"Vocation"

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I have heard many times the Clerical life is viewed as a vocation, where one is either called to church service or not. The comparison I’ve been given is always framed as being either married to the church or to a spouse. A person cannot have two masters. However, this analogy does not necessarily make sense for Eastern Clergy. How are Holy Orders understood in the east? Is this idea of it being a “Vocation” a “Marriage” a western concept? What do the fathers say? Thanks you Kindly!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Vocation doesn’t mean one or the other. I know in the West that view has evolved into “you either get married or become a priest but cannot be both” Vocation means something you are called to, but doesn’t mean you can be exclusively called to one thing.

 

[GEddie]

In the strict sense, God would not “call” someone to 2 life choices that were mutually exclusive.

ISTM that if someone in the Roman Church says that they are “called” both to the clergy and to marriage/family, that they are simply looking to call into question the existing church practice.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[trinichiqn]

In the strict sense, God would not “call” someone to 2 life choices that were mutually exclusive.

ISTM that if someone in the Roman Church says that they are “called” both to the clergy and to marriage/family, that they are simply looking to call into question the existing church practice.

ICXC NIKA.

Permanent Deacons can be and are usually married. I remember at a retreat a PD spoke to us and he said he felt called to the clergy and something else (which I can’t rightly remember) that suggested priesthood to him and then he discovered girls and that was the end of that, but even later after marriage and kids he still felt a calling. Then the opportunity came up and after talking to his wife and family he is now a Deacon and he feels this is what he was being called to all along.

This may not be the case in all situations but some may have the call to both and to be fulfilled this was.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

This is what faith is all about. God calls you to do what He hope you will do,so pray,and you will get the answer. God bless you son.

 

[twf]

In the Latin Church the priest is seen to represent Christ the groom when anticipating the mystical wedding banquet through the celebration of the eucharist. For this reason, it is often said that the priest is ‘married’ to the Church. That being said, even in the Latin Church there are many examples of ‘dual vocations’. Religious priests have a vocation to religious life and also a vocation to the priesthood. Married Latin Catholic priests (eg former Anglicans) have a vocation to the priesthood and also a vocation to marriage. Latin deacons also often have two vocations - service in the diaconate and marriage. So the analogy presenter by the OP doesn’t fully represent the Latin reality…Nor the Eastern.

 

[jonnyws]

Even in the West Priests are only obliged as a matter of Church discipline to remain unmarried. There is no dogmatic teaching on the subject. In fact in England, where I am from, many of our Priests are married due to special dispensation from the discipline of celibacy granted to Anglican Pastors converting to Catholicism and seeking ordination in the Roman Church.

The Church could decide to change its discipline which would see married men ordained in the West although I think this highly unlikely for three reasons. First, because the demands made on Roman priests are huge and it would be very difficult to maintain a family and fulfil the Priestly role. Secondly, the Church cannot afford to support Priests and families and a Roman Priest does not have time to hold down a job as well as the office of Presbyter. Thirdly, the popular will of the laity in the west is that their Priests be celibate. Whilst I don’t wholly agree with some of the concerns that are voiced such as, “I wouldn’t feel happy confessing to someone when I knew there would be pillow talk with their wife later”, I do think that this, and other such statements, reflect a deep-rooted desire for the Priesthood to remain celibate in the west.

 

[malphono]

Even in the West Priests are only obliged as a matter of Church discipline to remain unmarried.

The word “remain” seems out of place there. Shouldn’t it read “be” unmarried? It is common to all Churches, East and West, that ordained priests (and deacons, for that matter) may not marry. IOW, married men may (depending on the particular discipline) be ordained, but once ordained, may not marry.

 

[GEddie]

Permanent Deacons can be and are usually married. I remember at a retreat a PD spoke to us and he said he felt called to the clergy and something else (which I can’t rightly remember) that suggested priesthood to him and then he discovered girls and that was the end of that, but even later after marriage and kids he still felt a calling. Then the opportunity came up and after talking to his wife and family he is now a Deacon and he feels this is what he was being called to all along.

This may not be the case in all situations but some may have the call to both and to be fulfilled this was.

Correction taken. I should have said “priesthood” rather than “clergy” as Deacons are in fact clergy. Mea culpa.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Formosus]

The idea of priestly vocation as a marriage to the church is not part of Eastern traditions and I imagine is a Latin specific view used to justify their discipline of clerical celibacy.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

The idea of priestly vocation as a marriage to the church is not part of Eastern traditions and I imagine is a Latin specific view used to justify their discipline of clerical celibacy.

