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
SolEX01 said:
Yes, I made the suggestion given the sheer number of posts and lack of consistent discussion on the subject.  :)
:(
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
Canada
SolEX01 said:
Apology accepted and all is well, as usual.  ;)  Would you consider closing the thread since it's been pretty much beaten to death?  Maybe give a warning like the thread on EO's being banned from Catholic forum or something like that?
I don't know....it's an interesting topic for discussion.  I would have to look over the thread a bit more when I have a little more time.  It seems that Minasoliman still wants to talk about it, so I'm not sure.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
minasoliman said:
Is Metropolitan Kallistos' article on the ordination of women online?  I read it from a book, and it was thought-provoking indeed.
Bishop Kallistos' gave an interview with the Antiochian Women's auxillary, The Order of St. Nina, where some items regarding the role of women were discussed:

Link to Interview with St. Nina's.

minasoliman said:
I have a question, perhaps new perspectives and questions.  Has there been a history in the Orthodox Church in having female spiritual advisers, not necessarily "mothers of confession" (even though we know priests don't only forgive sins but can also act as spiritual advisers)?
Unless one happens to be a lay youth adviser, I would say no.

minasoliman said:
Another question:  Could we possibly have this question emerge mostly in the West not because of culture of women and leadership (though this might be a factor) but the idea that all priests should be celibate? (after all, a priest's wife in the Greek churches is literally called a "priestess." Would such a lack force debate on the issue?)  Could it be lack of women involvement and empowerment in the Church that also bring up these questions?
If we are to believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Prophecies and that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Orthodox praxis, then changing how women are treated in the Church would be a deviation from the Orthodox praxis.  In the above interview, Bishop Kallistos comments about why men aren't purified at the 40 Day Blessing along with the woman.  In the context of those words, one has a difficult time discerning if Bishop Kallistos was being serious or sarcastic.

minasoliman said:
And also, when one separates liturgical roles from extra-liturgical roles, can one compare the idea of male-only priesthood to water-only baptism, that all restrictions in liturgical roles are not necessarily roles that extend to life outside the liturgy and sacraments (for example that all people are according to Revelations "priests and kings" but not necessarily so in the liturgy).
Back to Orthodox praxis, Christ was baptized in water and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in the form of a Dove.  The Church has made some modifications out of Economia like allowing Baptism with sand if there's no source of water or oil nearby only if the person is near death and is expected to die.  Revelations refers to all righteous people being "priests and kings" in the presence of the Lamb, Christ Himself.  We are not "priests and kings" in this secular world at this moment.
 

Amdetsion

High Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
931
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SolEX01 said:
Bishop Kallistos' gave an interview with the Antiochian Women's auxillary, The Order of St. Nina, where some items regarding the role of women were discussed:

Link to Interview with St. Nina's.

Unless one happens to be a lay youth adviser, I would say no.

If we are to believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Prophecies and that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Orthodox praxis, then changing how women are treated in the Church would be a deviation from the Orthodox praxis.  In the above interview, Bishop Kallistos comments about why men aren't purified at the 40 Day Blessing along with the woman.  In the context of those words, one has a difficult time discerning if Bishop Kallistos was being serious or sarcastic.

Back to Orthodox praxis, Christ was baptized in water and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in the form of a Dove.  The Church has made some modifications out of Economia like allowing Baptism with sand if there's no source of water or oil nearby only if the person is near death and is expected to die.  Revelations refers to all righteous people being "priests and kings" in the presence of the Lamb, Christ Himself.  We are not "priests and kings" in this secular world at this moment.
I Read this interview.

It made me see how far we have come in the Orthodox Church and the life of "orthodoxy" over the last 2000 or so years.

It is strictly my opinion that the interview was inappropriate and disrespectful to Bishop Kallistos. In a few areas he seemed rather uncomfortable as if on the defensive. He even used 'ignorance' as his reason for not having an answer in a few cases.

The interviewer noted the judaic or hebraic elements that may be behind certain 'orthodox christian traditions. Bishop Kallistos as should most orthodox christians know that the Church of Christ is first Holy, then Universal (catholic if you like), and Apostolic in the Lord Jesus the true Messiah or as we say "Christ". This basic fact of orthodoxy reads plainly that we are certainly keeping with many so-called "judaic" and "hebraic" elements since we know that the Apostle preached the Gosple of Christ using the Torah (or old testament). They did not have the benefit of what we call the new testament today in book form to use as a reference. The very words they used to teach with at the time were being inpired by God through the Holy Spirit and became the books of the new Testament. Thus the words of the new Testament are older than the book itself. Bishop Kallistos seemed rather agreable when the interviewer noted these elements as if the point she was making may be a point to consider....A point to consider?

I feel very sad for us orthodox today.

The issue of women not having enough to do in "the church" is to me more secular and socio-economic than real spiritual need, denial or lack thereof. Seems the idea is that "if women can be president of the USA (which they may) than why not have this hope be real in their religious faith....maybe they can also be bishops and archbishops"?

Women have a full plate already in Gods true Church.

The Alter is not a place to 'thirst to be' it is holy and rightious. We are called by God to stand in its midst. There is no tradtion of women serving God in the Holies or the Holy of Holies. Women are very prominant in 'serving' God and and His Church on earth in very important ways. All aspects of our lives are "in-the -church". What part of our lives are outside the church? I hope the answer is 'no part'.

Women are given full blessing by God to serve in her 'nature'. Women are allowed to pray with their heads covered just by virtue of her being a women. A man MUST be ordained at the highest level for deacon and beyond before he is allowed to pray with his head covered. A man is not granted this by virtue but by strict order; as we say 'holy order'. I often watched my wife prepare for prayer. I used to wonder what her ritual must be like. I finally learned once I became a deacon.

