Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[ozgeorge]

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

 

[ialmisry]

"Women and the Priesthood" was Orthodoxy's first attempt at a response to the Anglican ordination of women.  Contributions from Meyendorff, Schmemann, Afanassiev.  I remember how greedily we drank in this book because we needed some intelligent, and orthodox,  response to all our Anglican friends.   One of the main planks of the argument is based on the symbolic and iconic function of the male priest as alter Christus and the relationship of the priest to the Church (the male priest to the Bride of the Church.).    Since then Saint Vladimir's have gone on publishing more material from theologians and the iconic image of the male priesthood plays a large role.

I remember coming across it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=H0omnUfYJj8C&pg=PA31&dq=Woman+and+the+Priesthood#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I found it interesting that it came from a totally different direction than the debate that was going on in Protestantism (in my old Lutheran congregation, the newly formed ELCA sent our parish, a very conservative one, a woman pastor as a sign of "get with the times).

It mentions btw, that St. Epiphanios deals with this issue in the 5th century, 15 centuries ago, and going through all the facts, he also adds in conclusion that after so many generations of not ordaining women, the Christians have no authority to do so now.  Dogmatically, one might even say the basis is better and more solid on the male priesthood than on the Assumption of the Theotokos (not part of public preaching, and know only to Jerusalem, until after Epiphanios).

However, in the end the argument is always reduced to one - we cannot do it because it is contrary to what we have received.  A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Personally, I can't say it is dogma.  But those who are for female priesthood have to make a far better argument (one that confirms, rather than destroys, Tradition) then they have managed so far (and I suspect, better than they can).

 

[Salpy]

The image of the priest as "alter Christus" is not out of place within Orthodoxy and we do not have to shy away from it because the Catholics have emphasized it so very heavily.  But, as George says, he also represents the people of God.

For what it's worth, in the Armenian Church on Good Friday, it is common for the priest's liturgical robes to be placed inside the tomb, representing Christ.  I always took that to mean that the priest in some way is acting as an icon of Christ when he performs the liturgy.

 

[ialmisry]

Consecration of Bishops by one Bishop alone in the early Church of the British Isles

This has taken place in the history of the Russian Church Abroad, even within the last few decades, although the details have slipped into the irretrievable section of my memory banks.  If ROCORthodox is reading this he may have details.

That would be interesting, as the first bishop of America, Joasaph, was consecrated by the bishop of Irkutsk alone, under the direct instruction and blessing of the Holy Governing Synod. It is supposedly the only recorded time the Russian Church ordained a bishop with less than three bishops physically ordaining.

In reviewing the situation of the mission, in 1796, the Holy Synod created an auxiliary see in Alaska and elected Fr. Joasaph as Bishop of Kodiak. It was 1798 before news and instructions for his elevation reached him. For his elevation to bishop, Fr. Joasaph needed to return to Irkutsk, where he was consecrated on April 10, 1799. Bp. Joasaph's consecration was unusual in that, due to the isolation of Irkutsk from the Holy Synod, the Holy Synod provided instructions for Benjamin, Bishop of Irkutsk, to perform the consecration of Fr. Joasaph alone. Thus was recorded the only known situation in the history of the Church of Russia where an episcopal consecration was conducted by a single bishop.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joasaph_(Bolotov)_of_Kodiak

The letter of the Pope of Rome to St. Augustine would be akin to the orders of the Holy Synod.

 

[ialmisry]

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Even the Vatican makes the distinction between dogma and discipline.  The question is, which is the male priesthood.  Yes we had married bishops (following the example of the Apostle Peter ), but we always had unmarried as well. The canon on excluding married bishops itself admits it is an innovation and has to explain itself.  It can also be removed, as later canons have replaced earlier ones before.  Remarriage of the divorced (there is doctrinally no such think as an ecclesiastical divorce) innocent party happened in the early Church.  Present day abuse of that economy does not void the dogma, just reveal a lack of discipline.

