Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[TheTrisagion]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

There is a difference between committing a sin and being guilty of breaking the law.  The standard is: Have you broken the law?  You can't answer and say: No, I haven't broken the law because I didn't steal anything and don't worship pagan gods. Well, I suppose you could, but then you be guilty of your first sin that you mentioned lying, because we all break the law, just in different manners.

No, we don't.

Ok, maybe you're perfect, but the rest of us wrestle with the passions and transgress the law from time to time.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."
1 John 3:4

 

[Volnutt]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

There is a difference between committing a sin and being guilty of breaking the law.  The standard is: Have you broken the law?  You can't answer and say: No, I haven't broken the law because I didn't steal anything and don't worship pagan gods. Well, I suppose you could, but then you be guilty of your first sin that you mentioned lying, because we all break the law, just in different manners.

Judas Priest - Breaking the law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPhPbTbjYM0



Title added to link to make post compliant with forum rule against naked links  -PtA

 

[Mor Ephrem]

If I lie, I do not have to confess to theft. If I argue with my parents, I do not have to confess to worshipping pagan gods.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."  James 2.10

Your confessions must go on for hours, then, since you apparently feel the need to confess to every sin in the Bible, whether you actually committed them or not.

Thank God you haven't tried for the priesthood.

There is a difference between committing a sin and being guilty of breaking the law.  The standard is: Have you broken the law?  You can't answer and say: No, I haven't broken the law because I didn't steal anything and don't worship pagan gods. Well, I suppose you could, but then you be guilty of your first sin that you mentioned lying, because we all break the law, just in different manners.

No, we don't.

Eat your heart out, St Gregory Palamas...

 

[Volnutt]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

How does that follow? I could argue with just as much authority that if God could have created a hellish world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. Yet we see just how much nonsense that is. The simple fact that God could do something doesn't mean that He actually did.

it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

In the 19th Century, slaveholders argued that blacks were made for slavery- either because they were cursed by God or else were made animalistic and inferior by Him simply by providence. Since these things are not true, then it's obvious that God did not make them for slavery (unless we are to assume that God loves arbitrary servitude).

Similarly, since women are in no way inferior to men, it follows that God did not make them for subordination to men. We've realized that in other areas of society by slowly emancipating them from their historical enslavement to men.

 

[Volnutt]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

I don't think your earlier point, that you were "still not entirely sure one can affirm with a straight face that women are just as important to God and just as much bearers of the Imago Dei as men on the one hand and then deny them one of God's most important callings on the other", holds up when we compare it to the inability of a man to be a mother.  This does not affect whether or not men are "bearers of the Imago Dei".  Or does it?  Or perhaps "motherhood" is not "one of God's most important callings" (I suppose you could consider it merely a biological function with no connection to anything else, but then we're not really speaking about Christianity anymore)?

Fatherhood is just as high a calling as motherhood. But women have no equivalent when it comes to the priesthood.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. It's the same essential argument behind abolitionism. Huck Finn's "All right, then I'll go to Hell" immediately springs to mind.

How egalitarian does God have to be in order to be loving?

How equal do blacks have to be with whites in order to be free?

What male-only priesthood advocates really need to prove is that all is doom and gloom whenever a female priest is ordained (a literalistic reading of 1 Peter 3:7's "weaker vessel" would also help).

Why is that the standard?
[/quote]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

It's a pretty big that. 

So you're saying that if women are not subordinate to men in some contexts then there are no differences at all between the sexes? I'm not sure that follows.

I'm not sure it follows either.  Then again, that's not what I was saying.

Then I'm not seeing your point.

My argument is that if God could have created an egalitarian world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

How does that follow? I could argue with just as much authority that if God could have created a hellish world then it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God. Yet we see just how much nonsense that is. The simple fact that God could do something doesn't mean that He actually did.

it follows that He did, or else He is not really a loving God.

Even that reasoning doesn't hold water, because you're dictating the terms God must follow in order to be seen as a loving God and then declaring that He is not really a loving God if He doesn't meet your terms. It does not follow that God created this world to be an egalitarian world.

