Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
While we are at it, why not decide if we can ordain Mr. Spock?
Well, one reason not to consider the question of ordaining Mr. Spock at the Holy Synod is that he is a fictitious character in a television series and movies.
Women are not fictitious characters. They are actual human beings like us and members of the Body of Christ.
Women are real.  It is the question of ordaining them which is fictitious.
Are Deaconesses fictitious?
No, but women bishops are.
 

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
pensateomnia said:
ozgeorge said:
Not having the issue of Women's Ordination on the agenda for the Great and Holy Council can only be interpreted in one way
Correct. That such was a total non-issue in November of 1976, when the first Pre-Conciliar Consultation met in Switzerland, almost two years before the Lambeth Conference accepted female ordination.
I didn't realise the Lambeth Conference accepted women's ordination that early. Do you know what might have happened to change things in the space of less than 2 years?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
pensateomnia said:
ozgeorge said:
Not having the issue of Women's Ordination on the agenda for the Great and Holy Council can only be interpreted in one way
Correct. That such was a total non-issue in November of 1976, when the first Pre-Conciliar Consultation met in Switzerland, almost two years before the Lambeth Conference accepted female ordination.
I didn't realise the Lambeth Conference accepted women's ordination that early. Do you know what might have happened to change things in the space of less than 2 years?
Idle curiosity, academic pinheads, and committees. And cultural fashion.

Btw
Florence Li Tim-Oi (Chinese: 李添嬡 Cantonese Lei Tim'oi, Mandarin Li Tian'ai; 5 May 1907 in Hong Kong – 26 February 1992 in Toronto) was the first woman to be ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Communion. Already appointed as a deacon to serve in the colony of Macau at the Macau Protestant Chapel, she was ordained priest on 25 January 1944, by the Bishop of Hong Kong, in response to the crisis among Anglican Christians in China caused by the Japanese invasion. Since it was to be thirty years before any Anglican church regularised the ordination of women, her ordination was controversial and she resigned her licence (though not her priestly orders) after the end of the war. When Hong Kong ordained two further women priests in 1971, she was officially recognised as a priest in the diocese. She was appointed an honorary (nonstipendiary) assistant priest in Toronto in 1983.

In 2003, the Episcopal Church USA fixed January 24 as her feast day in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, based on the eve of the anniversary of her ordination.[1] In 2007, the entire Anglican Communion celebrated the Centennial of her birth.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Tim-Oi
 

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:
Idle curiosity, academic pinheads, and committees. And cultural fashion.
^Do you have any facts to back that up ialmisry? Because if it's just what you feel- I couldn't care less.

ozgeorge said:
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.
ozgeorge said:
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?

 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
Idle curiosity, academic pinheads, and committees. And cultural fashion.
^Do you have any facts to back that up ialmisry? Because if it's just what you feel- I couldn't care less.
It is near enough as good enough as what the ever-memorable Fr Alexander Schmeman wrote to the Anglicans in his ever-memorable letter "Concerning Women's Ordination -a letter to an episcopal friend

Here is his letter in message 45

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22594.msg344530.html#msg344530
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
I didn't realise the Lambeth Conference accepted women's ordination that early. Do you know what might have happened to change things in the space of less than 2 years?
Not sure what you mean. FYI, the Lambeth Conference only happens every 10 years or so.

The first Pre-Conciliar Consultation in 1976 was a Pan-Orthodox event, during which the agenda was set for discussion leading up to a Great and Holy Council. Most pressing issues included the Paschalion, the Calendar in general, fasting, the diaspora, ecumenism, etc. That agenda is still the guiding force behind preparations.

