Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] Repost from 2002: On Anathemas and Universal Jurisdiction

Expand Messages
  • Carol
    I certainly will be praying though, that we do not ( if not already) have a pagan (meaning a Witch or Wiccan or whatever, come to go to church with us too?)
    Message 1 of 12 , May 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I certainly will be praying though, that we do not ( if not already) have a pagan (meaning a Witch or Wiccan or whatever, come to go to church with us too?) We may not even know, and wow,,, is that heretic or not?? I think it is... I will pray hard about that one.. Many 'Metaphysical' beliefs are out there, and people who use 'stones 'to heal, and even talk to them, and many other healing beliefs, and they may come to worship with us too, now? Wonder if newcomers should really have exorcisms first?We may not know as they will just 'pop in' to visit and learn about us, and our faith, I guess? I was a catechumen once, myself, but was honestly trying to learn the faith and not still a member of another church. During my life, I did stop at the church to learn, and brought Sunday Schools ( when I was Protestant) to the Orthodox, so they could learn about Orthodoxy, but was being led by God to the church. So yes, it is true, some can possibly convert this way, and become Orthodox, as long as our own Orthodox, especially young people, know enough not to join THEIR ways, as mentioned above.( what I am calling heretics or pagans if they still are, so called, I think they are?)

      That is how the Salem Witch trials began. A Minister's daughters learned the' craft' from the slave at their home,( Tichiba or something like this) and brought it all to the community and church and many were hung as witches, as they got involved in wrong things..think most know this story. They evidently got possessed... So we will pray, that we are some careful, and that we do get converts to Orthodoxy, and the TRUE church of God, and not loose anyone to some unknown religion.

      In Christ,

      Katherine
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Rev. Alexander Lebedeff
      To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 3:31 PM
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] Repost from 2002: On Anathemas and Universal Jurisdiction


      >N. wrote:

      >First, as Fr. Lebedev has written many times and appears to be a commonly
      >accepted concept at ROCOR, how can an anathema only apply to the
      >jurisdiction declaring it and not to the Church as a whole?
      >
      >I've asked a few people about this and I either get no reply or the "party
      >line". I don't want to turn this into a debate over who is an Ecumenist.
      >What I'm asking is what is the rational behind and Patristic basis for this
      >concept? Fathers? Councils? Etc.

      Let me give it to you directly.

      The reason that an anathema proclaimed by a particular jurisdiction cannot
      automatically apply to all other jurisdictions is a simple one, actually
      expressed in the word "jurisdiction," itself.

      Every local Orthodox Church has jurisdiction only over its own members,
      just as every sovereign nation has jurisdiction only over its own citizens.

      So, no Council of any Orthodox Church can ordain, depose, or excopmmunicate
      anyone not under its own particular jurisdiction.

      Or do you actually believe that, say, the Russian Church of Abroad has the
      authority to ordain, depose, or excommunicate a cleric of the Church of
      Georgia? Or the Church of Constantinople or Jerusalem?

      I hope not.

      Why not?

      Because the Church Abroad has jurisdiction only over its own.

      Otherwise, one would have to believe in the concept of "Universal
      Jurisdiction," which is a Papist concept, foreign to Orthodoxy and the Holy
      Canons, many of which specifically address the issue of bishops of one
      jurisdiction interfering in the affairs of another and condemn it.

      And anathemas proclaimed by a local Church do not automatically apply to
      all other Churches, simply because no local Church has **any**j urisdiction
      over any other.

      Let me give you an example.

      In 1553, at the Coucil of Hundred Chapters, the local Church of Russia
      proclaimed a solemn anathema against anyone who used the three-fingered
      sign of the Cross. Therefore, if every local Church had universal
      jurisdiction, then every Orthodox Church in the world automatically fell
      under this Anathema of the Russian Church.

      Do you actually believe that all of the local Churches in the world who
      used the three-fingered sign of the Cross immediately fell under this Anathema?

      I hope not.

      Another example, a hypothetical one.

      Let's say that the Matthewite Synod of Mteropolitan Gregorios decides to
      issue an anathema against anyone who possesses or venerates an icon of the
      Holy Trinity that depicts God the Father as an old man.

