My suspicion is that Trullo codified what was fairly common practice. Although continence may have been the ideal, I suspect that more often than not, married priests fell short of that ideal, and that the bishops had no reason to think otherwise.May the Lord bless your Grace.
Were not the Eastern priests expected to maintain perfect sexual continence until canon 13 of the Quinisext Council in Trullo changed that practice for the Easterners?
FWIW, this is apparently no longer true.It’s only in the USA that it’s not normal for Eastern Rite priests to be married.
It is that way because the sacramental discipline of each Catholic sui iuris church is to be preserved. It is a matter of status of the individual and it is not a free choice matter to change to another sui iuris church, but only on approval *, according to the norms of those churches. The sui iuris church of enrollment is determined for a previously unbaptized adult by which church is chosen for baptism, but for an infant (under 14) it is that church sui iuris of the Catholic parent or parents. A change may be made with marriage, by the norm of law.RE: switching rites to get ordained as a married man
I have it on good authority that an RC wishing to switch rites needs the approval from BOTH his Latin ordinary bishop AND the Eastern Rite ordinary bishop under whose jurisdiction he wants to transfer. That being said, I am acquainted with a case where the ER ordinary said yes, but the married man’s Latin ordinary said no. The grounds given were attempt to circumvene CIC1983 prohibiting married RC ordination into priesthood, which, as the Latin bishop claimed, was surely the true reason behind the request for transfer.
As an Eastern Orthodox bishop I am sad at looking at things like this. It is the unequivocal truth and fact that both East nd West had married priests for a thousand years, and East still does to this day.
I personally welcome all married men who think they have vocation to come to me. Often, if I concur there is vocation, there is a way to priesthood. I think all Orthodox bishops in the world do it like this.
In Christ,
+Gavrilo
Vladyka, bless!Ok, to give the best direct answer I can, no. Perfect continence in priesthood in the East until the Council in Trullo is a fairy tale concocted by the West. See, we place very great importance in our holy tradition. Our holy tradition is this: we always had sexually active married priesthood, the percentage oscillated from 95% down to some 80% over the two millenia. We also had sexually active married episcopacy until fourth century more or less as a very standard form, and then some exceptions were still seen after the fourth century. All this legend about “Peter never had any marital sex after our Lord laid His hands on him” or “priests that were married basically lived a celibate life anyway” have no historical base. On contrary, there is evidence of many children of priests and bishops while they were in office, thus after ordination. And why not? Do you know 1 Tim 3?
I asked several bishops when I was in my studies about this. We are pretty firm in our stand. 24 hours before the Divine Liturgy, then Lent and all days of fasting. Apart from that, even our Lord could not want more. Also, how do you think Russian priests who serve in large cities do it, huh? I mean, they serve the Divine Liturgy 5-6 days a week. You can do the math yourself. And yet they have matushkas and a whole lot of children.
For many, Orthodoxy seems chaotic. For us, it is about life. We live. Our priests live. And serve the Divine Liturgy and the Mysteries of the Church to His faithful. And have been doing this in this way for two millenia, under oversight of our beloved bishops. We are not the ones who are accustomed to changing our traditions, that is specific for the West.
This is a sensitive topic for me. I have heard the Roman Catholic stories about how our priests used to never have marital sex after ordination in the first centuries so many times, and I say enough. That is not our historical tradition, accept it from an Eastern bishop. You tend to hold that “married priests” and “worse even, sexually active married priests” were never the norm, was an exception. That is simply not the truth, the very opposite is the truth. We have always had sexually active married priesthood, for two millenia. We are not in the business of changing our holy traditions. We have always had priests who were sons of priests who were sons of priests in many generations. And God bless them. Obviously, He did. And continues to. I feel I must say this out loud, it is my duty as an Orthodox bishop, to stand up for our priests.
We do hold that celibate priests are a great gift to mankind. That is why we have monasteries, and any young man can join one of them. But the numbers speak clearly. Over 80% of our priests are married and living an active marital life, under the supervision of us, their bishops. And our Orthodox faithful had always been very grateful for them and had them in great esteem.
Why do you always think “impure” when you see our priest with matushka and many children, where some of them obviously had to be born after his ordination? There is nothing impure about fulfilling the Holy Mystery (you would say Sacrament) of marriage in marital sex. Nothing.
A personal prayer: Oh Most Powerful Holy Spirit, even in the 21st century You still choose to call into your priesthood many a married man on this Earth. I pray they hear Your call and come to us, Your bishops, so we may do Your bidding, form them, and lay our hands on them, as did Your servants Paul and Timothy. I also pray that those who choose celibacy are up to the vow they give, may You guide them and protect them, for that life is more difficult. Amen.
Perfect continence was expected, whether it was lived up to is another matter. Here is just a smattering of quotes, seems to me if it was not the norm, you would read of Eastern fathers writing in objection to these quotes. Yet I could not find one. The following is taken from unamsanctamcatholicam website.Ok, to give the best direct answer I can, no. Perfect continence in priesthood in the East until the Council in Trullo is a fairy tale concocted by the West.
