Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Carpatho Russian said:
I quess, I should have phrased my question differently. Is the "Memory Eternal" a command to us, or, is it a prayer to God? If it is a prayer to God, then, we are asking God to keep the departed ever (eternally) in His presence. God doesn't need to re-enact the person's life. The person's life is eternally present to God.
Mina,
Sorry, but I'm not going to let up until you let go of re-enact. Say "Uncle" and I'll stop!
CR
I would go on in this whole re-enactment issue, and I still didn't change my mind, but I'll say it:

"UNCLE!!!"

Only because I don't think we're going anywhere. You do make a good point on your own side that you have little liturgies that don't say these same words Christ said, but in the Coptic Church, no such liturgy exists. So not only are we not going anywhere, but both you and I come from different worlds in this issue.

God bless.

Mina
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
pensateomnia said:
What you just described is almost exactly the theological position and canonical practice of the EO Chalcedonian Church, but that position and canonical tradition did not come about until the time (and in the controversy) that GiC described. When the Copts and the Greeks were united (and following the ancient canons) no such second and third marriage were actually blessed in the Church. Thus, how did the Copts develop the SAME tradition that the Greeks did in the 8th and 9th century? Very interesting (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic!). For that matter, what exactly is the rite of Coptic marriage? Are there crowns and a "Dance of Isaiah"? Because all of these things -- indeed, the entire rite of ecclesiastical marriage -- did not develop until a very late date. Was the rite itself borrowed from the Imperial Church centuries after Chalcedon? For that matter, are the Holy Week services similar, because these too date from the Middle Ages — some even from later?

These are fascinating questions, especially b/c my thesis is on the textual reception and memory of Chalcedon. Despite the polemics on both sides at various times, there seems to have been many, many points of contact and influence.
I don't know or think there's a "Dance of Isaiah." There's a procession at the beginning, and then in the middle of prayers, there's a crowning, and only the husband receives a robe, the same robe a priest wears as a sign of the man being the priest of the family.

Interesting questions though, to which I honestly haven't given much thought or study.

God bless.

Mina
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear GiC,

It is essentially a pastoral text that makes some (very poor) theological references as support, but is most dangerous if used as a theological basis, implying either Arian or Ebionite thought.
Well, we tend to forget the dual nature of Christ, humanity and divinity. In humanity, He is equal to us, and "His Father is greater than Him" so to speak. In divinity, "He and the Father are one," and thus "equal with Him" and "greater than us."

So, this text, taken in correct Christological interpretation, cannot be poor. Christ became the mediator by taking humanity as Himself, and made the two into one. While we can't become gods in essence, He gave us the Divine Grace to become Gods, and by this, He elevates us, we who are worthless. That's why you see some sort of heirarchy, from woman to man to Christ to God. Woman is equal to man who is equal to Christ in humanity who is equal to God in divinity. Let's also not forget Christ willingly submitted Himself to the Father even though He was equal. Arius misinterpreted this and said Christ must have not been consubstantial with the Father. Ebionites must have taken this further to say Christ is above all mankind, but nowhere near like the Father. But proper Christology disproves both and makes this verse, to me, neither merely pastorial, nor weak in a theological sense. One only needs Christological clarification to understand what St. Paul meant (not to mention he still did write "neither male or female").

Which tells me nothing about why the priest must be male, as I said state that a male is 'more in the image of Christ' or 'in the image of Christ in a way that a female is not' is to deny the Image of Christ that is equally present in Male and Female, it is blasphemy against the Creative Energies of God.
And as I said, it does not deny the female the Image of God in her as much as man does. What I am saying is that this verse in Revelations makes all people, including laity, "priests and kings." Protestants misinterpret this verse, which is why they don't have the Melchizedek priesthood heirarchy of the Church. We do, and this does not deny the laity of their role as "priests and kings." It only gives the "special calling" to men.

So, when we say that men only can be the icon of Christ via priesthood, that does not exclude women from being icons of Christ in the same fashion that "special callings" excluded from the laity do not deny the laity's role as "kings and priests."

