Bishops/Celibacy?

[Exorcist]

Why is it the long standing tradition in the East (both Catholic and Orthodox) to select bishops exclusively from the celibate monastic population of their respective churches?

[ConstantineTG]

Because the universal Church decided it was the way. This is a universal rule, east and west. That is why in the Roman Church they can admit married men into the priesthood but never into the episcopate. Married Anglican Bishops coming into communion with Rome will only be ordained as priests.

[Exorcist]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Because the universal Church decided it was the way. This is a universal rule, east and west. That is why in the Roman Church they can admit married men into the priesthood but never into the episcopate. Married Anglican Bishops coming into communion with Rome will only be ordained as priests.

Oh? Where and when did this happen and where is it documented? Further, why did the Church decide in this manner?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Exorcist

Oh? Where and when did this happen and where is it documented? Further, why did the Church decide in this manner?

Canon XII of the Sixth Universal Council in the seventh century

[ByzCathCantor]

from another recent thread - recommend reading the linked document

Originally Posted by Vico

This is an interesting paper by Roman Cholij, Secretary of the Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainian Catholics in Great Britain, on Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...chisto_en.html

[Exorcist]

Thanks much. Neither really answers my question though. Why? "Because the Church says so" is nice and all but WHY does the Church say so?

[john78]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

from another recent thread - recommend reading the linked document

your link, raises more questions than it does give answers, at least for me.

I mean if it is believed that infact one of the apostles was in deed married, then i am at a loss.

it doesnt change my faith in Christ, or even wanting to consider a vocation, but it does bring more questions for me than answers.

Why is it okay to think/believe or even accept as a fact that an Apostle was married, but then through out history now others come along and deem it a necessity to remain celibate ?

then i am also confused on, in what terms can a man be married, have a family, and be an active parish priest ?

because i am getting confusing messages through out the forum, and have trouble researching the topic in detail, and I see there are things called dogma,doctrine, and discipline within the new canon law.

because if as a man i can in some narrow laws of the Catholic Church be married and have a family, and be a parish priest, why shouldnt i pursue that ?

laws can be very complex for lay people as myself, and even more confusing for people like myself who are in a discernment.

It would be nice to know that some where out on the internet or in a book some where, there is very simple explinations that are very easy to understand.

instead of lengthy explinations of how back in what ever time ad, to bc, and what ever timeline one wants to use as an anology that the this council and or whom ever came up with more laws.

For example, The Ten Commandments, pretty simple to understand.

I am not saying the Church is wrong, I am merely saying it has become fairly complicated, especially for those of us who are not well versed or understand how to properly research the answers we seek.

[mikelionheart]

I don't think this question derails the thread.


In the Eastern Orthodox Church, is it only ever priests from monastic orders that can become bishops?

Can/has a celibate secular priest ever become a bishop?

[twf]

Originally Posted by mikelionheart

I don't think this question derails the thread.


In the Eastern Orthodox Church, is it only ever priests from monastic orders that can become bishops?

Can/has a celibate secular priest ever become a bishop?

I assume that would be possible today in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Traditionally, in the Byzantine East, parish priests were married while the gift of celibacy was fostered in the monastic communities. The bishops were selected from the monastic community not only because the monks were celibate, but also because of the place of honor the monastics have always held in the Eastern Churches.

As a general comment, I believe that the Church agrees that celibacy is a higher state or calling than marriage (though both are holy). St. Paul makes it clear in 1 Corithians chapter 7. Our Lord himself says:

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Matthew 19:12 NAB

Our Blessed Lord clearly states that those who can accept the gift of celibacy should do so. The Church in the West, and I believe also in the East, sees the bishop as a figure/icon of Christ - he is the visible head of the local Church and as an image of Christ the Divine Groom is seen to be married to his particular church (diocese/eparchy) - the bride of Christ is the bride of the bishop. It isn't theologically impossible for a bishop to be married, but as celibacy is such a esteemed state, it is fitting that bishops, to whom is entrusted the fulness of the priesthood of Christ - the threefold ministry (excuse my Latin terminology) of governing, sanctifying, and teaching - will imitate Our Lord and St. Paul in this manner.