Tertullian, Exhortation to Chastity, 10
“For continence will be a mean whereby you will traffic in a mighty substance of sanctity; by parsimony of the flesh you will gain the Spirit. For let us ponder over our conscience itself, to see how different a man feels himself when he chances to be deprived of his wife. He savours spiritually. If he is making prayer to the Lord, he is near heaven. If he is bending over the Scriptures, he is “wholly in them.” If he is singing a psalm, he satisfies himself. If he is adjuring a demon, he is confident in himself. Accordingly, the apostle added the recommendation of a temporary abstinence for the sake of adding an efficacy to prayers, that we might know that what is profitable “for a time” should be always practiced by us, that it may be always profitable. Daily, every moment, prayer is necessary to men; of course continence is so too, since prayer is necessary. Prayer proceeds from conscience. If the conscience blush, prayer blushes. It is the spirit which conducts prayer to God. If the spirit be self-accused of a blushing conscience, how will it have the hardihood to conduct prayer to the altar; seeing that, if prayer blush, the holy minister (of prayer) itself is suffused too?”
Tertullian is the first father, and certainly not the last, to connect the perpetual abstinence of clerics with St. Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor. 7 that continence makes prayer more efficacious. Since a priest must pray and offer sacrifice always, he must always remain continent. This interpretation will be repeated again and again by fathers, councils and popes. It is in fact the fundamental point of reference the fathers cite when discussing continence.
Origen, 23rd Homily on Numbers (185-253)
“I will express what the words of the Apostle mean, but I am afraid that some will be saddened. Do not refuse yourselves to each other, unless through a mutual agreement for a given occasion, so as to free yourselves for prayer, and then come together again; it is therefore certain that perpetual sacrifice is impossible for those who are subject to the obligations of marriage…I therefore conclude that only the one vowed to perpetual chastity can offer the perpetual sacrifice.”
Origen follows Tertullian in his connection of continence to Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. 7:5. Paul states that married lay people should abstain from sexual relations when they need to pray. For those who are ordained, who must offer “perpetual sacrifice”, it is impossible to discharge the “obligations of marriage”, infers Origen. Offering the sacrifice and conjugal intercourse are mutually exclusive in Origen’s thought, and thus his conclusion that **“only the one vowed to perpetual chastity can offer the perpetual sacrifice.” **Notice the matter-of-fact way in which he states this, as if he presumes his audience already knows what he is referring to and understands it.
Origen, 6th Homily on Leviticus (c. 250)
“There was yet another task for Moses. He did not go to the battlefield and did not fight [personally] with the enemy. What did he do? He prayed, and while he prayed, his people won the victory. When he let go his hands fell down, his people was vanquished and put to flight…Therefore, let the priests of the Church also pray without cease, so that the people he leads can win the victory over these invisible Amalekites, the demons hot in pursuit of those who want to live piously in Christ.”
In the previous excerpt, Origen has stated that those who must pray and sacrifice continually ought to be perpetually chaste. In this letter, he identifies the priests of the New Covenant as those who “pray without cease.” Therefore, the priests of the New Covenant ought to be perpetually chaste. He makes no distinction between priests who are married and priests who are bachelors.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelicam I,9 (c. 320)
“It is fitting, according to the Scripture, that a bishop be the husband of an only wife. But this being understood, **it behooves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse **with their wives. As to those who were not judged worthy of such a holy ministry, Scripture grants them [conjugal intercourse] while saying quite clearly to all that marriage is honorable and the nuptial bed is without stain, and that God judges profligates and adulterers.”
to be continued…Eusebius here makes it clear that just because Scripture allows a bishop or cleric to have a wife,** it does not follow that he is free to exercise his conjugal rights.** Notice that Eusebius is an Eastern Father and that** presumably this was the discipline in the East in the early 4th century.**
Canon 3 of the Council of Nicaea (325)
“The great Council has absolutely forbidden bishops, priests, and deacons -** in other words, all members of the clergy** - to have with them a sister-companion with the exception of a mother, a sister, an aunt, or, lastly, only those persons who are beyond any suspicion.”
This canon concerning “outsider women” would be repeated and cited in many subsequent councils. The question is whether a cleric’s wife, since she is not mentioned in the list of acceptable companions, would be considered “beyond suspicion” or not. The fact is the Council did not want to facilitate any situation where the faithful might be led to think that a cleric was having sexual intercourse. This is why all women in the company of a cleric must be “beyond suspicion”; i.e., it must be evident that there is no possibility of sexual relations with them. If a wife is one of those “beyond suspicion”, it is because it is presumed she is not having sexual relations with her husband; if she is not included in the class of those “beyond suspicion”, it means that wives at this time were not permitted to live with their husbands. We find the former explanation more likely and more consonant with other texts, but either way the result is the same: clerics are not permitted to have conjugal relations with their wives.
My own two centavos. Why mention mother, sister, aunt but not wife? How could those be beyond suspicion but not a wife, unless they are talking about sexual continence? Only explanation that makes sense.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, The 12th Catechesis, 25 (c. 350)
“To the most Pure and the Master of Purity it was fitting to be born from a pure bed. For if **the one who is a good priest for the sake of Jesus abstains from relations with women, **how could Jesus Himself be born of [the union] between a man and a woman?”
