Concerning Married Bishops in the Orthodox Christian Church
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
