www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall On Seminary Graduation as a Pre-requisite for Ordination

As far as I know, all churches with Rome require seminary completion prior to ordination to the priesthood.

This is not always true in orthodox churches outside Rome, however. Within the OCA Diocese of the West there are several priests and a bishop who did NOT graduate from an orthodox (and/or any other kind of) seminary.

I have greater confidence in seeking spiritual counsel from priests who have graduated from seminary, than I do from those who haven't. It's sort of like not going to a doctor who hasn't been to medical school.

Does anyone else have information on this phenomenon? Is it limited to the OCA in the U.S., or are we witnessing something of a new trend that could expand elsewhere?

Seminaries as such are a totally unknown phenomenon in the early Church. There are other ways of educating priestly candidates, i.e., within monasteries. However, my own preference, now that we have "seminaries," would be that theological seminaries be attached to and be under the supervision of monasteries.

OrthodoxEast

In theory, that would be a good idea. But there is no guarantee that apart from the liturgical life of the monastery that the candidate would gain all the knowledge and skills necessary to serve the people in the parish.

I think that the current system, despite its flaws, is a good one. A person goes to the seminary as the 'academy' to gain the foundational elements of priesthood: history, canon law, moral theology, systematic theology (my personal favorite), liturgics, preaching, etc. (also to include things like managing a parish facility, balancing books, managing a schedule, and pastoral counseling). But the time spent assigned to a priest in a parish is a most excellent condition for ordination. Monks don't have to provide guidance to a men's guild or a ladies sisterhood, or to CCD teachers, or deal with building inspectors and fire marshals. This is best learned under the guidance of a respectable and effective pastor.

Just a few thoughts......

Christ is Risen!

But monks can provide the necessary atmosphere of prayer and reverence that is difficult to find anywhere else. The seminary may still provide all the subject matter you enumerate, Dr. John, but if it is not grounded in prayer, if we do not have praying priests, well....what's the point?

OrthodoxEast

The implication is that there is no prayer in seminary.

Let me assure you, there is. Time in chapel (whether for liturgical prayer or personal prayer) is built into the schedule.

Monasteries are there for those men and women who have a vocation from God to serve through intense prayer and meditation. They are not there to be training institutions. There are those who come for a few days to close themselves off from the cares of the world, but that time is prayerful, not scholastic. If the monastics were asked, my suspicion would be that they very much cherish their solitude and their silence and so would prefer not to be actively involved in the total training of the diocesan clergy.

Christ is Risen!!

Dear Jim,

As far as I know, in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, all priests must have graduated with seminary training.

I don't know about the present, but I do know that in Greece of older days, there were, infact, priests who were not trained in the seminary. Priests were therefore not often as respected as were their counterparts in the West who, I believe, were alway well educated.

That is not to say that Greece did not have some extremely intellectual and educated bishops, such as St. Nektarios of Aegina, who lived in the beginning of the 20th century. Besides the theological schools in Greece, Halki in Turkey, was probably the most revered theological school of Orthodox theology, and some of our present day hierarchs were educated there. Unfortunately, despite much controversy and continuing diplomatic and grass root efforts for the Turkish government to allow it to reopen, it remains presently closed.

In Christ,
Alice

Thanks, Alice, for your post. It reminded me of a couple of things.

The Halki dilemma is supposed to be part of a greater Turkish problem. The government there sees a need to restrict theological study of all kinds, not just Orthodox, to prevent sedition. It is the Islamic majority that is most limited by this measure, since the Orthodox make up about 2000 people in Istanbul nowadays. It's just that Halki held a uniquely invaluable library for study which is also closed to the world as a result. Does that sound about right?

The other thing that came to mind was the matter of priests who are authorized to hear confessions versus those less educated who are not. I am not sure whether this was a Greek custom, or used more by Antioch. I do know that because of priestly indiscretions relating to talk outside the confessional many Arab Christians don't go to confession at all. Once that trust is broken, it is next to impossible to recover.

