[Gmvkgkmn]

Does anyone from the Serbian Patriarchate have any insight into the recent Hanukkah celebrations in Belgrade?
Apparently the Patriarch celebrated a Hanukkah service at a synagogue there, even lighting a candle on the menorah. Have any of the Serbian Patriarchate parishioners heard anything about this from the inside? For example, have there been any statements about it?

(There's a video of it on a French website. I must admit, this is rather odd. http://www.mondo.rs/motion/play.php?vid=5084.)

[bF8CCmmr]

Ephrem:

I saw that yesterday on the Serbian Patriarchal website. No video's but pictures. Not only was the Patriarch there and lit a candle but also the President of Serbia. I don't know whether they also lit the menorah, but also the RC Nuncio/Cardinal and the Grand Mufti were there. I do not believe they "participated" in the service. There were in attendance yes and were probably asked to honor the synagogue by lightining the candles. In Serbia, all four groups have always been cordial to each other at the clerical level.

[MP+4]

Yes this has caused a stir amongst certain anti-ecumenist groups, but not sure why. It seems to be a post-holiday celebration in that each guest lights one candle until all were lit. Serbians are probably the most friendliest of the Orthodox people towards jews for historical reasons. For instance serbians suffered at the hands of nazi's in ww1 simply because of their religion, the few dozen remaining jews in Kosovo fled alongside the serbians when KFOR arrived, those jews prefering serb rule. The state of Israel refuses to recognize kosovo independance etc.

Theres nothing unusual for dignitaries to be invited to a ceremony. And this is nothing compared to the nonsense that took place at a GOA parish in Rochester NY a few years ago when the parish allowed the jews to use their sanctuary (the actual church not the auditorium) to hold religious services in while their synagogue was under renovation.

[Corryikilelet]

In 1997 many state leaders - presidents and prime ministers and others - took part in such ceremonies at the beginning of Hanukah, marking the beginning of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel. Inter alia the Pope was represented by a cardinal at a ceremony in the Vatican; the Archbishop of Cyprus attended a function with the Israeli ambassador. This may have been the start of a custom which seems to have persisted - even the President of Cuba is reported to have participated recently.

From the video link it appears that this may have been a less formal 'paraliturgical' celebration; there is much to suggest that the synagogue where the event took place is rather liberal. Perhaps this was more of a civil/social event. I think it is unlikely that it would have been permitted within a strict orthodox Jewish setting.

[MP+4]

The event took place on Dec 8, when Hanukkah already ended. It wasnt a religious service, just some commemorative ceremony marking the end of the holiday where 8 guests (6 of which were non-jews) each lit one candle. I really dont see any controversy with this.

[Corryikilelet]

The event took place on Dec 8, when Hanukkah already ended. It wasnt a religious service, just some commemorative ceremony marking the end of the holiday where 8 guests (6 of which were non-jews) each lit one candle.

Hanukah this year lasted from 25 Kislev 5771 (which, this year had 30 days) to 2 Tevet 5771, thus it commenced at sunset on Wednesday 1 December 2010 and concluded at sunset on Thursday 9 December 2010.

I really dont see any controversy with this.

Nor I.

[Gmvkgkmn]

I think it has rightly been controversial. It directly contradicts Apostolic Canon LXXI, which says, "If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated."

[IACJdKfU]

I think it has rightly been controversial. It directly contradicts Apostolic Canon LXXI, which says, "If any Christian brings oil into a temple of the heathen or into a synagogue of the Jews at their feast, or lights lamps, let him be excommunicated."

I concur. Even though it might not have been actual Chanukkah, it was the act of commemorating a feast of the old covenant.

[MP+4]

One can be excommunicated for simply entering into a heterodox temple, in fact you can be excommunicated for having a jewish doctor according to the canons. The ceremony the guests took part in was not the religious ceremony, but an after celebration where dignitaries lit a mock candlebbra on the nite/day after the final candle was lit. Also this is not a true 'religious' feast of judaism to begin with, but a secular feast which the Orthodox church also accepts. Its not a feast fulfilled in Christ because its a secular historical event. Its history is found in the 3 books of the Macabees which the Orthodox church alone preserves.

Also this event doesnt create any confusion between the religions as does inter-christian ecumenism.. The brand of judaism that this synagogue espouses is of the strict variety and there not looking to cut deals on recognizing intermarriages or anything like that. We no longer need to worry about christians fasting with the jews, nor do the jews want to pray with us or want to equate their religion with ours. It is when christians of the various sects gather that you need to worry, thats when the devil is in the details.
Serbians have always had cordial relations with their jewish community, so the bishops were invited. Now if this was Greece or Russia invitations would not have been sent because relations arent good there.

[Gmvkgkmn]

I disagree that it does not cause confusion. To treat Judaism as if it were a legitimate religion is confusing. Seeing the Serbian Patriarch lighting a menorah is confusing, I guarantee it.

