Celibate Bishops

[AndyHolland]

That is putting ourselves as better and above the Church Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. In the Apostolic times there were not monasteries of monks, but once this was developed, the Church saw fit that the bishops should be selected from the celebate clergy.

Oh please, no. We're baptised to be rational sheep. The Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils are not in authority over us. Christ specifically ruled against this kind of organisation in His Church. That's the thinking behind the papal supremacy claims.
...

Myrrh

I think what you have written goes too far.

"It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in fact Orthodox, it is what is behind the canons and is clearly spoken of in Acts during the counsel of Jerusalem that called for baptism of gentiles without circumcision.

The Ecumenical counsels are based on "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us."

However, the word "seems" is huge - just as the universe is huge.

However, Papal authority is based on nothing biblical or traditional or rational - St. Peter was clearly the most fallible of all the disciples before and AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit, and was publically written down by St. Paul to his face about hypocracy in his dining habits, and look at every passage of St. Peter - his beauty is his fallibility! So Papal authority as currently practiced is clearly contrary to the Gospels, Epistles, Holy Tradition and the example of St. Peter etc.... while "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in perfect accord with Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

However, "seems" means we shouldn't apply the canon like a bunch of lawyers, but like rational sheep because the principals upon which they are based are indeed universal. So while we can stay at a tavern with a hotel bar - we clearly don't troll the bars; however, there are saints who did just that, paying for Prostitutes to pray with them - so we are indeed rational sheep!

andy holland
sinner

[Myrrh]

That is putting ourselves as better and above the Church Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. In the Apostolic times there were not monasteries of monks, but once this was developed, the Church saw fit that the bishops should be selected from the celebate clergy.

Oh please, no. We're baptised to be rational sheep. The Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils are not in authority over us. Christ specifically ruled against this kind of organisation in His Church. That's the thinking behind the papal supremacy claims.

...

Myrrh[/quote]
I think what you have written goes too far.

"It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in fact Orthodox, it is what is behind the canons and is clearly spoken of in Acts during the counsel of Jerusalem that called for baptism of gentiles without circumcision.

The Ecumenical counsels are based on "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us."

However, the word "seems" is huge - just as the universe is huge.[/quote]

No I haven't gone too far. Orthodox teaching has never been of authority over the flock, this is what conciliarity is - not it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us the bishops, but it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us the Church.

That's how we come to reject false teachings regardless of how many bishops thought it was good to them or how great the gathering of them. When St Maximos was told that all the patriarchates including Rome agree with their heresy in Constantinople and were going to commune together he said even if the whole universe communes with you I won't. (http://www.antiochian.org/saint_maximos)

Orthodox basics are that we are baptised to be rational sheep of the flock of Christ and Christ ruled that in this fold there should be no authority as the Gentile lords have it, authority over others. "It shall not be so among you". Orthodoxy is the dignity of the individual created in the image and likeness of Christ. To turn the other cheek doesn't mean abject submission, it means turning the face so that it can't be given a backhand slap from a superior to an inferior and creating a climate of "pious guilt" for daring to contradict views of any gathering of a bunch of bishops is unfaithful to the Orthodox Mind.

I'm sorry, but this is such an important point. "putting ourselves above the ecumenical councils and Church fathers" is exactly what the Church does, all the people have a right and duty to keep Orthodoxy on track, we are all equally baptised and chrismated with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Authority over the Church, the separation of clergy from laity, and so on is a path veering off to the nth degree from Christ's teaching. The papal claims and demands that the RCC flock should submit intellect and will to any and all of the teachings of the Popes and magesterium, the infallible teaching authority, is control gone mad.

However, Papal authority is based on nothing biblical or traditional or rational - St. Peter was clearly the most fallible of all the disciples before and AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit, and was publically written down by St. Paul to his face about hypocracy in his dining habits, and look at every passage of St. Peter - his beauty is his fallibility! So Papal authority as currently practiced is clearly contrary to the Gospels, Epistles, Holy Tradition and the example of St. Peter etc.... while "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in perfect accord with Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

And do you really think it seemed right to the Holy Spirit to force a divorce on any priest who was married? To put away the wife as if she was an impediment to serving God who created this relationship good? What God has joined together let no man put asunder, why would the Holy Spirit contradict Christ?