In the 19th Century, slaveholders argued that blacks were made for slavery- either because they were cursed by God or else were made animalistic and inferior by Him simply by providence. Since these things are not true, then it's obvious that God did not make them for slavery (unless we are to assume that God loves arbitrary servitude).

Similarly, since women are in no way inferior to men, it follows that God did not make them for subordination to men. We've realized that in other areas of society by slowly emancipating them from their historical enslavement to men.

But how does refusal to ordain women to the priesthood keep them in eternal subordination to men?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

And now for the million-dollar question: How does your argument for the ordination of women pertain to the OP's request that we prove Anglicanism false?

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

 

[Volnutt]

Even that reasoning doesn't hold water, because you're dictating the terms God must follow in order to be seen as a loving God and then declaring that He is not really a loving God if He doesn't meet your terms. It does not follow that God created this world to be an egalitarian world.

If it is just my opinion, then you're right. But I think it's as manifestly true as the equality of blacks with whites is.

Of course, knowing you I expect you're going to ask me to prove that now...

But how does refusal to ordain women to the priesthood keep them in eternal subordination to men?

How does the refusal to allow women the vote keep them in eternal subordination to men? "Pray, Pay, and Obey," indeed.

And now for the million-dollar question: How does your argument for the ordination of women pertain to the OP's request that we prove Anglicanism false?

You ask me a question and then in the next post tell me the whole discussion is off topic? What is this, entrapment?

Anyway, I'd say that if the Anglicans are right about ordination of women and the Orthodox are in error, then Anglicanism is closer to God's truth than Orthodoxy is.

But you're right, it doesn't directly relate to the OP. I just can't resist a rabbit trail on one of my favorite topic to descend into godless despair over.

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

I can somewhat understand your argument if it were a matter that all men were priests and all women were not, but that is not the case. Many men are equally not suited to the priesthood and are barred from it for a number of reasons. It isn't like any man can just up and become a priest. Being a man is just one of many requirements for the vocation. The same man (St. Paul) that proclaimed there is now no male and female, bond or free also reinforced the fact that the priesthood is a vocation that is only open to men and only certain qualified men at that. It isn't because it was a time in history that women were so repressed. Many religions had female religious leaders. The Greek and Roman pantheons had many priestesses. It wasn't a matter of female repression, it was a matter of following in the teachings that were given first to the prophets before Christ, then fully illuminated by Christ, handed to the Apostles and carried down to the Church.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

Do you think it possible that the priest also represents Christ to the congregation? How should that influence our thinking of the relationship of women to the ordained priesthood?

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

All these deny the truth and cause separation from the Source of Life that is God. They may not immediately cause suffering, but they will eventually.

 

[biro]

Frederica Mathews-Green says the priest can't be female because the priest represents God the Father, not Christ.

Yet I was taught, as an Orthodox catechumen, that we kiss the priest's hand because he (and the bishops) represent "another Christ."



That's interesting.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

All these deny the truth and cause separation from the Source of Life that is God. They may not immediately cause suffering, but they will eventually.

Kind of like if you deny the truth that has been passed down through the Church regarding who is fit for the vocation of presbyter and decide to make up your own qualifications because modern culture has illumined us in a way that Christ did not?

 

[Minnesotan]

Frederica Mathews-Green says the priest can't be female because the priest represents God the Father, not Christ.

Yet I was taught, as an Orthodox catechumen, that we kiss the priest's hand because he (and the bishops) represent "another Christ."



That's interesting.

Yes, it is. I had always thought the term "another Christ" (alter Christus) was more of a Roman Catholic term.

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman? Whatever grace is imparted by ordination is for use for the congregation. It isn't some ontological change.

Do you think it possible that the priest also represents Christ to the congregation? How should that influence our thinking of the relationship of women to the ordained priesthood?

Women are just as much in the image of God as men are. I don't see why it should cause a conflict. A child obeys both his father and his mother and is to love them both equally.

Is it because you're worried people might not think that God has a penis?

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

All these deny the truth and cause separation from the Source of Life that is God. They may not immediately cause suffering, but they will eventually.

Kind of like if you deny the truth that has been passed down through the Church regarding who is fit for the vocation of presbyter and decide to make up your own qualifications because modern culture has illumined us in a way that Christ did not?

