The Catalog of Good Deeds

In a recent podcast titled “Introducing Eastern Orthodoxy” at the Just & Sinner blog, Lutheran author Jordan Cooper laid some groundwork to help not only explain why many conservative Lutherans are ‘heading East,’ but also provide an introduction to Orthodox belief and practice for his largely Lutheran audience.

Since I have a lot of respect for both Lutherans and their theology—especially that of Martin Luther as compared to other, later Reformers—I thought it might be helpful to take some notes and provide a brief response.

Given that I am responding to my own notes on his talk, it’s possible I have misunderstood Jordan on points, and so I apologize ahead of time if that’s the case. I’d also like to say that the purpose of this article is not to engage in any hostile battle, but to provide balance for what I consider to be a largely accurate representation of Orthodox Christianity.

Why Are People Converting?

From the onset, Jordan discusses the conversion phenomenon of the past few decades, where a number of high-profile evangelicals and even whole church movements—such as the Evangelical Orthodox Church, led by Peter E. Gillquist (of blessed memory)—are being received into the Orthodox Church. For him, and other conservatives in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, this begs the question: ‘Why?’

Unfortunately, I feel that Jordan makes a mistake that many of us make when faced with this sort of thing, especially if it involves either friends or loved ones. I have been guilty myself.

While the temptation to explain individual or even mass conversions of people from one religious persuasion to another is strong, it should be resisted. People are individuals and everyone is on their own path. Attempting to categorize and ultimately explain away these conversions (and individuals) is neither honest nor helpful. Jordan wants to categorize these conversions as being mostly done by under-educated evangelicals or those attracted to the external beauty of eastern Christianity, but neither is really the primary, motivating factor (even if they are a supplementary factor for some). I have written before on the wrong reasons for converting.

Instead, it is far more helpful to ask these people directly what led to their conversion, and to dialogue with them (if at all) on the grounds of doctrinal convictions. Better yet, simply pray for them, love them, and seek to understand how this step is but one of many on their own salvation journey. Discerning motives is always best left to God alone.

A Love for Church History and the Early Church Fathers

Jordan believes that for the under-educated—those not exposed to either Church history or the early Church fathers—their conversion is done perhaps in ignorance. Had they realized that a love for both early Church history and the fathers was also present in confessional Lutheranism (as with Martin Chemnitz, for example, in his Examination of the Council of Trent), then a conversion to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism would not be necessary. Jordan also feels that one finds in Orthodoxy a romanticized version of early Church history, with a mythical ‘consensus of the fathers’ for most beliefs, as well as a naïve understanding of both Christian history and the struggle for doctrinal orthodoxy.

No doubt, for many converts to Orthodoxy from other forms of Christianity, a robust exposure to the early Church and her beliefs is a key motivation behind conversion. There is a profound, existential experience to be had when one can read descriptions of the liturgy for catechumens in the third century writings of a Saint, and then experience that same service—word-for-word and action-for-action—in the here and now. I was struck by this experience myself, even as a semi-educated, well-read Protestant of over twenty-six years (at the time of our conversion).

But rather than this being a problem of skipping ‘patristic Lutheranism’ (or Anglicanism, or Presbyterianism) altogether, many take a direct route from historical study to incarnate reality. In other words, rather than reading about the Church of the past, in Orthodoxy one finds that same Church in the present. This is an ontological conversion, not an exercise in academic curiosity. Rather than attempting to recreate the best elements of our Christian past in the present, converts to Orthodoxy are deeply convicted—more often than not—that the Church into which they are being grafted is truly one-and-the-same with that Church of the third century (or indeed, of any century). Jordan and others are certainly free to disagree on this point, but this is where we are.

When it comes to a romanticized view of history or the Church fathers, I feel this critique is almost an inescapable one for those not involved with the life and ministry of the Orthodox Church—in other words, for those on the outside-looking-in. This is partly due to a lack of resources in the English language that are both accessible and relevant for those interested in learning more about the Orthodox Church (but this is slowly changing). Instead, speculation and oft-repeated half-truths reign supreme (especially on the Internet).

In reality, Orthodox Christians and scholars are acutely aware of the struggles for orthodoxy, beginning as early as Irenaeus’ writings against the Gnostics and continuing all the way down until the present, where any number of struggles can be easily numbered (Lord, have mercy). There was no ‘golden age’ of the Church, nor will there ever be one this side of the resurrection. Some of our greatest heroes of faith died either in exile (St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius of Alexandria) or with their limbs or tongues having been severed (St. Maximos the Confessor). Even ‘jolly’ Saint Nicholas died with a broken nose and having slapped Arius in the face. Christian history is indeed a complicated, messy thing. The theanthropic Body of Christ is never without the ‘anthropos’ and a struggle for both doctrinal and moral purity.

On the issue of a ‘consensus of the Fathers,’ it is somewhat inaccurate to attribute this perspective to the Orthodox Church as the sole or even primary litmus test of orthodoxy. In fact, this perspective has more heritage with the Reformers than with the Orthodox Church. For Orthodoxy, ‘dogma’ is defined by conciliar consensus as laid out in the Ecumenical Councils. Orthodox dogma, then, is actually restricted to a rather limited number of doctrinal ‘boundaries’ (Greek ‘Horos’), within which all dialogue, debate, and pious opinion takes place. Even doctrines such as deification have not been ‘dogmatized’ in the eastern tradition, but represent instead a prevailing consensus of theological expression. The same could be said for any number of Orthodox doctrines that are often wrongly characterized by the non-Orthodox as ‘the Orthodox position’ on a topic (more on this later).

As an aside, the so-called canon of St. Vincent of Lérins (often cited as an example of requiring patristic consensus) does not describe the manner in which dogma is determined, but rather how discerning Christians throughout history are to engage in a proper discussion of matters that are not dogmatic—that is, that are not a matter of Ecumenical dogma—and only one of these three options (they are not to be simultaneously applied, but rather successively) involves a ‘consensus’ of the fathers.

