Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
ozgeorge said:
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.
Actually, yes, I do care what you think.  I learn a lot from the folks on this forum and from what they "think".

I cannot say what will happen 100's of years hence...however, my original question (again, if I dare ask one) is WHY ordain women as priests?  To what end?
Deacons is one thing, priests is another.

That's a valid question in search of a reason...that's not an opinion or a "feeling".

 

Andrew21091

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I say if you let one Protestant invention in the Church (women priests) then others will follow. Why should the Church change to conform with worldly views of political correctness?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
41
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Andrew21091 said:
I say if you let one Protestant invention in the Church (women priests) then others will follow. Why should the Church change to conform with worldly views of political correctness?
If the Church were to change its view on ordaining women as priests (or something similar), I can guarantee it would not be to "conform with worldly views of political correctness" or to "let one Protestant invention in the Church."  It's a large enough issue that there would be an intrinsic reason for its implementation.  Would you be opposed to that reason without hearing it first?

(No, I'm not advocating ordaining women as priests; I never have advocated such a thing.)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
LizaSymonenko said:
ozgeorge said:
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.
Actually, yes, I do care what you think.  I learn a lot from the folks on this forum and from what they "think".
Why did you read "think" when I wrote "feel"?
What I feel and what I think are completely different things.
And the confusion of the two are the cause of many problems.
My feelings are not my thoughts....and neither are yours.

LizaSymonenko said:
I cannot say what will happen 100's of years hence...however, my original question (again, if I dare ask one) is WHY ordain women as priests?  To what end?
Perhaps a future shortage of Priests? Perhaps a series of future scandals of male priests in convents requiring women to serve there? Most likely though, a future change in attitude and culture in the Church which finds the idea of women Priests more acceptable than we do.

LizaSymonenko said:
Deacons is one thing, priests is another.
I'm not sure what the point here is.
 

stashko

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
4,994
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
stashko, I think the opposition is to female priestesses, not deaconesses. I haven't seen anyone on here argue against ordaining women as deacons.
Orthodoxy will never go for woman priests ,,,but deaconesses are ordained holy orders like a male deacon so they are considered clergy but not priests....And im sure orthodox woman wouldn't look at being ordained as deaconess as a stepping stone to the priesthood...Orthodox woman are smarter than that, we should give them more credit...

It seems the catholic woman are pushing more into becoming priests but that has nothing to do with us or does it...

African Hierarch proposes to re-discuss ordination of women maybe not as priests or bishops but only as female deacons like in the ancient church....has anyone actually found out what he really meant by this...
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge, I'm at work, I can't read every post that is on here.
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
ozgeorge said:
Why did you read "think" when I wrote "feel"?
What I feel and what I think are completely different things.
And the confusion of the two are the cause of many problems.
My feelings are not my thoughts....and neither are yours.
I care for what it is you "feel", as well as what you "think".

;)

 

MLPB

Member
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
LizaSymonenko said:
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.
Interesting.  Here we have an issue where the Latins are apparently more conservative since the Latin church has authoritatively said that women cannot be priests (obviously there is dissent, but that's another issue).  The conservative east - as represented on this forum - seem to be saying it's still an open issue.  Will wonders ever cease!
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
LizaSymonenko said:
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."

Myrrh23 said:
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?
My apologies! I meant no aggravation! I do understand where you're coming from, and I thank you for the discipline.
As for what I think, even though I am a Catechuman and have not read a whole lot concerning church history or church law, I personally think that we should keep to Tradition. It's what seems to have made the Orthodox Church the place to get away from the influence of the world, yet at the same time preparing disciples to handle the world in order to spread the Gospel. I'm not sure how commonplace it has become, but I think the Orthodox Church should take a hint from those leaving churches where Tradition has changed in favor of what the world wants for those religious institutions that have managed to keep to Tradition. I'm not sure if an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change Canons, but the idea is interesting. Has this ever happened before? Truly, I'd appreciate your patience with my question. :)
 

Aristobolus

Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
138
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Is this an "open question" with us today being "ignorant" of its future application?  Only if the Church has been mired in ignorance for two thousand years.  The means of receiving the sacraments (hand/spoon), the ordering of our prayers withing offices of the Church, or the colors of our vestments may change ever so slowly (or even at  times in rapid fashion due to things such as invasion or the like); but humanity does not change- "Male and Female He created them".
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Elpidophoros said:
ialmisry said:
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·  :D
The proper phrase is Memory Eternal!

