• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Bizzlebin said:
Is it available online?
I came across a site that had the pedalion in english on it a while back, but can't recall what it is, perhaps someone else knows. I have it on my hard drive and am building a canon/roman law resource to perhaps post on the web some day, but I lack the time, energy, and motivation to do it in the near future.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Asteriktos said:
Did Nicea settle once and for all the common practice of a bishop committing spiritual and pastoral adultery--ie. moving from city to city? No, the canon was disregarded almost as soon as the ink was dried.
Well, that canon at least preserves the idea that a Bishop/priest was married to his diocese/city. To me, at least this proves...

I won't say it ;) or else I'll lose my "uncle-ness"...lol

God bless.

Mina

PS Btw...i don't know whether sarcasm was involved or not, but you can read the canons at ccel.org
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sarah said:
In Vol. 2 of What the Church Fathers Say About . . ., in the "Bishops, Priests, Deacons" chapter, there are 5 quotes:

"A woman does not become a priest (or priestess)."  Canon Law of St. Photius (9th century)
Just FYI, everyone: Having read the actual canons from the so-called "First-Second" Synod several times in the past, I am fairly sure that this quote does not come from either the "First-Second" Synod or from any other. Rather, I believe it comes from St. Photios's commentary on canon law, which included Photios's own interpretations and synethesis, and is particularly important for its discussion of Church-State matters.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Bizzlebin said:
Is it available online?
You are willing to make public pronouncements about the history of canon law and its application in the Church and you don't even know how to find one of the most basic collections of Church canons? Have you even read the Pedalion (not to mention the Syntagma!)?

Really! The mind is boggled. What are we even doing here? What's the point, people? Less talking and more reading! This is like pontificating on what the "Fathers" have to say about this or that when one hasn't even SEEN a full set of Patrologia Graeca -- not to mention actual critical texts.

Less Internet and more Corpus Christianorum and Sources Chretiennes!

Edit: As a complement to hortatory exclamation, I should add incentive. Hence, everyone should know that Sources Chretiennes is currently having a HUGE sale. 50 percent off all 500 titles in the Sources Chretiennes series, which publishes foundationally important Patristic works in the original language, carefully put together from the best manuscripts with an apparatus criticus and a convenient French translation. Here's the Web site: http://www.sources-chretiennes.mom.fr/
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
And the fact that the people Christ first chose to preach the Resurrection were the myrrhbearing women......oh wait....
And have women ever acted as priests? I know you love to argue one thing by addressing another, but it doesn't work like that.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
Bizzlebin said:
And yet even they were not ordained priests. Interesting...
That is the point. Ozgeorge's argument seems to always be one of showing one thing to prove another.

We're dealing 'ordination of priests', so he argues about deacons.

We're dealing with roles as priests, so he deals with other roles.

I suspect this thread will go on forever until we give up, because he's not going to introduce an argument that deals with the point.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
Sarah said:
In Vol. 2 of What the Church Fathers Say About . . ., in the "Bishops, Priests, Deacons" chapter, there are 5 quotes:

"A woman does not become a priest (or priestess)."  Canon Law of St. Photius (9th century)

"The Church has never appointed women presbyters or priests."  "Panarion" by St. Epiphanius (4th century)

"The appointment of women priests to stand before goddesses is a delusion of Hellenic godlessness, and not a decree of Christ."  Apostolic Constitutions (c. 375 A.D.)

"It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church.  Neither may she teach, baptize, offer the Eucharistic Sacrifice, nor claim for herself any function proper to a man, least of all the sacerdotal (priestly) office."  Tertullian