From the Orthodox perspective, Church fathers are alive today just as they were in the fourth century. There was no charismatic cessation of fathers at the close of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and our services often conclude by invoking the prayers of “our holy fathers” who are among us. Christian writers in the Church today are themselves a part of our living, breathing, holy tradition. While some popular-level works might be misleading in characterizing Orthodoxy as a faith always looking backwards, we are very much a living, present, and dynamic faith. What we hold to be true is not true because it is old, but rather because it is orthodox.

Greek East and Latin West

Jordan rightly notes a growing distinction between the theological development of the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East, as early as even the third century. For example, the third century teacher Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 160–225)—later in his life a member of the heretical Montanist sect—is often termed the ‘Father of Latin Theology.’ He mentions key figures among the Greeks, including both Ss. Maximos the Confessor and Gregory Palamas, whose theology was no doubt influential on late-medieval and even present-day, Orthodox theology.

One of the specific distinctions he notes is the addition of the Filioque (Latin “and the Son”) to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381—an addition first made by Spanish Christians in the sixth century, and later officially sanctioned by Rome in the early-eleventh century. I appreciated most of what Jordan had to say on this issue, admitting that the Latin Christians were not exactly charitable in their unilateral decision to amend the creed. However, like many Orthodox Christians, I do not necessarily think that an amendment to the creed is impossible (I would say it is unnecessary). Instead, the issue is the orthodoxy (or non-orthodoxy) behind this statement and its implications.

While I likely disagree with him on the underlying theology, I respect Jordan’s confessional convictions that—as a faithful Lutheran abiding by the Book of Concord—he cannot rightly advocate a removal of the Filioque from their usage of the creed.

Jordan also mentions the notion of doctrinal development in the Roman church today, in distinction from the East. For example, he mentions the number of additional ‘Ecumenical Councils’ assembled by the Roman church since the Seventh Ecumenical Council (A.D. 787), all of which are less-than-grand in both scale and emphasis when compared with the first seven.

But here I think Jordan commits another common error when it comes to understanding the Orthodox Church, saying we believe ‘all heresy’ was stopped at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, with no need for a similar ‘development of doctrine.’ (He also attributes the celebration of the Triumph of Orthodoxy with the seventh council, a celebration that actually first commemorated the Synod of Constantinople in 843 under the Empress Theodora—but this is a common confusion.)

For example, it should be noted that there are a number of Orthodox Christians and theologians today who would term the fourth ecumenical synod in Constantinople (A.D. 879–880) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council. This synod is referred to as such in both the fifteenth century writings of St. Mark of Ephesus and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), written in response to Pope Pius IX’s Epistle to the Easterns. In the Greek church today, there are synodal discussions for affirming this synod as well as the synods dealing with the Palamite controversy of 1341–1351 as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, respectively. A pan-Orthodox council could someday rule this to be official Church teaching.

Beyond this, there have been a number of formative, ecumenical statements or doctrinal formulations on the part of the eastern churches since the eighth century. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, in fact, outlines these events and statements in The Orthodox Church, which Jordan references several times in his discussion. But we have to keep in mind what I stated already: our dogmatic boundaries are set, with a great deal of freedom allowed within. The necessity for continual dogmatic development is not granted on the part of Orthodox Christians, especially given our predilection towards apophaticism.

And finally, on this point, one cannot neglect the historical circumstances surrounding the Orthodox Church since the fall of Constantinople (1453). For centuries, the Church was—at best—operating in a state of persecuted ‘survival mode,’ praying only that she would survive for another generation. This has continued all the way until the fall of the Iron Curtain, and persists even today. Thankfully, in many places where Orthodoxy is represented, this is no longer the case. But one cannot ignore even the present sufferings of our brothers and sisters in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and now Ukraine—where the prospect of ‘dogmatic development’ is the furthest thing from anyone’s mind.

I would contend that the presence of dogmatic development is a symptom of stagnancy, not the solution against it.

The Legacy of Saint Augustine of Hippo

His talk then shifts to both the theology and influence of St. Augustine on both Western Christianity as a whole, and Martin Luther in particular.

Mentioning Augustine’s perspectives on human depravity, original sin, and double predestination, Jordan states that Augustine has not been nearly as influential in the East, and that we don’t consider him to be ‘fully’ a Saint, preferring to refer to him only as ‘Blessed.’

Throughout his podcast, Jordan mentions a few different source books for his exposure to Orthodox doctrine. It has to be noted here that some of the works he’s relying upon—especially that of Lossky, great as it is—represent a particular perspective of Orthodox theological expression, motivated by various historical circumstances. Again, not everything written by an Orthodox Christian—clergy or otherwise—is representative of the dogmatic beliefs of the Church (of which there are precious few). He is taking the opinions of a few as normative for the entire Church. There are certainly some Orthodox people over the past century or so who have over-reacted to a Western ‘captivity’ of their generation in Orthodox thought, focusing this divergence on the figure and writings of St. Augustine—but this does not represent any official Church teaching.

In fact, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 553, held in the East) numbers Augustine among a select group of fathers to be highly revered for both their piety and theological writings. This does not mean they are infallible—and some of their writings are more important than others—but it certainly, and with conciliar, dogmatic authority, leaves no room whatsoever to deny that Augustine is a Saint. On this point we must state that those who would deem him otherwise are simply wrong. (Also, Orthodox Christians do not have ‘levels’ of distinction for venerated figures, so ‘Blessed’ is not a designation ‘less than’ that of ‘Saint,’ for example–any more than calling the Theotokos ‘Blessed’ makes her less than a Saint.)

