Celibate Bishops

[Myrrh]

Dear Myrhh,

It is not a personal attack on you to ask what synod you are under, as I am wondering if your church teaches what you are arguing, that canons of the 5th & 6th Ecumenical Councils are not Orthodox, that the bishops do not have the God-grated power to loose and bind on earth and heaven, that the Church was not allowed to create restriction in its own offices once monasticism was firmly entrenched as a foundation in the Church.

Dear Deacon Nicholai,

This discussion has arisen from a question asked by Occidentalis which raises important points about the "Orthodoxy" we sometimes take for granted and I answered in my own personal capacity and not as a representative of any Orthodox Church or any jurisdiction. As far as I'm concerned, all I'm doing is explaining why I said what I did.

I stand by the answer I first gave and this discussion has continued because there are dissenting views to this, the first of which you presented as being officially of the 5/6th. I'm not disputing they are canons of the Orthodox Church, I'm arguing that they are against Holy Tradition and in that they are not "Orthodox". The canons are not laws which we have to obey. The Church is not "under" the canons any more than it is "under" a bishop, or a synod of bishops, or a pope. They are useful, as is Scripture, for learning.

No one should be ashamed of their church and when asked, should never be weary of naming it, if they are a member of that church as a memeber of conviction. I have never understood people who would not admit their affiliation. It does not personally identify you, but does identify your convictions of faith.

I'm not ashamed of naming it, I have chosen not to because I see that it becomes a distraction in such discussions as it's getting to be here. I got thoroughly sick and tired of reading and participating in interesting discussions that degenerated into jurisdictional cyberfights with ad hominem responses replacing learning about what others know and think. Personally, I think the whole system of Orthodox organisation needs a thorough overhaul. I think the last council the Russian Church has to its credit is the 1917/18 Council of the Church with Patriarch Tikhon - which appreciated the difference between "sobornost" and being "under a synod". But our history is full of people assuming control over the Church and we have to accept as a fact that the door to freedom opened for a moment after centuries of control by the Tsar was again closed by a different Caesar, but we don't owe either of them anything of God's. What we'd do with the freedom if we ever got it back again I can't imagine. But websites such as yours here is the closest we have to that, where we can come together "in council", even if we don't come to any conclusions or continue to disagree with each other, at least we can find out what other Orthodox think.

So to your opening sentence, I do feel it as a personal attack when asked "which synod" I'm under, because it's not an Orthodox concept, but to go some way to assuaging your curiosity about me, my Church is one of the many in the last century which the EP got its grip on...

Now can we go back to arguing about what's Orthodox doctrine and what isn't?

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

Dear Myrhh,

..that the bishops do not have the God-grated power to loose and bind on earth and heaven,

Matthew 18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This idea that only the bishop has the power to bind and loose doesn't make any sense in the above if you're going with the idea that this is an authority given to bishops only.

The problem with the direction Russian Orthodoxy took with Peter the Great's interference is particularly noticed in the addition of Peter Moghila's absolution formula which he got from the Roman Catholics, it was introduced into the Slavonic in the 18th century.

It is a Western idea that the priest represents Christ, Orthodox is that the priest is an ikon of Christ, because, for the RCC Christ is absent.

We do not confess to a priest as do the RC, we confess to God and the addition of the Latin absolution from the priest is totally out of place in our theology of confession, it makes nonsense of it. It doesn't exist in the Greek Church.

The unfortunate collorary of using it is that is confuses the priest who now assumes that he somehow has been given the power to absolve sins as if Christ our God is absent. I posted something on this recently, I'll have a look for it.

that the Church was not allowed to create restriction in its own offices once monasticism was firmly entrenched as a foundation in the Church.

That's a contradiction, there's always been virgin, male and female, and monasticism to some degree or other - Paul went into the desert for three years. That this expanded isn't the problem, the problem is that it wasn't the Church which decided this, but bishops only and bishops do not have any authority in their own right, they exist to continue Holy Tradition and when they make a rule against Holy Tradition they are teaching heresy.

The bishops who ruled that bishops should not leave their wives were ruling according to Holy Tradition, Christ gave adultery as the only reason for divorce.

To circumvent this by the monastics getting greater control over the Church and choosing bishops only from among themselves is not a justification of it as Holy Tradition. It deliberately and knowingly circumvents what it recognises as true doctrine, the canons I posted from the Apostolic Canons, by the pretence that it is now entrenched tradtion/discipline, but since at the same time the monastic takeover forbids married men becoming bishops it is also dishonest. It's a heresy however it arrived in the Church and does not overrule Holy Tradition.

Now, in enforcing this dishonestly by insisting that only the unmarried can become bishops is also against Christ's first rule for the Church - "It shall not be so among you". Bishops do not have authority over the Church in Orthodoxy.

An error established by long practice is still an error.

A bishop can be married or unmarried, it makes no difference.

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

By chance I noticed this post elsewhere and I've filched it (I have informed the writer, a ROCOR priest)

The Early Church did not impose celibacy. The Apostles, by and large, were married and expected to take their wives with them on their missionary journeys as the Book of Acts reports.
"Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Peter?" (1 Corinthians 9:5)
The successors of the Apostles, the bishops, from what we can glean from various writings, were usually married men.

People like Saint Jerome (5th century) speak of priests being married as something normal.

Since we know that the other Apostles took their wives around with them, Saint Paul's recommendation about celibacy and a greater freedom to preach the Gospel was obviously not seen as the norm by the Apostles, and not by Saint Peter and his wife.

It seems that Saint Paul's advice was received with discretion.

[Myrrh]

p.s. he's a hieromonk.

[AndyHolland]

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.
....
Myrrh

St. Photius who was restored by the 8th counsel recognized 7 as Ecumenical.

