Clergy in the present day

[Owen Jones]

I'm not sure this can lead to a new thread but just wanted to make a comment. I continue to be impressed with the quality of young graduates of the Greek Orthodox seminary in the U.S. Last night we had a substitute teacher of our Bible class who is a recent graduate and works for the parish as a "pastoral assistant" (that is a euphemism for "waiting for a wife!"). He was obviously a man of faith who is not just regurgitating what he was told to say in seminary. He jokingly quoted one of his professors who said, "seminarians all have a messianic complex!" And while our discussion of suffering (we were dealing with John 9) left me wanting more, that is always the case. He has plenty of room to develop insight on the subject. One of the significant things is that he clearly reflects a movement in the seminary to return to traditional liturgical practices that are more consistent theologically. For example, not making baptism a private, family affair. I jokingly commented on another thread recently that the bishops and clergy have a 1,000 year plan to correct such liturgical practices in American parishes! I think what is really significant though is that if this is the general caliber of young future clergy, then it brings with it a certain confidence regarding the future of Greek Orthodoxy in the U.S. And I feel personally confident that I can walk into virtually any Greek Orthodox parish in the U.S. and not be subjected to some heretical notions from the pulpit -- but this would be especially true of the younger clergy. The main weakness still seems to be preaching. The young priest/pastoral assistant in our parish seem like they are freezing up in the pulpit. They have a wonderful persona while teaching in small groups. For some odd reason they lose that when in the pulpit, and for me at least, their sermons tend to fall flat. It could just be my tendency to be a critic, but I have heard this from other faithful as well. There must be an element of pathos in every successful sermon. The truth is that everyone suffers. But not everyone is saved. Suffering and salvation are not the same thing -- yet they are inextricably linked. That is the connecting point for all of us. The man born blind is a type for all of us. He touched on this but didn't quite hit the mark.

[Daniel E.]

Question:
Since I am not Orthodox yet, I'm curious with this: all parish clergy are supposed to be married? I come from Roman Catholic background, so I have no clue how this works in the OC. What happens if someone claims vocation to the priesthood and celibacy?
Thank you.
In Christ.
Daniel

[Olga]

Question:
Since I am not Orthodox yet, I'm curious with this: all parish clergy are supposed to be married? I come from Roman Catholic background, so I have no clue how this works in the OC. What happens if someone claims vocation to the priesthood and celibacy?
Thank you.
In Christ.
Daniel

My understanding is that the Roman Catholic church codified its mandatory clerical celibacy rule only in the 12th century.

The Orthodox Church has had, for many centuries, two streams of clergy: the "white", which consist of married men (priests and deacons), who serve in parish churches. If a single man is called to the priesthood, then, before he is ordained, must come to a decision as to whether he is to marry. If he is to marry, then his ordination will be delayed until after his marriage. Of a single man of clerical calling decides on leading a celibate life, then he enters a monastery, and, all being well, is ordained to the clergy. This stream is known as the "black" clergy. It is also from this stream of monastic clergy that higher orders (bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, patriarch) are chosen. History also has many examples of married clergy who have been widowed, who then enter monastic life, and have gone on to episcopal rank.

Such monastic clergy (hierodeacons and hieromonks) generally serve in monasteries (male and female); the assigning of monastic clergy to parishes on a long-term basis is not generally the norm, but does occur from time to time when married clergy are not available. Of course, a hieromonk or hierodeacon may be called as a "relief" as a short-term to serve at a parish.

Therefore, all else being equal, the intention of marriage or celibacy does not preclude a man from being ordained as an Orthodox cleric.

[Daniel E.]

Thank you Olga for your very kind answer. God bless you. Daniel

[Michael Astley]

There isn't really much that can be added to Olga's post. It is a clear summary of the matter.

However, purely for the sake of historical interest, (because for some reason these things interest me), it seems that the requirement for marriage prior to ordination (for those so minded) is quite early. Apostolic canon 26 (4th century) states that, of the clergy, only cantors and readers may marry after ordination. Yet at one time the abilitiy of the bishop to make concessions was also enshrined in canon, as canon 10 of Ancyra (early 4th century) states that the bishop may permit those ordained to higher orders and who later marry, to remain in orders, provided that they stated their intention to marry before ordination, but not if they kept their intention secret. It seems that, over time, there grew widespread ignorance concerning the rules on marriage and ordination, with many of the clergy marrying after they were ordained. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (or, Trullo, to be precise), dealt with this. The fathers of the council sought to regularise the situation without being too harsh on those who had broken the canons out of genuine ignorance, so they drew a line in the sand. Canon 3 stated that those who had married before a certain date were to be suspended, and choose between giving up their marriage or their orders. If their marriage, they could return to their clerical function. Canon 6 dealt with the situation going forward, settling the matter once and for all by calling for subdeacons, deacons, and priests who "dare" to marry after ordination to be deposed, which is the situation, I believe, as we have it today.