The orthodox women is a symbol of the new Eve; the mother of us all.

The orthodox women is the symbol of the mother of God who served the Lord first by bearing all things and interceding as a faithful mother to Him for us all.

The orthodox women is the pride of the Lord Christ the center, protector and keeper of His most important act and gift to mankind which is true love. He kept her (not him) for himself. She is thus pre-ordained and crowned with Glory. She is the blessed alter which holds the blessed sacraments...she is 'The Church'. Christ spoke the truth with regard to her..." I am the Groom and the Church is my bride".

A bride is taken. She has her place.

The Orthodox women is the true symbol of Gods completed work. She is the Sabath day. In the women there is order, descency and rest. Completeness!

Christ while suffering for us all on the cross spoke 'The Seven Words on the Cross'. The Seventh being "It is finished". This is a powerful message to mankind that that He who lives forever died assuring us the comfort of His grace. The women is the finsiher. Adam was not complete without Eve. it was not due to creation but so that it can be manifested in US that we have women. This is not the nature of Adam who was created by God from the soil and breath of life. But the women who became a by product of Adam the first born of the flesh.

There is so much more to this point.

Women are mothers...NOT fathers. This is Gods plan; NOT the plan of men to subvert women. The idea that men are subverting women in the holy church is a trick of satan the devil that this assumption is testing our holy fathers and the holy church in this age.

I hope it is clearer that the women is not less but more for not being required to bare the blessed body and blood. She is part of that which is holy. She is the true mother of us all. The church. The Church is thus served by us through the priest order. The man is 'given' this glorification and it can also be taken away. He gets it since men have no other place by which to serve the church. It is the last positon. She (the church, our mother) is high position; higher than all the holy orders which were established by God to confine the service she (the Church) requires to those who are called and made ready. A bridge that only some men will cross which provides the means of our holy bond with that which is our mother the holy church since she can not serve herself. This does not include all men symbolically or otherwise.

Thus it is an important symbolism regarding women serving in her nature and men serving by permission only (and then only certain men NOT ALL men) through ordaination. This is also represented in Holy Matrimony where the couple become ONE flesh. For us each orthodox marriage is a symbol of the Holy Church which can not be defeated.

I am not explaining this that well but I want us to understand the power of the Holy Church which is mystical but is in perfect order. WE are not always going to know the justification so clearly.

Women has, is and will always be a central element in Gods church. It is not an issue as to whether we should have ordained women. The issue really is that it is not necessary at all. Each grape has a distinct color and flavor but all work together to form a perfect bouque. The grape is not credited with this perfection. The vine is.

I am saying that the Church whole and orthodox in peace is what matters. At the end of the day let us have strived with each other so that we leave our fathers house in order when he returns just the way He left it. He is the vine.

It is sad that we are confused today.

Our lives, our thinking and perspective is not holy and orthodox anymore. Thus is why many may not see my point.

Many of our most important representation of the Holy Church 'our women' read Cosmo. These programs are symbols of life in the world today particularly in America and much of the west.

The examples I shared can not be truely understood by persons who are in ways liberal, mainstream or secular in thier thinking and views. My points are trying to encourage us to think 'holy' orthodoxy. We can not do this with our minds out of sinct with the holy way of life lived by the generations long gone before us.

Women have so much to do in the holy church and always have. Women have to want to keep and preseve the great gifts and talents bestowed on her. Wear your crown proudly with joy. That is what the head covering is. Not some degrading act of dismissal or contempt for you. This view is a bad joke, a trick. Live Holy and keep to prayer. Be an example of the the great and holy church in all your ways which come to you by nature. This will be hard wearing see through pants and leaving lip stick on the consecrated Icon, bibles etc not to mention adding 'llipstick' and other facial make-up to the Holy Qurban while partaking. I am not saying this is the case with all women but so many keep a very loose appearance and way of life (missing the greatness she pocesses). As well as men of course. But the issue here is the women who I already stated are the blessed among the blessed in a matter of speaking. This should follow in lifestyle. Orthodox women are dignified by her holy nature and love of God.

Orthodox women are not fashioon models niether walk around in provocative clothing. But modest servants of the church. Intelligent, edcuated, strong, holy, virtuous, humble, set aside from the frivilousness of this world.

Aquiring the above noted is work indeed. Especailly in American and the west. But this is good work that will help to increase the glow of the light of holy church and add salt to its flavor.

Let us not let the world trick us orthodox into thinking that we are lost and have not the way.

WE have the way....Thank God!

Selaam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
SolEX01 said:
Bishop Kallistos' gave an interview with the Antiochian Women's auxillary, The Order of St. Nina, where some items regarding the role of women were discussed:

Link to Interview with St. Nina's.
I was talking about the article featured in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Women-Priesthood-Thomas-Hopko/dp/0881411469

Unless one happens to be a lay youth adviser, I would say no.
That would be strange.  It would seem that deaconesses held such an important role for females in the ancient Church that it might have been possible.  I've also read in some article about this Orthodox man who had a nun as a spiritual adviser.  I would assume the idea of a "godmother" or "godfather" had some roots in choosing your primary spiritual adviser.