Is it a truth of God or an artifact of ancient culture? Should we bring back the sacrament of holy kingship?

 

[TheTrisagion]

Women are just as much in the image of God as men are. I don't see why it should cause a conflict. A child obeys both his father and his mother and is to love them both equally.

Is it because you're worried people might not think that God has a penis?

I don't think penises have anything to do with it. It might not be politically correect to say so, but the fact is that people relate to men and women differently. Watch children and see their relationships with their father and their mother. They are just different. Not in a bad way, just in a complementary way. It is part of the reason why single parent homes are a poor substitute for the traditional nuclear family. Perhaps God wants us to relate to Him and to our spiritual guide (priest) is in a child/father relationship and not a child/mother relationship. There are many things in the Church that uphold traditional gender roles. Following childbirth, the woman does not enter the church for 40 days.

The Theotokos is the Mother and Queen of the Church. Christ is the Head of the Church. God is our Father. Each specifies a unique relationship. We can't say that the Theotokos is the Head of the Church or our Father. We can't say that Christ is our Mother and Queen. They are each unique relationships that are not to be jumbled in the name of gender equality.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

All these deny the truth and cause separation from the Source of Life that is God. They may not immediately cause suffering, but they will eventually.

Kind of like if you deny the truth that has been passed down through the Church regarding who is fit for the vocation of presbyter and decide to make up your own qualifications because modern culture has illumined us in a way that Christ did not?

Is it a truth of God or an artifact of ancient culture? Should we bring back the sacrament of holy kingship?

I think if you read my edited response in 319, it addresses that.

 

[Minnesotan]

If the priest represents the Father (or Christ; there seems to be some disagreement on this) at the parish, then who represents the Theotokos? Does the matushka/khouria represent her (assuming the parish has one)?

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

It isn't?  It seems to have been good enough for pretty much the rest of our faith. Why make an exception with a female priesthood?

Leaving aside the contentious issue of homosexuality, I can't think of anything that Orthodoxy calls a sin that doesn't manifestly cause suffering on some level. Maybe oral sex, but I'm not sure about that one.

God is not an arbitrary tyrant here to destroy us with the law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but there are many things that are deemed to be sins that do not cause manifested suffering. Idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, neglecting attending church, etc are just a few that don't cause any suffering per se, but God says not to have any other gods, so we do what He says.

All these deny the truth and cause separation from the Source of Life that is God. They may not immediately cause suffering, but they will eventually.

Kind of like if you deny the truth that has been passed down through the Church regarding who is fit for the vocation of presbyter and decide to make up your own qualifications because modern culture has illumined us in a way that Christ did not?

Is it a truth of God or an artifact of ancient culture? Should we bring back the sacrament of holy kingship?

That sacrament was applied to women, too. There were a lot of queens and empresses back then.

I couldn't see it happening in the modern West, but if some African tribe were to adopt Orthodoxy en masse, they might continue doing that with their chiefs/leaders. In Africa, tribal leaders (who are, for all intents and purposes, royalty) coexist with the more modern nation-states, with the latter having the actual civil authority but the former having cultural significance for their respective tribes.

Interestingly enough, a lot of African (and Native American) cultures are matriarchal, to at least some extent. So it's possible that in their parishes, the matushka/khouria (or whatever term they end up using in their own language) might actually take a more active role in leading the congregation than the priest himself would. His role would be limited to the sacraments and she'd take care of everything else.

 

[Volnutt]

Women are just as much in the image of God as men are. I don't see why it should cause a conflict. A child obeys both his father and his mother and is to love them both equally.

Is it because you're worried people might not think that God has a penis?

I don't think penises have anything to do with it. It might not be politically correect to say so, but the fact is that people relate to men and women differently. Watch children and see their relationships with their father and their mother. They are just different. Not in a bad way, just in a complementary way. It is part of the reason why single parent homes are a poor substitute for the traditional nuclear family. Perhaps God wants us to relate to Him and to our spiritual guide (priest) is in a child/father relationship and not a child/mother relationship.

And how are the relationships different in any way that would impact the priesthood?

