Celibate Bishops

[The Apostate]

Please do pardon my display of ignorance about this, but I thought that the goodm people here would know for certain.

I know that the current custom is for bishops to be selected only from among monastic clergy. In some circles, I have heard this referred to as universal Orthodox custom, while in others, I have been made to understand that, prior to the Schism, practice varied from place to place, and that it was not the general practice in the Orthodox West to insist on celibate bishops, as married men were also chosen. If the latter is true, then the practice of ordaining married men to the episcopate was lost to Orthodoxy, not for doctrinal reasons, but because of an accident of history, and there would be no reason why Orthodox bishops may not be married today.

I have no personal argument either way as I don't know enough about the issues, but I thought I'd ask if there's anything else that I'm missing. Is there a canon requiring bishops to be monastics or is it really just an Eastern practice that became, de facto universal after the Schism?

Many thanks for your help.

[Myrrh]

There's nothing stopping a married man becoming a bishop, but it's a subject avoided because the rule against this is contrary to Apostolic Tradition.

There's a potted history on the subject on this page:

http://www.apostle1.com/married_bishops ... 6-2004.htm

Myrrh

[The Apostate]

Thank you, Myrrh.

I had wondered whether folk had forgottne me. Your response and link have been very helpful.

The only reason i ask is that these people seem to me to be perfectly Orthodox in their faith and praxis, and seem to err towards a sensible (not rabid) form of the conservative end of Orthodoxy where I feel at home. I e-mailed them to ask why they weren't in communion with anybody else and apparently they are snubbed by ROCA and other jurisdictions because they permit married bishops. That's the only obstacle, which is why I was wondering how important it actually is for bishops to be unmarried, and whether it's an issue that is worth refusing to enter into a shared chalice over.

[尼古拉前执事]

There is a later canon that decided against married bishops. I will try to look this up tonight for you.

[尼古拉前执事]

Canons of the Fifth-Sixth 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 separated 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.

[The Apostate]

Dear Νικολάος Διάκ,

Thank you so much for looking this up for me. I now have a greater understanding. I'm sorry to see that the group I linked to above doesn't keep to the canonical practice, as they seem so steadfastly Orthodox in all other respects.

In Christ,
Occidentalis

[Myrrh]

There's a common misunderstanding that the Church is ruled by canons as if they are some infallible statement of tradition or doctrine. However, as in the case of imposed celibacy on bishops, we see that some canons contradict Holy Tradition. History shows marriage was perfectly normal for bishops, continuing in the Tradition of Christ who chose married Apostles and as seen in Paul's epistles in which he gives a community advice in a choosing a bishop for itself.

The reasons for the gradual elimination of married bishops is quite complex, coming out of a perceived spiritual superiority of the celibate and a tendency to misogyny nurtured in societies in which women were owned by men, fathers and then husbands. Christ was revolutionary in His promotion of women's freedom, to remain unmarried by choice and to teach and so on.

This page from the Byzantine Catholics in defence of married clergy (they have often had celibacy forced on them through their union with the Roman Catholic Church) shows that canonically married bishops cannot be ruled out of Holy Tradition, and note that earlier canons recommended excommunication for bishops leaving their wives which the later canons, posted above, contradict:

"In both the Apostolic Canons (2nd-3rd centuries) and the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400) celibacy was not compulsory. A bishop or priest who left his wife "under pretense of piety" was to be excommunicated. New tendencies at the beginning of the 4th century tried to prohibit clerical marriage while individual choice in the matter had been the rule up to this time. At the first Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) Spanish bishop Ossius of Cordoba wanted the Council to decree celibacy as a requirement for ordination throughout the universal church, but Egyptian bishop Paphnutios (see APPENDIX below) protested that such a rule would be difficult and imprudent and that celibacy should be a matter of vocation and personal choice. The Council endorsed Paphnutios's position. A few scholars today call into question St. Paphnutios's intervention at the Council considering his role to be a legend. (4)"

http://www.byzantines.net/epiphany/ordination.htm

Myrrh