The argument presumes a continent priesthood. Taking as a starting point the fact that priests, at least those that are “good”, “abstain from relations with women”, St. Cyril points out how fitting this is given that Jesus Himself was not born as the result of conjugal intercourse. How could Jesus expect the priesthood called by His name to practice continence if He Himself was not born without conjugal relations? But since Jesus was not the result of conjugal relations, He can likewise insist on a similar sort of purity from His priests. The argument assumes that the reader already understands that continence is a discipline and reasons back from that to argue for the Virgin Birth of Christ.
St. Ephrem the Syrian, Carmina Nisibena, (c. 363)
“It is not enough for the priest and his dignity - for it is the living body that he offers - to purify his soul, his tongue, and his hands and to make his whole body clear; he must at all times be absolutely pure, because he takes the places of mediator between God and mankind. Blessed be he who has purified his servants!”
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on 1st Epistle to Timothy (c. 380)
“Now there should be seven deacons, several priests (two per church), and only one bishop for each city, **which is why they must abstain from any conjugal relations; **they have to be present in church every day, and they do not have the necessary time to purify themselves properly after conjugal unions, as the priests of old used to do. They have to offer the sacrifice every week, and even if the liturgy is not offered every day in rural areas or in territories outside the empire, it is at least twice a week for the local people. And, moreover, there is no lack of sick people to baptize every day. Indeed, it was because they were not expected to go frequently to the temple and had a private life that the concession [to use their marital rights] was granted to the ancients *. If the Apostle directs laymen to abstain temporarily in order to attend to prayer, how much more for deacons and priests, who must pray day and night for the people entrusted to them? Therefore, they must be purer than others because they are God’s representatives.”*to be continued…
Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410)
Can. 3: “On the fact that outsider women must not live anymore with clerics, as was the prior custom - with respect to the outsider women we will do all that is stipulated in the synod [reference to Canon 3 of Nicaea on “outsider women”]; now any bishop, deacon, subdeacon or cleric** living among women, and not alone, chastely, and in a holy way, as befits the ministry of the Church, men and women being separated,** will not be admitted to the ministry of the Church.”
St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on 1 Timothy, Cap. III, Homily X (c. 397)
“If then the married man has worldly concerns, and if, on the other hand, a bishop should not have them, how can the Apostle say, “the husband of an only wife”? Some say that we are dealing here with the case of a man who has been freed from his wife *; if such is not the case, it is permissible that he be a man **having a wife and living as if he did not have one{/B]. At that time this was indeed rightly permitted because of the prevailing situation. For it was possible to lead such a life honorably if one wished to do so. Indeed, though it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, there have frequently been rich people who did so; the same is true for marriage.”
Chrysostom affirms the** tradition of priestly continence *****and interprets Paul’s cryptic statement in 1 Cor. 7:29 (“From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none”) to refer to the practice of married clerics living as brother and sister with their spouses.
I can go on. There are quotes from Jerome, Gregory the Great, Carthage, and other councils, but perhaps Pope Sergius I reaction to that famous council at Trullo, really sheds some light.
He refused to sign the canons when presented to him, for which Justinian II ordered his abduction, although the pope managed to escape.In case there be any doubt that this represented a novelty, we need only look at the response of the papacy to the canons of Quinisext. The pope at the time was Pope Sergius I (687-701), who when he heard about the canons, stated that he preferred “to die rather than consent to erroneous novelties” and wrote that the Eastern bishops were the emperor’s “captive in matters of religion.” [2] It is important to note that Sergius himself was a Greek pope, hailing from Syria. If anyone knew the Eastern tradition, it was Pope Sergius. And yet he recognizes that the canons of Quinisext are not in continuity with the Eastern tradition but rather represent "erroneous novelties."
Were a sexually active married priesthood a legitimate expression of the Eastern tradition, Pope Sergius, a Greek, would not have condemned it as a novelty.
As does the West.See, we place very great importance in our holy tradition.
Now holy traditions are hard to show with paperwork. Can you give me some quotes from any Eastern saints before the seventh century, saying that the Eastern priesthood did not practice sexual continence?Our holy tradition is this: we always had sexually active married priesthood, the percentage oscillated from 95% down to some 80% over the two millenia. We also had sexually active married episcopacy until fourth century more or less as a very standard form, and then some exceptions were still seen after the fourth century.
Well these early saints thought different, I guess they were mistaken.All this legend about “Peter never had any marital sex after our Lord laid His hands on him” or “priests that were married basically lived a celibate life anyway” have no historical base.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (died ca. 215) believed that Paul was married and took his wife with him during his apostolic ministry. But he believes that Paul must have lived with her as brother and sister,** without marital intercourse. **Clement says this because he also believed that the other apostles, if they were married, did not have conjugal intercourse with their wives. If the apostles did take a woman with them during their ministry, he states, “women were not treated as wives but as sisters, to serve as interpreters with women whose duties kept them within their homes, and in order that, through these intermediaries, the doctrine of the Lord could penetrate the women’s quarters without the apostles being blamed or unjustly suspected by people of ill will” (GAS 52, 220; Cochini, 80)
AMBROSIASTER (ca. 366-84) reminds us that Christ did not desist from choosing Peter as chief of the apostles just because Peter had a wife and children; in the same manner the Church chooses married men today as priests. But, Ambrosiaster adds,** the apostles lived in perfect continence with their wives; following this precedent, he continues, priests today do not have intercourse with their wives **(CSEL 50, 414-16; Cochini 82).