      Do you believe that this Synodically proclaimed Anathema of a particular
      jurisdiction would immediately and automatically apply to all other
      Orthodox jurisdictions throughout the world?

      I hope not.

      This concept is clearly proven also by the fact that different local
      Churches have, in the past, issued anathemas against the same thing at
      different times.

      For example, Freemasonry was anathematized by the local Church of Cyprus in
      the early 1800s. It was anathematized by the ROCOR in 1932. It was
      anathematized by the Matthewites in 1949. It was anathematized by the
      Romanian Old Calendarists some time later.

      If anathemas had immediate universal jurisdiction, then why in the world
      would other local Churches proclaim their own anathemas later?

      And finally, one must return to the basic concept that anathemas are not
      self-effectuating and automatic.

      St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain wrote that unless it is actually put
      into effect by a Synod of living Bishops, the imperative force of Canons
      remains unexecuted and does not act of itself, either immediately or before
      a decision.

      If you want the whole quote, here it is:

      ><< 1. We must know that the penalties provided by the canons, such as
      >deposition, excommunication, and anathematization, are imposed in the
      >third person according to grammatical usage, there being no
      >imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command,
      >the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the
      >matter better. THE CANONS COMMAND THE COUNCIL OF LIVING BISHOPS TO
      >DEPOSE THE PRIESTS, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize
      >laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually
      >effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the
      >anathematization of the laymen, ARE NEITHER ACTUALLY DEPOSED, nor
      >excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial,
      >however, judicially, have as touching deposition, excommunication, or
      >anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as
      >when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that
      >offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king's
      >command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. SO
      >THOSE SILLY MEN MAKE A GREAT MISTAKE WHO SAY THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME
      >ALL THOSE IN HOLY ORDERS WHO HAVE BEEN ORDAINED CONTRARY TO THE
      >CANONS ARE ACTUALLY DEPOSED FROM OFFICE. It is an INQUISITIONAL
      >TONGUE that FOOLISHLY TWADDLES thus without understanding that the
      >command of the canons, without the practical activity of the second
      >person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, REMAINS
      >UNEXECUTED, SINCE IT DOES NOT ACT OF ITSELF AND BY ITSELF IMMEDIATELY
      >AND BEFORE JUDGEMENT. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in
      >their c. XLVI unmistakenly, since they do NOT say that any bishop or
      >presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is ALREADY and
      >AT ONCE deposed, but that they COMMAND that he be deposed, or, at any
      >rate, that he stand trial, and, IF IT BE PROVEN THAT HE DID SO,
      >then "we command that he be stripped of holy orders by YOUR
      >DECISION," they say. >>

      So, there is your Patristic authority, making it clear that anathemas are
      "legislation"--not an automatic sentencing, and that it takes a Council of
      living bishops to effectuate them. And-- those bishops have to have
      jurisdiction over those who are tried by them.

      Legislation is always limited to its particular jurisdiction. No law passed
      by the British Parliament can apply to citizens of the United States living
      here. Similarly, no anathema proclaimed by any particular jurisdiction can
      apply to members of any other jurisdiction.

      So, to reiterate, in the example that you provided, the Church of
      Constantinople did *not* automatically fall under the Anathemas against the
      Papal Calendar proclaimed by the Synods of Constantinople in the 16th
      Century, since it takes a Council of **living bishops** to effectuate an
      anathema, as St. Nikodemos stated:
      that if that "council does not actually effect the deposition of the
      priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of the laymen,
      they ARE NEITHER ACTUALLY DEPOSED, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized."

      So, I would appreciate it, Patrick, if you would answer specifically the
      points I have raised in this post and what arguments you may have against
      them, or against the clearly stated position of St. Nikodemos regarding
      Anathemas.

      With love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • antiquariu@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/7/2007 5:08:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, weaver32@citlink.net writes: Many Metaphysical beliefs are out there, and people who use
      Message 2 of 12 , May 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/7/2007 5:08:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        weaver32@... writes:

        Many 'Metaphysical' beliefs are out there, and people who use 'stones 'to
        heal, and even talk to them, and many other healing beliefs, and they may come
        to worship with us too, now? Wonder if newcomers should really have exorcisms
        first?