While Orthodox Christians might disagree with much of Augustine-via-Aquinas or the later Reformers, we venerate and appreciate Augustine for the areas in which he was most influential on the continuing life of the Church: e.g. his anti-Donatist writings, his position on the canon and text of scripture, his work on baptism and the other Christian mysteries, and so on. Augustine-via-Maximos the Confessor and other work being done in our own day is far more interesting to eastern scholars, of course, but we revere him nonetheless. Many Orthodox Christians take Augustine as their baptismal name and even more venerate his holy icon—we love St. Augustine.

Monergism, Original Sin, and Semi-Pelagianism

The figure of Augustine and his influence on the West (and supposed disdain in the East) leads Jordan to a brief discussion of the differences between monergism and synergism.

Essentially, monergism is the belief that all of a person’s salvation—from beginning to end—is a work entirely of God and his Grace, while synergism teaches that God begins the work of salvation by Grace, but a person must then cooperate with God’s Grace for the remainder of their life. Jordan mentions the figure of John Cassian as a champion of the doctrine of synergism, revered by the East and rejected by the West (or at least, not venerated as a Saint). He also briefly mentions the doctrinal position of Semi-Pelagianism, supposedly held by both John Cassian and even present-day Orthodox Christians. Jordan notes that the Orthodox are not full-blown Pelagians, but that we don’t see original sin as a total or complete ‘corruption’ of human nature. For the East, says Jordan, the emphasis is not on the sin or guilt of Adam, but on the consequence of death.

There is almost a limitless amount that could be written on these few points, so I will do my best to be brief.

First, it must be stated emphatically that St. Augustine did not hold to monergism (a Reformation doctrine), but is in fact a synergist along with practically every other father and early Christian authority. As just one example, Augustine shares a concise analogy of a tree, illustrating the cooperation between both God and man in salvation (On the Grace of Christ 1.19.20). The grace of God first makes an evil tree good (at baptism), and then “God co-operates in the production of fruit in good trees.”

This is the position taken by the Second Synod of Orange (A.D. 529), a council curiously appealed to by Calvinists as ‘patristic evidence’ of both monergism and the Doctrines of Grace:

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.

And regarding double-predestination (whether taught by Augustine or not), this council concludes:

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

Semi-Pelagianism itself is also an invention of the sixteenth century, and does not exist in any discussions of the fifth or sixth (the term is coined in 1577). While Saints such as John Cassian and Vincent of Lérins are often wrongly associated with this fabricated heterodoxy, they are actually in agreement with—contra-monergism—the Second Synod of Orange. This council was an orthodox compromise between the isolated speculations of St. Augustine and that of the heretical Pelagians. St. Vincent himself mentions this debate in his Commonitory around the time of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), where he decries the doctrine of double-predestination. For those like Cassian, salvation is of Grace from beginning to end, while not ignoring both the reality and necessity of man’s cooperation with that Grace from baptism to last breath.

It is sometimes claimed that John Cassian is not venerated as a Saint by Rome, but this is not really true. In the present Catechism of the Catholic Church, he is cited twice (as “St. John Cassian,” cf. CCC 1866, 2785). Denzinger refers to him a number of times in the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as “St. John Cassian.” His feast day—while admittedly out of prominence in the latest Vatican reforms of the Martyrologium Romanum—is July 23 (Feb. 29 for the Orthodox and Anglicans). Cassian was also incredibly influential on the foundations of Western, Benedictine monasticism, along with the likes of Pachomius and the Egyptian or ‘desert fathers’ of the east. He is not widely beloved as he once was in the Christian West, but he is certainly not rejected or seen as less than a Saint and father of the Church.

On the topic of original vs. ancestral sin, this is another example of taking certain, even popular, Orthodox writings on a doctrinal perspective, and assuming them as normative, exclusive, and dogmatic.

It is certainly the case that the majority of Greek and even Slavic theology on original sin over the past century has focused on the inheritance of death and corruption from Adam. This is also what often gets emphasized in introductory or popular-level discourse. In part, this has to do with the fact that this is a narrative elevated in the vast majority of our liturgical services (hymns and prayers) related to the subject. For example, the great Paschal (Easter) hymn refrains:

Christ is risen from the dead,

Trampling down death by death,

And upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

While the overwhelming emphasis of eastern works on the topic of original sin focuses on the consequence of both death and corruption (and their reversal in Christ’s death and resurrection), this does not mean we reject a susceptibility and even strong inclination towards sin as a result of the Fall. As Jordan would likely agree, these viewpoints are not mutually exclusive—it is simply a matter of emphasis. And that emphasis has changed over time, with confessions or catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries dealing more with the psychical or moral effects of original sin than simply death and corruption alone.

For more on the other angle of Orthodox belief on original sin, I would recommend two essays: Original Sin and Orthodoxy: Reflections on Carthage and Original Sin and Ephesus: Carthage’s Influence on the East. As one can discern, the focus is on conciliar, Ecumenical decrees, not a perceived ‘consensus of the fathers’ or the viewpoints of a few, even key, writers.

East vs. West?

Jordan feels that many Orthodox Christians are engaged in an over-reaction to what we term ‘Western’ theology. He sees this in Lossky, and finds that for such, bad theology is associated with being ‘Western,’ while orthodox theology is always ‘Eastern.’

On the one hand, I think a lot of this is our own fault. As mentioned earlier, there is definitely a part of Orthodoxy over the past century or so that has drawn sharp distinctions between the theology of the East and the theology of the West (and for good, historical reasons, at times). All of the world’s problems are neatly packaged as Western thinking, with Augustine chiefly to blame. However, I must stress that the extremes of this attitude do not express normative, dogmatic Orthodoxy.

I’ve already noted our affinity for St. Augustine, but when it comes to an East and West divide, the Orthodox Church is not only for ‘Eastern’ or oriental people, but is believed to be both a catholic and universal faith—encompassing perspectives both Greek and Latin, Jewish and Gentile. ‘Eastern’ is more of a description for the sake of clarity than it is anything deeply meaningful or theological—and far less is it to be taken as the inverse of an insult. If the Orthodox Church is termed ‘Eastern,’ this is almost always said today to distinguish between Rome and the remaining Patriarchates and autocephalous churches that are not in communion with the Pope of the city of Rome. So while there’s definitely some who would use these terms as a further cause of distinction or even division, we must remember that it is more a term of clarification than discrimination.

