OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 21, 2014, 11:11:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ordinations of EO priests is not the same as the early Christians?  (Read 1309 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« on: March 27, 2013, 01:52:10 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2013, 02:02:25 AM »

We shouldn't follow the law for the sake of just following the law.  Most priests today do not come from the parishes itself.  How can people say that a priest is worthy or not if they do not even know him?

Some parishes are fortunate to have many in the vocation, so from among the ranks there may become deacons and priests.  But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2013, 02:23:10 AM »

But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.

You sure this is normative for the entire Orthodox world?

In America, such things could be easily managed anyway, if folks wanted to. The laity certainly weigh in on who will be their Bishop. Someone they likely have never met. And in America with the jurisdictional insanity, might never meet.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2013, 02:38:10 AM »

But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.

You sure this is normative for the entire Orthodox world?

In America, such things could be easily managed anyway, if folks wanted to. The laity certainly weigh in on who will be their Bishop. Someone they likely have never met. And in America with the jurisdictional insanity, might never meet.

Even in countries where most people of the same faith, its not like every town has its own seminary.  The Philippines, being Catholic, there are lots of seminaries.  But they are not in every town.  And even if seminarian who goes to a seminary one town over, he probably would be ordained for a parish on a different part of the country.  I bet most seminarians would want to become priests of their home parish, but usually it doesn't work that way.  You are sent where you are needed.

I can't imagine it being any different in a predominantly Orthodox country.  It is just really the system of our time.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2013, 02:40:07 AM »

But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.

You sure this is normative for the entire Orthodox world?

In America, such things could be easily managed anyway, if folks wanted to. The laity certainly weigh in on who will be their Bishop. Someone they likely have never met. And in America with the jurisdictional insanity, might never meet.

Even in countries where most people of the same faith, its not like every town has its own seminary.  The Philippines, being Catholic, there are lots of seminaries.  But they are not in every town.  And even if seminarian who goes to a seminary one town over, he probably would be ordained for a parish on a different part of the country.  I bet most seminarians would want to become priests of their home parish, but usually it doesn't work that way.  You are sent where you are needed.

I can't imagine it being any different in a predominantly Orthodox country.  It is just really the system of our time.

I'll let the OWs weigh in here. Not sure many of the Priests I met in the OW saw a seminary.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
copticyouth93
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 61



« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2013, 05:24:19 AM »

Here is the ordination of a Coptic priest for a church in California. His Grace Bishop Serapion addresses the congregation prior to the ordination, and confirms that they accept his ordination as a priest for their parish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eXzILbLV58
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2013, 06:06:53 AM »

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

You should have cried "Anaxios" and see what happens.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,935



« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2013, 07:36:12 AM »

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

You should have cried "Anaxios" and see what happens.

IIRC someone here told of incident when someone did that. The bishop stopped the service until he had questioned why anaxios was shouted.
Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,070


"My god is greater."


« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2013, 08:15:45 AM »

But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.

You sure this is normative for the entire Orthodox world?

In America, such things could be easily managed anyway, if folks wanted to. The laity certainly weigh in on who will be their Bishop. Someone they likely have never met. And in America with the jurisdictional insanity, might never meet.

Even in countries where most people of the same faith, its not like every town has its own seminary.  The Philippines, being Catholic, there are lots of seminaries.  But they are not in every town.  And even if seminarian who goes to a seminary one town over, he probably would be ordained for a parish on a different part of the country.  I bet most seminarians would want to become priests of their home parish, but usually it doesn't work that way.  You are sent where you are needed.

I can't imagine it being any different in a predominantly Orthodox country.  It is just really the system of our time.

I'll let the OWs weigh in here. Not sure many of the Priests I met in the OW saw a seminary.

A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 08:16:21 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 997


« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2013, 08:31:56 AM »

Quote
Iconodule:
A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.

Did he mean the differance between priests who only have seminary (grade B and cannot hear confessions) and those who have continued their studies in theological academies which are at the university level?
I believe that before WW2 the seminaries were like a high school and you entered at a young age like 12 or 14.  That was the case in Russia too before the revolution.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,070


"My god is greater."


« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2013, 09:55:47 AM »

Quote
Iconodule:
A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.