"Deaconesses are forbidden to cense before the All-Pure Mysteries, or to take in their hands the sacramental fans, which is strictly the deacon's function."  "Alphabetical Syntagma" (14th century)
Thank you for that informative post. I don't think though that evidence will be appreciated by those here who believe speculation and arguing past the point
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
And yet Our Lord commissioned them to teach and evangelise men...Strange, since St. Paul, (I'm told), "clearly" forbids this.....even more interesting... ;)
Wow, I didn't spot that coming! Showing one thing to prove something else entirely different!
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
The human part of Him is God personified, described in a comprehendable form.
??? This sounds rather Arian. Christ is God, not a "Personification" of God. Christ is One Person, not a "Personification" of another. At any rate, by "human part" I suppose you mean His "Human Nature"- which He shares with all humanity, in that He is "a man like us in all things". So if His Human Nature is the Image of God, then so must ours. And this resonates with what we know from Genesis in that God created us in His "Image and Likeness".
So everyone is an Icon of God.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
pensateomnia said:
You are willing to make public pronouncements about the history of canon law and its application in the Church and you don't even know how to find one of the most basic collections of Church canons? Have you even read the Pedalion (not to mention the Syntagma!)?
Hey, go easy on Bizzlebin. He belongs to a Non-Chalcedon Church (Coptic), so why would he have read the Pedalion or the Syntagma or any of our Patristic texts from Chalcedon onwards?
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
This sounds rather Arian. Christ is God, not a "Personification" of God. Christ is One Person, not a "Personification" of another. At any rate, by "human part" I suppose you mean His "Human Nature"- which He shares with all humanity, in that He is "a man like us in all things". So if His Human Nature is the Image of God, then so must ours. And this resonates with what we know from Genesis in that God created us in His "Image and Likeness".
So everyone is an Icon of God.
God is essentially unknowable, and thus indescribable. He thus shouldn't be depicted or described.* However He made Himself known. He first made Himself known through 'creation'. And then He made Himself viewable as Jesus, and therefore in both cases He is describable. In that way He is an Image of Himself in that we can now know what is essentially unknowable. However, He is not 'just' an image of Himself. He is more than that because He is both man and God. But the fact that He took on an image, so that He could be seen makes Him a living icon.

We are made in His image, it is true. But just because I draw a picture of the Mona Lisa, (that is in the image of the Mona Lisa) doesn't make it the Mona Lisa. Both are images of the same thing, but aren't the same thing.

So in one sense we are all made in God's image, it is true. But God is not a Father, because of gender, so a man, and a woman, can be said to be both in the image of God, despite the very obvious sexual differences between us, and between us and God. The 'prohibition' on women priests is not because women are any less in the image of God than are men. We have different roles. God has made these for us. They are not to be confused. We continue to both be partners in the image of God, but we don't do the same things. Women are not Fathers. Women are not priests. There are some things we have in common, as I've just noted; both being eqaully the image of God, and therefore we can do things in common without confusing these differences. Women can be missionaries, and saints. Inspiration of the church is the Theotokos. And then again, no man can even be/could have been the Mother of Christ.

Jesus is fully God and is fully human. If you want to discuss the 'properties' of him, rather than prop up your 'evidence-light' approach; speculation on the ordination of women as priests, so be it. Though I pop in and out of this forum, as I'm simultaneously on three different fora.


*It follows on that it is our tradition that the Church doesn't do pictures of God the Father (as Catholics do).
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,497
Reaction score
264
Points
83
Age
41
The canons from the seven Orthodox Ecumenical Councils, as well as the Canons from the Local Councils and Church Fathers which have been accepted into Orthodox canon law via Ecumenical Councils, are all available on this page (click on the "Textbooks" button, and scroll down to "Canonical Law"). But reading the canons is pretty pointless, actually. Most people are going to treat the canons like the Scripture and Fathers are treated... if it agrees with you, quote it! If not, eh, forget about it.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
pensateomnia said:
You are willing to make public pronouncements about the history of canon law and its application in the Church and you don't even know how to find one of the most basic collections of Church canons? Have you even read the Pedalion (not to mention the Syntagma!)?
Why not just list an on-line source, if you knew of one?

A list of books
http://www2.orthodoxwiki.org/Online_books
The Pedalion itself
http://aroundomaha.com/cn/stjohn/canons1.html
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
ozgeorge said:
Hey, go easy on Bizzlebin. He belongs to a Non-Chalcedon Church (Coptic), so why would he have read the Pedalion or the Syntagma or any of our Patristic texts from Chalcedon onwards?
Actually, I think Bizzlebin has identified himself as OCA, which is a Chalcedonian church--it better be, because I'm in it.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
It follows on that it is our tradition that the Church doesn't do pictures of God the Father (as Catholics do).
Oh really?
Someone should tell Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Raleigh North Carolina:



Yet another "tradition" bites the dust?
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
Whilst we're giving cites about sites... two other great sources

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Oh really?
Someone should tell Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church in Raleigh North Carolina:



Yet another "tradition" bites the dust?
Do you have  a web-source for that picture? I'd just am keen to check out your 'evidences' following the 'Jewish Council of Australia' debacle
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
montalban said:
*It follows on that it is our tradition that the Church doesn't do pictures of God the Father (as Catholics do).
Look at some Russian icons of the Crucifixion and you'll see the Father pictured at the top of the Cross as an old man with a long white beard. You would be correct in calling this uncanonical--at least this is what I was told by an iconographer friend of mine. But I've seen this. I even have one of these icons at home.

