Dogs and Canons
Lily
the Sixth Ecumenical Council. According to the rule, a priest who allows
an animal into a church should be deposed, and a layman, excommunicated.
Unless there is great necessity (a human life being saved by such an
action) there are no exceptions.
I'll see if I can find the text.
Gerard Serafin
Just checked my Code of Canon Law and thankfully this canon has been
abrogated by legitimate authority!
--
Gerard Serafin
Celebrating the Romance of Orthodoxy:
A Catholic Page for Lovers:
http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com
Praise of Glory BookCenter:
"Do not read good books; read *great* books!":
http://praiseofglory.alabanza.com/books.htm
Lily
Gerard Serafin wrote :
>Just checked my Code of Canon Law and thankfully this canon has been
>abrogated by legitimate authority!
Legitimate authority in the Roman Catholic church, perhaps. As you
well know, to the Orthodox, that authority is not legitimate---so don't
be cute, please.
john_lo...@my-deja.com
or irritate. Prove me wrong.
In article <7l8jlg$4rq$1...@slave2.aa.net>,
--
John Loukidelis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Atsaves
searching. Now I am a complete neophyte at canon law and have never studied it
so who knows if I hit paydirt in my research or not or if other canons exist on
the subject. Consequently, consider this paragraph to be a disclaimer of any
expertise on the subject. I have been baffled by the arguments about seeing
eye dogs in the church from day one like many others.
If the canon(s) I have cited are translated correctly, or if they are the
correct ones, a careful reading of them would tend to show that the arguments
both pro and con on this issue (including some of mine) could be rather
distorted by the free discussions posted.
The canon(s) are taken from what is described as Quinset Ecumenical Council
(with some arguments on that page being it was a continuation of the 6th).
Again, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER, DISCLAIMER!
I found this at the Wheaton College web page, "Early Church Fathers: Nicene &
Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV. I don't know how accurate it is and
I'll let those more well versed in the subject interpret it for me (us):
Canon LXXXVIII (ancient):
"Cattle shall not be led into the holy halls, unless the greatest necessity
compels it."
and:
Canon LXXXVIII:
"No one may drive any beast into a church except perhance a traveller, urged
thereto by the greatest necessity, in default of a shed or resting place, may
have turned aside into said church. For unless the beast had been taken
inside, it would have perished, and he, by the loss of his beast of burden, and
thus without means of continuing his journey, would be in peril of death. And
we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man; wherefore also the safety and
comfort of man are by all means to be placed first. But should anyone be
detected without any necessity such as we have just mentioned, leading his
beast into a church, if he be a cleric let him be deposed, and if a layman let
him be cut off."
A careful reading finds this most interesting! They talk about safety and
necessity of animals and humans. Of travellers. Of "beasts of burden" and
riding of animals. Big beasts only?
Is there more? Are there more?
Regards,
Louis Geo. Atsaves
<< Subject: Dogs and Canons
From: "Lily" <li...@xnetgoth.hatespam.com>
Date: Mon, 28 June 1999 01:58 PM EDT
Message-id: <7l8d3u$qhe$1...@slave1.aa.net>
The canon concerning animals in church is found in the 88th rule of
the Sixth Ecumenical Council. According to the rule, a priest who allows
an animal into a church should be deposed, and a layman, excommunicated.
Unless there is great necessity (a human life being saved by such an
action) there are no exceptions.
I'll see if I can find the text.
>>
Matanna
As I said, the priest's bishop COULD decide that the need for a seeing eye dog
is a life or death necessity, but you see that the canon that allows for such
an exception mentions that it's ONLY not just if the beast will die but if the
beast's death will mean that the man dies. Now, I could see allowing a seeing
eye dog in during a blizzard using this canon, because without the dog the
woman wouldn't be able to continue her journey, etc., but..... but it's a
matter for the Church, not for the courts.
Matushka Ann Lardas
(mat...@aol.com)
Charley & Melissa Wingate
council. One passage jumps right out:
> [....] And we are taught that the Sabbath was made for man; wherefore
> also the safety and comfort of man are by all means to be placed first.
Isn't this exactly what have been saying all along? Safety and comfort
of man: the very reason for the dog's presence with the blind woman.
C. Wingate
John Heilman
admonishing me for wastng my time on this instead of printing the parish
bulletin, and after he stopped laughing, he made two point, one of which Geo.
made.
The canon deals with the abuse of stabling or at least bringing animals in the
church, agricultural animals which are not potty trained (if I may).
His deeper comment was that people who must rush off to find a canon (or a
counter canon - which is sure to exist) exhibit a lack of spiritual insight.
Orthodoxy is not about finding canons. It has much more to do with love.
John Heilman
When in Doubt, Do It
proto alban
certainly potty-trained.
Nor are they being stabled in the temple.
Their presence is only temperary and for a good reason.
evagr...@my-deja.com
After all, who they are upset at is not the priest who acted, in my
mind, quite uncharitably, but the woman, who dared involve the non-
Orthodox state into the situation.
Never mind that, as far as I know, baptisms and weddings are considered
"public" events unless otherwise noted, and that public means the whole
community, believers and non-believers.
If this is the case, then the ceremony falls under community laws which
regard seeing-eye dogs as instruments more than animals.
The Church must obey community laws, it is its duty.
all this brouhaha; canons fired at karma chasing dogmas full of hairy
tics!
In article <3779928A...@erols.com>,
V. Gronoff
John Heilman <heilm...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message :
19990629232704...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
As I said: for those who have eyes to see true charity, there is no
question.
Canons are only a guide dog for the blind ones...
(So, should canons be allowed in church ? :op )
Andrew Tsikitas
"Let no one introduce into a secred Temple any beast whatsoever, unless it
be that when someone is journeying, and being under the greatest necessity
and without a habitation or resort of any kind, he puts up in such a Temple.
... For we are taught that "the sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27), so
that through all it is preferable to consider the salvation and safety of
the man. But if anyone should be caught introducing a beast into the Temple
without there being any real necessity, as has been said, if he be a Cleric,
let him be deposed from office; but if he be a layman, let him be
excommunicated." (The Rudder, pg. 392)
It seems that what we need to do is to let the "Supreme Canon," the canon of
love, prevail over any use of the sacred canons. They are there to guide and
to prescribe, but we also have the phenomenon of "Divine Oikonomia" to
consider. The canon does state that if the animal is brought to the Temple
"without there being any real necessity," action should be taken. I feel
that a guide-dog is covered under this "real necessity clause."
Humbly yours in Christ,
-A.N.T.
PS- Let's put this issue to rest, shall we?
john_lo...@my-deja.com
like you're the only one who has posted on this subject in the last
couple of days!
In any case, although it is tempting to make some remarks on what you've
written, I will respect your request and say nothing further on the
subject. ;-)
In article <7lq523$43b$1...@newssrv.otenet.gr>,
"Andrew Tsikitas" <tsik...@otenet.gr> wrote:
<snip>
>
> PS- Let's put this issue to rest, shall we?
>
>
--
John Loukidelis