Celibate bishops - a change after 1500 years?

[Olympiada]

Greetings in the Lord,
It is so good to be back here. I have not started a discussion in a long time, so I thought to bring this subject up again in a more clarified mode. What Byzantine process would it entail to force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy? Does anyone think that is possible in this generation?
Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

[Peter Farrington]

Personally, I don't think it will happen at all. Nor do I think it would be a good thing. When a bishop was responsible only perhaps for a few hundred Christians in a Roman town somewhere then there was still scope for married bishops - though these rapidly became less common.

When a bishop must be committed to large numbers of faithful over a relatively large geographical area I don't see how he can be a good husband/father and a good bishop. It is hard enough for me to be as committed as even I am to Church ministries and my family at the same time. Even with the complete understanding and support of my wife and children there would fairly quickly come a point where I was not living out my vocation as husband and father.

So I think it a good thing that bishops are not married, they are married to our Church communities.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Olympiada,

Firstly, welcome back; it is good to have your voice here again.

Secondly, whatever process it might take to do what you suggest, it is unlikely to happen in the Orthodox Church anytime - let alone anytime this generation.

There are, of course, married bishops in the Church of England, even married archbishops, but the tradition of the Orthodox Church is not that way inclined. Peter gives, I think, good practical reasons why it would be a bad idea.

No one, of course, has to become a bishop, and those who find the requirement to celibacy not part of their calling can still, of course, be priests.

Still, none of these things amount to more than arguments from tradition and practice; in the Orthodox Church such things count for more than they do in other places - which is why I think we may see a lively discussion here on this one, but few being in favour of the idea.

In Christ,

John

[Mourad Mankarios]

I tend to lean towards the side that a married episcopacy would actually be a good idea and would as shockingly surprisingly as it may seem in fact be not far removed from traditional Christianity at all.

For those who argue that a bishop would not have time for his family I disagree. I understand that the married bishop would not have as much time as the unmarried bishop but there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to properly execute his office due to marriage. Most prime ministers, presidents and those who hold public office can be seen to be married men who at the same time have a public responsibility to execute their office faithfully. And such public officers have often times even wieghtier responsibilities than the bishop and even perform functions that a bishop ought to perform and also are responisble for an entire nation, its security, health, prosperity, etc...

I believe also that all of the advantages that are assumed with having a married clergy could also be assumed for a married episcopacy. So often you find monastics so far removed from the reality of the day to day living of real life normal families for which they are required to make critical desicions. They just don't get it. And it's not surprising if you're not married and you don't have those marital relationships.

Furthermore, it seems to me awfully legalistic that an individual gifted by God with certain charisms, and this it seems is really the key issue, would be denied such an office due to a technicality that he is married. But what about all the good that he could contribute to a diocese, all the gifts that he has been provided by God that he could execute in such an office, the wisdom and knowledge he could apply, the unity amongst churches that he could establish, the peace and reconciliation that he could instigate...But to all this the modern church, in antithesis to the early church it should be noted, says NO! And for the life of me I cannot understand WHY!

I think that for such a highly revered position we need to look at the characteristics and qualities of a person just as St Paul outlines in his epistles and was practised throughout the early centuries of Christianity, rather than at a person's marital status...

I should also add that the reasons for introducing a celibate episcopacy need also to be examined. If at some time this was introduced in the church as far as I understand it was due to the controversies associated with ecclesiastical property and the rightful inheritance of the bishop's own family. However, to continue a celibate episcopacy under such a context would seem to be anachronistic as such legal complexities can much more easily and thoroughly resolved under modern jurisprudence...

[Peter Farrington]

But if we were to allow the argument that the rejection of the gifts of a married man were a denial of something given by God then we should also allow that women should be priests, or that priests can look for a wife after their ordination.

I would rather want to say that if a married man has gifts then there is lots of scope for his service - but not as a bishop, just as he would be precluded from being an abbot.

We cannot argue from gifts to ministry in the Church. My own priest is a deeply spiritual and prayerful man, but he is not the main force for activity in our small parish, his job is to be our spiritual father, and he fulfills that role well. I can take care of many practical matters, that is my role. But I desperately need his prayers, and that is his. So I guess I am suggesting that manifest ability is not the measure of service and order in the Church.

