Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[SeanMc]

The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!  ;D

 

[Fr. George]

The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!  ;D

Is it because they are ordaining women that they're screwed up, or is ordaining women a symptom of their being screwed up, or are they unrelated (their being screwed up and ordaining women)?

 

[ozgeorge]

Here we go again: "The Protestants do it, so it must be wrong."
See Page 11 of this thread.
Are Synods outside the Orthodox Church are now valid and Pan-Orthodox?

 

[Fr. George]

Here we go again: "The Protestants do it, so it must be wrong."
See Page 11 of this thread.
Are Synods outside the Orthodox Church are now valid and Pan-Orthodox?

Exactly true.

 

[montalban]

Then why didn't you accept it as an answer when I said it the first time, and the second time, and the third time.......

You didn't give that answer. You didn't give any answer in regards that question. You only stated why you're here on this thread which I have already noted a number of times; to speculate.

Speculating about what?!
If someone presents something as "evidence" and I show that it is not admissible as "evidence"- how is that "speculating"?
Why can you not simply accept that the issue of women's ordination has not been definitvely decided yet? Instead of sidetracking the issue, why not present some clear, unambiguous evidence to support your claim that a male-only Priesthood is a Church dogma? Is it perhaps because there is no such evidence in existence?

You can't both say that you're not sure, and that you're not seeking the answer (speculating) and then say you're not.

 

[montalban]

Here we go again: "The Protestants do it, so it must be wrong."
See Page 11 of this thread.
Are Synods outside the Orthodox Church are now valid and Pan-Orthodox?

Is this any better than your own "Protestants do it, so it must be right?" - personal speculation

 

[montalban]

The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!

It's not just that they've done it, it's their approach to determining what is true.

For Orthodox, what was true centuries ago is still true. For Anglicans, and the speculating modernists here on this thread it is true only in relative circumstances

 

[Fr. George]

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- The argument starts with it being implied or stated that the absence of womens' ordination is an unstated tenet of the Church by the fact that it is cross-cultural and unchanged from the beginning...
- Another example of something cross-cultural (i.e. communing by hand) was brought up, then expanded to debate on crossing arms and/or using the pyx.
- The debate now, about whether the womens' ordination should remain undone, is being fought vicariously through the debate about communion.

I'm just wondering, in the last pages discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).  Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths; as such, the Church restricts things considered dogmatic to a fairly small category, which includes such complex concepts as the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Christ's passion, death, and Resurrection, and the like.  It certainly does not include such things as whether or not women can be ordained.  Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.

A few other examples of traditions/canonical statements that have gone by the wayside - the ordination of bishops without diocese (chorepiscopoi), which has been gotten around on a "technicality" but really has been disregarded, canonical requirements for the reception of certain heretical sect memebers, etc.  Even if it's spelled out in a canon, unless it's put forth by the Church tradition in a very real and tangible statement (Ecumenical Synod, Endemousa Synod, statements of the Fathers which have gained universal acceptance, approved and accepted statements of laymen and hierarchs) as being required for our understanding of Faith, it's just not dogmatic and therefore it is changeable.

 

[ozgeorge]

Is this any better than your own "Protestants do it, so it must be right?" - personal speculation

Again with the "speculation"....Please tell me where I have said anything like your claim that I hold that  "Protestants do it, so it must be right"? Stop making inane accusations to sidetrack, and present your evidence as requested.

 

[ozgeorge]

I'm just wondering, in the last threads discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).

It was me!

Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths;

Yep! That's right!

Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.

Yep! Which was precisely my point in using the word "dogma".

 

[Fr. George]

It was me!
Yep! That's right!
Yep! Which was precisely my point in using the word "dogma".

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything so far....

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Bizzlebin and Montalban,

I just want to get this straight.  I see--this is only my perception, which could be wrong--that you're both arguing that 2000 years of exclusion of women from the priesthood is itself a dogmatic statement that the Church is to never ordain women to the priesthood.  This appears to me to be indeed the circular reasoning that I described in the post I quote below.