Jordan also feels that Orthodox Christians (such as Lossky) are led to false dichotomies when it comes to doctrinal discussion, as a result of this anti-Western bigotry. Eastern theology is delivered as the absolute antithesis to Western theology, with Eastern ideas completely overriding and eliminating Western ones. For example, Jordan believes that Orthodox Christians accept one—and only one—viewpoint when it comes to a number of doctrinal distinctives (such as the atonement), to the exclusion of other, equally valid positions.

Again, I think this misunderstanding stems from three different factors: 1) An unfamiliarity with the life and liturgy of the Orthodox Church as one of her members, 2) An exposure to only certain types of Orthodox literature or perspectives, and 3) An assumption that particular perspectives among Orthodox authors—popular as they are—is both a normative and dogmatic expression of the ‘official teachings’ of the Orthodox Church.

And while this is not entirely Jordan’s fault (even as I term it a ‘misunderstanding’), from someone living as part of the Orthodox Church for several years now, I can’t think of anything said about Orthodoxy that is more obviously false. In truth, Orthodoxy is often called a church of both paradox and mystery. Our light-hearted response to deeper questions from our non-Orthodox friends is “It’s a mystery.” Whenever someone begins to ask me, “What’s the official Orthodox position on—”, I always stop them and say “We don’t have one.” (Half-joking, of course.)

So while many Orthodox authors today will speak of Christus victor, ancestral sin, theosis, and non-juridicial concepts of salvation, this is not the final, Orthodox word on these issues. Within our ecumenical boundaries of dogma, anything is open for discussion, dialogue, and healthy debate. While one might find a dominant perspective in Orthodoxy on certain topics, this does not mean we reject all other perspectives on the same. An affinity for theosis is not a rejection of the forgiveness of sins in Christ’s death on the Cross, nor is it a rejection of concepts like justification or even ‘legal’ metaphors for salvation.

One must also keep in mind that the theological discussions and debates of the Orthodox Church are not necessarily going to neatly ‘line up’ with that of the West (using the term as a descriptor, not an insult). In fairness, Protestant theology is largely a reaction against Rome, with much of modern Roman theology a counter-reaction against Protestantism (and with a great deal of synthesis, in some cases). With Orthodoxy on the outside-looking-in, we do not always have a common ground. This contextualization and historical reality should not be mistaken as a lack of concern on the part of Orthodox Christians for ideas and concepts that are more central to Protestant or Roman Catholic belief.

To contend that Orthodox Christians misunderstand Sola fide or that we care more about theosis than justification is to beg the question that the Orthodox Church be Lutheran or Reformed in order to be correct. This is, at best, an abstraction—conflating epistemology with ontology—and only muddies the waters of meaningful dialogue.

Concluding Thoughts

While it might seem at this point that I have a number of substantial disagreements with Jordan on his introduction to Orthodoxy, I haven’t outlined all of the areas in which we agree (and where he gets things correct). As I listened, I was impressed by many of the clarifying statements he made, even seeking to understand Orthodox Christians on their own terms, and not force everything into categories or perspectives not necessarily shared between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. On more than one occasion while listening to his presentation, I was about to write down another point for response, but he would then provide the correct and balancing statements in order to more accurately represent the Orthodox faith.

If there is any prevailing weakness to his presentation, it’s that he’s looking at things from the outside-in, and relying on only a few, select sources in order to do so. I feel that Orthodox Christians are at fault for much of the popular-level apologetics and other, inaccurate material one might find either in print or online, but things are always improving. English-language Orthodox resources on a large and quality scale are very much still in their infancy.

In the end, I would encourage those interested in learning more about Orthodoxy to not necessarily start with any one book, but with a simple visit to a nearby parish. Grab coffee with the priest or deacon, and pick his brain with your questions or concerns. More often than not, they will be happy to do so, and without any pressure or presumption that you’re interested in converting. Attending some services during the week, when it doesn’t conflict with your own religious attendance on Sunday, is another helpful option (especially during Great Lent). It’s one thing to read about Orthodoxy, and another thing altogether to experience it and be exposed to the incarnate reality of the Church on a regular basis.

I hope someone finds this ‘conversation’ helpful, and that it clears up any confusion Lutherans (or other Protestant Christians) might have regarding the Orthodox Church and faith. I’d also like to wish Jordan the best in his ministry and efforts, and ask his forgiveness for any areas where I’ve misunderstood or misrepresented what he had to say.

Source: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/why-are-lutherans-converting-to-eastern-orthodoxy/

Icons are painted as windows into Heaven, and therefore to show the Heavenly, rather than earthly, reality. Nevertheless, Icons are made of the people we love: of the heroes of the faith who are remembered and whose earthly lives are considered instructive and worthy of imitation. Therefore it is natural that, as well as depicting them in a stylized “spiritual” way, the Saints are also depicted as recognizable people, with distinct features. This guide is just a brief description of how the Holy Apostles are depicted in Icons, so that they can be more easily recognized when encountered in churches, monasteries, or wherever else an icon is found.

St. Peter

The fiery and impulsive Leader of the Twelve, Peter is easily recognizable by his white, short, curly hair and beard. He is often shown holding a scroll, which may have words taken from one of his Epistles written upon it. In some icons he may also be shown with keys hanging from his belt, a reference to the words Jesus said to him: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” He is often found in Icons with St. Paul, who were both martyred in Rome, holding together the Church, and showing their shared pre-eminence among the Apostles.

