What is the teaching on receiving a blessing from a Schismatic cleric?
Would you ask a blessing of a "World Orthodoxy" priest?
Do you think it a sin?
My opinion on this is completely blank.
Sincerely:
Joseph
Schismatic Blessing
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath
What is the teaching on receiving a blessing from a Schismatic cleric?
It certainly is no blessing if you beleive they are schismatic. I would avoid such a thing but if I found myself on the receiving end of such a "blessing", I would do nothing.
Would you ask a blessing of a "World Orthodoxy" priest?
Absolutley not. While most Orthodox priests might consider it a very symbolic and important meaning, most new-calendar "priests" sometimes/often just have their hands shook like a businessman and think nothing of it - especially the GOA
To the contrary, once my former OCA priest (after I lef the OCA) grabbed my hand when I shook it and shoved it to my face to venerate it. I simply bowed toward the hand.
Do you think it a sin?
I think it would be the same as acknowledging to a Latin that he has the Mysteries of the Church. After all, to venerate a priests hand acknowledges he touches the Divine Gifts and is in fact a priest.
Therefore, when you think about it, it is a sin and essentially a denial of your faith.
Nicholas wrote:Council of Laodicea wrote:Canon 32:
That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are rather misfortunes rather than blessings.Canon 33:
That one must not join in prayer with heretics or schismatics.
Thanks, Nicholas. Just one question: Among the two givens above, are "heretic" and "schismatic" considered complementary terms? What I mean is that the blessing of schismatics per se is not mentioned. Forgive me if I seem tedious, but can the two canons you cited be related more closely? I mean, a "blessing" and a "prayer" are hardly the same thing, I expect (or am I wrong?); but could "heretics" and "schismatics" be identified corportately in general without special considerations according to these two canons?
Sincerely:
Joseph
Joseph D wrote:Thanks, Nicholas. Just one question: Among the two givens above, are "heretic" and "schismatic" considered complementary terms? What I mean is that the blessing of schismatics per se is not mentioned.
Sincerely:
Joseph
Maybe look at it this way...Why would one ask for a blessing from a person he would not pray with?
Daniel wrote:Maybe look at it this way...Why would one ask for a blessing from a person he would not pray with?
Daniel:
Yes, a little common sense goes a long way sometimes. But, even St. Basil the Great (in his typically Aristotelian style) drew a distinction between a schismatic and an heretic. The schismatic's religion still holds some partial validity by the Universal Church to certain points and attitudes; whereas, the schismatic's religion differs however principly in his conflicted obedience. [I will omit any superfluous discussion to define heresy here.]
But back to what you said, Daniel. I think you are probably right, and I will tell you why. It has nothing to do with me and my own measure, refering to your statement, but to a question of authority itself. By admitting my own measure as a nominal standard in a discussion of public discourse, I become a reformer, or reformist -- which is the last thing I would want to be. So instead, I will look to the authority of the priest givng the blessing to determine a safe answer which does not exalt me above my station:
Given that the priest is a "Schismatic" <I see no point in beating this term to death here>, were one to accept his blessing one must in so doing assent to his authority as a priest, and a proper one. Otherwise, it is only base flattery to ask a schismatic priest for a blessing or to accept a blessing freely given of him.
OR, on the common sense side:
If I am expected to kiss a man's hand (or give him $ an envelope too! $), there had better be a real good reason for it. Seriously.
Cheers!
--Joseph