dear juvenaly,
first of all, i would like very much to congratulate you on the fact that you have recently become a catechumen, entering upon the first step of becoming a member of the Body of Christ, His Holy Orthodox Church. May God grant you many years as an Orthodox Christian, both to serve Him and to work out your salvation!
you ask if i find it "abnormal" that people would seek all the knowledge they can regarding their faith, and in doing so, make an informed decision. no, i would not find that "abnormal" in the least; i would also point out that nothing i can see in my post indicated that i would see that situation as "abnormal," and will admit that your adoption of this rather defensive tone here somewhat amazed me!
you also ask what how long you have been orthodox has to do with reading the canons, basically, and go on to add that you do not know why i feel "this has any merit to your post." this is not very clear to me, but i presume what you are trying to say is: "what does how long i have been orthodox have to do with reading the canons?" i would also observe that the way this thought was expressed was, again, somewhat on the defensive side! instead of asking the question, you seem to want to question the "merit" of my post. be that as it may, i hope to illustrate that reading the canons, especially, i would think, in the situation where you "can't wait to," has quite a lot to do with how long you have been orthodox!
as you state that you recently became a catechumen, in other words, you are not orthodox yet. you also state that you have been "studying orthodoxy for three years." i must compliment you in that you have begun the study of an inexhaustible subject! i began studying orthodoxy when i was around 10 years old, at which time a nun at the school (roman catholic) that i went to gave me a book entitled "the history of the mass."
the book included the history of eastern liturgical services, as well as illustrations of vestments for the various orders of clergy (deacon, priest, bishop- not the roman catholic "orders" such as franciscans, dominicans, etc.) we were taught in the school that the roman catholic church was "the one, true church," and that if you were not roman catholic, when you died, you went directly to hell. when i began studying the orthodox church, almost immediately i felt that "hey-they have a better claim to being the one, true church!" from that point, until i was around 30, i studied orthodoxy rather intermittently. at the age of 30, i began a more intensive study, which culminated in my baptism in 1985 at the age of 34. of course i have been studying orthodoxy ever since, and consider one of my "important discoveries" to be that i have learned that what i DON'T know far, far outweighs what i DO know!
i would like to point out first and foremost, orthodoxy IS NOT an "intellectual pursuit." there is no "reward" for what we know; there is no "contest" to see how much we can cram into our brains. rather, the "reward," or punishment, comes to us in accordance as to how we APPLY what we know. in many, many ways, this is a most serious, and even sometimes frightening thing.
and although orthodoxy would differ from secular intellectual pursuits in that wise, it is similar in another way. which is this-say a person decided to become, oh, say-a doctor. of course, one would have to follow the conventional path of education for doctors. one would not begin by checking out tomes on brain surgery from the medical library. how, you might ask, is this similar to orthodoxy?
there have been many, many books produced in connection with the orthodox church. books on the liturgical aspects; books on spiritual aspects; lives of the saints; historical works; books on monastic life; books on church discipline; books on iconography; the subject matter is rather wide . . . and, not all of these books were written for the same "audience." some books are for monastics; some are for those at a higher level of spiritual development; some are for beginners, some are for clergy. in fact, those beginning on the spiritual path of orthodoxy are even warned against reading some books which are for the more 'advanced' spiritually.
in our day and age, unfortunately, many do not see the wisdom of taking any advice; many consider it an insult to thier 'intelligence,' or their 'freedom,' or their 'self-esteem' to be told that this or that particular work is unsuitable for them to read at a certain point in their development.
when one is new to the faith, there is undoubtedly an great zeal for the faith present; this zeal often translates into wanting to know "everything." orthodoxy is one of those subjects about which we cannot know "everything." those who evince a zeal for that unattainable goal evoke knowing smiles from those who have "been around for awhile." unfortunately, there is also often a zeal to "practice" what has been "learned" in the condemnation or judgment of others. this is a very grave and dangerous error.
the canons of the church are meant for the governance of the church; the governance of the church is undertaken, of course, by the bishops of the church. in that aspect, one who has not yet even experienced the "death of the old man" in the waters of baptism would have no practical reason whatsoever for reading the canons. those who are basically inexperienced in orthodoxy and who feel it necessary to undertake a study of the canons many, many times experience the pitfall of them "pronouncing" which bishops and which churches are "violating" the canons, what their punishment should be, what they need to do to repent. such judgments are above and beyond the call of duty for the average layman, much less one who has not yet been baptized. i would also say that the canons are comtained in a rather large and heavy volume! (i have never assigned myself the task of reading it all, altough i have read through various different canons) if one were to force oneself to wade through it, i do not imagine that one could remember much once one was done! it is not exactly easy going!
i would also caution that reading the canons could lead one to despair, and giving up on orthodoxy altogether. how? again, the canons are the guide used by the bishops of the church in order to govern it. they are not a black and white signed sealed and delivered this is th eonly possible way it can be thing. the bishops of the church are given some latitude as tho how the various canons are applied, whether strictness or leniency is used in that application. also, as has been observed more than once, in a 'strictly canonical' sense, there is no church in existence today that can claim a 'spotless' canonical "record." one can drive oneself to distraction by pondering these things over and over and over and over. simple laymen, expecially those who are not yet even baptized, are neither interpreters, commentators, or appliers of the canons. and that is as it should be.
and, before anyone makes a big case about ecumenism, the calendar, etc etc etc in regard to what i have said here, i would retort that we have had an ample number of bishops of the church who have made thier observations and decisions onthis matter; we do not "need" the additional input of catechumens, newly baptized, or other inexperienced, or even "experienced" laymen to tell us thier opinions on the matter!
i would suggest that you talk over with a priest who knows you what you should be reading at this stage. i do not know of ANY orthodox priest on the face of this earth who would recommend reading the canons to a catechumen, or to one newly baptized! if there i such a creature in existence, i would question the motives behind the recommendation of such a reading assignment! if one is attempting to justify such and such a position by the canons-well-it would not surprise me. however, again, i have never heard of any priest who would recommend the canons as any sort of "introduction" to orthodoxy, or to anyone at such a basic level.
i would also -and very serioulsy - suggest, that if you feel you do not need ANYONE to advise you about such matters, that you consider something other than orthodoxy-if indeed you do harbor such attitudes-believe me, you will not "like" being orthodox!
what have you read juveanly? have you read "the way of the ascetics," by tito colliander? have you read "russia's catacomb saints"? have you read many lives of the saints? there are also now available many good books on practical aspects of orthodoxy-fasting, etc etc etc. are you familair with the liturgical services and cycle? have you read saint theophylact's commentaries on the gospels? saint john chrysostom's commentaries on the epistles? are you at all familiar with the history of orthodoxy in the 20th century-that is, on more than a superficial level? are you familiar with the history of the russian church abroad, on more than a superficial level? if you answer yes to the last question, i would be surprised unless you are fluent in russian; if you are not, i would ask waht sources you have referred to, as there is not much available in english on that particular topic that is beyond the superficial!
so, juvenaly, you see, i did not mean to insult you, or make fun of you, or denigrate you in any way, as it seems you may have thought i was attempting to do from the way you chose to answer my question as to why you wanted to read the canons. to be honest with you, with all that is available, the canons are a rather strange choice to be perusing in order to "gain all the knowledge you can," as you stated. i am sure you have not completely exhausted all the possible choices for reading that would be more suitable for a catechumen.
if i have indeed offended you, i ask your forgiveness, and ask you you remember me, a sinner, in your prayers.
michael woerl
