Eastern priests and celibacy

[EricBrooks]

This isn’t an accusation, but an honest question. I don’t know much about the history of priestly celibacy, but I found a couple of these facts odd.

The present practice, as far as I know, is celibacy in the West and marriage in the east (except for bishops).

1 Timothy speaks of bishops having wives, but Jerome and other Fathers explain that clergy were expected to live in continence after ordination. We know that the West later adopted the practice of celibacy, but it seems that there’s some good reason to suppose that even in the east clergy were expected to be continent if married. The primary sources in favor of this view are available in the wikipedia article on priestly celibacy and many other places, so I won’t reproduce them here. The most notable fact, though, may be that the Council of Carthage commanded that all clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) abstain from conjugal intercourse.

Apparently in the council of Quinisext the decree from the Council of Carthage is reinterpreted not to mean perpetual abstinence, but only set periods of abstinence relative to the celebration of the Liturgy. The Catholic Church never accepted the Council of Quinisext, but it’s my understanding that Eastern Catholics have followed the Orthodox in this practice. If the Catholic Church does not accept Quinisext, why should Eastern Catholics follow the innovation of this council?

I really don’t have a strong opinion about this. I just encountered this argument for the first time. I feel like I may be missing something, and am hoping that someone here knows more.

 

[Aramis]

In part, because a great many Eastern Catholic Churches were Orthodox Churches that came into union after quinisext, and were permitted to retain the practice.

 

[Formosus]

This isn’t an accusation, but an honest question. I don’t know much about the history of priestly celibacy, but I found a couple of these facts odd.

The present practice, as far as I know, is celibacy in the West and marriage in the east (except for bishops).

1 Timothy speaks of bishops having wives, but Jerome and other Fathers explain that clergy were expected to live in continence after ordination. We know that the West later adopted the practice of celibacy, but it seems that there’s some good reason to suppose that even in the east clergy were expected to be continent if married. The primary sources in favor of this view are available in the wikipedia article on priestly celibacy and many other places, so I won’t reproduce them here. The most notable fact, though, may be that the Council of Carthage commanded that all clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) abstain from conjugal intercourse.

Apparently in the council of Quinisext the decree from the Council of Carthage is reinterpreted not to mean perpetual abstinence, but only set periods of abstinence relative to the celebration of the Liturgy.** The Catholic Church never accepted the Council of Quinisext**, but it’s my understanding that Eastern Catholics have followed the Orthodox in this practice. If the Catholic Church does not accept Quinisext, why should Eastern Catholics follow the innovation of this council?

I really don’t have a strong opinion about this. I just encountered this argument for the first time. I feel like I may be missing something, and am hoping that someone here knows more.

Correction the western church never accepted the council in Trullo. It was a general council of the Byzantine churches.

 

[Diak]

It’s not an issue even in the West since several married Lutherans and Episcopalians have been accepted as Latin priests (which were mostly handled by then Cardinal Ratzinger). While indeed this is an exception to the current practice, it cannot be said that there is an absolute ban even in the Latin Church.

I think there is a sometimes serious misunderstanding about chastity, continence and celibacy. You might be interested in an article by a hieromonk of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church that begins here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4619904&postcount=67

 

[Ungcsertez]

It’s not an issue even in the West since several married Lutherans and Episcopalians have been accepted as Latin priests (which were mostly handled by then Cardinal Ratzinger). While indeed this is an exception to the current practice, it cannot be said that there is an absolute ban even in the Latin Church.

I think there is a sometimes serious misunderstanding about chastity, continence and celibacy. You might be interested in an article by a hieromonk of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church that begins here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4619904&postcount=67

Diak,

Good point!

U-C

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

I cannot speak for other Eastern Churches, but the Syro Malabar Catholic and Syro Malankara Catholic Churches in Kerala, India, introduced mandatory celibacy for both priests and Bishops only after they came in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Syro Malabar Church came in full communion in 1599 and Syro Malankara around 1930.

Celibacy was not mandatory in the Roman Catholic for many centuries. “Scholars believe that the first written law forbidding the clergy to marry was finally handed down at the Second Lateran Council in 1139…The law finally became official doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1563…”

 

[Diak]

Haven’t the Malankara returned to ordaining married men to the priesthood? Or were those former Orthodox?