However, "seems" means we shouldn't apply the canon like a bunch of lawyers, but like rational sheep because the principals upon which they are based are indeed universal. So while we can stay at a tavern with a hotel bar - we clearly don't troll the bars; however, there are saints who did just that, paying for Prostitutes to pray with them - so we are indeed rational sheep!

andy holland
sinner

I can well believe that great thought and prayer was given to discussion of certain things at the councils, such as the Arian heresy, but from the results of some of the thinking which created the canons I'd be loth to give such blanket approval in lieu of rational examination. We do need to look at these without putting them on a pedestal. The Church fought long and hard to keep married clergy. We need to look at why and recognise the canons which were created which are still an offense to the Holy Sacrament of marriage.

Myrrh

[AndyHolland]

Oh please, no. We're baptised to be rational sheep. The Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils are not in authority over us. Christ specifically ruled against this kind of organisation in His Church. That's the thinking behind the papal supremacy claims.

...

Myrrh

I think what you have written goes too far.

"It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in fact Orthodox, it is what is behind the canons and is clearly spoken of in Acts during the counsel of Jerusalem that called for baptism of gentiles without circumcision.

The Ecumenical counsels are based on "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us."

However, the word "seems" is huge - just as the universe is huge.

No I haven't gone too far. Orthodox teaching has never been of authority over the flock, this is what conciliarity is - not it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us the bishops, but it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us the Church.

Yeh - I agree with that to the point of us. For me us is us - all of us - and that goes back before Adam and forward to eternity in Christ the Alpha and Omega, and Christ determines "us."

However, Orthodox teaching does have authority over the flock - otherwise the flock scatters. Us always included all of us.

That's how we come to reject false teachings regardless of how many bishops thought it was good to them or how great the gathering of them. When St Maximos was told that all the patriarchates including Rome agree with their heresy in Constantinople and were going to commune together he said even if the whole universe communes with you I won't. (http://www.antiochian.org/saint_maximos)

Orthodox basics are that we are baptised to be rational sheep of the flock of Christ and Christ ruled that in this fold there should be no authority as the Gentile lords have it, authority over others. "It shall not be so among you". Orthodoxy is the dignity of the individual created in the image and likeness of Christ. To turn the other cheek doesn't mean abject submission, it means turning the face so that it can't be given a backhand slap from a superior to an inferior and creating a climate of "pious guilt" for daring to contradict views of any gathering of a bunch of bishops is unfaithful to the Orthodox Mind.

I agree here also to allot of what you are saying, however, the counsels do express the Orthodox mind and "ALL" acknowledge the seven counsels as expressing the Orthodox mind. It does express the mind and we need to be cognizant and respectful of that.

The Ecumenical cousels were not a mere gathering of Bishops - the truth of those seven counsels was confirmed by "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" as confirmed in our joint history, by all of us in the generations that followed as reflecting the Orthodox mind. It is not for any one or any one generation to simply overthrow.

OTOH, it is not to be applied foolishly either by dead letter but rather by the Spirit of Truth, because man cannot express canonically in words the totality of Word that transforms the Universe.

I'm sorry, but this is such an important point. "putting ourselves above the ecumenical councils and Church fathers" is exactly what the Church does, all the people have a right and duty to keep Orthodoxy on track, we are all equally baptised and chrismated with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes and the expression may change, but the Spirit behind the canon remains. OTOH, it would be false to say the canon is not true and it would be false to presume oneself over those who composed the canon we all accepted and do accept, even in forms sometimes a little different.

Authority over the Church, the separation of clergy from laity, and so on is a path veering off to the nth degree from Christ's teaching. The papal claims and demands that the RCC flock should submit intellect and will to any and all of the teachings of the Popes and magesterium, the infallible teaching authority, is control gone mad.