Did he mean the differance between priests who only have seminary (grade B and cannot hear confessions) and those who have continued their studies in theological academies which are at the university level?
I believe that before WW2 the seminaries were like a high school and you entered at a young age like 12 or 14.  That was the case in Russia too before the revolution.


He told me that many priests had received no formal education at all as priests.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,967


« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2013, 10:39:23 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,782


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2013, 10:42:42 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:

St. Cyprian is not a saint in whatever group you belong to?
Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2013, 10:47:29 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:

St. Cyprian is not a saint in whatever group you belong to?

I don't think Anabaptists have saints.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2013, 10:51:51 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?
Is the original practice always the best?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2013, 10:54:59 AM »

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Shouldn't everyone have to confess their sins publicly, before the entire congregation... like it was?

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2013, 12:19:36 PM »

Quote
Iconodule:
A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.

Did he mean the differance between priests who only have seminary (grade B and cannot hear confessions) and those who have continued their studies in theological academies which are at the university level?
I believe that before WW2 the seminaries were like a high school and you entered at a young age like 12 or 14.  That was the case in Russia too before the revolution.


He told me that many priests had received no formal education at all as priests.

I think that before WWII most priests attended a lyceum/seminary that prepared boys to become priests. Of course, in those days, a seminary/lyceum/secondary school education meant something. However, a few priests have indeed been ordained without any formal education. I think they are the exception that prove the rule.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 12:20:39 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2013, 12:38:36 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Please consider that in the earliest times, the priestly function in a given church was performed by the bishop (see 1 Timothy 3). The presbytery grew in response to the need for he bishop to have some help, they are functionally deputy bishops and must be selected by the bishop. If the Church had developed along the principle of one bishop per congregation, you would not be asking your question. As you know, it developed differently from the earliest of times, so that St. Cyprian's description is still descriptive of what is happening today; it applies to bishops. To answer your question the, the laity does have an input to the selection of a bishop, at least in the OCA. Please check the OCA Statute to see how that is done.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2013, 01:54:43 PM »

Quote
Iconodule:
A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.

Did he mean the differance between priests who only have seminary (grade B and cannot hear confessions) and those who have continued their studies in theological academies which are at the university level?
I believe that before WW2 the seminaries were like a high school and you entered at a young age like 12 or 14.  That was the case in Russia too before the revolution.


He told me that many priests had received no formal education at all as priests.

I think that before WWII most priests attended a lyceum/seminary that prepared boys to become priests. Of course, in those days, a seminary/lyceum/secondary school education meant something. However, a few priests have indeed been ordained without any formal education. I think they are the exception that prove the rule.

Thank you.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2013, 01:54:57 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Please consider that in the earliest times, the priestly function in a given church was performed by the bishop (see 1 Timothy 3). The presbytery grew in response to the need for he bishop to have some help, they are functionally deputy bishops and must be selected by the bishop. If the Church had developed along the principle of one bishop per congregation, you would not be asking your question. As you know, it developed differently from the earliest of times, so that St. Cyprian's description is still descriptive of what is happening today; it applies to bishops. To answer your question the, the laity does have an input to the selection of a bishop, at least in the OCA. Please check the OCA Statute to see how that is done.

Excellent point.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2013, 01:56:12 PM »

And really, it ain't like a parish can't make a Priest's life hell after the fact.

I guess that is norm of sorts! But a special sorta hell that would cause them to move, retire, what have you.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2013, 02:19:29 PM »

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

You should have cried "Anaxios" and see what happens.

IIRC someone here told of incident when someone did that. The bishop stopped the service until he had questioned why anaxios was shouted.

That would be amazing to witness.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2013, 02:19:29 PM »

But normally the priest goes to seminary in a different town and would probably be assigned to another town where he at first is a complete stranger.

You sure this is normative for the entire Orthodox world?

In America, such things could be easily managed anyway, if folks wanted to. The laity certainly weigh in on who will be their Bishop. Someone they likely have never met. And in America with the jurisdictional insanity, might never meet.

