Married episcopate

[Olympiada]

It is my understanding that those who demand a married episcopate are pseudo Reformers. Why is this? I believe that a married episcopate would be better able to serve the needs of the faithful, having lived through marriage and childbearing themselves. Monastics do not know anything about raising children nor about marriage from experience. Their knowledge is all theoretical, as celibates. How can they guide the church? I know this may seem flippant, but I am talking about the American Orthodox church only.

In Christ
Olympiada Kane

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is my understanding that those who demand a married episcopate are pseudo Reformers. Why is this?

Not pseudo-reformers, but reformers. The literal translation here is enough: such a change would be a reformation, as this is not the practice of the Church.


I believe that a married episcopate would be better able to serve the needs of the faithful, having lived through marriage and childbearing themselves. Monastics do not know anything about raising children nor about marriage from experience. Their knowledge is all theoretical, as celibates. How can they guide the church?

The question needs to be framed from a deeper understanding of what the episcopacy exists to do. If the bishop's principal task were to give instruction in childbearing and parenting, then you'd have a point. If the task of the bishop were primarily to counsel in affairs of family, then perhaps again, you would have a point. But the bishop is not primarily an administrator, nor a parental model, nor a family counselor - though he at times functions as all of these. The bishop is primarily spiritual head, celebrant of the mysteries of the Church, articulator and defender of its faith and guardian of its flock. The Church makes provision for all manner of needs (let's not forget, it does in fact have married clergy, who are in the majority in terms of numbers among the priesthood, who have spouses and families), and one of these needs is for a specific kind of spiritual headship fostered by a specific kind of ascesis and praxis.


I know this may seem flippant, but I am talking about the American Orthodox church only.

In this regard, it is not possible to think in terms of only one local Church. This is a question of the nature of the Church's pastoral structure, which is universal.

INXC, Matthew

[Edward Henderson]

First let me quote Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos,

"People often speak of the apostolic tradition and the apostolic succession, implying that this was a succession of laying on of hands. Indeed no one can deny this reality, but at the same time it is an incontestable fact that the apostolic succession was not simply a series of layings on of hands but a tradition of the entire life of the Church. The Apostles and then the Fathers did not simply transmit the grace of the priesthood, but they transmitted Christ and the whole life of Christ. They engendered. For this reason the bishop bore and bears the grace of truth. Prof. John Romanides observes: "The basis of the apostolic tradition and succession was not this laying on of hands, but what accompanied it from generation to generation, the transmission of the tradition of healing, illumination and deification. The parish Council and the provincial Council were organised to unite the true therapists, to exclude from the clergy the false prophets who pretended to have charismatic gifts, and to protect the flock from the heretics. The most important part of ordination was the selection and examination of the candidate" (48).

This was the basis of the Church. Especially for selecting a bishop it was a fundamental principle that he should be chosen from the monks, because monasticism is the medical school from which the skilful physicians capable of healing men's sicknesses could come.

Kallistos Ware, Bishop of Diocleia, writes: "One of the twenty `principle' monasteries (probably referring to the Great Lavra of the Holy Mountain) alone has nurtured twenty-six patriarchs and 144 bishops. This gives some idea of the importance of Athos to the Orthodox Church" (49).

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, explaining this holy custom of the Church, writes in the introduction to his "Handbook of Council": "Oh what happy and golden times were those when the excellent custom prevailed of selecting from the modest order of monks all (excepting a few laymen chosen because of their surpassing virtue) who were to ascend to an episcopal throne, and entrusting the guardianship of souls to them." The minutes of a council in St. Sophia reflect just such a custom: representatives of the Church in Caesarea and Chalcedonia told Pope John's deputy: "In the East if no monk has been produced, there is no bishop, nor patriarch" (50)."

Ideally, Bishops should be chosen because they demonstrate the highest calibre of spiritual life, which is fostered on the monasteries. As all Priests and Bishops are, they are spiritual physicians. Being married or monastic does not imply differing human natures. In fact, a monastic ought to have a better grasp of the soul and human nature because of his daily monastic life.

The problem we face today in America is not the "bishops must be celebate" policy, but that we are not electing true monastics. The exception of this are the ROCOR Bishops, Bishop Longin of the Serbian Church, Bishop Tikhon of the OCA, and Bishop Joseph of the Antiochian Church (that is all I know of, hopefully there are more). They did actually live in monasteries. The others are mostly widowed Priests or former celebate parish priests who, although formaly tonsured monks, have almost no monastic formation.

This problem is the worst in the Greek Archdiocese, where their bishops model of authority is not the monastic elder or abbot or spiritual father, but the Turkish sultan.

Edward Henderson

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Following from Matthew Steenberg's point that,


the bishop is not primarily an administrator, nor a parental model, nor a family counselor - though he at times functions as all of these. The bishop is primarily spiritual head, celebrant of the mysteries of the Church, articulator and defender of its faith and guardian of its flock.

Within the Church we are all limited by direct practical experience- monastics are not married, bishops do not have spouses, laity are not priests. Even more essentially men are not women, children not adults, and I suppose the list of who we are not could go on for quite a bit.

These are all potential divisions but within the Church such division is overcome by an understanding of the other members of the Body which we gain through the Holy Spirit. This understanding indeed is a central aspect of being a member of the Church and what sets the Church apart from the world. Thus every person within the Church potentially is able to understand each other person.