What we don't have, despite the Holy Theotokos, the deaconness, the female bishops of Gnostics and other groups, the priestesses of the pagans, etc. is the Church ordaining women (at least not under the influence ).  So those in favor of ordaining woman to the episcopate (the real issue) have to show that the male priesthood has been a discipline, and not a dogma, and also why said discipline has been in place and why should it be changed.

 

[Irish Hermit]

The early Church knew schismatic groups which ordained women, principally the Montanists and the Church early on formulated canons against the practice.  It is not a new problem.

Saint Augustine writes:  "The Quintillians [Montanists] are heretics who give women predominance so that these, too, can be honoured with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself to Quintilla and Priscilla in the form of a woman"  -"Heresies" 1:17. 

Saint Irenaeus writes:  ""Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, Marcus the Gnostic heretic contrives to give them a purple and reddish color. Handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence."  - "Against Heresies"  1:13:2.

Epiphanius of Salamis: ""If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good."

Canon 11 from the Council of Laodicea in 360:  "The so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church."

This is just a fraction of the material on priestesses in the early Church.  "Women and the Priesthood" addresses the issue.

 

[StGeorge]

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

I would probably be more able to think this if there were any other examples of mothers of Bishops of Rome or anywhere being given honorary titles.
I think we create problems when we project on to history what we think "ought" to have happened. As I said: the only honest answer I can give with the evidence at hand is "I don't know" why she bears the title "Episcopa". If I knew of another example of a woman being called "Episcopa" in the Church, then I could at least hazard a guess, but the only examples I know of are female Bishops in gnostic sects. I think we need to leave the jury out on this one for the time being.

I'm not saying necessarily, but I think it important to note that her son, the bishop of Rome, commissioned the mosaics, which were done while both he and his mother were still living.  He oversaw their completion which included the title to the mosaic of his mother in the chapel he created for her. 

Which title (if any) would Pope Paschal have for his still-living mother?  In my last post I implied that it would seem natural for a son, much more the bishop of Rome, to honor his still-living mother with a title.  Perhaps he could have gotten away with a mere "Theodora".   

In short, I think that in addition to a focus on the etymology of "episcopa", attention needs be given to the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the mosaic.  From a quick search, there do appear to exist contemporary sources on Pope Paschal's building campaign, which may shed light on this mystery.   

I'm not knowledgeable of "episcopa" being used for the wives or mothers of bishops.  It may be that it was used but meant something different from how the gnostic sects centuries back used it. 


 

 

[lubeltri]

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.

I should think, if all other arguments failed, there remain aesthetic reasons against women's ordination:

 

[StGeorge]

While some may not see it as a big deal, the rules concerning menstruation and reception of the Eucharist would also be a consideration against the ordination of women to the priesthood.   

 

[ozgeorge]

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Even the Vatican makes the distinction between dogma and discipline.  The question is, which is the male priesthood.  Yes we had married bishops (following the example of the Apostle Peter ), but we always had unmarried as well. The canon on excluding married bishops itself admits it is an innovation and has to explain itself.  It can also be removed, as later canons have replaced earlier ones before.

So do I understand from this that you hold that a future Synod has the can have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Remarriage of the divorced (there is doctrinally no such think as an ecclesiastical divorce) innocent party happened in the early Church.

There is such a thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, and it is a requirement if either party wishes to remarry: http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/livinganorthodoxlife/lawsandregulations/divorce . If there were no such thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, then all who remarry in the Church would be bigamists. 

Present day abuse of that economy does not void the dogma, just reveal a lack of discipline.

Economy is the "way in which the Canons are applied or relaxed", however, the permitting of second and third marriages in the Orthodox Church are based on Canon IV of St. Basil the Great in Epistle 188 (aka "First Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius") which was ratified at the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils:
"In the case of those who marry a third time they laid down the same guide, in proportion, as in the case of marrying a second time; namely one year for the second marriage; for a third marriage men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of a third marriage we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance."
So the permitting of remarriage is not an "Economy", but is Canonical.

