Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[Mor Ephrem]

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

What is "fatherhood"?  What is "motherhood"?  And what is "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?

Don't dodge my question.  You are the one claiming that God is not loving for not creating an egalitarian world.  Feel free to explain your answer by explaining what you mean by "egalitarian".   

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?

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.

An argument based on an "if".  You've convinced me. 

 

[Mor Ephrem]

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?

"Priesthood" =/= "Joel Osteen with rituals". 

 

[Minnesotan]

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.)

Old Believers, however, insist on beards not only for priests but also laymen as well. To them, because Christ had a beard, all men must therefore wear one. The problem with arguments like that is where do they stop? Someone could use that to make the Christian Identity argument that in order to be a Christian you need to share Christ's ethnic background, which is of course a repulsive proposition.

And then of course, what about early Western Roman depictions that show Jesus without a beard? Even though, in real life, he almost certainly did have one, yet there's a well-established tradition of depicting him without one in some places.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

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...

...is the bishop.

...who serves in the bishop's stead...

This explains what priests do when assigned to individual parish communities by their bishop (not all priests are so assigned).  This does not explain what priests are.  What's a priest in relation to a bishop? 

...ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

These are all episcopal duties. 

 

[byhisgrace]

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.

I suppose that's fair, though I find it hard to believe that egalitarianism has never even been an issue in the first 1800 years of Church History. At least one heretic must have raised it, and at least one Father must have addressed it. No?

 

[Serge]

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.

Since, as many Episcopalians call us, the Rrrrroman Church ("hey, we're Catholic too" plus snobbery) has the Fathers and those councils among its sources, we say the same thing.

Right, ministering in church as Joel Osteen with rituals, or as primarily a teacher, not a priest, is why Methodists, Presbyterians, et al., started ordaining women. But the Anglicans claimed to be kin to Catholics and Orthodox by claiming apostolic succession, so some of us born among them thought somehow we were Catholic. Women's ordination was Anglicanism's eff-you to us.

I find it hard to believe that egalitarianism has never even been an issue in the first 1800 years of Church History.

Egalitarianism really only dates from the "Enlightenment," circa 1800.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Whatever grace is imparted by ordination is for use for the congregation. It isn't some ontological change.

It's true that we don't typically speak of ordination as an ontological change in the way Roman Catholics do, and yet ordination is something more than "grace imparted for use for the congregation", at least based on the ordination rites.  Also, in the rare case that a deposed priest is reinstated, he isn't ordained to the priesthood again: his deposition is reversed and he assumes his place among the other clerics of his order.  If it was pure function, then I find it difficult to imagine the circumstances in which it wouldn't be preferable to re-ordain the man publicly rather than just send him a letter saying "Here's your new parish assignment, Sunday Liturgy is scheduled to begin at 9am, make sure to set your alarm." 

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?

What does the "image of God" have to do with this?  No one is denying that both men and women are created in the image of God, but that's not nearly the only requirement for ordination.  If it was, why are you proposing only the ordination of women?  Why not the ordination of Hindus?   

 

[Minnesotan]

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

What about this? It isn't actually an ordained status, but they do have a major role to play in the operation of most parishes (the ones that aren't led by hieromonks).

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Orthodox would probably argue a priest needs a beard to look like Christ. 

 

[wgw]

Ive always thought that just as only women can be mothers, even sterile women are capable of a unique love for their adopted offspring, so too do men have a special calling to the Priesthood, going back to the religion of Israel.

But as our legends surrounding Mary as a temple servant, and our nuns show, women can be sacred ministers, even deaconesses, whose duties were very different from those of the ancient deacons, yet similiar, in that both helped deliver a sacrament (the eucharist for the deacons and baprism for women, by the deaconesses).  And we venerate St. Mary over all male saints, no one else receives hyperdoulia, while latria is of course only offered to the triune God.

So I dont think claims of sexism hold water in regard to the Orthodox Church.  The matushkas are as important to the life of the parish as the priest in many cases and we pay a premium for married priests so that we get the whole package, including the matushka.