The idea of clergy having additional levels of sacramental authorization may be something Eastern Churches should consider, however, given the scarcity of vocations. That way, a priest could perform liturgical functions that don't necessarily require wise counsel. A better educated priest could also hear confessions. After all, our priests can chrismate because they are authorized to do so by their bishop, while RC priests still can't. It would be an episcopal decision, I suppose?

Dear Jim, I know of several Ukrainian Catholic and Melkite priests who did not finish a "traditional" seminary program but were ordained to the priesthood. I know of one Ukrainian Catholic priest who went through a diaconate program and was later ordained a priest without any extra academic work.

Greetings all,

Speaking as one who is in the seminary, It is my belief that a seminary education is important. Now, I know several priests, bishops, and even one cardinal, who do not have seminary degrees. In the days of old, that some of my seminarian brothers pine for, a man went to seminary, took classes, had the practical stuff, but did not get a degree. After ordination men were sent on for more schooling after spending atleast one assignment in a parish.
The seminary program that we have now, although not perfect, is a great begining to ones education for ministry. There is a blend between the academic, the pastoral, the spiritual, and the human in the program. The seminary does not train one to be a theologian, but a parish priest.
Some of my classmates think that after they graduate, they will know it all. As one priest told us recently, after ordination, you find out how much you don't know.

Just some thoughts
Peter

Some men I have known who have had professional careers and have dealt with diverse interpersonal family and business situations and later approach ordination make much better and practical priests and deacons. Seminary formation is no panacea for making a good priest.

The priestly studies are often the easy part. Dealing with the people and the parish dynamics are the bigger challenge and no amount of book learning can prepare anyone adequately until they "get their hands dirty". And the previous post underlies the air of presumption I have also observed from some (usually younger) seminarians that simply being in the seminary will teach them everything. Sometime the water is deeper than it looks.

My priest was a surgon. He was selected to become a priest, sent to Egypt, ordained, spent 40 days in a monastary learning to pray the Liturgy, and then came back and served. This is normal for us. We have semenaries, but they're not really part of the ordination process. That doesn't mean that our priests are uneducated. It's just that only worthy candidates are chosen for the priesthood, people who already know the cannons and everything and meet all the requirements. My priest for example learned a lot studying in preparation for the sermons he gave as a Reader when he had no intention ever of becoming a priest. This system tends to shock people who are used to the whole semanary system, but it works great for us. Of course not all our preists are perfect, they're human, and some have weaknesses in their knowledge. But in general our preists are very will informed, knowledgable, and effective pastorially, without a formal seminary education. It's worked fine for almost 2000 years, and there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to switch over to requiring semenary. Rather than a person chosing to be a priest and persuing it from a young age as one would any profession, our preists first labour successfully in the world, so that they have something to give up when the are selected for the preisthood. The traditional age for ordination is 30, since Christ worked until He was 30 before starting His public ministry, although older ages are also common. The person does not express a desire for the priesthood, rather when a congregation needs a priest they select a worthy member of the congregation, and if he is found suitable to the congregation, the preist, the bishop, and the Pope, he is ordained and begins serving 40 days later.

Dear CO, that is a wonderful and practical tradition. Economia in action. I think with a little more of that kind of flexibility we would not find ourselves in such a dire clergy shortage.

The Ethiopians follow a very similar practice to yours in the diaspora.

Diak,

Please do not think I am one of those seminarians who think we can learn it all in Seminary, far from it. This is a second career, if I can use that term, for me. I for one, know I will not know anything when I get out. Okay, that may not be true I will know somethings, but dealing with people is something that you learn by doing, not by reading about it. Or, you can just smack them around a little.

Peter

Go to the scriptures and canons. There you will find the requirements and impediments to ordination. No mention of seminary at all.

Most importantly, the discernment of the bishop still should take precedence over the credentialism of the modern age.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Friends,

Seminaries can often be places that fail to deliver on a number of fronts.

The Eastern traditions really do place the priest front and centre in the worshipping community.

The Eastern priest will spend hours in worship, rites, sacraments etc. and he must know how to perform all these correctly and with edification.

Most of what we learn about theology, faith and praxis, is to be learned from the liturgical tradition - and that is where the priest must be "expert."