If we are to believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament Prophecies and that nothing is to be added or subtracted from the Orthodox praxis, then changing how women are treated in the Church would be a deviation from the Orthodox praxis.  In the above interview, Bishop Kallistos comments about why men aren't purified at the 40 Day Blessing along with the woman.  In the context of those words, one has a difficult time discerning if Bishop Kallistos was being serious or sarcastic.
The reason I asked is because the question of ordination of women doesn't come up in the Orthodox Church.  Women seem to be content with the idea of a male-only priesthood.  The question only comes up in Western Apostolic churches where priests are celibate or where literalistic approach of the Bible historically have put women as a "subhuman" category.

Back to Orthodox praxis, Christ was baptized in water and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in the form of a Dove.  The Church has made some modifications out of Economia like allowing Baptism with sand if there's no source of water or oil nearby only if the person is near death and is expected to die.  Revelations refers to all righteous people being "priests and kings" in the presence of the Lamb, Christ Himself.  We are not "priests and kings" in this secular world at this moment.
This is where my question gets interesting.  First, it comes to a surprise about the idea that sand was used to baptize people when water wasn't available.  I never knew that, but I would like to look more into that.  Second, I thought maybe there should be a certain consistency in our liturgical practices, a strictness that echoes that of the "traditionalist" churches, maybe not to the point of dogma.  It seemed to me that the early church canons were written for that purpose, to keep order and consistency in liturgical and spiritual practices.  If we allow maybe a slight "exception" to the rule, it would seem to me there can be exceptions to any rule where necessary.  If you read this thread early on, some exceptions include women entering the sanctuary for cleaning purposes, and giving the Eucharist to women.

So is there a line to be drawn on exceptions?  I mean sure I used to think that anything other than water was where the line was drawn until you mentioned sand.  So perhaps, the question should be, "How exactly should we treat liturgical canons and practices?  What should we do if the tools necessary for a certain mystery were not available, like water for baptism or wine for the Eucharist?  How does this relate to what "matters" to God?  Does it matter for the Trinity if you used other means?  Why or why not?" (someone suggested to me that the answer might lie in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters, where he talks about roles in the liturgy and the priesthood)

If you read the article by HE Metropolitan Kallistos Ware that I showed you, he doesn't necessarily advocate a position, but he does prepare you for the questions that may come in the future if it plagues the Orthodox Church one day.  And these questions are very thought-provoking.

And I am personally not advocating a position either (actually I tend to advocate a male-only priesthood, but there are questions I wish I can address and be answered).  I'm simply extending the discussion to a certain level that I don't think was discussed before.  Sorry for those who feel I've resurrected something they're personally tired of (truthfully, this comes up again with me because of a recent debate I had with my sister).

God bless.

 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
minasoliman said:
If you read the article by HE Metropolitan Kallistos Ware that I showed you, he doesn't necessarily advocate a position, but he does prepare you for the questions that may come in the future if it plagues the Orthodox Church one day.  And these questions are very thought-provoking.

And I am personally not advocating a position either (actually I tend to advocate a male-only priesthood, but there are questions I wish I can address and be answered).  I'm simply extending the discussion to a certain level that I don't think was discussed before.  Sorry for those who feel I've resurrected something they're personally tired of (truthfully, this comes up again with me because of a recent debate I had with my sister).
minasoliman,

I agree with you. Metropolitan Ware has approached the topic in a thoughtful and mature manner, IMO. It's not a question of advocating the ordination of women as much as having an open discussion - about this or any other matter that Orthodox Christians wish to discuss. The whole concept to clamping a lid on a topic seems draconian and somewhat foreign to Orthodoxy, more in keeping with the fear tactics of a cult. If we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truth, what is there to fear in honest dialogue? 
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Riddikulus said:
minasoliman,

I agree with you. Metropolitan Ware has approached the topic in a thoughtful and mature manner, IMO. It's not a question of advocating the ordination of women as much as having an open discussion - about this or any other matter that Orthodox Christians wish to discuss. The whole concept to clamping a lid on a topic seems draconian and somewhat foreign to Orthodoxy, more in keeping with the fear tactics of a cult. If we believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all truth, what is there to fear in honest dialogue? 
I think somebody already mentioned this to someone else, but I'll go ahead and repeat the word of protocol.  Technically, a bishop gives up his family name when he makes his monastic vows, so we never refer to a bishop by his title and last name alone (e.g., Metropolitan Ware).  We customarily refer to a bishop by his title and first name alone, however, which leads us to speak of Metropolitan Kallistos.  If we mention the bishop's last name, we do so in parentheses--i.e., Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware).

Okay, okay, enough of my nitpicking. :p
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
PeterTheAleut said:
I think somebody already mentioned this to someone else, but I'll go ahead and repeat the word of protocol.  Technically, a bishop gives up his family name when he makes his monastic vows, so we never refer to a bishop by his title and last name alone (e.g., Metropolitan Ware).  We customarily refer to a bishop by his title and first name alone, however, which leads us to speak of Metropolitan Kallistos.  If we mention the bishop's last name, we do so in parentheses--i.e., Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware).

Okay, okay, enough of my nitpicking. :p
I knew someone mentioned it before, but I forgot and and when I forget, then there are websites like amazon and the St. Nina Quarterly that forget to do just that as well.  So it just confused me.

I'll try to remember this time.  This is something actually that I shouldn't forget now, since this is also a Coptic tradition.  Wasn't sure if the same held for the EO's.
 

Serge

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
3,198
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
54
Website
sergesblog.blogspot.com
All the push to do it, both in the Roman and Orthodox churches, comes from a small minority living in Protestant countries. It's obviously not from the life and heart of the church. So I wish Episcopal priests (such as a woman in my blogroll who was born Episcopal) the best and like an ethnic born parishioner don't worry about it too much.