Here's another example of circular reasoning, if I have the concept right.

Q.  Why must we not ordain women?

A.  Because we never have in 2000 years.

Q.  Why is this?

A.  Because the Holy Spirit has guided us into this decision.

Q.  What evidence do we have that the Holy Spirit has guided us to not ordain women?

A.  We've never ordained women before.

Can you see how I'm presupposing my conclusion, then using my presupposition to prove my conclusion?  That's why I argue that we need a solid Patristic/theological/ecclesiological reason why we've never ordained women before.

So my questions to you both are these:

• Why is 2000 years of traditional practice an actual statement of dogma per se?
• What are the clear theological and ecclesiological reasons why the Orthodox Church has never ordained women?  (You may have already answered these questions before on this awfully long thread; so, if you have, please refer me to these posts.)

 

[montalban]

Again with the "speculation"....Please tell me where I have said anything like your claim that I hold that "Protestants do it, so it must be right"? Stop making inane accusations to sidetrack, and present your evidence as requested.

You've argued the whole time that the notion that woman aren't ordained is based on traditions, rather than Tradition. You've only evidenced this by offering side arguments. The whole thread then comes to you saying 'you're not sure'. If you're not sure you must be neither for nor against. You yourself have argued that you're here just to raise this question.

 

[montalban]

Bizzlebin and Montalban,

I just want to get this straight. I see--this is only my perception, which could be wrong--that you're both arguing that 2000 years of exclusion of women from the priesthood is itself a dogmatic statement that the Church is to never ordain women to the priesthood. This appears to me to be indeed the circular reasoning that I described in the post I quote below.

Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.

 

[montalban]

Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- The argument starts with it being implied or stated that the absence of womens' ordination is an unstated tenet of the Church by the fact that it is cross-cultural and unchanged from the beginning...
- Another example of something cross-cultural (i.e. communing by hand) was brought up, then expanded to debate on crossing arms and/or using the pyx.
- The debate now, about whether the womens' ordination should remain undone, is being fought vicariously through the debate about communion.

That's pretty much it, a very accuarate summary of events. Even if you disagree with the stance I and others have taken the opposition * taken by OzGeorge on this revolves around arguing not the issue, but other issues.


* I use the word opposition here cautiously as OzGeorge has argued against women being excluded, but at the same time saying he's unsure if they should be, and also that any stance of myself and others is a misunderstanding of Church Fathers. So sometimes he's opposing my position, other times he seems to wanting other arguments. At the same time he avoids confronting evidence from Church Fathers by simply claiming it doesn't exist/hasn't been presented

I'm just wondering, in the last pages discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).  Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths; as such, the Church restricts things considered dogmatic to a fairly small category, which includes such complex concepts as the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Christ's passion, death, and Resurrection, and the like.  It certainly does not include such things as whether or not women can be ordained.  Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.

A few other examples of traditions/canonical statements that have gone by the wayside - the ordination of bishops without diocese (chorepiscopoi), which has been gotten around on a "technicality" but really has been disregarded, canonical requirements for the reception of certain heretical sect memebers, etc.  Even if it's spelled out in a canon, unless it's put forth by the Church tradition in a very real and tangible statement (Ecumenical Synod, Endemousa Synod, statements of the Fathers which have gained universal acceptance, approved and accepted statements of laymen and hierarchs) as being required for our understanding of Faith, it's just not dogmatic and therefore it is changeable.

Well for OzGeorge, if it's not been forumalated by Ecumenical Council, it's up for speculation.

 

[ozgeorge]

Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.

And, you claim that this is evidence that a male-only priesthood is dogma? (even if, for the moment, we put aside the fact that the validity of each of these pieces of "evidence" has been challenged on this thread).

Just "yes" or "no" will do.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.

This goes a long way toward answering the second of my questions, although I did ask for quite a bit more work than may be realistic now, work that I could probably do just as well myself.

