www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West answering celibacy

I've skimmed this thread, not really read it. So I may have misread something David wrote - I think (and I may well be mistaken) that he said that the strong defence of married priesthood makes him feel somewhat uncomfortable because he believes he has a vocation to become an unmarried priest.
The Church will always need some celibate priests, and there is nothing freakish about the idea. The life and work of a celibate priest can be quite a blessing for the Church - and this is much more likely to happen in the case of a man who accepts celibacy voluntarily, with his eyes open. There are also pastoral assignments far more suited to a married priest - provided that he and his wife both know what they are getting into and are both agreed, without reservation.
Another comment which leapt off the computer screen at me was the entirely true but abused point that a vocation to the diaconate and a vocation to the priesthood are different. Exactly so. And one of the grave problems of enforced celibacy for presbyters is that it creates a "neither fish nor fowl" clergyman: the deacon who believes himself to have a vocation to the priestood, but who may not even test that vocation because he is married. Thus the mandatory celibacy of the presbyterate becomes destructive of the diaconate. I could easily give numerous examples, but will offer only two, both of which are in a certain diocese which it is better not to name: in this diocese the deacons were employed in "playing priest" - conducting some sort of parishes which did not have a Sunday Eucharist from one year to the next, but instead had a deacon turn up now and then and conduct some sort of service (one such deacon, known to me personally, was trying to be the ersatz pastor for no less than 14 parishes in this unsatisfactory fashion). Meanwhile, when the bishop wanted to have a solemn service, he had to draft presbyters into "playing deacon" for the solemn service, because the real deacons were out "playing priest". The reason for this combined charade, of course, was the mandatory celibacy requirement. Now THAT is a state of affairs to make anybody with ecclesological sense feel uncomfortable!
Incognitus

Again, this entire thread has spun off track. Why can't we just look to Sacred Scripture? Tradition never contradicts Scripture. The HOLY SPIRIT says in His Holy Writ that bishops, presbyters, and deacons can have wives (see the verses in my original post.) Any mandatory prerequisite to be celibate (no doubt a beautiful and wonderful gift) is at best the lower-case tradition of men and not the upper-case Tradition of God.

in Christ,
Marshall

I am sorry Marshall but it is not as simple as you state.

What scripture says is that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are to have no more than one wife.

As I do not yet (maybe someday) read the original language this was writen in, I have to listen to others who do.

I have heard it stated that in the original language these passages do not necessarily mean that they had wives, just that they should only have one if they did have wives.

It does not say anything about how they should live with this wife after their ordiantion.

Also, are you now arguing for married bishops?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Can't speak for anyone else (I've not taken any sort of survey), but I'm not arguing for married bishops. I would, however, argue in favor of electing genuine monastics to the episcopate. Don't ask me where we are supposed to find the genuine monastic candidates! Incognitus

I've had five semesters of formal training in classical and koine Greek and I can read the NT in its original language. Trust me, it says what it says. St Paul says that a bishop, presbyter, and deacon are to be men of "one wife" or "mias gynaikos." This means that they are not to remarry (assuming the death of their spouse as the East and West unanimously affirm). But all in all, it reveals that bishops, presbyters, and deacons were permitted to have wives at the time the pastoral epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus were written. St Paul a celibate, had not problem with bishops, priests, and deacons having wives.

I'm not saying that they MUST have wives, I'm saying that St Paul knew nothing of celibate-only bishops and/or priests. His instructions to Timothy and Titus were to look for godly men who have had only one wife and have godly children. He didn't say, "Oh but make sure presbyters are celibate," or "Oh but the bishops should be celibate," or "And make sure they put away their wives, or at least stop having sex with them." No, he assumed that they would mostly likely be married and have children. Why can't we accept this? Why must we contradict the words of Scripture by imposing stipulations that clearly contradict the practices of the Holy Apostle Paul and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Charis humin kai eirene plethuneie en epignosei tou Theou kai Iesou tou kyriou hemon!

en Christo,
Marshall

Marshall,
I see that you are an Anglican, so I can understand a bit better what/why you are saying what you say.

But, I have edited your reply and only left a bit which I have a question on.


You confuse me here a bit, you say that all bishops, priests, and deacons were married. Please provide proof/sources.

You go on to say that St Paul knew no celibates, yet he was celibate.

You then say that "he assumed that they would most likely be married." So are you saying here that he did know celibate?