ST. AMBROSE (333-397), one of the four “great” doctors of the Church, urged his priests to persevere in perfect chastity: “You who have received the grace of the sacred ministry in an integral body and with an incorruptible purity and who are alien to the conjugal community itself know that the ministry must be immune from offense and stain and must not be subjected to any injuries from possible conjugal relations. …Learn, O priest, O deacon … to present your pure body to the celebration of the mysteries” (PL 16, 104b-5a; Cochini 236).
ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM (died ca. 435) wrote to Deacon Isidore explaining 1 Cor 9:5: If women accompanied the apostles, “it was not in order to procreate children or to lead with them a common life but, in truth, to assist them with their goods, to take care of feeding the heralds of poverty.” If Paul called them sister-women, it is “because by the word ‘sister’ he wanted to show that they were chaste, while describing their nature with the word ‘women’” (PG 78, 865d-68c; Cochini 81). Note here his interpretation of the “sister-woman” passage of 1 Cor 9:5; Paul, says Isidore, used the term to indicate a brother-sister relationship.
I pause here to observe that some contemporary translators use the word wife in this passage. The New Catholic Study Bible, for example, reads like this: “Don’t I have the right to follow the example of the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter, by taking a Christian wife with me on my trips?” **That translation is misleading. Scripture professionals of the early Church beg to differ. Clement of Alexandria (died ca. 215), Tertullian (died ca. 220), Jerome (died ca.420), Isidore of Pelusium (died ca. 435) and others, all state that Paul refers here to a brother-sister relationship?B] (see Cochini 81 ff.).
May I add that if we look at the passage in context, Paul argues here not about conjugal life, but about a right to receive support for his living from the community, by reason of his apostolic work; support which would include meals and other services. He forgoes that right voluntarily, he says, out of a feeling that he wishes to be a burden to no one. The context is not at all about conjugal relations, but about services provided by a “sister-woman,” or if you will, a “sister-wife” (adelphaen gynaika). Today we would call her a housekeeper. A correct translation reveals that Paul refers here to sister-companions or sister-wives of the apostles: if the actual wives of the apostles went with them, they went as sister-women, not as conjugal partners. **Now I can believe you, or I can believe quotations from these early saints. Not a tough choice, unless you can give me quotes from the early saints saying that the Apostles did not practice continence after they began their ministry.
On contrary, there is evidence of many children of priests and bishops while they were in office, thus after ordination.
Please post this evidence.
Bishop_Gavrilo;13433530:
Yes, but Timothy is used by Protestants to say a priest MUST be married. I reject their reading of that chapter as wrong, as I do yours.And why not? Do you know 1 Tim 3?
Sure He could.I asked several bishops when I was in my studies about this. We are pretty firm in our stand. 24 hours before the Divine Liturgy, then Lent and all days of fasting. Apart from that, even our Lord could not want more.
It is none of my business how they do it. How they do it has nothing to do with whether priests in early church were held to perfect continence, or not.Also, how do you think Russian priests who serve in large cities do it, huh? I mean, they serve the Divine Liturgy 5-6 days a week. You can do the math yourself. And yet they have matushkas and a whole lot of children.
Not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but I have never viewed it as chaotic, nor do other Catholics that I know.For many, Orthodoxy seems chaotic. For us, it is about life. We live. Our priests live. And serve the Divine Liturgy and the Mysteries of the Church to His faithful. And have been doing this in this way for two millenia, under oversight of our beloved bishops.
Okay, but this whole conversation started with one that the West did not change, but the East seemingly has, no matter how much it is denied.We are not the ones who are accustomed to changing our traditions, that is specific for the West.
It may be sensitive to you, but the truth is important. It may not be the historical tradition you want to believe, but the historical facts seem to show that your tradition changed around the seventh century.This is a sensitive topic for me. I have heard the Roman Catholic stories about how our priests used to never have marital sex after ordination in the first centuries so many times, and I say enough. That is not our historical tradition, accept it from an Eastern bishop.
Again, show me with quotes from the saints before the seventh century.You tend to hold that “married priests” and “worse even, sexually active married priests” were never the norm, was an exception. That is simply not the truth, the very opposite is the truth. We have always had sexually active married priesthood, for two millenia.
Good for you.We are not in the business of changing our holy traditions. We have always had priests who were sons of priests who were sons of priests in many generations. And God bless them. Obviously, He did. And continues to. I feel I must say this out loud, it is my duty as an Orthodox bishop, to stand up for our priests.
Fantastic! Again has nothing to do with what you and I are talking about, the priesthood before Trullo. Now I have given you quotes and can provide more. I await your quotes from the early saints.We do hold that celibate priests are a great gift to mankind. That is why we have monasteries, and any young man can join one of them. But the numbers speak clearly. Over 80% of our priests are married and living an active marital life, under the supervision of us, their bishops. And our Orthodox faithful had always been very grateful for them and had them in great esteem.
