Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 On 7/13/05, laurainnewjersey <laurabusse@...> wrote: > > Well, for what it's worth, the Church has made canons, which are a > > measure of orthodoxy. > the canons are pretty old...there was a lot of talk about revisiting > them. the canons are viewed as static...but if they can be revisited > and changed, then they are dynamic. Of course the canons are old. That's what makes them important. The canons are somewhat dynamic, but their ecumenicity gives them force and they evolve within the tradition of the past, holding true to it but making it more relevant. > where i heard this from was from some misguided people who were newly > orthodox and very zealous and just as ignorant but i didn't realize > that then because i was even newer than them. in retrospect they are > exactly like the pharisees that Christ warned about...the blind > leading the blind. they almost lead me to hell. I'm very sorry you had to have this unfortunate experience. > chris, i know the rules. they were drummed into me mercilessly. > from all perspectives. like i said, everyone said something > different. > > and the canons aren't followed anyway. It depends where you go, but yes, diversion from them is common, especially now. But I said that they presented an objective standard of Orthodoxy, not that they are followed. > ever heard Fr. Tom Hopko speak or read any of his books? Yes, I'm familiar with him. > he was the > one who saved me out of it all; he became my father confessor, my > spiritual father. God sent him into my life to help me, to spare me, > to remove me from the mess i found myself in. he used to > say...beware of anyone who speaks of the canons, who quotes the > canons. I'm glad you left the mess, though I'm sorry the baby went out with the bathwater, which surprises me from Fr. Hopko. > it's all about love...what i was in had almost nothing to do with > it. it was all focused on rules. and control. love was secondary. > trust me in this. And this is wrong and divorced from the tradition of the church. Ironically, your community/priest was diverting from the canons by having you follow a more strict ascetic feat than is prescribed for the community of the church as a whole. The canons are like a guide, but are not meant to be mindlessly enforced without recognition of the situation and the individual human being involved. Out of curiosity, if you don't mind answering, privately or publicly, what jurisdiction were you in? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 > > Of course the canons are old. That's what makes them important. The > canons are somewhat dynamic, but their ecumenicity gives them force > and they evolve within the tradition of the past, holding true to it > but making it more relevant. > you could also say that some of the canons were written to deal with the culture of that time and need to be changed. i am one of the most conservative people you will ever meet...God is changeless so we don't change things to keep up with the times when it comes to timeless truths...but when the canon dictates that for example a bishop is not to sleep in the same building as a woman and the building is a hotel...that is what i mean. but this is petty. > > where i heard this from was from some misguided people who were newly > > orthodox and very zealous and just as ignorant but i didn't realize > > that then because i was even newer than them. in retrospect they are > > exactly like the pharisees that Christ warned about...the blind > > leading the blind. they almost lead me to hell. > > I'm very sorry you had to have this unfortunate experience. > > > chris, i know the rules. they were drummed into me mercilessly. > > from all perspectives. like i said, everyone said something > > different. > > > > and the canons aren't followed anyway. > > It depends where you go, but yes, diversion from them is common, > especially now. But I said that they presented an objective standard > of Orthodoxy, not that they are followed. > > > ever heard Fr. Tom Hopko speak or read any of his books? > > Yes, I'm familiar with him. > > > he was the > > one who saved me out of it all; he became my father confessor, my > > spiritual father. God sent him into my life to help me, to spare me, > > to remove me from the mess i found myself in. he used to > > say...beware of anyone who speaks of the canons, who quotes the > > canons. > > I'm glad you left the mess, though I'm sorry the baby went out with > the bathwater, which surprises me from Fr. Hopko. fr. hopko is very orthodox...in a good way. he's father schmemann's son-in-law of course so he had a wonderful mentor, or rather, example. he was trying to make a point...if you're focusing on the canons, you're focusing on the wrong thing. i think he was weary of seeing people like me over and over...and was trying to get the focus off the 'rules'. there was a scary trend among converts such as myself and he found it very troubling. as the dean of a seminary, and having been a parish priest for many years, he saw a lot. if you had heard his comments you would have laughed and agreed, i'm sure. he used humor to drive home a lot of very profound points. > > And this is wrong and divorced from the tradition of the church. > Ironically, your community/priest was diverting from the canons by > having you follow a more strict ascetic feat than is prescribed for > the community of the church as a whole. The canons are like a guide, > but are not meant to be mindlessly enforced without recognition of the > situation and the individual human being involved. well, natch! laura > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.