 

[lubeltri]

While some may not see it as a big deal, the rules concerning menstruation and reception of the Eucharist would also be a consideration against the ordination of women to the priesthood.   

Maybe not. Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.  

 

[ialmisry]

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

I would probably be more able to think this if there were any other examples of mothers of Bishops of Rome or anywhere being given honorary titles.
I think we create problems when we project on to history what we think "ought" to have happened. As I said: the only honest answer I can give with the evidence at hand is "I don't know" why she bears the title "Episcopa". If I knew of another example of a woman being called "Episcopa" in the Church, then I could at least hazard a guess, but the only examples I know of are female Bishops in gnostic sects. I think we need to leave the jury out on this one for the time being.

I'm not saying necessarily, but I think it important to note that her son, the bishop of Rome, commissioned the mosaics, which were done while both he and his mother were still living.  He oversaw their completion which included the title to the mosaic of his mother in the chapel he created for her. 

Which title (if any) would Pope Paschal have for his still-living mother?  In my last post I implied that it would seem natural for a son, much more the bishop of Rome, to honor his still-living mother with a title.  Perhaps he could have gotten away with a mere "Theodora".   

In short, I think that in addition to a focus on the etymology of "episcopa", attention needs be given to the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the mosaic.  From a quick search, there do appear to exist contemporary sources on Pope Paschal's building campaign, which may shed light on this mystery.   

I'm not knowledgeable of "episcopa" being used for the wives or mothers of bishops.  It may be that it was used but meant something different from how the gnostic sects centuries back used it. 


 

You have hit on the problem: since a man isn't supposed to be less than 30 when ordained a priest (Christ's age at baptism), and life expectancy being what it was, how many mothers of bishops, let alone patriarchs (often requiring more time to achieve that recognition), ever lived to see their son hold high office?

How is St. Emily treated/entitled, who was buried with her husband, the bishop St. Basil the Elder, commorated with her son St. Basil on Jan 1, or May 8/30 with her husand (and mother in law St. Macrina the Elder)?

 

[Andrew21091]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

 

[ozgeorge]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

Lets hope that if an Orthodox Synod permits the ordination of women Priests that they have better dress and furniture sense.

 

[ozgeorge]

Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.

What do you mean? Are all post menopausal women "bitter"?

 

[ialmisry]

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Even the Vatican makes the distinction between dogma and discipline.  The question is, which is the male priesthood.  Yes we had married bishops (following the example of the Apostle Peter ), but we always had unmarried as well. The canon on excluding married bishops itself admits it is an innovation and has to explain itself.  It can also be removed, as later canons have replaced earlier ones before.

So do I understand from this that you hold that a future Synod has the can have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Only if it is a matter of discipline, and not dogma, now.

Remarriage of the divorced (there is doctrinally no such think as an ecclesiastical divorce) innocent party happened in the early Church.

There is such a thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, and it is a requirement if either party wishes to remarry: http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/livinganorthodoxlife/lawsandregulations/divorce . If there were no such thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, then all who remarry in the Church would be bigamists.

The ecclesiastical divorce is a creation from when the state abolished civil marriage (in most cases, by the Emperor Leo I believe.  In the case of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, it happened with the imposition (and creation) of Islamic law), leaving the Church in charge of marital matters.  The OCA's Statue sums up the Traditional Orthodox attitude of the matter:

Special Procedure for Marital Problems
Whenever the parish priest is unable, through pastoral counseling, to prevent the dissolution of a marriage and the conflict results in a civil divorce and if the interested persons themselves seek from the Church a definition of their status as divorcees, a petition is filed with the Diocesan Court, which examines the documents and makes a new attempt at reconciling the parties.
If the reconciliation fails, the court shall come to a final decision. In issuing its opinion, the court may recommend that penance be imposed by the bishop upon the guilty party/-ies. On the basis of this court decision, the bishop issues the following statement:

"Having heard the conclusion of the Diocesan Court of the _____ Diocese concerning the judgment of divorce rendered by the _____ Court of _____ dissolving the marriage between (Name) _____ and (Name) _____ celebrated at _____ on _____, I,_____, Bishop of _____ hereby acknowledge the conclusion of the civil court as final. [Invoking God's mercy and compassion, I allow (Name) _____ to enter into a new marital union with (Name) _____ and receive the sacraments of the Church starting on _____."

