Canons?

[contriteheart]

Hello all,

Is there somewhere online that I could take a look at the Canons?

Thanks for your help,
Grace

[gzt]

No.

Well, there might be. But you shouldn't.

What are you interested in looking at?

[contriteheart]

No.

Well, there might be. But you shouldn't.

:confused: Why not?

[gzt]

I've been told they're the sort of things only trained professionals [ie, canon lawyers, bishops, professors of the subject...] should look at because reading them only leads to wondering why they're not applied or other such legalistic mucking about. There are a lot of things in the canons. I'm not certain what exactly leads this to happen because I really don't have an interest in reading them and, thus, haven't. It's not like we're trying to keep secret information from you or that there's some mystical gnosis going on, everything's "above the board" here. I suppose reading the canons might be like reading every extant manuscript from the second century - you may not know what's good and what's bad in it and you shouldn't ascribe all of it the same authority, but some of it is really important and if you don't know which is which, you shouldn't muck about in it for too long.

[Xpycoctomos]

Perhaps this (http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/repentance.htm)is a canon we can be more concerned about ;)

John

[InnerPhyre]

I think these are pretty cool. Take a look.





http://www.ohlone.palo-alto.ca.us/Williamsburg/134%20cannons.jpg














Awful I know. I apologize :doh:

[MariaRegina]

I think these are pretty cool. Take a look.




http://www.ohlone.palo-alto.ca.us/Williamsburg/134%20cannons.jpg












Awful I know. I apologize :doh:


:D

:D

:D

[MariaRegina]

Perhaps this (http://www.pomog.org/index.html?http://www.pomog.org/repentance.htm)is a canon we can be more concerned about ;)

John

I agree

[Marjorie]

Grace,

One reason that most of us are concerned about this is that there are so many canons for so many different specific situations that they can easily confirm the saying that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. A lot of people who come to Orthodoxy will approach them in a really legalistic way. Also, they're almost impossible to understand without historical background for each one. For instance, there's some canon out there that forbids going to Jewish doctors, which would make a lot of us REALLY in trouble... but the background is that at this time doctors (as such) had a spiritual role as well, and people were receiving religious instruction and partaking in religious rites that weren't Christian, which is obviously a problem. There are canons dealing with a lot of things that almost always have to do with a specific issue in a specific place in time... and while it *is* possible to read the canons, I don't think there is yet a database of canons that also lists the historical background of each, so it's really impossible to understand them unless you spend a lot of time investigating history... and it's generally better to start off with milk before you head over to the meat aisle (that goes for most of us who aren't Church history scholars.) It's not that they're hidden or anything, it's just better to start off with other things.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[contriteheart]

Why do I want to thoroughly check things out before I "sign on the dotted line"? I think this excerpt from an article in Monday's paper (about Scientology) will explain it best:

"Scientology also apparently is like Gnosticism in imparting secret knowledge to elites. Critics at www.xenu.net (http://www.xenu.net/) and elsewhere say say advanced Scientologists are taught that 75 million years ago the cosmic ruler Xenu paralzyed billions of people in our galaxy, stacked them on Earth and destroyed their bodies with H-bombs, though the traumatized souls survived." (AP)

I don't know, but I'm guessing they don't tell that to the new recruits. When people tell me that there's certain knowledge that only the "advanced" can handle knowing, I get nervous.

Now please hear me - I'm not saying Orthodoxy is anything at all like Scientology, and I understand that the Canons are historical documents that have to be understood in context, both spiritual and historical. But I hope you will also understand why, as in inquirer, I would want to inquire about them.

With love in Christ,
Grace

[Marjorie]

That's what we're trying to explain... the canons aren't the "deep mysteries" of Orthodoxy. If you want those, read the theological works... the canons are just the solutions to particular historical disputes. You can read them, but we're just giving warnings because a lot of converts come and read the canons and start acting as if man was made for the sabbath.