So the much the more so is this through the different charisms of the Church which allow the members to serve each other in distinct ways. Thus as Matthew says the bishop is, "spiritual head...guardian of the flock" par excellence, while monasticism is a sign of the Kingdom not of this world.

None of these charisms separate one from the other members of the Church but rather bind one to them in a unique way. Thus through the Holy Spirit the bishop or monastic is able to guide married couples and children. And often this guidance is able to be more about essential issues than just straight experience would be able to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Edward wrote Quote{ The problem we face today in America is not the "bishops must be celebate" policy, but that we are not electing true monastics. The exception of this are the ROCOR Bishops, Bishop Longin of the Serbian Church, Bishop Tikhon of th e OCA, and Bishop Joseph of the Antiochian Church (that is all I know of, hopefully there are more). They did actually live in monasteries. The others are mostly widowed Priests or former celebate parish priests who, although formaly tonsured monks, have almost no monastic formation.} Bishop Tikhon is my bishop. He did not tell me lived in a monastery. How do you know this? What monastery did he live in, when and for how long? In Christ Olympiada

[Bogdan]

In past discussions with bishops, the very simplistic answer to this general question was: Bishops marry the church, priests marry women. In fact, my bishop explained to me how when he was tonchered a monk, part of the ceremony is the marriage ceremony! The point is, each has to use their trials, tribulations and experience from these marriages to help the laity. Unfortunately, I have never met a former priest turned monk/bishop who has had the right approach to their position. You would think he would be able to understand and accept certain things from his personal experience, as well as bring in his monastic mindset into the balance. Unfortunately, It seems that this struggle is a much greater one than it seems. It almost is as though it is too hard to focus on what needs to be done when you are trying to make everyone happy, instead of focusing on what God needs you to do. This may all be very presumptuous of me to say, however I make no apologies. Personal experience and seing the pastoral experience of priests in my area, the struggle is all too real and visible for everyone; not just the bishop. In any case, I feel it is important to have the seperation of monastic and pastoral lifestyles. A bishop needs to be able to focus on his marriage to the church, so that he can give priests the guidance they need to apply that to their own marriages and the marriages/lives of their laity.

A question for Mr. Henderson:
Do you live in the Chicago metro area? The list of bishops you have is a varied one, but one particularly struck me as interesting: Bishop Longin. I know him personally and am honestly surprised to hear his name mentioned on a forum such as this. I can't explain to you why exactly, but if you were Serbian you would understand! Just wondering where or how you have met him and so forth.

[Alex Haig]

The Church has only celebate (or widowed) Bishops because it has chosen to do so - it is not a theological but a practical issue. In the early centuries there were married Bishops but this tradition was stopped in the 6th (I think) century. It would therefore be necessary to find the reasons for this decision and see if they are still applicable today. However, as the decision was made universally by the Church it would need a body of comparable authority to change the policy.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Clint Sharpley]

Arguments of this sort, that the celibate cannot teach the married (soon to be followed by demands for female clergy as only the female can understand the female experience) are clearly part of the American culture. They reflect the educational philosophy of Locke and Hume rather than the theology of Jesus and Paul. Everything is based on experience, not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is a totally secular American idea, based on an educational philosophy that has been implemented long enough to permeate every aspect of our society.

It does not make the philosophy Christian, however. It follows from such an experienced based idea that only the criminals are qualified to preach in the prisons and only the ill are qualified to visit the sick. THen there is divorce counselling. How can you expect priests who are happily married to ever talk to them meaningfully?

DO you see the point? YOu don't go to a doctor because he has experienced your disease. You go to a doctor who knows how to diagnose and cure the disease you have whether he has suffered it or not. Well, in CHristianity. you have this ad vantage. Every man in the church has suffered the terminal disease you have and knows it and confesses it and has found the cure and by the grace of God is willing to share it with you. Unless of course you want to insist that he find a wife, commit a crime, or or get a disease first.

Quickly, what is the marital status of your heart surgeon?

Now let me tell what the marital status must be of the one who will treat my broken heart. They must be a part of the bride of Christ. Even if that is not what I learned in public school.

Athanasios

[Olympiada]

Mr. Henderson I have just been informed that all of our bishops in the American Orthodox church have spent some time in a monastery, not just Tikhon. In Christ Ms. Kane

[Arsenios]

Bogdan wrote:


Bishop Longin. I know him personally and am honestly surprised to hear his name mentioned on a forum such as this. I can't explain to you why exactly, but if you were Serbian you would understand! Just wondering where or how you have met him and so forth.

He is a wonderful bishop! Came by our mission in Cle Elum, WA and blessed some of the old graves of Serbians from the last century... I did not know he was a monastic... And it does not surprise me in the least - So wonderful was he... Some of his words still haunt me...

So with Bishop Joseph as my bishop, I have now met 2 out of the three in the US that are non-ROCOR monastic bishops?? That is a sobering and for me at least an uneasy thought...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Olympiada:

I think that Edward was referring to Bishop Tikhon of Pennsylvania who has monastic experience at St. Tikhon's monastery in South Canaan, PA. I do not know if Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco has monastic experience.

Regarding a married episcopate: I think this would be a disastrous scenario. If my understanding is correct, the celibacy of bishops is required not due to theological, but practical reasons. Personally, I am a reader and chanter at my parish, as well as serving as Parish Council President. In the past, I have served as a Treasurer. I also have been happily married for nearly five years and have a one-year old daughter. My participation in church life has been very burdensome and stressful on my family. Thank God, I have an understanding, loving, and supportive wife.

