Is there a word for "gurrr!" in Slavonic?

I was in a Theology of the Body presentation tonight, part one of two parts, in a Latin Church setting. In the final moments one of the facilitators went into a lengthy explanation about the development of this teaching and then the importance of the celibate priesthood and this included how celibate priests can really focus on us when we come to them in confession and a priest were he to have a wife and family would have those as their primary focus of course and so he would not have as much of his focus on me and my confession as would the celibate priest etc. I listened as best I could once he hit some buttons for me.

That was to be the final word of the evening. I insisted on speaking, and tried to do so with focus and calmness.

First I said there had been no mention the whole evening of chastity which we all are called to, married and celibate. Then I expressed my great appreciation of the value of celibate priests, and religious and I have no desire in the least to argue against the place of celibacy. Then I said I was really uncomfortable with the sort of second class status his explanation was giving to our married priests East and West (the Latin Church does have quite a number of married priests in the US.) He insisted that since only celibate clergy can be bishops East and West that shows that celibacy is a fuller expression of the priesthood... I don't want to put words into his mouth but however he expressed the preference of the celibate priesthood East and West as shown by only celibates being eligible for the episcopacy.
Again I said I am not comfortable with any sort of full, less full compartmentalizing of celibate and married priests, that a celibate priest could better hear my confession I find ridiculous (I didn't say ridiculous, I just emphasized the sort of step child attitude it presented for me.)

He then said the Church has never discriminated against the married clergy. I said that is not the case. In America indeed the Church did for a time discriminate by suppressing the married clergy for Eastern Churches.

The meeting had ended and I didn't want to get into an argument. I had made my point and it was going nowhere.

I don't believe for a minute a married priest is less able to focus on me in my confession. I find that an insult to the Holy Spirit at work in our priests. Is there some sort of less gift of the Holy Spirit that married men being ordained receive in ordination as compared to celibate men? I do not think so.

So, I am posting mainly to ask whether I may be misinformed. Is there a belief in the East/Orthodoxy that only celibate priests can be bishops because they more fully embody the priesthood than do married priests? (I am aware, or think it's so, that traditionally bishops came from the monastic communities.)

I was of course the only non-Latin in the group tonight. I really tried to be calm and clear in my response, but I also wasn't willing to let the last words of the evening be what felt to me as really bad teaching on the role and value of celibacy, something I very much value and see has its value unrelated to any comparison with married clergy as a less full representation of In persona Christi .

Some RCs like to argue that the legislation of Trullo requiring that bishops be unmarried "proves" that the Eastern Churches "really" believe in sacerdotal celibacy. I don't know of any Orthodox theologians who have any use for that bizarre idea. One might just as well argue on that basis for the mandatory celibacy of adult acolytes!

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father


Can you direct me to where I can read up about this on line?

I have only one word for "likethethief" - BRAVO!

Seems like some of what that "facilitator" (dontcha just love these dainty little titles they impose on themselves?)was enabling was prejudice on the part of Latin clergy and laity against ECs and Eastern Christians in general.

Believe me, that kind of prejudice hasn't evaporated, as much as we might like to fantasize that it has. Nowadays it's just more likely to be expressed in subtler terms than, say, in the days of Archbishop Ireland (r.i.p.)

Too bad. This kind of demon can be cast out only by prayer, fasting and education.

That's my 2 cents.

two things:

1) Just a note of clarification. Facilitator tends to be used as a more generic term to signify that the discussion is not meant as a school type lecture, but is more of an open-ended discussion.

2) I would assume that the prohibition of bishops to the celibate only to be a canon of the Church, not immutable doctrine. Obviously, the Orthodox see value in selecting Bishops only from amongst the celibate clergy. Can anyone elaborate more as to what the benefits are? Just curious, that's all.

The preference for celibate bishops evolved as the power of the bishops grew from the 4th through the 7th centuries. Gradually, as the power of the state waned, more and more tasks previously assigned to secular magistrates were deputed to bishops. And, through a process of accretion, the bishop also became responsible for the management and disposal of the properties donated to the Church. It was felt that a married bishop with biological children would feel the kind of pressure to look after his own that had formerly afflicted secular magistrates. Beyond that, this same period also saw a rise in the status and moral authority of monastics, who were able to leverage this into an increased domination of the episcopate. By the end of the 7th century, celibate bishops had become almost universal within the oikumene. Trullo merely formalized what had already happened, and was more specific than simply mandating episcopal celibacy--Trullo requires bishops to be monastics, a requirement often honored in the breech by having a newly elected bishop take his vows and receive the monastic tonsure just before his ordination.