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

I cannot speak for other Eastern Churches, but the Syro Malabar Catholic and Syro Malankara Catholic Churches in Kerala, India, introduced mandatory celibacy for both priests and Bishops only after they came in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Syro Malabar Church came in full communion in 1599 and Syro Malankara around 1930.

Celibacy was not mandatory in the Roman Catholic for many centuries. “Scholars believe that the first written law forbidding the clergy to marry was finally handed down at the Second Lateran Council in 1139…The law finally became official doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1563…”

It is my impression that geographically eastern societies (i.e., India, China, Japan, etc,) are more accepting of the value of celibacy than those more geographically west. Would you consider the mandatory celibacy in the Oriental Indian Catholic Churches a genuine development of praxis borne out of its culture (that is, freely accepting the Latin practice without any sense of obligation when it was first introduced), or an intrusion of Latinization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Haven’t the Malankara returned to ordaining married men to the priesthood? Or were those former Orthodox?

I’m fairly certain about the latter, but not at all about the former. I recall hearing something about the restoration of the ancient practice, but I don’t know if it was actually done, or if they are still considering it.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

It is my impression that geographically eastern societies (i.e., India, China, Japan, etc,) are more accepting of the value of celibacy than those more geographically west. Would you consider the mandatory celibacy in the Oriental Indian Catholic Churches a genuine development of praxis borne out of its culture (that is, freely accepting the Latin practice without any sense of obligation when it was first introduced), or an intrusion of Latinization?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, I read something from a Syro-Malankara Catholic priest on the Vatican website about the Church’s view on celibacy when they had to accept it as part of the deal for full communion with RCC. They do not see it as " Latinisation" at all. In fact he quoted Mahatma Gandhi who adopted celibacy willingly as a married man and lived very much in the world, and the Hindu and Buddhist tradition of celibacy held in very high esteem in the Indian spiritual tradition. The only difference however is that in the Hindu tradition all temple priests are married, only the sannyasis who forsake the world and go in search of God are celibate. All Buddhist monks who live in monasteries are celibate, but a Buddhist temple priest (a tradition introduced much later because Buddha did not introduce priesthood at all) may or may not marry. In other words, priests who live in the " world" and have contact with the society tend to be married (Hindu priests usually are) although they may choose celibacy (which some Buddhist priests do) and those who have forsaken the “world” are celibate.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Haven’t the Malankara returned to ordaining married men to the priesthood? Or were those former Orthodox?

Diak, please refer to my previous post. The Syro Malankara Catholic Church is in full communion with RCC and therefore expect celibacy of their priests and bishops. As to accepting married priests or bishops, it is much like the Roman Catholic Church accepting married Anglican/Episcopalian priests and Bishops into their fold. It is simply a matter of the Catholic church not asking priests or bishops to give up their wives when they join the Catholic Church.

 

[Aramis]

SJ:
Priestly celibacy is NOT a dogmatic requirement. Many churches in union have both married and monastic priests and deacons.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

SJ:
Priestly celibacy is NOT a dogmatic requirement. Many churches in union have both married and monastic priests and deacons.

Aramis, I mentioned in my first post that I was only referring to Syro Malabar and Syro Malankar Churches in Kerala, both of which are in full communion with RCC. Both have introduced mandatory celibacy since it came in communion with RCC. I do not know about other catholic churches in communion with Rome, hence I did not speak on their behalf.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

Marduk, I read something from a Syro-Malankara Catholic priest on the Vatican website about the Church’s view on celibacy when they had to accept it as part of the deal for full communion with RCC. They do not see it as " Latinisation" at all. In fact he quoted Mahatma Gandhi who adopted celibacy willingly as a married man and lived very much in the world, and the Hindu and Buddhist tradition of celibacy held in very high esteem in the Indian spiritual tradition. The only difference however is that in the Hindu tradition all temple priests are married, only the sannyasis who forsake the world and go in search of God are celibate. All Buddhist monks who live in monasteries are celibate, but a Buddhist temple priest (a tradition introduced much later because Buddha did not introduce priesthood at all) may or may not marry. In other words, priests who live in the " world" and have contact with the society tend to be married (Hindu priests usually are) although they may choose celibacy (which some Buddhist priests do) and those who have forsaken the “world” are celibate.