[bF8CCmmr]

Ephrem: You may be on to something. Perhaps the Serbain Patriarch should be deposed and excommunicated for the violation of the Canon which you cite. You know, we have to enforce all of the Canons for they are immutable truths and, anything short of that, would not be Orthodox. So, while are excommunicating the Serbian Patriarch, let's not forget to excommunicate the following as well:

1. Anyone that has gone to the theatre, seen a movie or watched television, or a natural history museum where the items on display are the result of a hunt: "This holy ecumenical synod altogether forbids those who are called players, and their spectacles, as well as the exhibition of hunts, and theatrical dances. If any one despises the present canon, and gives himself to any of the things which are forbidden, if he be a cleric he shall be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off". (Canon 51 Trullo)

2. Anyone who has had a mediium or medium rare steak: "The divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those therefore who on account of a dainty stomach prepare by any art for food the blood of any animal, and so eat it, we punish suitably. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off". (Canon 67 Trullo)


3. All of us who have been altar boys but have not been emperors: 'It is not permitted to a layman to enter the sanctuary (Holy Altar, Gk.), though, in accordance with a certain ancient tradition, the imperial power and authority is by no means prohibited from this when he wishes to offer his gifts to the Creator". (Canon 69 Trullo)


4. Us unlucky ones who went to law school and went to the theatre or dressed differently: "Those who are taught the civil laws must not adopt the customs of the Gentiles, nor be induced to go to the theatre, nor to keep what are called Cylestras, nor to wear clothing contrary to the general custom; and this holds good when they begin their training, when they reach its end, and, in short, all the time of its duration. If any one from this time shall dare to do contrary to this canon he is to be cut off". (Canon 71 Trullo) You guys who didn't go to law school are lucky. You can go see the Voyage of the Dawn Treader this week.


5. All of those that miss Church and communion for three weeks: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are enumerated in the list of the clergy, or a layman, has no very grave necessity nor difficult business so as to keep him from church for a very long time, but being in town does not go to church on three consecutive Sundays—three weeks—if he is a cleric let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off". (Canon 80 Trullo). Better not go to school or vacation if you are not going to be very near to a Church.


6. All those pietistic Russians who kneel on Sunday or others who bend the knee to do reverence on Sunday: "We have received from our divine Fathers the canon law that in honour of Christ’s resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays. Lest therefore we should ignore the fulness of this observance we make it plain to the faithful that after the priests have gone to the Altar for Vespers on Saturdays (according to the prevailing custom) no one shall kneel in prayer until the evening of Sunday, at which time after the entrance for compline, again with bended knees we offer our prayers to the Lord. For taking the night after the Sabbath, which was the forerunner of our Lord’s resurrection, we begin from it to sing in the spirit hymns to God, leading our feast out of darkness into light, and thus during an entire day and night, we celebrate the Resurrection. (Canon 90 Trullo). Fortunately, I don't come under this one except on Pentecost when Vespers is done immediately after Liturgy, but that's not my fault. My priest controls the schedule.


7. All of us that have pictures and paintings in our house other than icons, especially pictures of our spouse that can arise a passion: “Let thine eyes behold the thing which is right,” orders Wisdom, “and keep thine heart with all care.” For the bodily senses easily bring their own impressions into the soul. Therefore we order that henceforth there shall in no way be made pictures, whether they are in paintings or in what way so ever, which attract the eye and corrupt the mind, and incite it to the enkindling of base pleasures. And if any one shall attempt to do this he is to be cut off. (Canon 100 Trullo). I just cleaned out my wallet picture section.


8. Anyone who receives communion, or administers it, except by putting it in my hand and taking it that way and without spoon: "The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them". (Canon 101 Trullo)

Not much left after strict adherence to all of these. But, we don't need much left if what is left is pure. Wow, I always knew I should have been a Pharaise.

[Promotiona]

Not much hope for the rest of us, eh?:-)

[Daruhuw]

Mr Katich makes a very strong point. The canons aren't laws that get applied to all and sundry as laymen see fit. They are guidelines for Bishops to use in their pastoral care of us (not necessarily so) rational sheep. So, unless you're a Bishop, put away your copy of the Pedalion, and stop applying it to other people.

Have you ever read through the criminal laws of your country (or state, if you're American)? I've read a bit through the Criminal Code of Canada. It's a definite cure for insomnia, let me tell you, but it does make an odd impression on the reader. It's full of statements like "anyone who does X, is liable for punishment Y". Seems pretty straight forward doesn't it? Then when you read the news, especially the stuff that follows court proceedings, very few convicted people seem to be getting "punishment Y". Are the judges not following the law? If you don't understand how the law works, it would seem so.

But there's the trick! Understanding how the law works! All the "punishment Y's" that we've been reading about are maximum sentences - not minimum! Sometimes they'll specify a maximum and minimum punishment, but often they just list the maximum and leave the minimum up to the presiding Justice. Just as the canons list punishments for this, that, and the other thing, but what they list are the maximum penalty, not minimum.

And perhaps most importantly, the laws of any nation are for Judges to interpret. If the average citizen were to run about interpreting and applying his interpretation of the laws, entirely independant of the police, judicial and penal systems of the country he's in, that would be called vigilantism, which is, interestingly, a crime in and of itself.