Peter

[Olympiada]

I tend to lean towards the side that a married episcopacy would actually be a good idea and would as shockingly surprisingly as it may seem in fact be not far removed from traditional Christianity at all.

I hope I got this formatting thing right. You are the first public voice in favor of a married episcopate that I have come across since the last time I raised this issue. It was the tradition for the first five hundred years of the Church for bishops to be married, so it is actually more traditional for bishops to be married.


For those who argue that a bishop would not have time for his family I disagree. I understand that the married bishop would not have as much time as the unmarried bishop but there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to properly execute his office due to marriage. Most prime ministers, presidents and those who hold public office can be seen to be married men who at the same time have a public responsibility to execute their office faithfully. And such public officers have often times even wieghtier responsibilities than the bishop and even perform functions that a bishop ought to perform and also are responisble for an entire nation, its security, health, prosperity, etc...

And what do you think about retired bishops being allowed to marry? In my experience being a bishop takes a *horrendous* toll on a man, perhaps one that was not foreseen before the acceptance of the nomination to the episcopate. Who knows save for the clairvoyant what one's episcopal career holds in store for them? Heck one's episcopate could be so severe that it would make one mentally ill! (Marriage can do that too, by the way). The bishop is responsible for an entire priesthood, its financial security and health. I don't think priests are prosperous by nature of their vocation.


I believe also that all of the advantages that are assumed with having a married clergy could also be assumed for a married episcopacy. So often you find monastics so far removed from the reality of the day to day living of real life normal families for which they are required to make critical desicions. They just don't get it. And it's not surprising if you're not married and you don't have those marital relationships.

I disagree about bishops being "so far removed from the reality of the day to day living of real life normal families". The half dozen Orthodox and Protestant bishops that I know, married and monastic, are quite involved in the real lives of normal families. And to be honest, all the monastics I know, probably at least a couple of dozen, they are also quite involved in the real lives of normal families. I wonder what kind of monastics you know? All the monastics I know get it. Monastics formed me and continue to mold and shape me, a woman, now divorced devout Russian Orthodox mother, living in the world.


Furthermore, it seems to me awfully legalistic that an individual gifted by God with certain charisms, and this it seems is really the key issue, would be denied such an office due to a technicality that he is married. But what about all the good that he could contribute to a diocese, all the gifts that he has been provided by God that he could execute in such an office, the wisdom and knowledge he could apply, the unity amongst churches that he could establish, the peace and reconciliation that he could instigate...But to all this the modern church, in antithesis to the early church it should be noted, says NO! And for the life of me I cannot understand WHY!

So what kind of charms do you think that bishops are gifted with? What kind of charms would a bishop's honorable little mother have to be gifted with? It is true the modern church is clueless. I may be more against modernism than I thought, and I may be more of a traditionalist than I thought. Interesting. I sure have a lot to say on the orthodox tradition list these days.


I think that for such a highly revered position we need to look at the characteristics and qualities of a person just as St Paul outlines in his epistles and was practised throughout the early centuries of Christianity, rather than at a person's marital status...

Right and in the early centuries of Christianity the bishops were *married*. I think in order to strengthen our suffering Church we need to return to the Christianity of the early centuries. Heck the Pope is encroaching upon our territory with each passing day.


I should also add that the reasons for introducing a celibate episcopacy need also to be examined. If at some time this was introduced in the church as far as I understand it was due to the controversies associated with ecclesiastical property and the rightful inheritance of the bishop's own family. However, to continue a celibate episcopacy under such a context would seem to be anachronistic as such legal complexities can much more easily and thoroughly resolved under modern jurisprudence...

So what kind of legal work would it take to force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy? I thought that Catholics were the ones with canon lawyers. This is what I was emphatically told when dealing with my divorce.

My goodness what a piece of work!

Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

[Mourad Mankarios]

But if we were to allow the argument that the rejection of the gifts of a married man were a denial of something given by God then we should also allow that women should be priests, or that priests can look for a wife after their ordination.

I would rather want to say that if a married man has gifts then there is lots of scope for his service - but not as a bishop, just as he would be precluded from being an abbot.