Even in countries where most people of the same faith, its not like every town has its own seminary.  The Philippines, being Catholic, there are lots of seminaries.  But they are not in every town.  And even if seminarian who goes to a seminary one town over, he probably would be ordained for a parish on a different part of the country.  I bet most seminarians would want to become priests of their home parish, but usually it doesn't work that way.  You are sent where you are needed.

I can't imagine it being any different in a predominantly Orthodox country.  It is just really the system of our time.

I'll let the OWs weigh in here. Not sure many of the Priests I met in the OW saw a seminary.

A Greek priest explained to me that in Greece, they have "A-grade" priests (seminary educated) and "B-grade" priests... many priests there are "B-grade" but in America we expect everyone to be A-grade.

This seems messed up in an Orthodox viewpoint IMHO.   B-Grade succession?
Reminds me how meat is rated.

You have:
USDA PRIME priest
USDA choice priest
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #23 on: March 27, 2013, 02:19:57 PM »

That would be amazing to witness.

<facepalm>

This seems messed up in an Orthodox viewpoint IMHO.   B-Grade succession?

Education

<second facepalm>
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 02:20:49 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,604



« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2013, 02:25:17 PM »

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

You should have cried "Anaxios" and see what happens.

IIRC someone here told of incident when someone did that. The bishop stopped the service until he had questioned why anaxios was shouted.

That would be amazing to witness.

Yeah, it sounds like a real party.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2013, 02:31:04 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.

Yes I agree that these things can happen, but some are missing the point.

It's not just about shouting "axios or anaxios", according to Cyprian, the candidate for priesthood people would give testimony publicly, and their judgments about the candidate.   In the seminary, the "public" represented other priests & deacons, visitors of the ordained who flew in out of town.

It seems as though in the early church, the priests were taken from the congregation, known to the congregation, and testimony came from the Orthodox congregation from those who knew the priest.  That way a bishop would more fully ascertain the person who is a candidate for the priesthood, based on the testimony of those Christians who knew of him.   It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary).   In St. Cyprian's time, it wasn't just the testimony by the parish priest - it seems - as he used the world "public".  

Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest?   I know it seems like "backwards public confession", but the church will be using this person for spiritual guidance, confessing their most intimate sins, etc.... The scrutiny that Cyprian cited of early Christianity seems to really make a lot of sense.  

Discuss?
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2013, 02:33:13 PM »

It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary). 

They are not. I know plenty of people with Theology degrees that are not priests.

Quote
Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest? 

That's what shouting "anaxios" is for. Not for making things "amazing" as you think.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2013, 02:33:31 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.

Yes I agree that these things can happen, but some are missing the point.

It's not just about shouting "axios or anaxios", according to Cyprian, the candidate for priesthood people would give testimony publicly, and their judgments about the candidate.   In the seminary, the "public" represented other priests & deacons, visitors of the ordained who flew in out of town.

It seems as though in the early church, the priests were taken from the congregation, known to the congregation, and testimony came from the Orthodox congregation from those who knew the priest.  That way a bishop would more fully ascertain the person who is a candidate for the priesthood, based on the testimony of those Christians who knew of him.   It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary).   In St. Cyprian's time, it wasn't just the testimony by the parish priest - it seems - as he used the world "public".  

Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest?   I know it seems like "backwards public confession", but the church will be using this person for spiritual guidance, confessing their most intimate sins, etc.... The scrutiny that Cyprian cited of early Christianity seems to really make a lot of sense.  

Discuss?


Bishops do not ordain in a vacuum, especially in light of the RC abuse scandal.  You don't think they make these inquiries nowadays?  They're just more subtle and discreet about it, I'd wager.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,070


"My god is greater."


« Reply #28 on: March 27, 2013, 02:34:10 PM »

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

You should have cried "Anaxios" and see what happens.

IIRC someone here told of incident when someone did that. The bishop stopped the service until he had questioned why anaxios was shouted.

That would be amazing to witness.

Yeah, it sounds like a real party.

"Who shouted that?!" It reminds me of schoolkids shouting "penis!" when the teacher turns his back.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2013, 02:35:00 PM »

It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary). 

They are not. I know plenty of people with Theology degrees that are not priests.

My godfather is a prime example.  He has a MDiv from St. Vlad's.  He is not a priest nor does he want to be.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2013, 02:41:32 PM »

That would be amazing to witness.

