DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Gmvkgkmn** · 12-14-2010, 11:14 AM

At the time of Trullo, as at the time of Paul, Judaizers were apparently a big problem. The Canon under discussion in this thread was obviously a response to the Judaizer problem as opposed to Jews per se. In today's context, the question is whether there is a Judaizer problem. If not, then why invoke the Canon, outside of its proper historical context, because Patriarch Irinej paid a visit to another community in Belgrade and lit a lamp?

I don't in the least bit disagree with what has been said about canons. In no way do I care what punishment Patriarch Irinej comes under. He is, to me, "another man's servant", and I have no interest in arguing for his deposition. I started the thread because I wanted to know if the Serbian Patriarchate had released any information about this, or made any statements. I only noted the canon because I think that the Patriarch's actions merit the controversy they've received. Yet, again, I have no direct connection to his actions nor to the actions of those who would have any way of punishing him. I was merely curious as to what the reaction has been like amongst those within the Serbian Patriarchate.

As for whether the canon is relevant today, I disagree. Yet, again, I have no concern over how it may apply to Serbian bishops.

12-14-2010, 11:14 AM	#18
Gmvkgkmn Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 451 Senior Member	At the time of Trullo, as at the time of Paul, Judaizers were apparently a big problem. The Canon under discussion in this thread was obviously a response to the Judaizer problem as opposed to Jews per se. In today's context, the question is whether there is a Judaizer problem. If not, then why invoke the Canon, outside of its proper historical context, because Patriarch Irinej paid a visit to another community in Belgrade and lit a lamp? I don't in the least bit disagree with what has been said about canons. In no way do I care what punishment Patriarch Irinej comes under. He is, to me, "another man's servant", and I have no interest in arguing for his deposition. I started the thread because I wanted to know if the Serbian Patriarchate had released any information about this, or made any statements. I only noted the canon because I think that the Patriarch's actions merit the controversy they've received. Yet, again, I have no direct connection to his actions nor to the actions of those who would have any way of punishing him. I was merely curious as to what the reaction has been like amongst those within the Serbian Patriarchate. As for whether the canon is relevant today, I disagree. Yet, again, I have no concern over how it may apply to Serbian bishops.
	Quote