St. Paul

Though not one of the original Twelve, St. Paul has always been known as an Apostle (literally meaning “one who is sent out”), and moreover a leader of the Apostles. As such, he is often shown in Icons of the Apostles, including the one at the top of the page. Paul is always depicted with brown hair and beard tapering to one or two points. He is balding with a high forehead (signifying great wisdom and learning) but with a tuft of brown hair in the centre. He is often shown carrying a large Gospel book, an affirmation of the number of epistles he contributed to what became the New Testament. In addition, the Evangelist Luke was a physician who followed St. Paul on his missionary trips, so it is fair to say that Paul would also have had an influence upon the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.

St. John

There are two common depictions of the Apostle John: as the “Beloved Disciple” and as “the Theologian”. The former Icon is of the young Apostle John – the John who rested upon the breast of Christ during the Last Supper. In any icon showing scenes from the life of Christ (e.g. the Transfiguration, the Crucifixion) or those depicted in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. the Ascension or Pentecost) then St. John is shown as the beardless brown-haired youth, little more than sixteen years of age.

When John is painted in a “portrait”, rather than as part of a Biblical scene, then he is usually shown as the elderly John “the Theologian”. This is the John who, sixty years or so after the Resurrection of Christ, is exiled upon Patmos and writing both the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation. He is shown with long white beard and high forehead, holding the Gospel book which led to his title “the Theologian”, often shown open to reveal some verses from the book. He may also be shown with an Eagle, the symbol of both John and his Gospel.

St. Matthew

Like John, St. Matthew also authored a Gospel account, and so likewise is usually depicted holding a large Book. Whether in portrait or in Icons depicting Biblical scenes, Matthew has long, wavy, white beard and closer-cropped hair. As a deliberate anachronism to aid identification, he may also be shown holding the Gospel Book in Icons with Christ depicting Biblical scenes. Matthew may sometimes be shown with a winged man, the symbol associated with his Gospel.

St. Andrew

Andrew, the brother of the Apostle Peter, was formerly a disciple of St. John the Baptist. Because of this, Andrew is depicted with long unkempt hair, in the manner of the prophet he followed. This makes him one of the most recognizable of Apostles when depicted in scenes showing Jesus’ earthly ministry. Andrew holds a small scroll not to indicate he authored any famous works, but to identify him as a preacher of the Gospel, “one who is sent out”, i.e. an Apostle.

St. Bartholomew

Bartholomew, also known as Nathaniel, is shown as a middle-aged man, with short beard and hair. He is also shown holding the scroll of an Apostle. After his martyrdom, St. Bartholomew has appeared to a number of people in vision and dream, so his appearance can be deduced. He has appeared to St. Joseph the Hymnographer, blessing him that he might be able to sing spiritual hymns, saying, “Let heavenly water of wisdom flow from your tongue!” He also appeared to Emperor Anastasius I (491-518) and told him that he would protect the new town of Dara.

St. Simon

Not to be confused with St. Peter, who was previously named Simon bar-Jonah, the Apostle Simon was from Cana, and is the bridegroom of the famous Wedding at Cana. He is always shown with grey curly hair and beard, though with a higher forehead than St. Peter.

St. Thomas

The Apostle Thomas is most famously known as “Doubting Thomas”, on account of his refusal to believe the accounts of the other disciples that Christ had risen. Often maligned for this, in Orthodox teaching it is recognized that through his initial doubts, Thomas came to confess Jesus Christ as “Lord and God” – a greater confession of faith than any of the Apostles had previously uttered. Sometimes this confession of faith is held in Thomas’ hands in icons depicting him, though more commonly it is the scroll denoting his rank of Apostle that is shown. The most striking thing about the Icons of Thomas is that he is shown as a beardless youth, a teenager as John was. This is a consistent feature of how Thomas is shown in icons, as in this Icon of Thomas touching the wounds of Christ. The youthfulness of the Apostle Thomas is something worthy of consideration when thinking about his “doubts”.

St. James, Son of Zebedee

There are two Apostles named James. The son of Zebedee is the James often nicknamed “the Greater” in the West. This is largely because among the Twelve he was part of the “inner-circle” which also contained St. Peter and St. John. The Apostle John is also the brother of James and together they were known as the “Sons of Thunder”. James is shown with medium length brown hair and beard. Though often difficult to identify by sight alone in Icons of the Twelve, he is recognizable in the bottom-right of this Icon of the Transfiguration, which along with the young John and curly-haired Peter, James was privileged to witness. He is depicted as a young man (short beard, not white) in all icons, as he never got to live to an old age, being martyred a little over 10 years after the Resurrection.

St. Jude

Jude is also sometimes called Levi or Thaddeus, and “Jude” is sometimes rendered Judas. Nevertheless, he is not to be confused with the Apostle Matthew (also called “Levi”), St. Thaddeus one of Jesus’ seventy disciples, or especially Judas Iscariot. The author of the Biblical Epistle which carries his name, the “Apostles’ Scroll” in his hand may sometimes show a quote from his own writing. Otherwise, St. Jude is identified as a mature man with curly brown (sometimes grey) beard and hair. As he was related to Jesus Christ through Joseph, husband of Mary, the appelation “brother of the Lord” (or “adelphos” in Greek) may be found on Icons.

St. James Alphaeus

The son of Alphaeus and the brother of the Apostle Matthew, James is shown with brown wavy or curly hair and a pointed beard. He is not to be confused with St. James “Adelphos”, which means “brother of the Lord”. In iconography, the two Jameses are easily distinguished, as “the brother of the Lord” is always shown in the robes of a bishop, being the first bishop of Jerusalem. Here is an Icon of James Adelphos.

St. Phillip

Holy Tradition and Scriptures maintain that the Apostle Philip was well versed in the Old Testament prophecies, and eagerly awaited the coming of the Saviour. He immediately responded to the call of Jesus, and recognized him as the Messiah (John 1:43); and subsequently led Nathaniel (the Apostle Bartholomew) to become a follower of Jesus too. Therefore it is remarkable to come into contact with icons of the Apostle Philip – who is always shown as beardless youth. Like the youthfulness of Thomas, it is something worthy of consideration.

