From the blog Suggestions for the Episcopal Assembly:
 |
There are some traditions which differ between the Orthodox represented in America that in a united church will have to be decided one way or another. Making all bishops be tonsured as monastics is one of them.
It is a tradition of the Russian church that all bishops be tonsured as monastics prior to their consecration if they are not already so. As such, some of the existing American jurisdictions have inherited this tradition (e.g., the OCA, the ROCOR, and the MP). From this tradition comes a common misconception that all Orthodox bishops everywhere are “supposed” to be monastics. This is not so, however. In the ancient patriarchates, as well as many other Orthodox churches, bishops are only expected to follow the ecumenical canons dealing with episcopal celibacy, most especially Canon 48 of the Quinisext Council (also called the Council in Trullo, AD 692):
It is a tradition of the Russian church that all bishops be tonsured as monastics prior to their consecration if they are not already so. As such, some of the existing American jurisdictions have inherited this tradition (e.g., the OCA, the ROCOR, and the MP). From this tradition comes a common misconception that all Orthodox bishops everywhere are “supposed” to be monastics. This is not so, however. In the ancient patriarchates, as well as many other Orthodox churches, bishops are only expected to follow the ecumenical canons dealing with episcopal celibacy, most especially Canon 48 of the Quinisext Council (also called the Council in Trullo, AD 692):
The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.
It is nowhere in any of the ecumenical canons of the Orthodox Church that bishops be required to be monastics. They only require that married men who are to be made bishops, by mutual consent with their wives, be separated from them and that she enter a monastery. The new bishop also must see that she is provided for, and she may become a deaconess.
It probably confuses things a bit that we dress up all our bishops like monks, but the reality is that, in America at least, most of our bishops were never tonsured monks, nor were they ever expected to be.
Monasticism should certainly be an option for bishops, if they so choose, but it makes no sense to require it of them, especially in a multi-traditional Orthodox Church of America. (I personally would like to see this requirement removed everywhere that it exists.) For one thing, it would be an onerous thing to expect of the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in America (remember that about 50% of American Orthodoxy is the GOA by itself).
Worse, however, is the reality that most bishops in the world who are required to be tonsured as monks have never lived the monastic life and never will. It becomes a purely formal requirement with little to no actual meaning. Worst of all, it may well be something that God will ask those men about when they stand before Him at the end, that is, what they did with their monastic profession. This practice mostly makes a mockery of monasticism, with such “monks” not living the monastic life in almost any way, in terms of asceticism, fasting, a full liturgical cycle, etc.
If a bishop is to be a monk, he should live in or near a monastery. (This was the norm in the ancient Celtic Church. Bishops did not live in cities, but in monasteries.) Whether he lives with the rest of the brotherhood or not, he should not live alone but have at least one syngellos (another monk) living with him who shares the monastic life with him. It is silly for bishops to pretend to be monks and not actually live the life. (Likewise, celibate priests who are not actually living the monastic life should not be tonsured, either.)
If a candidate for the episcopacy wishes to honor the tradition of his forefathers and become a monk (because, e.g., he is Russian), let him do so. But he should really be a monk.
It probably confuses things a bit that we dress up all our bishops like monks, but the reality is that, in America at least, most of our bishops were never tonsured monks, nor were they ever expected to be.
Monasticism should certainly be an option for bishops, if they so choose, but it makes no sense to require it of them, especially in a multi-traditional Orthodox Church of America. (I personally would like to see this requirement removed everywhere that it exists.) For one thing, it would be an onerous thing to expect of the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in America (remember that about 50% of American Orthodoxy is the GOA by itself).
Worse, however, is the reality that most bishops in the world who are required to be tonsured as monks have never lived the monastic life and never will. It becomes a purely formal requirement with little to no actual meaning. Worst of all, it may well be something that God will ask those men about when they stand before Him at the end, that is, what they did with their monastic profession. This practice mostly makes a mockery of monasticism, with such “monks” not living the monastic life in almost any way, in terms of asceticism, fasting, a full liturgical cycle, etc.
If a bishop is to be a monk, he should live in or near a monastery. (This was the norm in the ancient Celtic Church. Bishops did not live in cities, but in monasteries.) Whether he lives with the rest of the brotherhood or not, he should not live alone but have at least one syngellos (another monk) living with him who shares the monastic life with him. It is silly for bishops to pretend to be monks and not actually live the life. (Likewise, celibate priests who are not actually living the monastic life should not be tonsured, either.)
If a candidate for the episcopacy wishes to honor the tradition of his forefathers and become a monk (because, e.g., he is Russian), let him do so. But he should really be a monk.
Posts
my thoughts
ReplyDelete