[Jannet.K]

Could someone please explain this term. Is it a valid Orthodox practice? What removes it? Someone I know had an argument with a priest and he said the priest put a ban on him. Since this time the person went to confession with another priest who granted him absolution and a new beginning but the individual is still estranged from the priest with whom he had the problem. While he prays for this priest, it still bothers him. Apparently, the priest says he holds nothing against this person and he advises him to stay in the church he now attends. This individual no longer feels welcome to attend the church where he had the problem with the priest. I know this this individual has written many letters to this priest begging him for forgiveness even one letter that was approved by the priest who heard his confession, but the priest is no longer friendly with him and has not really responded to him. What should he do? In addition, the individual received a release from his bishop to attend another church. Apparently, the Bishop said he was free to attend another church in a different jurisdition. What do you make of this?

[Duaceanceksm]

the individual received a release from his bishop to attend another church. Apparently, the Bishop said he was free to attend another church in a different jurisdition. I can't answer any of these questions, but I saw this, and thought to myself, 'can't a layman attend any church he pleases if it is within a jurisdiction which is in communion with the jurisdiction into which he was received?'

[GrolmangHat27]

Could someone please explain this term. Is it a valid Orthodox practice? What removes it? Someone I know had an argument with a priest and he said the priest put a ban on him. Since this time the person went to confession with another priest who granted him absolution and a new beginning but the individual is still estranged from the priest with whom he had the problem. While he prays for this priest, it still bothers him. Apparently, the priest says he holds nothing against this person and he advises him to stay in the church he now attends. This individual no longer feels welcome to attend the church where he had the problem with the priest. I know this this individual has written many letters to this priest begging him for forgiveness even one letter that was approved by the priest who heard his confession, but the priest is no longer friendly with him and has not really responded to him. What should he do? In addition, the individual received a release from his bishop to attend another church. Apparently, the Bishop said he was free to attend another church in a different jurisdition. What do you make of this?

This means to ban someone from receiving communion; ie an epitimia or a penance in which not receiving was part of the penance. This could have ranged from refraining from communion on one Sunday (or one Liturgy) to as long long a time as it was felt was proper given the sin involved.

Normally it would be very wrong to go to another priest to receive absolution and then receive communion from him during the time of this penance. In fact in normal conditions it is improper for another priest to go against the penance imposed by another priest (unless of course the first priest 'blessed' this).

In the conditions described above however something obviously very different from the norm has occurred. Some dispute has arisen between priest and parishioner. Due to this it appears the bishop has blessed the parishioner to go to another priest.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Nwxffgke]

Howdy!

I'm very new to Orthodoxy...

Never come back... doesn't sound like penance to me!

How can something be penance if there is no hope of resolution?
If anything, it sounds like a method to prevent possible future strife.
The only problem is that it assumes that a person can not change.
Perhaps there is a situation that needs to be resolved before the priest feels comfortable about letting the person come back.

Of course... I am attempting to analyze third hand, incomplete information here.

[chuecafresss]

Howdy!

I'm very new to Orthodoxy...

"Never come back..." doesn't sound like penance to me!

How can something be penance if there is no hope of resolution?
If anything, it sounds like a method to prevent possible future strife.
The only problem is that it assumes that a person or situation can not change.

That's what I feel about this situation. What really bothers me about this issue is that there does not appear to be any avenue of appeal for this person, in the human sense. Apparently this person contacted the Dean, before he contacted the Bishop, because he believed it was a personailty conflict and he wanted to appeal to the Dean. The dean informed him that he was there to protect the priest "only" and he refused to talk with him. That's why he contacted the Bishop. The whole issue just doesn't seem fair! It looks like if a lay person has a problem with a priest he is just out of luck! It seems to me that the model for a priest should be Christ, not Pontius Pilate. I am happy for him that he has found a new church and is receiving the Sacraments. However, now this person is distrustful of the clergy!

[Endatrybeeddy]

That's what I feel about this situation. What really bothers me about this issue is that there does not appear to be any avenue of appeal for this person, in the human sense.