We cannot argue from gifts to ministry in the Church. My own priest is a deeply spiritual and prayerful man, but he is not the main force for activity in our small parish, his job is to be our spiritual father, and he fulfills that role well. I can take care of many practical matters, that is my role. But I desperately need his prayers, and that is his. So I guess I am suggesting that manifest ability is not the measure of service and order in the Church.

Peter

I think there's a big difference here especially when you consider that the practise of ordaining married men to the episcopacy was a tradition practised for hundreds of years within the early church, if not even within the first millenium. And especially when scripture seems to condone married bishops and even many of the apostles were married.

You do have a valid point concerning women and the charisms they may have and hence the enormous controversy concering women priesthood in the church today. However, this becomes very different and a completely separate issue when you consider the explicit texts with regards to women in both scripture and the patristic tradition as well as the fact that the ordination of women to the priesthood was never practised at any stage in the church. Therefore, such a practise if established in the church would be an innovation.

Peter, with everything I've outlined above you must admit that there's really a strong argument in favour of married bishops if not even stronger than the one in favour of celibate bishops.

[Alex Haig]

There is no theological reason why a married man cannot be a bishop, if there were then the married bishops of the first 500 years or so would have been wrong. I think that a married episcopate would be a good idea, however this is unlikely to be realised. The rule restricting the episcopate to monastics is from an ecumenical council so it would need something of an equivalent legality to change the rule.

With love in Christ

Alex

PS, while all bishops are technically monks, there are many who are celebate clergy rather than monastics, i.e. they have never lived in a monastery under the obedience of an Abbot. Is there a reason for this?

[Nina]

Greetings in the Lord,
It is so good to be back here. I have not started a discussion in a long time, so I thought to bring this subject up again in a more clarified mode. What Byzantine process would it entail to force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy? Does anyone think that is possible in this generation?
Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

Olympiada,

Just out of curiosity from female to female: why do you need this kind of info? Are you researching, writing a paper etc. or do you have personal reasons?

[Mary]

Greetings in the Lord,
It is so good to be back here. I have not started a discussion in a long time, so I thought to bring this subject up again in a more clarified mode. What Byzantine process would it entail to force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy? Does anyone think that is possible in this generation?
Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

I cannot predict the future. But this much I know - NOTHING is going to change in the orthodox church due to a discussion on this message board. =)

On a practical level - I wouldn't want my husband to also be my priest, because I dont' want him to hear my confessions!

Forgive me Mourad, but generalized statements such as "monastics don't get it" and "...are too far removed from day to day stuff to make critical decisions...", are usually dangerous, because they can never be 100% true. It all depends on the individual, and in my personal experience, I've received better advice from monastics than from married people - yes, even with my marriage questions.

Married or monastic, living in the world or in obscurity, we all struggle against the same things - our passions. The solutions are the same. They need to learn the same things that I need to learn - to love, to forgive, to not resent, etc. So a monastic can be as perfect a spiritual father to a parish full of non-monastics, as a married priest could.

After all, it isnt' in his own strength that he feeds his flock, it's is with God's help and to say that one is better than the other is to say that God can't fill the gaps...

Please forgive me for my short, harsh comments. I keep trying to think of the last married person that I went to for help, and I keep drawing a blank...


In Christ,

Mary.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

This is one of those topics that makes the rounds from time to time. Lest the tradition of simply saying the same thing over and over continue, perhaps I might just direct people's attention to various threads here in the Discussion Community in which it's been addressed before:



Married episcopate (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2532)
Why are bishops celibate? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2757)
Episcopacy (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3044)


Perhaps discussion in the current thread can be focussed on things that haven't already been repeated ad nauseam in those.

INXC, Matthew

[Olympiada]

I cannot predict the future. But this much I know - NOTHING is going to change in the orthodox church due to a discussion on this message board. =)

On a practical level - I wouldn't want my husband to also be my priest, because I dont' want him to hear my confessions!

(snip)



In Christ,

Mary.

Hi Mary, I don't believe we've met. How do you know nothing is going to change in the Orthodox church due to a discussion on a message board. The Orthodox Forum is *extremely* influential in the OCA and that is semi-public. This is public.