Unless, there's a new argument to the table, I'll have to say "UNCLE!"

God bless.

Mina
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Pensateomnia,

I found something for you :)

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/6_matrimony.html

God bless.

Mina
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,111
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
Montalban

Some have trouble separating Holy Tradition from traditions
Speaking of which, have you dug up any actual quotes from Church Fathers that articulate this? I mean, if it's such an obvious and necessary distinction, then surely someone in Church history must have mentioned it! Someone? Anyone? ;D


GIC,

Hey, I would know if I was ignorant! :p I've been reading a book on the history of paradoxes through the centuries, that one would be an enjoyable one to read about...
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Neither was the depiction of Icons until the Seventh Oecumenical Council- was that evidence which should have led to a triumph of Iconoclasm?
Jesus Himself is an Icon. Even in the OT, God commanded the Israelities to make images of angels. What other evidence do you need?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
What other evidence do you need?
An Oecumenical Council to clarify that this is indeed the Church's teaching and does not contradict the Second Commandment of the Decalogue. Fortunately, there was one. You may have not needed one, but apparently the Church felt she needed one.
Bizzlebin said:
Jesus Himself is an Icon.
Yes, He said that He was the image of the Father, but where in the "Gospels or related documents" did He add: "Therefore make images of Me and venerate them"? What Icons did Our Lord instruct His disciples paint and venerate?
Bizzlebin said:
Even in the OT, God commanded the Israelities to make images of angels.
And to venerate them? I think you are being a bit anachronistic here and contradicting the teachings of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. The Council decreed that since Christ had been Incarnated and had Sanctified and Redeemed created matter, it was therefore possible to depict Him and the Saints in Icons and venerate them. This was not possible before the Incarnation.
The Iconoclasts were not so much opposed to the making of Images, but to their veneration. Hence the Imperial order to place them high and out of reach in Churches.

 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
An Oecumenical Council to clarify that this is indeed the Church's teaching and does not contradict the Second Commandment of the Decalogue. Fortunately, there was one. You may have not needed one, but apparently the Church felt she needed one.

Yes, He said that He was the image of the Father, but where in the "Gospels or related documents" did He add: "Therefore make images of Me and venerate them"? What Icons did Our Lord instruct His disciples paint and venerate?

And to venerate them? I think you are being a bit anachronistic here and contradicting the teachings of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. The Council decreed that since Christ had been Incarnated and had Sanctified and Redeemed created matter, it was therefore possible to depict Him and the Saints in Icons and venerate them. This was not possible before the Incarnation.
If the Ecumenical Council is the highest authority, then who established the Ecumenical Council, or set them up as that authority? Whoever/whatever is behind that is the real authority.

Jesus was venerated Himself. Also, seeing that we are commanded to honor our elders, and that anyone who follows God is a mother or brother or sister, etc, then what is the logical conclusion if not "honor the saints?" And what is veneration if not that?

I don't think I mentioned the veneration of icons before the Incarnation before, but no, it doesn't contradict the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Honor was to be given, even under the Old Covenant. Surely those commands from God were not sinful.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
If the Ecumenical Council is the highest authority, then who established the Ecumenical Council, or set them up as that authority? Whoever/whatever is behind that is the real authority.
True, but that's not the point. An Oecumenical Council's role is to define what is and isn't dogma. Until an Oecumenical Council decrees one way or another, we may be able to have an opinion of what we think is a dogma, and even back it up with what we understand of Holy Tradition, but we cannot absolutely state that our opinion is the opinion of the Church on the matter. Even the Iconoclasts claimed they could back up their teaching with what they believed was Holy Tradition (eg, the Second Commandment of the Decalogue, the writings of St. Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Cyprus).
The Church, and the Church alone, discerns what is and isn't the Teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
True, but that's not the point. An Oecumenical Council's role is to define what is and isn't dogma. Until an Oecumenical Council decrees one way or another, we may be able to have an opinion of what we think is a dogma, and even back it up with what we understand of Holy Tradition, but we cannot absolutely state that our opinion is the opinion of the Church on the matter. Even the Iconoclasts claimed they could back up their teaching with what they believed was Holy Tradition (eg, the Second Commandment of the Decalogue, the writings of St. Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Cyprus).