Somebody gotta get you an English Bible.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
ozgeorge said:
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.
My dear ozgeorge, please do not denigrate iconography by calling it mere "church art".
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
41
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
LBK said:
ozgeorge said:
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.
My dear ozgeorge, please do not denigrate iconography by calling it mere "church art".
He may have used the term to include both proper Iconography and other non-Iconographic pictorial depictions.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,642
Reaction score
1
Points
36
cleveland said:
LBK said:
ozgeorge said:
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.
My dear ozgeorge, please do not denigrate iconography by calling it mere "church art".
He may have used the term to include both proper Iconography and other non-Iconographic pictorial depictions.
To be fair, let ozgeorge answer that, lest he accuse either of us of putting words in his mouth.  ;)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Aristobolus said:
but humanity does not change- "Male and Female He created them".
Actually, in Christ, Humanity does change:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)


LBK said:
My dear ozgeorge, please do not denigrate iconography by calling it mere "church art".
Interesting, considering that the mosaic in question on this thread depicts a person who was alive when it was completed. I seem to recall you have quite a strict view of what constitutes an Icon- apparently it now includes depictions of living women with square haloes and the inscribed title "Episcopa" ("Bishopess"). Congratulations on broadening your horizons. LOL! :D
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Myrrh23 said:
I'm not sure if an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change Canons, but the idea is interesting. Has this ever happened before? Truly, I'd appreciate your patience with my question. :)
These are some of the same questions I am asking on this thread, so I don't have any definitive answers yet, but I think the answer is a "yes, but". Canons can be (and have been) changed and revoked, but they cannot be changed if they deal with Christian Dogma. For example, the Nicene-Constantinoplian Symbol of Faith (Creed) cannot be changed even by an Ecumenical Council since it is a statement of Dogma. Similarly, the Canons dealing with the Two Natures, Two Wills etc cannot be changed because they are also Dogmatic (however I think there may be a question whether the Canonical anathemas related to these Dogmas can be lifted, since it does not affect the Dogma). So I think the question we need to examine is whether the exclusion of women from the Priesthood and Episcopate is a matter of Dogma or not. For example, as we saw in this thread, it has been suggested that the Priest at the Altar is the image of God the Father or God the Son (which I and others disagreed with), but if this was correct, one could argue that a woman cannot be a Priest according to Dogma since a woman cannot be a Father or a Son and therefore cannot be the image of God the Father or Christ. But as pointed out, if the Priest is offering Christ to God at the Altar, how can he represent either Christ or the Father?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ozgeorge said:
Myrrh23 said:
I'm not sure if an Ecumenical Council has the authority to change Canons, but the idea is interesting. Has this ever happened before? Truly, I'd appreciate your patience with my question. :)
These are some of the same questions I am asking on this thread, so I don't have any definitive answers yet, but I think the answer is a "yes, but". Canons can be (and have been) changed and revoked, but they cannot be changed if they deal with Christian Dogma. For example, the Nicene-Constantinoplian Symbol of Faith (Creed) cannot be changed even by an Ecumenical Council since it is a statement of Dogma. Similarly, the Canons dealing with the Two Nature, Two Wills etc cannot be changed because they are also Dogmatic (however I think there may be a question whether the Canonical anathemas related to these Dogmas can be lifted, since it does not affect the Dogma). So I think the question we need to examine is whether the exclusion of women from the Priesthood and Episcopate is a matter of Dogma or not. For example, as we saw in this thread, it has been suggested that the Priest at the Altar is the image of God the Father or God the Son (which I and others disagreed with), but if this was correct, one could argue that a woman cannot be a Priest according to Dogma since a woman cannot be a Father or a Son and therefore cannot be the image of God the Father or Christ. But as pointed out, if the Priest is offering Christ to the God at the Altar, how can he represent either Christ or the Father?
I should add that even if a Canon does not yet exist giving a dogmatic reason for the exclusion of women from the Priesthood and Episcopate, doesn't mean the Dogma does not exist.
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't believe we Orthodox should think of the priest or anyone else as playing the role of Christ at the altar, as we are to call no man our Father, according to the Bible. I've always thought Orthodoxy saw the priest as a leader towards Christ, a kind of intercessor, as the Mother interceded in the Wedding at Cana. It's Roman Catholicism that views the priest as standing in the stead of Christ at the altar, hence their argument why women can't be priests. As for the Apostles being men and not women, I've always thought the reason for that was because of the patriarchal societies that Jesus dealt with on a daily basis, although there were female prophets in the OT, so.... ???
I said no to female priests because I like how preserved the Orthodox Church is. I don't want it to lose that. I think many of us here see the pearl of great price that the Orthodox Church is, so that's why many of us immediately panic when these types of discussions arise, although panicking shares the same face as worrying--it will not add another minute to our lives.
Since we are all suppose to be of one priesthood, I wonder what more women could do in the Church? After all, wasn't the Mother of God present at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit ascended on Her and the Apostles? Perhaps our roles are not limited just to motherhood?

