is not my interpration, nor is it my rule. You must understand the word Canon is word from the Greek word Kavwv (kanon) which literally translates to "rule". So the Canons are rules that the Church created and they are written in a precise manner which needs no interpretation. Do I believe this is an outdated rule? Yes I do, but it doesn't change the fact that it still exists and there has never been an EC to change it. I myself, even if my Bishop tell's me it's ok, would not want to be ordained a Priest knowing that I am breaking Canonical Law. That is not something I would want wearing down my soul, God knows I have enough.

 

[Oblio]

Fair enough, as long as you are being obedient to your Bishop, and not rolling your own. This would include deciding that he is not interpreting the canons correctly and imposing upon yourself a stricter application of said canons. Going either direction is unOrthodox and simply Protestantism with icons and incense.

 

[Michael G]

Oblio,

You shouldn't make assumptions.

And Matrona,

Canons are not guidelines as you say set forth by the Church, but rules. It is like saying our national or state laws are not laws or rules, but only guidelines that can be or not be followed based on certain discrections. I think people need to wake up and realize that the canons being so called guidelines are a modernist thing within the Church. Canons are met to be followed period, point, blank. That's it. Do you notice any if's, and's or but's in them?

I think you tend to forget that the Council of Constantinople clearly states that no bishop has authority over any other diocese than his own. Thus what was binding in 17th Century Moscow while being a good guideline for me to follow. might not necessarily be binding to me, living in 21st Century America. Let us remember we are Orthodox. Orthodox Christianity is very careful about what it declares to be infallible, and yet your statement is about as infallible as anything I would expect Pope Benedict to make. If the canons are so cut, dry, point, blank then I will give you the title "Torquemade" and you may begin the inquisition. I am probably going to be the first in line of those who are guilty...

 

[repentant]

Michael,

What you say as far as Bisops impeding in other Bishop's Diocese is correct, but that does not apply to Canons created through Ecumenical Council. What you say only applies if let's say for example Metropolitan Alexios of Atlanta (GOARCH) gives the ok to build a new Church somewhere within his Diocese, a Metropolitan from another Diocese cannot come and say different.

When the Canons were written (this one in particular) they were written in an EC and there were representatives of ALL the various Diocese or jurisdictions which were existance back then. These Canons were not written in a local council. If that is what it was, then what you say would hold up, but it doesn't. These canons were written for the Church as a whole, with ALL the Bishops or representives in agreement. So therefore these Canons apply to all the various jurisdictions today. All the jurisdictions come from a jurisdiction from back then, which means the rules and canons apply to us today no matter what jurisdiction we are in.

For instance, GOARCH comes from the Church of Greece which is under the Ecumenical Patriarch, or Constaninople, which existed back then. OCA comes from the Church of Russia, which was started through the Church of Jerusalme, which existed back then as well. You can do this for any jurisdiction, so you can understand what I am saying.

Canons apply to ALL Orthodox Churches, not just a few..

 

[Oblio]

But canons are not to be applied outside of the pastoral authority of a Bishop. So unless you are a Bishop, or are his lawful proxy, you are simply pontificating.

 

[repentant]

Oblio,

Last time I checked I was not applying these canons to anyone. I am merely stating a point that is within the Church, which by the way was given to me by my Spiritual Father who happens to be a Priest Monk. It is like saying, in general, you should not recieve Communion without first confessing, and to some degree having a kanona or prayer rule or something like that. This is a Canon. The Church says this. So how come when people on here make this statement it is not seen as pontificating? Canons are canons and rules are rules. You don't need to pontificate to state a rule or canon within the Church. And until someone on here can show me where the Canons don't apply to various jurisdictions, I am done with this discussion.

 

[Oblio]

It is like saying, in general, you should not recieve Communion without first confessing, and to some degree having a kanona or prayer rule or something like that.

Actually, this 'rule' is due to osmosis from the Western legalistic Church, which is why it is prevelant in the Slav traditions.

 

[Oblio]

I am merely stating a point that is within the Church, which by the way was given to me by my Spiritual Father who happens to be a Priest Monk.

Then that rule is applicable to you, in your jursidiction, and Diocese, and not to others.

We are not Roman Catholic

 

[repentant]

Oblio,

Last time I checked GOARCH did not make this canon. What don't you understand? Do you not understand that this and other Canons were written in Ecumenical Council with approval of ALL the jurisdictions at the time, which makes them Canons for ALL jurisdictions? This not mean it applies to some, and not all. And again unless you can show me where it says that Ecumenical Council written Canons do not apply to all jurisdictions, then I'm done..

 

[InnerPhyre]

I thought I escaped this legalistic tripe when I left the Roman Church. It is unfortunate that we allow it to creep into our church and forget that rules were rules in Jesus's time and He still healed on the sabbath.

 

[ClementofRome]

MOD HAT ON Friends, please take care with one another. Even in disagreement, one can show the love of Christ. MOD HAT OFF