So keep that in mind when you get the impulse to be a canonical vigilante. It's not a good thing.

[bF8CCmmr]

Thank you Fr. Cyprian for your thoughtful and correct comments regarding the Canons. One of the things that always troubles me is the often indiscriminate reference to Canons as if they were written in stone as positive laws (in the legal sense, that is, a legislative statue) that must be applied in strictness unless later revised by some ecumenical council.

Ephrem, when Canons are deviated from, the deviation is often referred to as "economia". That word is interesting to contemplate. It is often misundersood in English usage in particular. It literally means, in the Greek, to build up, such as a houshold. That is why economia is not indiscriminantly applied. It is applied when its application has the goal of attempting to build up the household, in our context, the household is the Church and its unity. It is not charity as some might suggest. It is positivie action.

Canons should never be taken out of the historical context within which they were promulgated. They were the Church's response to concrete situations which existed at the time. They were promulgated at the time because it was thought that the rule or principle established by a particular Canon would correct some act or practice which did not serve to build up the household. The particular Canon was promulgated because it was believed that its application would build up the household. Viewed this way, Canon and Economia are really flip sides of the same coin and are interrelated. I prefer to say that Economia (to build up) is the super-Canon; i.e. we must always act in ways that build up and not tear down. Viewed this way, Canons, it can be said are actually subsets of Economia.

There are also those who say that if a Canon makes no sense today, we should get rid of it. Wrong. Why? Because the Canon usually contains a principle, though the Canon maybe not thought to be of application today; however, a principle from it may be extracted that may be applicable to a seemingly different situation even today. To borrow from Anglo-American legal parlance, the Canons are best viewed as our body of principled common law from which we may, by reasoning and analogy, draw from and apply to our current life. Anyone who has read Balsamon and others of his time, know that they did not blindly use the Canons, but rather, sought the underlying principle to apply to regulate then current issues.

As Fr. Cyprian aptly and correctly put it, they are tools to be used by Bishops, along with a plethora of other tools, to build up the household.

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?

We must always take care not to sink into Pharaisey (no pun -- OK sort of)

[IACJdKfU]

So, what place does the Rudder, or Canons, have in relevance to the Orthodox Church today?

-Ignatios (Jason H.)

[ButKnillinoi]

You might want to check out this thread: Orthodox Canon Law

Herman the "loose canon" Pooh

[Daruhuw]

The canons are guidelines for Bishops to apply discipline and guidance to the Church. The fact that they all exist within contexts that aren't always clear in the compilation known as the Pedalion, nor is the application thereof always as strict as some would think they apparently should be, doesn't mean they have no place.

Just because the canons aren't a set of laws that apply to all Orthodox Christians, everywhere in the world, throughout all time, equally and with the utmost harshness, doesn't mean that they don't have a place. It's just that the place they do have is a bit more... balanced. The principles of the Gospel (things like forgiveness, mercy, healing, etc.) are not to be nullified by the canons.

Hope that helps.

[Gmvkgkmn]

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.

[bF8CCmmr]

Thank you Fr. Cyprian once more for a most lucid explanation of the need for balance in the application of the canons. Thank you also Herman. Your post in the other thread to which you cited is right on the mark.

[Daruhuw]

Beloved Ephrem,

I hope you don't feel like we've been trying to "shoot you down." Absolutely not! I was just trying to ensure all involved in the conversation (and other readers who may or may not throw their opinions in) understood that the canons of the Orthodox Church aren't canon laws, nor even do secular laws work the way a casual reader may think. We need to keep Gospel based principles of things mercy, love and forgiveness when reading canons, and we shouldn't really be running around applying them to other people unless we're Bishops. It is, however, possibly good to apply them to oneself (with the guidance and blessing of one's spiritual father, and absolutely NOT without!). It's a matter of tending to your own garden, and not worrying about what's going on in your neighbours garden.

Now, that being said, that doesn't mean that once someone has been made a Bishop, they can just run around willy-nilly doing whatever they please because they can decide that the canons don't apply to them. Just as much as we are accountable to our Bishops, our Bishops are accountable to the laity. Similarly in a monastery, it is actually the Abbot who has the most difficult obedience. All the monks are in obedience to the Abbot, to be sure, but the Abbot is in obedience to all the monks, as a whole.

Now, I think I agree with what seems to be your sentiment that it seems that often the canons are a bit too easily thrown aside in our modern times. I've seen and heard of some stuff that really made my eyebrows shoot up! As much as I keep reminding myself to "tend to my own garden" (which is actually a good argument for me to stop posting here - lol!), and not to judge, I sometimes am amazed at how glibly our centuries old established discipline is tossed away. But, I readily admit that I may not be privy to all the information, and therefore not aware of certain aspects that may affect these decisions.

As far as how that applies to His Holiness, Patriarch IRINEJ, I honestly can't say, as I don't feel I don't have enough information to form a viable opinion. Has he made a statement, or anyone asked him, why he did this? That might go a long way to explain things.