www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Married priests are not real priests.

Yeah, I admit that I'm trying to get a little attention.

But there's a real question behind this. I'm living with a group of RC religious right now and we've been discussing the whole married priest issue, and one of them (Irish...) keeps on insisting that in some Orthodox church the married priests are limited in the sacraments that they're allowed to administer (not talking about the Eucharist and the fast here).

He says, specificly, that they're NOT ALLOWED to hear confession.

Now I've already told him that the only restriction is that they need to fast from sexual intercourse for a time before celebrating the Eucharist, but he insists on this other thing about confession.

Does he have any ground to stand on here?

Mark

No, he doesn't.


Although the topic title is disrespectful, since you are not a child of the True Faith, you are forgiven, little one.


In the Holy Mother of God,

Father Deacon Ephraim Stephanou

Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and graduate of Greek Orthodox Patriarchal Theology School of Halki---'69.

[This message has been edited by Aloysha53 (edited 06-23-2001).]

Here I go again: "Education! Education! Education!"

Your RC friends have it half right (if that.)

When the bishop ordains a candidate to the priesthood, the priest is given the 'power' (under the bishop's authority) to celebrate the sacraments. But, in the earlier centuries of the church, especially in the more rural areas, a man without much theological education might be ordained to the priesthood. To obviate problems, the license to both preach and hear auricular confession might be withheld.

You might want to educate your RC friends that this ancient discipline has been and still is also observed in the Latin church. Prior to ordination, there are specific examinations held for the candidates, and there must be a letter from the Rector or Dean to the ordaining bishop that the candidate is qualified to hear confessions and to preach. (The practicum sessions for these courses were and are both scary and sometimes quite funny.)

Blessings!

The famous Franciscan friar Fr Solanus Casey was such a case in the Latin Church. The authorities didn�t think he was very bright so he was made a sacerdos simplex, a �simple priest� or �Mass priest� who in theory could hear confessions and pronounce absolution (like in an emergency), but was denied the faculty to do so. So he never heard confessions.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

Dear Friends,

In our parish, people flock to the married priests for confession and avoid the celibate ones like the plague!

My wife refused to have our marriage counselling done by a celibate priest, but insisted on a married one.

The only ways in which married priests are constrained is that they cannot go on a "night on the town" with their confreres whenever they feel like it.

They sometimes need to stay behind after dinner to help with the dishes and housecleaning.

And they are sometimes limited in their sleep due to baby-sitting duties.

But other than these few instances, the married priests are not constrained in any way.

Alex

Perhaps this is the enthusiasm of youth talking, but it doesn't look like constraint at all. Besides, I've never heard of celibate priests going out to a movie or for dinner on a given night...

>>>In our parish, people flock to the married priests for confession and avoid the celibate ones like the plague!<<<

Interesting observation. What has not been said yet, I believe, is that in the Eastern Traditions, one need not go to a priest for confession, but only for absolution. Many Orthodox Christians (and Oriental Orthodox, too!) choose a monastic (who may or may not be ordained) to be their spiritual father, and it is to them that they confess, and it is he who provides them with their spiritual exercises (pennances, for want of a better word). Having completed those, they then go to the parish priest for absolution. So the general Orthodox tradition is really the opposite of your parish's--the celibate monastics are the ones to whom the people confess, the married secular priests are the ones to whom they go for absolution.

By the way, in some jurisdictions, the Epigonation (that funny lozenge-shaped dohicky that hangs from the right side of the zone) is awarded to priests who can hear confessions, but in other jurisdictions, it is just an honorific given to distinguished priests (like archpriests or archimandrites), since all priests can hear confessions.

Well, a good friend of mine who happens to be a celibate priest took me to a bull-fight thing once...does that count?

Dear Stuart,

I guess we're not that Eastern yet . . .

All I was saying was that people can sometimes feel more comfortable confessing to a married priest than to a celibate.

Perhaps they feel the penances for sexual sins won't be as severe .

In any event, I confess my sins to my wife as often as necessary. This must be like the Byzantine tradition you outline, Stuart, except that I am sometimes even denied absolution!

Alex

Dear Catholicos Mor Ephrem,

Celibate priests know how to have a good time, friend! Who can deny them?

But many of the celibate priests who taught me in school are now married and in secular occupations.

This includes the author of our math text-books.

When the word got out that he left the priesthood to get married, one of my colleagues blurted out, "Well, he was too smart and good-looking to remain a priest!"

Detention city!!

Alex

Dear Stuart,

If you have quite recovered from the overwhelming joy of the Conference ,
is the epigonation something also derived from the Judaic tradition, the four corners etc. with the tassel?

Alex

No, actually it symbolizes a sword. It was bestowed as a sign that one should be a defender of the faith. Some byzantine, military, 'soldier of Christ' kind of idea. Guess in those days it made sense.

PS: I personally would never arm a bishop. :-)

Blessings!

PS: I personally would never arm a bishop. :-)

Wasn't there actually aprohibition as to what arms a bishop could carry back in the day? I thought that they couldn't carry a sword because it had an edge.

Maybe I'm making this up, but I thought that bishops could carry weapons at one point. Julius II did, I think.

I'm not sure I'm really opposed to this. Sometimes I wished that John Paul II had used his papal crucifix a little more "pastorally" while talking to Clinton .

>>>If you have quite recovered from the overwhelming joy of the Conference ,
is the epigonation something also derived from the Judaic tradition, the four corners etc. with the tassel?<<<

Thanks, I am feeling quite chipper, actually.

The Epigonation appears to derive from a kind of portable writing desk carried by Byzantine officials. It was a little purse, with writing materials inside; the cover served as a flat writing surface. It enabled officials in the field to write answers to petitions on the spot. I suspect that bishops and presbyters may have used something similar for the same purpose. Whether it was adopted in Byzantine times, or during the Turkish captivity (which is when Byzantine bishops first began to wear crowns) as a sign of the dual civil/religious authority they carried under the Ottomans, I don't know.

As you may know, the vesting prayers see the Epigonation as a "sword of righteousness", but whether that was always part of the vesting prayer, or was interpolated later, again, I don't know. I suspect that the vesting prayer, plus datable iconography, would provide the best clues for the incorporation of the Epigonation into the vestments.