P.S. Doing it didn't reverse the decline of the mainline denominations such as the Episcopalians.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
The young fogey said:
P.S. Doing it didn't reverse the decline of the mainline denominations such as the Episcopalians.
Women's ordination is too new to know whether it will stem the decline. Wake me up in 200 years. ;D
 

shep4569

Jr. Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Michigan
Website
www.st-marymagdalene.org
I guess I'll just copy my post over to here...

"Women are called to the priesthood—we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that don't ordain women if they must have that call fulfilled."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ordination_of_women

Now this seems to be a ridiculous argument to me. So, you're called to the priesthood, but if the church won't ordain you, you leave? It might just be me, but I don't think the Lord would move you to leave His True church. Personally, I don't think we should allow females to serve. It's not our Holy Tradition, and it's not needed. The biggest need for deaconesses was because it was improper for priests to touch women. That's not really an issue anymore. Nobody gasps in shock when a priest baptizes a little naked female baby.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
shep4569 said:
"Women are called to the priesthood—we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that don't ordain women if they must have that call fulfilled."
It's best these women, who leave the Church because they can't get what they want, NOT become priests.  It seems they are more interested in their own ambitions.  You can have a "calling" to be an active part of Christ's Church, and not be an ordained priest.  The priest alone, cannot make his parish prosper and grow.  He is but one.  It is the duty, the calling, of each member to do their part, to encourage their brethren, to spread the Word.

If we bother to take a moment, we would all realize that we are all called to be fishers of men! 

Let's be creative and find ways, other than priesthood, to do just that!

Watch out....I am baiting my hook! 

 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Nektarios, I have to thank you for bringing this silly post to my attention in the Banning of Homosexuality in Ethiopia thread.
GiC said:
Ok, I dont know that I'm getting through so I'm going to respond with a similar argument about race being an impediemnt to the priesthood. Yes, it is offensive, and it is intended to be offensive to get my point across...but it is no less offensive than your arguments. So without further ado...

Amdetsion said:
On the issue; The Holy Church has to obey the theological and spiritual roots of the fathers back our lord Jesus Christ on earth. Ordination is something that we except on the terms given us from the holy fathers the apostles. All sacraments are soemthing we are given by God not soemthing we create. Eve came out of Adams body she was not created seperately from the dust of the earth and the spirit of God like Adam was. The Church came out of Christs body, 'she' was not created seprately from earthy flesh and the spirit of God which Christ is.
The Negro is, by tradition,
Not Orthodox tradition, but the day before yesterday tradition from the Age of Enlightenment (ever read Jefferson's comments on the negro race?)

the decendent of Canaan the son of Ham, a servant race,
Not according the Bible the Orthodox use:Genesis 10:6 names the sons of Ham as Cush (modern Sudan), Mizraim (Egypt), Put (Modern Libya) and Canaan.  The African peoples mentioned all are from Cush and Mizraim.  The text plainly states (v. 19) that "the borders of the Canaanites was from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, as far as Gaza (i.e. the border with Mizraim/Egypt and Africa): then you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah (how apropos, seeing where I learned of this thread), Admah and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha (i.e. modern Jordan).  Not exactly the Cradle of the Negro.  http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/bible/bible.asp?contents=old_testament/contents_Genesis.asp&main=genesis&file=1.10.htm
(the non-Greeks can look at the Orthodox Study Bible).

not blessed as are the decendents of Shem and Japheth. He is commanded by God to serve the other races of men,
Btw, your Enlightenment Protestants couldn't read it seems: the curse of Noah is plainly on Canaan, not Ham nor his other sons.  But then, reading what you want into things is an Enlightenment specialty.

to place him in a place of authority such as the priesthood would be a violation of the word of God.
Matthew 20:25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve
Furthermore, is this not seen in the body and build of the negro, he is built for labour and work as the ox, to take him from that position and place him in a position of intellectual authority is unnatural and contrary to God's will.
Ah, that Enlightenment assessment of the negro.

If you read the qualifications of priesthood in the OT, physical ability etc. was a requirement. An infirm priest was not allowed to serve.  I don't recall any intellectual criteria. The physical requirements have come into the canons (someone I know told of his fellow seminarian who was told he couldn't be ordained because of his club foot).  So you are arguing for the negro priesthood, since he is well suited physically?

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths which is the re-birth of Adam in Christ and the saving through grace of Adams generations till Christs second return.
So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths in which Christ, from the line of Shem, and the saving through grace of Shem's descendents till Christs second return.
Ah, but Shem had to use the daughters of Canaan Tamar and Rahab (Mat. 1:3-4) to beget those descendants (you do recall the Halakhah on Jewish descent, no?), and called His Son out of Mizraim/Egypt (Mat. 1:15), and a man of Put helped carry His Cross to the Sacrifice (Mat. 27:32).

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
The Church is women 'in' man. One flesh; which is Christs flesh. Christ taught "I am the Church and the Church is my bride".
The negro is a servant, servant to the descendents of Shem and Japheth. As scripture proclaims 'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'
Note: "Canaan." Not "Ham." Not "Cush." Not "Mizraim." Not "Put."