It is fair to say there are 9 and it is fair to say ALL acknowledge 7. Certainly St. Photius is part of ALL.

andy holland
sinner

[Myrrh]

Dear Myrhh,

..that the bishops do not have the God-grated power to loose and bind on earth and heaven,

Matthew 18
15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This idea that only the bishop has the power to bind and loose doesn't make any sense in the above if you're going with the idea that this is an authority given to bishops only.

The problem with the direction Russian Orthodoxy took with Peter the Great's interference is particularly noticed in the addition of Peter Moghila's absolution formula which he got from the Roman Catholics, it was introduced into the Slavonic in the 18th century.

It is a Western idea that the priest represents Christ, Orthodox is that the priest is an ikon of Christ, because, for the RCC Christ is absent.

We do not confess to a priest as do the RC, we confess to God and the addition of the Latin absolution from the priest is totally out of place in our theology of confession, it makes nonsense of it. It doesn't exist in the Greek Church.

The unfortunate collorary of using it is that is confuses the priest who now assumes that he somehow has been given the power to absolve sins as if Christ our God is absent. I posted something on this recently, I'll have a look for it.

Myrrh

This was an exchange with a ROCOR priest on the Moghila addition, which research showed that it introduces a subtle and profound difference to Orthodox confession:

In the Slavic ritual a Latin-inspired and juridical form of personal absolution was introduced by Peter Mogila, metropolitan of Kiev (17th century).

RP: "The difference lies in the prayers of absolution said by the priest/confessor over the repentant person. In the Russian
tradition the final prayer contains the statement, "and I an
unworthy priest through the power given me do forgive and absolve
the servant of God..." To some people this formula is too Catholic
in that it implies that the priest is doing the forgiving instead of
God - but that would completely ignore the phrase, "through the
power given me" which makes it clear that the priest is only acting
as the minister of the sacrament of forgiveness - not its source."

Doesn't make it clear at all, the immediate source is the difference
between Orthodox and Latin form of absolution and in the Latin use
the immediate source is the priest which is what these words "Power
given me" say, the personal power of that priest. And in the Latin
church there are particular concepts attached to this.

For a start this page gives a general idea of the differences;
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Confession

It says of the RCC:

"Catholics believe that no priest, as an individual man, however
pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to
God alone; however, God can and does exercise it through the
Catholic priesthood. Catholics believe God exercises the power of
forgiveness by means of the sacrament of reconciliation.

The basic form of confession has not changed for centuries, although
at one time confessions were made publicly. Colloquially speaking,
the role of the priest is of a judge and jury; in theological terms,
he acts in persona Christi and receives from the Church the power of
jurisdiction over the penitent. ......

Absolution in the Roman rite takes this form:

God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his
Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit
among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the
Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from
your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.

The essential words, however, are "I absolve you.""

It says of the Orthodox:

"The Eastern Orthodox sacrament of confession, or repentance,
includes prayer to God and confessing ones sins to God, typically in
the presence of an icon of Jesus Christ and also with a priest
nearby to bear witness. The priest will typically add his own
prayers, may add counsel or assign some form of penance, and will
usually announce God's forgiveness of sins. In Orthodox
ecclesiology, the priest is not an intermediary between God and the
penitent. The confession is to God in the presence of a priest, not
to a priest in the presence of God."

Utterly different from each other, the one based on the premise that
Christ is absent and the other that Christ is present. What does it
mean then when the Orthodox use the latin form? How does it affect
the users of this service?

Myrrh

...................

Deacon I think the questions in the last paragraph are important. What are your thoughts on this?

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

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.
....
Myrrh

St. Photius who was restored by the 8th counsel recognized 7 as Ecumenical.

It is fair to say there are 9 and it is fair to say ALL acknowledge 7. Certainly St. Photius is part of ALL.

andy holland
sinner

Andy, one of the arguments from those saying there are not 9 is this specific reference to "being the Church of 7 Councils", but it's not an argument that can be used to say there are not 9 - and expecially not 8, which is where all the emphasis is coming from at the moment, from those that talk about there being a future 8th Council as if we stopped at 7.

This emphasis to deny the 8th appears to be tied in particularly with the Athenagoras/Paul VI agreement - but meanwhile the RCC doesn't deny that there is an 8th Ecumenical and their 8th condemned by our 8th (which included their Pope John VIII, was reverted to at the Schism - their condemnation of St Photios still stands and they have rejected the filioque condemnation of our 8th and its rejection of papal primacy.

This is such an important doctrinal issue that I simply don't understand why any Orthodox deny the Orthodox/John VIII 8th Ecumenical. Besides finding it horribly complicated to explain, it scares me..

But coming back to the 7th. At the time of the 8th the iconoclasts were still arguing for their position, this is why it was decided at the 8th to stress that we were the Church of the 7 Councils, not, not the Church of the 8, but not the Church of the 6.

And this argument continued for some centuries on - in the 1600's Cromwell was the iconclast in England. He and his destroyed the iconography of the churches in England, the frescoes were painted over, the beautiful stained glass windows broken and so on. It was a horrible time in England with this madman in charge, a lot of bloodshed. And then he took this into Ireland.

But, from memory, not only the St Photios led endorsement of the 7th at our 8th - all the councils involving Photios confirmed the 7th Council, including the 561 which Pope Nicholas insisted be held in Constantinople to depose Photios, but which found for him.

So, the 7th for centuries and centuries has been used to define the Church against the iconoclasts, this has nothing to do with us not being the 8th.

The 8th Council defines the Church as "orthodox".

I'll have a look through my notes and if you're interested please add what you can find, perhaps we can compile a table or list of sorts showing what was decided when and because of why.

Myrrh