The western-style seminaries do indeed have time for prayer, but in some I've been in there seems to be a practical "divorce" from prayer and the rationalistic theological tradition that is taught.

It doesn't have to be that way, but I think seminaries emphasize academic subjects and priests who go for doctorates in various theological disciplines come out ready for a professorship rather than for pastoral work - and there's nothing wrong with that.

And when seminaries try to teach practical, pastoral counselling, they often fall short of the real-life experience that a priest would need - later on-the-job training may or may not help him out.

I think a priest is ready for work in a parish when his bishop SAYS he is, irrespective of the nature of his preparation and background.

I trust the bishop to judge a person's readiness and worthiness for the priesthood.

Alex

Well, judging from yesterday's (Phoenix) Arizona Republic articles on the local RC diocese' shortages of clergy and numerous scandals, I'd say that relying on the bishop is not necessarily the way to go. Even when there were warnings in personnel files, priests continued to be placed in unsuitable ministries. I doubt seriously that one person decided each case. Many of these cases stem from transfers from other dioceses, so the initial selection process didn't involve their local bishop.

Hopefully, our eparchies will not feel any pain from such stuff. The selection process should not be left up to one person, in any case, even if he is a bishop. All human beings have limits on their understanding that need help from others in order to be clearer or more accurate. After all, the Holy Spirit is not necessarily behind every decision a bishop makes. I'd hope so, but the bishop should do his homework rather than taking God's Will for granted. Somehow I think any bishop worth his salt would say the same.

Jim, most eparchies in the homelands and in the diaspora use a committee system to screen or make recommendations about the candidates for the Bishop to decide. And things are changing because of the fallout from all these scandals, even for Greek Catholics. For my own diaconal preparation, it was required to undergo a rigorous set of psychological evaluations which had to be completed with favorable recommendations before I could be ordained to the subdiaconate.

But Alex makes a very good and relevant point. If we are to be the living examples of synodal governance in the Church the eparchial bishop has to have some authority to chose his men and decide ultimately who is fit or not fit for ordination, regardless of their academic background.

Jim,

Christ is Risen!

FYI, men have been ordained in the USA for the Ruthenians that did not complete the seminary program before or after ordination. There are others with varying levels of education, Roman, Byzantine or other. Perhaps on paper what you say is correct but it is not so in practice.

Tony

What is truly needed is not claims one way or the other about which jurisdiction has the least formally educated clergy (though I am unaware of such priests today within the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia; I AM aware of many within the OCA. No disinformation will change that). What is needed is educated clergy who can be effective in their roles in the parishes. Uneducated or undereducated ones are less apt to be reliable counselors. I speak from the experiences of many OCA parishioners, not just myself.

There are interim measures that might help to work around their shortcomings, such as the withholding of the authority to hear confessions, etc. as already mentioned.

Dear Jim,

Please tell me more about the situation in the OCA. I am very surprised to hear (I hope I am reading your post correctly) about the lack of theological education. Doesn't every priest have to graduate from a seminary? If not, why do you think this is? Some people I met from the OCA once told me that you have a shortage of priests. Could this be a 'desperate', if you will, determining factor. (For the record, we also have a shortage of priests).

As far as confession, I do know that one is not automatically given the right to be a confessor in the GOA. It took our young (28 years old and in his first year of the priesthood), about one and a half years before he was allowed to be a confessor.

Many GO admire the OCA greatly for what seems to be, more of an emphasis (on the part of the laity) on true Christian and Orthodox spirituality and religiousity (rather than a venue to retain one's ethnic heritage ) than what we see in many of our churches...

I am looking forward to your comments.

In the Risen Christ,
Alice

There ARE 3 seminaries for the OCA with excellent programs- of course, St Vladimir's in Crestwood, NY (where one of our posters, Anastasios is residing), St Tikhon's in South Canaan, PA (a monastery as well) and St Herman's in Alaska. There is NO reason why there should be uneducated clergy in the OCA!

So now, a priest that does not attend seminary is uneducated?

I am not against seminary education, but to say that this is the only way is wrong and ignores the fact that one can become educated in many different ways.

