Celibate Bishops

[Myrrh]

Canons from the 5th & 6th Council:

Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa
and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those
parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration,
thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it
is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock
placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that
henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this,
not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by
Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and
their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state
should suffer any reproach...But if any shall have been observed to do
such a thing, let him be deposed.

Canon XLVII:The wife of him who is advanced to hierarchical dignity,
shall be seperated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after
his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a
monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and
there let her enjoy the bishop's provision. And if she is deemed worthy
she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.

But, from the same list of canons and immediately following Canon XII posted above:

Canon XIII.

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.

So, it says "anyone in holy orders", and I've read presbyter is synonymous with bishop in the early Church and in the Greek NT.

And reminds that what God has joined let no man put asunder, etc. - so if this canon applies to presbyters etc. the reasoning behind it shows wisdom which the previous canon lacks if it is to applied to all bishops(because it upset some people that were used to pagan practices of unmarried priests) this applies as much to bishops whether they are included or not in the "holy orders" and "presbyters".

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-136.htm

[Myrrh]

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/celibacy.html

"In the Greek Church, the requirement of celibacy on the part of the entire clergy was never insisted upon. The synod of Gangra (in Paphlagonia), in the latter part of the fourth century, declared it a proper ground for excommunication, if any one should refuse to share in divine service when a married priest was ministering at the altar. Even bishops at this period occasionally lived in married relations after consecration. Such was the case with the father of Gregory Nazianzen, who had children born in his family after assuming the episcopal office, one of them being the distinguished theologian himself. Socrates states that in his time abstinence from marriage was a matter of choice among the clergy of the East, there being no binding law upon the subject. [Hist. Eccl., v. 22.] "It was gradually," says one of the most learned, as well as most candid, of Roman-Catholic writers, "that in the Greek Church it became the practice to require the bishops and all the higher clergy to abstain from married life. The apostolic canons know nothing of such a requirement. They speak, on the contrary, of married bishops; and church history also gives examples of the same, such as Synesius in the fifth century." [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ї 43.] In the case of Synesius, the privilege of retaining his wife was made by him a positive condition of accepting the episcopal office. The Greek Church, however, came finally to insist upon celibate bishops. "

The first council to rule against marriage, and for ALL clergy, was the Council of Elvira - this is not a council recognised by the Orthodox. An attempt was made to introduce this Latin practice at Nicaea and so on. Gradually it took hold in the Orthodox East.

Whatever you think of it, it is a practice that has been imposed on the Church and is contrary to the established practice of the Church of having married bishops.

I think the canons against married bishops are un-Orthodox. I also think their wording ugly. Finding Canon XII was like taking a step back into sanity...

Myrrh

[尼古拉前执事]

No, the bishop is clearly defined before, as a totally different rank.

Are you saying you do not accept the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils is you are calling those canons unorthodox?

[Myrrh]

No, the bishop is clearly defined before, as a totally different rank.

Are you saying you do not accept the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils is you are calling those canons unorthodox?

First off, the Church is not ruled by canons, it is not a secular organisation of people with laws to define that organisation, the Church is the Body of Christ and canons generally are seen by Orthodox as responses to events of that particular time and place which can inform future responses. But I think this is actually a cop out and a case of burying one's head in the sand, it glosses over such canons like these in the history of celibacy that rule against something in Holy Tradition.

Actually, first off should have been that canons aren't laws they are rules, measures. But, back to cop out, a canon which rules against married bishops is contrary to the understanding of the early Church and if it has any relevance to a particular situation it doesn't supercede or change previous rules whether or not actually stated in some canon, what is in Holy Tradition is the measure by which future rules have to be made.

In Holy Tradition we know that married bishops were normal in the life of the Church - to forbid this is heretical, as in heresy being a different choice - against the defining rule of Holy Tradition.

The cop out is that they're not examined within historical context which needs to be done to understand why they came into being, for some instead there's this idea of "organic growth" about them, that the latest rule should be the one adhered to. But organic growth can be cancerous and in effect the same argument for "development of doctrine" which the RCC puts forward as its reason for changing Holy Tradition.

So it's not about accepting or not the 5/6th, which are accepted by the Orthodox, but about examining them.

I think it is interesting wording of the XII, it includes bishops. Was this put in, slipped in, by bishops who were determined to keep some record of Holy Tradition against those trying to force all clergy into celibacy? This canon exudes love and healing and is the same tradition as the canons on this in the Apostolic Canons:

Canon V. (VI.)

Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed

CANON LI
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly.

Myrrh

[AndyHolland]

I certainly agree the canons should be evaluated for their applicability in a sensible way. There used to be a time when staying at a tavern would be excommunication. The reason being they were houses of ill-repute when the canon was written.

But the law of the land today is such that most hotels are no longer centers of gambling and prostitution - so obviously if they have a bar downstairs and serve alcoholic beverages, can we be excommunicated for that?

In the same vein however, where there are plenty of monastaries, there is probably no harm in selecting monastic Bishops who are celibate for the grace of Bishop, and if that is reflected in the canon - against, it is to be applied by sensible people - christians - not lawyers.

andy holland
sinner

[尼古拉前执事]

Myrhh, your last canon simply means they cannot abhor marriage. Since an Ecumenical Council made the pastoral decision that from then on that all bishops should no longer be cohabitating; if they were married, jointly they must decide that they will separate and she will become a monastic; then this is how it should be from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Counil forward.

[Myrrh]

I see the last canon as a strong reminder explaining why the first of these canons was put in place. This was to confirm the holiness of marriage and the male and female creation in the image and likeness of God. Perhaps we should look at what those who were promoting celibacy were saying about creation and marriage and women.... It's not a pretty sight.

Requiring celibacy of ALL clergy is how this first came into the Church as a canon, in the council of Elvira. This council was not recognised by the rest of the Church in the East because of this celibacy requirement which goes completely against Holy Tradition where both married and celibate could be bishops, presbyters and deacons.

The Orthodox Church in the East continued to resist this for bishops for several centuries more, but this original canon is still in force, the East sort of slid into celibacy for bishops when monasticism had become a force in its own right and bishops were chosen from them, and we have completely resisted making a celibacy a requirement for presbyters and deacons. But, the fact remains, that any canon propounding a celibacy rule for bishops or other is against Holy Tradition. That's simply a gospel and historical fact. It cannot be called Orthodox.

Canon V. (VI.)

Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed

That is the pretence of religion that later took hold and created the canon that breaks up the marriage, putting away the wife - this is forcing divorce against Gospel teaching and dignity.

Myrrh