Never have thought that. Why do you try to say that is what I think? I have never tried to say you think things that you don’t.Why do you always think “impure” when you see our priest with matushka and many children, where some of them obviously had to be born after his ordination? There is nothing impure about fulfilling the Holy Mystery (you would say Sacrament) of marriage in marital sex. Nothing.
I willingly pray that prayer with you.A personal prayer: Oh Most Powerful Holy Spirit, even in the 21st century You still choose to call into your priesthood many a married man on this Earth. I pray they hear Your call and come to us, Your bishops, so we may do Your bidding, form them, and lay our hands on them, as did Your servants Paul and Timothy. I also pray that those who choose celibacy are up to the vow they give, may You guide them and protect them, for that life is more difficult. Amen.
Canon 10I think that canon 10 of Ancyra which stipulates that a deacon under certain circumstances may marry after ordination presents challenges for the view that absolute continence was required of clergy who were married prior to ordination. Had continence been understood as a universal norm, it would be hard to understand why a deacon should ever be permitted to marry since absolute continence would preclude the possibility of either consummating the marriage or of fulfilling one of the purposes of marriage which is to beget new life.
Van Espen comments: “The case proposed to the synod and decided in this canon was as follows: When the bishop was willing to ordain two to the diaconate, one of them declared that he did not intend to bind himself to **preserving perpetual continence, **but intended to get married, because he had not the power to **remain continent. **The other said nothing. The bishop laid his hands on each and conferred the diaconate.”
After the ordination it fell out that both got married, the question propounded is, What must be done in each case? The synod ruled that he who had made protestation at his ordination should remain in his ministry, “because of the license of the bishop,” that is that he might contract matrimony after the reception of the diaconate. With regard to him who kept silence the synod declares that he should cease from his ministry.
Again, the general law shows what was the norm, in the fourth century. ContinenceThe resolution of the synod to the first question shows that there was a general law which bound the deacons to continence; but this synod judged it meet that the bishops for just cause might dispense with this law, and this license or dispensation was deemed to have been given by the bishop if he ordained him after his protestation at the time of his ordination that he intended to be married, because he could not remain as he was; giving by the act of ordination his tacit approbation. Moreover from this decision it is also evident that not only was the ordained deacon allowed to enter but also to use matrimony after his ordination. Moreover the deacon who after this protestation entered and used matrimony, not only remained a deacon, but continued in the exercise of his ministry.
I do not think that Van Espen’s interpretation (a canonist, by the way, who was removed from the composition of this canon by about 1300 years) of the canon is correct. It is far more likely that the universal norm being presupposed and optionally dispensed by this canon was that ordination to major orders is an impediment to marriage. Moreover, some of the proof texts you bring forth actually seem to hurt your argument that continence was a universal rule. The Ambrosiaster text, for example, explicitly connects continence to the celebration of the Eucharist, not to ordination as an absolute, which is also the case in modern Orthodox praxis. This implies heavily that in a place where there was an abundance of priests, there would be little need for priests to observe perpetual continence, since they could, as Ambrosiaster states, take the necessary time period after having conjugal relations before again celebrating the Eucharist. All in all, the quotations you provide do not make the slam dunk case you seem to think they do.Canon 10
They who have been made deacons, declaring when they were ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide so, and who afterwards have married, shall continue in their ministry, because it was conceded to them by the bishop. But if any were silent on this matter, undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterwards proceeded to marriage, these shall cease from the diaconate.
Again, the general law shows what was the norm, in the fourth century. Continence
And you removed by 1700 years are more likely than Van Espen? I think not. You totally misread Ancyra. Luckily, we have another source, Martin of Braga, ordained in Palestine, who would certainly know about what was the normal practices of the East. I will post more on what he wrote about Ancyra, following this post.I do not think that Van Espen’s interpretation (a canonist, by the way, who was removed from the composition of this canon by about 1300 years) of the canon is correct. It is far more likely that the universal norm being presupposed and optionally dispensed by this canon was that ordination to major orders is an impediment to marriage.
Really? You better reread that quote from Ambrosiaster, he did not tie it into celebration of the Eucharist at all. He tied it to they had to be in the church every day, whether they offered the sacrifice or not. And you did not seem to read the second quote of his that I posted, the one where he says priests do not have any intercourse with their wives. I will repost that after we look at that first quote of his.Moreover, some of the proof texts you bring forth actually seem to hurt your argument that continence was a universal rule. The Ambrosiaster text, for example, explicitly connects continence to the celebration of the Eucharist, not to ordination as an absolute, which is also the case in modern Orthodox praxis. This implies heavily that in a place where there was an abundance of priests, there would be little need for priests to observe perpetual continence, since they could, as Ambrosiaster states, take the necessary time period after having conjugal relations before again celebrating the Eucharist. All in all, the quotations you provide do not make the slam dunk case you seem to think they do.
following this precedent, he continues, priests today do not have intercourse with their wives (CSEL 50, 414-16; Cochini 82).*AMBROSIASTER (ca. 366-84) reminds us that Christ did not desist from choosing Peter as chief of the apostles just because Peter had a wife and children; in the same manner the Church chooses married men today as priests. But, Ambrosiaster adds,** the apostles lived in perfect continence with their wives;**
The question before us, then, is whether the regional Council of Ancyra allowed clerics to enter into marriage and use their conjugal rights? Let us see.