David

ps theres that pesky thumbs down again! :p

Dear Jim,

By "bishop" I meant "Orthodox bishop" - an RC bishop won't allow for the ordination of a priest without seminary training.

And I know priests with doctorates in theology, philosophy, canon law, etc. who are, how shall I say . . . ignoramuses when it comes to dealing with parishioners.

As for being narrow - there are lots of limited and bigoted priestly scholars around in all the Churches!

I have no seminary training, but I think I would make for a great priest.

I'd be entertaining, at least, don't you think?

Alex

I noticed your continued use of that "thumbs down" :p I pray eventualy for a "thumbs up"

David,
I completely agree with you that education takes many forms and the best is practical experience among the people of God in a parish. I think Archbishop +Joseph (Raya) had much the same view of seminaries. I don't think we should be too hard on such great institutions as St Vladimir's or Holy Trinity in JOrdanville. That's all I'm saying

Theology is about knowing God, not knowing about God. Education... what is education, in spiritual terms? The best priests I've ever know are the simple 'uneducated' ones. Britain is full of bookish, clever priests. May the Lord preserve us from them.

And "amen" to your post, Father Mark.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

Well, Alice, I'm about to go out on a limb again.

My stats are not current, but there was a time a few years ago when the GOA was short some 50+ priests in the U.S. That's probably changed by now. At the same time the OCA said it was only short 4 or 5. Even so, GOA has established many missions and churches where the OCA has not, and seems to continue to grow faster. GOA is number one within the orthodox churches outside Rome in the U.S. in headcount, despite OCA efforts at unification.

What the OCA didn't say was that it has a long-standing Late Vocation Program which is sometimes used in lieu of residency at a seminary. It's intended for the diaconate, but in more than 1 case it has resulted in the priesthood once the diaconate was achieved. Bishops can and do make decisions without synodal agreements on some things. This phenomenon may be limited to the Diocese of the West and that of the South, as far as I know. The West also took in a series of non-canonical mission groups whose clergy were mostly ordained in place, even though they also hadn't been to an orthodox seminary. Not unlike taking an Lutheran-Missouri Synod type and just re-ordaining him, I suppose.

Because Orthodoxy enjoys a certain internal fluidity, it's also not unusual for a seminary candidate to go to St. Vlad's, then go to an Antiochean or Greek church. It happens there is a GOA mission in Flagstaff whose priest came from an OCA seminary. Locally, clergy also bounce from one jurisdiction to another without much concern, though most Antiocheans are not permitted to jump. As a lay person it concerns me, however. I found it to be too casual an approach to the Faith, this leapfrogging of clergy when they know little about the new place.

As to the 3 OCA seminaries, St. Vlads is sometimes characterized as generally making scholars and theologians, and St. Tikhon's is supposed to make great parish priests. That probably could spark debate from Tony and others at St. Vlads. My personal experience with St. Vlads priests has been some of both, but more scholarly than community-oriented. St. Herman's in Alaska is for educating Native Americans to serve the Alaska diocese, mainly.

GOA, on the other hand, has a much admired seminary of its own in Massachusettes. The Antiocheans have no seminary in the U.S., but have many vocations, and are regarded as rather progressive compared to the other two. They send their candidates to all of the above except St. Herman's. Sort of makes you wonder why there are any jurisdictions, doesn't it?

Dear Jim,

Thankyou for the response. Yes, I agree that it would be nice if the OCA and the GOA were united.

As for that mission church in Flagstaff, my husband and I got to know the priest Father Nicholas Andruchow quite well. He served as a deacon at my parish in Westchester County, N.Y., while he was still studying at St. Vladimirs.
He and his presvytera Marilyn are exceptional Christians. I guess he is the GOA's gain, but OCA's loss!

In Christ,
Alice

It's not all or nothing>

Many men are pulled early from a three year program because of urgent needs in their diocese coupled with readiness and willingness on their own part. Sometimes these are the best clergy, since they really do understand the urgency of their work.

Also, there is a seminary exchange program where a seminarian at SVS or Holy Cross may take a semester or two at the other seminary. I like to think of it as cross-polination in the garden of the Lord. I can't remember if this relationship exists with Sts. Tikhon's, Herman's, Sophia's (Ukrainian), or Libertyville, IL (Serbian's) Seminaries.