In any case, I cannot imagine my wife putting up with me having all of the duties and responsibilities of a bishop. Nor can I imagine most wives, who are much less understanding and supportive than my wife is, being put through such a burdensome role. A married episcopate simply would not be fair to the wife and children.

Aaron

[Olympiada]

Dear Mr. Warwick I found a couple of false generalizations in your statement. First of all I found that all the bishops in the American Orthodox church have spent time in monasteries. The other one is personal, so I will leave it off. My bishop did spend time in a monastery, as did the rest in my church. And they are all monastic sav e for one widowed priest. Ms. Kane

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Edward

You wrote


This problem is the worst in the Greek Archdiocese, where their bishops model of authority is not the monastic elder or abbot or spiritual father, but the Turkish sultan.
Can you clarify this? I don't know enough about episcopal matters to understand whether or not you are joking!

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr. Warwick I found a couple of false generalizations in your statement. First of all I found that all the bishops in the American Orthodox church have spent time in monasteries. The other one is personal, so I will leave it off. My bishop did spend time in a monastery, as did the rest in my church. And they are all monastic sav e for one widowed priest.

There is a difference between spending time in a monstery, or being tonsured a monastic, as a stage en route to a determined consecration to the episcopacy, and one who has felt the call to the monastic vocation and from there was later elected and raised to the episcopacy.

Of course it's a matter of universality that all bishops are technically monks, since this is a requirement of consecration. This does not mean all are necessarily monastics in the sense of that having been the focus of their life, from which they were 'lifted out' to be placed as bishops.

This is an age-old custom. I certainly do not mean to speak any ill of bishops who were not monks but who were tonsured in preparation for consecration -- some of the best I've ever known were elevated in this way.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Olympiada:

Regarding whether the bishops in America are monastic: I simply pointed out that I thought that Edward was referring to Bishop Tikhon of Pennsylvania rather than Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco. There was no generalization in my post in that regard. In fact, I said specifically that I did not know of Bishop Tikhon of San Francisco's status before being ordained to the episcopacy.

With respect to my later point, it was a generalization. If you talk to any clergy member (of any church) with a family, you will find out that the majority (if not, all) have responsibilities that are very burdensome to their families. There have been countless books, internet discussion groups, etc. dedicated to this topic. If you found my post to be generalized in that respect, you read it correctly. My post was intended as a generalization because the issue is a general problem; which is why having a married episcopate is, in my opinion, not a good or practical idea.

Aaron

[Olympiada]

Ok the basic question is: is a married episcopate canonical or uncanonical? Illegal or legal? Forbidden or allowed? That is all I care about. That is what I want to know.

[Alec Lowly]

Edward Henderson writes:


"The minutes of a council in St. Sophia reflect just such a custom: representatives of the Church in Caesarea and Chalcedonia told Pope John's deputy: "In the East if no monk has been produced, there is no bishop, nor patriarch" (50)."

It is difficult to see how this "custom" is in accord with Holy Scripture. I am not denying the idea that monastic formation can yield the level of spiritual development that the church would hope for in a bishop, but the statement above is extreme. The church must have bishops if it is to be the church. If no monks are suitable or available, then we clearly must look elsewhere.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Bogdan]

Mr. Sharpley,
I very much enjoyed your analogy! If you don't mind, I'm going to use it when I speak to my sunday school class about seperation of church power.

Mr. Blaisdell,
It's great to hear someone outside the Serbian community say good things about our bishops. It is unfortunate, but here in the Midwest, we only hear bad things. This is part of the reason that even though Longin is the bishop of the west, canada, and parts of australia, his residency is in the midwest, and about 15 miles from the Midwest Metropolitan's residency!! That's just a little sign of the dire situation our church faces. I personally feel that due to the consecration of a non-monastic as the Metropolitan, it just opened the door to the major problem we face today. Don't get me wrong, as Mr. Steenberg pointed out, there exist those lay-priests who are more than fit to serve in this holy position. It's just not something I have ever experienced, and have in fact only experienced the opposite.

[Arsenios]

Dear Bogdan -
I thank God for your kindness...

I would very much like to see the Serbians and really all the Orthodox countries do as Elder Ephrem has done, and send in to the US monastic missions from their monasteies to establish monasteries here... Monasteries are so important, for in them are trained the physicians of our souls, who know the rigors of digging the log our of their own flesh, so as to help others with their splinters... They are marvellous places of pilgrimage and spiritual refreshment, and yes, they provide bishops for our Church...

I feel we are going to need a rock solid monastic presence in the US... For there will be trials to come, and our Faith here is but young and growing... I love the analogy that the monasteries train physicians, and the Churches train pharmacists...

Bp Longin came here because he had heard from Fr. Ilija that some Orthodox guy was taking care of the old Serbian graves, had built a little shrine with an icon of St. Sava, and placed a three bar Cedar cross over it at the cemetary, and that now there was a mission Orthodox Church arising in the nearby town. So he wanted to do a service at the cemetary, and meet this guy... Because when he asked "Is he a Serb, or does he have family buried there?", the answer was "No, he just likes the three bar crosses on the headstones, and likes to pray for Orthodox Christians buried there."

So he came, and saw, and left, and I was richly blessed. And I somehow managed to find enough good sense and tact to NOT tell my own Bishop, when he arrived a couple of months later to see the mission, that he was the <u>second</u> Bishop to visit our little mission...