Remarriage is the only time when this becomes an issue at which time the Church has to render a definitive answer.  A vestige of this is that the Vatican's corban factory, otherwise known as the Marriage Tribunal, won't hear a case until a civil divorce has been issued, although they don't "recognize divorce."

Present day abuse of that economy does not void the dogma, just reveal a lack of discipline.

Economy is the "way in which the Canons are applied or relaxed", however, the permitting of second and third marriages in the Orthodox Church are based on Canon IV of St. Basil the Great in Epistle 188 (aka "First Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius") which was ratified at the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils:
"In the case of those who marry a third time they laid down the same guide, in proportion, as in the case of marrying a second time; namely one year for the second marriage; for a third marriage men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of a third marriage we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance."
So the permitting of remarriage is not an "Economy", but is Canonical.

Economia has to do with application of the Canons, as does stictness (akrivia), the Canons themselves codifyng dogma.

 

[Andrew21091]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

Lets hope that if an Orthodox Synod permits the ordination of women Priests that they have better dress and furniture sense.

I really don't think a Synod will permit it. If it does, then the Church will face so many more problems I think. More schisms most likely. May God not permit it.

 

[ialmisry]

Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.

What do you mean? Are all post menopausal women "bitter"?

Some are bitter before. And many men are bitter from birth.

One woman who wasn't bitter was the Khouriyeh of our first priest: she was the only candidate for ordination the impressed our present priest when he served on the review board at the Episocapal seminary.  But she converted to Orthodoxy while studying for the priesthood, and our present priest, who had by then already become (self-described) "recovering Episcopalian" with the cure of Orthodoxy introduced her to our first priest who was pastoring a Bible study at Wheaton College into Orthodoxy (now All Saints). Memory eternal to Khouriyeh April!

 

[lubeltri]

Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.

What do you mean? Are all post menopausal women "bitter"?

No. Most aren't. The old women whining about not being allowed to become "priests" tend to be, though. They could easily become Episcopalians and get their "ordinations," but they would rather stay and complain.

 

[Myrrh23]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

Why is their dress horrifying to you? I don't see any rainbows.
I understand where you're coming from, though---these Catholic(?) women have carried on doing priestly things while ignoring their Church's commands to stop. They might disagree with the whole "no ordination of women", but to go ahead and disobey seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the issue. Why tear down something you supposedly love just to have your own way? I would think the Holy Spirit would eventually persuade those in charge towards their cause if it had God's blessing.

 

[ozgeorge]

Further on the "Episcopa Theodora" issue: I just checked the Liber Pontificalis ("Book of the Popes"), and Pope Paschal I's father's name is recorded in there as being "Bonosus" with no honorific or title, therefore it is unlikely that he was a Bishop and that "Espicopa Theodora" had the title as a result of being a Bishop's wife.

 

[Andrew21091]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

Why is their dress horrifying to you? I don't see any rainbows.
I understand where you're coming from, though---these Catholic(?) women have carried on doing priestly things while ignoring their Church's commands to stop. They might disagree with the whole "no ordination of women", but to go ahead and disobey seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the issue. Why tear down something you supposively love just to have your own way? I would think the Holy Spirit would eventually pursuade those in charge towards their cause if it had God's blessing.

You don't see any rainbows? What color do you call that around their necks?  

 

[Myrrh23]

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.

Why is their dress horrifying to you? I don't see any rainbows.
I understand where you're coming from, though---these Catholic(?) women have carried on doing priestly things while ignoring their Church's commands to stop. They might disagree with the whole "no ordination of women", but to go ahead and disobey seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the issue. Why tear down something you supposively love just to have your own way? I would think the Holy Spirit would eventually pursuade those in charge towards their cause if it had God's blessing.