I may get up the courage to write to the Patriarch after participating in this discussion. There is another thing I want to write to His Holiness about as well. Of course I would ask his permission to communicate with him first.

Priests are not allowed to hear their matushka's confessions. I used to live in a mission and I know this for a fact. Do not worry about that. And bishops don't hear as many confessions once they become a bishop anyways, and that is what we are discussing, married bishops. A bishop is no longer a priest, he is a bishop.

Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

[Nina]

On a practical level - I wouldn't want my husband to also be my priest, because I dont' want him to hear my confessions!

Mary.

LOL Mary. This is so funny!
On a serious note I do not think a priest's wife has to have her husband as a spiritual father. However I do not know the rules, so please anyone do correct me. Personally, if I was married to a priest he had to have been my best friend first, so I do not see a prob. confessing to him. But again I do not know the pertaining rules.

Can't stop smiling from your words!

[Herman Blaydoe]

How do we legislate God? How do we "force" the Holy Spirit? Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit is a "LIVE" and potent influence in the Church?Do you think God wants married bishops? Why or why not? If God is with you, who can stand against you?

Remember symphonia and conciliarity? If only one Church institutes it but the others don't, what then? Do we become like the Episcopalians, making whatever changes we think we can get away with? "Forcing" and conciliarity do not go together.

[Olympiada]

How do we legislate God? How do we "force" the Holy Spirit? Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit is a "LIVE" and potent influence in the Church?Do you think God wants married bishops? Why or why not? If God is with you, who can stand against you?

Remember symphonia and conciliarity? If only one Church institutes it but the others don't, what then? Do we become like the Episcopalians, making whatever changes we think we can get away with? "Forcing" and conciliarity do not go together.

We have to go through a Byzantine process to force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy. We force the Holy Spirit by conducting ourselves in public in a gracious, pleasant and discreet manner and not exciting untoward comment regardless of the pressure and scrutiny we are under. We shall be scrutinized more then bishops who are being scrutinized for alleged financial misbehavior. We believe the Holy Spirit is a living and potent influence in the Church that works through the bishops and the women who are called by the Church to be their potential matushkas. These potential matushkas are called by the Church just as men are called to the priesthood by the Church, and not by an inner calling.

I think God wants married bishops because the pressures of being a bishop are too great today and they wear and tear at bishop's souls. Look at all the bashing of alcoholic or mentally ill bishops, or alleged financial misconduct or the accusations of sexual misconduct in the Church Hierarchy. This is the post-modern 21st century and I believe that God wants the bishops to have the support of a matushka, if they desire one. If God is with me, Satan can stand against me. Satan is an evil force at work against God. I suggest you read the theology of Protopresbyter George Florovosky. I can point you out to some on the nature of evil. I am considered to be a modernist by some, a post-modern by others.

The married episcopate and modern conciliarity theory or, rather ideology, are not necessarily the same thing. I am ignorant of the modern conciliarity theory and welcome correspondence on the matter. I shall be contacting a few people to request correspondence with them on the subject and will let you know if I learn anything as well.

Forcing and demanding are not the same thing. Demanding a married episcopate is a Pseudo Reformation and will be met with a cold shoulder by the Church hierarchy. The Holy Spirit forcing itself through celibate bishops and their potential matushkas could force a change in the 1500 year tradition of bishopric celibacy.

I hope this message opens up new directions for this discussion.

With Love in Christ,
Olympiada

[Father David Moser]

Priests are not allowed to hear their matushka's confessions.

This is absolutely false. Some bishops may indeed forbid their parish clergy from hearing the confessions of family members, but such a thing is by no means universal, nor is it always adviseable. Most priests I know choose not to hear their family member's confessions, but they are under no compulsion or instruction to do so. OTOH, I also know a few priests who do hear the confession of their family members and there seems to be absolutely no conflict in such an arrangement.

Fr David Moser

[Mary]

Hi Mary, I don't believe we've met. How do you know nothing is going to change in the Orthodox church due to a discussion on a message board. The Orthodox Forum is *extremely* influential in the OCA and that is semi-public. This is public.

I may get up the courage to write to the Patriarch after participating in this discussion. There is another thing I want to write to His Holiness about as well. Of course I would ask his permission to communicate with him first.

