Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:

I do think that all Orthodox churches should adhere to all the canons, though this may not be the Orthodox church's opinion on this matter.

At least in terms of the penances and various consequences of sins outlined for priests to give in the canons, the canons themselves say the priest may relax them. So there's that at least.

Last edited by NotChrysostomYet on Mon 9 October 2017 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by Justice »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Justice wrote:

I do think that all Orthodox churches should adhere to all the canons, though this may not be the Orthodox church's opinion on this matter.

At least in terms of the penances and various consequences of sins outlines for priests to give in the canons, the canons themselves say the priest may relax them. So there's that at least.

Its the best answer thats out there, Thank you NCY though I do hope that I can give me a full answer in the near future.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by Maria »

Justice wrote:

I do think that all Orthodox churches should adhere to all the canons, though this may not be the Orthodox church's opinion on this matter.

There are some Holy Canons, which contradict others.

As an example, this is one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church standardized the Holy Canons, which effort was lead by the future Pius XII in the production of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. Before this time, the Holy Canons were not touched, for to do so would bring on anathemas.

Indeed, by standardizing these Holy Canons, Pius XII and others introduced deliberate changes. One such change that Pacelli introduced was the selection and election of new bishops, which the Holy Canons specified was to occur immediately after the death of a bishop. According to the Ancient Holy Canons, the local presbyters were to elect this new bishop, and then get the approval of the ordinary (bishop) of three surrounding dioceses. Next this bishop-elect was to be consecrated by those bishops who had approved him, and only after the consecration was the Patriarch or Pope to be notified. Pacelli in his Code of Canon Law of 1917 introduced the new provision that three candidates were to be selected to fill the seat (cathedral) of the vacated diocese. Of those names being submitted to the Pope, one of the three, several of the three, or none of the three were to be selected. If none were selected, then the local gathering of presbyters was to convene again and submit another group of three names and repeat this process until a bishop-elect was found acceptable to Rome. This took away local control and centralized the Vatican control of the world's bishops with new bishops being elected who could not even speak the native language of the diocese.

Because the Romans had introduced the false canons of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility of Vatican I as well as the false canons of the Council of Trent, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had quite a few errors in it. After the Vatican II Council, which was a pastoral council only, and not a dogmatic council, further changes were introduced and the New Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983. From what I have read in the Catholic press, this newer rendition is now hopelessly out of date with all the pontifications of John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

Change leads to more changes = the slippery slope.

So back on topic, it is important not to neglect the intent of the Holy Canons.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by Justice »

Maria wrote:
Justice wrote:

I do think that all Orthodox churches should adhere to all the canons, though this may not be the Orthodox church's opinion on this matter.

There are some Holy Canons, which contradict others.

As an example, this is one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church standardized the Holy Canons, which effort was lead by the future Pius XII in the production of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. Before this time, the Holy Canons were not touched, for to do so would bring on anathemas.

Indeed, by standardizing these Holy Canons, Pius XII and others introduced deliberate changes. One such change that Pacelli introduced was the selection and election of new bishops, which the Holy Canons specified was to occur immediately after the death of a bishop. The local presbyters were to elect this new bishop and then get the approval of the ordinary (bishop) of three surrounding dioceses. Next this bishop-elect was to be consecrated by those bishops who had approved him, and only then was the Patriarch or Pope to be notified. Pacelli in his Code of Canon Law of 1917 introduced the new provision that three candidate were to be selected to fill the seat (cathedral) of the vacated diocese. Of those names being submitted to the Pope, one of the three, several of the three, or none of the three were to be selected. If none were selected, then the local gathering of presbyters was to convene again and submit another group of three names until a bishop-elect was found acceptable to Rome. This took away local control and centralized the Vatican control of the world's bishops.

Because the Romans had introduced the false canons of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility of Vatican I as well as the false canons of the Council of Trent, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had quite a few errors in it. After the Vatican II Council, which was a pastoral council only, and not a dogmatic council, further changes were introduced and the New Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983. From what I have read in the Catholic press, this newer rendition is now hopelessly out of date with all the pontifications of John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

Change leads to more changes = the slippery slope.

So back on topic, it is important not to neglect the intent of the Holy Canons.

I agree we should be careful which cannons are original and which cannons are innovations, Thanks you for some background on the matter Maria. Back on subject, If the first canon that NCY posted refers to polyphonic singing, (which I don't believe it does) then the Traditional Orthodox are self condemned but the second one about being silent in church, I don't. really get. If this canon was followed back then, how was there female deaconesses?

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Justice wrote:
Maria wrote:
Justice wrote:

I do think that all Orthodox churches should adhere to all the canons, though this may not be the Orthodox church's opinion on this matter.

There are some Holy Canons, which contradict others.