Yes I agree.

However, Papal authority is based on nothing biblical or traditional or rational - St. Peter was clearly the most fallible of all the disciples before and AFTER the coming of the Holy Spirit, and was publically written down by St. Paul to his face about hypocracy in his dining habits, and look at every passage of St. Peter - his beauty is his fallibility! So Papal authority as currently practiced is clearly contrary to the Gospels, Epistles, Holy Tradition and the example of St. Peter etc.... while "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in perfect accord with Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture.

And do you really think it seemed right to the Holy Spirit to force a divorce on any priest who was married? To put away the wife as if she was an impediment to serving God who created this relationship good? What God has joined together let no man put asunder, why would the Holy Spirit contradict Christ?

No certainly not and never believed divorce was good.

According to Orthodox tradition, there is no force - the husband and wife choose to live separate (that is not divorce) in order to fully serve God, as did the husband and wife at the marriage at Canaan.
That is not divorce, that is confirming their union with God together in service and this raises their marriage to another level.

Consider for example, St. John Kronstadt. However, that is certainly not for everyone!

However, "seems" means we shouldn't apply the canon like a bunch of lawyers, but like rational sheep because the principals upon which they are based are indeed universal. So while we can stay at a tavern with a hotel bar - we clearly don't troll the bars; however, there are saints who did just that, paying for Prostitutes to pray with them - so we are indeed rational sheep!

andy holland
sinner

I can well believe that great thought and prayer was given to discussion of certain things at the councils, such as the Arian heresy, but from the results of some of the thinking which created the canons I'd be loth to give such blanket approval in lieu of rational examination. We do need to look at these without putting them on a pedestal. The Church fought long and hard to keep married clergy. We need to look at why and recognise the canons which were created which are still an offense to the Holy Sacrament of marriage.

Myrrh

Rational examination has limits - and the limit is one of Humility.

A rational person realizes that he or she or even a group or generation are not entitled to take on to themselves to become the sole universal adjudicator of truth - even for thier own generation - that is Babylon. We need the Holy Spirit, and we need the fathers to discern the presence of the Holy Spirit.

We cannot abandon what our fathers have taught us, though we may express it in different times and different ways in different languages - and language and symbol are more than gutteral utterance, they embody a fullness of understanding.

We need to share that understanding with each other. However, what the fathers expressed in those Ecumenical counsels is true for all ages - we need to find that true expression in our times.

That is not a process of abandoning the canon, nor is it a process of accepting a legalistic literal translation. We need the Holy Spirit to guide us through the "seems" of every generation. However, we desperately need the fathers to guide us through the "seems" and we need to be humble, and lower ourselves and see how we miss the mark first and foremost. Otherwise, we become rebellious and rebellion is truly wicked.

andy holland
sinner

[Myrrh]

I think what you have written goes too far.

"It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in fact Orthodox, it is what is behind the canons and is clearly spoken of in Acts during the counsel of Jerusalem that called for baptism of gentiles without circumcision.

Yes, of course that's Orthodox. St James' explanation shows great consideration and consensus, truly believing that "it was good to the Holy Spirit and to us", BUT how can such a canon which was created because some people thought married bishops scandalous and insisted they divorce their wives be thought "good to the Holy Spirit"? What do you think the married Apostles and married bishops in the early Church in Jerusalem would have thought of it? Do you really think this canon was inspired by truth of the Holy Spirit?

I agree here also to allot of what you are saying, however, the counsels do express the Orthodox mind and "ALL" acknowledge the seven counsels as expressing the Orthodox mind. It does express the mind and we need to be cognizant and respectful of that.

Actually, nine Councils.

and:

The Ecumenical cousels were not a mere gathering of Bishops - the truth of those seven counsels was confirmed by "what seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" as confirmed in our joint history, by all of us in the generations that followed as reflecting the Orthodox mind. It is not for any one or any one generation to simply overthrow.