As for the Anglicans: They had passed several resolutions relating to female ordination at the previous Lambeth Conference in 1968. Typical Anglican tact, in which they stated there were no good theological reasons to bar the practice -- but we're not endorsing the practice, just recommending more discussion -- and, oh, by the way, if any province goes ahead and ordains anyway, please wait for approval from X Committee or something. As far as I know, nothing much happened outside of academic debate, until 1974, when some females were irregularly ordained in the U.S, then in 1975 the Canadians made it officially ok, and, finally, in 1976, the Episcopal Church(USA) followed suit, with a decree that said something like "no one can be denied access" to the three priestly orders.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
Idle curiosity, academic pinheads, and committees. And cultural fashion.
^Do you have any facts to back that up ialmisry? Because if it's just what you feel- I couldn't care less.
ozgeorge said:
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.
ozgeorge said:
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?
We have to care because not just the bishops but the laity too have been charged with safeguarding the holy tradition (refer to Saint Maximus the Confessor and the hordes of unwashed monks who would charge out of the deserts to harass the bishops and agitate for right doctrine at Ecumenical Councils.)    It has always been my understanding that the Apostolic period (which is sans female priests) is normative for the Church (or is that another wrong notion I imbibed in my grasshopper days?  :laugh:)

Sometimes/often the laity do not have the theological background and terminology to expres their faith but they do have the "right feeling" for it and know when bishops are moving out of the tradition on a particular theme and into territory which could shipwreck the ship of the Church.
 

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
pensateomnia said:
ozgeorge said:
I didn't realise the Lambeth Conference accepted women's ordination that early. Do you know what might have happened to change things in the space of less than 2 years?
Not sure what you mean. FYI, the Lambeth Conference only happens every 10 years or so.

The first Pre-Conciliar Consultation in 1976 was a Pan-Orthodox event, during which the agenda was set for discussion leading up to a Great and Holy Council. Most pressing issues included the Paschalion, the Calendar in general, fasting, the diaspora, ecumenism, etc. That agenda is still the guiding force behind preparations.

As for the Anglicans: They had passed several resolutions relating to female ordination at the previous Lambeth Conference in 1968. Typical Anglican tact, in which they stated there were no good theological reasons to bar the practice -- but we're not endorsing the practice, just recommending more discussion -- and, oh, by the way, if any province goes ahead and ordains anyway, please wait for approval from X Committee or something. As far as I know, nothing much happened outside of academic debate, until 1974, when some females were irregularly ordained in the U.S, then in 1975 the Canadians made it officially ok, and, finally, in 1976, the Episcopal Church(USA) followed suit, with a decree that said something like "no one can be denied access" to the three priestly orders.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.  I thought the Pre-Concilliar consultation you mentioned was an Anglican preparation for the Lambeth Conference.
So am I right in understanding that the lead up in the case of the Anglican Communion was the Lambeth Conference of 1968 which saw no theological reasons to prevent the Ordination of women to the Priesthood?
Also hat do you mean by the "Typical Anglican Tact?" The fact that the '68 Lambeth Conference came to this conclusion, or the way in which women Priests were ordained (irregularly at first)?
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Irish Hermit said:
Sometimes/often the laity do not have the theological background and terminology to express their faith but they do have the "right feeling" for it and know when bishops are moving out of the tradition on a particular theme and into territory which could shipwreck the ship of the Church.
Father, you described me perfectly!  I do not have the background needed to support my "views", and yet I feel the need to voice them!

Thanks so much!

;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
LizaSymonenko said:
I do not have the background needed to support my "views", and yet I feel the need to voice them!
Go ahead! Irish Hermit does it too, its the only way misinformation and falsehood can be spread and the Faith twisted into lies:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346393.html#msg346393
 

LizaSymonenko

Hoplitarches
Staff member
Global Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
16,263
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Detroit
Website
protectress.org
Ease up there, young man.

What's up with the attitude?

This forum is for discussion, right?  Not just discussing YOUR point of view.

dis⋅cus⋅sion
  /dɪˈskʌʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skuhsh-uhn]
–noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.
Origin:  1300–50; ME < AF < LL discussiōn- (s. of discussiō) inquiry, examination, L: a shaking. See discuss, -ion

  1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
  2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

There are many threads on this forum where people have discussed and learned from each other.  If there's a "lie" as you say, than it's up to you to post a correction - politely.

