Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
Which one?
Well actually, in a way, yes it is, in that it contains the Concilliar decisions of the Oecumenical Church which are binding on all Orthodox Churches. No one single Saint's teaching is binding on the whole Church. I am surprised that given the magnitude of your discovery that a Canon is misinterpreted in the Pedalion that no one else in the entire Church seems to have picked up on this to correct the error.... :D
Sounds a bit like the Church "cover-up" in the Da Vinci Code. :D
"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence"

Even without the other canon, which you still haven't addressed, it is quite clear that it was a serious offense to take communion in the hand, or St. Basil would not have made such a statement of economia.

Anyways, you seem to think the Pedalion is the Church's teaching. It is not. Rather, it is one of many compilations of the canons. It is quite absurd that you are making this work out to be something that it is not. There is no Da Vinci Code cover up, only the writings of many saints vs the notes of a recent work. The canons, not the notes, are what the Church has called binding, canons like those excommunicating laymen who give themselves communion...
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence"
So, in time of persecution of the Church, we can take the Holy Gifts and administer them to ourselves without a Priest or Deacon. And your point is?

Bizzlebin said:
Even without the other canon, which you still haven't addressed
Which other Canon? ,

Bizzlebin said:
it is quite clear that it was a serious offense to take communion in the hand, or St. Basil would not have made such a statement of economia.
Errr, in "time of persecution" why can't we still use the Spoon or lift the ciborum to our mouth? You are being too literal. To "take in hand" means to "take responsibility for", to "do it off your own back". The point St. Basil is giving Economia for is that you don't need either permission or administration from from the Deacon or Priest to Commune if they are not present during a time of persecution.


Bizzlebin said:
Anyways, you seem to think the Pedalion is the Church's teaching. It is not. Rather, it is one of many compilations of the canons.
Really? Please name one of the "many" other compilations of the Canons.


Bizzlebin said:
The canons, not the notes, are what the Church has called binding, canons like those excommunicating laymen who give themselves communion...
Just a cotton-pickin' minute. Firstly, no one follows the 101st Canon of Trullo no matter what your interpretation is. In the Greek Church, the Communicant holds the Communion cloth under their chin- so how are they supposed to "cross their hands" in accordance with the Canon? And secondly, the whole point of the examples which the Pedalion gives are to explain the Canon, and for centuries, the Church understood the 101st Canon to mean that Communion is to be received in the hand as exemplified clearly by St. John Damascenes epitome. Now, you are saying that the Church was erroneous in interpreting the 101st Canon of Trullo in this way for centuries....
So, given this magnificent discovery of yours, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to defend and prove it.
 

Bizzlebin

High Elder
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
714
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Colorado
Website
www.geocities.com
ozgeorge said:
So, in time of persecution of the Church, we can take the Holy Gifts and administer them to ourselves without a Priest or Deacon. And your point is?

Which other Canon?

Errr, in "time of persecution" why can't we still use the Spoon or lift the ciborum to our mouth? You are being literal. to "take in hand" means to "take responsibility for", to "do it off your own back". The point St. Basil is giving Economia for is that you don't need either permission or administration from from the Deacon or Priest to Commune if they are not present during a time of persecution.

Really? Please name one of the "many" other compilations of the Canons.

Just a cotton-pickin' minute. Firstly, no one follows the 101st Canon of Trullo no matter what your interpretation is. In the Greek Church, the Communicant holds the Communion cloth under their chin- so how are they supposed to "cross their hands" in accordance with the Canon?

And secondly, the whole point of the examples which the Pedalion gives are to explain the Canon, and for centuries, the Church understood the 101st Canon to mean that Communion is to be received in the hand as exemplified clearly by St. John Damascenes epitome. Now, you are saying that the Church was erroneous in interpreting the 101st Canon of Trullo in this way for centuries....

So, given this magnificent discovery of yours, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to defend and prove it.
You miss the important detail: "in his own hand." This is stated as if it is not a normal practice, hint  ;)

Canon 58

Oh, if only you would not be so selective in your application of logic! One "in the hand" means one thing, and the next means another! No wonder what I am saying is not making sense to you!

John Scholasticus, Balsamon (who gave the favorable interpretation), and Matthew Blasteres all wrote compilations long before the Pedalion, and they are only a handful. As I have said, the Pedalion is one man's compilation, and interpretation. Don't make it out to be more.

Plese don't make blanket staements about how "no one follow the canon" just because your parish, or the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate (whichever is the case here), treats the canon as unimportant. They are still in full force, unless another Ecumenical Council says otherwise (isn't that what you always say?) My parish does in fact follow it: tonsured members assist the priest by holding the cloth under the chin of the communicants, while they remain crossed the entire time, and receive the Eucharist in the mouth. In fact, I had never known anyone didn't follow this canon, that would make them uncanonical...

You have yet to prove that this is the position of the Church for any length of time.

How many more saints will it take to convince you that one person's compilation of the canons might just not be infalliable? 5? 10? 100? What is this elusive "proof" you are after? Or are you ever going to be convinced by the Church? The Pedalion is only one interpretation, written in the 18th century, open your eyes to the rest of patristic tradition!

