Celibacy in the Orthodox Church

[Eusebios]

[mod hat on] All non-EO members are welcome to post fellowship posts and ask sincere questions in this forum. Debate and argumentative posts are notallowed and will be dealt with accordingly. IN THAT SPIRIT, carry on.[/hat]
Eusebios-Moderator-The Ancient Way

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Servus... you bring up a good question when you ask about the mandated celibacy for Orthodox bishops. You need to stick with this line of reasoning.

Your other argument has no place in this thread. You are trying to convince Maximus that the Early Church, East and West, has often (if not always) help the celibate life above that of the married life. Fine, but that's not what Maximus is arguing at all. He is not saying anything about that one way or the other. He was saying that MANDATED celibacy is wrong and the RCC should stop this practice. A vow of chastity is a preferred way of life as well, but your priests don't take that vow, do they... oh, but that's an irrelevant argument because no one is bring that up as an issue.

So please stop setting up Strawmen. I called it a false dilemma last night in one of my posts. But I thought about it more and I beleive it is actually a strawman??? I need to go over my terms again. lol.

 

[Servus Iesu]

John:

I will stop that particular line of reasoning. I would like to know if that statement from the OCIC is true though. It seems I am being told that Orthodox believe marriage is as desirable as virginity. That would mean OCIC is misrepresenting Eastern Orthodoxy. In any case, since this is not a debate forum and I have been warned I will no longer debate the merits of celibacy.

Alright, so the question remains... why is it that the Orthodox mandate celibacy for Bishops?

 

[MariaRegina]

The same reason applies for all Bishops, both Catholic and Orthodox.

Nepotism and problems with inheritance of Church property arose, so it was decided rather early in the Church (preschism) that Bishops would not be chosen from the ranks of the married clergy, but from the ranks of the hieromonks. However, if a clergy became widowed, then he could be considered as an episcopal candidate.

In the OCA, there have been several widowers who took monastic vows and were ordained as Bishops in the Orthdox Church.

 

[Eusebios]

SI,
The quote that you posted from OCIC (whoever they are) really says little about what the Orthodox think of marraige, rather it deals with the ever-virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos.
I believe that it was the Trullan Synod which determined the celibacy of the Episcopate, though it was never pressed so far as to make those married Bishops leave thier wives, though there are many examples in the life of the Church where spouses have taken voluntary vows of celibacy after raising thier families in order to pursue life in the Angelic Ranks.
In Xp.
Eusebios.

 

[Maximus]

Yes... I heard you the first three times. I don't understand why one Orthodox Christian here complains that the West tried to force celibacy on Easterns (giving me suggested reading on the topic) while you simultaneously claim that Latin Christianity must cave in and embrace a tradition of the east. Celibacy is just that -a tradition. The fact is that it would be untraditional for the Roman Rite to suddenly have married priests. It would be a radical break and innovation in the West.

In times past the Roman Rite had no shortage of celibate candidates for the clergy. What could possibly be intrinsically wrong with a Priesthood of celibate men? Do you not agree that celibacy is the ideal over marriage as taught by St. Jerome?

What makes it unscriptural to have celibate priests? The Apostle was celibate. He encouraged people to be celibate as he was. Marriage was considered a concession and not the ideal. Besides, the Priest is an alter Christus and the example of Christ Himself is the greatest we can follow. Jesus was obviously celibate.

In light of the current shortage of candidates for the priesthood in the west, it might be prudent to allow married priests to some degree for pragmatic reasons. However, my observation is that the lack of Priests is probably more due to the gutting of the Roman Rite by liturgical 'reforms' than the celibacy requirement, which never stopped men from becoming priests in times past.

It is not unscriptural to have celibate priests.

It is unscriptural to require that all priests be celibate.

 

[Maximus]

Two can play that game. Why is it that the Orthodox put the "unscriptural, unpatristic, and unnecessary burden" of celibacy on Bishops? Is it not true that the Orthodox select Bishops from among the celibate clergy? The Apostle told Timothy that Bishops were to be married once.

That is a good point.

I see no real reason for mandatory celibacy for bishops either.

I can see reasons why a celibate bishop might be better able to serve the Church (just as a celibate priest is better able to serve the Church), but I see no reason to limit the episcopate to celibates.

Perhaps the best answer is that the Church as a whole decided to restrict the episcopate - but not the priesthood - to celibate men.

The Roman Church acted unilaterally to impose an additional burden upon priests.

 

[MariaRegina]

It is not unscriptural to have celibate priests.

It is unscriptural to require that all priests be celibate.

True!