This is how we learn, no?

Did you mom put you down every time you voiced something in opposition to her opinions, or when you asked her a silly question?

We are here to learn from each other.

Being mean and insulting, is very ORTHODOX.  Keep it up!

So Christ-like, not!




 

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:
And I'm still not interested in what anyone feels.
I'm sure fewer, and fewer people care about how you feel, too.

If the Church depended on people like you to uphold Her truths, we would have been history long ago!

Temperance.

Be nice.

Explain your point without alienating others.

Christ didn't put down everyone He disagreed with.  On the contrary, He calmly made His point, and thereby, convinced others of His views.

OzGeorge, please don't be offended, by our feelings!

We still love you!
Oops...that's a feeling!
;)



 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
ialmisry said:
Idle curiosity, academic pinheads, and committees. And cultural fashion.
^Do you have any facts to back that up ialmisry? Because if it's just what you feel- I couldn't care less.
I'm cut to the core of my inner being. ::)

^Do let me know if the above posts haven't satisfied your curiosity.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
LizaSymonenko said:
I do not have the background needed to support my "views", and yet I feel the need to voice them!
Go ahead! Irish Hermit does it too, its the only way misinformation and falsehood can be spread and the Faith twisted into lies:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346393.html#msg346393
Don't be silly, George.  You insult me. :mad: I  fought the good fight against women's ordination 30 years ago when the NZ Anglicans were waltzing with the devil. I devoured as much to and con information as was available, from the Anglicans and the small amount from Meyendorff, Schmemann and Afanassiev.

I received three Anglican priests because of this issue.  I cannot spit on them now by pretending that we all made a great mistake back then and they should have accepted women priests.  Two of them in particular sacrificed social prestige in their communities, quite magnificent vicarages, excellent salaries and excellent medical and retirement plans in order to come into the holy Orthodox Church.  It grieves me to hear that now some Orthodox want us to travel down the same road as the Anglicans. 

I think that the Archbishop of Johannesburg is either a bit of an airhead or simply a nobody who wants his moment of fame.  So he conjures up this non-existent issue for the Orthodox.    Notice how well it has been received on the Orthodox Internet?!  Apart from our forum I don't think it has had a single mention elsewhere.  We are just not interested.
 

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:
Ease up there, young man.
Thanks! I turned 43 on Monday!

LizaSymonenko said:
What's up with the attitude?
What attitude? I simply made it clerar that I couldn't care less about what anyone feels, I'm interested in what they think and why they think it.

LizaSymonenko said:
This forum is for discussion, right?  Not just discussing YOUR point of view.
Actually, if you notice, I'm not even discussing MY point of view. I'm discussing facts.

LizaSymonenko said:
dis⋅cus⋅sion
  /dɪˈskʌʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skuhsh-uhn]
–noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.
Origin:  1300–50; ME < AF < LL discussiōn- (s. of discussiō) inquiry, examination, L: a shaking. See discuss, -ion

   1. Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
   2. A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
Where's the part that defines discussion as sharing our feelings?


LizaSymonenko said:
If there's a "lie" as you say, than it's up to you to post a correction - politely.
I did, four times with two independent citations, but Irish Hermit persists- without providing evidence....Kind of like you here.

LizaSymonenko said:
This is how we learn, no?
We learn from realities and facts, not feelings.

LizaSymonenko said:
Did you mom put you down every time you voiced something in opposition to her opinions, or when you asked her a silly question?
No, she, my father and my teachers taught me HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

LizaSymonenko said:
We are here to learn from each other.
Please explain how "I feel such and such but I can't explain or support it or give a reason why" teaches me anything except that the person can't think.

LizaSymonenko said:
Being mean and insulting, is very ORTHODOX.  Keep it up! So Christ-like, not!
Is lying in the face of clear evidence and facts Christ-like in your estimation?

