Is there a single life vocation in the EC church?

[Paul_theApostle]

Single life is a vocation in the Roman Catholic church but in the Orthodox church one should or is encouraged(?) to get married or become a monastic,can anyone explain this difference between the two churches regarding this?

also how is single life viewed in the EC?

thanks God bless u

 

[Aramis]

Both the ECC’s and the Orthodox have an extensive tradition of monasticism. The typical Byzantine monastic is somewhere between friary and cloistered… they live in community, but may have tasks outside the community.

The ECCs also tend to have secular celibates, as well, in the clergy, while they are less common in the Orthodox side, they exist there, as well.

Little distinction is made, however, between the secular clergy who are married and those who are celibate… both are expected to do the same tasks.

 

[MorEphrem]

From my experience in Lebanon, I don’t see why anyone would want to be a celibate non-monastic priest since the monks have an unspoken +1 on their secular counters, most of which are married.

It’s difficult to speak on the EC opinion of celibate vs. married clergy because I live in a country where the choice to be married has been suppressed (which in my opinion is just ). So yes, there are single vocations in the ECCs in the US (although, for instance, I don’t know how “first choice” it is - for instance I wanted to be a monk but I recognized the need for clergy in the US as a higher priority).

 

[malphono]

From my experience in Lebanon, I don’t see why anyone would want to be a celibate non-monastic priest since the monks have an unspoken +1 on their secular counters, most of which are married.

The existence of a celibate secular clergy in the Maronite Church is nothing but a latinization. Until the late 16th century, there really was no such thing: one was either a monk (celibate by definition) or a married “village priest.” The trend towards “celibate seculars” started with the founding of the so-called “Maronite College” in Rome, and has continued (and grown) ever since. These days, of course, (even in the Patriarchal Territories), the latinized ideal of a “celibate secular clergy” is more the rule than the exception.

 

[twf]

The existence of a celibate secular clergy in the Maronite Church is nothing but a latinization. Until the late 16th century, there really was no such thing: one was either a monk (celibate by definition) or a married “village priest.” The trend towards “celibate seculars” started with the founding of the so-called “Maronite College” in Rome, and has continued (and grown) ever since. These days, of course, (even in the Patriarchal Territories), the latinized ideal of a “celibate secular clergy” is more the rule than the exception.

That being said, the celibate secular clergy was a development in Medieval Latin Christendom as well…if it legitimately developed in the West, can it not legitimately develop elsewhere? There are many traditions that we cling to that are much newer than the 16th century. I’m not arguing for or against celibate secular clergy in the Maronite Church - just raising a general observation. Of course, an imposed tradition is a different matter…

 

[malphono]

That being said, the celibate secular clergy was a development in Medieval Latin Christendom as well…if it legitimately developed in the West, can it not legitimately develop elsewhere? There are many traditions that we cling to that are much newer than the 16th century. I’m not arguing for or against celibate secular clergy in the Maronite Church - just raising a general observation. Of course, an imposed tradition is a different matter…

The history of this is very different between the West and Orient/East. In our (i.e., the Maronite’s) case, I’d not exactly call it an “organic development” although it was a “development” of sorts.

In any case, in a sense, one could say this was “imposed” considering that it was a direct result of Latin interference (i.e, the so-called “Maronite College”). Part of the result was two classes of non-monastic clergy: the “celibate seculars” being “first class” and the married “village priests” being “second class.” This same trend also resulted in the demise of the diaconate as a non-transitional Holy Order. (Yes, that last has been restored, in a way, in the post-conciliar era, but in fact it amounts to more of a mirroring of Latin practice than a true “restoration” but I digress.)

 

[CDB1718]

Single lay service is not a widely accepted vocation in the west, but is piously included in our current time because of the issue of homosexuality. The only reason this juxtapositioning is necessary is because the priesthood is likewise included among the pious list of vocations, which had to be distinguished from religious life when it made its resurgence in popular culture, which now must be distinguished from the homosexual “marriage” alternative.

I think the vocabulary will become more nuanced in time. We already see the west explaining that the priesthood must be confirmed by the church. That’s not a vocation, that’s a ministry. The vocation underlying all these that they’re needing to discern is celibacy, but the west is leaving this vague and undefined because none of the pious traditions are doing damage. They’re letting the people figure out the nuances, just like they did with the infants in limbo idea that was commonly cited but ultimately rejected.

The east is more direct in defining two vocations: celibacy or marriage. Everything else flows from one of those two states and ministries like the priesthood are called out of those states in order to serve the church. All people are called to living in a community that supports the fidelity to one’s vocation as that vocation is the vehicle through which a person grows in God. So the idea of being a single lay person is included under the broad umbrella of celibacy, but that person is just like all the others in that he will need a community to attach himself to to help build up and support the vocation.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Single lay service is not a widely accepted vocation in the west, but is piously included in our current time because of the issue of homosexuality. The only reason this juxtapositioning is necessary is because the priesthood is likewise included among the pious list of vocations, which had to be distinguished from religious life when it made its resurgence in popular culture, which now must be distinguished from the homosexual “marriage” alternative.