<facepalm>

This seems messed up in an Orthodox viewpoint IMHO.   B-Grade succession?

Education

<second facepalm>

Don't get the facepalms.

I would absolutely be amazed to see somebody call out "unworthy".   I would be stunned, and it would be tragic.

But with the Grade-B priests, that's about the most horrible thing I've ever heard.  Education does not make somebody Grade-B with apostolic succession.  If the Orthodox truly believe in succession (which they do), then the succession of God.... Unless you want a Grade-B Baptism, or Grade-B Eucharist.  
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2013, 02:42:53 PM »

But with the Grade-B priests, that's about the most horrible thing I've ever heard.  Education does not make somebody Grade-B with apostolic succession.  If the Orthodox truly believe in succession (which they do), then the succession of God.... Unless you want a Grade-B Baptism, or Grade-B Eucharist. 

Not sure if you are putting to much into this, or just trolling.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2013, 02:43:43 PM »

It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary). 

They are not. I know plenty of people with Theology degrees that are not priests.

Quote
Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest? 

That's what shouting "anaxios" is for. Not for making things "amazing" as you think.

Amazing defined - 1. To affect with great wonder; astonish.

I would be amazed to see it happen.  Shocked, astonished, and would be extremely perplexed.  It would also be tragic.  Amazing is not always a good thing.  I hope I did not come off sounding like that.

So on the point, how would fellow seminarians who are shouting "axios", know that when the priest was 17, he had his girlfriend (now his wife) abort a baby? (hypothetical).   I've seen it at least a dozen times when a priest was ordained with 95% clergy present, a couple of family members AFTER graduation.  Not that a degree was required... But there was no public scrutiny by the public at all.   His past issues were not brought up.  His character was only known by his peers he went to school with (if fellow students were present and not former students in the clergy).

Cyprian cited "testimony" and "public"...  I would say this means "public scrutiny before ordination".
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2013, 02:59:23 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.

Yes I agree that these things can happen, but some are missing the point.

It's not just about shouting "axios or anaxios", according to Cyprian, the candidate for priesthood people would give testimony publicly, and their judgments about the candidate.   In the seminary, the "public" represented other priests & deacons, visitors of the ordained who flew in out of town.

It seems as though in the early church, the priests were taken from the congregation, known to the congregation, and testimony came from the Orthodox congregation from those who knew the priest.  That way a bishop would more fully ascertain the person who is a candidate for the priesthood, based on the testimony of those Christians who knew of him.   It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary).   In St. Cyprian's time, it wasn't just the testimony by the parish priest - it seems - as he used the world "public".  

Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest?   I know it seems like "backwards public confession", but the church will be using this person for spiritual guidance, confessing their most intimate sins, etc.... The scrutiny that Cyprian cited of early Christianity seems to really make a lot of sense.  

Discuss?


Bishops do not ordain in a vacuum, especially in light of the RC abuse scandal.  You don't think they make these inquiries nowadays?  They're just more subtle and discreet about it, I'd wager.

I agree with you completely.   I'm sure the bishops check up on the candidate for ordination...  There is an element thought that is bothering me though and that is the "public testimony".   Though discreet is always "easier", it seems as though in Cyprian's time, the priest was on the "chopping block".   All was going to be said, resolved, etc.

Such as if the candidate (William) had mugged an old man.  His buddy David says "I hate to say this, but William and I mugged an old man once and stole his money".   William can reply "Through confession, repentance, and my sorrow I pray that God forgives this transgression of mine, as well as my fellow brothers and sisters".   This way all the brothers and sisters would know of what William has done, and that he confessed and repented of his sin.   They would at least know "what they are getting".   They can overlook the transgression, forgive, or not.

This way they can make an informed decision on whether to shout "worthy or unworthy".   Things come out on a public grilling...   If the bishop never asked Dave specifically, nobody may have known.  Dave may or may not shout worthy or unworthy.  He may not say anything.... Dave may not want to interrupt the ordination service either and just shout axios anyway.

The grilling issue is what I am concerned about.  It seems the early Church did this from St. Cyprian's testimony.  
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2013, 03:01:37 PM »

What is the difference in saying "anaxios" and then explaining why and saying why and then saying "anaxios'? You are hairsplitting.