Priests are not allowed to hear their matushka's confessions. I used to live in a mission and I know this for a fact. Do not worry about that. And bishops don't hear as many confessions once they become a bishop anyways, and that is what we are discussing, married bishops. A bishop is no longer a priest, he is a bishop.

Yours in Christ,
Olympiada

Hi Olympiada,

Nope, we haven't met yet. You must've been gone for quite a while. =) I haven't been here for too long.

I haven't done any research on the influence of public forums in the OCA or anywhere. In what way do you think it's influential? And besides, I like Orthodoxy just fine the way it is. There's such a great wealth in the traditions and the centuries of teachings, and I don't see how any of us will ever get to the bottom of anything even if we lived for thousands of years. If things start to change, how can I learn anything?

Ok - just suppose - just suppose the Church decides in the next 5 years or so that all bishops can get married if they want to... in what way is that going to help you and me to become better orthodox Christians? If it isnt' going to make that much of a difference, why waste time talking about it? On the other hand, if it is indeed a good thing for the growth and maturity of the Church, wouldn't those with much greater wisdom and authority, have already made the necessary changes?

Like Nina, I too am curious - what exaclty do you need this information for? Are you doing some kind of research? I hope you don't mind my asking you so directly. It would be good to know, because if I dont' have any useful information for you, it would be very wise of me to just shut up! =)

BTW Nina, you're right, that if you find yourself married to a priest (or anyone!), he should've been your best friend first. But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret - even best friends are human and they have their weaknesses and annoying habits, and if you can't constantly forgive, resentments build up and you forget he used to be your best friend... =) Unless, of course, you happen to find yourself in one of those rare heavenly marriages, where the husband and wife are in perfect harmony and their friendship actually improves with age - like wine. As for me, my marriage turned out to be milk and the whine that I added to it made it turn sour! Hopefully, the orthodoxy we've now added to the mess will yet save those curds and turn them into good cottage cheese... =)

in Christ,

Mary.

[Father David Moser]

If you get tapped to be a bishop's matushka, I can assure it will make you a better Christian. Bishops are *prickly* by nature. Remember right now they are monks, so you will essentially be marrying a monk.

Again a misconception. No one would be marrying a current bishop -since once you are ordained, you remain in the state in which you are at the time. A man must be married before he is ordained to the diaconate (subdiaconate for Slav tradition). Once he is ordained, he can not marry (or remarry should his wife die). Thus even in the fantasy world where hierarchs could be married, a man who is currently a bishop still could not marry since he is already ordained.

Oh and btw, I am good friends with my own bishop and he is only "prickly" when it serves a purpose - at other times he is anything but prickly.

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

The only synod ever to release a statement claiming that may elect a married man to the episcopate comes from the E.P. since there is no one to replace him. And this is never said in public because of the controversy it can create (but its true, this is one of those statements where you have to search a long time similar to finding the decree in 1922 where the e.p. recognized anglican orders)

I disagree that most bishops are unaware of whats going on, in fact the majority of bishops in the diaspora except for the ROCOR are all secular and never lived as monks (which shouldnt be). Married bishops in the early church were rare, i believe one of the last (famous) one was ST. Dionysius of Alexandria 260ad and some that were married were known to have lived as brother and sister (platonic relationship).
I agree that a married bishop isnt a good idea, the scripture says you cannot serve two masters, you will love the one and hate the other.

[Nina]

BTW Nina, you're right, that if you find yourself married to a priest (or anyone!), he should've been your best friend first. But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret - even best friends are human and they have their weaknesses and annoying habits, and if you can't constantly forgive, resentments build up and you forget he used to be your best friend... =) Unless, of course, you happen to find yourself in one of those rare heavenly marriages, where the husband and wife are in perfect harmony and their friendship actually improves with age - like wine. As for me, my marriage turned out to be milk and the whine that I added to it made it turn sour! Hopefully, the orthodoxy we've now added to the mess will yet save those curds and turn them into good cottage cheese... =)

in Christ,

Mary.

Yes Mary but since we were discussing about (only) priests and presbyteras... maybe I see it as a more ideal relationship.