I'm still not interested in what you feel.






 

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:
I'm still not interested in what you feel.
I've already figured that out.

So....let me put it another way.

I THINK ordaining women priests would be a big mistake. 

Is that better?  You did say you only care about what we THINK, not FEEL.


 

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:
I THINK ordaining women priests would be a big mistake. 
Thank you, now perhaps you can say something about why you think this and how you came to this conclusion, then we might have a discussion.
But if you only "think" this because you "feel" it, then the discussion is doomed.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge said:
Sorry, I misunderstood you.  I thought the Pre-Concilliar consultation you mentioned was an Anglican preparation for the Lambeth Conference.
Ah. I see. Only reason I mentioned Lambeth 1978 is b/c that was the first major, "official", pro-female priesthood/episcopacy decision by any Christian Church claiming to be apostolic. Thus, it's hardly surprising that the agenda for the proposed Pan-Orthodox Great and Holy Synod doesn't include the issue, since its agenda was prepared in 1976 (and, privately, before that).

ozgeorge said:
So am I right in understanding that the lead up in the case of the Anglican Communion was the Lambeth Conference of 1968 which saw no theological reasons to prevent the Ordination of women to the Priesthood?
As far as I understand it, yes, but I have radically limited knowledge of the matter, having only read secondary sources. One caveat: I have read that the resolution concluded the theological arguments (both pro and con) were "inconclusive." If so, that's rather different than saying there is no reason to prevent it (as I originally wrote).

ozgeorge said:
Also hat do you mean by the "Typical Anglican Tact?" The fact that the '68 Lambeth Conference came to this conclusion, or the way in which women Priests were ordained (irregularly at first)?
I actually meant the way in which the resolutions were passed. First, saying it is "inconclusive." Then saying we should all talk about it some more. And, finally, stipulating an official means for individual provinces to go ahead and act unilaterally, even though the matter has not yet been agreed upon and the evidence is inconclusive. I dunno. That kind of approach seems very Anglican to me. It's a strange polity and praxis, from an Orthodox point of view.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
I did, four times with two independent citations, but Irish Hermit persists- without providing evidence....Kind of like you here.
Huh?  Evidence against women priests?  Look around you, George, how many do you see in your Greek churches on a Sunday? Ask your parents how many Greek women priests they have known?  Ask your grandparents.

Then take the question back onto the early centuries of the Church.  Most Orthodox are unaware that this agitated the Church from time to time and the Church has already responded and formulated canons against women priests. The canons have not been abrogated.  They have not "worn out" over the years.  Some of the fathers weighed in on the arguments and wrote against them.  Start with the early Montanist problem and how the Church dealt with it.    The Church has already spoken.  This is not a problem we are encountering for the first time in the 21st century.
 

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:
LizaSymonenko said:
I THINK ordaining women priests would be a big mistake. 
Thank you, now perhaps you can say something about why you think this and how you came to this conclusion, then we might have a discussion.
But if you only "think" this because you "feel" it, then the discussion is doomed.
I THINK I already stated my THOUGHTS previously....and I stand by them.


« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2009, 09:44:20 AM »


While there are women who are considered "Equal to the Apostles" - none of the original twelve were women.

I hold the myrrhbearers and all the female saints, and especially the Mother of God in the highest esteem and respect. I love them all, and do not diminish their lives or the role they have played in the Church.  However, that does not change the fact that of the disciples that Christ called (the original 12), none were women.  Or am I reading a different Gospel than the rest of you?

As I recall the woman, such as Mary Magdalene were not "called" by Christ.  They joined Him on their own.  He did not go out in search of them, or call them by name.
While Christ did not rebuff them, for He came to teach and save everyone, He did not include them in the "inner" circle.

