Myrrh wrote: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.
Just one "to the point" question here. So are you then saying that you do not recognize the 5th & 6th Ecuemnical Councils to be Orthodox?
AndyHolland wrote: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?
I've been thinking about this, isn't it still showing a rather unhealthy attitude about 'purity', seems more Protestant purtitanical than healthy Orthodox - poor ol' Christ - He would have been excommunicated from his own Body!
The others that would have applied to Him are those against the Jews, and there are several. What about the one that forbids calling a Jewish physician?! 
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
I'm not arguing that celibates shouldn't become bishops, but that the thinking behind the canons forbidding married bishops (and in the West married clergy) are contrary to our Apostolic witness. In the skirmishes of the different views on this we've ended up with a mix of ideas - but we really should show some discrimination in deciding which are truly orthodox, right thinking, Christian and those which are contrived out of some phobia or other which simply makes nonsense of Christ's teaching.
Myrrh
Νικολάος Διάκ wrote:Myrrh wrote: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.
Just one "to the point" question here. So are you then saying that you do not recognize the 5th & 6th Ecuemnical Councils to be Orthodox?
They're canons of the Orthodox Church, but can all the canons be called Orthodox?
There's no idea in the Orthodox Church that all canons are "infallible". But I do think we have to sort out which are truly Orthodox and useful in organising the Church, as in right thinking, right worship, and those which have been rather imposed on us.
We need to start with the basics here which is that Christ's first rule for His Church, His fold, is that imposition of authority over the Church is forbidden - "it shall not be so among you".
We can rightly say that all canons demanding obedience are not Orthodox!
In Christ the Jewish Physician
Myrrh
Myrrh wrote:I'm not arguing that celibates shouldn't become bishops, but that the thinking behind the canons forbidding married bishops (and in the West married clergy) are contrary to our Apostolic witness. In the skirmishes of the different views on this we've ended up with a mix of ideas - but we really should show some discrimination in deciding which are truly orthodox, right thinking, Christian and those which are contrived out of some phobia or other which simply makes nonsense of Christ's teaching.
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.
Myrrh wrote:They're canons of the Orthodox Church, but can all the canons be called Orthodox?
I think that you are mistaken wrong, all the canons are Orthodox, simply that the canons referring to behaviors and administrative things should to be look in the context of their time.
For intance, like it was said by Father Nikolai, in the Apostolic time the monasticism didn't exist, for that reason the Apostolic Canons doesn't say any thing a the monks and even about the celibate men or women. Then following your reasoning, Would the monasticism and the celibacy would be not orthodox?
Νικολάος Διάκ wrote: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.
Of the canons posted which makes Christian sense? It's not simply a case of there were no monastics then, there were celibate, especially this was a time of freedom from ownership by father and husband for the women, in the Church they could elect to remain unmarried.
But, the Church has always had married and unmarried bishops - neither one is superior spiritually over the other. And this is one of the main reasons why some tried to enforce celibacy on the Church and made up all kinds of rules to that end, including forcing married bishops to separate from their wives. This is un-Christian. Have the Orthodox become that?
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.
This canon is specifically against the novel idea in the Church that the clergy should be celibate. ...
And which people find this a scandal and offence? Who are they who interfere in the Holy Sacrament of marriage in this way? Who are they to think themselves superior to the Head of the Church, Christ, who chose married men for His work?
The further canon from the Apostolic is directed at these people.
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.
Who were "the people" who were so scandalised and offended by married clergy thinking marriage so abhorrent that they forced bishops to desert their wives? What was the reasoning behind insistence on celibacy? "Blasphemously misrepresenting God's work of creation".
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
This canon protects Holy Tradition, that it has been overwhelmed by events does not make it null and void. If that is the argument then any heresy which takes over the majority in the Church has to be considered Orthodox. And we know that's not Orthodox teaching. St Maximos for example.
And the reasoning behind this canon is to maintain the God given teaching that creation of male and female in the image and likeness of God is good, and so is sex between them.
I'll have a look over the next few days for some of the fathers on the subject some of which thinking is truly abhorrent and blasphemous.
Myrrh
Priest Siluan wrote:Myrrh wrote:They're canons of the Orthodox Church, but can all the canons be called Orthodox?
I think that you are mistaken wrong, all the canons are Orthodox, simply that the canons referring to behaviors and administrative things should to be look in the context of their time.
I'm trying to make a distinction here. All these canons are in the Orthodox Church, but as you say they have to be looked at in context of time and place. But it's when we look at them we see that some are not "Orthodox" at all. To insist on them being orthodox outside of the context of time and place when they were enforced against Holy Tradition is at best an embarrassment and at worst heresy.
For intance, like it was said by Father Nikolai, in the Apostolic time the monasticism didn't exist, for that reason the Apostolic Canons doesn't say any thing a the monks and even about the celibate men or women. Then following your reasoning, Would the monasticism and the celibacy would be not orthodox?
As I answered above, celibacy has always been around in the Church, for both men and women, but we still had married bishops as well as unmarried and the Apostolic Canons protect the Tradition of married clergy against those who insisted that ALL clergy were unmarried.
We only have married clergy now in the Orthodox Church because some managed to stop the tide of those insisting on celibate only clergy. Rome continued in this direction.
Myrrh