St. Matthias

Matthias is the disciple of Christ who replaced Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve Apostles after the latter’s betrayal and suicide. His appearance in icons is entirely in keeping with what is known about him. Schooled in the Law by the Prophet Simeon, who received the infant Christ in the temple, Matthias was already a man of maturity before becoming a disciple of the adult Christ. By the time of his martyrdom in 63A.D., Matthias would be the elderly man depicted in Icons of him.

Judas Iscariot

Whilst Judas is obviously not a saint, and isn’t shown in icons of “the Twelve”, he is nevertheless depicted in icons of the Last Supper or else kissing Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. In icons of the Last Supper he is easily recognizable as the one dipping his hand into the dish, thus revealing his future betrayal of the Lord. Often, the Apostles are not shown with halos in scenes prior to Pentecost, but needless to say when they are shown with halos, Judas is conspicuous by not having one.

Whatever it may be worth – and it may be worth nothing – in Orthodox Iconography Judas is almost always shown beardless, like John, Philip, and Thomas; thus, like them, he was perhaps still a teenager at the time he betrayed his Saviour.

Source: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/how-to-recognize-the-holy-apostles-in-icons/

If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, ...ruling well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.

[1 Timothy 3:1-4]

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed you; If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.

[Titus 1:5,6]

Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever.

[Matthew 8:14]

But Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever, and they told Him about her at once.

[Mark 1:30]

Now He arose from the Synagogue and entered Simon's house. But Simon's wife's mother was sick with a high fever, and they made request of Him concerning her.

[Luke 4:38]

Introduction

First, we must establish the Biblical and thus traditional position of the Orthodox Church regarding the issue of married clergy. Secondly, we must be against the allegations made by (some) Orthodox that the consecration of married men to the office of bishop is supposedly "uncanonical", somehow "unorthodox", or even worse, "heretical".

St Peter the Apostle

Undoubtedly, St. Peter and virtually all Apostles were married. Their marriage clearly did not nullify being chosen as Apostles by Christ. There is no reference to any children of the marriage, before or after the call as an Apostle. There is a clear Orthodox tradition that St Peter dedicated himself completely (lived celibate from that time on) to Christ from the time of his call. This can be seen in the following words of St Clement of Alexandria:They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, 'Remember the Lord'. Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, 'That he who marries should be as though he married not', and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2]

Evidence of Married Bishops in the early Church

The father of the Cappodacian Saints was a Married Bishop. The elder Gregory was converted by the influence of his wife, Nonna; and soon after his conversion was consecrated to the bishopric of Nazianzus [p.187, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7] (Note: This is Gregory the elder, not his son St Gregory Nazianzus). Note that, There are two lines in his poem of St Gregory Nazienzan on his own life which seem to indicate clearly that his birth took place after his father's elevation to the Episcopate... [p.188, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol 7].

Basil left before him and returned to Cappadocia; and as soon as he could follow he went to Constantinople, where he met his brother, who had just come there to practice and return with his brother to Nazianzus. They found their parents still living and their father occupying the Episcopal Throne. From this time onward Gregory divided his time between his parents and his friend; living partly at Arianzus, and partly with Basil in Pontus, in monastic seclusion. [p.191, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol. 7].

Gregory,...felt very strongly drawn to the monastic life; but as retirement from the world did not seem to him to be his vocation, he resolved to continue to live in the world, and to be a help and support to his now aged parents, and especially to his father in the duties of his Episcopate, but at the same time to live under the strictest ascetic rule. [ibid.]

In 374, Gregory the elder died, and his wife also, and thus our saint was set free from the charge of the diocese. [p.195, ibid.]

Early Tradition on the marriage of St Gregory of Nyssa

Here it is usual to place the marriage of Gregory with Theosebeia, said to have been a sister of Gregory Nazianzus. Certainly the tradition of Gregory's (Nyssa) marriage received such credit as to be made in after times a proof of the non-celibacy of the Bishops of his age. [p.3, A Sketch of the Life of St Gregory of Nyssa, Second Series, Vol. 5]

St John Chrysostom on married Hierarchs

'A Bishop then,' he says, 'must be blameless the husband of one wife.' This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. [p.438, First Series, Vol. 13, St John Chrysostom, Homily X, Homilies on Timothy]

If then 'he who is married cares for the things of the world' (1 Cor. 7:33), and a bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say 'the husband of one wife'? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none (1 Cor. 7:29). For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, to regulate his conduct. [p. 438, ibid.]

'Having his children in subjection with all gravity.' This is necessary, that an example might be exhibited in his own house. [p.439. ibid.]

Verse 6: 'If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.' Why does he bring forward such a one? To stop the mouths of those heretics who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne; and at the same reproving the wanton, and not permitting their admission into this high office who contracted a second marriage. For he who retains no kind regard for her who is departed, how shall he be a good presider? [p.524, Works of St John Chrysostomos, Homily on Titus, Homily 2, First Series, Vol. 13].

'Having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.' We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others?...But, if occupied in the pursuit of wealth, he has made his children a secondary concern, and not bestowed much care upon them, even so he is unworthy. For if when nature prompted, he was so void of affection or so senseless, that he thought more of his wealth than of his children, how should he be raised to the episcopal throne, and so great a rule? [pp. 524/5, ibid.]

St Athanasius the Apostolic:But I have also thought it necessary to inform you of the fact, that Bishops have succeeded those who have fallen asleep. In Tanis, in the stead of Elias, is Theodorus. In Arsenoitis, Silvanus instead of Nonnus. In Bucolia is Heraclius. In Tentyra, Andronicus is instead of Saprion, his father. In Thebes, Philon instead of Philon, etc. [pp.538/9, Letter 12, Sect. 2, Letters of St Athanasius, Second Series, Vol. IV, Athanasius]

For we know both bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know bishops that drink no wine, as well as monks who do. We know bishops who work wonders, as well as monks who do not. Many also of the bishops have not even married, while monks have been fathers of children; just as conversely we know bishops who are fathers of children and monks 'of the completest kind'. [p.560, Letter 49, Sect. 9, ibid.]