        Dear in-Christ Katherine!

        There are probably more pagan influences in village Orthodoxy than your
        stray Wiccan or New Ager walking into your church. Evil Eye, hexes, spells --
        all over Greece and Russia to this day. Superstition dies hard, and religions
        that flourish -- like Orthodoxy in Russia and on the Northwest Coast --
        successfully redefine cherished local precepts: the Kwa'kwakawak were not
        converted, because their rites were too far out, the somewhat less complex Aleuts,
        almost completely! Evil eye shows up ethnologically in pre-Orthodox days in
        Slavic and Greek cultures, and let's not even talk about the Bacchanalia
        called Ivan Kupalo. That's so pagan -- despite it having sort of religious
        overtones now, that Adam of Bremen railed against it long before Wolodymyr marched
        the Rus into the river. Want metaphysical? Ever see what Elder Ephraim does?
        Not to say anything about the whole need for bell and whistle icons that
        stream myrrh, and even the saints warn us about those.

        I like Father Alexander's quick summary. Heed the Creed and look inside the
        Church.

        In Christ

        Vova H



        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Archpriest David Moser
        ... have a pagan (meaning a Witch or Wiccan or whatever, come to go to church with us too?) We may not even know, and wow,,, is that heretic or not?? ...
        Message 3 of 12 , May 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <weaver32@...> wrote:
          >
          > I certainly will be praying though, that we do not ( if not already)
          have a pagan (meaning a Witch or Wiccan or whatever, come to go to
          church with us too?) We may not even know, and wow,,, is that heretic
          or not?? ...

          "Praying with heretics" is a problematic phrase since it is never
          actually defined. Most people seem to assume that "praying with
          heretics" means that we somehow cannot pray in the presence of a
          heretic - which is of course ridiculous. I doubt that most people
          really believe this, but for some on this and other similar forums, it
          makes a nice strawman around which to build a catastrophy and cry out
          that the sky is falling.

          The phrase "praying with heretics" actually has a directional
          component which is usually ignored in these discussions. It is true
          that we are instructed not to "pray with heretics". This means we are
          not to join in with the prayers of heretics. We cannot join *their*
          prayers. However, I have never heard anyone instruct us not to allow
          heretics to "pray with" us - that is to join in our prayers. These
          are not equivalent statements (an assumption that many seems to wish
          to make).

          We cannot "pray with heretics" that is we cannot join in *their*
          prayers. Why is this? In our prayers our faith is expressed. When
          we join in the prayers of heretics, we join in the expression of their
          heretical belief. Duh. But when heretics come and pray with us, they,
          by implication, leave their heresy behind and express the true faith.
          Thus there is nothing wrong with having "heretics" or "pagans" or
          "new age whatevers" in our services - just by being there and praying
          with us, they are exposed to the true faith and a seed of the faith is
          planted in their hearts. Will that seed grow and bear fruit - that is
          a question to which we may never know the answer. But we do know
          that our Lord sees each of these hearts and desires their salvation.
          As the Gospel tells us - one sows and another reaps.

          By this same understanding, there is no automatic injury in being
          present in a non-Orthodox (heretical if you must) worship service.
          Simple presence does not imply "joining in the prayers" (thus going to
          weddings, funerals, special events in a non-Orthodox family members
          "church" has no intrinsic sin) In such a situation, however, it is
          imperative that we "guard our hearts" by our own prayers (the Jesus
          Prayer, the Our Father, reciting the psalms etc) so that a stray
          "seed" of heresy might not find its way into the field of our own soul.

          Praying "with" someone cannot be defined as praying "in the presence
          of" someone but rather demands an act of the will - choosing to join
          in their expression of belief. So we can have heterodox, heretics,
          pagans, and atheists in our Churches and still our prayer is not
          affected. We can even be in their services and as long as we guard
          our heart with our own prayers, there is no harm.

