Trullo, bishops and monks
The article as it currently stands states that the Quinisext Council ("Council in Trullo") mandates that bishops be tonsured monks. Which canon is this found in?
Julio provided that information to me. I will research it further, but I think the part about them not living with their wives has something to do with widowers. Priests may be married, but monks and nuns may not. However widows may become monks or nuns. All bishops must be monks.--Arlie 19:04, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Yes, I've heard that assertion many times, but the people I know who have researched the subject in the canons all tell me that there is no such stipulation. The only stipulation regarding episcopal celibacy is that they may no longer live with their wives once they become bishops. (There's no mention of widowers in the above cited canon.)
- It's certainly the case that bishops are often chosen from among the monastics and that many episcopal candidates are tonsured before becoming bishops, but there is also a long history of celibate, non-monastic priests becoming bishops and never having been tonsured. In the modern era, bishops of the Russian tradition (and those influenced by it) are more likely to have been tonsured, though of course the vast majority of them have never received monastic formation. (That is, they are mostly formally monks.) In the Byzantine tradition, however, it is extremely common to find bishops who have never been tonsured as monks.
- So, the upshot is that I'd like to see the canon. I just now searched through all of the canons of the Quinisext Council, and I don't see tonsure for bishops mandated anywhere. Until we can find an actual canonical citation from Trullo, I think it's best not to put such a statement of fact in the article. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 19:12, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Thats perfectly fine to remove that until we find the exact canon. Then in the article we can site the canon and its interpretation. Also, I think it would be good to explain the difference between consecration and ordination. I believe you only use consecrate bishops, but not sure as to what the significance is. Thanks again. --Arlie 19:19, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- "Consecrate" is usually the term, though "ordination" is sometimes used, as well. Liturgically, the making of a bishop is not actually an ordination. Rather, it is an elevation, which reflects the early understanding of a bishop as the president of the presbytery, and the ancient vesting of a bishop was essentially just the addition of the omophorion, as one can see in icons of ancient bishops. (The sakkos is a later addition.) The making of a bishop is a type of cheirotonia, though not really the same sort as for priests and deacons (no Dance of Isaiah around the altar, for instance).
- The Greek terms for the two types of ordination are cheirotonia (for bishops, priests and deacons), and cheirothesia for the minor orders. Thus, to speak of "ordaining" a subdeacon but not a reader is placing the distinction on different lines than in the canons, and it also confuses the rite for making a subdeacon with the major orders. —[[User:ASDamick|—Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!)]] 19:31, 5 Aug 2005 (EDT)
This section needs serious work; I can see it's clearly biased towards an unorthodox (=un-Orthodox) teaching. --Matrona 20:08, 1 November 2005 (CST)
- Yep, there are serious issues here. It's also a long topic of discussion, so I'm moving things to a separate page. Fr. John