An Archbishop in a Pagan Temple

Perhaps if you suggest we follow the above canon Patrick, the below-mentioned canons too should be observed. It is probably for the best they are not as we would have no church/clergy anymore. Canons from what I understand from Fr. John Behr, are to be used as guidelines and not as \\"law\\". (keep in mind that I have overlooked many other canons for the sake of not dragging this post on) Perhaps it is best to reason out what is happening in regards to \\"ecumenical dialogue\\", and then to draw conclusions or methods of presenting Orthodoxy to the world in a so called \\"un-compromised way\\" as many would like it. But I ask, what has been done that is compromised at this point? :) Canon II. All who enter the church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the Eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church, until, after they shall have made confession, and having brought forth the fruits of penance, and made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one Church those who do not assemble with another Church. And, if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church. (most of our church should be excommunicated) Canon IV. If any bishop who has been deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon who has been deposed by his bishop shall presume to execute any part of the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former custom, or a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another Synod; nor any opportunity of making his defence; but they who communicate with him shall all be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them. (bishop\'s identity will remain hidden unless privately requested via pm) Canon II. The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers. (Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow Patriarchate battle over churches in Slavic lands) Canon VII. Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. (mount athos and some greek monasteries usually requires otherwise)

First 2 canons from Synod of Antioch, the last 2 canons from the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

As I said before, the message, especially in this country, is that Orthodoxy is just another way of getting to God. Not the only, just another. Part of the cafeteria spirituality of our culture. The fruit of the ecumenical movement if you ask me. It also sows confusion among the faithful. After all, if the Archbishop can do it, so can I. I actually know of people who proudly state that some Sundays they go to the Roman Catholic Church (and receive communion), and some Sundays they come to ours (and receive communion). After all, we\'re pretty much the same, right? I\'ll agree that Canons can be set aside at times, I just don\'t agree that this is such a time. I think the fruit of ecumenism has largely been bad.

I have to agree with you that its been bad most of the time, however, I must say ecumenical dialogue is a lot different than ecumenical prayer. If we do not talk, no one will know about us and what we believe. If we sell out and pray and say we\'re the same, then that\'s pretty bad and it gives off the image you were describing. Now, there are two possibilities with Archbishop Demetrius, he could have prayed with an ecumenical intent, or he simply said a prayer to bless the country and its president. After all we do mention the name of the President in our Liturgy (at the chalice during the great entrance and about 3-4 times in the petitions), what does that mean? Politics? perhaps. Or sincere prayer to help our country and its leader? I cannot judge, I am only trying to say we should wait and see what was his intent (selling out or sincere prayer in the presence of non-Orthodox). :)

In the presence of non-Orthodox we are called to, ever more so, BE Orthodox. How can we set an example for them, or in the case of a Priest, Bless them if we aren\'t following our own prescribed Orthodox practices, our Orthodox way? How can a sincere Blessing be made without invoking the name of our Lord? Worse yet, what do we call a Blessing that has been edited to remove name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Is this not, and forgive me if I\'m wrong, denying Christ as Peter did, out of fear? Does the need for political correctness somehow outweigh our witness of the Truth? At the very least, one would imagine that an Orthodox Blessing would involve the Sign of the Cross... even if it were made discretely.

Archbishop Demetrios read Matthew 22:36-40 - certainly a powerful text. I don\'t know what prayer or other activities he was part of. I don\'t frankly think its relevant. I\'m certainly not impugning his motives - that is not my place and I am fortunately not clairvoyant (and about as far removed from that as you can get). All I am speaking of are the message that I feel is transmitted by such actions, and the end result.

I have been blessed by many priests in this way: \\"God bless you\\"; the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was not uttered, or is this \\"un-orthodox\\"? I have heard of many saints who blessed others saying \\"May God save you\\" without hinting at Christ\'s name. Perhaps it would be better to utter His name should the circumstances prefer it, yet nothing is wrong with the other blessings. (P.S. and the greeks are well known at least here in Toronto for nothing making the sign of the cross for the blessing, on the other hand the russian priests here make such a huge cross; i don\'t know if it is different in the states, if they usually make the sign of the cross then your point is stronger than mine nikola)

Those are valid points, It\'s also good to know that Holy Scripture was read. Personally, in terms of the conventions at least, I don\'t think this was simply a case of saying \\"God Bless you\\" as opposed to \\"May the Blessings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be upon you\\" - there is a place for a Priest to say God Bless you and a place where the name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ MUST be mentioned with no excuses. Although I kept saying \\"No, this can\'t be so\\" to myself, in the end it was plain to see that this was outright political correctness. The name of our Lord was not mentioned in a single Prayer and the Sign of the Cross was completely absent - from the beginning to end he did not Bless himself or the people. I\'ve yet to hear of a Prayer service, in Toronto or otherwise, that does not begin with and end with the Sign of the Cross and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, \\"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen\\". I\'ll have to watch video of the latter prayers but I am at least relieved that the Holy Gospel was read. Was the Sign of the Cross made before reading Scripture, was Jesus\'s name mentioned?

You also make good points and I wish there would be further clarification on this matter (are the people who lead the prayers barred from mentioning the name of God and if so, would it be wise to do so [certainly in this case it would but what can I say] or is it done by free choice?) question of the century.

If His Eminence has erred, then according to the established order in the Church, he should be judged by his peers, the bishops. If he has failed in something or acted willfully in contravention of the holy canons, he will have to give an account, as shall we all for all our sins, from the greatest to the least, at the Dread Judgement. One of those sins for which we may have to give account is sitting in judgement on the clergy, a very terrible crime, since they have been given by God the grace of the holy priesthood, which by God\'s mercy provides the holy sacraments, without which we would be cut off from life and salvation. While there is plenty of scandalous behavior one can report and discuss that other people have shown, it would be far better for us to commend the clergy and ourselves and one another to God with our fervent prayer and to ponder how we have caused scandal to others--clergy, laity, saints and angels, even God, and repent of this. Truth be told, we have grieved the Holy Spirit far more with our sins than anyone has grieved us. Those who willfully act against truth will have a lot to fear in the end. For this, we ought to pity them and all men, and pray for them as we would for our own souls, that we all might be granted sincere repentance before the Lord calls us from this life. Scandals will always come in this world, and those who cause them will receive a recompense, but we cannot do anything about them but be true to what we know, fast and pray, and continue trying our best to live an Orthodox life, with God\'s help.

Well said Reader John... unfortunately this is still really troubling. God help us.

Well, I would say that this is one of the less troubling incidents. Such things happen every day on this level. At least we have only one case I know of in the world of an Orthodox Metropolitan walking into a Non Orthodox church and taking communion at the altar. This incident, involving Metropolitan Nicholae of Romania, has still not been resolved. As far as I know, he continues as a Metropolitan and makes no apology. Maybe someone has official news otherwise.

Here is some further information on the case of Metropolitan Nicholae: http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/holy-synod-of-the-romanian-patriarchate-condemns-metropolitan-who-took-uniate-communion-no-decision-as-to-punishment/ It may be best to disregard the editorial note and comments at the end, lest they infuriate anyone.

I am not an expert on Orthodox Canons. But, I can offer this opinion. We are called to be a shining city on a hill, and not a lamp covered up in the corner, to borrow some phrases from the Bible. Bringing the Light into the presence of others should not be considered a sin, I think.

subscribe...