 

[biro]

I've been at the same parish for the past five years, through the administrations of two priests, and never once met either of the presbyteras.

 

[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.

I suppose that's fair, though I find it hard to believe that egalitarianism has never even been an issue in the first 1800 years of Church History. At least one heretic must have raised it, and at least one Father must have addressed it. No?

What else do you find hard to believe?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

No longer locked for split

 

[PeterTheAleut]

NVM

 

[LBK]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

Just following your example.

 

[LBK]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

Just following your example.

byhisgrace is an enquirer, not formally received into either the EO or OO church. Stop picking fights with those who can't properly fight them. 

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

 

[byhisgrace]

LBK, though I appreciate you for speaking up for me, I wasn't hurt by that particular post by PtA. It was a bit unnecessary, yes, but it was trivially mild. 

As for my personal inquiry about women's ordination, I think that 1 Timothy 2:13-14 and how the Church consistently applied it is good enough for me. I just asked if there's any Patristics quote I could use, if you will, as more apologetic tools. That's all. 

 

[Volnutt]

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

What is "fatherhood"?  What is "motherhood"?  And what is "priesthood"?

The condition of being a father, mother, and priest, respectively. It has functions and it's a condition such that the respective nouns apply to each.

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?

Don't dodge my question.  You are the one claiming that God is not loving for not creating an egalitarian world.  Feel free to explain your answer by explaining what you mean by "egalitarian".

That is the answer to your question. Just like God created blacks to be free people, I see no reason to think that He didn't create women to be capable of being priests. Even when people are physically incapable of something, there's still the possibility of a reasonable equivalent. In the case of parenthood, there are the counterparts of mother and father to make up for the biological differences. Presbyteras though are not nearly equal to priests.

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?

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.

An argument based on an "if".  You've convinced me. 

Like I said, I think there's good reason to assume said "if."

 

[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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there's nothing that would make a female priest different from a male priest?

 

[byhisgrace]

Hi Volnutt

Regarding the ordination of women, why wouldn't it be a good enough reason to say that a deeply historical Church like the Orthodox Church has interpreted the Scriptures for 2000 years, and therefore is most likely to have the correct understanding of 1 Timothy 2:13-14?

 

[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...

...is the bishop.

...who serves in the bishop's stead...

This explains what priests do when assigned to individual parish communities by their bishop (not all priests are so assigned).  This does not explain what priests are.  What's a priest in relation to a bishop? 

...ministering the sacraments, pastoring and teaching, ensuring order in the community, and representing the congregation before God.

These are all episcopal duties.

As I understand it, in relation to a bishop the priest is essentially an assistant/servant with greater ability to perform sacraments who serves at the bishop's pleasure.

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

Just following your example.

byhisgrace is an enquirer, not formally received into either the EO or OO church. Stop picking fights with those who can't properly fight them. 

LBK, if you wish to discuss the topic of women's ordination, then please do so. Otherwise, leave me alone.

 

[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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

 

[Volnutt]

Whatever grace is imparted by ordination is for use for the congregation. It isn't some ontological change.

It's true that we don't typically speak of ordination as an ontological change in the way Roman Catholics do, and yet ordination is something more than "grace imparted for use for the congregation", at least based on the ordination rites.  Also, in the rare case that a deposed priest is reinstated, he isn't ordained to the priesthood again: his deposition is reversed and he assumes his place among the other clerics of his order.  If it was pure function, then I find it difficult to imagine the circumstances in which it wouldn't be preferable to re-ordain the man publicly rather than just send him a letter saying "Here's your new parish assignment, Sunday Liturgy is scheduled to begin at 9am, make sure to set your alarm."

Ok, but you still have to show that being male is an essential part of said ontological change. Reinstatement can be explained by convenience.

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?

What does the "image of God" have to do with this?  No one is denying that both men and women are created in the image of God, but that's not nearly the only requirement for ordination.  If it was, why are you proposing only the ordination of women?  Why not the ordination of Hindus? 

Denying them this equality for no clear reason is a denial of the equality of their image. Hindus aren't ordained for the clear reason that they aren't believes (for a start). I never said being in the Image of God is the only necessary requirement.