St Ambrose of Milan

And so the Apostle have given a pattern, saying that a bishop 'must be blameless', and in another place: 'A bishop must be without offence, as a steward of God, not proud, not soon angry, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.' For how can the compassion of a dispenser of alms and the avarice of a covetous man agree together? I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the apostle is the master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept), but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle's authority to beget children in the priesthood; for he speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again. [p.465, Chapters 61 & 62, Letter 63, St Ambrose, Second Series,Vol. 10]

Origen

The Marriage of Church Dignitaries: But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, 'If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,' etc.; and, in regard to deacons, 'Let the deacons,' he says, 'be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,' etc. ... And, in the Epistle to Titus, 'For this cause,' he says, 'I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe'. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married. [pp.509/10, Book XIV, Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Vol. X, Ante Nicene Fathers]

Councils of the Church

Canon V of the Canons of the Twelve Apostles (Apostolic Canons):Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.

Canon LI of the Apostolic Canons: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.

In conclusion, the Apostolic Canons represent the very early Canon Law of the Church, that the Canons which make up the collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the collection, as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning it a date not later than the middle of the fourth century.... There can be no question that in the East the Apostolic Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by the Holy Apostles. [p. 592, Vol.XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church

Quinisext Council (Fifth-Sixth)

Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach...But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Commentary by Aristenus:The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacons to cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any that shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed. But this canon on the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his wife after his consecration. But by this change no contempt is meant to be poured out upon what had been established by Apostolic authority, but it was made through care for the people's health and for leading on to better things, and for fear that the sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.

Van Espen:In the time of this Canon (of the Apostles) not only presbyters and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom to have their wives; and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the Sixth Council, commonly called in Trullo, bishops were allowed to have their wives.

Canon XLVII:The wife of him who is advanced to hierarchical dignity, shall be seperated 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.

On the Marriage of the Clergy

The doctrine and practice of the ancient Church in the East can be fittingly quoted in the words of the Rev. John Fulton in the introduction to the Third Edition of his Index Canonum [p.29, NY, 1892]. He says, Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and bishops, Priests and Deacons, equally with other men, were forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of religion. The case was different when a man was unmarried at the time of his ordination. Then he was held to have given himself wholly to God in the office of the Holy Ministry, and he was forbidden to take back from his offering that measure of his cares and his affections which must necessarily be given to the maintenance and nurture of his family. [p.365, Vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.

St. Demetrius the Vine Dresser (Egyptian Patriarch)

The Coptic Orthodox Synaxarian records one of the early Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria as being a married man. The record states he had lived a celibate life since the beginning of marriage and it is not known whether this is a later redaction to cover the obvious conflict that would ensue otherwise. In any case, the fact of his enthronement again confirms that the tradition of the Church at that time did not consider marriage to be a bar to even hold the highest office of the Orthodox Church.

The Byzantine Church

In 1990, an article from The Orthodox Observer, a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America publication, states, At the 1992 meeting of the clergy-laity conference of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (Archbishop Iacovos), held in New Orleans, a formal resolution was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople 'to consider returning to the practice of ordaining married priests as bishops as was done in the early church.' ... Earlier in December 1991, the Greek Archdiocese stated that it was the original practice of the Church for a married Episcopate. Please also note that Archbishop Iakovos promoted the return of married bishops to worldwide Orthodoxy and agreed that individual jurisdictions could retain the Apostolic tradition of the Early Church.

Various Practices Regarding the Episcopacy

[1] Celibate/Monastics Only: The majority position amongst the Eastern Orthodox which has a large well of monastics to draw from. Also the position amongst the Oriental Orthodox, who, like their Eastern brethren, have a vibrant monastic community. Many of these Churches, having had married bishops in the early Church, did however draw from their monastics for over one thousnad years (Armenians seemingly being the exception). However, it is noted that even amongst the Eastern Orthodox it is not unusual to elect a Priest to the Episcopacy whose wife has reposed first. Evidence is overwhelming that in the Orthodox Tradition marriage is not a bar to consecration. Economia and the will of the Orthodox Christians in the traditional homelands do not lend themselves to changing this current practice, which has served their churches very well for centuries.

[2] Married but dedicated Celibacy: The traditional position regarding the Apostles (St Peter, for example) and many of the married men that have been elevated in times past (St Demetrius the Vinedresser amongst the Coptic Orthodox, for instance) is supported by the Canonical authority of the Fifth-Sixth Council (Canons 12 and 47-see above). However, if the dedicated celibacy was due to the heretical view that marital relations were not honorable (sinful) then a clear rejection of the fifth and fifty-first canons of the Apostolic Canons would apply placing the rejector under anathema. This is an acceptable position when the Church is in a missionary situation as it was in the days of the Apostles and early centuries (and currently amongst the Western hemispherre), but is not as needed when a large pool of spiritual monastics is granted to the Church by God. The practice is that the married couple live celibate from the time of dedication or consecration, usually with the wife also entering into monastic lifestyle or a community and frequently being received as a dedicated Deaconness.

[3] Married but not dedicated Celibacy: Perhaps the least controversial position due to the fact that the Bishop has not lived or promised to live a celibate life from consecration. Those who reject this position outright often bring the following verse to bear: "He who is married is concerned for his wife and the affairs of the world", alongside St Paul's words that it is 'better' to remain as he was, i.e. celibate. There are also references (see above) of married bishopes that bore children in lawful Christian marriage after their consecration (although far less frequently and often alongside later attempts by writers to re-write the facts of the matter). The Biblical references relating to the bishop being married and having in submission his children does not imply that the children came after the elevation to the Episcopate. However, the lawful Christian state of marriage itself determines that the married but not celibate Episcopate has not committed any sin that would prevent him from consecration. Of course not all things that are 'lawful are also expedient' and thus, this third position causes much confusion and consternation amongst some Orthodox. The Canons of the Fifth-Sixth Council direct all married bishopes to seperate from their wives and live a dedicated life and these are often quoted by those who deny the correctness of this position. However, the earlier Apostolic Canons direct the exact opposite that one was not allowed to put away ones wife. Obviously this matter falls well within the oiconomia of the bishops in a particular Synod to determine the married epicopate for their jurisdiction.