I Wonder how tradition rite of ordination is followed by Anabaptists.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,402


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2013, 03:13:09 PM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.

Yes I agree that these things can happen, but some are missing the point.

It's not just about shouting "axios or anaxios", according to Cyprian, the candidate for priesthood people would give testimony publicly, and their judgments about the candidate.   In the seminary, the "public" represented other priests & deacons, visitors of the ordained who flew in out of town.

It seems as though in the early church, the priests were taken from the congregation, known to the congregation, and testimony came from the Orthodox congregation from those who knew the priest.  That way a bishop would more fully ascertain the person who is a candidate for the priesthood, based on the testimony of those Christians who knew of him.   It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary).   In St. Cyprian's time, it wasn't just the testimony by the parish priest - it seems - as he used the world "public".  

Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest?   I know it seems like "backwards public confession", but the church will be using this person for spiritual guidance, confessing their most intimate sins, etc.... The scrutiny that Cyprian cited of early Christianity seems to really make a lot of sense.  

Discuss?


Bishops do not ordain in a vacuum, especially in light of the RC abuse scandal.  You don't think they make these inquiries nowadays?  They're just more subtle and discreet about it, I'd wager.

I agree with you completely.   I'm sure the bishops check up on the candidate for ordination...  There is an element thought that is bothering me though and that is the "public testimony".   Though discreet is always "easier", it seems as though in Cyprian's time, the priest was on the "chopping block".   All was going to be said, resolved, etc.

Such as if the candidate (William) had mugged an old man.  His buddy David says "I hate to say this, but William and I mugged an old man once and stole his money".   William can reply "Through confession, repentance, and my sorrow I pray that God forgives this transgression of mine, as well as my fellow brothers and sisters".   This way all the brothers and sisters would know of what William has done, and that he confessed and repented of his sin.   They would at least know "what they are getting".   They can overlook the transgression, forgive, or not.

This way they can make an informed decision on whether to shout "worthy or unworthy".   Things come out on a public grilling...   If the bishop never asked Dave specifically, nobody may have known.  Dave may or may not shout worthy or unworthy.  He may not say anything.... Dave may not want to interrupt the ordination service either and just shout axios anyway.

The grilling issue is what I am concerned about.  It seems the early Church did this from St. Cyprian's testimony.  


What makes you so sure that Dave is going to rat out William in the public meeting, but not during the Ordination? And what makes you sure that the damaging information wouldn't somehow get out through the "grapevine"? You're making a lot of claims but I see no reason to believe them yet.
Logged
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Posts: 1,794



« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2013, 04:20:30 PM »

I do not see any real defenses that can be said in trying to defend the orthodox in this instance, because it is very clear they have deviated from this ancient method of ordination. The same thing happened to the ordination of bishops.

The Copts do much better in this regard, and seemed to have kept many of the traditional methods of ordination both for bishops and priests.

And, as far as I can tell, seminaries in the orthodox tradition is relatively new. I cannot find evidence of them before the fall of Constantinople, and it seems they were first introduced in Russia during the era of westernization. Perhaps someone can help me in this regard and show evidence of seminaries, please?



Someone brought up public confession, as it used to be. I sometimes wonder about it, I mean, if it was truly public I think this would possibly really help bring all the people together and create more a sense of community and trust among everyone.  but I do not see it ever returning...
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2013, 04:49:52 PM »

The grilling issue is what I am concerned about.  It seems the early Church did this from St. Cyprian's testimony.  

The early Church did this with every catechumen. When they gave up their names for Baptism, the catechumens were subjected to a very harsh scrutiny - a trial in itself, with someone playing "the devil's advocate":

Quote from: Jean Daniélou - Bible and Liturgy
This preparation for Baptism was introduced by the rite of enrollment, which we find described in this way by Etheria in her account of her pilgrimage: "Whoever wishes to give in his name does so on the eve of Lent; and a priest notes down all the names. The next day, the opening of Lent, the day on which the eight weeks begin, in the middle of the principal church, that is, the church of the Martyrium, a seat is placed for the bishop, and one by one the candidates are led up to him. If they are men, they come with their godfathers; if women, with their godmothers. Then the bishop questions the neighbors of each person who comes in, saying: 'Does he lead a good life? Does he respect his parents: Is he given to drunkenness or to lying?' If the candidate is pronounced beyond reproach by all those who are thus questioned in the presence of witnesses, with his own hand the bishop notes down the man's name. But if the candidate is accused of failing in any point, the bishop tells him to go out, saying: 'Let him amend his life and when he has amended it, let him come to Baptism'" ( Peregrinatio Etheriae 45).