Also, as a practical matter, it is one thing for the parish priest of a relatively small Eastern (or Anglican) parish to be married...but can you imagine trying to pastor an entire diocese/eparchy with a wife and family??

[JharekCarnelian]

because i am getting confusing messages through out the forum, and have trouble researching the topic in detail, and I see there are things called dogma,doctrine, and discipline within the new canon law.

Dogma, doctrine and discipline have always been present within canon law.

because if as a man i can in some narrow laws of the Catholic Church be married and have a family, and be a parish priest, why shouldnt i pursue that ?

Because you would be rightly refused if you attempted to transfer from one particular rite or Church to another with this aim in mind. We are bound by the disciplines of our own particular Churches.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by john78

your link, raises more questions than it does give answers, at least for me.

I mean if it is believed that infact one of the apostles was in deed married, then i am at a loss.

it doesnt change my faith in Christ, or even wanting to consider a vocation, but it does bring more questions for me than answers.

Why is it okay to think/believe or even accept as a fact that an Apostle was married, but then through out history now others come along and deem it a necessity to remain celibate ?

then i am also confused on, in what terms can a man be married, have a family, and be an active parish priest ?

because i am getting confusing messages through out the forum, and have trouble researching the topic in detail, and I see there are things called dogma,doctrine, and discipline within the new canon law.

because if as a man i can in some narrow laws of the Catholic Church be married and have a family, and be a parish priest, why shouldnt i pursue that ?

laws can be very complex for lay people as myself, and even more confusing for people like myself who are in a discernment.

It would be nice to know that some where out on the internet or in a book some where, there is very simple explinations that are very easy to understand.

instead of lengthy explinations of how back in what ever time ad, to bc, and what ever timeline one wants to use as an anology that the this council and or whom ever came up with more laws.

For example, The Ten Commandments, pretty simple to understand.

I am not saying the Church is wrong, I am merely saying it has become fairly complicated, especially for those of us who are not well versed or understand how to properly research the answers we seek.

Good questions.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by john78

your link, raises more questions than it does give answers, at least for me.

I mean if it is believed that infact one of the apostles was in deed married, then i am at a loss.

it doesnt change my faith in Christ, or even wanting to consider a vocation, but it does bring more questions for me than answers.

Why is it okay to think/believe or even accept as a fact that an Apostle was married, but then through out history now others come along and deem it a necessity to remain celibate ?

then i am also confused on, in what terms can a man be married, have a family, and be an active parish priest ?

because i am getting confusing messages through out the forum, and have trouble researching the topic in detail, and I see there are things called dogma,doctrine, and discipline within the new canon law.

because if as a man i can in some narrow laws of the Catholic Church be married and have a family, and be a parish priest, why shouldnt i pursue that ?

laws can be very complex for lay people as myself, and even more confusing for people like myself who are in a discernment.

It would be nice to know that some where out on the internet or in a book some where, there is very simple explinations that are very easy to understand.

instead of lengthy explinations of how back in what ever time ad, to bc, and what ever timeline one wants to use as an anology that the this council and or whom ever came up with more laws.

For example, The Ten Commandments, pretty simple to understand.

I am not saying the Church is wrong, I am merely saying it has become fairly complicated, especially for those of us who are not well versed or understand how to properly research the answers we seek.

Well, it is simple when you just want to understand what you want to do. As a Roman Catholic, if you are married you can only become a deacon. If you are not, then you can become a priest and bishop. Unless you are in some exceptional case, like a clergy from a non-Catholic Christian faith converting into Roman Catholicism and are married, you will not be ordained a priest if you are married.

In the Chalcedonian East, ordaining married men to the priesthood is the norm. Of course there are issues here in North America where an Eastern Catholic Church may not ordain married men. Right or wrong, that is what they do here.