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
AS such marriage is Holy among us, sacred. This sacrament like all other is the 'tone' of the fulfillment of Christ relationship in the Church of His body...His people. The sacrament can not change. As with all the remaining 6 because they are the 'tone' of Christ among us.
As such the relationship between master and slave is sacred, it is commanded by God and cannot change.
Phillipians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
Ordination is not a men's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by Christ with the Holy Spirit. The apostles taught "A Deacon or Bishop shall be the husband of one wife" (read First and second Timothy). This means a few things one of which is a married man can not address but one women as his wife; he can't have a "first wife" or "second wife" or "ex-wife". He can not have had a divorce and re-married if so he can not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy CHurch. A lay person in this situation can not take communion in some orthodox churches until very extensive penance or repair of the matter is completed.
Ordination is not a white man's club as our new age contemporary minds see it.
No, but it took the Enlightenment to read its own racism into the Scriptures to form the silly tradition you are basing your "arguement" on.

It is order in the Church established by God with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' This means a few things one of which is a wite man cannot address but the negro as slave; he can't have 'white slave' or 'black slave' or 'ex-slave.' He cannot emancipate and, if he takes as slave one other than the Negro, should not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy Church.
And it is evident you, and your Enlightenment buddies, cannot read. C-A-N-A-A-N. Not C-U-S-H, M-I-Z-R-A-I-M, P-U-T, nor H-A-M.

Btw, St. Paul doesn't seem to have a "negro exception" in I Corinthians 7:21.

Anyone who opposes this slavery is also Anathematized by the canons of the Holy Synod of Gangra.
Would anyone care to quote the canon?

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
This also teaches that a women are not to be "ordained" Deacon since she can not have a "wife" but has a husband. In many orthodox societies from the days of the apostles to now the wife of a clergy man was respected and treated with reverence and respect within the church. She was given much duty especially when her husband was away. Today in Ethiopia and I know also in Greece a Deacons wife OR priest wife has a special title. Her hand is not kissed but she is bowed to and asked "pray for me". This is a great honor. Her life must be like a deacon or priest...not a women of liesure and fashion, not a gossip or wearer of much jewlry and make-up. She is a women of natural beauty adorned on her by God. She is not loud but becoming; a strong support for the work of the church. I have found some deacon wives more beautiful in the faith than than some deacons.
Timothy also teaches that those who oppose this institution are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,' 'whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.' But this is not to say that the negro is less well respected in society, it is simply that his role is different. He is allowed to work in the field in the role of a servant, in this way he may approach Christ, though it is given only to the white man to approach Christ through the office of the Priesthood. Also the Negro slave should be poor, humble, obedient, and loving towards his Master.
Timothy is speaking of the priesthood. What are you talking about? There is no reference to slavery (negro or otherwise) in Timothy, except this:
I Timothy 1:8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that lawa is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
You do know that the slave trade went up astronomically with the Age of Enlightenment.  I think I've brought that up.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14700.msg211846/topicseen.html#msg211846
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14700.msg211770/topicseen.html#msg211770

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
People look at her and know immediately "her husband is clergy man"
People look at him and know immediately, 'he is a good Negro.'
I have to admit when I see Ethiopian Orthodox, that is what I know.  Or rather "Good Christian man/woman."

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
These are just two point of Holy tradition which is the Orthodox Church.
These are just a few points from Holy tradition and sacred scripture which is the Orthodox Church.
No, just a few points from the Secular Tradition perverting the Sacred Scripture of the Orthdoox Church according to the Enlightenment.

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
Their is no biblical bases fro ordaining women.
There is no biblical basis for ordaining negros.
Acts 8.  Otherwise, there is no biblical basis for ordaining Greeks.

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.
This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.
And we choose not to corrupt the Faith with practical economics and "enlightened" philosophy.
ialmisry said:
greekischristian said:
What we see in Jefferson is not a condoning of slavery by enlightenment ideology, but rather the epitome of the traditional conflict between philosophical ideals and practical economics.
GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the head of the body decides for the whole body. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.
The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the Master race can decide for humanity and for the Church. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.
Do we know our left hand from our right?

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
Slavery is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The History and heritage of and entire nation of people were destroyed to build Americas so-called "free country" America is the symbol of racial hatred in the world to this day due to her bazaar and wicked 400 year industry of land grabbing and slavery.
Opposition to the equality of women is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The dignity and humanity of half the population of the wolrd was destroyed to fulfill the sinful desires and lust for power of insecure males. Patriarchal institutions are the symbol of mysogany misogyny in the world to this day due to it's wicked imposition upon the humanity and dignity of half the human race.
Ah, the femocentric line.  The same cheerleaders for those who see women as sex toys, as long as they toe the party line.


GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
The Head rules the whole body because the hand and all other body parts are designed to look for such rule as an example.
The white man rules the negro and all other races are designed to look for such rule as an example.
Another example of your Enlightenment mangling of what the text says: it should be the SEMITE rules...not the White Anglo-Saxon.  You are refering to Shem, remember?

GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.
It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.
GiC said:
Amdetsion said:
As I posted before we will never see a women deacon and therefore neither priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.
A negro is of a servant race, he can never be a valid deacon and therefore neither a priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.
Here you do have Amdetsion: we have seen women deacons in the Early Church, and we see them again.  We have never, nor do I expect to, seen a woman priest though.  I've seen plenty of negro deacons, priests and bishops.  And so has the Church.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was that offensive?
No, far too amusing (and pathic) to offend.

I hope so because it was intended to be...of course, I made no argument you didn't, I simply replaced race for gender.
Fill in the blanks.  Yeah, that's about right.

My theological arguments are just as sound as yours (by which I, of course, mean a bunch of nonsense); so, logically speaking, if your arguments are adequate to deny ordination to women, mine are adequate to deny ordination to non-whites.
You flatter yourself.  No suprise there....
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
shep4569 said:
I guess I'll just copy my post over to here...