Otherwise, there can not be always harmony. However the power of forgiveness and love can overcome anything. Please do not hold me accountable for such beliefs.

You are right. Orthodox teachings are salvific for a troubled marriage.

I pray for you and your marriage.

[Nina]

I agree that a married bishop isnt a good idea, the scripture says you cannot serve two masters, you will love the one and hate the other.

Excellent point!

[Mourad Mankarios]

I'd like to shed further light on this issue through some extracts of Rev. Dr. Stanley Harakas' own response to the same question which he outlines in his book, "The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers":

"The first ecumenical council rejected the proposal that all clergy be chosen from among the celibate (325 AD) which in turn rejected a developing tendency in the West to do precisely that. Until the fifth century, there was no distinction made between candidates for the episcopacy on the basis of their marital status in the East. Thus, the 5th Apostolic Canon (from the 2nd or 3rd centuries) prohibits a bishop from separating himself from his wife 'with the excuse of piety'."

"...at the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in 691, the Church arrived through the 12th canon at the position that married men who were elected to become bishops had to separate from their wives, with the wife entering a nunnery. This was on the supposition that there was a mutual agreement that this take place. The result was that a candidate for the episcopacy had to choose between his wife and the office. Needless to say, this was difficult and, as a result, infrequently done, making it all the more likely that celibates would be chosen to become bishops."

"It never became a formal rule that a married man could not become a bishop. Technically, the rule requires that a married man either be a widower, or that the married man separate from his wife and that she become a nun, in order for him to become a bishop."

"Many Orthodox have questioned this development, seeing it based on reasons which are not theological in nature, and therefore, instituted because of specific circumstances, which no longer hold. It is significant that important and highly placed people in the Church have challenged the need to maintain this practice, and have recommended a return to the early tradition of the possibility of a married episcopacy. Meletios Metaxakis, Ecumenical Patriarch, supported this view in 1918, and numerous bishops of Greece have supported this view over the years. This view has also been supported by respected theologians from the University of Athens and the Patriarchal Theological School of Halki. Most recently, it was discussed in reference to the agenda o fthe forthcoming Great and Holy Council. Needless to say, there are many who object to any change in this matter. All, however, recognise that we are dealing with an administrative practice, founded on a canon of the Church, and not an article of faith. That means that all agree that if the Church wanted to, it could return to the practice of ordaining married men to the episcopacy."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

"It never became a formal rule that a married man could not become a bishop. Technically, the rule requires that a married man either be a widower, or that the married man separate from his wife and that she become a nun, in order for him to become a bishop."

I would question how this ties 'the rule' to what is written, implying that this takes precedence over what is not written. Actually many things are written that supersede or contradict each other. Many other things are also done which arise from unwritten tradition.

The rule is what the Church presently does which may or may not be testified to in writing. The rule of the Church can also obviously change over time and also within the rule there often is found a variety of practices.

The point however is that what is done takes precedence over what is written. One always has to discern whether what is written reflects or explains what is presently done or whether it has been superseded.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

I hope this message opens up new directions for this discussion.

With Love in Christ,
Olympiada

Forgive me, but I still do not understand the Purpose of this discussion. Are there dissatisfied bishops out there, who wish to be married? If so, are they not the ones who are supposed to be seeking ways to make changes?

I mean, knowing what it takes to be a bishop, doens't the man have the permission to refuse the office if he feels he won't be able to carry all the demands? Is the office of bishop 'forced' upon them? Also, isn't a bishop, like everyone else in the church, also under authority? Isn't he also to submit and obey Christ, the head, and the Church, His bride? If a bishop needs help with all the stress of his office, is not the Holy Spirit capable of enabling him? So, if it is the practice of the Church for bishops to remain celebate, shouldn't he submit to that? And won't he, because of his obedience, receive the grace he needs to fulfill his responsibilities to the Church?

Monks and nuns aren't forced into monasticism. It is by their own choice, just like no one forces one to get married. So, if one has chosen the life of celibacy or marriage, shouldn't one remain faithful to what he has chosen? If it is ok for a monk to break his vow of celibacy just because the stress of being a bishop is too great, can I also not break my vows to remain faithful in marriage when the stress is too great?