The Council of Ancyra: Canon 10
A small assembly of between twelve and eighteen bishops from Asia Minor and Syria met in Ancyra in the year 314. The Edict of Milan had been issued only a year prior and the tyrant Maximus had recently died. After having suffered under the Great Persecution for nearly ten years, ecclesiastical discipline was in disarray. Many regional assemblies and synods were summoned during this time in order to solve various disciplinary problems. Like the nearly contemporary synods of Elvira and Arles, the Council of Ancyra dealt with the problems of the lapsi and clerics who had committed sins of the flesh.
Like the councils of Elvira and Arles, Ancyra tackled the question of priestly continence; specifically, what should be the discipline regarding the diaconate? Should deacons be allowed to take wives?
As background for this discussion, it must be stated clearly that the early Church did not simply enjoin continence upon priests and bishops, but also upon deacons - the three “higher grades” of Holy Orders; later in the west this would even be extended to subdeacons. This is explored thoroughly in our previous article mentioned above; we recommend reviewing it if you are not familiar with this topic. It suffices to say that there was a general expectation of celibacy on the part of deacons. I say “general” because Canon 10 of Ancyra seems to introduce an exception. Canon 10 reads:
“Those who are promoted to deacons, if, at the time of their promotion, they protested and said that they had to marry and could not live in this way and then married later, can remain in the ministry because the bishop permitted them to do so. But those who have kept silence and were admitted to ordination [on the condition] that they preserve in this state *, if they marry, subsequently, they will be deprived of the diaconate” [1].
What does this canon say, exactly? At the outset, it seems to be at odds with the western tradition as expressed at Arles, Carthage and Elvira, all of which strictly forbid deacons from entering into marriage wives. Yet Ancyra seems to suggest that the rule of celibacy only applies to deacons who “keep silence” and thereby evidence willingness to be celibate; an exception seems to be made for men who loudly “protested” that they could not maintain celibacy and would be allowed to marry. Is this really what Ancyra is saying?
Notice first off that Ancyra retains the general rule of celibacy imposed upon deacons: those who were single before ordination and do not protest must remain celibate, for it notes specifically that “if they marry, subsequently, they will be deprived of the diaconate.” So Ancyra certainly would not support a general married clergy* since it does not even permit deacons to marry if they kept silent on the subject at ordination; and if such a deacon is not permitted to enter into the married state after his ordination, certainly neither a priest or bishop would be.** Thus the question posed by Ancyra is really a very narrow one: whether the Church ever had a married, sexually active priesthood is not in question, as Ancyra affirms the discipline of celibacy even right down to the diaconate. **We are looking, rather, at one exception the Council (seems) to be making.
This exception, however, is tremendously important. While the second half of the canon reiterates the rule that a bachelor once ordained cannot marry, the first half of the canon seems to introduce a situation where a deacon can later marry if he warns the bishop ahead of time that he cannot maintain celibacy. Let us look at the pertinent language again and offer an interpretation:
“Those who are promoted to deacons, if, at the time of their promotion, they protested and said that they had to marry and could not live in this way and then married later, can remain in the ministry because the bishop permitted them to do so.”
One possible interpretation of this canon is: Celibacy being the general rule, when a bachelor is admitted to the diaconate and remains silent on the question of marriage, it is presumed that he is willing to accept the discipline and henceforth will be expected to maintain celibacy and abstain from marriage; if he subsequently marries, he will be expelled from the ministry. But on the other hand, if a man about to be ordained to the diaconate loudly protests to the bishop that he desires to marry and cannot observe the discipline of celibacy, the bishop may dispense him from the discipline, allowing him to advance to the diaconate while retaining the freedom to marry after ordination. And if he can marry, he can use his conjugal rights, since it would be not make any sense for a man who had complained about celibacy to enter into a continent marriage. Therefore, Ancyra is allowing deacons to marry and use their conjugal rights after ordination.
At the outset, this seems very reasonable. However, as we shall see, the above interpretation is actually very unlikely.To be continued…
St. Martin of Braga
Over two centuries later, in 572, the Bishop St. Martin of Braga (Portugal) was seeking to aid a fellow bishop in the restoration of discipline in the churches throughout Visigothic Spain following the Second Council of Braga (572). To this end, he sent his brother Bishop Nitigisius of Lugo a Latin** edition of eighty-four Greek canons. **St. Martin was the foremost scholar of his age; Gregory of Tours says Martin was “second to none of his contemporaries in learning” [2]. Born in the East and ordained in Palestine, he had a powerful and natural command of the Greek language and made many Latin translations of important Greek texts, as in the case of the eighty-four canons sent to Nitigisius.
Among this compendium was Canon 10 of the Council of Ancyra. Here is how Martin’s Latin translation reads:
“If someone is chosen for the ministry of the diaconate but does raise a protest beforehand to claim the right of taking a wife, declaring that he cannot persevere in chastity,** let him not be ordained.** If at the time of ordination he kept silent and was ordained and later seeks to marry, let him be rejected from the ministry and eliminated from the clergy” [3].