[Owen Jones]

I do not believe that a person to be ordained who proclaims his intention to be celibate must enter a monastery in order to be ordained. I believe to become a bishop one must take on monastic tonsure, but that too does not mean he has actually spent time in a monastery. There are different requirements for ordination between the parish clergy and monastic clergy. A monk can be ordained without attending seminary, for example, but it would be very unusual for a parish priest to have been ordained these days without a seminary education. Although it is not an absolute requirement. The Antiochian Metropolitan has ordained numerous convert clergy without benefit of a seminary education, but I believe they have changed that policy now.

[Father David Moser]

What happens if someone claims vocation to the priesthood and celibacy?

while there have been many very good responses to the differences between married and monastic clergy as well as monastery and parish clergy, I'm not sure that this particular part of the question has been addressed. In Orthodoxy, no one "claims vocation to the priesthood" but rather is called by the Church to that position. A person who calls up his bishop and says that he has a vocation to the priesthood and when should he come to be ordained is likely to receive (at best) no response. A person can choose to follow a path of preparation for the priesthood by going to seminary and being active in his parish, but whether or not he will be "called to the priesthood" is not private matter between him and God but rather a matter for the Church to determine. More often than not a person is called to the priesthood by the Church and his only private calling is whether or not he will accept ordination. In any case, even if a person feels a desire for ordination and interprets that desire as a "calling" or "vocation" it is not accepted as a given until and unless that "calling" is confirmed by the Church (in the person of the bishop). I know that most priests are always aware of those young men in their parish that show an inclincation to the priesthood and will encourage them in moving along that path. At the proper times along the way the priest will put those young men forward for tonsure as reader or subdeacon and eventually, usually, but not always, after seminary propose them as candidates for ordination. In this case it is the priest, not the individual, that sees the calling most clearly and encourages it.

A person can feel called to celibacy, however. In that case one simply does not marry and holds himself chaste throughout his life. Due to the difficulty of this path, it is not often chosen outside of monastic life (although there are those who do live chastely in the world). It is rare, but not unknown, for an unmarried non-monastic to be ordained (since after ordination he cannot marry). Most of the time, a person who is inclined to celibacy chooses to enter monastic life for there he finds the support for such a life and the means for self denial (in the structure of obedience in the monastic community) that would be missing in the world. I know of a few people who have successfully lived a celibate life in the world and in most cases, they have allied themselves with another person (often a family member, esp a brother or sister) to live together in celibacy in a kind of mini pseudo-monastic community. Of the celibate non-monastic clergy I have encountered, it seems that at some point they do take monastic vows (Bishop Jerome of ROCOR is a good example of this - having lived the majority of his life as a non-monastic celibate priest, he finally became a monastic when elected to the episcopacy).

Back to the original question about how a desire for celibacy and a desire to be a parish priest might work together, we can look to the example of St John of Kronstadt. In Russia at that time all parish clergy were "white" or married clergy and all "black" or monastic clergy were restricted to serve only in monastic communities. He had the desire for both a monastic life and to be a parish priest. He prepared for priestly life by entering seminary. When he was ready for ordination, he entered into a marriage with the daughter of a priest (who was the rector of the parish that St John would eventually serve). On their wedding night, St John, full of zeal and love of God followed the example of some of the early virgin martyrs and convinced his wife that they should maintain their virginity even though they had married and live as brother and sister. This they did, dedicating themselves wholly to the service of Christ. (there are varying opinions as to whether or not his wife fully agreed with this decision, but what was she to do once they were married and her husband chose this path) In any case, that is how St John reconciled these two seemingly irreconcilable desires. This is not a path that is undertaken lightly or easily and so should not be considered as "normal" or a model for Orthodox marriage.

Fr David Moser

[Amde]

Powerful story indeed.

I am encouraged by this story. It shows that in our time we have great power to deny ourselves and give all to God. This is "fruitful".

I am sure some people would laugh at this situation and may even say that it as not a real marriage.

What God has brought together NO man can undo; even with his opinions. Marriage in its key aspect is a mystery. We forget this.

