To all:

Once again, we hear from another (Roman) Catholic apologist, Art Sippo. The topic of discussion is married priests.

PROTESTANT: “... The Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Uniate Churches in communion with Rome take the position that a priest or "presbyter" may be married. However, he must marry as a deacon, but must be married before his ordination to presbyter (priest) or he may not marry at all. Also should his wife die, before him, he may not remarry. Yes, I know that they have a rule that to become a bishop, a priest must either be unmarried or separate from his wife (as the first bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska did). I don't know how they harmonized this with "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

ART SIPPO: I will explain. (Read Fr. Cholij's book for all of the historical niceties.) In the early Church married men were sometimes ordained, but when they were ordained they renounced the use of their marriage and they pledged to remain continent for the rest of their lives. As such, they did not separate from their wives but together lived with them like brother and sister. This was the norm before 680 AD when the Quinisext synod in the East changed the Eastern practice to allow the priests use of their marriage. As such, it was a corruption that allowed full use of the marriage while the apostolic custom was to become "eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom."

Art Sippo’s webpage is at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/sippo.html


Does the above response make sense? Who is this Fr. Cholij?

Elias

Elias, Glory to Jesus Christ ! Rev. Roman Cholij is a Ukrainian Catholic priest. He published his doctoral dissertation under the title Clerical Celibacy in East and West. The book is a really study of the history of canonical jurisprudence behind the practice of ordaining married men in the Byzantine Churches. The book, as with most dissertations, went out of print quickly. Consult a good library.

Art Sippo has correctly summarized Fr. Cholij's opinion of the Eastern practice. He holds that the practice of the Roman churches, not admitting married men to major orders, is more in line with tradition than the practice of the Eastern churches. One of the indicators that he employs is canon law regarding reception of the Eucharist. Eastern Churches still demand that priests and deacons "not use their marriage" for several days before the celebration of Divine Liturgy. This was also true for the laity. The Eucharistic Fast was not only a fast from food and drink, but also from marital relations. This concern about marital relations is one of the pricipal reasons why married priests and deacons do not celebrate Divine Liturgy on a daily basis, except in monasteries, where all of the hieromonks are celibate. In the Roman churches the priests were all celibate; hence, they could offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on a daily basis. I hope that some experts on canon law and history can give a perspective on how the book was received. How did advocates of a married priesthood Orthodox and Catholic respond? Is Cholij's argument correct ? Glory to Jesus Christ !

Doulos,

I have a hard time accepting the idea that priestly marriage was a 'corruption' of the apostolic idea. Didn't St. Paul say that he had a right to a believing woman like the other apostles? Did the other apostles dump their wives for celibacy in order to be good Roman Catholics? I think both lifestyles can be an icon of sacrifice and church. Marriage signifies the marital relationship between Christ and the Church. Marriage and not celibacy was raised to a 'sacrament.' Celibacy, if a true 'gift,' reflects the total dedication modeled after Christ. Mandatory celibacy is a control thing. Optional celibacy does NOT say NO to celibacy; it allows it to be accepted as a GIFT. I know a lot of celibate priests who are excellent role models for us laity. I also know that this gift can be prayed for. Some of my priest-friends lived raunchy lives before entering the seminary. Anyways, I think what some Roman Catholic apologists (and that Ukrainian Catholic author) is trying to do is 'deny' the past. So what if many Eastern AND Western bishops had wives and families.

Elias

Elias,
The basic thesis of Father Cholij is the same as that of Father Christian Cochini in his book entitled "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy." They both argue that though many of the priests and bishops in the early church were married, still after ordination they were required to live in perfect and perpetual continence with their wives. This thesis does seem to be borne out in the writings of the Fathers and in the decisions of the early councils (i.e., circa 4th century). What does this mean for the Church of today? It seems to me that for better or for ill the tradition of the Western Church has become one of mandatory celibacy for priests and that of the Eastern Church one of temporary continence for priests and celibacy for bishops. I don't think it is a good idea to try to overturn long-standing traditional practice on the basis of the tentative findings of historical research. Often, however, Roman Catholic apologists must defend the discipline of mandatory celibacy in the face of Protestant charges of unfaithfulness to Scripture. The research of Frs. Cholij and Cochini provides some evidence of a practice going back to the apostles.
With regard to the apostles being allowed to take along women, most exegetes interpret this as referring to women who accompanied the apostles and prepared meals for them and generally attended to their material needs.

Ed

We Orthodox have a high regard for celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. Our monks, our nuns, our Bishops are celibate. Many of our parish priests are priest-monks and are celibate.

Having said that it is also normative (and a honored tradition) for our parish clergy to be married. It is high time for Roman Catholic apologists to stop trying to make our tradition (which Eastern Catholics share) a second-class `concession.' When they do so it only hurts the cause of ecumenism. To be frank, some Orthodox criticize the Roman ideal of celibate parish clergy which is something I think we should not do. I do think our system works out better (despite some of its problems) but as I've said above we have our own celibate clergy.

It's the Art Sippo's of the Roman Church which contribute to the continued restrictions on the Byzantine Catholic Churches by Rome with regard to married clergy. When the news media announced that the Ruthenian Metropolia was enacting legislation that stated that marriage was not an impediment to holy orders the outcry was loud and long from the conservative Roman Catholic apologetics wing (I remember reading some very negative pieces by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers and similar commentary at EWTN.) We all know that Rome squashed that statute (even though it had originally given it's approval.)

Sorry if I'm rambling but I want to make two main points here:

1) Roman Catholic apologists need to affirm our tradition as an honored one instead of making us appear to be inferior.