Father Raphael explained the canonical process quite well so there is no reason to repeat that. What you describe does not seem to coincide with that process, however, we now venture into the realm of personalities and pastoral (or maybe not so pastoral) care. It is impossible to determine what has really happened here without knowing the whole situation and thus to continue the conversation on a personal level is pretty useless. We can all sympathize with the poor person who got on the "wrong side of the priest" and we know your version of his side of the story. What we do not know is the priest's "side of the story', the dean's "side of the story" or the bishop's "side of the story", nor do we have an objective account of what has actually happened. Without that information, it would be impossible to make any kind of judgment about who was right and who was wrong and why this happened - but then it is not up to us to judge one another.

My best suggestion in a situation such as this is to forgive and then go on simply and quietly working out one's own salvation. What the other person does or does not do is their business - my responsibility is to forgive them, pray for them and continue my own struggle for salvation.

Fr David Moser

[Signabeademia]

I can't answer any of these questions, but I saw this, and thought to myself, 'can't a layman attend any church he pleases if it is within a jurisdiction which is in communion with the jurisdiction into which he was received?'

Yes a layman can attend different parishes. But if he/she has a spiritual father or priest that tends to them spiritually within a certain parish then they should remain in that parish except for the occasional visit elsewhere. In effect the basis for attending a parish or monastery is not only the services and sacraments- it is also the connection with a spiritual father or the parish priest who directs you as well as a unique relationship with that particular parish or monastery 'family'.

Although not always possible this is something we should all be actively either seeking or at least be aware of. It is crucial for our spiritual development.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vcwdldva]

Fr David wrote:
What you describe does not seem to coincide with that process, however, we now venture into the realm of personalities and pastoral (or maybe not so pastoral) care. It is impossible to determine what has really happened here without knowing the whole situation and thus to continue the conversation on a personal level is pretty useless. We can all sympathize with the poor person who got on the "wrong side of the priest" and we know your version of his side of the story. What we do not know is the priest's "side of the story', the dean's "side of the story" or the bishop's "side of the story", nor do we have an objective account of what has actually happened. Without that information, it would be impossible to make any kind of judgment about who was right and who was wrong and why this happened - but then it is not up to us to judge one another.
Also I read over a couple of times the original post from this thread but I cannot find the suggestion that it was said:

"Never come back..." doesn't sound like penance to me! as some of us have written.

Indeed implicit in a 'ban'- which is actually a penance or epitimia- is precisely that it does end at some point in time, the length of time being determined at the counsel of the priest and in accordance with the spiritual condition of the spiritual child.

Without claiming to know the details of what happened here or even feeling it right to comment in public on this, an epitimia in general works or not according to how we accept or submit to it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Gypejeva]

Also I read over a couple of times the original post from this thread but I cannot find the suggestion that it was said:

"Never come back..." doesn't sound like penance to me!

as some of us have written.

Indeed implicit in a 'ban'- which is actually a penance or epitimia- is precisely that it does end at some point in time, the length of time being determined at the counsel of the priest and in accordance with the spiritual condition of the spiritual child.

Without claiming to know the details of what happened here or even feeling it right to comment in public on this, an epitimia in general works or not according to how we accept or submit to it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael I stand corrected.

But without any feedback to inquiries, this is how I would interpret (albeit perhaps incorrectly) the silence.

[squeerisott]

Fr David wrote:



Also I read over a couple of times the original post from this thread but I cannot find the suggestion that it was said:



as some of us have written.

Indeed implicit in a 'ban'- which is actually a penance or epitimia- is precisely that it does end at some point in time, the length of time being determined at the counsel of the priest and in accordance with the spiritual condition of the spiritual child.

Without claiming to know the details of what happened here or even feeling it right to comment in public on this, an epitimia in general works or not according to how we accept or submit to it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is an excellent point! and none of us knows for certain all of the facts as you state. I am happy that this individual has found a church and has been returned to the Sacraments, and I trust he will continue a life of true repentance and will eventually find peace in his heart concerning this priest.

It goes without saying that there are no perfect priests, in fact we are all in need of God's Grace, Mercy and forgiveness.

On a side note, I myself have come to a much different place concerning my ideas and understanding of our Holy Church. As a convert to Orthodoxy with a background as an evangelical christian, I came with much baggage. I could never understand why our Church never seemed to "evangelize" as the protestants do. I judged that we were made up of ethnic churches that many times seemed hardly more than social clubs to me. I resented the fact that English was missing from many of our services and many cradle Orthodox seemed nominal in their Faith and many of us are in ignorance of what it means to obey. Some of us still think we are John Wayne! After 6 years in Orthodoxy, I am coming to much different conclusions.