Here's some: http://aggreen.net/canons/canons.html

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[gzt]

I'm sure you can google them, I don't know where they'd be. If they aren't available online, you can look for "The Pedalion" or "The Rudder". As I said, it's not like there's secret gnosis here or documents buried deep in a vault. I think the reason people are advised against reading them is things like, "Don't pray with heretics or you'll be excommunicated. If you break the Wednesday or Friday fast, you'll be excommunicated. etc." I'm sorry, I sounded like I was trying to boss you around there like a proud young fool.

[contriteheart]

we're just giving warnings because a lot of converts come and read the canons and start acting as if man was made for the sabbath.


I understand this completely. I would call it convertitis. You know, "How come everybody else in my newfound faith isn't as zealous as me??? I must need to convert them!" I'm sure that Orthodoxy attracts its fair share of those who are tempted to be legalists, and reading the Canons would just exacerbate that tendency and cause everybody a bunch of grief.

gzt - I didn't take it as you trying to boss me around, and I wasn't offended. It's just that this is the second time I've been cryptically told that I shouldn't read something without being given an explanation (the first was the Philokalia). I appreciate you and Marjorie later clarifying why you don't think the Canons should be read by inquirers. It makes a lot more sense than just telling me not to read it - which is about the extent of what I was told about the Philokalia - in a "spooky" sort of way. By the way, gzt, I hope you don't mind, but I did wind up printing what you said about why you fast from the other thread and putting it on my [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]. It was very good.

Thanks to both of you for your help!

With love in Christ,
Grace

[Marjorie]

The Philokalia should be read cautiously for the same reason that you wouldn't give a chemistry set to a three-year-old. You might give it to an older kid who loved science; it's a great gift, though you'd make sure they understood how to handle the chemicals first (give them goggles and gloves and so on.) The problem is that people these days don't seem to actually believe in the power of theology, and therefore the danger of theology. Advanced spiritual writings can be dangerous in the hands of those who aren't advanced. But by all means, read the Philokalia; you just might want to ask a priest to help you through it.

A spiritual father is really important in Orthodoxy (that's one of the things you'll find in the Philokalia), because we believe that the mysteries of God have real power, to harm and to save.

Please forgive us if it seemed we were trying to hide the mysteries of Orthodoxy. They're there for everyone, but we just try to approach them with caution.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[pilgrimtim]

Christ command the church to make disciples. Being a disciple is a holistic event. There are two sides to the Faith Practice (praxis) and Belief (doxis). The Canons deal with praxis sometimes with faith. They describe the norms of our Faith and Practice at different period in the History of the Church. Reading the canons without have the Ortho (right) prerequiste Faith and Practice will tend to give to a distorted view of the faith. Canons are not laws written in stone for all time by the are written and discussed about to help maintain a connection to the Faith of the Apostles. The Canons are a way of allowing the church in History to have a vote on what is happening today.
In the 40 volume translation of early church writing there is in several volumes the canons of several Ecumenical councils, with some explanation. It make for quite dizzying reading. I would google "ante-nicene fathers" to start your search.

[gzt]

I'm flattered, I can only hope I live up to what I said.

[Xpycoctomos]

The Philokalia should be read cautiously for the same reason that you wouldn't give a chemistry set to a three-year-old.

Nice analogy!


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Marjorie again.

[Kolya]

The canons are available online. I've googled them out, with good explanations too. But the warning stands!:) Some keywords are Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Councils.

[VickiY]

The canons are online, and published, and are not "secret knowledge". I would suggest, however, that if you are a catechumen, you should bring this issue up to your priest, and ask him if he is willing to spend a few minutes with you, in order to explain the format they are in, and then also that you jot down all the "weird" canons that strike you as odd, and ask the reason for them, so that that way you are not missing anything you feel is important, or could affect your decision, and also, you are not tempted to fall into the sin of judgment or condemnation of a particular canon without having sought the guidance of your priest who can explain it for you.

In general, though, be aware that depending on your spiritual level, one's spiritual father may not allow one to read even simple books, as they are not what you need at the moment. (this is not "secret knowledge", but just as one must learn basic arithmatic before learning calculus, one must build one's knowledge of the Church from basics to the complex, or the result is confusion, no matter how many hours you spend studying.)

Vicki