Thus we see what this ceremony consisted of: the candidate gave in his name to the deacon in the evening; the next day, accompanied by his sponsor, he presented himself and underwent a kind of examination in order to ensure the purity of his motives; then the bishop officially inscribed his name in the registers. The rite described by Etheria is that of Jerusalem, and is analogous to that of Antioch, thus described by Theodore of Mopsuestia: "Whoever desires to come to Holy Baptism, let him present himself to the Church of God. He will be received by the man who is delegated for this duty, according to the established custom that those who are to be baptized should be enrolled. This man will inform himself concerning the candidate's habits and way of life. This office is filled, for those who are baptized, by those who are called guarantors. The man who is delegated for this duty writes down your name in the Book of the Church, and also that of the witness. As in a trial, the person who is accused must stand up, so you are to hold out your arms in the attitude of one who prays, and to keep your eyes cast down. For the same reason, you are to take off your outer garment and to be barefoot, standing on haircloth" ( Hom. Cat. XII, 1; Tonneau, 323).
 
The literal meaning of these rites is obvious,--what interests us is the interpretation given to them by the Fathers. The examination which precedes the inscription in which the claims of the candidate are discussed, signifies for Theodore of Mopsuestia that at this moment Satan "tries to argue against us, under the pretext that we have no right to escape from his domination. He says that we belong to him because we are descended from the head of our race," ( XII, 18). Against him, "we must hasten to go before the judge to establish our claims and to show that by rights we did not belong to Satan from the beginning, but to God Who made us to His Own image" ( XII, 19).  And Theodore compares this "temptation" to the scene in which Satan "tries to lead Christ astray by his wiles and temptations" ( XII, 22). Even the attitude of the candidate is symbolic: he is clad only in his tunic and is barefoot, "to show the slavery in which the devil holds him captive and to arouse the pity of the judge" ( XII, 24).

This interpretation brings out at the very beginning one of the themes of baptismal theology – the conflict with Satan. The baptismal rites constitute a drama in which the candidate, who up to this time has belonged to the demon, strives to escape his power. This drama begins with the enrollment and is not concluded, as we shall see, until the actual Baptism. Moreover, we notice that Theodore relates the trial which the candidate undergoes, on the one hand to the temptation of Adam, on the other hand to that of Christ. We are now in the center of biblical typology. A relationship between the temptation of Christ and that of Adam is perhaps to be found in the Gospel of St. Mark, where Christ is presented as the New Adam, ruling the wild beasts and served by angels ( Mark I, 13).

Source
« Last Edit: March 27, 2013, 05:10:11 PM by Romaios » Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2013, 05:04:29 PM »

The Copts do much better in this regard, and seemed to have kept many of the traditional methods of ordination both for bishops and priests.

Do they still go to the desert to fetch the reluctant candidate and then bring him in chains to Alexandria to be installed on the See of St. Mark?  Tongue
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2013, 05:07:14 PM »

Bishops do not ordain in a vacuum, especially in light of the RC abuse scandal.  You don't think they make these inquiries nowadays?  They're just more subtle and discreet about it, I'd wager.

They can do that with police background checks.  I'm sure most people don't know if their next door neighbor has a rap sheet or not, much less someone who'd be made priest.  Even if it was someone who grew up in the parish with them.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2013, 02:18:28 AM »

What is the difference in saying "anaxios" and then explaining why and saying why and then saying "anaxios'? You are hairsplitting.

I Wonder how tradition rite of ordination is followed by Anabaptists.

There is a tremendous difference.  Because if a brother or sister were to have fault for the candidate, it will be brought before the church (not just bishop) prior to the ordination service.  The part left out in your question though is the public.