(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Bizzlebin said:
(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)
Goodnight and enjoy the Feast!
(btw, You are wrong, but I've enjoyed talking with you immensely!)
 

minasoliman

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

back to women priesthood. 

Last time, these posts were put down:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.630
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg121529#msg121529

I also like to bring you attention on this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg121456#msg121456

God bless.

Mina
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Bizzlebin said:
(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)
Ozgeorge and Bizzlebin,

Seeing how off-topic your argument has been, I plead with you both to stop arguing and return to the subject, "Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church."  If you won't stop arguing, at least do the rest of us a favor and take your argument into PM's.

To us outsiders you two look just like two fellows who just will not be proven wrong.  I personally don't know that anyone cares which one of you is right.  Just what does your argument have to do with women's ordination?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
PeterTheAleut said:
Just what does your argument have to do with women's ordination?
Peter,
It's actually not off-topic if you look at my post on page 42. The point being, Tradition cannot be determined "simply" by observing which customs are practiced everywhere through all time as Bizzlebin claims, since customs (such as the method of receiving Communion, Deaconesses, the method of crossing ourselves) all change. The belief therefore that women being excluded from the priesthood is a dogmatic "Tradition" because it has never been done is therefore illogical and doesn't bear analysis. That is why Bizzlebin is fighting so hard, and that is why I wont concede this point to him.
It's a long thread, but we are dealing with a complex issue.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Peter,
It's actually not off-topic if you look at my post on page 42. The point being, Tradition cannot be determined "simply" by observing which customs are practiced everywhere through all time as Bizzlebin claims, since customs (such as the method of receiving Communion, Deaconesses, the method of crossing ourselves) all change. The belief therefore that women being excluded from the priesthood is a dogmatic "Tradition" because it has never been done is therefore illogical and doesn't bear analysis. That is why Bizzlebin is fighting so hard, and that is why I wont concede this point to him.
It's a long thread, but we are dealing with a complex issue.
If someone's intent here was to really discuss an 'complex issue' then they would address the questions of people on this thread.

Specifically, you've avoided mine AND gone back to repeating the claim that you can't know the difference between Tradition and traditions.

You're simply spamming this thread now. Every now and then you raise the same objection. Someone presents evidence relative to this topic. You divert away from it, then come back and say that there's no evidence that's been posted. This has gone on now for page after page and you still don't have a point.

Now you've said that you yourself don't believe in the Ordination of Women (to the priesthood). I've asked you twice now why you don't. If you could provide an answer it might help people understand your position on this subject. (this makes it now the third time I've asked you).
 

minasoliman

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

George answered this a while ago.  He said he has no opinion of it.  He's neither for nor against women ordination.  He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
If someone's intent here was to really discuss an 'complex issue' then they would address the questions of people on this thread.
Funny, I thought I'd done that for 6 pages.

montalban said:
Specifically, you've avoided mine AND gone back to repeating the claim that you can't know the difference between Tradition and traditions.
Hang on. Why are Bizzlebin's claims and challenges less important to address than yours (which have already and repeatedly been addressed)?

montalban said:
Someone presents evidence relative to this topic. You divert away from it, then come back and say that there's no evidence that's been posted. This has gone on now for page after page and you still don't have a point.
I think there is a bit of projection going on here. It is Bizzlebin and yourself who claimed to have a point in that Women being excluded from the priesthood was a provable "Tradition". And now, because I've disproved that claim- you, once again, are resorting to personal attacks, and once again asking the same questions which I've already answered many times.

montalban said:
Now you've said that you yourself don't believe in the Ordination of Women (to the priesthood). I've asked you twice now why you don't. If you could provide an answer it might help people understand your position on this subject. (this makes it now the third time I've asked you).
Can you please point out where I've said that I "don't believe in the Ordination of women"? I think, my friend, you will find that I have repeatedly said that I don't know where I stand about this issue yet. It is you and Bizzlebin who have taken a position on the issue, and therefore you and Bizzlebin who need to defend your position. Don't start crying foul simply because someone challenges your "evidence".
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
Montalban,

George answered this a while ago.  He said he has no opinion of it.  He's neither for nor against women ordination.  He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina
Thanks Mina! At least someone is listening to others!
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
minasoliman said:
Montalban,

George answered this a while ago. He said he has no opinion of it. He's neither for nor against women ordination. He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina
Actually in post #621 he said...
ozgeorge said:
I'm not an advocate for female priesthood,
I've asked him why he isn't. That's a different thing from him saying he's just here to speculate.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Thanks Mina! At least someone is listening to others!
There's a difference in statements...

The question "Why are you posting here?" is already answered by you saying you're just here to speculate.

