Thank you for all the additional info. I would agree that Paul did not appear to be the biggest fan of marriage. I never got the impression that Paul thought marriage was "bad", just not optimal in a spiritual sense.
Given what Catholics say about clerical celibacy, is this a matter of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, and did it play a role in the split?
(And the Orthodox Church in general discourages anyone from attempting life-long celibacy outside of the structure of a monastic life.)
Does that mean you actively encourage singles toward marriage? I ask because I know several singles in our church, some of whom are even my age, and I know that no one thinks "less" of them because of it. (I'm not saying that you do.) While we are very "pro-marriage", there is no expectation of it.
Our bishops are required to be completely celibate, and are generally drawn from the ranks of monastics, although widowers are sometimes chosen to be bishops.
Then what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?
I don't see how it could have been. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not dogma, in the Latin rite. When a married Orthodox or Anglican priest converts, he is allowed to continue as priest in the Latin rite and, of course, married. Married (once) men can be ordained in the Eastern Catholic rites.
Neither Catholic or any rite, or Orthodox allow one who is a priest already to marry, or a married priest to divorce and re-marry, or allow married bishops.
The differences between the Latin rite and the Orthodox disciplines regarding priesthood may have been used in the "kitchen sink"-type argumentation on both sides, but they are not substantial by themselves. The differences in communion bread are probably more substantial.
Yes it was, to a small extent. Frankish monks who came to Bulgaria, which was ecclesiastically under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople, taught that the Greeks were in error for having married clergy, having long beards, and long hair, and for having "removed" the Filioque from the Creed. They came to Bulgaria because the Bulgarian king wanted to be crowned an Emperor and was shopping for a Church that would crown him, so he invited the Franks.
Incidentally, one of the reasons for the anathema given that makred the unofficial split between the east and the west in 1050 cited that Greeks refused to shave and look like the Latin priests, thereby causing disunity!
Then what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?
Well, they are limited, of course. A priest has no power outside of a bishopric. He is bishop's assistant, lieutenant, proxy, etc. The ecclesiastical authority rests with the hishop, which was the problem with Luther's rebellion. He, as a priest, had no authority in the Church unless the bishop granted it to him.
I know this wasn't pinged to me, but I thought I would "spice" up the answer a bit. Hope none of you minds.
In the Catholic Church, not all monks are priests, and not all priests are monks, but there are some monks who are also priests.
"Thank you for all the additional info. I would agree that Paul did not appear to be the biggest fan of marriage. I never got the impression that Paul thought marriage was "bad", just not optimal in a spiritual sense."
You are right that he didn't say that marriage is bad. You are also very correct that he didn't view it as optimal in the spiritual life. This is an important distinction, since many non-Orthodox tend to look at things in black and white -- something is either great or it is a terrible sin. Things usually aren't that simple.
I would point out that a great deal of St. Paul's time discussing these matters involve issues of remarriage. He very specifically encourages widows not to remarry. The Orthodox Church just follows this. Again, as I said before, it is far easier to live a celibate life when one is older and has had more years to work on controlling the passions than it is to do so from a young age. No great mystery there. Interestingly, the Orthodox monastic tradition has tended to be to have boys/men become monastics quite young -- the theory here is that the sooner they get into the structured life of a monastic community, the easier a time they will have of it.
Starting the day at 3 AM with Midnight Office and Matins in the Church has a way of dampening the passions...
"Given what Catholics say about clerical celibacy, is this a matter of contention between Catholics and Orthodox, and did it play a role in the split?"
As annalex says, Catholic clerical celibacy is a matter of discipline, not dogma. I would say, though, that I have had a number of lengthy encounters on FR with Catholics who are followers of a new and aggressive historical school within Catholicism that states that the ancient and apostolic tradition was clerical celibacy from the earliest New Testament times -- clergy, according to this interpretation, were married, but completely stopped all sexual activity with their wives once they were ordained.
This school of thought maintains that it is the Eastern/Orthodox tradition of married clergy that is the deviation from apostolic norms. The Orthodox Church obviously maintains just the opposite (as does most Catholic scholarship).
This might not seem like much, but saying to Orthodox Christians that they are going against apostolic tradition is like throwing sand in our faces. Interestingly, some of the most vehement opposition to this school of historical thought (which arose to try to shore up Catholic clerical celibacy) has come from Uniates (Catholics who follow Eastern traditions). They have just been recovering from centuries of second-class citizenship within Catholicism, and take great exception to the implication from their western Catholic brethren that their traditions are a deviation from apostolic norms.
The Orthodox Church does not claim that universal clerical celibacy is wrong, it just maintains that it is unwise. You have to believe me when I say that there is no schadenfreude involved in the Catholic sexual abuse scandals. But we definitely look at Catholic norms and say, "what did you expect would happen?"
As I said, the standard of the Orthodox Church is that celibacy is best lived in a monastic setting. There are certainly unmarried priests serving in parishes, but they are an uncommon exception, and most are monastics that have been called to meet parish needs, or are unmarried clergy who later take on monastic vows, perhaps because they realize that this will help them.
"Does that mean you actively encourage singles toward marriage? I ask because I know several singles in our church, some of whom are even my age, and I know that no one thinks "less" of them because of it. (I'm not saying that you do.) While we are very "pro-marriage", there is no expectation of it."
In "the old countries," celibacy outside of monastic settings is relatively uncommon. I remember having a friend tell me that he talking to his father-confessor after confession, and his father-confessor said "so what are you going to do? Get married or become a monastic? It is not good for man to live alone." He is now married, quite happily. So yes, there is definitely some pressure to marry, primarily because of acknowledging how difficult it is to live a chaste life outside of marriage or monasticism. In practice the expectations come from families and the old match-making women.
"...what are the career advancement possibilities for a married priest? Are all monastics already priests, but don't "run a church"?"
Two separate questions. A married priest can become the dean of a diocese or the chancellor or an archdiocese/metropolia (i.e. be the bishop's right-hand guy in administrative matters.) But that's it. A priest shouldn't be thinking in terms of career advancement, anyway (not that that stops some of them.) Being a priest is a responsibility and a service, not a perk or honor.
Sacramentally, bishops are to be unmarried, although this is a matter of discipline that wasn't put into formal canons until the Council in Trullo, relatively late.
The ideal is for a bishop to be an experienced monastic. As an experienced monastic, he will have the tools (and wisdom that comes with age) needed to deal with living a celibate life out in the world (which is where bishops have to live and work to care for their flocks.) The responsibilities of a bishop are huge. It would be very difficult to be a good bishop and be married. It would also put the priest's wives into competition with each other and introduce a level of competition between priests that is just unhealthy.
In Orthodox monasticism, very few monks are ordained clergy. A monastery will have as many ordained clergy as are necessary to serve the full cycle of services, and no more. Being a priest is a service, not a privilege. Good monastics don't *want* to be ordained, and tend to avoid it, since it has a tendency to distract from the prayer and ascetic life of a monastic. They view themselves as having given up something to become priests.