2) Rome needs to do the same. What kind of message do you think the suspension of the "married priest's statute" in the Ruthenian particular law sends to Orthodox here? Orthodox clergy will not submit to the view that our tradition of a married parish clergy is inferior and must be restricted.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

"The research of Frs. Cholij and Cochini provides some evidence of a practice going back to the apostles."

Elias: Proof-texting. One can make the bible say anything. Yet the Eastern Church has married clergy, Catholic and Orthodox. Are we to say that the Eastern Church screwed up for all of these centuries by having married priests? Its like Restorationist Christians saying we screwed up since Constantine 'infested' the church. Why does the Vatican II Fathers, East and West, state that they hold our married clergy in high esteem - you know, this contradictory yet valid practice?

"With regard to the apostles being allowed to take along women, most exegetes interpret this as referring to women who accompanied the apostles and prepared meals for them and generally attended to their material needs."

Elias: This is baloney! This is "housekeeper" exegesis. I guess women are good for keeping things tidy but not for the sacred mystery of marriage. Yet marriage is a sacrament and not celibacy.


Elias

Dear Elias,
All I can say to you is to read the work of Cochini and Cholij objectively and decide for yourself. What they claim is that the Eastern practice became fixed at the Council of Trullo and that the decision of that council rested on a misinterpretation of the early North African Councils. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of their documentation. I'm sure if you look in the journals you can find some criticisms of these works from an Eastern point of view. I am certainly not claiming that Cholij and Cochini are necessarily correct in their conclusions. At the same time, I don't see how anyone could simply dismiss what they have to say without a fair hearing.
As for the apostles being allowed to take women along with them, the interpretation which you termed "housekeeper exegesis" just happens to be the exegesis of most modern scholars (including Protestants) as well as that of many of the Fathers of the Church. In fact, as far as Sacred Scripture is concerned, there is no evidence that any of the apostles were married apart from St. Peter. This does not mean that the others weren't married, but only that the Scriptural evidence is lacking.
To repeat what I stated in my last post, I am not of the opinion that the research of Cochini and Cholij implies anything with regard to the situation today. Nor does it imply that the priests of the Eastern Church are "second-class clerics." In fact, Cochini goes into great detail trying to show just how close the Eastern and Western practices are. They are both based on a similar view of the priesthood. Both disallow the marriage of ordained priests. Both understand the importance of priestly continence especially prior to the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. Both understand this practice of priestly continence (whether temporary or perpetual) to be of apostolic origin. In the words of Fr. Cochini,

"This identity of views on issues that are so fundamental is to be emphasized; it attests that, in spite of certain divergences, East and West never thought it possible to justify the difficult discipline of priestly chastity in any other way than by a positive command of the apostles themselves. Any idea of progressive development in line with a trend favorable to virginity and continence that would have occasioned, rather late in the day, the placing of such demands on the clergy in particular, was clearly alien to their thinking. Rome and Byzantium also show by their agreement the strength of motivation that both recognize in the scriptural principles. Here too it is on no other foundation than the Word of God that they agree to ensure the bond between sexual purity and the liturgical ministry. This bond is not questioned by the Eastern legislation of 691 (i.e., Trullo), but in a certain way is more strongly emphasized by the periodical nature of the obligation of continence. It is because they approach -- and when they approach -- the sacred mysteries that the Levites of the New covenant must abstain from relations with their wives. It can be supposed that if the use of daily celebration had become established in the Churches of the East, the a fortiori argument that played such a great role, as we saw, in the thought of Siricius, in explaining that the laws of the Old Testament that had been temporary now had to become permanent, the same argument would possibly have been used with similar effects in the 7th century Byzantine world. Or, inversely, it would have been very difficult for the Latins to maintain the principle of daily continence if, in one way or the other, the prayers of the people's intercessors had not been conceived by them as an uninterrupted mission. This common basis of the two traditions, which too often one tends to imagine as being independent one from the other, is all the more remarkable in that it is nourished by the testimony of the same inheritance, the Council held in Carthage in 390, considered the essential link on the path connecting the living conscience of the Church with apostolic times."

In Christ,

Ed

Just a quick note on the dynamic duo of Cocini and Cholij: in scholarly circles neither is taken very seriously, nor are either of them persona grata among the Eastern Catholic hierarchy, mainly for their contentius attempt to theologize clerical celibacy and transform it from a discipline into a doctrine. It should be noted that Cholij, after suffering a number of serious rebuffs in academic theological forums, has substantially modified his positions on the legitimacy of the Eastern discipline concerning secular and monastic clergy. unfortunately, there is a hard core within the Roman Curia who have seized upon Cocini and Cholij's flawed scholarship as a means of combatting agitation against celivacy in the Latin Church, which really is internal to them and has nothing to do with the Eastern Churches at all.

Dear Stuart,
I had not heard that the scholarship of Cochini and Cholij was in question. I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some sources I could read that explain the fallacies in their arguments. Thanks.

In Christ,

Ed

To all,
I have found a criticism of the work of Cholij and Cochini in the journal "Logos." It is written by a Kevin Coyle. He deals with both Cochini's and Cholij's arguments in detail and concludes as follows:

"Indeed, on the existing evidence, the case for the apostolic origins of a married Christian ministry would seem to be at least as plausible as the case for the apostolic origins of continence/celibacy. In the end, neither Cochini nor anyone else has satisfactorily demonstrated a connection between ministry and celibacy in early Christianity. The most probable explanation for the fourth century emphasis on continence is not that it is due to "an unwritten tradition of apostolic origin which ... finds its first canonical expression in the 4th century" (Cochini), but that it reflects certain values which had gradually arisen and were now given wider expression."

In Christ,
Ed