However, I would still like an answer to my first question.  Why is 2000 years of traditional practice a statement of dogma per se?  I don't doubt that this traditional practice in and of itself is indeed very authoritative as a guide to our current discussion and decision-making, which is why I advocate very strongly maintaining the status quo until we can establish a convincing reason for changing it.  But to proclaim dogma requires that we anathematize as heretics those who disagree with our dogma.  Can anyone do this now from nothing more than the traditional practice of the past two millennia?

 

[minasoliman]

Well, I tend to agree there is a certain Anglican way of thought, as I opened up before.  The main argument for those who are for women priesthood, or at least considering the concept, sees the misogynism of ancient Christianity as the only reason why many shunned female priesthood.

If culture is an issue, can we also say that the homophobic culture of ancient Christianity which lead to the abominable hatred of homosexuals justify homosexuality today?

That is why I'm open to saying that the concept of female exclusivity may be correct, although it may have been taken to an unnecessary, and rather unChristian extreme that even the Apostles themselves, including St. Paul, tried to fight.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was what I was perceiving.

God bless.

Mina

 

[ozgeorge]

If culture is an issue

It isn't. Orthodox doctrine is the issue.
See above a few posts back.

 

[montalban]

And, you claim that this is evidence that a male-only priesthood is dogma? (even if, for the moment, we put aside the fact that the validity of each of these pieces of "evidence" has been challenged on this thread).

Just "yes" or "no" will do.

Yes.

I can give a straight answer. Pity you don't deal the same way.

 

[montalban]

This goes a long way toward answering the second of my questions, although I did ask for quite a bit more work than may be realistic now, work that I could probably do just as well myself.
However, I would still like an answer to my first question.  Why is 2000 years of traditional practice a statement of dogma per se?  I don't doubt that this traditional practice in and of itself is indeed very authoritative as a guide to our current discussion and decision-making, which is why I advocate very strongly maintaining the status quo until we can establish a convincing reason for changing it.  But to proclaim dogma requires that we anathematize as heretics those who disagree with our dogma.  Can anyone do this now from nothing more than the traditional practice of the past two millennia?

Jesus chose men for a reason. He only chose men for a reason. I don't believe that Jesus acted without intent

 

[ozgeorge]

Yes.

I can give a straight answer. Pity you don't deal the same way.

See, Mina? The issue isn't "culture", it is dogma.
Do you, Mina, also state (like montalban here) that a male only priesthood is an eternal Truth clearly taught by the Church which all are absolutely bound to believe?

 

[minasoliman]

Well, before the "dogma" issue got in, I think we need to address the "culture" issue, which will then lead to calling something "dogma" or not, or at least holding to dogmatic principles.  I think we shouldn't jump the gun and call something "dogma" in this discussion unless we address what could deter it from being "dogma."

God bless.

Mina

 

[ozgeorge]

Well, before the "dogma" issue got in, I think we need to address the "culture" issue, which will then lead to calling something "dogma" or not, or at least holding to dogmatic principles.

But the "culture" issue is a non-issue, and we all agree there. Whether or not misogyny existed and/or exists in the Church is not the issue. The reason people think a male only-priesthood is dogma is the issue.

I think we shouldn't jump the gun and call something "dogma" in this discussion unless we address what could deter it from being "dogma."

Good answer! Well thought out, and my sentiments exactly!

 

[SeanMc]

Speaking of Protestants:

The LCMS believes that those Scripture passages which say that women should not "teach" or "have authority" in the church (see, for example, 1 Cor. 11 and 14; 1 Timothy 2) mean that women ought not hold the authoritative teaching office in the church--that is, the office of pastor. Women are allowed to hold other offices in the church, as long as these offices do not involve the one holding them in carrying out the distinctive functions of the pastoral office.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2702

 

[DerekMK]

I can give a straight answer. Pity you don't deal the same way.

Several other posters here have understood George's position, as he has demonstrated it very clearly.  If perhaps you seem to be the only (or at least one of the few) having trouble grasping his position, then maybe it would be worth entertaining the thought that the problem lies with your reading of posts and not George's posting. ÂÂ

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Jesus chose men for a reason. He only chose men for a reason. I don't believe that Jesus acted without intent

That may be true, but it doesn't answer my question, the question I believe Ozgeorge is also asking you.  Why is our traditional practice in itself a statement of dogma such that we can excommunicate those who disagree?