Notice that, if we go with the interpretation of Canon 10 we posited above, Martin’s translation is in direct contradiction. In our original interpretation, a man who protests that he desires to marry may be granted permission by the bishop to subsequently marry and continue to ordination; Martin of Braga has it that a man who protests his desire to marry will not be ordained.
This appears to be in blatant contradiction to the original Greek of Canon 10 - however, it is in perfect harmony with the rest of the western tradition, as exemplified in the Gallic and Spanish synods, as well as the teaching of the popes from the 5th and 6th centuries. It would thus be easy to suggest that St. Martin simply changed the canon arbitrarily to force it to conform with the western usage. Such manipulation is always possible. But there is a better explanation.
To be continued…**St. Martin spoke Greek fluently; born in Pannonia (Bosnia-Serbia), he may have been a native Greek speaker. **In his preface to the canons, he congratulates himself on having amended certain obscure passages in the previous Greek translations of the canons. He states that the previous translations had obscured the meaning of the original; his translation was meant to restore faithfully the meaning of the Greek canons for his Latin readers. If Martin was going to intentionally change the canon, it seems odd that he would confess these alterations. Given his understanding of Greek and knowledge of Greek customs - indeed, no other Spanish cleric of his age had such a knowledge of Greek customs - we have no reason not to take him at his word.
Another Interpretation
If we take St. Martin at his word that his Latin translation is faithful to the meaning of the Greek of Canon 10, perhaps we should reread the original canon with greater attention to see if the text does justice to St. Martin’s interpretation. Before we look at the text again, remember,** Martin reads it such that men who protest their desire to marry will not be advanced to the diaconate.** Let us review Canon 10 once more, keeping St. Martin’s translation in mind:
“Those who are promoted to deacons, if, at the time of their promotion, they protested and said that they had to marry and could not live in this way and then married later, can remain in the ministry because the bishop permitted them to do so. But those who have kept silence and were admitted to ordination [on the condition] that they preserve in this state *, if they marry, subsequently, they will be deprived of the diaconate”
The canon deals with the case of deacons who present themselves for ordination; we are not talking about deacons about to receive ordination to the diaconate - which would be absurd - but of lower grades of clerics, men in Minor Orders, presenting themselves for advancement to Major Orders. This canon thus concerns not deacons proper but candidates to the diaconate - cantors, lectors, exorcists, or more likely, subdeacons during their period of preparation*. The canon envisions two possibilities: during the time of preparation, after prayer and reflection, the candidates either (a) declare their need to marry and inability to maintain celibacy, or (b) keep silent and tacitly agree to observe the discipline.
Now, of those who protest their desire to marry, the canon says they “can remain in the ministry because the bishop permitted them to do so”, the question is what does it mean to “remain in the ministry”? What ministry? Have these persons who protested already been ordained or not? The canon does not mention anything about ordination here; ordination is only mentioned with the second group, those who remained silent and became ordained. Thus it seems that the men in the first group who protest do so at the time of their promotion but not after ordination; i.e., during their time of preparation.
If that were the case, to “remain in the ministry” would mean to retain the functions of subdeacon, lector, cantor, etc. that they already had. If they were already in Minor Orders, their “ministry” could refer to the ecclesiastical functions associated with the lower orders. Fr. Christian Cochini’s excellent book The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy contains a two page digression into the Greek word here for “ministry” which strongly supports such an argument. It is beyond the scope of this article to dig into the Greek, but the basic context of the statement seems to bear such an assumption.
Thus, we could put forward a second interpretation for the meaning of Canon 10:** Celibacy being the general rule, all men admitted to Major Orders are expected to observe continence. If, during the time of preparation and up to the moment of ordination, a candidate to the diaconate declares that he cannot observe continence and wishes to marry, he will not be ordained to the diaconate but may retain his functions as a subdeacon, lector, etc. with the bishop’s permission. But if he keeps silent and proceeds to ordination, he tacitly agrees to accept the discipline of celibacy. If he enters into marriage after his ordination, he will be expelled from the ministry.**
Such an interpretation has several arguments in favor: First, it brings the Greek and the Latin of Martin of Braga into harmony, second, it makes sense of St. Martin’s statement that his translation clarifies the meaning of the Greek; third, it brings Canon 10 in Ancyra into harmony with the western practice and that of the universal church at that time; fourth, it is consistent with the context and syntax of the wording of the canon itself; fifth, as Fr. Cochini explains, it is borne out by examination of the Greek; sixth, as we shall see below, subsequent legislation in the East confirms Martin’s interpretation of Canon 10.To be continued…
Further Evidence
But suppose we are wrong. Suppose Martin of Braga’s translation was simply errant and the bishops of Ancyra really were intending to grant an exception for deacons to marry.