You don't see any rainbows? What color do you call that around their necks?  

The person holding up the something in the first pic is a woman?? I thought it was Gerard Depardieu! :-\ 

 

[ozgeorge]

Oh great, the "OMG! Look at these pictures!" mob has arrived essentially marking the end of intelligent discussion.
I'm outta here.

 

[Myrrh23]

Oh great, the "OMG! Look at these pictures!" mob has arrived essentially marking the end of intelligent discussion.
I'm outta here.

LOL! It's the stress from another go-around of discussing women priests, OzG! We need our Nelson moments to keep from fainting in horror about the encroachment of modernity!

 

[Andrew21091]

Forgive me.

Let's get back to the topic at hand. Shall we?

 

[stashko]

Correct me if im wrong ,But im beginning to think ,the ones that are against woman being ordained ever to the deaconate are converts to orthodoxy ,Its seems cradle orthodox majority don't mind that much ,,but welcome its, return to it ancient tradition of woman deaconesses....

 

[ialmisry]

Oh great, the "OMG! Look at these pictures!" mob has arrived essentially marking the end of intelligent discussion.
I'm outta here.

I actually went to google images to find a more dignified group of women "priests."  The selection, however, was more of the same and disappointing.

 

[LizaSymonenko]

Correct me if im wrong ,But im beginning to think ,the ones that are against woman being ordained ever to the deaconate are converts to orthodoxy ,Its seems cradle orthodox majority don't mind that much ,,but welcome its, return to it ancient tradition of woman deaconesses....

Well, I am cradle Orthodox - and if I may be bold enough to express my personal opinion, I am against anything that might rock the foundations of the Church.

Like I said before, what would be the benefit of having women serve as priests?

There are many, many other things women can do within the Church.

 

[lubeltri]

Lets hope that if an Orthodox Synod permits the ordination of women Priests that they have better dress and furniture sense.

Not a fan of surfboard decor, eh? 

I will say that among all priestesses I've seen, your own Rt. Rev. Kay Goldsworthy has probably the best taste.

 

[88Devin12]

stashko, I think the opposition is to female priestesses, not deaconesses. I haven't seen anyone on here argue against ordaining women as deacons.

 

[lubeltri]

Why is their dress horrifying to you? I don't see any rainbows.
I understand where you're coming from, though---these Catholic(?) women have carried on doing priestly things while ignoring their Church's commands to stop. They might disagree with the whole "no ordination of women", but to go ahead and disobey seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the issue. Why tear down something you supposedly love just to have your own way? I would think the Holy Spirit would eventually persuade those in charge towards their cause if it had God's blessing.

They might as well be drowning in that ocean behind them because they are excommunicated.

 

[ialmisry]

Why is their dress horrifying to you? I don't see any rainbows.
I understand where you're coming from, though---these Catholic(?) women have carried on doing priestly things while ignoring their Church's commands to stop. They might disagree with the whole "no ordination of women", but to go ahead and disobey seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater on the issue. Why tear down something you supposedly love just to have your own way? I would think the Holy Spirit would eventually persuade those in charge towards their cause if it had God's blessing.

They might as well be drowning in that ocean behind them because they are excommunicated.

No, because if they drown there is no chance to repent.

 

[monkvasyl]

Consecration of Bishops by one Bishop alone in the early Church of the British Isles

This has taken place in the history of the Russian Church Abroad, even within the last few decades, although the details have slipped into the irretrievable section of my memory banks.  If ROCORthodox is reading this he may have details.

That would be interesting, as the first bishop of America, Joasaph, was consecrated by the bishop of Irkutsk alone, under the direct instruction and blessing of the Holy Governing Synod. It is supposedly the only recorded time the Russian Church ordained a bishop with less than three bishops physically ordaining.