 

[montalban]

Well, before the "dogma" issue got in, I think we need to address the "culture" issue, which will then lead to calling something "dogma" or not, or at least holding to dogmatic principles. I think we shouldn't jump the gun and call something "dogma" in this discussion unless we address what could deter it from being "dogma."

God bless.

Mina

The cultural issue was dealt with about 20 pages ago when someone cited
Historically, the Greeks had accepted women priests
“The practice of women prophesying at the church in Corinth would have had no negative reaction from Greek culture, at least not for being done by females. On the contrary, two of the most famous oracles of the Greek world had at their heart women who were used as vehicles to medate the message of the god. Women played key roles in the public celebrations of many cults, and there is little doubt that at least some of these roles involved speaking: prayers, words of consecration of the sacrifice, perhaps instruction in the mysteries or words of assurance or warning to initiates. The only trouble Christian prophetesses would have caused the surrounding culture would have been due to the fact that the religion was foreign and denounced traditional faiths as false. But this has nothing to do with women's roles”
http://campus.houghton.edu/webs/employees/tpaige/Construct.html

that is, people were already used to having priestesses. To have had female Christian priests from the start then would have been more acceptable

 

[montalban]

That may be true, but it doesn't answer my question, the question I believe Ozgeorge is also asking you. Why is our traditional practice in itself a statement of dogma such that we can excommunicate those who disagree?

I think that's been answered by the thread...

Jesus does nothing without purpose. Jesus chose men. He chose men only (in light of the fact that at the time there were women priests in the pagan world; although I don't believe there were ever in the Jewish world).

Further, tradition shows this through evidence from other sources viz the Apostolic Fathers (see Appendix), et al. In toto these are pretty good evidences.

Appendix
That Women Ought Not to Baptize, Because It is Impious, and Contrary to the Doctrine of Christ.

IX. Now, as to women's baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the "man be the head of the woman,"33 and he be originally ordained for the priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him, from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says He, "He shall rule over thee."34 For the principal part of the woman is the man, as being her head. But if in the foregoing constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized by His own mother, and not by John; or when He sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere, either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us any such thing; as knowing the order of nature, and the decency of the action;35 as being the Creator of nature, and the Legislator of the constitution.
Book III:9
The Apostolic Constitutions
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-43.htm#TopOfPage

 

[montalban]

Several other posters here have understood George's position, as he has demonstrated it very clearly.  If perhaps you seem to be the only (or at least one of the few) having trouble grasping his position, then maybe it would be worth entertaining the thought that the problem lies with your reading of posts and not George's posting. 

I have explained the differences in meaning. If you fail to see the difference all well and good. Or if believe that ambiguity is the way to go, then thanks for letting me know. What he gave a response that was not a straight answer.

Let's just assume that I had the difficulty. I gave him an unambiguous answer to his question. He asked for a yes or no. I gave him one. I could have just gone ("I've explained this somewhere else"*, or "You just don't get it do you".) You seem to think that "I've answered this again and again..." and using the same phraseology is the way to increase learning.


*-The exception being that OzGeorge and I have gone over several arguments again and again. Even above where someone asked me about evidences that have been cited several times by me, I re-cite it. But I will take on the dismissive approach if you like.

 

[ozgeorge]

What he gave a response that was not a straight answer.

: <sigh>

I could have just gone ("I've explained this somewhere else"*, or "You just don't get it do you".) You seem to think that "I've answered this again and again..." and using the same phraseology is the way to increase learning.

Or, you could have said: "I don't know", like I did.
But, unlike myself, you know for certain that male-only priesthood is dogma. So perhaps that wasn't an option for you.

 

[montalban]

Or, you could have said: "I don't know", like I did.

Yes, I could have (although you yourself demaned only a "Yes" or a "No"). I could also have waited for several days before answering directly. I could have said "I don't know" right away, or, if I were like some, I'd have waited several days, and then claim I'd already answered it. And then I could make speculation, and then claim I'm not speculating.