Various Objections Raised Regarding a Married Episcopacy

The Church decided in later centuries to change to monastic bishops only.

At a number of question forums where the laity have a chance to ask various Bishops for their response to why the Church no longer has married Bishops (as Holy Scriptures allow and the Church Fathers attest to) we found that the common answer is often:The whole church decided to change the practice in the third century. The response from the blessed bishops is somewhat ill-informed and assumed to be the case, rather than defacto is the case:

[a] The Universal Church made no such declaration in the 3rd century nor the centuries immediately following that time.

[b] The exact opposite actually occurred. At the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Western (Roman) legates attempted force Canons requiring celibacy of all clergy. These attempted amendments however failed, and a large part of their failure were the words of St Paphnutius of the Church of Alexandria, a Saint and miracle worker who was famed and respected across the empire, even receiving admiration from the Emperor himself. What made St Paphnutius' words even more immpressive is that he himself had been a celibate monastic since entering the life as a teenager. Here a strictly ascetic monastic argued against the enforced celibacy of any rank of the Church's offices (cf. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Volume 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils:"Proposed Action on Celibacy"):

that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency. In this way (by not prohibiting marrital relations) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from the marriage). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives.

This discourse of St. Paphnutius made so much more of an impression, since he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse. St. Paphnutius had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would. We must conclude that a law was proposed at the Council of Nicaea in the same way as the one which had been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, Spain. This coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to St. Paphnutius, and the consequent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect to celibacy. Both, the Greek Church as well as the Latin one accepted this principle, that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons. and even subdeacons, were considered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if they had obtained permission from their bishop to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (Canon 10). We see that the Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but, in reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their ordination. While the Latin Church exacted of those presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not continue to live with their wives (if they were married), the Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests; and the Synod of Gangra (Canon 4) took up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, was not alone among the Greeks opposing the marriage of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin discipline regarding this matter. St. Epiphanius also inclined towards this side. The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Apostolic Canons (Canon 5) and of the Constitutions; for in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were married bishops (for instance, Bishop Synesius in the fifth century). But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (Canon 13) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of priests (First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy, Second Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 51/2)

[3] The Church enforced celibate Bishops to stop Nepotism: This explanation perhaps gives us the clearest reason why the Church moved away from married bishops. Nepotism is where the ecclesiastical dignity is passed down from father to son and becomes a sort of family empire, something that the Church can never be. This phenomen can be seen today, for instance in the Billy Graham and Pat Robertson enterprises and other ministries where the sons are effectively taking over as the inheritors to their fathers. While this may not always be a bad thing or necessarily against the will of God, it does lead to the confusion of the laity who would begin to see an element of family empire building in the making. In order to end the passing of ecclesiastical properties as inheritance to sons, the Church began to choose men who were never married, and thus no claims for inheritance could be levelled. This perhaps was valid during the days when the bishops held all property and legal deeds, and incorpartions did not exist. Nowadays, at an age of public disclosure of banking and financial accounts, with lay treasurers and financial committees etc, there is little to no chance of such to occur.

[4] The need of an Ecumenical Council to change back: This is seemingly a valid statement made by those who reject the married Episcopate. They assert that since an Ecumenical council declared the matter closed, then it requires another Ecumenical Council to change that. This argument is flawed in a number of points: First, an ecumenical council did NOT declare the matter closed. On the contrary, The Council of Nicea refused to implement this discipline. Secondly, the Fifth-sixth Council did NOT ban married bishops, but implemented a set discipline upon them. Thirdly, there has not been an Ecumenical Council since the schism of the Church and there is not likely to be one in any foreseeable future. We no longer have Christian Emperors who can call an Ecumenical Council, let alone the fact that the whole Roman Church would obviously fail to attend any Council called by the East. Amusingly, the answer (of needing another Ecumenical Council to settle the matter) really does not deal with the issue but 'passes the buck' to some indefinite, improbable future event. Such would not be acceptable from a theological or cannonically viewpoint, since oiconomia has always allowed the bishops to determine how to enforce or interpret the Canons in their particular circumstances. Recently allowances in matters of ecclesiastical discipline have been observed in a number of jurisdictions, including priest's being able to remarry, bishops being transferred to other dioceses, "Coadjutor" type bishops in dioceses that are not under their authority, monks leaving their vows being allowed to marry, more than one bishop in one city, etc. - Yet none of these recent matters were left to a futuristic Ecumenical Council.

Summary

We believe the above information and the facts of history stand for themselves and do not need a defence. It is rather the other side in need of defence, from a Scriptural, Patristic and canonical point of view. Additionally, the western hemnisphere is not like the homelands of Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy which had two thousand years of resources to draw from suitable monastics availble for consecration. Though the earlier Canons are believed by Orthodox tradition to come directly via Apostolic authority, the later ones by an assumed one-size-fits-all decision by the Fifth-sixth Council. Canonical commentators have not been able to resolve the obvious differences other than simply to note them. Oiconomia is the only way this issue should be resolved in the Orthodox faith, as it always has. For one jurisdiction to use one set of Canons against another jurisdiction's interpretation or oikonomia is neither appropriate nor Orthodox!

Source: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/married_bishops

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Why Do Lutherans Convert to Orthodoxy?

Recognizing the Holy Apostles in Orthodox Icons

Concerning Married Bishops in the Orthodox Christian Church

Partners