Excuse me, but these canons were imposed on the Church, where is the conciliarity of discussion of "All the Church" here? When the bishops came back from Florence the "All the Church" were disgusted that they'd sold out, except for St Mark of Ephesus, they knew the arguments. How many members of the Church know the canons? If they'd been given these we've posted here, which do you really think they would have chosen?

The ones that are an insult to God's creation and a tyrannical order that the married bishops should divorce or would they have agreed with the bishops who wrote the canons which analysed such behaviour as being a "pretence of religion" and if coming from an "abhorrence" of marriage a blasphemy against God's good creation of the sexes and the use they put this to...?

OTOH, it is not to be applied foolishly either by dead letter but rather by the Spirit of Truth, because man cannot express canonically in words the totality of Word that transforms the Universe.

It should never have been enforced! It's a heresy.

Yes and the expression may change, but the Spirit behind the canon remains. OTOH, it would be false to say the canon is not true and it would be false to presume oneself over those who composed the canon we all accepted and do accept, even in forms sometimes a little different.

These canons contradict what appears to me sane and rational bishops who ruled against forced celibacy and ruled against, to the point of being thrown out of the Apostolic Church, those bishops who put away their wives.

These canons are still in force. They aren't obliterated just because some other bunch of bishops decided to rule otherwise.

According to Orthodox tradition, there is no force - the husband and wife choose to live separate (that is not divorce) in order to fully serve God, as did the husband and wife at the marriage at Canaan.
That is not divorce, that is confirming their union with God together in service and this raises their marriage to another level.

Being forced to put away your wife is divorce. The canon Deacon posted makes it clear that because the people were scandalised the bishops had to put away their wives. And in the old photos of Alexey discussion it mentions that he was married and had to divorce his wife to be a bishop.

"Put away" = "divorce". They are no longer to live as husband and wife in which they were joined in a HOLY SACRAMENT!

Sorry, for the caps But I find it astonishing that this is so glibly ignored, as if the excuse "mutually agreed" covers it...

quote]
Rational examination has limits - and the limit is one of Humility.

A rational person realizes that he or she or even a group or generation are not entitled to take on to themselves to become the sole universal adjudicator of truth - even for thier own generation - that is Babylon. We need the Holy Spirit, and we need the fathers to discern the presence of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

Andy, this appears to me to be more RC thinking, not Orthodox. We are each baptised with the Gift of the Holy Spirit and encouraged to acquire the Holy Spirit for ourselves so that we continue as a Church to maintain Apostolic Teaching, not the teaching of any bunch of bishops or magisterium or pope of the day, who have taken all this into their own prerogative by judicious writing of canons.... These canons against married bishops are clearly against Holy Apostolic Teaching. We managed to stop the rot at bishops, is all...

We cannot abandon what our fathers have taught us, though we may express it in different times and different ways in different languages - and language and symbol are more than gutteral utterance, they embody a fullness of understanding.

But we have abandoned it for bishops. The canons I posted are still "valid" and say that anyone who blasphemes against God's creation in this way should be thrown out of the Church.

That is not a process of abandoning the canon, nor is it a process of accepting a legalistic literal translation. We need the Holy Spirit to guide us through the "seems" of every generation. However, we desperately need the fathers to guide us through the "seems" and we need to be humble, and lower ourselves and see how we miss the mark first and foremost. Otherwise, we become rebellious and rebellion is truly wicked.

andy holland
sinner

I still feel a very much western idea of authority here, Orthodox are always rebels if they have a cause....

Think St Maximos - a hero put forward by the Orthodox as an example of the perfect rebel - even if it meant not communing with all the patriarchates (he was told Rome was also in agreement), he would not because it went against Holy Tradition as handed down. This enforced celibacy of clergy in the West and enforced on bishops in the East, is against the traditions as handed down by word and epistle. Who do you think the Holy Spirit agrees with, those blaspheming against the tradition of married clergy or those who in a later century managed to get enough clout to enforce their particular notions onto the Church?

Myrrh

[AndyHolland]

I think what you have written goes too far.

"It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us" is in fact Orthodox, it is what is behind the canons and is clearly spoken of in Acts during the counsel of Jerusalem that called for baptism of gentiles without circumcision.