There are many things in the Church that uphold traditional gender roles. Following childbirth, the woman does not enter the church for 40 days.

An unchristian vestige of Jewish ritual purity thinking.

The Theotokos is the Mother and Queen of the Church. Christ is the Head of the Church. God is our Father. Each specifies a unique relationship. We can't say that the Theotokos is the Head of the Church or our Father. We can't say that Christ is our Mother and Queen. They are each unique relationships that are not to be jumbled in the name of gender equality.

The difference is that Christ is God and the Theotokos is not. Men and women are both non-God human beings.

There's nothing complimentary about expecting women to submit to the Church and then denying any role of authority within it. That's almost the textbook definition of slavery.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman?

Ya know, you might debate a lot more effectively if you wouldn't answer every question with a question that only reveals the straw man you just created of the logic behind the question to which you're responding.

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman? Whatever grace is imparted by ordination is for use for the congregation. It isn't some ontological change.

Do you think it possible that the priest also represents Christ to the congregation? How should that influence our thinking of the relationship of women to the ordained priesthood?

Women are just as much in the image of God as men are. I don't see why it should cause a conflict. A child obeys both his father and his mother and is to love them both equally.

Is it because you're worried people might not think that God has a penis?

Stop with the straw men. OK? They only make you look foolish.

 

[Volnutt]

I can somewhat understand your argument if it were a matter that all men were priests and all women were not, but that is not the case. Many men are equally not suited to the priesthood and are barred from it for a number of reasons. It isn't like any man can just up and become a priest. Being a man is just one of many requirements for the vocation.

I'm not arguing for all women to be priests. But some men are priests and no women are.

The same man (St. Paul) that proclaimed there is now no male and female, bond or free also reinforced the fact that the priesthood is a vocation that is only open to men and only certain qualified men at that. It isn't because it was a time in history that women were so repressed. Many religions had female religious leaders. The Greek and Roman pantheons had many priestesses. It wasn't a matter of female repression, it was a matter of following in the teachings that were given first to the prophets before Christ, then fully illuminated by Christ, handed to the Apostles and carried down to the Church.

Yes and the same Bible says that a bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord to his tenth generation. We've had no problem working around that little line.

Just because Greek culture was more enlightened than Jewish culture on this account does not mean that the forbiddance of women's ordination is a binding directive of God and not a cultural artifact.

 

[Daedelus1138]

Don't expect the EO to budge on that issue.

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman?

Ya know, you might debate a lot more effectively if you wouldn't answer every question with a question that only reveals the straw man you just created of the logic behind the question to which you're responding.

I'm just trying to understand your position. You claimed that I see the priesthood in merely utilitarian terms. That seems to imply in the context of this discussion that you think there is something about ordination that inherently changes the man ordained and that this change could never properly apply to a woman.

Stop with the straw men. OK? They only make you look foolish.

That's not a strawman, it's a reducio ad absurdum of the making too much of the "maleness of God."

 

[Serge]

Egalitarianism, forcing equal outcomes, would be unjust.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman?

Ya know, you might debate a lot more effectively if you wouldn't answer every question with a question that only reveals the straw man you just created of the logic behind the question to which you're responding.

I'm just trying to understand your position.

Sometimes it's better for you to explain your position than deflect questions by inquiring into someone else's.

You claimed that I see the priesthood in merely utilitarian terms.

No, I didn't. I just responded to a statement that defined the priesthood purely in utilitarian terms.

That seems to imply in the context of this discussion that you think there is something about ordination that inherently changes the man ordained and that this change could never properly apply to a woman.

I think you're reading way too much into my questions. You might try actually answering them for a change.

Stop with the straw men. OK? They only make you look foolish.

That's not a strawman, it's a reducio ad absurdum of the making too much of the "maleness of God."

It's a straw man in that it shows absolutely no understanding of what I'm really trying to do here. For one, I've said nothing about the "maleness of God".

 

[Volnutt]

Egalitarianism, forcing equal outcomes, would be unjust.

I'm not asking for equal outcomes, just equal opportunities. There are many bad male priests and if women were ordained then there would be many bad female priests as well.