When you say "I'm not an advocate of women priests", I've asked "Why don't you support women priests" because your statement is different from saying "I'm not here to advocate women priests", you're saying "I don't advocate women priests (implying) per se"

 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think the only real way to get an answer etched in stone will be if one of the local Orthodox Churches attempts to ordain women to the priesthood.  If life goes on, as normal afterwards we can assume it was only custom that barred women from ordination.  Should it cause a schism and a pan-Orthodox synod condemning the ordinations, them we shall also have our answer.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Funny, I thought I'd done that for 6 pages.
Not quite. You've answered his 'complex questions' for 6 pages and ignored mine because you believe you're on a winner with one topic, and not the other.
ozgeorge said:
Hang on. Why are Bizzlebin's claims and challenges less important to address than yours (which have already and repeatedly been addressed)?
If you've said why you don't support women priests, I will bow out on that issue. I've just not seen you do so. All I've seen is you saying you're here on this thread to speculate.
ozgeorge said:
I think there is a bit of projection going on here. It is Bizzlebin and yourself who claimed to have a point in that Women being excluded from the priesthood was a provable "Tradition". And now, because I've disproved that claim- you, once again, are resorting to personal attacks, and once again asking the same questions which I've already answered many times.
You haven't disproved my claims. You've attempted to have a myrriad of side-arguments to prove them and hope that by showing that, you've made a case here. When I've presented evidence, you summarily dismissed it without even considering it further

ozgeorge said:
Can you please point out where I've said that I "don't believe in the Ordination of women"? I think, my friend, you will find that I have repeatedly said that I don't know where I stand about this issue yet. It is you and Bizzlebin who have taken a position on the issue, and therefore you and Bizzlebin who need to defend your position. Don't start crying foul simply because someone challenges your "evidence".
Here...
ozgeorge said:
I'm not an advocate for female priesthood
And I asked the question, why aren't you?
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
Hopefully this clears things up....

The statement "I'm not (here) advocating women priests" is slightly different from a more absolute statement "I'm not an advocate of women priests"

If you're not an advocate of women priests then the question remains "Why? (aren't you an advocate of women priests). To what do you object about women priests?

I emphasised this when I first asked the question...
#629
montalban said:
Why aren't you? Answer that and you don't need to speculate anymore on this thread.
If OzGeorge would be kind enough to say why he doesn't advocate women priests then the issue of him sepculating is at an end. Unless
a) he's answered that question somewhere else
or
b) he rephrases his broad statement about advocacy
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Νεκτάριος said:
I think the only real way to get an answer etched in stone will be if one of the local Orthodox Churches attempts to ordain women to the priesthood.  If life goes on, as normal afterwards we can assume it was only custom that barred women from ordination.  Should it cause a schism and a pan-Orthodox synod condemning the ordinations, them we shall also have our answer.
Why don't you profer the suggestion to your Parish Council? Unfortunately, I can't since the monastery I attend doesn't have a Parish Council. :D
But seriously, this is what I have been saying all along. This issue can only be definitively resolved Synodically by the Bishops, and no one can pre-emptively claim to know for sure what that decision would be one way or the other.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
The statement "I'm not (here) advocating women priests" is slightly different from a more absolute statement "I'm not an advocate of women priests"
Are they different? The meaning is actually identical as far as I can see.

montalban said:
If you're not an advocate of women priests then the question remains "Why? (aren't you an advocate of women priests). To what do you object about women priests?
You're still not listening. Why does "not being an advocate" for something automatically mean that you are opposed to it? Why can't it simply mean "I'm not sure"?

montalban said:
Hopefully this clears things up....
It has only "cleared up" by showing exactley what your misconceptions are....But they are still misconceptions...
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Are they different? The meaning is actually identical as far as I can see.
What you said is an absolute phrase; I'm not an advocate of women's ordination. It's a different thing to saying "I'm not here advocating women's ordination".
ozgeorge said:
You're still not listening. Why does "not being an advocate" for something automatically mean that you are opposed to it? Why can't it simply mean "I'm not sure"?
I didn't say it does. I asked a question why you're not. I'm not sure is a valid answer. If you decide to give any answer, that would be great.
ozgeorge said:
It has only "cleared up" by showing exactley what your misconceptions are....But they are still misconceptions...
Then you're still avoiding the question.

You've had ample time to answer, but instead we're here debating your choice of words. It would be handy if you just said something akin to a direct answer to a direct question.

In short you've gone weeks speculating, and going down side issues. Claiming victories, claiming no one's forwarded evidence, avoiding direct questions, going down side issues. And then, when this is pointed out, you claim its insulting - magnifying the avoidance of issues.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
montalban said:
I'm not sure is a valid answer.
Then why didn't you accept it as an answer when I said it the first time, and the second time, and the third time.......Why do I keep having to answer the same question?
montalban said:
In short you've gone weeks speculating,
Speculating about what?!
If someone presents something as "evidence" and I show that it is not admissible as "evidence"- how is that "speculating"?
Why can you not simply accept that the issue of women's ordination has not been definitvely decided yet? Instead of sidetracking the issue, why not present some clear, unambiguous evidence to support your claim that a male-only Priesthood is a Church dogma? Is it perhaps because there is no such evidence in existence?
 
Top