Makes sense. thanks.
Some similar reasons are given for imposing celibacy on the west.

But a married priest or bishop is no less in persona christi than a married one. Otherwise one would have to admit that St. Peter was somehow less than the other Apostles who were not married.

Let me fix that:

Otherwise one would have to admit that St. Peter was somehow less than the other Apostles who were not known to be married or widowers.

Scripture is silent concerning the relationship of the company of women who travelled with the Apostles and the Twelve.

Peter's marital status is known only because Jesus' healing of his mother-in-law is the first recorded healing miracle (as distinct from Exorcism) in Mark's Gospel.

Correct. thank you.
I believe that Eusebius also mentions daughters of St. Phillip, which then infers that he was married at one time as well. Whether he was married or widowed after Pentecost, we do not know.

That was Philip the Deacon; nonetheless, the Western Church repeated insisted celibacy was demanded of all in major orders, including deacons. Of course, things are, um, different now--not only can deacons be married, but they can remarry if eligible.

I'm still not sure about my question which I maybe didn't word well... Is there a history in the East/Orthodoxy that celibate priests are somehow a better model of priesthood than are married priests, and thus it follows they are the only ones who can be ordained bishops? This was a form of the argument being given last night to me for the preference of celibate priesthood.

He made the argument in reverse that since only celibate priests may be ordained that clearly shows the inherent value (ie better than married pastors to serve their flock) of celibacy.

No, there isn't. We don't see the choice as between marriage and ordination, but as between marriage and monasticism. Bishops are selected from (nominally) monastic ranks because it was felt the powers of the bishop would present a married bishop with irresistible temptation--and because monastics dominated ecclesiastical circles in the 6th century.

Thanks for all your responses! I was caught totally off guard at this presentation, but I feel after reading these posts that my response was not inaccurate.

It's possible it will come up again when our RCIA reconvenes back at our home parish next week. Our RCIA went as a group to the presentations so the other RCIA team members from my Latin parish and our Candidates and sponsors were there.

I'm going to read a bit more, too. I see some mention of bishops in earlier times who were already married when ordained not allowed to remarry when widowed because basically they would not be permitted to consummate the marriage, so couldn't have a valid marriage. In general it seems like the preference that developed for the bishops to come from the monastic ranks was also influenced by the issues of powers that bishops took on that exceeded what are basically ecclesial powers in our time.

No, bishops were not allowed to remarry for the same reason presbyters were not allowed to remarry: as St. Paul wrote, a bishop (and by extension a presbyter) must be the husband of one wife. The early Christians universally held the belief (today maintained by the Eastern Churches) that marriage is an eternal sacrament that transcends death and perdures in the divine kairos. Thus, there can be but one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, and remarriage, whether after widowhood or divorce, is a form of adultery. Even while the early Church tolerated those who remarried as a condescension to human weakness, it refused to celebrate second marriages (all such marriages were conducted through civil ceremonies), and focused its efforts on reintegrating the remarried into the Body of Christ through prayer, fasting and abstention from the Eucharist (typically 2-5 years). Bishops and presbyters could not remarry, because remarriage was a violation of a universal Christian norm.

Just a few observations: all the faithful, not just the priests and bishops, act in persona Christi! Pope St. Leo the Great taught that 'in the Holy Eucharist you are transformed into that which you consume.'! So let's have done with egregious clericalism.

Secondly, the Roman Martyrology contains an entry for the Martyr Petronilla, daughter of the Blessed Apostle Peter. In other words, whether Mrs. Peter was still alive or not, his daughter followed her father to Rome! Lucky for Peter, he lived before the halcyon days of Ea semper and Cum data fuerit. St. Alexis Toth did not enjoy such good fortune!

Lastly, the Scripture is NOT silent about the marital status of the apostles: virtually all reputable scripture scholars today interpret St. Paul's complaint in 1 Cor 9:5 to refer to the right to apostleship while married: "Have we not every right to eat and drink? And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?"

The 'facilitator' (obfuscator, more like) is merely parrotting the tendentious utterances of Pope John Paul II which virtually overturned the teaching of Vatican II on the point that celibacy is not required by the very nature of the priesthood or that the married priests have deserved well of the Church!

As to the astonishing remark about celibate priests making better confessors why do some Churches(Coptic?) prohibit monks from hearing the confessions of laymen?