BTW, this same iconographer friend informed me that it is permissible to depict God the Father in icons, just so long as He is pictured as a circular field of blue light. The rule of which I am aware is that each Person of the Holy Trinity can be pictured in icons only in the form in which He revealed Himself to us historically: the Father as a field of light (think Moses and Mt. Sinai), the Son as Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit as a dove at the baptism of Christ or as tongues of fire at Pentecost.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
PeterTheAleut said:
Look at some Russian icons of the Crucifixion and you'll see the Father pictured at the top of the Cross as an old man with a long white beard. You would be correct in calling this uncanonical--at least this is what I was told by an iconographer friend of mine. But I've seen this. I even have one of these icons at home.
The Wonderworking "Kursk Root" Icon also has God the Father depicted at the top- apparently this isn't a problem for God, because He doesn't mind working wonders through it.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
John 1:18

ozgeorge said:
Those naughty Greeks! It has been my understanding that throughout our history the Trinity has been depicted allegorically, often by three angels
http://amsterdam.park.org/Guests/Russia/moscow/sergiev/tr.jpg

Or on occasion a 'hand of God' emerging from the clouds is used.
Even your source church's homepage does this...
http://www.holytrinityraleigh.org/

Do they have women priests?
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
PeterTheAleut said:
Look at some Russian icons of the Crucifixion and you'll see the Father pictured at the top of the Cross as an old man with a long white beard. You would be correct in calling this uncanonical--at least this is what I was told by an iconographer friend of mine. But I've seen this. I even have one of these icons at home.

BTW, this same iconographer friend informed me that it is permissible to depict God the Father in icons, just so long as He is pictured as a circular field of blue light. The rule of which I am aware is that each Person of the Holy Trinity can be pictured in icons only in the form in which He revealed Himself to us historically: the Father as a field of light (think Moses and Mt. Sinai), the Son as Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit as a dove at the baptism of Christ or as tongues of fire at Pentecost.
That has always been my understanding. The only way I can think that it could be done is because Jesus said...
Matthew 11:27
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

So that in knowing Jesus we have now come to know the Father. However it does seem to be a modernist trend too.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
And Russians (see above).

But yes, there was some dispute about this (and at least one schism). Vladimir Moss wrote an interesting article about it:
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ICON%20OF%20THE%20HOLY%20TRINITY.htm
That's a very interesting article (from having only skimmed over it). I don't know how they quibble about it depicting him symbolically, instead of realistically, all the icons I always thought were rather 'unreal' which is what made them special.

Also, I read elsewhere that some suggest the depictions of the three angels is NOT the Trinity, but of Jesus and two angels. I've always understood it to be representations of all members of the Trinity.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Perhaps, but "modernity" doesn't explain the Russian Wonderworking Kursk Root Icon depicting God the Father.
Sorry, yes, I keep referring to the Greek icons you cited. I'm still catching up with the Russian evidence you're presenting. I'll print out the arguments from "THE ICON OF THE HOLY TRINITY" By: Vladimir Moss and read them on the train to/from work tomorrow
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
I supppse the defenders of the Kursk icon would still use

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

That God the Father can be 'known' in icon through Jesus being God made Man.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
montalban said:
Also, I read elsewhere that some suggest the depictions of the three angels is NOT the Trinity, but of Jesus and two angels. I've always understood it to be representations of all members of the Trinity.
The depiction of the Three Angels is really a depiction of the three angels to whom the patriarch Abraham offered hospitality in Genesis 18:1-33. AFAIK, the three angels are not seen as BEING the Holy Trinity; rather, they are seen as PREFIGURING the Holy Trinity, hence the Trinitarian symbolism of the icon.