Sorry if I went all over the place. I'm currently doing the Raw Food Diet, so my concentration isn't up to speed. Doctor's orders... :p
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Myrrh23 said:
I said no to female priests because I like how preserved the Orthodox Church is. I don't want it to lose that. I think many of us here see the pearl of great price that the Orthodox Church is, so that's why many of us immediately panic when these types of discussions arise, although panicking shares the same face as worrying--it will not add another minute to our lives.
I understand reactions like that, but this is why I think we need to separate feelings and thinking. My feelings on an issue are dictated by my subjective experiences and learned behaviour. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with feelings, but feelings are not thoughts and they certainly are not dogmas. So let's look at the concept of the Church being "preserved"- what does this mean? Is it "preserved" the way an an Egyptian corpse is mummified? Is it "preserved" like a fossil or a petrified tree? Is it preserved the way a pickle is preserved? Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.

Myrrh23 said:
Since we are all suppose to be of one priesthood, I wonder what more women could do in the Church? After all, wasn't the Mother of God present at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit ascended on Her and the Apostles? Perhaps our roles are not limited just to motherhood?
The Church has never restricted the role of women to marriage and motherhood. One need only look at the examples of some of the valiant women of the Church- St. Paraskevi of Rome, St. Irene Chrysovolantu, St. Thekla, St. Nina, St. Philothei of Athens to name only a few. We also have the examples of contemporary Eldresses like Gerontissa Gavrielia. Gerontissa Dorothea. None of these women were married or had children.
 

lubeltri

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
3,794
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Archdiocese of Boston
ozgeorge said:
Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.
Hear, hear. Now you're starting to sound like a Catholic.  :)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
lubeltri said:
ozgeorge said:
Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.
Hear, hear. Now you're starting to sound like a Catholic.  :)
How so? Isn't the rock your Church is founded on supposed to be St. Peter?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Myrrh23 said:
Since we are all suppose to be of one priesthood, I wonder what more women could do in the Church? After all, wasn't the Mother of God present at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit ascended on Her and the Apostles? Perhaps our roles are not limited just to motherhood?
The Church has never restricted the role of women to marriage and motherhood. One need only look at the examples of some of the valiant women of the Church- St. Paraskevi of Rome, St. Irene Chrysovolantu, St. Thekla, St. Nina, St. Philothei of Athens to name only a few. We also have the examples of contemporary Eldresses like Gerontissa Gavrielia. Gerontissa Dorothea. None of these women were married or had children.
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years. We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us. This new innovation of female priesthood within Christianity has only really taken prominence in the last 50 years. That is 1/4% of the total time Christianity has been around. This is simply (in my humble opinion) a fad that will die out in 100-200 years.
We should not act on things that may not last forever. The Church acted on heresies such as Arianism & Nestorianism because they were VERY threatening and lasted for decades (and even hundreds of years, existing still today). This "issue" has been around (that is, in force) for only about 50 years. Give it time, don't react just because the world thinks we ought to do as it wills.
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
lubeltri said:
ozgeorge said:
Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.
Hear, hear. Now you're starting to sound like a Catholic.  :)
The RC's Foundation should be on Christ, not the Pope. Your Popes and their underlings have not only made drastic and unpleasant changes to dogma and tradition, but have taken an wrecking ball to the trusts of the Bride by sweeping the sex scandal under the rug. I think he sounds nothing like a Catholic. My apologies for offense, lubeltri.