          ArchPriest David Moser
        • Paul Bartlett
          ... When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were expected to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens. I sometimes wonder
          Message 4 of 12 , May 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 8 May 2007, Archpriest David Moser wrote:

            > Thus there is nothing wrong with having "heretics" or "pagans" or
            > "new age whatevers" in our services - just by being there and praying
            > with us, they are exposed to the true faith and a seed of the faith is
            > planted in their hearts.

            When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were expected
            to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens. I
            sometimes wonder whether the Dismissal has become an empty liturgical
            formality. And quite some time ago I mentioned on this (or another)
            list that when I first went to Platina (October, 1974, to be exact)
            before I became Orthodox, by the explicit statement of Fr. Seraphim
            (Rose) I was not allowed to enter the church or venerate the icons.

            --
            Paul Bartlett
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: Be that as it may, in Russia there was never any practice of putting out the catechumens . The dismissal served only as a reminder that our presence
            Message 5 of 12 , May 9, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote:

              > When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were expected
              > to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens. I
              > sometimes wonder whether the Dismissal has become an empty liturgical
              > formality. And quite some time ago I mentioned on this (or another)
              > list that when I first went to Platina (October, 1974, to be exact)
              > before I became Orthodox, by the explicit statement of Fr. Seraphim
              > (Rose) I was not allowed to enter the church or venerate the icons.

              JRS: Be that as it may, in Russia there was never any practice of "putting out the
              catechumens".

              The dismissal served only as a reminder that our presence in church is a privilege: and
              that, as Nikolai Gogol wrote, applies to the faithful also.

              Many inquirers, however, do ask if they will be allowed into the church!

              Not allowing "outsiders" to enter the church till they were at least catechumens, would
              simply push people away and discourage further interest or contacts.

              In a place like Platina, outsiders could at least visit the parts of the monastery outside the
              chapel. They also had to go far out of their way to do that much (the drive from San
              Francisco took several hours, in desert conditions!).

              But in many or most of our parishes, there is nothing beyond the church building itself. If
              one could not enter, the most likely reaction would be "Goodbye, then".

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • Archpriest David Moser
              ... But that ancient liturgical action had absolutely nothing to do with praying with heretics . By Apostolic standards, even those baptized and in good
              Message 6 of 12 , May 9, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote:
                >
                > When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were expected
                > to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens.

                But that ancient liturgical action had absolutely nothing to do with
                "praying with heretics". By Apostolic standards, even those baptized
                and in "good standing" (not repenting for a sin) but who were not
                going to receive the mysteries were expected to leave the sanctary at
                that time. It is about "time and place" - that is exposing the
                reality of the miracle of the Holy Mysteries only to those who would
                partake of them. Note how the entire liturgy from that point is all
                about receiving the mysteries. The hymns, the prayers, everything
                presumes that one is prepared to or has just received the Holy
                Mysteries. If you want "restore" this "liturical formality" to its
                proper place, then start pushing *everyone* who isn't prepared to
                receive out the door, not just those who aren't Orthodox.


                > when I first went to Platina (October, 1974, to be exact)
                > before I became Orthodox, by the explicit statement of Fr. Seraphim
                > (Rose) I was not allowed to enter the church or venerate the icons.

                Well, who knows what Fr Seraphim's reasoning was on that (or did he
                tell you?). It is certainly not something he learned from his
                spiritual father, St John of SF, who welcomed all and even today when
                the Cathedral that he built and where his relics rest is open for
                services (daily) anyone who is appropriately attired can enter and
                pray, or just look around, as long as they wish.

                I'm guessing that Fr Seraphim's reasons for his action were
                specifically pastoral - meant for your salvation - rather than some
                kind of canonical fiction about "praying with heretics".

                ArchPr. David Moser
              • Paul Bartlett
                ... He did not go into reasons other than to simply say that because I was not Orthodox (at the time) I was not to venerate the icons, and he and Fr. Herman
                Message 7 of 12 , May 9, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, 9 May 2007, Archpriest David Moser wrote:

                  > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@...> wrote:

                  > [...]