So that in our short mission life [actually less than a year when Bp Joseph came], we have been graced by the visits of two Orthodox Bishop-monks... For some years now, and especially when I was struggling to become a catechumen, I kept saying we need saints here... God must have heard my griping about it... Monastics are the closest thing we can have to saints this side of the grave...

And I would like to see Valaam send in some mission teams... And Romania... And Egypt and Ethiopia and Eretria and Jerusalem... And... And... And...

This is a long post - Forgive me my rambling on and on...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Olympiada asked


Ok the basic question is: is a married episcopate canonical or uncanonical? Illegal or legal? Forbidden or allowed? That is all I care about. That is what I want to know.

A married episcopacy is at present uncanonical in the Orthodox Church.

The statutes of a jurisdiction or church are normally considered legally binding. So if a bishop married and was then defrocked for this; and then went to court for redress it is highly unlikely he would win his case.

In other words a married episcopacy is currently forbidden in the Orthodox church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Clint Sharpley]

Feel free to use whatever you find useful
My dear brother Bogdan
or in the Greek as you said Theodore
on in the Hebrew as I named my son Jonathan.
And you are I am certain to your father as is my son growing to his joy &#40;if not amazement&#41; as a true gift of the Lord
Blessings and Peace
Athanasios

[Edward Henderson]

The practice of the Church is not to consecrate married Priests to the episcopacy, but monks. The canons do not forbid it because many of them were composed when the Church&#39;s practice was to have married bishops. However, the Church has had the custom of monastic bishops for quite some time now, in fact, for most of her history. This policy was guided by the Holy Spirit and has produced awesome fruits. In reality, there is no need to revert back to the practice of married bishops. We would be faced with the same problems as the church did when it decided to only select bishops from the monastics, the episcopacy becoming an inherited office and thus a caste and the difficulties of inheritance between the diocese and the family of the deceased bishop.
What we really need are more bishops who have been formed in monasteries.

Edward Henderson

[Olympiada]

Bless, Father Father Raphael My understanding is from a priest in my church is not that the married episcopacy is a matter of heresy because it is not a matter of dogma, but i t is a matter of tradition. The married episcopacy fell out of use 1500 years ago. This does not mean it can not be put back in use. Now Paul Evodokimov says a monk can become a married man in his book The Sacrament of Love. All things are possible with God. So this opens up another issue: what are the causes for a bishop to be defrocked? I really do not want to discuss that topic, but I think it is important to know what could happen. Kissing your right hand... Olympiada the sinner

[Olympiada]

I should add that I would like to know who the married bishops were in the first 500 years of the church and if there are any icons of them with their wife. It is interesting to note this a matter of social custom and not dogma. Kind of like the deaconess issue. Very interesting indeed. I think the two issues are closely related. I am finding the married episcopate issue to be far more interesting than the deaconess issue by far. It seems the church has gone through a lot of reformation even though it calls itself orthodox.

[Herman Blaydoe]

You really do not need to look any further than the unfortunate legacy of Aftemios Ofiesh, to see why married bishops are not a good idea.

Orthodox Wiki on Ofiesh (http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Aftimios_Ofiesh)

[Vasilis Kirikos]

"The practice of the Church is not to consecrate married Priests to the episcopacy"

Has anyone in this forum ever heard of the "Indian Orthodox Church"? We have two in the area where I live. I have never gone into one; I guess I should check it out. It appears that they are from India; also, someone told me that their bishops are allowed to be married. Didn't the Christians in India originate from one of the first Christian saints? Even one of the Apostles? It seems to me that I once heard as much. I think it may have been St Thomas or St. James. But I really can't recall. Vasiis

[Mark Kern]

Something that I haven't seen discussed along this thread is the example of the Twelve Apostles regarding a married Episcopate. Four of the Twelve were married: Peter (Mark 1:30), Philip (Eusebius, Church History, III, 31), Jude (Eusebius, Church History, III, 12, 19-20) and Simon the Zealot (Prologue, May 10). But yet, the Lord Jesus commended the Twelve for having left "wife and children" among other things (Matthew 19:29, Luke 18:29). However, in following the Twelve in their travels, their wives and children seem to have gone along. Paul refers to this also, "Do we have no right to take along a sister, a wife, as do also the other Apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas" (1 Corinthians 9:5).

It seems that the Twelve left not just the things of this world but also the pleasures of this world. Applying this to modern Bishops, I wouldn't have any problem with a married episcopate so long as they held to the same standards as the Twelve Apostles. Is the issue of a married episcopate that of holding to the same standards as holy tradition specifies, or is the issue really allowing Bishops to participate more in the pleasures of this life? It seems to me that the issue of a married episcopate is a little misdirected, as not understanding the nature of the role of Bishops.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I have no knowledge of the canons or history of this issue. The example of Aftemios Ofiesh posted by Herman #317 is quite shocking. It doesn&#39;t feel right that a bishop should seek marriage once he is already a bishop, and should therefore be married to the Church and concerned for her welfare alone. I&#39;m not sure I feel the same concerning the possibility of promotion of already married priests to the episcopal throne. I wonder how they would practically manage the responsibilities of having both a family and the duties of a bishop, but it feels less shocking and more appropriate as a possibility than the idea of someone who is already an ordained celibate bishop taking an interest in a female parishioner. Nevertheless, if the bishop is a figure of Christ and married to the Church in a way that is qualitatively different from the way a priest is, then it seems that whether he got married to a woman before or after ordination is a moot point. I don&#39;t think the traditions of the Church, even the ones that are not part of Holy Tradition or dogma, are a simple case of &#34;social custom&#34;. That seems to me to be an anachronistic error of imposing our 20th century way of thinking on pre-modern society, more precisely on a faith community which lived out its social life as it was guided to do by the Holy Spirit; in other words, if social trends do influence the Church, they can surely only legitimately do so from within the Church&#39;s understanding of the nature and destiny of mankind. The Church has always rejected human traditions which do not conform to the Christian understanding &#40;i.e. revelation and prayerful enlightenment, not rationalistic or legalistic criteria&#41;. If the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into holding that bishops ought to be celibate single men, I&#39;m not going to argue with what has been held good and true for 1500 years. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that others may in their prayer be enlightened to feel differently. I may be wrong.