 

[Volnutt]

Because if women are just as fit to be priests as men are, then there is no good reason to deny them the priesthood. "Just because God says so," isn't good enough.

What is the nature of the ordained priesthood that women are just as fit for it as men?

Are women capable of leading and guiding? Are they capable of performing sacraments (Orthodoxy says they can baptize in extremis)? Are they capable of teaching? Are they capable of praying for others and loving them?

Speaking in statements, please define the nature of the ordained priesthood in the Orthodox Church as you understand it.

The head of the local congregation who serves in the bishop's stead ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

And is this priesthood to be defined in purely utilitarian terms?

So you think that a priest is a different being than a layman?

Ya know, you might debate a lot more effectively if you wouldn't answer every question with a question that only reveals the straw man you just created of the logic behind the question to which you're responding.

I'm just trying to understand your position.

Sometimes it's better for you to explain your position than deflect questions by inquiring into someone else's.

You claimed that I see the priesthood in merely utilitarian terms.

No, I didn't. I just responded to a statement that defined the priesthood purely in utilitarian terms.

I didn't define it in purely utilitarian terms. The priesthood is a calling, a sacrament, and a position that requires great preparation, love, and commitment. That's not mere utilitarianism, it's just a description of what a priest does. A father does a range of things for the kids but that isn't to say that those things are all there is to being a father.

That seems to imply in the context of this discussion that you think there is something about ordination that inherently changes the man ordained and that this change could never properly apply to a woman.

I think you're reading way too much into my questions. You might try actually answering them for a change.

Fine. Question answered.

So what is there about a female male priest that would make her different from a male priest? My answer is: nothing.

It's a straw man in that it shows absolutely no understanding of what I'm really trying to do here. For one, I've said nothing about the "maleness of God".

Ok, than I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were trying to say that male priests are the only legitimate priests because they are the same gender as God. My bad.

 

[Serge]

Egalitarianism, forcing equal outcomes, would be unjust.

I'm not asking for equal outcomes, just equal opportunities.

Part of the plausibility of women priests, as is the argument that sex is only incidental to the priesthood, that it's a matter of discipline, not doctrine. So teaches the liberal high church, the Episcopal Church.

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Non-Chalcedonian churches, and the Assyrian Church don't agree and never will.

And again, ordaining women hasn't stopped mainline denominations' decline. Whoever they're trying to impress isn't impressed.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

So what is there about a female male priest that would make her different from a male priest?

We now ordain transgendered persons?  This slope has become slippery, indeed. Soon we're going to ordain Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner to the priesthood.

My answer is: nothing.

Again, what do you know of priesthood that you can give such an answer?

 

[Daedelus1138]

Orthodox would probably argue a priest needs a beard to look like Christ.  However, western Christians do not have an iconic theology of the priesthood, and never really have had one.

(The local Antiochian priest, however, is beardless.)

 

[byhisgrace]

Have any Fathers or Councils in the first millennium explicitly said that women should not be ordained?

 

[Serge]

Soon we're going to ordain Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner to the priesthood.

The First World Anglicans are already on that and have been for some time. The world's still not impressed.

Orthodox would probably argue a priest needs a beard to look like Christ.  However, western Christians do not have an iconic theology of the priesthood, and never really have had one.

(The local Antiochian priest, however, is beardless.)

There are Orthodox and Greek Catholic newbs, who, understandably loving their new home in the Byzantine Rite, might say that. As far as I know it's not what Orthodoxy really teaches and indeed in the century or so the Orthodox have been in America, many priests have gone clean-shaven, looking like Roman Catholic or Episcopal priests, to fit in. (I think future Patriarch Tikhon gave his Russian priests permission to trim their beards for secular employment and to wear suits; legend has it there is a photo of the bishop himself wearing a suit.)

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Have any Fathers or Councils in the first millennium explicitly said that women should not be ordained?

Considering that we have a 2000-year tradition of not ordaining women to the priesthood, maybe the question you need to ask is this: Have any Fathers or Councils in the first millennium explicitly said that women should be ordained? In the absence of a definitive answer, maybe we should not deviate from our tradition of not ordaining women.