Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

SeanMc

Sr. Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!  ;D
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,832
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
SeanMc said:
The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!  ;D
Is it because they are ordaining women that they're screwed up, or is ordaining women a symptom of their being screwed up, or are they unrelated (their being screwed up and ordaining women)?
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
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.......
You didn't give that answer. You didn't give any answer in regards that question. You only stated why you're here on this thread which I have already noted a number of times; to speculate.
ozgeorge said:
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?
You can't both say that you're not sure, and that you're not seeking the answer (speculating) and then say you're not.

 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Here we go again: "The Protestants do it, so it must be wrong."
See Page 11 of this thread.
Are Synods outside the Orthodox Church are now valid and Pan-Orthodox?
Is this any better than your own "Protestants do it, so it must be right?" - personal speculation
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
SeanMc said:
The Anglicans have already decided synodically to ordain women as priestesses. And look how good things have been for them!
It's not just that they've done it, it's their approach to determining what is true.

For Orthodox, what was true centuries ago is still true. For Anglicans, and the speculating modernists here on this thread it is true only in relative circumstances
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,832
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- The argument starts with it being implied or stated that the absence of womens' ordination is an unstated tenet of the Church by the fact that it is cross-cultural and unchanged from the beginning...
- Another example of something cross-cultural (i.e. communing by hand) was brought up, then expanded to debate on crossing arms and/or using the pyx.
- The debate now, about whether the womens' ordination should remain undone, is being fought vicariously through the debate about communion.

I'm just wondering, in the last pages discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).  Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths; as such, the Church restricts things considered dogmatic to a fairly small category, which includes such complex concepts as the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Christ's passion, death, and Resurrection, and the like.  It certainly does not include such things as whether or not women can be ordained.  Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.

A few other examples of traditions/canonical statements that have gone by the wayside - the ordination of bishops without diocese (chorepiscopoi), which has been gotten around on a "technicality" but really has been disregarded, canonical requirements for the reception of certain heretical sect memebers, etc.  Even if it's spelled out in a canon, unless it's put forth by the Church tradition in a very real and tangible statement (Ecumenical Synod, Endemousa Synod, statements of the Fathers which have gained universal acceptance, approved and accepted statements of laymen and hierarchs) as being required for our understanding of Faith, it's just not dogmatic and therefore it is changeable.
 

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:
Is this any better than your own "Protestants do it, so it must be right?" - personal speculation
Again with the "speculation"....Please tell me where I have said anything like your claim that I hold that  "Protestants do it, so it must be right"? Stop making inane accusations to sidetrack, and present your evidence as requested.
 

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
cleveland said:
I'm just wondering, in the last threads discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).
It was me! ;)

cleveland said:
Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths;
Yep! That's right!

cleveland said:
Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.
Yep! Which was precisely my point in using the word "dogma".
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
21,832
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
39
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
ozgeorge said:
It was me! ;)
Yep! That's right!
Yep! Which was precisely my point in using the word "dogma".
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything so far....
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Bizzlebin and Montalban,

I just want to get this straight.  I see--this is only my perception, which could be wrong--that you're both arguing that 2000 years of exclusion of women from the priesthood is itself a dogmatic statement that the Church is to never ordain women to the priesthood.  This appears to me to be indeed the circular reasoning that I described in the post I quote below.
PeterTheAleut said:
Here's another example of circular reasoning, if I have the concept right.

Q.  Why must we not ordain women?

A.  Because we never have in 2000 years.

Q.  Why is this?

A.  Because the Holy Spirit has guided us into this decision.

Q.  What evidence do we have that the Holy Spirit has guided us to not ordain women?

A.  We've never ordained women before.

Can you see how I'm presupposing my conclusion, then using my presupposition to prove my conclusion?  That's why I argue that we need a solid Patristic/theological/ecclesiological reason why we've never ordained women before.
So my questions to you both are these:
  • Why is 2000 years of traditional practice an actual statement of dogma per se?
  • What are the clear theological and ecclesiological reasons why the Orthodox Church has never ordained women?  (You may have already answered these questions before on this awfully long thread; so, if you have, please refer me to these posts.)
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
Again with the "speculation"....Please tell me where I have said anything like your claim that I hold that "Protestants do it, so it must be right"? Stop making inane accusations to sidetrack, and present your evidence as requested.
You've argued the whole time that the notion that woman aren't ordained is based on traditions, rather than Tradition. You've only evidenced this by offering side arguments. The whole thread then comes to you saying 'you're not sure'. If you're not sure you must be neither for nor against. You yourself have argued that you're here just to raise this question.
 