In Christ
Byron

[Herman Blaydoe]

Married status of bishops is NOT dogma, neither is the office of deacons. The office of the deacon was not specifically created by Christ, but came later. The book of Acts shows us that the Church clearly has authority to decide on the qualifications of its clergy &#40;also as shown by the Epistles of the Apostle Paul&#41;. At one point they decided married bishops &#40;in a time of serious persecution of a fledgling church&#41; were appropriate. Later, the Church decided it was inappropriate. The Church has the authority to re-establish married bishops and/or deaconesses, but I should think it would be done with discernment and concilliarity &#40;it seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to us&#41;, NEVER unilaterally by one single Church in an &#34;in your face&#34; manner to the rest of the Church. It would seem that THE CHURCH as a whole seems to feel that, although all things are lawful, this thing is NOT convenient, it does NOT edify.

Just because the Church, in the desire that &#34;all things be done in good order&#34; has made some changes, the authority to make such changes is well documented by Holy Scripture, so to refer to this as &#34;reformation&#34; is too strong a word, someone might want to check the definition in a good reputable dictionary before bandying it about so nonchalantly.

The so-called &#34;Indian Orthodox Church&#34; claims to have been founded by the Apostle Thomas. I can neither confirm nor deny, but I have to say that these &#34;Thomists&#34; are not in communion with Orthodoxy and I have found a great deal of Gnosticism and Hinduism in their liturature. I don&#39;t know that they are the example to refute or defend Orthodox policy.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Olympiada,

You posted above:


Bless, Father Father Raphael My understanding is from a priest in my church is not that the married episcopacy is a matter of heresy because it is not a matter of dogma, but i t is a matter of tradition. The married episcopacy fell out of use 1500 years ago.

This is correct. The monastic episcopacy is a matter of tradition not dogma.


This does not mean it can not be put back in use.

Tradition nevertheless is important and often is how dogma is expressed or lived out within the Church. So we need to understand the reasons these traditions arose and their purpose. In this way any change in the tradition will be in accord with its original purpose.


Now Paul Evodokimov says a monk can become a married man in his book The Sacrament of Love. All things are possible with God.

This reminds me of the other conversation on monachos about what God can or cannot do. As Matthew Steenberg explained, God cannot do certain things. Perhaps this also relates to what we as Orthodox Christians can or cannot do. A monastic maybe can get married- but then he is not a monastic (not to say at all that those married cannot have an ascetic life). So a monastic cannot be married. Without reading Evdokimov's book it is difficult to understand what he means. Maybe he is just using an analogy about the monastic being 'married' to the rest of the Church(?)


So this opens up another issue: what are the causes for a bishop to be defrocked? I really do not want to discuss that topic, but I think it is important to know what could happen.

This I also do not want to discuss here. I don't normally think about it too much.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olympiada]

Dear Herman Thank you for that link. That sure brought my heart to a state of contrition. I think we are another list together, yes? Olympiada

[Olympiada]

Dear Herman The person who gave me the word &#39;pseudo Reformation&#39; does not bandy words about lightly. Quite the contrary. Now I obviously can not carry that person&#39;s thoughts, they are too heavy for me. But I was trying to understan d them, hence I brought that issue up on this discussion board. Olympiada

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think it might be worth noting that for the first 400 years of the Church, there was no monastic tradition to draw from, life for married and single alike was hard and often short, most were subject to martyrdom in a way that most of us have little or no experience with. It was only later, when Christianity became &#34;easier&#34; that monasticism formally came to be, and after that the decision to draw our bishops primarily from this resource. At any rate, it seems to me that the Church does best when our bishops come from the ranks of those who practice asceticism seriously, either through &#34;involuntary&#34; persecution of the early Church, or through &#34;voluntary&#34; asceticism of monasticism in the latter Church. As a general rule, it just seems to make sense to this simple mind. I mean, if there was a serious persecution where say most of the monastic tradition was eliminated, might not the Church, in response, reinstate married bishops? I don&#39;t see a problem with this myself, but I wonder what sort of lesser circumstance would justify such a step. Am I offbase here?

[Olympiada]

Bless, Father Father Raphael Here is the quote from Paul Evodokimov's book The Sacrament of Love:


If the need arises, even a monk can break his vows. A married man ca n become a monk. A single man can see opening before him one of the two paths , as he finds himself from the perspective of celibacy in the world. For the time being he accepts this situation cheerfully, with joy; he views it is a task limited to today, as the present and the full value of his life. The inevitable gropings that follow from this are accompanied by alternate successes and failures. However, it is crucial to understand that it is never a question of a bleak, imposed "duty", of a blind, relentless categorical imperative. Possible pragmatic failures, discouragement, and momentary bitterness do not in the least warrant a negation, an emptiness, a surrender. As one hand searches for another hand in the dark, one should conform to grace, and wait with a smile until such a material defeat is transformed into spiritual victory. The immediate finality, reached or not, is not at all the absolute the end of one's destiny.