Great or small, isn't everyone in the Church called to be faithful? And however large or however small our responsibilites, are we asked to carry them out without the help of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the Saints? Is God's power limited or increased depending on whether one is celibate or married?

Moses was married, the prophet Elijah was not. They were both great leaders. Which one was able to to withstand stress easier? Which one crumbled? They both were able, when they trusted and obeyed God. They both crumbled when they looked to themselves for strength. When Moses needed help, it wasn't his wife who gave him help, it was his father-in-law (Exodus 18). When Elijah needed help, there were angels (1 Kings 19).

Forgive me. I have said enough. I'm outta here.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Kosta]

"Many Orthodox have questioned this development, seeing it based on reasons which are not theological in nature, and therefore, instituted because of specific circumstances, which no longer hold. It is significant that important and highly placed people in the Church have challenged the need to maintain this practice, and have recommended a return to the early tradition of the possibility of a married episcopacy. Meletios Metaxakis, Ecumenical Patriarch, supported this view in 1918, and numerous bishops of Greece have supported this view over the years. This view has also been supported by respected theologians from the University of Athens and the Patriarchal Theological School of Halki. Most recently, it was discussed in reference to the agenda o fthe forthcoming Great and Holy Council. Needless to say, there are many who object to any change in this matter. All, however, recognise that we are dealing with an administrative practice, founded on a canon of the Church, and not an article of faith. That means that all agree that if the Church wanted to, it could return to the practice of ordaining married men to the episcopacy."

From Stanly Harakas book it seems to show that the Church considered a married bishop serving two masters. He'd hate the one and love the other, as the gospel says.

As far as Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis (of sorry memory) his beliefs matter little, since there heretical. He not only wanted married bishops but attempted to introduced second marriages for priests (among other innovations). His concern was not over the traditions of the church but to place his anglican buddies within positions of authority into the Church. As far as the theologians from Greece, they may have a point, but there simply trying to find solutions for the E.P. to survive.

[John Charmley]

Dear Olympiada,


I think God wants married bishops because the pressures of being a bishop are too great today and they wear and tear at bishop's souls.


Ah, but the question is whether God really wants what you think He wants; this, surely, is why we have the Church and Holy Tradition? If He does want it, then it will happen, but, coming as I do, from a Church with a married episcopate, I am extremely doubtful whether it will make the sort of difference you imagine.

I daresay that the novels of Anthony Trollope are not often cited here, but if you look at any of the Chronicles of Barchester, and follow the career of Mrs. Proudie, the bishop's wife, it may offer another view of these matters.

The twenty-first century has a habit which, given the state of the world, might seem to the observer to be an interesting one - namely assuming, in the face of much evidence the other way, that it knows best. Holy Tradition is the best guard imaginable against this hubris. But, of course, it is in the nature of hubris to think it knows best; nemesis usually follows.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Mourad Mankarios]

Many saintly and holy fathers of the church were married bishops. These include St Spyridion, St Gregory (the father of St Gregory the theologian), St Gregory of Nyssa amongst many others.

I imagine also that Christ if He was so inclined could have limited the apostleship to celibate men just as the priesthood was limited to males but this was never done and St Peter and many others of the apostles also had wives who shared with them in their ministry.

However, to all of the these the modern church would say NO! simply because of their marital status. Regardless of their knowledge, regardless of their wisdom, regardless of their saintly life, regardless of their spiritual charisms, the modern church is simply concerned about their marital status.

What a sad loss to the church...

What I would ask is would this then seem to denigrate the holy mystery of matrimony?


"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor 9:5)

[Paul Cowan]

Folks I am going to jump in here for those reading (like myself) who are "simple of heart and of mind". I am learning about the Faith and am firm in my conviction to do as I am told by those in authority over me. My Priest.

As one poster said earlier, this forum will not change the church policies and another said whats the point of this discussion? I struggle just to keep focused on what is the Truth and the Right path. I am reading very convincing arguments for both sides of this question. I waver between the two of them.