"Women are called to the priesthood—we know this, we see this. Women leave churches that don't ordain women if they must have that call fulfilled."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ordination_of_women

Now this seems to be a ridiculous argument to me. So, you're called to the priesthood, but if the church won't ordain you, you leave? It might just be me, but I don't think the Lord would move you to leave His True church. Personally, I don't think we should allow females to serve. It's not our Holy Tradition, and it's not needed. The biggest need for deaconesses was because it was improper for priests to touch women. That's not really an issue anymore. Nobody gasps in shock when a priest baptizes a little naked female baby.
Many are called but few are chosen.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
As a woman, I can tell you...it's hard sometimes.  One really, truly wants to serve!  If I were a man I can only imagine what path my life would have taken.

However, God chose not to make me a man, and I am stuck as a female...and have to search out various ways to serve within the Church. 

Sometimes it is challenging, but, when one finds a "way" to be of even the slightest benefit to the Church...it is ooohhhh so rewarding!
Maybe, as a female, I even appreciate it more....because I cannot serve in the more "common" fashion.

However, I would never, ever go against the laws of the Church and push the issue of female deacons or clergy.

I would be first to say it should remain the way it is.  It would be huge mess otherwise.  I put my trust in Christ and Church Elders.  They knew what they were doing...and out of a search for some personal sense of accomplishment one should not rock the foundations of the Church.

 

SbdcnDavid

Jr. Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ialmisry,

I'll second your recent post to this thread, but don't forget to put scorn quotes around the word "Enlightenment" when you apply it to the 18th Century clouding of the Western mind by rationalism.

True Enlightenment is granted in Holy Baptism.

(Sorry to be crumudgeonly, but we should not concede rhetorical ground to secularism or heresy by carelessly adopting their terminology.)
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
Canada
LizaSymonenko said:
As a woman, I can tell you...it's hard sometimes.  One really, truly wants to serve!  If I were a man I can only imagine what path my life would have taken.

However, God chose not to make me a man, and I am stuck as a female...and have to search out various ways to serve within the Church. 

Sometimes it is challenging, but, when one finds a "way" to be of even the slightest benefit to the Church...it is ooohhhh so rewarding!
Maybe, as a female, I even appreciate it more....because I cannot serve in the more "common" fashion.

However, I would never, ever go against the laws of the Church and push the issue of female deacons or clergy.

I would be first to say it should remain the way it is.  It would be huge mess otherwise.  I put my trust in Christ and Church Elders.  They knew what they were doing...and out of a search for some personal sense of accomplishment one should not rock the foundations of the Church.
A very interesting post given from a female viewpoint.  It's interesting to me, because so many women in my parish are very influential in its affairs on many levels. 
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Well, being new to Orthodoxy, I will say only this for now (and I confess that I have not read all of the previous posts, so forgive me if I am repeating some points that have already been mentioned):

1. I think it is acceptable to ordain women deacons. There is a biblical precedent for this, for example Phoebe. (Romans 16:1)

2. Any Christian that truly wants to serve Christ and His Church can do so, whether as a lay person or as an ordained person.

3. The Divine Liturgy should only be led by males. This is not because women are inferior to men, but because God has established a hierarchy of order that must not be confused with a hierarchy of being. Women are not less than men. In fact they possess certain qualities and abilities that men will never possess, for example child bearing. But men are to be the leaders in the Church, and the Bible lays out specific and difficult guidelines to which these male leaders should always adhere.

4. The complaint from women who want to be Priests has nothing to do with service. Service by definition means humility, selflessness, sacrifice, and denying one's self for the benefit of others. The Church has never prohibited women from serving. The Chucrh encourages all of us to serve. And if we are humble and submissive, then we will easily find ways to serve in an authentic Christian manner. Whenever I hear women demanding to be ordained to the Priesthood by the Church, then I know immediately that these women want nothing to do with service. What they want is vain glory and the praise of men, and there are plenty of religions that are willing to accommodate them. But the Orthodox Church should not be one of them.

Selam
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
ialmisry said:
Nektarios, I have to thank you for bringing this silly post to my attention in the Banning of Homosexuality in Ethiopia thread....

And it is evident you, and your Enlightenment buddies, cannot read. C-A-N-A-A-N. Not C-U-S-H, M-I-Z-R-A-I-M, P-U-T, nor H-A-M.
Wow, good spelling. But apparently, you missed one: P-A-R-O-D-Y.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ytterbiumanalyst said:
ialmisry said:
Nektarios, I have to thank you for bringing this silly post to my attention in the Banning of Homosexuality in Ethiopia thread....

And it is evident you, and your Enlightenment buddies, cannot read. C-A-N-A-A-N. Not C-U-S-H, M-I-Z-R-A-I-M, P-U-T, nor H-A-M.
Wow, good spelling. But apparently, you missed one: P-A-R-O-D-Y.
A-T-T-E-M-P-T A-T
 

GammaRay

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Greece
1 Corinthians 13:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

That's a misinterpretation/mistranslation. The original verb used (laleō/λαλέω) doesn't just mean to speak; it means to preach. Anyone can see that all passages that use this verb are about speaking with the Holy Spirit, or in tongues, or prophecisizing, or preaching.
Since church attendance had not been officially established yet and everything was a bit of casual, people would stand up and preach often. Saint Paul forbid women to preach during the ritual and when in the church.
Today, instead of preachers, we have deacons/priests.
Thus the non-ordination of women.

Just thought of sharing this. Sorry if someone had already mentioned it before.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
See, this statement confuses me.
Why aren't women aloud to "preach"?