 

[montalban]

Speaking of Protestants:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2702

Lutherans are limited to argument from Scripture (though they can cite tradition for Sunday worship, when it suits them to go beyond sola scriptura).

We have Tradition, Ecumenical Councils, rules, etc to draw upon to determine matters

On this issue alone we've already cited some of these Scriptures (see below) as the beginning of our objection to women acting as priests... but that was a long while ago now (the posting of this evidence), so long ago that some seem to think that no evidence has been cited


Post #112

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
      As in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Post #118

Unless of course we don't take a literal 'silence' but view it in relation to his views about women teaching... which he was against.
Which Gregory1958 himself cited...
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."  -- 1 Timothy 2:13-14

 

[montalban]

Oh, and they're given again...
Post #151

As to women's ordination, we start off with the key texts are 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and as to different roles, 1 Corinthians 11:3

Yet every couple of days someone will pop up and say "Where's the evidence?" ???

 

[ozgeorge]

Yet every couple of days someone will pop up and say "Where's the evidence?" ???

No, they will probably ask again: "Why does the Church permit divorce for reasons other than adultery?"
If Christ's words are not "evidence" that divorce is only permissible in cases of adultery, why are St. Paul's words evidence that women should not be priests? You were asked this before. The validity of your evidence was challenged before- and yet you still harp on it.

 

[montalban]

No, they will probably ask again: "Why does the Church permit divorce for reasons other than adultery?"

I already noted the irony of this statement...

I already have....twice.....
This thread is so long that information is being lost- which is another reason to retire it. I'm kinda getting tired of having to repeat myself every 8 pages.

You must have read the discussion I had ever several pages back with pensateomnia ending at post #591 when I asked him if he thought that the Church teaches contrary to Christ. I'd given a more detailed case in Post #579

Jesus taught us 'stuff' in the Bible.
The Bible itself says that not all that 'stuff' that Jesus taught is in the Bible.
We believe in things that aren't taught in the Bible. Some are ideas that are novel (the Ever-Virgin Mary), some are differences in detail.
The issue of divorce is one such example of the latter. Now you either believe that the Church is teaching something absolutely contrary to what Jesus taught, or you believe it isn't. That's as simple as it gets. The Church itself (I don't believe) has the authority to 're-write' what Jesus taught. So assuming you believe that the Church teaches Jesus' message, then the 'details' of divorce must come from Jesus. It goes the same for all the 'examples' you gave in #551.

A modification to this I would believe is that one can accept is to state that the details came from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, rather than from Jesus during His ministry. And I can add to this that 'details' of Mary's life may have been given by the Theotokos herself.

In reading (and I've still not finished it) “St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts” by John Anthony McGuckin we see how the church reacted when challenged to a truth. When teaching on the issue of the Trinity, Cyril's argument in effect said "This is what we always taught". You either believe that Jesus said some things and the church teaches a very different idea, or that the church continues with what Jesus taught as it always has. There was no secret there, for it was always taught. The 'details' of the Triune nature of God are not found in the Bible... for theologians of Cyril's day (later ones too) had to come up with new words to describe more exactly the nature of the union of the Trinity... which they always taught and believed.

Which do you believe? That... ?
a) the church teaches things contrary to what Jesus taught
b) the church made up the details
c) the church has always taught the Way of Jesus
d) another way I've not yet considered.

If Christ's words are not "evidence" that divorce is only permissible in cases of adultery, why are St. Paul's words evidence that women should not be priests? You were asked this before. The validity of your evidence was challenged before- and yet you still harp on it.

Because St. Paul's words can't be taken in isolation. Neither can Christ's. Paul's words are but the start of the evidential trail. It's good to start one's argument with Scripture.

 

[Pedro]

The main argument for those who are for women priesthood, or at least considering the concept, sees the misogynism of ancient Christianity as the only reason why many shunned female priesthood.

If culture is an issue, can we also say that the homophobic culture of ancient Christianity which lead to the abominable hatred of homosexuals justify homosexuality today?