At seminary there were those who were ordained who only knew the candidate as a peer or student.  They didn't know the candidate otherwise (in the "real" world).

Though this thread is about the EO, the Anabaptists that I have witnessed to the following:

The candidates must be full members within the church (usually every male who has been baptized).   They are brought before the church (females included).  Then the presiding bishop asks the MALES (only) if there was any unworthy quality that they know in any of the fellow candidates to cause them not to be ordained.   If there is, it is spoken.  If the issue is seen as severe enough, a vote is taken from the males and the candidate can be excluded.    Next they draw lots (usually each draws a piece of paper from a bible and one has the marking) and that's how who is chosen to be the next presbyter and/or bishop of the church.   It's close to that anyway, I'm probably missing some details as I've seen it twice.... but these men REALLY knew each other.  May grew up together and live within the same community.  If one is singled out, it is not a tragic event, he just humbly moves aside and is still fully seen as a brother.   The bishop in this case didn't have the authority (it seems) but rather the votes of the men that knew him to remove the candidate...

I really don't think they follow as Cyprian stated either, unless he was speaking of the "males" as the "church".   I don't know if St. Cyprian was speaking of females included.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2013, 02:18:28 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:

St. Cyprian is not a saint in whatever group you belong to?

Sure, I believe he's a saint.  In the context though, there my be some non-EO,OO,RC reading.  But in light of the context speaking of EO Ordination, I reference his sainthood to give credence to him being very authentic to EO.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,362


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2013, 02:18:28 AM »

Cyprian (or St. Cyprian to the Eastern Orthodox) wrote:
"Which very thing, too, we observe to come from divine authority, that the priest should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony;"

I've witnessed many ordinations of priests in the Eastern Orthodox church.   Not one time was the public asked for approval or given any type of public judgment or testimony (for or against).

It was always "The bishop ordains".  or "He passed the degree and gets ordained".   The bishop shouts "worthy" (axios), the choir may sing "worthy", but never was the public (or church body) asked for testimony, judgment, etc.   A lot of ordinations happened after men completed their degrees at St. Vlad's in New York.  Never were they brought out for any type of public judgment, testimony, etc.

I'm seeing a conflict here with a significant early Christian whom the Eastern Orthodox deemed a saint. Cyprian was born around 200.

Shouldn't a new priest be placed before the church public body, where people can give testimony (for or against) prior to ordination.... like it was?

Perhaps you have forgotten the fact that a man cannot enter seminary or be ordained to the priesthood without the blessing of his spiritual father.  It is the responsibility of the spiritual father to vouch for the candidate, that they do not have any canonical impediments and that they are properly prepared spiritually for accepting this yoke.  If someone has major concerns regarding the candidate, he may express these concerns to the ordaining bishop and express a loud "Anaxios" at the time of ordination.

Yes I agree that these things can happen, but some are missing the point.

It's not just about shouting "axios or anaxios", according to Cyprian, the candidate for priesthood people would give testimony publicly, and their judgments about the candidate.   In the seminary, the "public" represented other priests & deacons, visitors of the ordained who flew in out of town.

It seems as though in the early church, the priests were taken from the congregation, known to the congregation, and testimony came from the Orthodox congregation from those who knew the priest.  That way a bishop would more fully ascertain the person who is a candidate for the priesthood, based on the testimony of those Christians who knew of him.   It almost seems awkward that a priest would be ordained just through a degree earned (often the case of the Master's of divinity from St. Vlad's seminary).   In St. Cyprian's time, it wasn't just the testimony by the parish priest - it seems - as he used the world "public".  

Speaking in complete hypothetics, but what if the priest was a child molester, bank robber, muderer, or he pushed his wife into having an abortion at sometime.... and somebody within his parish new about it (perhaps somebody he grew up with).  Wouldn't it be important that it be brought out publicly, if he were wishing to become a priest?   I know it seems like "backwards public confession", but the church will be using this person for spiritual guidance, confessing their most intimate sins, etc.... The scrutiny that Cyprian cited of early Christianity seems to really make a lot of sense.  

Discuss?


Bishops do not ordain in a vacuum, especially in light of the RC abuse scandal.  You don't think they make these inquiries nowadays?  They're just more subtle and discreet about it, I'd wager.