Now, what's this digression have to do with the issue of the Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
I supppse the defenders of the Kursk icon would still use
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
That God the Father can be 'known' in icon through Jesus being God made Man.
But in the Kursk Root Icon, all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity are depicted individually and simultaneously.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
PeterTheAleut said:
Now, what's this digression have to do with the issue of the Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church?
Well, if we can't agree on what the Tradition regarding the depiction of God the Father is, how is this dispute to be settled other than by an Oecumenical Council. Just like the dispute about what we should see as the Church's Tradition about women and the priesthood.
(Yes, I was leading you all up the garden path!)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
ozgeorge said:
Well, if we can't agree on what the Tradition regarding the depiction of God the Father is, how is this dispute to be settled other than by an Oecumenical Council. Just like the dispute about what we should see as the Church's Tradition about women and the priesthood.
(Yes, I was leading you all up the garden path!)
Okay, I see where you're going with this. Good analogy.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Well, if we can't agree on what the Tradition regarding the depiction of God the Father is, how is this dispute to be settled other than by an Oecumenical Council. Just like the dispute about what we should see as the Church's Tradition about women and the priesthood.
(Yes, I was leading you all up the garden path!)
Actually that's a really poor analogy. Unfortunately it's a tactic that you continually have tried; that you've already tried with the covering of women's heads. You're trying again to argue about one thing by discussing something entirely different. You also did it earlier by failing to distinguish between 'traditions' and 'Holy Tradition' (such as with pews being in churches).

Who in the church is pushing for the ordination of women into the priesthood? You're the only one raising it here. It is otherwise a non-issue. You construct a problem based on the speculation (itself) that there is confusion about it. By leaps and bounds you tie this 'unsolved thing' to any other number of things you might be able to prove that are problems.

In other words faced with your own opinion that there's 'doubt' on this issue; based in fact on the speculation that there must be doubts on the issue. It's a self-fulfilling argument then. I could say "No church council has ruled categorically that children/minors can't be priests", (this itself may be proven a bad analogy, if in fact there is such a ruling). And the mere fact that there is no ruling, would cause me to declare, as you have that it is an 'issue', even though it's not because I'm the only one raising it.

And further, you do all this by ignoring all the evidence put to you on this issue, by claiming that no one can ever really know the minds of the fathers in this regards. So faced with evidence, you just dismiss it summarily, because it gets in the way of your suppositions.

So in summary you create an 'issue', declare that it is, because it 'is' because you've declared it to be!

However you've opened my eyes to a number of things such as that regarding iconographical depictions of the Fathers. I'm not even sure if this qualifies as an 'issue' either, because I'm unsure if it's a matter of great debate in the church as a whole.

*- is there an age limit on priests?
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
montalban said:
Why not just list an on-line source, if you knew of one?

A list of books
http://www2.orthodoxwiki.org/Online_books
The Pedalion itself
http://aroundomaha.com/cn/stjohn/canons1.html
The 85 without commentaries hardly constitutes the Pedalion.

montalban said:
Do you have a web-source for that picture? I'd just am keen to check out your 'evidences' following the 'Jewish Council of Australia' debacle
NEWS FLASH: The Entire Corpus of Human Knowledge does not exist online...this is especially true of theological texts and sources. If you really want to do meaningful research you really are going to have to crack a book at some point. Google can be useful, but it's not a panacea.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
greekischristian said:
The 85 without commentaries hardly constitutes the Pedalion.
If you wanted to list a better site, you'd have done so. The person earlier asked for an on-line source. If you think it's insufficient, why not be positive and list a better site? But then I don't think that was your intent, hence... drum-roll...
greekischristian said:
NEWS FLASH: The Entire Corpus of Human Knowledge does not exist online...this is especially true of theological texts and sources. If you really want to do meaningful research you really are going to have to crack a book at some point. Google can be useful, but it's not a panacea.
Ignoring the truism made sarcasm google is not a search engine I use anyway. I use meta-searchengines, such as www.ithaki.net and www.ixquick.com, since we're about 'educating' each other, meta-searchengines search through search engines so that using ithaki is like using 12 search engines or so, all at once.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
GiC,
Whose signature on this forum once read: "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance."?
I can't remember...

Well, perhaps we should never put a "can(n)on" in the hands of inexperienced artillerymen.
They should at least understand what a canon is first. Here's a good introduction:
The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
I use meta-searchengines, such as www.ithaki.net and www.ixquick.com, since we're about 'educating' each other, meta-searchengines search through search engines so that using ithaki is like using 12 search engines or so, all at once.
Which are all still completely useless if the information you are looking for is not on the internet, but only in books.
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ozgeorge said:
Which are all still completely useless if the information you are looking for is not on the internet, but only in books.
At least someone got my point...which had absolutely nothing to do with what search engine one is using.
 
Top