I have known and revered many celibate priests, but as one who has not received this inestimable gift, I can only say that not only is my wife not an obstacle to the exercise of priestly ministry, she and our children and grandchildren are the chief channel of the grace that makes that exercise possible!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Eastern Churches believe that the dead are "asleep" and awaiting the Second Coming.

But after the Second Coming there will be no more husbands and wives because of Mt 22:23-33:
Quote:

As angels are sexless, I can't see how the both beliefs (sleeping of the dead - that is, no conscious life after death - and marriage after the Second Coming) can be upheld at the same time.

As John Meyendorff points out in Marriage, an Orthodox Perspective (pp.13-14), this passage actually concerns the levirate:

Father Thomas Loya talks about eternal marriage here in this thread:



http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/287111/Re:%20Eternal%20Marriage#Post287111

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/287111/Re:%20Eternal%20Marriage#Post287111

hmm, don't know why link isn't working.

Isn't it also true, that the act of confessing one's sins used to be done to monks or others who were not ordained?

The sacrament of reconciliation has gone through a lot of development over the years. As I understand it, one confessed their sins, often times to someone who was not a Priest or the Bishop, the person then entered into the order of penitents, and was restored back to the community after that period of time in the order of penitents through the liturgy celebrated by the Bishop (which acted as the sacramental form of the absolution). The original understanding was much more communal and was seen more clearly as both reconciling to the community as well as God. Private confession loses some of that as the community aspect is represented more in the priest alone.

So, all of this about celibate priests doesn't really make sense in the historical context of the nature of how the sacrament of reconciliation was administered in the very early Church.

Originally, confession was public, done in the midst of the congregation. This worked as long as the Church was a small, elite group (today we would call it a cult), but once it became a mass movement, the problems inherent in this approach became evident. At that point, the bishop heard the confession of a penitent on behalf of the congregation, and he readmitted the sinner to communion, signifying reconciliation with the Church. Note that, originally, the emphasis on confession was not to gain God's forgiveness, but reconciliation and reintegration into the community.

Eventually, confession was habitually delegated to the presbyters, but for a long time, the emphasis remained on reintegration and restoration of communion, with specific orders of penitents (kneelers, weepers, hearers, etc.) who had to wear signifying badges and who had to leave the church at various times during the liturgy.

Over the centuries, each Church developed a Tradition around confession, each with a slightly different emphasis. The West came to think of confession in association with penance as the debt paid for transgression of divine law. The East came to think of confession as spiritual healing, and prophylaxis against future sins. In the East, the therapeutic aspect of confession became associated with the institution of the "spiritual father", usually a monastic, and hearing the confession became associated with him, while the priest (assuming the monastic was a layman) retained responsibility for readmitting the sinner to communion. People would often get notes from their spiritual father to their priest indicating that the individual had confessed and completed whatever prayer, fasting or other spiritual medicine the spiritual father had prescribed. These are sometimes seen by those unfamiliar with Orthodox spirituality as equivalent to the indulgences issued in the West, but they have entirely different orientations and purposes.

thanks for the information, Stuart.

There is a lot of talk in the latin rite about "general absolution" in special cases where there are large numbers of penitents and not enough resources.
It is only permitted in very specific cases,

Is there any cases of this in the Eastern Churches?

Not to my knowledge, though anointing services serve much the same purpose.

I am not sure what Stuart means by "serve much the same purpose."

Although my reading of the text of the Service of Holy Anointing leaves me with the clear impression that it is the same Mystery that is celebrated for those near death and so must have the same spiritual effect in that it removes all stain of sin, however grave, I have been told otherwise by several priests and deacons. None has been willing to say that the Mystery accomplishes a "general absolution." Their explanations have included: a characterization of what is done as having no ability to absolve any sin; the assertion that what is done absolves only "venial" sin; and the suggestion that what is done absolves all sin but only conditionally (i.e., that any grave sin must be confessed to a priest as soon as practicable and absolution received/confirmed then).

I raised this point before on this site and, as I recall, was not able to elicit any definitive views from others here. Is there, perhaps a difference between Eastern Catholic views and the Orthodox view? Are there differing views in other Eastern Christian Churches?

Yeah, well, it all depends on which priests, Tim. When in doubt, ignore the priests and look at the texts. After all, I've had priests tell me the Rite of Remarriage is sacramental, and lots of other things which quite obviously were not so.

Fr. George Maloney, a bi-ritual Roman priest who became Greek Orthodox in the last year or so of his life, wrote a book called "Your Sins Are Forgiven You" which discuses the development of the Mystery in the East and in the West. He goes into quite a lot of detail about the various forms the Mystery has taken in different times and places - the old rites and new rites. Very interesting read. The book is widely available.