In reviewing the situation of the mission, in 1796, the Holy Synod created an auxiliary see in Alaska and elected Fr. Joasaph as Bishop of Kodiak. It was 1798 before news and instructions for his elevation reached him. For his elevation to bishop, Fr. Joasaph needed to return to Irkutsk, where he was consecrated on April 10, 1799. Bp. Joasaph's consecration was unusual in that, due to the isolation of Irkutsk from the Holy Synod, the Holy Synod provided instructions for Benjamin, Bishop of Irkutsk, to perform the consecration of Fr. Joasaph alone. Thus was recorded the only known situation in the history of the Church of Russia where an episcopal consecration was conducted by a single bishop.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joasaph_(Bolotov)_of_Kodiak

The letter of the Pope of Rome to St. Augustine would be akin to the orders of the Holy Synod.

And Fr. (to some St.) Joasaph never actually set foot in his diocese, as he died at sea.  I'm sure some would use this as Divine Intervention, because only 1 Bishop consecrated him.

 

[Sinner Servant]

Oh great, the "OMG! Look at these pictures!" mob has arrived essentially marking the end of intelligent discussion.
I'm outta here.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words!

 

[ozgeorge]

I am against anything that might rock the foundations of the Church.

So am I. But I think we have different views on what the foundations of the Church are.
The Foundation of the Church is Christ. Ordaining Deaconesses did not shake that Foundation. Receiving Communion via intinction and with a Spoon contrary to the Canons didn't shake that Foundation. Even permitting divorce and second and third marriages didn't shake that Foundation. And the reason they don't shake that foundation is because He said "What you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

LOL! It's the stress from another go-around of discussing women priests, OzG!

You clearly haven't been reading the thread. This isn't just about women Priests. It's about Church history, facts, hagiographies, documents, church art, the concept of binding and loosing and authority in the Church. But that's gone by the wayside now because people who think the sky is falling whenever a discussion takes place that presses a button in them causes them to react in ways to end the discussion. Why not discuss the points raised in the thread? What do you think of the accounts of St. Brigid in her 9th century hagiography? What do you think of the single-handed cheirotonia of Bishops? Do you think an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change Canons?
If you want to have fun, then Random Postings is a good place to go, but why do you have to disrupt threads where people are having discussions just because you are not interested in the discussion?

 

[Elpidophoros]

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.

Pope Parthenios is dead.Θεὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νεκρῶν, ἀλλὰ ζώντων· 

 

[LizaSymonenko]

I still don't see a reason why the Orthodox Church should ordain women priests.  

As for the foundation, yes, it is Christ.

However, you start splitting up the faithful, for whatever reason, the Church will weaken.

Why bother taking that chance?

 

[88Devin12]

ozgeorge, are you supporting women priestesses? I don't get it, who here is supporting what? I'm so confused!

 

[ozgeorge]

I still don't see a reason why the Orthodox Church should ordain women priests.  

As for the foundation, yes, it is Christ.

However, you start splitting up the faithful, for whatever reason, the Church will weaken.

Why bother taking that chance?

Lisa, I'm talking about a future Synod (as in about 300 years time) examining the issue of women's ordination. You and I and your children and grandchildren will be long dead. How can you be sure that the issue will "split up the faithful" in that time? Did Deaconesses split the Church? Did removing Deaconesses split the Church? Did reinstating Deaconesses split the Church? Did forbidding Bishops to marry even though Scripture permits them to marry split the Church? Different times, different mentalities in the Church.
What I'm really interested in though is not "should they?" but "can they?" and "has it happened before?". There is no assurance of "safety" in not asking questions and examining the answers- even if we don't like them. But statements such as "I think..." or "In my opinion..." or "I agree...." or "I disagree...." do not constitute answers- they are just bloody opinion, and everyone has one- including me. So what? Where have we got to if a thread consists of:
"I agree"
"I disagree"
"I agree"
"So do I"
"I disagree"
Who cares? Do you honestly care what I "feel" about any issue? Do you think that I'm the slightest bit interested in what anyone "feels" about an issue?  What I'm interested in is the issue. I'm sensitive to people's feelings, for sure, and I try not to hurt people's feelings, but if examining issues hurts people's feelings then I think those feelings need to be challenged.