If so, it is odd that this exception was never confirmed by any subsequent legislation in the East. Look at Justinian’s legislation on married cleric’s from the Corpus Juris Civilis, written in 546, only twenty-six years before Martin sent his copies of the Greek canons to his brother bishop. Justinian’s legislation reads:
“But if the deacon who is about to receive the imposition of hands does not have a woman united to him [in marriage] as was stipulated above, let no one impose hands on him before the ordaining bishop has questioned him and before *he has promised to be able to live worthily and without a legitimate wife after ordination; the ordaining bishop does not have the power, ***at the time of the imposition of hands, to authorize the deacon to take a wife after the imposition of hands; should such a thing occur, the bishop who granted such an authorization would be rejected from the episcopate; if, after the imposition of hands, a priest, a deacon, of even a subdeacon enters into a marriage contract, let him be rejected from the clergy and be delivered, body and goods, to the council of the town where he has been a cleric” [4]
Justinian’s understanding of the discipline mirrors the interpretation of Martin of Braga. The Emperor could have certainly modified the canon to suit his own tastes; but given the other evidence we have explored above, this seems unlikely.
The Greek Fathers of the Quinisext Council (691), while affirming and confirming the authority of the Council of Ancyra, nevertheless forbid marriage to the Major Orders:
“As is said in the apostolic canons, that among the single men promoted to the ranks of the clergy, only lectors and precantors can be married, we, too, obeying this regulation, order that from now on no subdeacon, deacon, or priest be permitted, once ordained, to contract a marriage. Should he dare do so, let him be deposed” [5].
Given that the Quinisext Council specifically confirms the rulings of Ancyra and then goes on to issue such legislation infers that they read Canon 10 of Ancyra to forbid marriage to deacons universally, otherwise the above cited legislation could in no way be in harmony with Canon 10.
Since no subsequent Greek legislation affirmed any episcopal exception to the discipline of celibacy for deacons - and given that the Corpus Juris Civilis and the Quinisext Council specifically repudiate any such allowance -]we must assume that Martin of Braga’s interpretation of Canon 10 of Ancyra is correct.
Conclusion
The universal discipline of the Church in the early centuries was that a man ordained to Major Orders was expected to abstain from sexual relations; if he was a bachelor, this meant observing celibacy. If he was already married, this meant observing perpetual abstinence. This obligation is clearly laid out in all of the legislation that mentions the subject throughout the patristic era. But this was an understandably weighty obligation, and men were expected to count the cost carefully and prayerfully before being advanced to Major Orders. Canon 10 of Ancyra teaches that when a subdeacon or man with Minor Orders is discerning the diaconate, if he remain silent and allow himself to be ordained to the diaconate, he implicitly agrees to observe the discipline of celibacy. If, however, during the preparation period he declares to the bishop that he is unable to live celibate, the man will not be ordained to the diaconate. The bishop may, however, allow him to retain his functions as a subdeacon, lector, etc., which grants the man freedom to marry at a later date, since celibacy was not mandated on those in Minor Orders.
The Council of Ancyra is thus no exception to the universal discipline approved in the west and even throughout the east. Rather, it confirms it.
He may be. But so far, what he has posted, does not show what I have posted to be wrong.Cavaradossi is right.
The bold is the key. That part specifically says if you are abstaining for a reason NOT because of religious restraint, but for another reason, then they should be cast out of the Church. But if you are doing it for religious restraint (notice he specifically says religious restraint is an exception), then it is fine.Also, let me quote The Canons of the Holy and Altogether August Apostles:
Canon LI.
If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman.
I know it is your tradition. But your tradition dates back to Trullo. You have not shown me with any writings that it dates back farther. If you can show me writings in favor of your position before then, I would love to read them. I have asked you several times to show me writings showing continence was not the norm before then. I am still waiting.You, a Catholic, may not believe me, an Eastern Orthodox bishop, but I am telling you it is our holy tradition (which you Catholics tend to suppress in favour of authority, while we may do the very opposite, both of which are a tad wrong) that absolute continece in married deacons, priests and bishops was never the norm in the church.
Give me some authors. Of the few I have read, none had quotes from before Trullo positing your position.On contrary, continuing in the work of creation as man and woman between deacons, priests and bishops and their wives was the norm. You can pull up any number of authors, and the fact will not change. Such is our holy tradition.
WHAT? I hear the just accept it argument and praise God all the time coming from people who want me to condone their lifestyle choices. But I believe the truth is important, and so far the more I search, the less I can just accept your position. I will accept it once you have shown me in writings from before the seventh century, showing that your position was the norm.Just accept it and praise God for his wisdom.
Never thought it was just a carnal relationship between a man and a woman.Marital sex is a lot more than a carnal relationship between a man and a woman.
Yes. My parents taught me this before I ever went to school.It is a sacred renewal of the Holy Mystery (sacrament) of marriage and the realization thereof. It is just as pure as me baptizing a baby. Each Mystery (sacrament) is Holy Spirit himself, descending into this world. Holy Spirit is in perfect harmony with the Father and the Son.
I have never thought they could be in disharmony.There is simply no way any Mystery be in disharmony with any other Mystery. I am pretty sure your Thomas of Aquinn wrote something along these lines.
Which council? And link me to the precedents.Oh, by the way, it is absolutely valid if a deacon or priest marries even after ordination into priesthood. There are precedents for that, and a council ruling.
Agreed.Prayer for wisdom and love,
+Gavrilo