I fully agree that women have a significant role to play within Orthodoxy.  However, priesthood is NOT one of those roles.  To satisfy one's own ambitions and "calling" while in the process rocking the Church and Faith is unacceptable.  If a women has a "calling" than fill it some other way!

Female deacons were necessary in the old days.  The priests (men, by the way) were not permitted to touch women while ministering to them, nor to visit a sick woman alone.  This is where the deaconess came in to play.  She would, on behalf of the male priest, minister to women.  She would visit the infirm, etc.

I respect the Church too much to just sit by and have someone change it because they feel the "need" to serve!  Please!  That's just pride on the woman's part.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

Matthew 10:1
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Matthew 11:1
And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

Matthew 26:20
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

# Mark 6:7
And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

I could go on...however, I am trying to make the point that the TWELVE were not women, even though there were women disciples and there were and are women "Equal to the Apostles".


 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
pensateomnia said:
ozgeorge said:
Sorry, I misunderstood you.  I thought the Pre-Concilliar consultation you mentioned was an Anglican preparation for the Lambeth Conference.
Ah. I see. Only reason I mentioned Lambeth 1978 is b/c that was the first major, "official", pro-female priesthood/episcopacy decision by any Christian Church claiming to be apostolic.
Actually, no the Church of Sweden did that.  Why it took the opposition so long to organize themselves (they did so only after the Norwegians did, creating the Nordic Catholic Church, which had tried to be received by Orthodoxy, but was told they weren't Greek :mad:).

Missionsprovinsen (the Mission Province) is a second, independent ecclesiastical province within the Church of Sweden and somewhat also inside the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, founded by members of the "orthodox opposition" to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate. The Mission Province was founded on 6 September 2003, following the establishment of the Nordic Catholic Church in Norway.

On 5 February 2005 The Most Reverend Walter Obare Omwanza, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Kenya, assisted by bishops Leonid Zviki from Belarus, David Tswaedi from South Africa, Børre Knudsen and Ulf Asp from Norway, consecrated Arne Olsson in apostolic succession as the Ordinary for the Mission Province.

In April 2006 Bishop Arne Olsson consecrated pastors Lars Artman and Göran Beijer as other bishops for the Mission Province.

The alternative hierarchy of the Mission province ordains candidates for the priesthood who are not in favour of the ordination of women and who are therefore not accepted for ordination in the national Churches of Sweden or Finland.

Bishops of the Church of Sweden do not acknowledge the Mission Province as a part of the Church of Sweden and Bishop Arne Olsson was defrocked soon after his episcopal ordination as were Lars Artman and Göran Beijer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionsprovinsen

Why those who fled Anglicanism only after women were being ordained, long after other nonsense (denial of the Resurrection, etc. ) was going on also perplexes me.


 

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:
I could go on...however, I am trying to make the point that the TWELVE were not women, even though there were women disciples and there were and are women "Equal to the Apostles".
Were the Apostles Bishops or Priests or Deacons in your understanding of this? If Bishops, does that still exclude women from the Priesthood (the second rank of the Clergy)? Especially since it didn't exclude them from the third rank (the Diaconate). In other words, does the evidence that none of the Apostles were women mean that women cannot be Bishops, but may be Priests and Deacons?
 