I think I get it. Let me know if this sounds correct: In traditional Middle Eastern Syriac Christianity, celibacy is a special holy calling inimately tied to the monastic movement, distinct from the normal life of the lay person. A monk may become a priest and a lay person may become a priest. So priesthood can be seen as a subset within monasticism and/or a subset within the laity. On the other hand, within the unique spiritual Tradition of India, it is the other way around. Within the priesthood, there are two subsets - a group which is celibate, and a group which marries.

So when the Latins came in and insisted on a celibate priesthood, the idea was not strange at all to Indians, for they were already used to the idea of celibate priests, regardless of whether they were monks or not.

In other words, in traditional Middle Eastern Syriac Christianity, celibacy is intimately tied to monasticism (i.e., not the priesthood). In Indian society, however, celibacy is initimately tied to priesthood itself as a legitimate way of life within that calling.

Does that sound right?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

I think I get it. Let me know if this sounds correct: In traditional Middle Eastern Syriac Christianity, celibacy is a special holy calling inimately tied to the monastic movement, distinct from the normal life of the lay person. A monk may become a priest and a lay person may become a priest. So priesthood can be seen as a subset within monasticism and/or a subset within the laity. On the other hand, within the unique spiritual Tradition of India, it is the other way around. Within the priesthood, there are two subsets - a group which is celibate, and a group which marries.

So when the Latins came in and insisted on a celibate priesthood, the idea was not strange at all to Indians, for they were already used to the idea of celibate priests, regardless of whether they were monks or not.

In other words, in traditional Middle Eastern Syriac Christianity, celibacy is intimately tied to monasticism (i.e., not the priesthood). In Indian society, however, celibacy is initimately tied to priesthood itself as a legitimate way of life within that calling.

Does that sound right?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, I think you have complicated things in a way I find difficult to understand.

Christianity in Kerala, followed the customs in the Middle East from where Christianity and its Liturgy was later brought. Hence Christian priests married, much like all the Eastern and Orthodox do, and like the Roman Catholic priests did until not so long ago (in fact only a few decades before Syro Malabar Christians came in full communion with RCC). The Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara followed the rules of RCC with regard to celibate priests when in come in full communion with RCC, Syro Malabar in 1599 and Syro Malankara much later around 1930.

I’m not sure if both churches had monasteries with celibate monks before it came in communion with RCC.

In the Hindu tradition, priesthood is heriditory (hence the Brahmin caste) and they marry as a rule. Those who forsake the world in search of God fulltime are called sannyasis. They are celibate as a rule. They do NOT function as priests. They give up their caste and family and societal ties and live like wandering monks or in monasteries known as Ashrams. However they do not live as groups of sannyasis, but there is one guru per ashram. Other people may or may not join the sannyasi in his Ashram. A spiritually enlightened sannyasi may have a following of devotees, either visting or staying with him in his ashram. There are no strict rules in Hinduism. People are free to come and go as they please.

In Buddhism, monasticism is a very strong element. They live in groups much like Catholic monks, celibate. Only some Buddhists have adopted Hindu customs and function like priests in Buddhist temples. They may or may not marry. It must be remembered Buddha did not call himself god or guru. Buddhism does not believe in God. Yet, many people worship Buddha in the place of god. Buddhism it must be noted almost disappeared from Indian soil, the country of its birth. It developed in different ways in different countries of the Far East, starting with Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Thailand etc. The traditional Buddhist temple with priest etc is rarely found in India. The largest Buddhist group in India are foreigners - His Holiness The Dalai Lama and his Tibetan exiles!

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

Marduk, I think you have complicated things in a way I find difficult to understand.

Christianity in Kerala, followed the customs in the Middle East from where Christianity and its Liturgy was later brought. Hence Christian priests married, much like all the Eastern and Orthodox do, and like the Roman Catholic priests did until not so long ago (in fact only a few decades before Syro Malabar Christians came in full communion with RCC). The Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara followed the rules of RCC with regard to celibate priests when in come in full communion with RCC, Syro Malabar in 1599 and Syro Malankara much later around 1930.

I’m not sure if both churches had monasteries with celibate monks before it came in communion with RCC.