Yes, of course that's Orthodox. St James' explanation shows great consideration and consensus, truly believing that "it was good to the Holy Spirit and to us", BUT how can such a canon which was created because some people thought married bishops scandalous and insisted they divorce their wives be thought "good to the Holy Spirit"? What do you think the married Apostles and married bishops in the early Church in Jerusalem would have thought of it? Do you really think this canon was inspired by truth of the Holy Spirit?

Sure - seems. It was and is an appropriate teaching. Don't mischaracterize a couple's joint decision to serve the Lord by abstaining. St. John Kronstadt's marriage is a case in point. It may very well be the case the Holy Tradition was that couples abstained once the man became a Bishop so there is no inconsistency with ancient tradition.

Also, as there were/are far more Priests - and that office was added after the book of Acts, it is a very sensible and consistent policy to insist on celibacy for Bishops.

Divorce is not insisted upon - in fact it is forbidden according to the canon. There is a difference between voluntary separation, abstinance, celibacy and divorce which is hated by God.

I agree here also to allot of what you are saying, however, the counsels do express the Orthodox mind and "ALL" acknowledge the seven counsels as expressing the Orthodox mind. It does express the mind and we need to be cognizant and respectful of that.

Actually, nine Councils.

No there are 7 ecumenical councils acknowledged by ALL. The other two coucils were synods of Bishops and were not universal because the Church was/is split.

Furthermore, if one applied the latter two synods universally (ALL in time and space), you'd be excommunicating St. John the Theologian as well as Pope St. Gregory and Pope St. Leo! - So ALL acknowledge the seven coucils is true.

That is why I am in WO to be blunt. We truly believe "Love conquers ALL."

andy holland
sinner

[Myrrh]

Sure - seems. It was and is an appropriate teaching. Don't mischaracterize a couple's joint decision to serve the Lord by abstaining. St. John Kronstadt's marriage is a case in point. It may very well be the case the Holy Tradition was that couples abstained once the man became a Bishop so there is no inconsistency with ancient tradition.

Andy, please, re-read the first canon posted - these people had married bishops and the "the people" complained and another bunch of bishops agreed with them that it was scandalous. SCANDALOUS! What's so scandalous about having married clergy? They thought it so scandalous that they insisted that the bishops divorce - I'm obviously not explaining this very well, but if the bishops who wrote the canons against this type of behaviour in Church saw it as a false sense of spirituality then I agree with them.

Also, as there were/are far more Priests - and that office was added after the book of Acts, it is a very sensible and consistent policy to insist on celibacy for Bishops.

It is not in the Church's right for a bishop to insist on anything! Christ ruled against a hierarchical Church which acted, even for the most benevolent of motives, to control people's lives by what they thought was right.

Orthodox means right thinking, and I see the above conflict of those who think celibacy as a more spiritual state for a bishop, or find some other excuse as you've just done, as wrong thinking. But if we can't understand Christ here we're not thinking at all as an Orthodox. This is your basic, bog standard Orthodox ecclesiology. That's why we have "sobornost", consciliarity, and so on, not hierarchy. Whenever hierarchy take authority over members of the Church or each other they have left Orthodoxy. It's a fine line.

It was and is an appropriate teaching. Don't mischaracterize a couple's joint decision to serve the Lord by abstaining. St. John Kronstadt's marriage is a case in point. It may very well be the case the Holy Tradition was that couples abstained once the man became a Bishop so there is no inconsistency with ancient tradition.

That's completely different from someone forcing married bishops to leave their wives and degrade the marriage sacrament by insisting on this for whatever reason they consider a bishop should be unmarried, but it is a sad reflection on our Church for insisting that only those unmarried can become bishops. It's a heresy against the Church. Against Holy Tradition which you appear not to be taking into account in this discussion.

Divorce is not insisted upon - in fact it is forbidden according to the canon. There is a difference between voluntary separation, abstinance, celibacy and divorce which is hated by God.