I'm sure knowing the whole theology behind it is important. But for one discerning a vocation, you can rest on this information for now as you learn more. I mean, if you don't agree with the theological principles on how celibacy is applied to today, what can you do about it? Its not like you can change it or sue the Church and have the Supreme Court overturn this decision. Regardless of the reason, those are the rules today.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by john78

your link, raises more questions than it does give answers, at least for me.

I mean if it is believed that infact one of the apostles was in deed married, then i am at a loss.

it doesnt change my faith in Christ, or even wanting to consider a vocation, but it does bring more questions for me than answers.

Why is it okay to think/believe or even accept as a fact that an Apostle was married, but then through out history now others come along and deem it a necessity to remain celibate ?

then i am also confused on, in what terms can a man be married, have a family, and be an active parish priest ?

because i am getting confusing messages through out the forum, and have trouble researching the topic in detail, and I see there are things called dogma,doctrine, and discipline within the new canon law.

because if as a man i can in some narrow laws of the Catholic Church be married and have a family, and be a parish priest, why shouldnt i pursue that ?

laws can be very complex for lay people as myself, and even more confusing for people like myself who are in a discernment.

It would be nice to know that some where out on the internet or in a book some where, there is very simple explinations that are very easy to understand.

instead of lengthy explinations of how back in what ever time ad, to bc, and what ever timeline one wants to use as an anology that the this council and or whom ever came up with more laws.

For example, The Ten Commandments, pretty simple to understand.

I am not saying the Church is wrong, I am merely saying it has become fairly complicated, especially for those of us who are not well versed or understand how to properly research the answers we seek.

Simply: the Church has decided that (for Latin tradition) in general, the clergy is not to be married, because it is a higher ideal to be preferred "and celibacy has its origin partly in a mentality and partly in historical circumstances far different from ours." (see source below).

Pope Paul VI:

"Priestly celibacy has been guarded by the Church for centuries as a brilliant jewel, and retains its value undiminished even in our time when the outlook of men and the state of the world have undergone such profound changes."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...otalis_en.html

Also ...

A bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, of even temper, self-controlled, modest, and hospitable. (Timothy 3:2)

Deacons may be married but once and must be good managers of their children and their households. (Timothy 3:12)

St. Paul not married (1 Cor 7:8).

All the same, the Church fully receives the husband of one wife whether he be priest or deacon or layman, supposing always that he uses his marriage blamelessly, and such a one shall be saved in the begetting of children. -- Clement of Alexandria

According to another view, it is not he who merely controls his passions that is called a continent man, but he who has also achieved the mastery over good things, and has acquired surely the great accomplishments of science, from which he produces as fruits the activities of virtue. Thus the Gnostic is never, on the occurrence of an emergency, dislodged from the habit peculiar to him. For the scientific possession of what is good is firm and unchangeable, being the knowledge of things divine and human. Knowledge, then, never becomes ignorance nor does good change into evil. Wherefore also he eats, and drinks, and marries, not as principal ends of existence, but as necessary. I name marriage even, if the Word prescribe, and as is suitable. For having become perfect, he has the apostles for examples; and one is not really shown to be a man in the choice of single life; but he surpasses men, who, disciplined by marriage, procreation of children, and care for the house, without pleasure or pain, in his solicitude for the house has been inseparable from God's love, and withstood all temptation arising through children, and wife, and domestics, and possessions. But he that has no family is in a great degree free of temptation. Caring, then, for himself alone, he is surpassed by him who is inferior, as far as his own personal salvation is concerned, but who is superior in the conduct of life, preserving certainly, in his care for the truth, a minute image. -- Clement of Alexandria

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by mikelionheart

I don't think this question derails the thread.


In the Eastern Orthodox Church, is it only ever priests from monastic orders that can become bishops?

Can/has a celibate secular priest ever become a bishop?

By and large unmarried clergy are all monastics. Even the ones who serve in Parish churches. There are exceptions, but they are uncommon.

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by mikelionheart

Can/has a celibate secular priest ever become a bishop?

Yes.

Also widowers.