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
pensateomnia said:
As far as I understand it, yes, but I have radically limited knowledge of the matter, having only read secondary sources. One caveat: I have read that the resolution concluded the theological arguments (both pro and con) were "inconclusive." If so, that's rather different than saying there is no reason to prevent it (as I originally wrote).
Thanks pensateomnia! When Ebor gets back I'll have to ask if there is somewhere I can find the documents of the '68 Lambert Conference.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
ozgeorge said:
pensateomnia said:
As far as I understand it, yes, but I have radically limited knowledge of the matter, having only read secondary sources. One caveat: I have read that the resolution concluded the theological arguments (both pro and con) were "inconclusive." If so, that's rather different than saying there is no reason to prevent it (as I originally wrote).
Thanks pensateomnia! When Ebor gets back I'll have to ask if there is somewhere I can find the documents of the '68 Lambert Conference.
Knock yourself out:
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
LizaSymonenko said:
I could go on...however, I am trying to make the point that the TWELVE were not women, even though there were women disciples and there were and are women "Equal to the Apostles".
Were the Apostle Bishops or Priests or Deacons in your understanding of this? If Bishops, does that still exclude women from the Priesthood (the second rank of the Clergy)? Especially since it didn't exclude them from the third rank (the Diaconate). In other words, does the evidence that none of the Apostles were women mean that women cannot be Bishops, but may be Priests and Deacons?
We look forward to the day when Her All-Holiness the Matriarch of Constantinople ascends the Great Throne.  Of course by that time the marriage of the hierarchy may have been reinstated and we look forward to a Patriarch and a Matriarch co-presiding in the Great Church.  If ecumenism reaches a successful conclusion we could even see the union of the Churches cemented by the marriage of the Pope of Rome to the Matriarch of Constantinople. That's not at all farfetched if we think logically about what you are proposing.
 

Sinner Servant

Sr. Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
ozgeorge said:
LizaSymonenko said:
This is how we learn, no?
We learn from realities and facts, not feelings.
Are feelings not reality? Do you not learn valuable lessons when you feel pain/happiness (such as: burning yourself, ending a relationship, receiving praise, loving someone)? Experience from our feelings teach a lot and are so real and so important. Some people me consider what they feel with regard to the morals (including church teaching) a conscience. Perhaps you could cultivate this yourself, and you might develop more tact with dealing with people on this forum.

As for me I often THINK based upon how I FEEL. So if you don't not care how I FEEL then you don not care what I THINK.

BTW, 

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING? Perhaps you still don't care!
 

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:
pensateomnia said:
As far as I understand it, yes, but I have radically limited knowledge of the matter, having only read secondary sources. One caveat: I have read that the resolution concluded the theological arguments (both pro and con) were "inconclusive." If so, that's rather different than saying there is no reason to prevent it (as I originally wrote).
Thanks pensateomnia! When Ebor gets back I'll have to ask if there is somewhere I can find the documents of the '68 Lambert Conference.
Knock yourself out:
http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1968/
Thanks, I'd already found that. What I actuallyt mean is any documents about the pro and con arguments.

Irish Hermit said:
We look forward to the day when Her All-Holiness the Matriarch of Constantinople ascends the Great Throne.
And I look forward to the day that you provide the evidence for your claims requested of you in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346420/topicseen.html#msg346420
But I doubt either is going to happen, so you can keep your emotional reactions to yourself.
 

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
Sinner Servant said:
Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING?
Nope. Absolutely not. If love was a feeling then:
1) God would not be dispassionate.
2) God would be just a feeling since God is Love.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
[And I look forward to the day that you provide the evidence for your claims requested of you in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346420/topicseen.html#msg346420
That's twice you have brought another unrelated therad into this one.  What's up?

But I doubt either is going to happen, so you can keep your emotional reactions to yourself.
George, try and think logically about your proposals.  Your proposals will indeed lead to women bishops and women Patriarchs. i.e., Matriarchs.  Your proposal could well see the marriages of Matriarchs to Patriarchs, even to the Pope of Rome when we all finally return to the married episcopate.  I think you are reacting only with your feelings.  But some clarity of thought will show you where your proposals inevitably lead the Church.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
pensateomnia said:
Ah. I see. Only reason I mentioned Lambeth 1978 is b/c that was the first major, "official", pro-female priesthood/episcopacy decision by any Christian Church claiming to be apostolic.
Actually, no the Church of Sweden did that.  
None of the official literature I have seen from the Church of Sweden claims that it is an apostolic church. They are certainly more conscious of their medieval roots than most Lutherans, but I actually only meant those Churches that place prominent emphasis on their apostolicity (EO, RCs, OO, Assyrians, Anglicans etc.).
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
ozgeorge said:
Sinner Servant said:
Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING?
Nope. Absolutely not. If love was a feeling then:
1) God would not be dispassionate.
2) God would be just a feeling since God is Love.
Also love is really the disconnection of everything
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
ozgeorge said:
But I doubt either is going to happen, so you can keep your emotional reactions to yourself.
Why are you being so impolite to those who don't agree with you?  To Lisa, to Isa, to me......  it becomes difficult to deal with your line of argument when we feel your bad emotion about us.  Either we can choose to stop interacting or we can be tempted to respond in kind (but that would not be a good thing for any of us.)
 