Personally, I am deeply concerned with the Ecumenical Movement, and the dangers it presents to true Orthodoxy. I am now unsure if perhaps the very ethnic nature of our Churches with the many languages and even all of the juristictional issues in America, are not in some way used by the Lord to protect the Treasure of our Holy Church! America is a Protestant country with a secular and pluralistic mindset at it's very core. Much of this wordly dialogue has crept into our Church through ecumenism and academia as evidenced by individuals who have in some way departed from the ancient way of our Church Fathers, not out of actual rebelion, but more out of prelest to which we are all suseptible. There are a couple of scripture verses that come to mind for me. The one is where Paul begs the Lord to remove his thorn in the flesh and Christ responds..."My Grace is sufficient for thee" My strength is made perfect in weakness", the other is much more ominious to me, "When He returns, will He find any of Faith"?

I have heard it said that we have a perfect Church, filled with imperfect people. I have never believed this more than now. May God have Mercy on us all.

InXC,
James

[ptmQqoxw]

James's post reminds me of the messy events in the 1430s and 1440s and the resonance they have for us today. The great and the good - emperor, patriarch, and their party - went to Italy and tried to effect union with the RC Church (primarily to try to save the City). The people, led by St Mark of Ephesus, rejected it. Those at the top are no always right, and the determined character of the Greeks led them to their rejection of the 'union'. Despite the fall of the City, Greek Orthodoxy was saved from compromise.

[jelena-nanana]

James's post reminds me of the messy events in the 1430s and 1440s and the resonance they have for us today. The great and the good - emperor, patriarch, and their party - went to Italy and tried to effect union with the RC Church (primarily to try to save the City). The people, led by St Mark of Ephesus, rejected it. Those at the top are no always right, and the determined character of the Greeks led them to their rejection of the 'union'. Despite the fall of the City, Greek Orthodoxy was saved from compromise.

Though there had been a reunion liturgy held in December of 1452 at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople at which the Pope's name was commemorated and the filioque used in the Creed, that had been largely boycotted by most of the clergy and laity in the city. On the evening of May 28, 1453, however, another liturgy was held which also commemorated the Pope and used the filioque, but which was not boycotted by the majority of the city. The next day, Constantinople fell to the Muslim invaders. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque

[BV6lwvXf]

As an aside, the prayers of absolution said over the body of a deceased person at the funeral rite include the lifting of an 'ban of a priest' that may have fallen upon the person.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Shiplyopidomi]

I have a question: What if your spiritual father is someone other than your parish priest?

Say, for example, an Athonite Elder or an Optina Elder?

What if they are your spiritual father, does the parish priest still have the right to lay an epitimia upon this individual?

RJM

[KellyLynchIV]

I have a question: What if your spiritual father is someone other than your parish priest?

Say, for example, an Athonite Elder or an Optina Elder?

What if they are your spiritual father, does the parish priest still have the right to lay an epitimia upon this individual?

Of course -in fact probably more so since your parish priest is acting with the bishop's blessing and backing. Actually any priest who gives you confession not only has the right but the responsibility to impose an emptimia if such is indicted for your spiritual well being.


A monastic spiritual father is a good thing to have but the parish priest is the one is the "father" of your spiritual family (that is your parish). I would suggest that everyone who has a "spiritual father" other than the parish priest should establish (or continue) that relationship with the blessing of the parish priest.


Fr David Moser

[EHjEjdqe]

Of course -in fact probably more so since your parish priest is acting with the bishop's blessing and backing. Actually any priest who gives you confession not only has the right but the responsibility to impose an emptimia if such is indicted for your spiritual well being.


A monastic spiritual father is a good thing to have but the parish priest is the one is the "father" of your spiritual family (that is your parish). I would suggest that everyone who has a "spiritual father" other than the parish priest should establish (or continue) that relationship with the blessing of the parish priest.


Fr David Moser

Your answer seems to imply that parish priests have greater authority than the monastic elders. I once read that no one, no even the bishop, can come between a monastic elder and his spiritual child.

What if your monastic spiritual elder does not allow you to receive confession from anyone but him. Does that parish priest still have the right to lay an epitimia upon you?