How should we understand it? Say you are a Priest, and you are giving a talk about Holy Orders and potentially getting persons interested in that calling? But you are a Byzantine, or Armenian Priest? How would that talk be framed/ different? Thanks!

 

[ciero]

How should we understand it? Say you are a Priest, and you are giving a talk about Holy Orders and potentially getting persons interested in that calling? But you are a Byzantine, or Armenian Priest? How would that talk be framed/ different? Thanks!

Traditionally at least in the Byzantine tradition the priesthood was not seen as a “vocation” any different then any other vocation…farmer, carpenter baker…whatever. It was seen as a job. A vocation (as we would call it today) was usually to monastic life. Most parish priests were the son of a priest and the parish was passed on to the son when dad retired, just like a business. Even within monasteries ordination was/is not decided on who “feels called” but it is an obedience (job) assigned by the abbot.

 

[twf]

ciero:
Are you saying that in the Byzantine Tradition dispensing the holy mysteries and offering the holy sacrifice of the eucharist is just a job like a baker baking cakes? There is no special calling involved in sharing in the one high priesthood of Our Lord and Savior? I mean no disrespect, but if this is actually the Byzantine tradition, I find it very very very difficult to reconcile with Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Could you please elaborate?

The Church has always taught, East and West, that the fulness of the priesthood of Christ is shared by the bishop alone - the bishop is always celibate and certainly has a special ‘vocation’ or calling.

 

[ciero]

ciero:
Are you saying that in the Byzantine Tradition dispensing the holy mysteries and offering the holy sacrifice of the eucharist is just a job like a baker baking cakes? There is no special calling involved in sharing in the one high priesthood of Our Lord and Savior? I mean no disrespect, but if this is actually the Byzantine tradition, I find it very very very difficult to reconcile with Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Could you please elaborate?

The Church has always taught, East and West, that the fulness of the priesthood of Christ is shared by the bishop alone - the bishop is always celibate and certainly has a special ‘vocation’ or calling.

Sorry I don’t have time right now to offer references but yes, what I am saying is that the parish priest was and still is in some places seen as a job…no different then any other job, as far as the way one “discerned” ones vocation. A son of a priest would learn the services from dad and eventually be ordained to replace dad when it was time for dad to retire. The idea of “I have a vocation”, and am going to a seminary and then be ordained is a fairly new idea.

By no means am I saying that the priesthood is not something special or in no way am I trying to denigrate the priesthood, I am just pointing out how the idea of “vocation” has changed over the years. Even in the Latin West, pre enforced celibacy the priesthood was often passed on from father to son, just like any other vocation.

I believe the passing on from one generation to the next even happened with the order of patriarch in the Assyrian Church of the East, albeit from uncle to nephew.

 

[malphono]

I believe the passing on from one generation to the next even happened with the order of patriarch in the Assyrian Church of the East, albeit from uncle to nephew.

It’s a bit off-topic but yes, that did happen starting in, I think, the 16th century. AFAIK, however, the practice was abandoned 100+ years ago. I suppose one could say there were historical reasons for it, but overall, it doesn’t seem to have been a great idea. One result of the practice was that it caused a huge rift and was a contributing factor to the Chaldean union.

 

[ByzKat]

Actually, there is a tradition that an Orthodox bishop is “married” to his diocese, and this has come up several times in the past few years.

For example, from an interview with Metropolitan Philip:

“an archdiocese is married to the metropolitan, and a metropolitan is married to the archdiocese, you see.”

 

[twf]

ByzKat:

Actually, there is a tradition that an Orthodox bishop is “married” to his diocese, and this has come up several times in the past few years.

For example, from an interview with Metropolitan Philip:

“an archdiocese is married to the metropolitan, and a metropolitan is married to the archdiocese, you see.”

So this sounds like the exact same principle that the Latin Church sometimes uses to describe the position of the priest. The bishop holds the fulness of the Christian priesthood - so I don’t think that this is a strictly Latin notion afterall. It makes sense. The bishop represents Christ the groom and thus is married to the local church, which is the bride of Christ. In a less profound sense, why wouldn’t the same principle apply to the bishop’s priests? Even to a married priest…I mean ultimately this is a mystical metaphorical marriage, not a literal one.