I think the vocabulary will become more nuanced in time. We already see the west explaining that the priesthood must be confirmed by the church. That’s not a vocation, that’s a ministry. The vocation underlying all these that they’re needing to discern is celibacy, but the west is leaving this vague and undefined because none of the pious traditions are doing damage. They’re letting the people figure out the nuances, just like they did with the infants in limbo idea that was commonly cited but ultimately rejected.

The east is more direct in defining two vocations: celibacy or marriage. Everything else flows from one of those two states and ministries like the priesthood are called out of those states in order to serve the church. All people are called to living in a community that supports the fidelity to one’s vocation as that vocation is the vehicle through which a person grows in God. So the idea of being a single lay person is included under the broad umbrella of celibacy, but that person is just like all the others in that he will need a community to attach himself to to help build up and support the vocation.

It seems to me that you, unlike some previous posters, have understood what the OP meant by “single life.” Not celibacy in general much less the celibate priesthood, but specifically the supposed vocation to remain an unmarried layperson.

I’m not sure about your idea of two fundamental vocations, and restricting the word “vocation” to these. You yourself speak of men being “called” to the priesthood from one of these states. If they are called then that is, by definition, a vocation.

To address the issue directly, I think it is quite clear that there are some people who are not called to marriage, nor to ordained ministry, nor to join any religious order. Call this its own vocation or the lack of any vocation as you choose, the fact is that single life is the right choice, and sometimes the only possibility, for many people.

By the way, it’s off topic, but for the record Limbo has never been rejected by the Church. It remains as much of a theological option as it always was.

 

[CDB1718]

I’m not sure about your idea of two fundamental vocations, and restricting the word “vocation” to these. You yourself speak of men being “called” to the priesthood from one of these states. If they are called then that is, by definition, a vocation.

Called by the church to serve = ministry
Vehicle through which one primarily attains salvation = vocation

If celibacy and marriage are the options, there’s no third way to add to it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Called by the church to serve = ministry
Vehicle through which one primarily attains salvation = vocation

If celibacy and marriage are the options, there’s no third way to add to it.

Well, if you define things that way then that’s how you’ll define them. But if vocation = calling, (and it does) then obviously a calling to serve the Church is a vocation to serve the Church.

But I notice that you focus on the Church’s call rather than God’s call when it comes to ordained ministry. Is it your position that God calls people to either marriage or celibacy, but not to the priesthood?

 

[CDB1718]

Well, if you define things that way then that’s how you’ll define them. But if vocation = calling, (and it does) then obviously a calling to serve the Church is a vocation to serve the Church.

But I notice that you focus on the Church’s call rather than God’s call when it comes to ordained ministry. Is it your position that God calls people to either marriage or celibacy, but not to the priesthood?

Yes, it is. Both east and west say it is the church that calls people to ministry in the priesthood. If it is a person’s vocation, how could they ever laicize a priest? It would be condemnation to do so. Especially in the west with the theology of marriage and absolutions. It clearly is not the same thing.

I don’t care what words you want to use to convey that they aren’t identical. It is disingenuous to say priesthood, celibacy, and chastity in a single person with homosexual attractions are different ways of engaging the exact same thing. These are different aspects of a holy life lived in accordance with God’s will.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, it is. Both east and west say it is the church that calls people to ministry in the priesthood. If it is a person’s vocation, how could they ever laicize a priest? It would be condemnation to do so. Especially in the west with the theology of marriage and absolutions. It clearly is not the same thing.

I don’t care what words you want to use to convey that they aren’t identical. It is disingenuous to say priesthood, celibacy, and chastity in a single person with homosexual attractions are different ways of engaging the exact same thing. These are different aspects of a holy life lived in accordance with God’s will.

I’m afraid we may be descending into a useless word fight. The word vocation really does mean “calling”, from the Latin vocationem and ultimately from vocare (to call).

Certainly, celibacy and the priesthood are not at all the same thing. Some people are called to one, some to both, some to neither.

But the concrete circumstances of one’s life are important in the discernment of a vocation. If the Church has called on you for a ministry, that is a good indication that God is calling you to it. If the Church has expelled you from a ministry, like if a religious order has rejected you, that is excellent proof that you are not (currently) called to that office or order. Likewise if you are married one can clearly conclude that you are, at present, called to be a good husband or wife and not to enter a ministry or state of life that requires celibacy. But the fact that the concrete circumstances of one’s life play a part in this does mean that God does not call priests to be priests, for example.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Single layperson was what I meant sorry,where in RC its an acceptable vocation/calling as is Religious or married life.

But in Orthodoxy or EC is it seen the same way? I heard there are only two paths one should take of either monasticism or being married

. So the idea of being a single lay person is included under the broad umbrella of celibacy, but that person is just like all the others in that he will need a community to attach himself to to help build up and support the vocation.

If the person is not joined to a marriage partner or monastic community what community will he need to attach himself too? is a local parish church sufficient?

were u talking about eastern Christians or Catholic?

 

[Aramis]

Single layperson was what I meant sorry,where in RC its an acceptable vocation/calling as is Religious or married life.

But in Orthodoxy or EC is it seen the same way? I heard there are only two paths one should take of either monasticism or being married

No. Not true. Unmarried men and women can have fulfilling lives in Christ without formal consecration into monasticism. It’s just that so many who feel the call to permanent celibacy are also called to monasticism, that it’s something to consider.

And then, there’s the call to celibacy for those who suffer from same-sex attraction.