I agree with you completely.   I'm sure the bishops check up on the candidate for ordination...  There is an element thought that is bothering me though and that is the "public testimony".   Though discreet is always "easier", it seems as though in Cyprian's time, the priest was on the "chopping block".   All was going to be said, resolved, etc.

Such as if the candidate (William) had mugged an old man.  His buddy David says "I hate to say this, but William and I mugged an old man once and stole his money".   William can reply "Through confession, repentance, and my sorrow I pray that God forgives this transgression of mine, as well as my fellow brothers and sisters".   This way all the brothers and sisters would know of what William has done, and that he confessed and repented of his sin.   They would at least know "what they are getting".   They can overlook the transgression, forgive, or not.

This way they can make an informed decision on whether to shout "worthy or unworthy".   Things come out on a public grilling...   If the bishop never asked Dave specifically, nobody may have known.  Dave may or may not shout worthy or unworthy.  He may not say anything.... Dave may not want to interrupt the ordination service either and just shout axios anyway.

The grilling issue is what I am concerned about.  It seems the early Church did this from St. Cyprian's testimony.  


What makes you so sure that Dave is going to rat out William in the public meeting, but not during the Ordination? And what makes you sure that the damaging information wouldn't somehow get out through the "grapevine"? You're making a lot of claims but I see no reason to believe them yet.

I'm not really sure what Dave would do.

From my standpoint, I would most likely address concerns over a person in a public testimony moreso than shouting something and stopping an ordination service in motion.  (after a bishop has traveled, friends and family are there, etc.).    Also if you shout "unworthy", then the issue is NOT brought before the public, but rather consolidated probably with the bishop.   

But the way St. Cyprian describes, it seems that the candidate for priesthood would be subject to the  public testimony of the congregation... those who know him best.

Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,437



« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2013, 09:57:14 AM »

Though this thread is about the EO, the Anabaptists that I have witnessed to the following:

The candidates must be full members within the church (usually every male who has been baptized).   They are brought before the church (females included).  Then the presiding bishop asks the MALES (only) if there was any unworthy quality that they know in any of the fellow candidates to cause them not to be ordained.   If there is, it is spoken.  If the issue is seen as severe enough, a vote is taken from the males and the candidate can be excluded.    Next they draw lots (usually each draws a piece of paper from a bible and one has the marking) and that's how who is chosen to be the next presbyter and/or bishop of the church.   It's close to that anyway, I'm probably missing some details as I've seen it twice.... but these men REALLY knew each other.  May grew up together and live within the same community.  If one is singled out, it is not a tragic event, he just humbly moves aside and is still fully seen as a brother.   The bishop in this case didn't have the authority (it seems) but rather the votes of the men that knew him to remove the candidate...

I really don't think they follow as Cyprian stated either, unless he was speaking of the "males" as the "church".   I don't know if St. Cyprian was speaking of females included.

Here's the process as I have observed in the Orthodox Church - different Bishops may handle it different ways. A man talks to his priest about his callling, and they discuss it over a period of time. The priest and the potential candidate contact their Bishop, who meets the candidate face to face, after talking at length with his priest or spiritual father. The Bishop may then encourage the candidate to apply to the seminary, or tell him no way or ask him to pray and think about it further. The Bishop may also talk with the man's priest again, and ask him to further evaluate the candidate and work with him.
And btw, not everyone who gets his M.Div is ordained.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Gunnarr
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Posts: 1,794



« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2013, 01:50:53 AM »

The Copts do much better in this regard, and seemed to have kept many of the traditional methods of ordination both for bishops and priests.

Do they still go to the desert to fetch the reluctant candidate and then bring him in chains to Alexandria to be installed on the See of St. Mark?  Tongue

I don't think so, but they sure do at least give monastics a chance to be ordained to bishoprics, rather than being practically taboo for the GOC
Logged

I am a demonic servant! Beware!
TheMathematician
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: American
Posts: 1,541


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2013, 09:57:12 AM »

Question, yesh.

Is your concern something that is really that the ordination changed, or rather, the selection of the canadiate ?
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.188 seconds with 73 queries.