As an example, this is one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church standardized the Holy Canons, which effort was lead by the future Pius XII in the production of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. Before this time, the Holy Canons were not touched, for to do so would bring on anathemas.

Indeed, by standardizing these Holy Canons, Pius XII and others introduced deliberate changes. One such change that Pacelli introduced was the selection and election of new bishops, which the Holy Canons specified was to occur immediately after the death of a bishop. The local presbyters were to elect this new bishop and then get the approval of the ordinary (bishop) of three surrounding dioceses. Next this bishop-elect was to be consecrated by those bishops who had approved him, and only then was the Patriarch or Pope to be notified. Pacelli in his Code of Canon Law of 1917 introduced the new provision that three candidate were to be selected to fill the seat (cathedral) of the vacated diocese. Of those names being submitted to the Pope, one of the three, several of the three, or none of the three were to be selected. If none were selected, then the local gathering of presbyters was to convene again and submit another group of three names until a bishop-elect was found acceptable to Rome. This took away local control and centralized the Vatican control of the world's bishops.

Because the Romans had introduced the false canons of Papal Supremacy and Papal Infallibility of Vatican I as well as the false canons of the Council of Trent, the Code of Canon Law of 1917 had quite a few errors in it. After the Vatican II Council, which was a pastoral council only, and not a dogmatic council, further changes were introduced and the New Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983. From what I have read in the Catholic press, this newer rendition is now hopelessly out of date with all the pontifications of John-Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

Change leads to more changes = the slippery slope.

So back on topic, it is important not to neglect the intent of the Holy Canons.

I agree we should be careful which cannons are original and which cannons are innovations, Thanks you for some background on the matter Maria. Back on subject, If the first canon that NCY posted refers to polyphonic singing, (which I don't believe it does) then the Traditional Orthodox are self condemned but the second one about being silent in church, I don't. really get. If this canon was followed back then, how was there female deaconesses?

Why don't you think polyphonic singing would fall under that?

Female deaconesses usually operated outside of church, not in church. Though, of course, exceptions to that can be found.

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by Justice »

I'm in a weird place right now. If the church hasn't been following all of the cannons, then Christ's prophecy was false and has ceased to exist. Even if its one or two cannons, it still mattered as the church is self-condemned for disobeying even one of them correct? also regarding the Old Believers, they seem to have been correct about Old-Rite and the Nikonian reforms wrong. I need some time to think this over my faith is struggling at the moment. I'm sorry you all have to see me go through this again.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Is polyphonic singing considered a heresy, not an Orthodox Tradition?

Post by Maria »

Justice wrote:

I'm in a weird place right now. If the church hasn't been following all of the cannons, then Christ's prophecy was false and has ceased to exist. Even if its one or two cannons, it still mattered as the church is self-condemned for disobeying even one of them correct? also regarding the Old Believers, they seem to have been correct about Old-Rite and the Nikonian reforms wrong. I need some time to think this over my faith is struggling at the moment. I'm sorry you all have to see me go through this again.

Justice,

You must realize that even the Holy Canons, which have been published in a huge book, are not God's commandments. Priests will tell inquirers not to read these canons, because they can be confusing.

The Holy Fathers were not attorneys who had huge libraries available at the touch of a finger as we do today with computers. On writing the Holy Canons, they were concerned with current heresies and how best to combat them, so if a prior canon had been written dealing with an older heresy, and a new heresy developed, there might be two canons that are almost identical. Both would be good, but one may have been written in a more ambiguous manner, so that one seems to contradict the other, when in actuality, they do not.

This is why it helps to have a good spiritual father, one like Father Irineos who has studied law.

Know that I will be praying for you. I too struggled greatly when I was an inquirer and a catechumen, but it helped being near a church and attending the Holy Services, which are awesome. I felt God's graces.

In Christ,
Maria

p.s The World Orthodox condemn us for being schismatic and for not being under their bishops, yet their heretical bishops and priests violate the Holy Canons repeatedly whenever they pray with heretics. The EP holds ecumenical vespers services whenever he visits the USA where he and his associates invite Methodists and Evangelical female priests along with Anglicans and Lutherans to help lead the service along with Orthodox priests and bishops. Thus the Holy Canons are violated in the presence of all. Not only are these heretics leading the Holy Services, which become unholy, but also the EP has taken out portions of the service which offend. In other words, prayers mentioning: King, Master, Lord, Son, Father, He, Him, etc. are rephrased so as not to offend militant feminists who dislike any mention of masculine nouns or pronouns.

I do not know if you have heard Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Archdiocese of America (World Orthodoxy) give a prayer before the Republican or Democratic National Conventions, but if you have, there is no mention of Jesus Christ in that prayer. It has ceased to be a prayer.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Post Reply