If someone like me does waver from the Truth because of smooth talking debaters, shame on you. I enjoy this sight because of the Truths that are manifested and explained based on the foundations of what the Church has taught over 2000 years. I realize there may have been married Bishops in the past. There are rules we follow now to help us and them in our responsibility to worship our creator. To change what has been done to suit the 21st century ideals of normalcy or to go back to a minimized practise centuries ago is just wrong.

Please forgive me for being blunt. This topic has no purpose since the practices of the episcopacy will not change. I am a confessed conformist. Meaning, I conform to the group I am in. (Something I struggle with daily). If the group perception changes then my perception usually does too. This is why I hang on with dear life to the Orthodox Faith. IT DOES NOT CHANGE!

Please, for my sake if not many others, do as Dr. Matthew has requested and read the other 3 threads on this topic and lets move on to other more important theologies and their explanations. I cherish every one of the posters here. I have learned so much from you all. I don't want to start to doubt my heirarchs or I will lose confidence in their abilities and WILL fall away from the Truth. I need to know what is right is right and not be clouded with superfluous speculations.

Of simple heart and mind
Paul

[Nina]

Folks I am going to jump in here for those reading (like myself) who are "simple of heart and of mind". I am learning about the Faith and am firm in my conviction to do as I am told by those in authority over me. My Priest.

As one poster said earlier, this forum will not change the church policies and another said whats the point of this discussion? I struggle just to keep focused on what is the Truth and the Right path. I am reading very convincing arguments for both sides of this question. I waver between the two of them.

If someone like me does waver from the Truth because of smooth talking debaters, shame on you. I enjoy this sight because of the Truths that are manifested and explained based on the foundations of what the Church has taught over 2000 years. I realize there may have been married Bishops in the past. There are rules we follow now to help us and them in our responsibility to worship our creator. To change what has been done to suit the 21st century ideals of normalcy or to go back to a minimized practise centuries ago is just wrong.

Please forgive me for being blunt. This topic has no purpose since the practices of the episcopacy will not change. I am a confessed conformist. Meaning, I conform to the group I am in. (Something I struggle with daily). If the group perception changes then my perception usually does too. This is why I hang on with dear life to the Orthodox Faith. IT DOES NOT CHANGE!

Please, for my sake if not many others, do as Dr. Matthew has requested and read the other 3 threads on this topic and lets move on to other more important theologies and their explanations. I cherish every one of the posters here. I have learned so much from you all. I don't want to start to doubt my heirarchs or I will lose confidence in their abilities and WILL fall away from the Truth. I need to know what is right is right and not be clouded with superfluous speculations.

Of simple heart and mind
Paul

Paul,

Thank you! And please do include me too in your list of "simple of heart and of mind" (not to mention my language abilities since English is not my mother's tongue, so please forgive me). You have such a wonderful way of presenting things! Right to the point! And I really appreciate your straightforwardness, because as God said, people should be careful not to scandalize. I am sorry that this discussion is making you waver, but please forgive us all and listen to your own spiritual father first. And as you already mentioned: What is the point of continuing this particular discussion?

Andreas,
Great to see you are back! As always thank you! Laconic and great!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I think it has become clear that this conversation thread is simply repeating what has already been said in the several previous threads dedicated to the topic; and since it doesn't in a direct way relate to the focus of this forum (the historical question of episcopacy does, but this has been discussed at length previously and doesn't seem to be generating new conversation in this thread), it seems best to wrap it up and move back to things more pertinent to our focus.

Do feel free to Private Message me if you feel strongly that it should be continued / re-opened.

Many thanks.

INXC, Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Forgive me, but I still do not understand the Purpose of this discussion. Are there dissatisfied bishops out there, who wish to be married? If so, are they not the ones who are supposed to be seeking ways to make changes?

Actually its probably not currently ruling hierarchs who might be "dissatisfied". It is a common passtime among senior clergy to fantasize about the "we" would rule the diocese if we were the bishop (of course we would always do it much better than the current bishop). I have also noted a similar fantasy occasionally in the wives of such clergy who also know that their husband (who would of course listen to them and do as they suggested) would do a much better job than the bishop. (I'd add a smiley face here if I knew how)

Of course its all a fantasy and in the end when fantasy meets sober reality we realize that our bishop is probably doing a much better job than any one of us (married or not) could ever hope to do.

Fr David Moser