I agree that in no way is this an example of "normal" Orthodox marriage. But is a true marriage in all aspects that we should respect and expect certain of us to have within the holy Church. It is a great example of the holy sacrament which binds man and women to be one flesh. St Paul said that this is a "mystery". What is not a mystery is procreation which can happen in or outside the "mystery" of man and wife as it to often does in our time.

The truth of God is realized when we can observe the sacrament of matrimony (all the sacraments really) and that in them God is at the center which is the basis of ALL that comes forth upon our interaction with them be it children, the work of the church even martyrdom. The result can be nothing but fruitfulness which provides the increase that the Lord has commanded and has ordained for mankind.

Thanks for the story...


In Russia at that time all parish clergy were "white" or married clergy and all "black" or monastic clergy were restricted to serve only in monastic communities. He had the desire for both a monastic life and to be a parish priest. He prepared for priestly life by entering seminary. When he was ready for ordination, he entered into a marriage with the daughter of a priest (who was the rector of the parish that St John would eventually serve). On their wedding night, St John, full of zeal and love of God followed the example of some of the early virgin martyrs and convinced his wife that they should maintain their virginity even though they had married and live as brother and sister. This they did, dedicating themselves wholly to the service of Christ. (there are varying opinions as to whether or not his wife fully agreed with this decision, but what was she to do once they were married and her husband chose this path) In any case, that is how St John reconciled these two seemingly irreconcilable desires. This is not a path that is undertaken lightly or easily and so should not be considered as "normal" or a model for Orthodox marriage.

Fr David Moser

[Daniel E.]

Thank you again for all answers, I do appreciate them.

Fr. David,
your particular explanation made me think a lot. Yes, I see the difference. It is "customary" for latins to voice desire of vocation to a priest or bishop, and usually this is dealt as a private matter from the very beginning. There are many times where the community is not even aware that a man has gone to the seminary. Priests usually make retreats for young men and try to "fish" for feedback. But definitely, practices are different in the RC. (plus the fact that the universal call to celibacy is today at least questioned in many circles within the Catholic Church).
I entered the seminary after I showed interest to a bishop, and I was ordained after the cycle was finished. The practice is: do you think you have vocation? Go to the seminary and think about it. Hopefully you'll confirm that call and will be a priest. Since many (including myself) left the priesthood at some point, the RC has become more careful to whom send to, and ask for more discernment before entering.
To complete the story, I would say that after I left the ministry, and after the usual "crisis"... I decided to remain celibate. I've been living like a "consecrated laity" in a secular way, working and living a simple life in prayer and solitude when possible. I have no clue if this exists in the Orthodox Church. And as I said in other email, very new in this interest about Orthodoxy, not even officially a catechumen yet. But I want to be an Orthodox Christian. Please, pray for me.
In Christ
Daniel

[Owen Jones]

As a practical matter, however, I would think that most parish members do not have a whole lot of input into who goes to seminary and who is ordained. People pretty much rely on the discernment of the priest and bishop and then shout axios! to seal the deal...

[Michael Astley]

Thank you again for all answers, I do appreciate them.

Fr. David,
your particular explanation made me think a lot. Yes, I see the difference. It is "customary" for latins to voice desire of vocation to a priest or bishop, and usually this is dealt as a private matter from the very beginning. There are many times where the community is not even aware that a man has gone to the seminary. Priests usually make retreats for young men and try to "fish" for feedback. But definitely, practices are different in the RC. (plus the fact that the universal call to celibacy is today at least questioned in many circles within the Catholic Church).
I entered the seminary after I showed interest to a bishop, and I was ordained after the cycle was finished. The practice is: do you think you have vocation? Go to the seminary and think about it. Hopefully you'll confirm that call and will be a priest. Since many (including myself) left the priesthood at some point, the RC has become more careful to whom send to, and ask for more discernment before entering.
To complete the story, I would say that after I left the ministry, and after the usual "crisis"... I decided to remain celibate. I've been living like a "consecrated laity" in a secular way, working and living a simple life in prayer and solitude when possible. I have no clue if this exists in the Orthodox Church. And as I said in other email, very new in this interest about Orthodoxy, not even officially a catechumen yet. But I want to be an Orthodox Christian. Please, pray for me.
In Christ
Daniel

