www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology monasticism

Lance - excellent point. Traditionally the monastic life was precisely the the living out of the "angelic life" and monks proficient in the monastic life were referred to as "Father" regardless of whether or not they were priests or deacons. The Studites have attempted to restore this practice within the Byzantine tradition of the Catholic Church.

Dear Lance,

An astute observation, and timely.

For both Sabbas, and Pachomius, to allow monks to become priests, they had to study. That was the problem. Study made them nervous.

However, to preserve "Orthodoxy" Sabbas and Euthymius readily supplied clergy for the Anastasis, and for Jerusalem (and dioceses beyond). To provide a Chalcedonian Bishop, they would happily part with any number of monks. They were able to make the sacrifice to insure that a diocese was saved from the Origenists, or the non-Chalcedonians... (forgive me for using these labels, now not correct).

Elias

Origen wasn't all bad - and he had some great students...the Cappadocians wouldn't have been the same without him...oops, sorry, starting to drift off-topic..

Very interesting thoughts about Sabas and Euthyimios in that light, reverend Father! They supplied the clerical need where appropriate. I really hadn't thought in that way except that there was a basic need for presbyter, deacon and minor clergy (subdeacons, cantors, etc.) to fulfill the liturgical roles of the community, and not many presbyters except those necessary for celebrating the Holy Mysteries. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the Sabaitic monasteries even in this case of supplying extra presbyters and episcopal candidates were never the "priest factories" of the medieval Western European monasteries.

The Sabaitic influence on the shape of our current liturgical typikon and services certainly is significant.

You are right, that was not their purpose. They were certainly not priest factories, or sources of "supply".

They were passionate about the Church, and willing to leave the desert when the true faith was threatened. The Sabaite monasteries were the "true faith"'s musclemen, the guardians of Orthodoxy. ...and they were well able for the fight.

My kind of monks...

Dear Lovers of the Angelic Life!

The ancient monks, although not priests, actually did have amongst themselves those who had aptitudes for intellectual study and these were asked to apply themselves to the Scriptures and Patristics.

Their studies were less of the philosophical kind that one would find in the great schools of their period.

The ancient monastic three year preparation or "novitiate" paid a great deal of attention to the memorization of the Psalms and a book of the Gospels, usually the Gospel of John.

They were expected to be able to quote from the Scriptures and the Fathers so as to defend the Orthodox Faith against the heretics of the day.

Their intense patristic and scriptural background made them ideal candidates for the episcopate in times of upheaval in the Church, as they stuck to the basics in defending the Church's faith and morals.

To this day, the rules for accepting priestly candidates to ordination include the bishop seeing if the candidate "knows the Psalms and the Gospels" which, previously, meant that he knew them off by heart - the original monastic rule.

St Benedict as well, in his Rule, considered the admission of priests into his monasteries as highly irregular and one can detect a nervousness on his part to do so. He was also worried that priests might consider themselves "above" the other monks etc.

When a monk was asked to be a priest or a bishop, there was no question that he wasn't fully qualified to fulfill his duties or somehow needed extra theological preparation - he didn't.

He was simply released from the monastery by his Ihumen and was then ordained a priest and then consecrated a bishop.

To this day, a bishop in our Church must be a monk or a member of a religious Order.

Alex