montalban

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

I just want to get this straight. I see--this is only my perception, which could be wrong--that you're both arguing that 2000 years of exclusion of women from the priesthood is itself a dogmatic statement that the Church is to never ordain women to the priesthood. This appears to me to be indeed the circular reasoning that I described in the post I quote below.
Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
cleveland said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly:

- The argument starts with it being implied or stated that the absence of womens' ordination is an unstated tenet of the Church by the fact that it is cross-cultural and unchanged from the beginning...
- Another example of something cross-cultural (i.e. communing by hand) was brought up, then expanded to debate on crossing arms and/or using the pyx.
- The debate now, about whether the womens' ordination should remain undone, is being fought vicariously through the debate about communion.
That's pretty much it, a very accuarate summary of events. Even if you disagree with the stance I and others have taken the opposition * taken by OzGeorge on this revolves around arguing not the issue, but other issues.


* I use the word opposition here cautiously as OzGeorge has argued against women being excluded, but at the same time saying he's unsure if they should be, and also that any stance of myself and others is a misunderstanding of Church Fathers. So sometimes he's opposing my position, other times he seems to wanting other arguments. At the same time he avoids confronting evidence from Church Fathers by simply claiming it doesn't exist/hasn't been presented


cleveland said:
I'm just wondering, in the last pages discussing this side-discussion (i.e. communing) I've seen the word "dogma" thrown in a few times (I'm sorry I don't remember by whom).  Dogmas are unchangeable, whether stated or not, for they are eternal truths; as such, the Church restricts things considered dogmatic to a fairly small category, which includes such complex concepts as the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Christ's passion, death, and Resurrection, and the like.  It certainly does not include such things as whether or not women can be ordained.  Even if one were to state that the non-ordination of women is caused by an extention of a dogmatic principle, it still is not a dogma itself.  As such, it is changeable, just as many other customs/Traditions/traditions/etc of the Church.

A few other examples of traditions/canonical statements that have gone by the wayside - the ordination of bishops without diocese (chorepiscopoi), which has been gotten around on a "technicality" but really has been disregarded, canonical requirements for the reception of certain heretical sect memebers, etc.  Even if it's spelled out in a canon, unless it's put forth by the Church tradition in a very real and tangible statement (Ecumenical Synod, Endemousa Synod, statements of the Fathers which have gained universal acceptance, approved and accepted statements of laymen and hierarchs) as being required for our understanding of Faith, it's just not dogmatic and therefore it is changeable.
Well for OzGeorge, if it's not been forumalated by Ecumenical Council, it's up for speculation.
 

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:
Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.
And, you claim that this is evidence that a male-only priesthood is dogma? (even if, for the moment, we put aside the fact that the validity of each of these pieces of "evidence" has been challenged on this thread).

Just "yes" or "no" will do.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
montalban said:
Evidence was already presented from Apostolic canons, Church Fathers, etc. Others here have mentioned the different roles of men and women. Jesus picked only men. Pick any of these.
This goes a long way toward answering the second of my questions, although I did ask for quite a bit more work than may be realistic now, work that I could probably do just as well myself.

However, I would still like an answer to my first question.  Why is 2000 years of traditional practice a statement of dogma per se?  I don't doubt that this traditional practice in and of itself is indeed very authoritative as a guide to our current discussion and decision-making, which is why I advocate very strongly maintaining the status quo until we can establish a convincing reason for changing it.  But to proclaim dogma requires that we anathematize as heretics those who disagree with our dogma.  Can anyone do this now from nothing more than the traditional practice of the past two millennia?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Well, I tend to agree there is a certain Anglican way of thought, as I opened up before.  The main argument for those who are for women priesthood, or at least considering the concept, sees the misogynism of ancient Christianity as the only reason why many shunned female priesthood.

If culture is an issue, can we also say that the homophobic culture of ancient Christianity which lead to the abominable hatred of homosexuals justify homosexuality today?

That is why I'm open to saying that the concept of female exclusivity may be correct, although it may have been taken to an unnecessary, and rather unChristian extreme that even the Apostles themselves, including St. Paul, tried to fight.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that was what I was perceiving.

God bless.

Mina
 

montalban

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,823
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
53
Location
Sydney
ozgeorge said:
And, you claim that this is evidence that a male-only priesthood is dogma? (even if, for the moment, we put aside the fact that the validity of each of these pieces of "evidence" has been challenged on this thread).

Just "yes" or "no" will do.
Yes.

I can give a straight answer. Pity you don't deal the same way.
 
Top