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
Irish Hermit said:
George, try and think logically  
LOL! Thats rich!

Irish Hermit said:
about your proposals
Um, what proposals? Could you cite them? Oh thats right- you don't do citations:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2233.msg346420/topicseen.html#msg346420
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
In this debate I don't take a side and believe it or not Ozgeorge isn't taking a side either. Rather if someone is taking a side

A) Give evidence
B) Understand that "Just because" stopped being a conclusion to an argument after 5 years old.

As I believe and I understand George to believe, is that questions such as these are to be left up to the sanctifying job of the church to persue. If people take the time to actually read (and I mean look at the posts on face value) you will see all George is looking for is some evidence and also understanding that this issue (as everything in this world) is not black and white and require deep thought.
 

Sinner Servant

Sr. Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
ozgeorge said:
Sinner Servant said:
Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING?
Nope. Absolutely not. If love was a feeling then:
1) God would not be dispassionate.
2) God would be just a feeling since God is Love.
Was Christ dispassionate?

Of course Love is a feeling! And God is a feeling, the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity can surely be felt by many!!


 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Victoria, Australia
Sinner Servant said:
ozgeorge said:
Sinner Servant said:
Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING?
Nope. Absolutely not. If love was a feeling then:
1) God would not be dispassionate.
2) God would be just a feeling since God is Love.
Was Christ dispassionate?

Of course Love is a feeling! And God is a feeling, the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity can surely be felt by many!!
Can God change?
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
prodromas said:
Sinner Servant said:
ozgeorge said:
Sinner Servant said:
Our Lord has asked us to above all - love- is love not an emotion or FEELING?
Nope. Absolutely not. If love was a feeling then:
1) God would not be dispassionate.
2) God would be just a feeling since God is Love.
Was Christ dispassionate?

Of course Love is a feeling! And God is a feeling, the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity can surely be felt by many!!
Can God change?
God does not change...
 

Sinner Servant

Sr. Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
prodromas said:
In this debate I don't take a side and believe it or not Ozgeorge isn't taking a side either. Rather if someone is taking a side

A) Give evidence
B) Understand that "Just because" stopped being a conclusion to an argument after 5 years old.

As I believe and I understand George to believe, is that questions such as these are to be left up to the sanctifying job of the church to persue. If people take the time to actually read (and I mean look at the posts on face value) you will see all George is looking for is some evidence and also understanding that this issue (as everything in this world) is not black and white and require deep thought.
This is what you believe...I don't care what you believe. Do you have facts to back up what you believe what George's beliefs are?

Of course I don't FEEL THIS WAY, but I want to show an example at how George's comments are out of line and simply unfair to many people that want to make a statement about how they feel.

 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,864
Reaction score
41
Points
48
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
{Emphasis mine}
Sinner Servant said:
And God is a feeling, the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity can surely be felt by many!!
I'd be careful publishing statements like that if I were you.  It's borderline (or not-so-borderline) heresy on it's face, and you'll have to create a pretty convincing argument to prove otherwise.  Feelings are relative experiences - while we can say that everyone feels pain, or happiness, we cannot say that they experience the same happiness or pain - because happiness and pain don't have an independent existence; meanwhile there is one God - people may experience His love differently, but it's the same love, the One God.
 
Top