What if I, as a woman, encounter an opportunity to tell someone about Christ?  What if I see a perfect chance to slip in the Good Word?  Does this mean, I should just shut up and not give that person an opportunity to know the Truth?

If this statement is strictly meant as preaching as a "priest"...then fine.

Otherwise,....not fine.

I am honored and humbled for being able to teach religion to kids at our Saturday school.  That is a form of preaching.

I always speak about my Faith at work.  I have yet to convert anyone, but, not due to lack of trying...I am just not good at it!  ;)

I cannot believe that God would want all women to simply shut-up, when we have something good to say.

....yet that precise statement - "for it is not permitted unto them to speak" has been thrown in my face a number of times.



 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
LizaSymonenko said:
See, this statement confuses me.
Why aren't women aloud to "preach"?

What if I, as a woman, encounter an opportunity to tell someone about Christ?  What if I see a perfect chance to slip in the Good Word?  Does this mean, I should just shut up and not give that person an opportunity to know the Truth?

If this statement is strictly meant as preaching as a "priest"...then fine.

Otherwise,....not fine.

I am honored and humbled for being able to teach religion to kids at our Saturday school.  That is a form of preaching.

I always speak about my Faith at work.  I have yet to convert anyone, but, not due to lack of trying...I am just not good at it!   ;)

I cannot believe that God would want all women to simply shut-up, when we have something good to say.

....yet that precise statement - "for it is not permitted unto them to speak" has been thrown in my face a number of times.
Throw St. Priscilla back in their face.
 

GammaRay

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Greece
LizaSymonenko said:
What if I, as a woman, encounter an opportunity to tell someone about Christ?  What if I see a perfect chance to slip in the Good Word?  Does this mean, I should just shut up and not give that person an opportunity to know the Truth?
You repeat the Jesus Prayer and then full speed ahead!

If this statement is strictly meant as preaching as a "priest"...then fine.
Exactly. In the very early churches, it was about peaching in the church. There were many female Apostles outside the liturgies. Today, it's about becoming a priest.

I am honored and humbled for being able to teach religion to kids at our Saturday school.  That is a form of preaching.
Which all Orthodox highly encourage.

I cannot believe that God would want all women to simply shut-up, when we have something good to say.
I'm with you.

....yet that precise statement - "for it is not permitted unto them to speak" has been thrown in my face a number of times.
Now you know how to reply. ;)
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
CONTEXT NOTE:  The following article and subsequent discussion was originally posted on Christian News, but seeing how the thread so quickly became yet another debate on women's ordination, I deemed it wise to merge this into the already existing thread on the subject.

- PtA




Archbishop Seraphim of Johannesburg and Pretoria (Church of Alexandria) said that on the forthcoming pan-Orthodox Synaxis case of ordination of women should be discussed. He asked whether there are any theological reasons against it and insisted on the Synaxis to make final decision. The Patriarchate issued a statement that it's Hierarch's personal opinion.

The newsreport I've read does not precise whether he was talking about Deaconate only or maybe about something more.

more in Polish
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
mike said:
Archbishop Seraphim of Johannesburg and Pretoria (Church of Alexandria) said that on the forthcoming pan-Orthodox Synaxis case of ordination of women should be discussed. He asked whether there are any theological reasons against it and insisted on the Synaxis to make final decision. The Patriarchate issued a statement that it's Hierarch's personal opinion.

The newsreport I've read does not precise whether he was talking about Deaconate only or maybe about something more.

more in Polish
The late Pope Parthenios had made comments in favor of ordaining women as priests. That fact that the Archbishop "insists of the Synaxis to make a final decision" should indicate that it is a bad idea.  We have enough problems with the calendar.
 

arimethea

Archon
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
2,966
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
44
Location
United State of America
mike said:
Archbishop Seraphim of Johannesburg and Pretoria (Church of Alexandria) said that on the forthcoming pan-Orthodox Synaxis case of ordination of women should be discussed. He asked whether there are any theological reasons against it and insisted on the Synaxis to make final decision.
Based on the make up of world Orthodoxy I think the "final decision" will be something like this... "NO!"
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Why would they want to ordain women. It has never been done in the Church and how can it now? I hope they make the right decision or we will have even more problems within the Orthodox Church.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
A letter written by Orthodox priest, Fr. Alexander Schmemann:



Dear Friend:



When you asked me to outline the Orthodox reaction to the idea of ordination of women to the priesthood, I thought at first that to do so would not be too difficult. It is not difficult, indeed, simply to state that the Orthodox Church is against women”s priesthood and to enumerate as fully as possible the dogmatical, canonical, and spiritual reasons for that opposition.



On second thought, however, I became convinced that such an answer would be not only useless, but even harmful. Useless, because all such “formal reasons” – scriptural, traditional, canonical – are well known to the advocates of ordination of women, as is also well known our general ecclesiological stand which, depending on their mood and current priorities, our Western Brothers either hail as Orthodoxy”s “main” ecumenical contribution or dismiss as archaic, narrow-minded, and irrelevant. Harmful, because true formally, this answer would still vitiate the real Orthodox position by reducing it to a theological context and perspective, alien to the Orthodox mind. For the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared.

But to what will they listen? Our amazement – and the Orthodox reaction is above all that of amazement – is precisely about the change and, to us, incomprehensible hastiness with which the question of ordination of women was, first, accepted as an issue, then quickly reduced to the level of a disciplinary “matter” and finally identified as an issue of policy to be dealt with by a vote! In this strange situation all I can do is to try to convey to you this amazement by briefly enumerating its main “components” as I see and understand them.