                  >> when I first went to Platina (October, 1974, to be exact)
                  >> before I became Orthodox, by the explicit statement of Fr. Seraphim
                  >> (Rose) I was not allowed to enter the church or venerate the icons.
                  >
                  > Well, who knows what Fr Seraphim's reasoning was on that (or did he
                  > tell you?). It is certainly not something he learned from his
                  > spiritual father, St John of SF, who welcomed all and even today when
                  > the Cathedral that he built and where his relics rest is open for
                  > services (daily) anyone who is appropriately attired can enter and
                  > pray, or just look around, as long as they wish.
                  >
                  > I'm guessing that Fr Seraphim's reasons for his action were
                  > specifically pastoral - meant for your salvation - rather than some
                  > kind of canonical fiction about "praying with heretics".

                  He did not go into reasons other than to simply say that because I was
                  not Orthodox (at the time) I was not to venerate the icons, and he and
                  Fr. Herman indicated that I was not to enter the church proper.
                  Because he did not give an explanation, I can only speculate, and
                  speculations sometimes go wide of the mark. However, just two days
                  before that I had been in the Cathredral on Geary Blvd. in San
                  Francisco, where I attended most of a (weekday) Divine Liturgy, and I
                  was hardly noticed. (I stood in the back and minded my own business.)

                  --
                  Paul Bartlett
                • polychrony
                  ... You are correct, in a backwards way, that the dismissal of the catechumens had nothing to do with praying with heretics--since the heretics are not be
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest David Moser"
                    <moserd@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Paul Bartlett <bartlett@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were expected
                    > > to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens.
                    >
                    > But that ancient liturgical action had absolutely nothing to do with
                    > "praying with heretics". By Apostolic standards, even those baptized
                    > and in "good standing" (not repenting for a sin) but who were not
                    > going to receive the mysteries were expected to leave the sanctary at
                    > that time. It is about "time and place" - that is exposing the
                    > reality of the miracle of the Holy Mysteries only to those who would
                    > partake of them.

                    You are correct, in a backwards way, that the dismissal of the
                    catechumens had nothing to do with "praying with heretics--since the
                    heretics are not be admitted at all. It is, the "dismissal of the
                    catechumens", not the "dismissal of the catechumens."

                    As much as your modern-sounding theory of "time and place" may be
                    attractive to the contemporary reader, exclusion from the Church had
                    ~everything~ to do with prayer.

                    First, an unrepentant sinner does not equate with being in "good
                    standing." And, the penetient "standers", were exactly that, ones who
                    WERE going to be exposed Holy Mysteries but not partake of them.

                    Polychronios
                  • Archpriest David Moser
                    ... I agree with you completely, however, I think yu misunderstood my comment. When I said, those not repenting of a sin I meant those who were not under
                    Message 9 of 12 , May 10, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony" <Polychrony@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --
                      > First, an unrepentant sinner does not equate with being in "good
                      > standing." And, the penetient "standers", were exactly that, ones who
                      > WERE going to be exposed Holy Mysteries but not partake of them.
                      >
                      >

                      I agree with you completely, however, I think yu misunderstood my
                      comment. When I said, "those not repenting of a sin" I meant those
                      who were not under some kind of penance and therefore permitted to
                      enter the Church in the first place. There were those who were only
                      allowed to stand outside the door, and those who were allowed in the
                      entry, and those who had to leave with the catechumens and those who
                      had to leave at the Creed ("the doors, the doors"). Those were all
                      givens. I was referring to those who were permitted to stay in the
                      Church the whole time because they were not under some prescribed
                      penance - not "unrepentant sinners".

                      Archpr David Moser
                    • michael nikitin
                      Xristos Voskrese! Some years ago someone gave me a book to read Nebo na Zemle - Heaven on Earth. It is mostly on St. John of Kronstadt. I can t remember the
                      Message 10 of 12 , May 10, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Xristos Voskrese!

                        Some years ago someone gave me a book to read "Nebo na Zemle" -
                        Heaven on Earth.
                        It is mostly on St. John of Kronstadt. I can't remember the
                        author.
                        This book taught me the meaning of Liturgy. Vigil (Vespers and
                        Matins ) is to prepare us for Liturgy and Liturgy is all about
                        partaking of Holy Communion. It would be nice if people would
                        explain this to the non-Orthodox visitors and simply ask them to
                        stand at the back of the church.