Olympiada

[Bogdan]

Thank you for your heartfelt replies Mr. Sharple and Blaisdell. Your responses&#40;and permission&#41; put me in such a great mood that I am sure it will last right through sunday when I speak to my class about a few of these issues on here.

I think on some level, we are asking the wrong questions. Asking why we don&#39;t have married bishops anymore is asking why time exists at all. Of course we are going to make changes in orthodoxy, but those changes come from a 100% majority agreement on those changes. Nothing would be allowed in Orthodoxy if everyone didn&#39;t at least respect the decisions &#40;i.e. the calender issue&#41;. For instance, the serbian church only exists today because the One christian church of the time decided to accept a pagan custom into it&#39;s holy tradition! I am speaking of a tradition called &#34;slava&#34; it is similar to the name day of the greeks, but it is a family tradition in which a patron saint protects an entire family. This saint is passed down generation to generation through the male children. The point is, this tradition is based on the pagan tradition that Serbs had back at that time to have patron GOD&#39;S protect the home of each family. So when St. Cyril and Methodius blessed us, they used this tradition to convert and therefore save our people. Jump to current times, and slava is the reason that we survived 500 years of Ottoman rule. If families hadn&#39;t had held on to that tradition, they would have forgotten Orthodoxy. In this same way, we must respect the guidance of the Holy Spirit with our bishops. They Are married..to the church. They are fighting a greater battle than we can imagine.

As for the defrocking of priests, well, that&#39;s a very very touchy subject. One I normally brush over, but I will say a few words, in the hope that they will guide you in understanding church structure and nothing else. In general, priests are not defrocked, just &#39;pushed into retirement&#39; as we like to say. I know many priests that took an &#39;early retirement&#39; when we all knew it was because they had done a few ungracefull things. This is two fold. It shows that yes, this person made a mistake, but it doesn&#39;t take away years upon years of loyal and dedicated service to God and the laity. This burden is a heavy one, and our church respects it by doing it in this gracefull way. Second, it takes away the bite of a defrocking. This is a very powerful thing to do and if we did it regularly, would take away the seriousness of such an action. So that is that, it&#39;s just not a common thing to do. An example of someone who HAS to be defrocked, just for the sake of comprehension, would be a priest who went through a divorce. I know a couple, who then become subdeacons. I hope I have not offended anyone, and that it makes sense!

[Herman Blaydoe]

The person who gave me the word 'pseudo Reformation' does not bandy words about lightly

Of course I would have no way of knowing this, since I have no idea about whom you are referring to, or really the context in which it was used. Nevertheless, I think that its use referring to the institution of monastic bishops is a bit cavalier and perhaps even inappropriate. And you can tell this person I said so! If I am speaking out of turn, I look forward to enlightenment and correction.

[Arsenios]

Bogdan writes:


Thank you for your heartfelt replies Mr. Sharple and Blaisdell. Your responses(and permission) put me in such a great mood that I am sure it will last right through sunday when I speak to my class about a few of these issues on here.

I swear, Bogdan - You Serbians have got to be the softest touches in the heart on the planet! Glory to God!

And thank you for the explanation of the slava of the region... It gives the pagan basis for primogeniture there... And that opens into a vista of meaning that is far too vast for my simple mind... For now, I am glad to know the treasure that the Slavs place in their first-born sons is a living part of their Christian origins... And that it has been blessed by the Church...

Thank-you...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Bogdan]

Mr. Blaisdell,

Oh how I wish you could stay away from REAL serbian people..haha, believing that we are 'soft touches' is one that most serbs don't associate to each other, much less hear from other people. I am humbled and flattered at the same time by your opinion. I am also glad that you enjoyed my explanation of Slava. This tradition in my opinion is what makes us serbian, because without it, we would have never survived the Ottomon yoke. One thing which you mentioned that I want to correct is that it's not just the first-born son that gets the slava, its ALL the sons. In this way we spread Orthodoxy unto any who come in contact with our family. A small, but important thing to understand. In any case, thank you, my brother in Christ for taking the time and interest to read my ramblings.

As to the topic, I agree with Herman. pseudo-Reform is just not a term that refers to this situation.

[Arsenios]

Dear Bogdan -

Thank you for your post - And I am glad for your correction on the meaning of slava... I can now look any old Serb [and not just first-born sons] straight in the eye and ask him: &#34;Are you a SLAV?&#34; And when his feathers come up and he stands up from the table to show me with his fists that he is, I can then say to him straight into his heart: &#34;Then quit being a sissy little girl and get yourself baptized!&#34;

There are so many, my brother... They are stiff and proud... They sit and they drink coffee, and hold forth their opinions that will not be shaken, and they are the backbone of the Serbs... And they grew up in Serbia under Communism, and never got baptized... They go to Church every Sunday - They would not DREAM of being anywhere else but in their Church on Sunday... If they were to die getting there, it would not matter in the least... But they never commune, for they are not baptized, and they won&#39;t get themselves baptized...

And no, I would never say that to them. It would be wrong for lots of reasons... But I want to!

Yet you know, when I went to the Serbian Church and met these guys, I had this strange feeling come over me that all they needed was someone to tell them to get baptized... That if I had told them: &#34;It is time now - Get baptized... For your children, and for your grand-children...&#34; I felt that were I but to say these words, they would break down and cry, and seek their priest and ask to be baptized... It was a strange sensation...