 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
lubeltri said:
ozgeorge said:
Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.
Hear, hear. Now you're starting to sound like a Catholic.  :)
How so? Isn't the rock your Church is founded on supposed to be St. Peter?
Myrrh23 said:
lubeltri said:
ozgeorge said:
Or is it "preserved" in the same way that a old living tree or vine preserves the same DNA from the same Seed while growing towards the Sun and spreading it's branches for the birds to nest in, producing fragrant blossoms and fruit for the benefit of the Cosmos, shedding it's leaves when it needs to protect itself and sprouting new ones when the conditions are right....? 
I think the latter. Our beautiful Liturgies did not descend from heaven on a parachute, they developed over time and history and in particular circumstances. Would there be an Akathist Hymn if there had been no Constantinople? Would there have been an Elevation of the Cross had St. Helen not found it? The Church grows and develops and continues to do so. The unchanging thing about the Church is her sure Foundation on Christ, and its this sure Foundation which allows her to grow.
Hear, hear. Now you're starting to sound like a Catholic.  :)
The RC's Foundation should be on Christ, not the Pope. Your Popes not only have made drastic and unpleasant changes to dogma and tradition, but have taken an wrecking ball to the trusts of the Bride by sweeping the sex scandal under the rug. I think he sounds nothing like a Catholic. My apologies for offense, lubeltri.
Please let's not turn this into a Catholic-bashing thread...
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
88Devin12 said:
This new innovation of female priesthood within Christianity has only really taken prominence in the last 50 years. That is 1/4% of the total time Christianity has been around. This is simply (in my humble opinion) a fad that will die out in 100-200 years.
By then, women priests might be the only way to shore up the numbers within the Church.  :p
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
88Devin12 said:
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years.
Well, some of them were clergy in that they were Deaconesses, and in the case of St. Brigid, she may have been a Bishop as we saw in this thread, but thats besides the point. I think if you read this thread, you will find that no one is arguing that women were Priestesses in the Church.

88Devin12 said:
We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us.
Has your Bishop ever been married? Why not? Our Holy Scripture demands that a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). Surely the Church did not adjust it's practices to forbid Bishops from marrying when Scripture clearly teaches they must be "the husband of one wife"? Why the change? What is the explanation?

88Devin12 said:
We should not act on things that may not last forever.
The Church does that all the time. Were Planned Giving and Stewardship always around? Are they universal practices? Why was this hideous innovation introduced in the Church in the US these last few decades? How dare the Church in the US react to something that has only been an issue for such a short time?
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Myrrh23 said:
lubeltri said:
Myrrh23 said:
The RC's Foundation should be on Christ, not the Pope.
That is where you are mistaken.
How so? Isn't he "Christ on Earth"?
This boring old discussion has occurred again and again on this forum, it is hardly "Christian News"...
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Nebelpfade said:
Myrrh23 said:
lubeltri said:
Myrrh23 said:
The RC's Foundation should be on Christ, not the Pope.
That is where you are mistaken.
How so? Isn't he "Christ on Earth"?
This boring old discussion has occurred again and again on this forum, it is hardly "Christian News"...
Yup....(puts train back on the right track)  :)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Nebelpfade said:
By then, women priests might be the only way to shore up the numbers within the Church.  :p
Well, I'm not sure the numbers issue should be a consideration, but I think there may have brought up something else to think about. Lets say the question is honestly and synodically examined by the Church, and it is found that there is no dogmatic reason for women not to be ordained to the priesthood, but it is the practice of the Church. That's fine for our generation, but if future generations see that the Church has no dogmatic reason to exclude women from the Priesthood, yet continues to exclude them, and society considers this unjust, should the Church take this in to consideration or not? While it's true that the Church's dogma and moral teaching should be "in the world but not of the world", does this mean that the Church should never consider the opinions of society? For instance, bonded slavery was acceptable in the New Testament, does this mean that the Church should forbid workers the right to strike or that slavery should be morally acceptable because the Church should not adjust it's teaching to the views of the world?
 