                        Of course, only children partake of Holy Communion every Sunday.
                        We grown-ups just pray, put a candle, get a prosphora or come to
                        church to socialize at the coffee hour. The wives find this
                        social hour very convenient. They socialize at the coffee hour
                        and don't have to invite people over the house and enjoy the
                        Sunday afternoon with their husbands.

                        Michael N


                        "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                        --- In orthodox-synod@ yahoogroups. com, Paul Bartlett
                        <bartlett@.. .> wrote:

                        > When I was baptized at HTM in 1974, the non-Orthodox were
                        expected
                        > to step out of the church at the Dismissal of the Catechumens.
                        I
                        > sometimes wonder whether the Dismissal has become an empty
                        liturgical
                        > formality. And quite some time ago I mentioned on this (or
                        another)
                        > list that when I first went to Platina (October, 1974, to be
                        exact)
                        > before I became Orthodox, by the explicit statement of Fr.
                        Seraphim
                        > (Rose) I was not allowed to enter the church or venerate the
                        icons.

                        JRS: Be that as it may, in Russia there was never any practice of
                        "putting out the
                        catechumens" .

                        The dismissal served only as a reminder that our presence in
                        church is a privilege: and
                        that, as Nikolai Gogol wrote, applies to the faithful also.

                        Many inquirers, however, do ask if they will be allowed into the
                        church!

                        Not allowing "outsiders" to enter the church till they were at
                        least catechumens, would
                        simply push people away and discourage further interest or
                        contacts.

                        In a place like Platina, outsiders could at least visit the parts
                        of the monastery outside the
                        chapel. They also had to go far out of their way to do that much
                        (the drive from San
                        Francisco took several hours, in desert conditions!) .

                        But in many or most of our parishes, there is nothing beyond the
                        church building itself. If
                        one could not enter, the most likely reaction would be "Goodbye,
                        then".

                        In Christ
                        Fr. John R. Shaw


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • polychrony
                        ... The ~synclaiontes~, the weepers. ... The ~acoaomenoi~, the hearers ... The ~gonuclinontes~, the kneelers ... The ~catechoumenoi~, the catechumens.
                        Message 11 of 12 , May 10, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest David Moser"
                          <moserd@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "polychrony" <Polychrony@>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --
                          > > First, an unrepentant sinner does not equate with being in "good
                          > > standing." And, the penitent "standers", were exactly that, ones
                          > > who WERE going to be exposed Holy Mysteries but not partake
                          > > of them.
                          > >
                          >
                          > I agree with you completely, however, I think you misunderstood my
                          > comment. When I said, "those not repenting of a sin" I meant those
                          > who were not under some kind of penance and therefore permitted to
                          > enter the Church in the first place. There were

                          > [1] those who were only allowed to stand outside the door, and
                          The ~synclaiontes~, the "weepers."

                          > [2] those who were allowed in the entry [into the Narthex], and
                          The ~acoaomenoi~, the "hearers"

                          > [3] those who had to leave with the catechumens and
                          The ~gonuclinontes~, the "kneelers"

                          > [4] those who had to leave at the Creed ("the doors, the doors").
                          The ~catechoumenoi~, the "catechumens." [not a penitent category]

                          But, the point here is the _other_ group, the ~synestotes~, the
                          "co-standers", who stood next to the communicating Faithful, right
                          through, and including, the time of the Holy Mysteries. They were
                          allowed to be prayer-communing, but not eucharist-communing.

                          In fact, the Holy Canons use two different words for barring
                          prayer-communing (~aphorizomenon~, "restricted") and
                          eucharist-communing (~akoinomenon~, "excommunicated".) Though, in
                          translation this distinction is frequently lost entirely.

                          Though, depending on the penance, ~akoinomenon~ may, if there is no
                          intent to repent, be extended to include ~aphorizomenon~, even to
                          exclude all grades of penitents above.

                          This clearly points away from the "time and place" explanation and has
                          ~everything~ to do with prayer.

                          [snip]

                          > Archpr David Moser

                          Polychronios
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.