The Church, and the Church alone, discerns what is and isn't the Teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
Again, what set the Ecumenical Council so high? That is the real authority. It is indeed the Church, because the Church gives authority to Councils, not vice versa. Because of this, we already have a definitive answer, one that has not changed in the history of the Church. Let us accept that, and not reject the very Body of Christ.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
Bizzlebin said:
Jesus Himself is an Icon. Even in the OT, God commanded the Israelities to make images of angels. What other evidence do you need?
The seraphim were depicted on the ark of the covenant
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
If you follow the discussion between Bizzelbin and myself, you will note that the sequence of thought is as follows:
1) I agreed with Bizzelbin's position that the Church has never changed it's stance on the ordination of women to the priesthood, but said that this does not constitute evidence that a male only priesthood is a dogma. I said "No evidence of women's ordination is not evidence against women's ordination."
I've already noted that you seem to believe that raising this 'question' seems to be a cause for you, to strengthen the church. Perhaps you feel it's something the church should make a formal statement on in order to clarify it's position. You're raising an issue that is only an 'issue' because you're raising it.
ozgeorge said:
2) Bizzelbin said that there are no records in the Gospels or related documents of women's ordination to the priesthood.
There doesn't need to be. The very fact that all the evidence is that men were ordained as priests is enough. There's no prohibitions (as far as I'm aware) against children being priests, either. We don't need to have an exacting list of those who are prohibited. Perhaps I've mistaken your argument, because it now seems your championing a legalistic mode for the Orthodox church.
ozgeorge said:
3) I replied that there is no evidence in the Gospels or related documents in favour of depicting Icons.
There doesn't need to be. Jesus Himself is the icon depicted. The whole Bible is to put the 'essentially unknowable God' into an expressible form, a word-picture if you will. The very fact God depicted Himself is enough.
ozgeorge said:
So the "point" is that the dogmas about Icons were clarified despite the silence in "the Gospels and related documents" about the use of Holy Images; so therefore, a silence in "the Gospels and related documents" about the ordination of women to the priesthood cannot be construed as being clear evidence against it.
We are not a sola-scriptura church. Not everything was written down.
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The evidence rests in a) Jesus only picked men for the priesthood. b) the church has only picked men for the priesthood. That is enough for most.

 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
The evidence rests in a) Jesus only picked men for the priesthood. b) the church has only picked men for the priesthood. That is enough for most.
And the fact that the people Christ first chose to preach the Resurrection were the myrrhbearing women......oh wait....
 

Sarah

Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Carolina
Asteriktos said:
Montalban

Speaking of which, have you dug up any actual quotes from Church Fathers that articulate this? I mean, if it's such an obvious and necessary distinction, then surely someone in Church history must have mentioned it! Someone? Anyone? ;D
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)

 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
Sarah said:
"A woman does not become a priest (or priestess)." Canon Law of St. Photius (9th century)
Thanks for that wonderful post! I am definately getting that book.

But about the quote I quoted above, do you know if that is one of the canons from the Eighth Ecumenical Council? That would settle it once and for all, if so.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
And yet even they were not ordained priests. Interesting...
And yet Our Lord commissioned them to teach and evangelise men...Strange, since St. Paul, (I'm told), "clearly" forbids this.....even more interesting... ;)
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
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... ;)
It wasn't in Church, and it wasn't preaching, so no connection.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,832
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
No, the Lord didn't tell them to teach, just to announce that He is Risen; proclamation and instruction are different. Yes, they were to tell the men that He rose, but they weren't part of His inner circle, they didn't receive the straight-talk that He gave the 12 ("ahh, now you speak plainly" and etc.), and according to the accounts of Pentecost they weren't part of the original group to receive the spirit.

Does this make them inferior? Of course not. But their mission was different without being lower.
 
Top