That is why I'm open to saying that the concept of female exclusivity may be correct, although it may have been taken to an unnecessary, and rather unChristian extreme that even the Apostles themselves, including St. Paul, tried to fight.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was what I was perceiving.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make several pages (and pages!) ago, and the point that a friend of mine who is Orthodox and has recently "come out" to me has made...that the only reason the "anti-gay" or "anti-woman" verses have been included in the Bible was because of the culture of the times, and as such are succeptible to change.  Ozgeorge: would you say that the ancient homophobia of the apostles and fathers was the only reason for prohibitions of homosexuality--an orientation which many in today's world see as natural and inborne--and thus an inquiry into our traditional stance against homosexuality is in order?  If not, do you feel there is a double standard for using the same standard--that the times and cultures have changed and thus the Church would do well to reexamine their stance re: a theological vs. pastoral interpretation of these Scriptures, since such a stance has never been authoritatively spoken upon in an Ecumenical Synod--to justify an inquiry into women's ordination?

People have said that these are not the same issues, and they're right.  They then say (I'm not saying that ozgeorge or anyone else is) that people are always playing the "gay card" in conversations about women's ordination, and they consider this a "low blow" or strawman.  Yet, the common reason given for inquiry into these issues--that culture has changed and thus we should reexamine and dialogue about these issues--makes them very much related, though they be not identical.

 

[ozgeorge]

Because St. Paul's words can't be taken in isolation.

I fully agree with you here. But as pointed out, what you and others seem to be doing on this thread is taking St. Pauls words in isolation from what we know to be ontologically true about men and women in Christ.

 

[ozgeorge]

Ozgeorge: would you say that the ancient homophobia of the apostles and fathers was the only reason for prohibitions of homosexuality--an orientation which many in today's world see as natural and inborne--and thus an inquiry into our traditional stance against homosexuality is in order? 

Again with the homosexual thing! What on earth does that have to do with the question of women's ordination? You are talking about a sin here. You do realise that being born a woman is not a sin, nor is it any less human or holy than being born a man, don't you?..... You do realise that you are comparing a consequence of the Fall (homosexuality) with something God has created in His own Image (womankind)......or do you?

 

[montalban]

I fully agree with you here. But as pointed out, what you and others seem to be doing on this thread is taking St. Pauls words in isolation from what we know to be ontologically true about men and women in Christ.

That's typical of you to rework what's been said. No one has only relied on the words of St. Paul! As I've already noted every few days you claim no evidence has been cited!

...
Given that OzGeorge is back to repeating yet again his claims we can look at some of the many arguments he's tried to have, usually some at the same time as others...

So in summary of OzGeorge's argument is that he's here simply to ask a question because it's an issue that needs to be resolved. Although he's the only one here raising it as an issue; so that's self-fulfilling prophecy.

Although he claims he's not here to speculate Post #248

What side am I on other than the side of those seeking examination, dialogue, and discussion about this?

And yet he's stated that everything is subject to change
Post #122

Everything is subject to change: the Sixth Oecumenical Council anathamised those who do not receive Communion in the hand.
In Holy Tradition "not now" does not necessarily mean "never."

Against this are a number of converts who've argued that we should hold fast to the tradtion(s) of the church. OzGeorge has objected to this because we're converts (as in Post #162) of this thread, or earlier in #154

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem of this thread. This discussion will never be able to take place on this forum because of the baggage converts bring from their old confessions. "It shouldn't be done because that's what Protestants do." Well Protestants reject Papal Infallibility, does that mean the Orthodox should embrace it?

When evidence has been brought forth as requested, he's argued that this evidence doesn't need to be dealt with because it was merely googled (Posr #241). Post #238 I had to repeat that I've already cited evidence...

How so?That is false. I have cited John Chrysostomon in post #145
Clement of Rome #148.

Interspersed have been arguments about the Theotokos not being an example to anyonre (post #82), icons (post #170), whether Mary taught (post #242) and so on. (others include the use of the Cup in the Eucharist)