I think that the Anglican pattern is not entirely dissimilar to what you describe, Daniel. That is certainly what I found in the Church of England. Nothing happens unless you yourself actively make known a desire to explore priesthood. People in the parish may say things to you but that's as far as it goes. I think that there is a danger of motivation by pride here, even for the best-intentioned of people, and I realise that the discernment process is designed in such a way to weed out any impure desires that may lie behind such exploration, so that the person is guided and moulded accordingly, and any pride will be uprooted. However, this process, which is referred to as having one's vocation tested, seems to be a great trial for the person concerned. It's almost as though there are a number of checkpoints at which the candidate is tested and facing each one just adds more stress. I have a number of friends who have been through or are still going through this right now. They tell me that they feel they have a calling to the priesthood but the system is set up that the onus is on them to somehow prove this each step of the way before they are given the all-clear to move on: the parish priest, the director of ordinands, and then the dreaded Bishops' Advisory Panel, which is where they go away for 2 or 3 days with examiners and a number of other candidates, and are interviewed, set tasks, and observed, and then anxiously wait for two weeks for an envelope to come through the letterbox with the final result.

What I have found in Orthodoxy contrasts this. It seems that a person is discreetly observed. Conversations may be had within the parish, between the parishioners and the priest, the person's spiritual growth is observed by the priest, along with his learning and understanding of the Faith and the services. The bishop may even be consulted before anything is even mentioned to the poor, unsuspecting chap, who may be involved in the discussion at any point along the way. I know a man who was chanting the Hours as a layman before the Liturgy when the bishop came to visit his parish. It was part way through the Hours that the bishop summoned him over, and ordained him a reader. He had no knowledge of it before this, and is now a deacon. I also know a deacon who simply received a telephone call from the bishop, requesting his presence at a certain place and time so that he could be ordained. Different jurisdictions and bishops will have their own way of doing things, and many of these things will be tailored to the circumstances of the individual person, but what you generally do not find is the situation where the candidate is the one constantly having to do all of the pushing in order for anything to happen. That isn't to say that somebody with such an inkling should not talk to his priest about it but the understanding of how it all works is quite different.

In Christ,
Michael

[Nina]

As a practical matter, however, I would think that most parish members do not have a whole lot of input into who goes to seminary and who is ordained. People pretty much rely on the discernment of the priest and bishop and then shout axios! to seal the deal...

Everything that happens it is God's will.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Michael Astley wrote:



What I have found in Orthodoxy contrasts this. It seems that a person is discreetly observed. Conversations may be had within the parish, between the parishioners and the priest, the person's spiritual growth is observed by the priest, along with his learning and understanding of the Faith and the services. The bishop may even be consulted before anything is even mentioned to the poor, unsuspecting chap

I found out that I was going to be ordained by the bishop literally jumping into my pathway as I was crossing the kliros and then saying directly into my face: "if I was you I'd get hold of a sluzhebnik" (priest's service book). It took me a few moments to recollect myself and understand the meaning of what I had been told.

I want to say something though because I often think of it when this discussion comes up at Monachos. Actually, I always wanted to be a priest, even before I knew what a priest was. This wasn't accompanied by any conscious thoughts but more an irrepressible desire towards something very difficult to put into words. Anyway- the priesthood wasn't something to be pursued. Rather if the desire came up it was to be confessed to my spiritual father- which is what I frequently did over the years.

I have to say though that this desire was different from the desire to be a monastic. The desire for priesthood was more a desire to serve others while the desire to be a monastic corresponded more to what I am. Sorry that I can't say it any more clearly than that. But for those contemplating these various paths in Church life perhaps something mentioned here may be of help.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

Michael Astley wrote:



I found out that I was going to be ordained by the bishop literally jumping into my pathway as I was crossing the kliros and then saying directly into my face: "if I was you I'd get hold of a sluzhebnik" (priest's service book). It took me a few moments to recollect myself and understand the meaning of what I had been told.

I want to say something though because I often think of it when this discussion comes up at Monachos. Actually, I always wanted to be a priest, even before I knew what a priest was. This wasn't accompanied by any conscious thoughts but more an irrepressible desire towards something very difficult to put into words. Anyway- the priesthood wasn't something to be pursued. Rather if the desire came up it was to be confessed to my spiritual father- which is what I frequently did over the years.

I have to say though that this desire was different from the desire to be a monastic. The desire for priesthood was more a desire to serve others while the desire to be a monastic corresponded more to what I am. Sorry that I can't say it any more clearly than that. But for those contemplating these various paths in Church life perhaps something mentioned here may be of help.

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Fr Raphael,

Thank you for sharing some of your story. It's very beautiful.

in Christ,
Mary.