Myrrh23

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Perhaps we should balance the views of society and the world with Christ's teachings. Slavery was not in line with His two greatest commandments, so the Church could not honestly support it and claim to be the true Church of Christ. Perhaps we should consider what it means to have "new life" when we try to follow Christ--what changes are included in this life called Theosis.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Location
Canada
Clearly there are aspects of the Latin in persona Christi argument that the Orthodox cannot swallow, but there are parts of this argument that are really quite good and make even more sense in terms of the Byzantine liturgy when one compares it to the Latin rite.  When the priest is facing the altar, he is acting as the president of the assembly, on behalf of and with the people.  But more often than not, when he faces the people to bless, he does not say, as in the Latin Rite, "the peace of the Lord be always with you", but speaking directly as Christ did when he entered the locked room of the apostles, he exclaims "Peace be unto all"!  Here, he is clearly acting as Christ, in a way that is much more than simply "representing" Him. 

Christ and his early followers turned the world absolutely upside down when it came to treating women as people on the same level as men.  And not just people, but as part of the Royal priesthood!   (Really, all laity are priests, this is the true Christian priesthood.)  The ministerial "priesthood" (the presbyterate and the episcopacy) seems to have always been reserved for men.  If Christ had wanted women to be priests, it would have happened back in the days of the early Church, when He and his followers were turning everything else upside down in Jewish life and completely transforming it, with women being treated as persons, Jews being told that they had to welcome gentiles into their midst, eating all kinds of food deemed "unclean" beforehand, dispensing with all other Jewish ritual law, etc. etc.

If the Bishops and other representatives of the Church wish to  discuss this  issue at a great council, that will be their prerogative.  And if the great council decides that there is nothing to stop women from being priests and bishops, then that will be that, unless of course some decide that this is an illegitimate council.  From where I stand now, I think that it is very likely that I would see it in such a way.  But that is just from where I stand now.  Who knows.  For the moment, though, I will personally continue to see the idea of a female presbyterate as blasphemous.  But I think people should talk about it all they want.  Not that anyone should actually care about what I think.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
^Some interesting points. Thanks
I'm wondering though about how the Episcopate and Presbyteriate can be seperated as the "ministerial" ranks of the Clergy, when "Diakos" literally means "minister" and the Diaconate has Liturgical functions. I'm not sure these Liturgical functions of the different ranks of the Clergy have always been static. For example, What is now Chrisimation was a Mystery originally reserved for the Apostles and Bishops through the laying on of hands, and later became an anointing by the Priest with Chrism consecrated by the Bishops. The 14th century St. Nicholas Cabasilas wrote in "The Life In Christ" (a commentary on the Liturgical Life of the Church):
"‘Scripture says that the Spirit was given when the apostles laid hands upon those who had been initiated. Now too the Paraclete comes upon those who are being chrismated’" (Life in Christ 3:2)
So the different functions of the clergy seemed to develop and were not static.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Nebelpfade said:
88Devin12 said:
This new innovation of female priesthood within Christianity has only really taken prominence in the last 50 years. That is 1/4% of the total time Christianity has been around. This is simply (in my humble opinion) a fad that will die out in 100-200 years.
By then, women priests might be the only way to shore up the numbers within the Church.  :p
Yes, it has done wonders for the Anglicans.