In the Hindu tradition, priesthood is heriditory (hence the Brahmin caste) and they marry as a rule. Those who forsake the world in search of God fulltime are called sannyasis. They are celibate as a rule. They do NOT function as priests. They give up their caste and family and societal ties and live like wandering monks or in monasteries known as Ashrams. However they do not live as groups of sannyasis, but there is one guru per ashram. Other people may or may not join the sannyasi in his Ashram. A spiritually enlightened sannyasi may have a following of devotees, either visting or staying with him in his ashram. There are no strict rules in Hinduism. People are free to come and go as they please.

In Buddhism, monasticism is a very strong element. They live in groups much like Catholic monks, celibate. Only some Buddhists have adopted Hindu customs and function like priests in Buddhist temples. They may or may not marry. It must be remembered Buddha did not call himself god or guru. Buddhism does not believe in God. Yet, many people worship Buddha in the place of god. Buddhism it must be noted almost disappeared from Indian soil, the country of its birth. It developed in different ways in different countries of the Far East, starting with Sri Lanka, China, Japan, Thailand etc. The traditional Buddhist temple with priest etc is rarely found in India. The largest Buddhist group in India are foreigners - His Holiness The Dalai Lama and his Tibetan exiles!

Thanks for the great explanation! I was just wondering why the rule of priestly celibacy found easier acceptance within Indian Catholicism than in other branches of Eastern/Oriental. Christianity, since you said the rule is not considered a Latinization that Indian Catholics generally feel the need to get rid of. Would it be wrong for me to assume that Indian Catholicism does not consider the rule of celibacy as constitutive (or non-constitutive, as it were) of its identity as a branch of Syriac Christianity?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Shin]

Apparently in the council of Quinisext the decree from the Council of Carthage is reinterpreted not to mean perpetual abstinence, but only set periods of abstinence relative to the celebration of the Liturgy. The Catholic Church never accepted the Council of Quinisext, but it’s my understanding that Eastern Catholics have followed the Orthodox in this practice. If the Catholic Church does not accept Quinisext, why should Eastern Catholics follow the innovation of this council?

I have a question – is the discipline of periodic abstinence related to the celebration of the liturgy enforced or followed anywhere today?

 

[Cluny]

I have a question – is the discipline of periodic abstinence related to the celebration of the liturgy enforced or followed anywhere today?

---

It certainly is among the Orthodox.

 

[S_J_Thaikattil]

Dear sister SJ Thaikattil,

Thanks for the great explanation! I was just wondering why the rule of priestly celibacy found easier acceptance within Indian Catholicism than in other branches of Eastern/Oriental. Christianity, since you said the rule is not considered a Latinization that Indian Catholics generally feel the need to get rid of. Would it be wrong for me to assume that Indian Catholicism does not consider the rule of celibacy as constitutive (or non-constitutive, as it were) of its identity as a branch of Syriac Christianity?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Brother Marduk

I’m not quite sure whether I fully understand your question, but I’m going to try to answer.

Christianity as you know was brought to Kerala by the married Apostle Thomas (although there is no mention of his wife anywhere) and not by the celibate Apostle Paul. All Christian priests (except monks and religious in Catholic and Orthodox orders) married for at least the first thousand years in the history of Christianity. While Christianity in the Middle East was embedded in cultures that had been pagan (where there is absolutely no concept of celibacy) and later Jewish and Islamic (both religions which have no tradition of celibacy), Indian Christianity was embedded in a culture where celibacy was looked upon as a spiritual means to focus energies on God in Hinduism and to attain liberation in Buddhism. So the concept of remaining celibate for spiritual goals was not strange to Christians in India. The local cultures does impact religions, just as religions impact the local culture.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Brother Marduk

I’m not quite sure whether I fully understand your question, but I’m going to try to answer.

Christianity as you know was brought to Kerala by the married Apostle Thomas (although there is no mention of his wife anywhere) and not by the celibate Apostle Paul. All Christian priests (except monks and religious in Catholic and Orthodox orders) married for at least the first thousand years in the history of Christianity. While Christianity in the Middle East was embedded in cultures that had been pagan (where there is absolutely no concept of celibacy) and later Jewish and Islamic (both religions which have no tradition of celibacy), Indian Christianity was embedded in a culture where celibacy was looked upon as a spiritual means to focus energies on God in Hinduism and to attain liberation in Buddhism. So the concept of remaining celibate for spiritual goals was not strange to Christians in India. The local cultures does impact religions, just as religions impact the local culture.

That settles my question. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer it.

Blessings,
Marduk