It is better to marry than to be tempted and fall into sin.

The priesthood is very demanding. Some priests need a helpmate.

Sure, it can cause problems. I've known priests who have divorced (usually the wife divorces against his wishes), gone to a monastery, and then after a period of penance, accept the monastic tonsure and become a hieromonk.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think it is perfectly within the rights of the OC to oblige bishops to be celibate if they feel it procures a better group of bishops more able to serve the Church and if it is to protect the Church from certain problems. I think it is equally within right for the Roman Catholic Church to demand that their priests remain celibate. I'm not syaing this is healthy or unhealthy. I am only saying that I believe it to be within their right. What they are doing is perhaps more extreme than the Orthodox Church, but it is still the same prinicipal.

I disagree with the idea that somehow virginity, in and of itself, is more holy or desireable than a faithful married life. I DO agree, however, that oftentimes those from among the ranks of monastics live lives that are more desireable and holy than those of us tied to the world. The holy part is not the virginity alone... it is what the person has done with the time they have now that they are celibate with a lot of time on their hands. I support the ideal of a celibate priest for practical reasons. However, if they were to have to take the vows that a monk does (of poverty) THEN I would additionally support it for spiritual reasons and for reasons of holiness. But this is not the case. So I see the mandatory celibacy as having purely pragmatic benefits in the RCC... and I respect that.

I support the OC's decision to have our bishops be celibate and I view it as a purely pragmatic move on our part... and I respect that. But I would cherish it for SPIRITUAL reasons as well were they to HAVE to come from the monastic community thereby procuring (the the best of our abilities) a man who has lived out a life of intense prayer and simplicity, helping them to practice a deeper humility than most (indispensible for any bishop). But, this may not be practical so perhaps that is why we permit for other non-monastics to be Bishops... and, maybe I'm just wrong... it's just my POV

John

 

[Unified in Christ]

Great. Why are all of your Bishops celibate then? Someone answer that for me.

The council in Trullo (692), also known as Penthekte (Quinisextum), regarded to be as a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, dealt exclusively with doctrine & clergy celibacy and issued several interesting canons:

Canon 13: Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

I know that RC considers the in Trullo council to be reprobate and erratic mostly because the Holy Fathers of the Penthekte Council anathematized and excommunicated any one who insists that the clergy should be celibate
(canons 3, 6, 12, 13, 18). For us the in Trullo Council is Ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

 

[MariaRegina]

The council in Trullo (692), also known as Penthekte (Quinisextum), regarded to be as a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, dealt exclusively with doctrine & clergy celibacy and issued several interesting canons:

Canon 13: Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

I know that RC considers the in Trullo council to be reprobate and erratic mostly because the Holy Fathers of the Penthekte Council anathematized and excommunicated any one who insists that the clergy should be celibate
(canons 3, 6, 12, 13, 18). For us the in Trullo Council is Ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

So, likewise, we the laity should abstain the night before we receive the Holy Eucharist in preparation of receiving the Precious Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[moses916]

haha funny thing is, Catholics also practiced marriage of the priesthood for the first thousand years, and then it all changed...

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The council in Trullo (692), also known as Penthekte (Quinisextum), regarded to be as a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, dealt exclusively with doctrine & clergy celibacy and issued several interesting canons:

Canon 13: Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

I know that RC considers the in Trullo council to be reprobate and erratic mostly because the Holy Fathers of the Penthekte Council anathematized and excommunicated any one who insists that the clergy should be celibate
(canons 3, 6, 12, 13, 18). For us the in Trullo Council is Ecumenical and adds its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

I guess I would like to see these canons where "the Penthekte Council anathematized and excommunicated any one who insists that the clergy should be celibate". I don't see that above anywhere. It says that the Church shall not demand that a man abstain from HIS WIFE at the time of ordination and thereon. But the RCC is doing nothing of the sort. The do not demand that a man abstain from his wife for the men they choose to ordain do not and shall not have wives. I am not splitting hairs here. The difference between what the RCC is doing and what this excerpt of the council forbids is like that of night and day.

However, perhaps these other canons you mention (which I assume are not quoted above) do condemn this in which case there would be something to talk about.

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

haha funny thing is, Catholics also practiced marriage of the priesthood for the first thousand years, and then it all changed...

And we had married bishops for some time and then all of a sudden it changed... at least this is debatable (many believe that Peter had an active marriage with his wife. This may or may not be true... but only assumptions can be made. Things change to adapt to needs at the time. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. This isn't set forth to prove that mandatory celibacy is wrong in the RCC... nor that it is right. Only to say that the argument from "what's always been done" doesn't prove much either.