You are aware that the Bible is not the only source of Tradition, do you not?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Marshall,
Congratulations on learning koine Greek. Now please learn to pronounce it (and transliterate it) as those who use it do. Evlogia Kyriou!
Incognitus

David,

I retract the statement about some of that particular post being at odds with what you had written previously. On re-reading, it was consistent. My apologies.

Actually, you and I are not at such polar opposites on this issue as I think you believe. If you note my original post on the topic, I agree that it is not our place to argue for the Latin Church to return to a married priesthood as an option, altho I personally believe that they should consider it.

Here we do differ. In regard to this, I reiterate what I said in my earlier post. Man, even in the person of Church hierarchs, cannot establish a law or discipline and then presume to bind God, i.e., presume that God will not allow something to happen because of man's law. I put that comment forth in reply to your argument which essentially said that - inasmuch as the Church has established celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood, then God would not give a call to the priesthood to one who was not or did not intend to be celibate.

If that isn't the essence of what you said, I will stand corrected. If it is, then I stand by my words - your stance would require that God adhere to man's law. Unless you are prepared to argue that all Church law and discipline are divinely inspired - and thus should all be deemed dogmatic - I don't see how one can put forth the conclusion which you did.

Many years,

Neil

Dear David B,

Please go back and reread my email. I did not say that ALL bishops, priests, and deacons were married. I said that such married persons were "PERMITTED to have wives." The word "all" does not appear in my post, and that pretty much dismisses your objection.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote. I said that St Paul was not aware of a "celibate-ONLY" episcopate or presbyterate. Obviously, St Paul was a celibate apostle/bishop, as was St John, St Timothy, and St Titus.

Yes, I am also aware that the Scriptures are infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I also know that true Sacred Tradition NEVER violates the inspiration or the direction of the Holy Ghost. If a human tradition is in contradiction to the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Sacred Scirpture (in this case 1 Timothy & Titus) then it is just that: a human tradition. Scripture and Tradition are two parallel streams that support and validate one another. They do not contradict or call one another into question.

I'm afraid that the discipline of mandatory celibacy for bishops and priests is a man-made tributary flowing off from the rushing torrent of Sacred Tradition.

yours in Christ,
Marshall

Neil,
Apology accepted and I would like to apologize for the harshness of my comments, both public and private, to you.

Yes I think we do agree on much here, but I would ask why should they consider it?

What I am saying here is that even though the discipline is not dogmatic, why can't God work within it?

Who determines if a call is present? The Church.

How can you, or anyone else except for the Church, say that a call is present? You can't.

Can you truly say that God does not work within His Church and its laws?

This is my point. The laws of the Church help it determine how it runs. To say that God does not work within these laws is, in my opinion, is incorrect.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Incognitus,

If by having genuine monastics as episcopal candidates you mean our Basilians and Redemptorists, then I am for bringing back married bishops!

Isn't that what Rome does to our Church when it appoints Basilians and Redemptorists as bishops for our Church?

Doesn't it "stick it" to us by saying, "Well, your Church has a tradition of having monastic bishops and so . . ."

Rome is pulling the (monastic) hoods over our eyes . . .

Alex

Dear Marshall,

If any celibate cleric is too quick to congratulate himself on living outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony, he should wait . . .

I know of no better ascetical exercise than to live under obedience to a wife.

Most celibates would probably prove themselves to be wimps if they had to follow this way of spiritual struggle, inner humiliation and constant dying to self . . .

Alex

Dear Alex, +May HE bless you! I agree completely! I'm fortunate to have another monk here with me who is sick...so consequently I've have become accustomed to waiting on him hand and foot---and now he tells me what to do...so I understand competely what you're saying. It's only difficult for the first 10-15 years or so...after that it's gotten much easier (for me at least). LOL I'm thankful though...because without this, I'd be able to do whatever I want and there would be ZERO spiritual growth. At least when a person lives with another, he/she is forced to undergo this constant dying to self. God is soooooooooooooooooooooooo good!

In His love,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Father, bless!

Yes indeed!

God sends us people to teach us the value of obedience and humility through suffering.

I sometimes think God sent me here to add to the Administrator's woes and so bring him into an even greater fullness of spiritual development and sanctity through having to put up with me!

Kissing your right hand, I again ask for your blessing,

Alex

Dear Alex,

Rest assured that many of us thank the Lord every day for what you've done to deepen our sufferings.

With love in Christ,
Andrew