What's your opinion on Orthodoxy?

[Nine_Two]

Here is a citation immediately preceding the citation under discussion, from the article, “Anathema” from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Source: Gignac, Joseph. “Anathema.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 22 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm. (Bolding and underlining mine)

You might be right, in which case it has developed a stronger meaning in the East while Excommunication a lesser one.
It is valuable, regardless, to remember we often speak two different languages.

 

[LionHeart777]

You might be right, in which case it has developed a stronger meaning in the East while Excommunication a lesser one.
It is valuable, regardless, to remember we often speak two different languages.

Like I said, I didn’t know much (if anything) about the matter, so I just looked real quick and just a simple cut & paste and that’s what I came up with (now I know a little more!).

Yeah, I agree about the languages, that’s why dialogue helps in eliminating confusion.

 

[Nine_Two]

Like I said, I didn’t know much (if anything) about the matter, so I just looked real quick and just a simple cut & paste and that’s what I came up with (now I know a little more!).

Yeah, I agree about the languages, that’s why dialogue helps in eliminating confusion.

I had a look back at the Canons of I Constantinople (4th century) and while I wouldn’t say it uses the terms interchangeably, it applies anathema to the belief and excommunication to the person. Later councils, I think starting with the 5th start declaring individuals anathema.

 

[LionHeart777]

I had a look back at the Canons of I Constantinople (4th century) and while I wouldn’t say it uses the terms interchangeably, it applies anathema to the belief and excommunication to the person. Later councils, I think starting with the 5th start declaring individuals anathema.

hmm… in the Canons themselves I only see the anathematizing of beliefs and not the excommunication of any persons. I am looking at the New Advent site on this page.

The CE article says: “All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: ‘If any one says . . . let him be anathema’.”

I suppose one could look back to the early Ecumenical Councils (or other primary sources perhaps) to verify what the article says, that: “…during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication…”

I think Jurgens’ “Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 1” may have (at least part) of Nicaea in it, maybe I’ll have a look later.

Here are a couple of Canons from Ephesus I:

Canon 6

Likewise, if any should in any way attempt to set aside the orders in each case made by the holy Synod at Ephesus, the holy Synod decrees that, if they be bishops or clergymen, they shall absolutely forfeit their office; and, if laymen, that they shall be excommunicated.

Canon 7

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod. So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm (emphasis mine)

I’m no expert but, it seems that they could be interchangeable here as the punishment for clergy in Canons 6 and 7 above seems to be deposition in all cases here but in Canon 6 the laity are to be “excommunicated” whereas in Canon 7 the laity are to be “anathematized” .

More specifically, in Canon 6 the punishment for the clergy is that they “they shall absolutely forfeit their office” while the laity are “excommunicated”, whereas the clergy in Canon 7 are either “deposed” or “removed from his bishopric” or “stricken from the clergy”, while all the laymen in Canon 7 are “anathematized”.

To summarize, if I am reading the above Canons correctly:

The various punishments for the clergy are:

“they shall absolutely forfeit their office”

“deposed”

“removed from his bishopric”

“stricken from the clergy”

The punishments for the laity are that they are:

“excommunicated”

“anathematized”

The questions seem to become, are the punishments for the clergy the same although they are expressed in different words? If so, it would seem logical that the same should follow for the punishments for the laity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That actually might not be so. ‘Forfeit their office’ and ‘deposition’ could have the same meaning while ‘anathematize’ and ‘excommunicate’ could differ in meaning. There is an old principle mentioned by St. Basil the Great in one of his canonical epistles that one shall not punish for the same crime twice, meaning that the maximum sentence for one crime committed by a member of the clergy is deposition, even if the punishment would differ in severity amongst the laity.

 

[TEPO]

hmm… in the Canons themselves I only see the anathematizing of beliefs and not the excommunication of any persons. I am looking at the New Advent site on this page.

The CE article says: “All the councils, from the Council of Nicæa to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: ‘If any one says . . . let him be anathema’.”

I suppose one could look back to the early Ecumenical Councils (or other primary sources perhaps) to verify what the article says, that: “…during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication…”

I think Jurgens’ “Faith of the Early Fathers: Vol. 1” may have (at least part) of Nicaea in it, maybe I’ll have a look later.

Here are a couple of Canons from Ephesus I:

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm (emphasis mine)

I’m no expert but, it seems that they could be interchangeable here as the punishment for clergy in Canons 6 and 7 above seems to be deposition in all cases here but in Canon 6 the laity are to be “excommunicated” whereas in Canon 7 the laity are to be “anathematized” .

More specifically, in Canon 6 the punishment for the clergy is that they “they shall absolutely forfeit their office” while the laity are “excommunicated”, whereas the clergy in Canon 7 are either “deposed” or “removed from his bishopric” or “stricken from the clergy”, while all the laymen in Canon 7 are “anathematized”.

To summarize, if I am reading the above Canons correctly:

The various punishments for the clergy are:

“they shall absolutely forfeit their office”

“deposed”

“removed from his bishopric”

“stricken from the clergy”

The punishments for the laity are that they are:

“excommunicated”

“anathematized”

The questions seem to become, are the punishments for the clergy the same although they are expressed in different words? If so, it would seem logical that the same should follow for the punishments for the laity.

Once clergy are stricken from their position, they can then be excommunicated and anathematized.

 

[dzheremi]

I find that post a bit disturbing, considering the Orans posture appears several times during the Divine Liturgy. I’m not sure how prominent it is during the Coptic liturgy (having never been - I’ll have to some time), I can’t recall ever seeing it in a Protestant service.