There is no perfect model of a clergyman except Christ. And all of the candidates fall short there.

Indeed He is Risen!
Andrew

Trouble is, once ordained and assigned to a parish, priests are pretty much at liberty to do and say whatever they want if there is little episcopal or other oversight in their diocese. Where is the assurance that Orthodoxy is true to the Faith when there is little supervision or no one supervising the front line?

Jim,

Your observations always prove to be extremely acurrate.

Everything depends upon (by the grace of God) the bishop selecting competent and devout clergy. At this, they fail regularly, but then again, they often have only one candidate and its a yes or no. They don't have a choice amongst candidates. This also tells us something about the state of our laity and their qualifications and willingness to serve!

But I try not to despair since: Christ is Indeed Risen!
Andrew

Parishes need to produce worthy candidates for the holy ministry, taking their own part in discerning the vocations of those called to serve the Lord in the ordained ministry. There is an alien hiatus between those trained and ordained and the people of God whom they serve. Byzantine Christianity presupposes a close relationship between the laos and their bishop and the laos and their potential clergy.

Spasi Christos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bishop Nikolai of Alaska (OCA) once told a story about temporarily serving as a priest in a California parish. The parish invited him to become their priest. He asked them if they had ever produced a priestly vocation from the parish. They said no. He turned them down. So, Fr. Mark's point is well taken.

This is all too true. Sometimes priests are assigned from another region or another country, often not able to connect to the parish. Many eparchies are too concerned with structure, process, programs, etc. and the laos in the parish gets left out of the picture. We need to regain and foster those "home grown" vocations from the parish.

Diak causes me to remember that back in the 1970s my mother-in-law's parish in Uniontown, St. Mary's RC Church, a mostly Slavic parish, got a new priest- from India. At a dinner one of our friends asked if he was Goan. Mom replied, "No, he just came."

In the ancient Church, the bishop would set a president/proistamenos over a community from amongst the community. He would pick one of the most respected, most devout, and most knowledgeable of the elders/presbyters and designate him as president/proistamenos by the laying on of hands.

In the modern Church, this is almost unheard. In the OCA, I beleive that it is even official policy not to assign major clergy to their home parishes. For clergy, it becomes a kind of career where they transfer around getting more and more "experience" until they can find a cushy spot as a chancellor or development director with the jurisdictional or diocesan office.

For their part, the laity want to "hire" and "fire" the clergy at will without consulting the bishop and similarly can't bear that one from amongst them would be "elevated" over themselves.

All of this shows how far all have drifted in misunderstanding the role of the president/proistamenos. They fail to realize that he is simply the one who makes the offering and leads the community's prayers and other non-liturgical deliberations. They are so often looking for an innovator, cheerleader, or other "all-responsible" figure whom they may praise or curse as the case may be.

They (clergy and laity) often forget that Christ is the head of the body. He gave a "parathiki' or foundation (of faith) to the apostles who then gave the bishops a "paradosis" or deposit (of faith) to be carried forward by each successive generation of believers.

We are all responsible for the paradosis.

Christ is Risen!
Andrew

I believe that many Orthodox parishes function more like ethnic clubs than churches. Club priorities usually concern maintaining national customs, be it Greek, Serb, Russian, Romanian, Ukrainian, etc.

There is also a core of faithful believers that the clergy relies on to conduct services. It's this group that so desperately needs a priest who knows his stuff. The club members often just ignore their priest rather than caring about what he says.

Sometimes laity are both faithful AND club members, often they are not. It is the club mentality that once prompted an Orthodox priest to tell his congregation that, "I am not the cruise director." But the club cares little for what the priest says, and will go its own way, periodically trying to get the priest to go along, but willing to go on without him. The faithful few are the ones who take their Faith more seriously. If the clergy are not well trained and managed, then that group will not encourage vocations.

So, say what you will about the need to foster more vocations. I still believe that the clergy lead by example. That is why it has become increasingly difficult to get vocations, not because the laity are not working hard enough. The faithful few are likely to steer clear of official channels once they get burned.