Wait, those swelled numbers were those going over to Orthodoxy or the Vatican....or the Evangelicals..... :eek:
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
88Devin12 said:
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years.
Well, some of them were clergy in that they were Deaconesses, and in the case of St. Brigid, she may have been a Bishop as we saw in this thread, but thats besides the point. I think if you read this thread, you will find that no one is arguing that women were Priestesses in the Church.

88Devin12 said:
We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us.
Has your Bishop ever been married? Why not? Our Holy Scripture demands that a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). Surely the Church did not adjust it's practices to forbid Bishops from marrying when Scripture clearly teaches they must be "the husband of one wife"? Why the change? What is the explanation?
The bishop who wrote that and the bishop he wrote to were not married.


 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ialmisry said:
ozgeorge said:
88Devin12 said:
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years.
Well, some of them were clergy in that they were Deaconesses, and in the case of St. Brigid, she may have been a Bishop as we saw in this thread, but thats besides the point. I think if you read this thread, you will find that no one is arguing that women were Priestesses in the Church.

88Devin12 said:
We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us.
Has your Bishop ever been married? Why not? Our Holy Scripture demands that a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). Surely the Church did not adjust it's practices to forbid Bishops from marrying when Scripture clearly teaches they must be "the husband of one wife"? Why the change? What is the explanation?
The bishop who wrote that and the bishop he wrote to were not married.
Does that changes the fact that Bishops were originally permitted to marry in the Church by a Scriptural instruction which was later over-ruled by the Church?
Or is your point that you think St. Paul and St. Timothy are hypocrites?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
ozgeorge said:
88Devin12 said:
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years.
Well, some of them were clergy in that they were Deaconesses, and in the case of St. Brigid, she may have been a Bishop as we saw in this thread, but thats besides the point. I think if you read this thread, you will find that no one is arguing that women were Priestesses in the Church.

88Devin12 said:
We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us.
Has your Bishop ever been married? Why not? Our Holy Scripture demands that a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). Surely the Church did not adjust it's practices to forbid Bishops from marrying when Scripture clearly teaches they must be "the husband of one wife"? Why the change? What is the explanation?
The bishop who wrote that and the bishop he wrote to were not married.
Does that changes the fact that Bishops were originally permitted to marry in the Church by a Scriptural instruction which was later over-ruled by the Church?
Or is your point that you think St. Paul and St. Timothy are hypocrites?
No. No. But I've seen the Protestants argue, as your line seems to imply, that a bishop MUST have a wife, not be the husband of one wife (and no more).  The celibate bishop was there from the beginning, along with the married.  The woman bishop was no where to be found.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
ialmisry said:
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
ozgeorge said:
88Devin12 said:
Also, none of those women were Priestesses. They were able to serve the Church outside of the Holy Priesthood, just as millions of Orthodox women have done for 2000 years.
Well, some of them were clergy in that they were Deaconesses, and in the case of St. Brigid, she may have been a Bishop as we saw in this thread, but thats besides the point. I think if you read this thread, you will find that no one is arguing that women were Priestesses in the Church.

88Devin12 said:
We should not give in to something just because it's demanded or encouraged by the society and culture that is around us.
Has your Bishop ever been married? Why not? Our Holy Scripture demands that a Bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2). Surely the Church did not adjust it's practices to forbid Bishops from marrying when Scripture clearly teaches they must be "the husband of one wife"? Why the change? What is the explanation?
The bishop who wrote that and the bishop he wrote to were not married.
Does that changes the fact that Bishops were originally permitted to marry in the Church by a Scriptural instruction which was later over-ruled by the Church?
Or is your point that you think St. Paul and St. Timothy are hypocrites?
No. No. But I've seen the Protestants argue, as your line seems to imply, that a bishop MUST have a wife, not be the husband of one wife (and no more).  The celibate bishop was there from the beginning, along with the married. 
No. The point is that a married man could be a Bishop in the Early Church (as ratified by Scripture), but a married man can no longer be a Bishop in the Church as decreed by the Church. If you go back in the thread, you'll see that I use it as an example of how the Church can "bind and loose".

ialmisry said:
The woman bishop was no where to be found.
Until St. Brigid possibly. ;)
 
Top