Old country expressions tell it all... &#34;You can always tell a Swede... You just can&#39;t tell him much...&#34; is the one that comes from my background. Norweigans are worse... Everything is settled into fairly meaningless routines that make a living, and opinions get set in stone... Nobody budges anybody... And it almost needs someone who can enter their skulls and say hello, or an outsider who calls their bluff with a hand of friendship... To get them to move...

But if a Serb even slightly suspects that you care at all about him, and about Serbs, his heart is immediately broken, and he will do anything for you... That much I know first hand... Part of their heart seems to be the conviction that they are just Serbs, and nobody cares about them... And never will... [Gypsies are much the same - Who ever cares about an old Gypsie anyway?]

I tell you, my heart breaks for these Serbs I know... And I love their priests...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Alec Lowly]

Herman Blaydoe writes:


"The Church has the authority to re-establish married bishops and/or deaconesses, but I should think it would be done with discernment and concilliarity (it seemed good to the HOLY SPIRIT and to us), NEVER unilaterally by one single Church in an "in your face" manner to the rest of the Church. It would seem that THE CHURCH as a whole seems to feel that, although all things are lawful, this thing is NOT convenient, it does NOT edify."

Well, conciliarity is a wonderful thing, but you have to admit that pan-Orthodox conciliarity does not exist. It's an ecclesiastical fiction.

With no emperor on the throne, there is no authority in this church that can call a pan-Orthodox synod, compel attendance, and make its canons stick.

Therefore, if anything is to change, if there is to be any way forward in addressing the host of questions that beset 21st-century Orthodoxy, then of necessity action must be initiated by one single church or perhaps by several. The problem will then shake out as the other churches respond, or refuse to respond, to the initiative.

You speak of "THE CHURCH as a whole." There is no ~organ~ of the Church as a whole to deal with matters of the Church as a whole, with the possible exception of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and that won't work, either. The New Calendar was an initiative if the EP and look where that has gotten us.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[John P. Nasou]

Excerpted from the Pedalion ("Rudder") - the book of the Canons of = Orthodoxy"

Footnote of the First Canon of the 85 Canons: "The word Bishop is = defined by Emperors Leo and Constantine thus: 'A bishop is a supervisor = and caretaker of all souls that come to church in his province, = possessing executive power, of a presbyter, deacon, reader (or = anagnost), cantor (or psaltes) and monk.'" =20

From Canon XII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: footnote 2 - "Note = that it was for three principal reasons that this Council prohibited by = an Ecumenical Canon prelates from having a wife: 1) Because in view of = the fact that prelates belong to the consummate class and highest order = of all ecclesiastical orders, they ought to be perfect in respect of = virtues in general and in respect to virginity and purity in = particular.2) Because prelates possessed of a wife and children were = wont to bequeath the episcopate to their children at their own death as = a legacy and many of the things belonging to the Church would be = plundered wrongfully.3) Because the trouble of taking care of a wife, = of children and a whole household prevents them from giving due = attention to the matter of exercising proper diligence in behalf of = their flocks (1 Cor. 7:33). The present Council.decreed by means of = the present Canon that the principal that bishops must abstain from = their wives and not even live with them at all is to be enforced = everywhere in the world.=20

Divine Chrysostom is quoted: "Appoint bishops, if any be blameless, = the husband of one wife."

Also Canon XLVIII - "As touching any woman who is the wife of a man = who is being elevated to the presidency of an Episcopate, and who by = mutual agreement gets divorced from her own husband in advance of his = ordination to the Episcopate, let her enter a Convent that is in a = location far removed from the home city of the Bishop, and let her be = taken care of by the Bishop. But if she also appears to be worthy, let = her also be elevated to the office of Deaconess."

The footnote explains by giving an example: "John Glycis, though a = [layman] logothetis of the streets and roads and having a wife and = children, directly he became a Patriarch, his wife became a nun, = according to Nicephorus Gregoras. Note, however, that in accordance = with the similitude of the wife of one about to become a bishop, the = wife of one about to become a monk ought to do the same. This means: = 1)She ought to get divorced from him by mutual consent [never forced - 1 = Cor. 7:5, 7:27) and agreement, 2) she ought to remain unmarried forever = thereafter, and 3) she ought to become a nun. He is to provide for her = sustenance thereafter.

In recent time, a married priest who was a graduate of the Theological = School of Halki (the school of the Patriarchate of Constantinople) = serving in the Washington, DC area, upon the death of his wife was = admitted to the top of the eligible clergy list and was elected to the = presidency of Bishop.

[Olympiada]

Bogdan, You said our bishops are married to the church. I know this, but I was wondering if you could write on this a little more. What does this mean to you? Is the bishop married to all the souls under his care? Or is that marriage defined in another way? Who is it the bishop is called to be faithful to? Olympiada

[Herman Blaydoe]

You speak of "THE CHURCH as a whole." There is no ~organ~ of the Church as a whole to deal with matters of the Church as a whole, with the possible exception of the Ecumenical Patriarch, and that won't work, either.

Call me naive, call me simplistic, but I should think that the HOLY SPIRIT fills that role? I do agree with you that the calendar issue is an excellent example of what happens when we try to "rush" things.