I don’t recall having ever seen it as a child in the Presbyterian church. They seem to be more into the “hands over my head like Jesus is firing a t-shirt cannon at me at a sporting event” thing (this thing). I don’t really watch what others are doing in the Coptic liturgy unless there’s some new part that I’m unfamiliar with, but it seems that it occurs at least during the Our Father, which is recited several times during the liturgy.

 

[TEPO]

That actually might not be so. ‘Forfeit their office’ and ‘deposition’ could have the same meaning while ‘anathematize’ and ‘excommunicate’ could differ in meaning. There is an old principle mentioned by St. Basil the Great in one of his canonical epistles that one shall not punish for the same crime twice, meaning that the maximum sentence for one crime committed by a member of the clergy is deposition, even if the punishment would differ in severity amongst the laity.

But if a member of the clergy became a heretic, and kept on his same path of dissent, even after deposition, he could surely then be excommunicated or anathemized though, right?

 

[Cavaradossi]

But if a member of the clergy became a heretic, and kept on his same path of dissent, even after deposition, he could surely then be excommunicated or anathemized though, right?

I think so. If a clergyman after being deposed continued to teach heresy, he would then be cut off from the Church of God.

 

[LionHeart777]

That actually might not be so. ‘Forfeit their office’ and ‘deposition’ could have the same meaning while ‘anathematize’ and ‘excommunicate’ could differ in meaning. There is an old principle mentioned by St. Basil the Great in one of his canonical epistles that one shall not punish for the same crime twice, meaning that the maximum sentence for one crime committed by a member of the clergy is deposition, even if the punishment would differ in severity amongst the laity.

It seems to me that the crimes listed in Canons 6 and 7 are not “the same crime” though. Maybe I am misunderstanding though… In any event, do you disagree with the CE article that: “…during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication…”?

 

[LEMAITRE]

Orthodoxy has it’s own unique beauty of worship and ritual. Personally, I feel closer to Orthodoxy than to any other christian community.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It seems to me that the crimes listed in Canons 6 and 7 are not “the same crime” though. Maybe I am misunderstanding though… In any event, do you disagree with the CE article that: “…during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication…”?

I’m simply disagreeing with the logic that you are using to support your conclusion. Just because the punishment for clergy might be the same, it does not follow that the punishment for the laity should be the same, especially since deposition was regarded as the maximum canonical sentence for a member of the clergy.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

So it’s defiantly okay for us to attend these Masses?

Yes, we’re permitted to make a visit and remain Catholic. I even have a dvd somewhere of the Pope attending an Orthodox liturgy with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. As the leader of our Church, he gives us the example that it is alright.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, we’re permitted to make a visit and remain Catholic. I even have a dvd somewhere of the Pope attending an Orthodox liturgy with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. As the leader of our Church, he gives us the example that it is alright.

But if you’re a Latin Rite Catholic, it doesn’t fulfill your mass obligation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But if you’re a Latin Rite Catholic, it doesn’t fulfill your mass obligation.

The Pope probably dispensed himself

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

But if you’re a Latin Rite Catholic, it doesn’t fulfill your mass obligation.

Even if that were true, I’m not about to take my little baby into the 105 degree heat & put her into a car that’s even hotter to go to Mass for a 2nd time today.

There must be reason & prudence applied and while God comes 1st in my life and I did worship Him first thing this morning, but He also gave me this little girl to protect.

 

[LionHeart777]

I’m simply disagreeing with the logic that you are using to support your conclusion. Just because the punishment for clergy might be the same, it does not follow that the punishment for the laity should be the same, especially since deposition was regarded as the maximum canonical sentence for a member of the clergy.

Ok, I see what you are saying that it is not a logical neccesity. But, it has not been established that they are different either…

I will follow the Catholic Church’s lead here:

…Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.

source: Gignac, Joseph. “Anathema.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 22 Jul. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

 

[ConstantineTG]

Even if that were true, I’m not about to take my little baby into the 105 degree heat & put her into a car that’s even hotter to go to Mass for a 2nd time today.

There must be reason & prudence applied and while God comes 1st in my life and I did worship Him first thing this morning, but He also gave me this little girl to protect.

Canon Law is clear that Roman Catholics can only fulfill their “Sunday Obligation” in a “Mass” of any Catholic Rite. So you can’t if you go to the Orthodox and if your Roman Catholic.

For Eastern Catholics, it depends on one’s particular Church if they will allow it. CCEO has been more forgiving in this sense for Eastern Catholics to join their brethren Orthodox in worship.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Canon Law is clear that Roman Catholics can only fulfill their “Sunday Obligation” in a “Mass” of any Catholic Rite. So you can’t if you go to the Orthodox and if your Roman Catholic.

Which Canon Law Code specifically says this?

And isn’t caring for someone a valid exemption to the “obligation”? Or does God & the Church really expect me to place my baby in danger of heat stroke to meet this"obligation"?

 

[TrueLight]

Even if that were true, I’m not about to take my little baby into the 105 degree heat & put her into a car that’s even hotter to go to Mass for a 2nd time today.

There must be reason & prudence applied and while God comes 1st in my life and I did worship Him first thing this morning, but He also gave me this little girl to protect.

I’m really confused by your response.

Is someone forcing you to go to an Orthodox DL? If you can’t go today because it’s 105 degrees then go to an Orthodox DL another time or find an Eastern Catholic Church.