[corkBrobe]

Your answer seems to imply that parish priests have greater authority than the monastic elders. I once read that no one, no even the bishop, can come between a monastic elder and his spiritual child.

This violates the order of the Church as established by our Lord Jesus Christ and therefore the commandment of the Holy Apostle Paul who instructs us that everything must be done in good order. The bishop is the one given the grace by God to guide the whole Church in his particular diocese. He is responsible before God for the spiritual life of each person in his care. Nothing should happen in the diocese without the bishops blessing and permission. A priest from outside the diocese cannot serve or even give a blessing without the blessing of the receiving bishop; likewise a bishop from outside the diocese - even if he is more senior and of a higher episcopal rank - cannot come into the diocese of a different bishop and function without the blessing of that bishop. How is it that a monastic father, who may not even be ordained, will have more spiritual authority than the ruling bishop of the diocese or his assigned priest? That saying that you heard or read somewhere can only refer to a spiritual father and his spiritual child who are both living in a monastery and within the confines of monastic obedience.

What if your monastic spiritual elder does not allow you to receive confession from anyone but him. Does that parish priest still have the right to lay an epitimia upon you? If you are living in such strict obedience to a monastic elder, you should be in the monastery with him. Obedience to a monastic elder is entirely voluntary and should only be undertaken by a layman living in the world with the blessing of his parish priest.

Again I want to reiterate that having a monastic spiritual father is an old and venerable tradition of the Church and it is a valuable way of life for many people (and so I do not wish to be seen as denegrating that practice), however, all things must be done decently and in order.

Fr David Moser

[mortgrhhh]

Your answer seems to imply that parish priests have greater authority than the monastic elders. I once read that no one, no even the bishop, can come between a monastic elder and his spiritual child. I would be interested in where you read that, and the context. I doubt it applies outside a monastery, and I can't imagine either a bishop or a Council endorsing it.

Herman the doubting Pooh

[STYWOMBORGOSY]

Not to belabor the obvious, but having ecclesiastical authority is not always the same as having spiritual authority. It is true that if a monastic is claiming some kind of ecclesiastical authority that he does not have is also problem, particularly when interacting with parishes and laymen. But I think we also have to say that just because a man is a bishop does not AUTOMATICALLY confer spiritual authority, anymore than receiving baptism and/or communion automatically confers salvation. All this stuff has to get worked out through struggle and discernment and it isn't based on some rudimentary formula.

So, someone can have a bishop who is basically a lout and wouldn't know a spiritual principle if it hit him across the face with a two by four. And just because someone is a monk doesn't make him holy or capable of guiding others.

Let's take a hypothetical case. Let's say that a priest visits me in my home, and in the process of taking his dirty laundry to be cleaned, I notice that he has a prescription for librium at his bedside. And let's say I gently confront him with this, and he responds angrily that he has to take it because of what his parishioners did to him 20 years ago. And so, let's say I write a letter to the bishop stating my concern for the priest's well being and I get no response to the letter from the bishop, and the priest continues in his duties. And for my pains, I am simply looked upon as a pariah. Where is the decency and order? Wherein lies my duty? What manual or formula do I refer to to know what to do next, when I know the priest is on a suicidal path and the bishop somehow does not comprehend what is going on? What about the next time? Let's say I am visiting a parish, and the priest invites me into his office after the service. And out of nowhere he blurts out that he has to take anti-depressants because his parish hates him. This time, do I inform the bishop that he has a very angry, drug-dependent priest on his hands and that perhaps for the sake of his soul, the bishop ought to perhaps intervene pastorally, or do I keep my mouth shut because it's just going to cause a confrontation and will likely be a black mark against me -- all of this being purely hypothetical of course. Only to find later that the priest has been fired and defrocked, when, hypothetically of course, one wonders of some proper pastoral attention at the right time by the bishop might have helped.

So decency and order is important but always has to be weighed against other factors. And there is the external order which cannot and should not be confused with everything looking good on the surface while underneath there is a whole bunch of internal disorder.

[Anavaralo]

What if your monastic spiritual elder does not allow you to receive confession from anyone but him. Does that parish priest still have the right to lay an epitimia upon you? Aside from the practical considerations of right authority, would a truly spiritual monastic elder be this controlling? Seems to me that if someone is this controlling then I would have trouble believing he was really gifted or mature enough to be a true elder considering that humility is supposed to be the mark of a true elder.