It seems that at this point, the Church had a wonderful sense of "seeing Christ in our neighbor." In other words, a sin against the Church (meaning the people) was a sin against Christ, and visa-versa.



I wonder, though, if the practice could have been preserved if the mentality behind it--as you pointed out and I have bolded above--had not been lost.

There is clearly a difference between private sin, which should never be disclosed to the community, and public sin, which is already known to the community. The tendency in recent centuries seems to be to treat all sin as private, even when it clearly isn't ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Unless one is a "celebrity," in which case all sins are deemed public property and fodder for endless speculation.

Penthaetria,

People who are in the public eye (entertainers and athletes, as well as religious, civil, and business leaders) are subject to greater scrutiny than the general public--I think that's inevitable. Nevertheless, once a sin is made public (assuming there is credible evidence to support the allegations) it becomes a public sin and IMHO this necessitates some kind of public repentance.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Well allow me to say it: Anointing of the Sick accomplishes a general absolution.

"O You who are without beginning, eternal, and the Holy of Holies, who have sent your only begotten Son to heal every infirmity and weakness of our souls and bodies; send down your Holy Spirit and sanctify + this oil. May it bring for your servant who is about to be anointed with it, the complete forgiveness of his sins and the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. For it behooves You to be merciful and to save us, O our God, and we give glory to You, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now, always and forever and ever. Amen. (Epiclesis for the oil from: The Sacrament of Holy Unction, Byzantine Melkite Euchologion, published by the Melkite Eparchy of Newton).

LOL...and also, it seems that public sin makes them richer too!

First comes the public 'outing' and shame, and then, if it is a woman, often she then gets the Playboy big bucks offer, and then ofcourse comes the book, and maybe after, there is even a movie! After all, it is in these times that the motto 'no publicity is bad publicity' rings true. What a sign of the sinful and pathetic times we live in....

I respectfully disagree. For example, Tiger Woods' sins became quite public, but I don't see how his repentance needs to be public. His sin was not against "the public" but against his wife and family (and God), and -- in my mind -- that is where confession, repentance, and penance/reparations belong.

On the other hand, the sins of the Enron and Wall Street executives became public and affected the public; their confessions and repentance, and penance/reparations do belong in the public eye.

Straddling the two are those public officials who betray their marital vows AND their public trust. I can't remember his name or state, but the governor who gave his mistress unmerited raises from the public coffers has, IMO, to make both public and private penance having committed both public and private sins.

(Are we far enough off-topic yet?)

Penthaetria,

I wasn't thinking so much of people like Tiger Woods, who doesn't profess to be a Christian. More of people like Mel Gibson, who is known to be (or to have been) a practicing Catholic and who made that movie, "The Passion of the Christ." Also, of Catholic politicians who consistently vote contrary to Church teachings.

But in particular, I was thinking of those priests who have caused so much harm to the Church by abusing children. Should there not be a venue for them to show the Church--and the world--that they are truly repentant, should they wish to do so? Even one priest doing this would bring about a great deal of healing, for himself as well as for the faithful.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Oh, absolutely! For these priests HAVE sinned against the people, even though they did so in private. Yes, their penitence should be public.

I'm thinking there are a lot of heathen penguins who would benefit mightily from hearing the Word. A monastery at McMurdo Sound is just the place for reprobate priests to work out their salvation with fear and tredpidation.

I'm afraid that the heathen penguins or the fellow co-monks wouldn't be delighted by such company.

And if it doesn't come out by speculation, find a way to leak it.

And if that doesn't work, make a sex tape and leak it.

Who sang that "When you're a celebrity" song a couple of years ago?

And just what would we do with Christianized penguins? Just one would be enough to keep the theologians busy for centuries . . .

Ecclesiastical delinquents (imprisoned ) is the phrase I love in Pro Russia. The Russicum and Catholic Work for Russia, I'm reading which someone here, I think Neil, suggested. Forgive me, I couldn't help thinking of Officer Krupke.

I heard a theologian seriously speculating about the possibility of baptising an extraterrestrial.

But my intention was to say that sending ecclesiastical criminals (particularly sexual) to monasteries is a rather unfriendly gesture towards the monks, who probably do not enjoy the company of inverts, and I can understand them.

I think the song you refer to was sung by the CW singer Brad Paisley - it's a hoot!

got kicked offline...check out
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_(Brad_Paisley_song)