[Bogdan]

George,&#40;if I can be so bold as to call you by your first name&#41;

I know the feelings you described. I am so glad that you have learned something and that you plan on implimenting that knowledge! I challenge my own people with it weekly by asking them how often they do certain things. Communion is definately one of them. A sad story I have to share is about my sunday school class. I decided that we would take communion together as a class. If you arn&#39;t aware, serbs take communion two times a year, christmas and easter &#40;we call them cheasters. sad, sad, sad&#41;. Anyway, I decided that we should break this tradition and just pick a random week to just fast, as a class, and take communion as a class. I told them to just tell their parents, to also challenge their understanding of what fasting and communion is all about. And about half of them did. I couldn&#39;t have been more proud of them for CHOOSING to explore Orthodoxy, and challenging the &#39;normal&#39; understanding in the serbian church of what fasting and communion is. However, the dark side of this is that the kids actually came up to me after church, and said, &#34;Bogdan, we really are proud of ourselves for doing this, but can you not ask us to do it again?&#34; It turns out that ALL of their parents had told them that your not ALLOWED to fast any other time than for easter and christmas, and that since they had never seen anybody fast any other time, I was MAKING IT UP! Then they storm off, and begrudgingly make the lentin food for them. One even threatened his child with physical violence for fasting!! Obviously, I tried to help them with some spiritual guidance, as best I could, usually just drawing a parallel between their experience and that of Jesus Christ himself, along with most of their patron saints. But, it&#39;s hard. Their still teenagers, and it&#39;s a tough time to stand up for a new found faith in Orthodoxy..and then to have supposed &#34;Orthodox&#34; parents telling you your stupid about God, while still wanting you to come to church every Sunday. Well, that&#39;s just tough to put it simply.

Anyway, the point is, I challenge the ones that I know I can make a difference for. We all have our calling to be missionaries, and if that means I will be missionary among my own &#34;Orthodox&#34; people..well then so be it. In my humble opinion, if you see an opportunity to sow the seeds of Christianity in a Serb, take it. As you said, they need someone to tell them, and if that makes you a fool for Christ by doing it, then be a fool my friend.

Olympiada,

By married to the church, I mean spiritually and literally. I will repeat an earlier post of mine by saying that when a person is tonchered a monk, part of the ceremony is the exact same ceremony as you go through when you get married. This is the literal marriage a monk makes to the church, leading to the marriage of the bishop to the church. The spiritual marriage then develops from this bond, because by being married to the church, the monk and therefore bishop must take care of the physical and spiritual church; this is a mirror reflection of his physical and spiritual bond with God.

Anyone that considers the church structure, heirarchy, even the physical buildings themselves their life, is someone that has a lot to offer to any Orthodoxy christian. In this respect, we look up to them as father figures. They guide our steps in the spiritual world almost like our parents would. You might ask who the priest is in this analogy. Well, I look at them almost as an older sibling. Someone who has to face the same struggle as I do, but is much more learned in life and has a lot of personal advice and experience he can offer, while always worrying about me and the choices I make. I hope this analogy makes sense. He is called to be faithful to God, and to try to explain that faith to those willing to listen through love, compassion and understanding of our worldly struggles. Our brother&#39;s the priests through their experienced struggle help guide us with those worldly questions our &#34;parents&#34; don&#39;t always understand &#34;the way we want them to&#34;. I&#39;ll leave it at that, let me know if I confused you more or helped..

[Alec Lowly]

[LINK] (http://www.monachos.net/cgi-bin/mb/show.cgi?tpc=4227&post=18699#POST18699)

Well, I'm certainly not going to call you naive or simplistic, Herman. But perhaps it's naive and simplistic for me to wonder whether the organizational disunity of our church (caused by a lot of pride and factionalism, in my opinion), may be quenching the Holy Spirit's action (1 Thess 5:19). I was once told that there are no more great councils because the age of great councils is past -- all the great issues have been addressed, all the great questions answered. An astounding point of view, I think, in light of the age we find ourselves in.

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

(Message edited by admin on 25 February, 2006)

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Today's reading has brought this issue up for me again. From what I've understood so far, at some point in its history the Orthodox Church decided its bishops should be celibate, mainly so they can possess the purity associated with virginity, but also so that they can devote themselves entirely to their church duties, being as it were 'married' to the church.

I'd like to hear from others on the history of this change. When exactly did it take place? Under which social / ecclesiological conditions?

In Christ
Byron

[Andrew]

The assumption is that a monastic has lived his life in total obedience and sacrifice, in communion, and this monastic training will have aided him in purification, illumination, and theosis. A bishop then would be picked from among holy monastics, and this holy man would serve the Church as evidence of the Holy Spirit working in, and transfiguring, mankind. Father John Romanides wrote a lot of great things about what the Bishop is, if anyone wants to read up on these matters.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Thank you for your reply, Andrew. I would also like to know of the historical circumstances under which this change came about, simply out of interest. Does Fr Romanides mention this?

One further question - is there not an implicit assumption, when declaring that a monastic has lived their life in total obedience, that a married person necessarily lives in less obedience to God? Doesn't it also imply that marriage is somehow less pure than virginity?

In Christ
Byron

[Thomas Daniel]

Shlomo
According to the time-old practice in Holy Syriac Orthodox Church, widowers (including Priests), if they do not remarry, are eligible to become Rabban and could also be consecrated as Episcopo (Bishop). At present SOC have one such Bishop - His Grace Episcopo Mor Iwannis Boulos Al Souky, the Patriarchal Vicar of Damascus. His 'Baskyomo' (wife) passed away years ago while he was a Priest and later he was consecrated an Episcopo.