www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What authority does the Bible have....

Before the thread on Bishop Milingo devolved into the Monty Python Flying Circus, this statement was made regarding a comment I made:

Ahhhh yep!!!

Now I want to "muddy the waters" some more. Let me ask the question another way....

If God, through the inspired writings of the Holy Scriptures, doth not have a problem with married bishops, then why does the Church?

And, please, none of that "you don't know what it takes to run an eparchy" etc etc etc. That's the same crappola that the Roman Church has laid out for centuries about the married priesthood and somehow, despite all that apologia, the Orthodox priests seem to do a just ducky job of running their parishes with a matushka, and even kids, under their roof.

As I said, these are the kinds of things that drive Protties nuts and make them claim that the Roman Church has no regard at all for the Bible, which is important to them.

If a man is 50+ and his kiddos are grown and he still has a wife, you are telling me that he shouldn't be a bishop when he may very well be a more holy and decent bishop than some of the knuckleheads who have come before him and ruined things in their jurisdiction.

That is just plain silly to me.

What authority do the Holy Scriptures have and is that authority more or less than that of Tradition? Does what we want to do supercede what is written?

Just my .02.

You can fire at will.

Brother Ed

This ought to be good. hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..

Dear Brother Ed,

I feel that you may have missed the post I made answering your question from my perspective on the other thread. So I have reposted it below...

I know that this is a difficult time for you, but in all kindness, I must ask you to try to restrain from name calling ("knuckleheads").

I can see that you have strong opinions about this, but please, let's all *try* to have an open discussion.

Thanks, dear brother!

God bless,
Alice, Moderator

Dear Brother Ed you said:

I say:

We have to remember that the same people that were given the enlightenment to compile the Bible, in other words to know what the Bible should contain, and what it shouldn't, are the same people that formed Christianity in the Ecumenical councils, etc.

You said:
I say:

There are reasons for what exists today. For one, a bishop has a great many duties. His duty towards his family might conflict with his duty towards his flock.

But that's not all. In the past, bishops and priests were not paid...at least in the Orthodox Church. They were given gifts by their parishioners as they performed their services. Now many manipulated this system, and acquired quite a fortune that was then passed down to their families as inheritance. The money did not go to the Church.

On the other hand, the monks were true servants of the Lord, and kept nothing....So the RCC has monk priests. By the same account, the Bishops, by virtue of their position acquired even larger gifts. Also, the incomes from properties belonging to Bishoprics can be quite substantial.

Zenovia

Brother Ed,

WE ahve to be careful about how we read Scripture. The original intent was that a man should not have had more than one wife. Yet having no wife is the same as "not having more than one wife" since, last time I looked, zero is less than 2 (i.e., 1+1).

God also gave the Church the authority to "loose and to bind" -- and so the Church has determined what is appropriate and what it not.

Fr. Deacon Edward

We must remember that priestly celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Rite. At times St Paul makes it sound like getting married isn't a very wise choice for anyone (at times that is). An ulra-traditional priest who says the Latin Mass, told me that the Pope could allow married men to become priests tomorrow, and while that would be greeted with shock and consternation in some quarters, he added that it would be his prerogative to make such a change.

Dear Brother Ed,

It is not so simple.

Not only does a Bishop have immense responsibilites which would be greatly hindered by having a family, but there are genuine concerns in Orthodoxy (in countries where the state does not pay clerical salaries such as in Greece) about how the Bishop and his family would be supported, how much they should be supported, (since this is a position of status), and subsequent inheritance concerns. It would be very disconcerting for the laity to see their hard earned money being possibly abused and flaunted in a high life style by a Bishop's family, while their own family cannot afford the same things. It would certainly be a sticky situation.

I believe that it was inheritance and monetary abuses of the position that imposed this discipline.

Let's not also forget the scriptural mandate that one cannot serve two masters. A Bishop must serve his flock and the Church above all else. His position should be one that transcends earthly concerns and pleasures.

Furthermore, traditionally, in Orthodoxy, a Bishop should also be a monastic, which implies mandatory celibacy.

Because our Lord, His Mother, St. John the Baptist, and many saints were not married, celibacy and the disciplines of monasticism are held in high esteem in the Church, both East and West. In the East, this discipline remains in monasteries and with the hierarchy, and in the West, this monastic discipline has also been passed on to the clergy.

Protestantism is fairly new, and for the most part, was founded on the foundations of dissidents. Martin Luther wanted to marry, and King Henry VIII wanted to marry again and again...thus, the very ethos of Protestantism is one of a new order and mentality, and it is only natural that Protestants might not understand the ancient holy and mystical celibate monastic discipline of the Church which produces Hierarchs and Hieromonks (or monk-priests) in the East and celibate priests and Hierarchs in the West.

Just some thoughts.

With love in Christ,
Alice