It is well known that the advocates of ordination of women explain the Scriptural and the traditional exclusion of women from ministry by “cultural conditioning”. If Christ did not include women into the Twelve, if the Church for centuries did not include them into priesthood, it is because of “culture” which would have made it impossible and unthinkable then. It is not my purpose to discuss here the theological and exegetical implications of this view as well as its purely historical basis, which incidentally seems to me extremely weak and shaky; what is truly amazing is that while absolutely convinced that they understand past “cultures”, the advocates of ordination of women seem to be totally unaware of their own cultural “conditioning” of their own surrender to culture.
http://www.australianorthodox.org.au/ordination-of-women-by-father-alexander-schmemann
 

observer

High Elder
Joined
Dec 11, 2004
Messages
546
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) does not see any theological reason against women being ordained.  And if the Church is to keep up with the 'spirit of the times' (Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov) then why not?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
He (Metropolitan Kallistos) see's no reason against their ordination to the deaconate. Women historically were ordained as deacons, but never as Priests.

If MetropolitanKallistos has said otherwise, then I fear for his future positions on dogmatic and important issues. Please use the appropriate clerical title when posting.  You had no problem doing this in the first sentence which follows a correct form when speaking of Orthodox Clergy -username! section moderator
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
observer said:
Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) does not see any theological reason against women being ordained.  And if the Church is to keep up with the 'spirit of the times' (Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov) then why not?
Keep up with the spirit of the times? Then I guess we should just get rid of traditional Orthodox Church music and get ourselves some praise bands instead since nobody wants to hear rusty old music anymore these days or maybe we should get rid of the boring old vestments that our priests wear and get them some rainbow colored vestments and maybe we should not put so many icons in the church since they make certain people feel weird when they visit the church. Really, where are we going to draw the line? This is really another thing that doesn't have to be done and it seems like another pursuit to modernize the Church.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'd say the church is fine, no need to modernize it or make it more "hip"... Just ask those that have come out of Protestant backgrounds, I'm sure many of us will tell you that no matter how many women you ordain, no matter how many instruments you introduce, no matter how much modern music, no matter how many pews you install, it isn't going to make the worship any "better".

If the argument is a lack of Priests, then ask yourself, why don't we have young men becoming Priests? Fix THAT before you even discuss allowing Priestesses in the Church.

In fact, the type of worship seen in the West does not fill the huge hole in the sinners heart. Why do you think Protestantism is collapsing so fast? People are looking for something more. Many are going to paganism or to Islam. Do we want to let the rest of the world fall to Islam because we feel we have to follow our Western brothers & sisters?

_________________________________________________

Also, please keep in mind, I am not hostile to things like pews, but there must be a reason the Church hasn't ever implemented these things. Why should it do so just because the rest of the world (which is fallen & corrupted) sees these things as vital to worship?
 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
88Devin12 said:
I'd say the church is fine, no need to modernize it or make it more "hip"... Just ask those that have come out of Protestant backgrounds, I'm sure many of us will tell you that no matter how many women you ordain, no matter how many instruments you introduce, no matter how much modern music, no matter how many pews you install, it isn't going to make the worship any "better".

If the argument is a lack of Priests, then ask yourself, why don't we have young men becoming Priests? Fix THAT before you even discuss allowing Priestesses in the Church.

In fact, the type of worship seen in the West does not fill the huge hole in the sinners heart. Why do you think Protestantism is collapsing so fast? People are looking for something more. Many are going to paganism or to Islam. Do we want to let the rest of the world fall to Islam because we feel we have to follow our Western brothers & sisters?
Exactly! We have to stay what we are and what we have been. We cannot adopt Western ideas because with their ideas will come their heresies as well. Protestantism is collapsing and so is the Catholic Church. One of the reason why my mother left the Catholic Church was because it was becoming so modernized. After Vat. II, music in the church changed, vestments changed, worship changed, and many religious art (statues and icons) were taken out of a lot of churches. I don't want to see the same happen in Orthodoxy. Having pews and organs in the Church are bad enough, why do we want to introduce more Protestant inventions?

You are right, you see many people these days leaving Christianity for Islam and that is because the loosy goosy feeling that a lot of Christian churches have. It's not taken seriously so people leave Christ toward Islam which on the surface is taken more seriously by the adherents.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
88Devin12 said:
Also, please keep in mind, I am not hostile to things like pews, but there must be a reason the Church hasn't ever implemented these things. Why should it do so just because the rest of the world (which is fallen & corrupted) sees these things as vital to worship?
Or there is from a practical point that to make long strong benches, one needs large tall trees from which to get the lumber and the technology to cut and process the wood and then to build the furniture.  The history of the development of furniture is another aspect of human life that can be quite interesting. It's important to keep in mind that what in common today in many places often did not exist or was exceedingly rare  in centuries and eras past.  As a side note, such tall trees were one of the very important resources of North America for (among other things) the masts of ships. 

Then there's the focus on the sermon the came about over time and particularly with the Reformation as the instruction and education of the faithful in theology and morals became an important part of weekly worship. 

Ebor
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mike said:
He ... insisted on the Synaxis to make final decision.
Really a non-starter. Hasn't been included in the pre-conciliar meetings/agendas over the last three decades, so it won't be discussed.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,261
Reaction score
49
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Orthodoxy can rightfully claim to be the True Church.  Unchanged.  Handed down from the Apostles.

If Christ, deemed to select only men as His disciples, why would we, mere mortals, choose to override His decision and wisdom?

As a woman, I vote NO to a female priesthood.

 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I vote yes for womens Ordination as Deaconesses....Да Да Да
 
Top