Yes it is insisted upon. The canon says so. And Patriarch Alexy had to divorce his wife when he was offered the job of bishop so it's still being enacted.

No there are 7 ecumenical councils acknowledged by ALL. The other two coucils were synods of Bishops and were not universal because the Church was/is split.

Not so. There's no doubt about it, there were nine Ecumenical Councils. I've just been discussing this so have been immersed in the argument.

The Church has stated that the council of 879 is the 8th Ecumenical Council.

Certainly up until 1848, when the patriarchates who took part in the original 8th mention it as the 8th in their Encyclical in response to Rome's claims. In 1848 there was no dispute about this from the Orthodox Patriarchates which were there at the time, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem mention it casually as a well known fact. It was official in 879 and it continues to be officially the Orthodox 8th Ecumenical Council.

Up until 100 years or so ago EVERYONE knew that this is where the RCC and the Orthodox parted company, the argument at the Schism was about WHICH 8th was Ecumenical, not "was there an 8th?". The Eighth council didn't happen after the split, but before.

Ecumenical Councils are by definition Imperial, of the ecumene of the Roman Empire. They were all called officially by an Emperor/Empress beginning with Constantine who wanted a unified theory of Christianity for his Empire. There can be no more "Ecumenical Councils", there can be Councils which are ecumenical.

"...Nine Roman Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were convened by the Roman Emperor, beginning with Constantine the Great, in coordination with the Roman Patriarchates of Elder Rome, New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and finally Jerusalem by 451. These Councils are (1) Nicea 325, (2) Constantinople 381, (3) Ephesus 431, (4) Chalcedon 451, (5) Constantinople 553, (6) Constantinople 680, (7) Nicea 786/7, ( Constantinople 879 and (9) Constantinople 1341. We have here Eight Ecumenical Councils which were promulgated as Roman Law by the signature of the Emperor after their minutes had been signed by the Five Roman Patriarchates and their Metropolitans. and bishops. Then we have the Ninth Ecumenical Council of 1341, whose minutes were signed by only Four Roman Patriarchates and countersigned by the Roman Emperor." Romanides

Furthermore, if one applied the latter two synods universally (ALL in time and space), you'd be excommunicating St. John the Theologian as well as Pope St. Gregory and Pope St. Leo! - So ALL acknowledge the seven coucils is true.

Why St John the Theologian? As for Leo and Gregory, they excommunicated themselves by breaking Christ's Canon. Leo is called by some "the master builder of papacy" and Gregory continued the change to the Church's ecclesiology by assuming authority over other bishops and sought to extend the territory of his control into Gaul and Britain.

He is the one who sent Augustine (of Canterbury) to Britain and told him in a letter to count the bishops already there as of no account, not even Christian. Britain had bishops at the Council of Nicaea when Rome had none and so on, and of course the whole history of Rome was connected to the British Church established by St Joseph of Arimathea Apostle to Britain; for example Linus the son of Caradoc was first bishop in Rome.

Anyway, these two are very much the precursors of the un-Orthodox ecclesiology which grew in the West and resulted in the present state of arrogance of its bishop of rome calling himself the head of the universal Church with supreme unhindered power over it, in place of Christ who they say is absent.... The 8th Ecumenical Council dealt with this problem. Pope Nicholas began the confrontation earlier by claiming authority over the Church and Photios and the Church objected.

That is why I am in WO to be blunt. We truly believe "Love conquers ALL."

andy holland
sinner

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." Cyprian of Carthage

Is Orthodox Ecclesiology, and if the Bishops remember Christ's Canon then love has space to flourish...

Myrrh

[Ebor]

According to Orthodox tradition, there is no force - the husband and wife choose to live separate (that is not divorce) in order to fully serve God, as did the husband and wife at the marriage at Canaan.

Please forgive my coming in here, but this portion intrigued me. Are you referring to the couple who were married at Cana where Our Lord performed his first miracle of changing water into wine? If so, you say that there is a tradition that the couple did not live together as husband and wife?

Could you please give a source for that? Thank you.

Ebor