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

 

[LBK]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

Just following your example.

byhisgrace is an enquirer, not formally received into either the EO or OO church. Stop picking fights with those who can't properly fight them. 

LBK, if you wish to discuss the topic of women's ordination, then please do so. Otherwise, leave me alone.

You are reading my posts. I am not responsible for your deliberate actions.

 

[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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

 

[Volnutt]

Hi Volnutt

Regarding the ordination of women, why wouldn't it be a good enough reason to say that a deeply historical Church like the Orthodox Church has interpreted the Scriptures for 2000 years, and therefore is most likely to have the correct understanding of 1 Timothy 2:13-14?

Deuteronomy 23:2 says that a bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. Read literally, this verse would be monstrously evil, I don't need the Orthodox Church to tell me that. I think of 1 Timothy 2:13-14 the same way.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

What else do you find hard to believe?

byhisgrace is an enquirer into Orthodoxy. Why are you so harsh on him?

Just following your example.

byhisgrace is an enquirer, not formally received into either the EO or OO church. Stop picking fights with those who can't properly fight them. 

LBK, if you wish to discuss the topic of women's ordination, then please do so. Otherwise, leave me alone.

You are reading my posts. I am not responsible for your deliberate actions.

You will be held responsible for your posts.

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

Nothing. I do know that inequalities like this are wrong, though.

 

[LBK]

LBK, if you wish to discuss the topic of women's ordination, then please do so. Otherwise, leave me alone.

Last time I checked, I was on your blocked list. You chose to read my posts of your own volition.  olice:

 

[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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

Nothing. I do know that inequalities like this are wrong, though.

So you know nothing about priesthood in the Orthodox Church, yet you feel yourself qualified to judge our practice of a male-only priesthood as wrong because it violates your sense of egalitarianism. If you don't know anything about the Orthodox priesthood and why we don't ordain women, then maybe you should admit that you're not qualified to judge it.

 

[byhisgrace]

Inquirers may not be "qualified to judge," but they have the right to question the faith they are inquiring about. 

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

Nothing. I do know that inequalities like this are wrong, though.

So you know nothing about priesthood in the Orthodox Church, yet you feel yourself qualified to judge our practice of a male-only priesthood as wrong because it violates your sense of egalitarianism. If you don't know anything about the Orthodox priesthood and why we don't ordain women, then maybe you should admit that you're not qualified to judge it.

So you have absolutely no objection to, for example, Muslim honor killings or Hindu widow burning because you aren't part of that culture and thus are "not equipped to judge" based on your sense of human rights?

 

[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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

Nothing. I do know that inequalities like this are wrong, though.

So you know nothing about priesthood in the Orthodox Church, yet you feel yourself qualified to judge our practice of a male-only priesthood as wrong because it violates your sense of egalitarianism. If you don't know anything about the Orthodox priesthood and why we don't ordain women, then maybe you should admit that you're not qualified to judge it.

So you have absolutely no objection to, for example, Muslim honor killings or Hindu widow burning because you aren't part of that culture and thus are "not equipped to judge" based on your sense of human rights?

You're putting words into my mouth again. Stop it. You are the one attacking our Church's practice of not ordaining women to the priesthood. You are the one being called to answer questions about your reasoning. You are the one who needs to defend your judgment of our practice. Attempting to deflect questions by asking absurd questions of me over things I never said will not absolve you of the burden I and others are putting on you. Right now you need to establish how much you know about Orthodox priesthood and why we reserve it for men only. Right now you need to establish why egalitarianism is such a noble goal that our practice of a male-only priesthood is wrong because it isn't what you call "egalitarian". Right now you need to establish your qualifications to condemn a practice with which you disagree.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

LBK, if you wish to discuss the topic of women's ordination, then please do so. Otherwise, leave me alone.

Last time I checked, I was on your blocked list. You chose to read my posts of your own volition.  olice:

No. I am required to read your posts.

 

[Volnutt]

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.

Different argument. Obviously you wouldn't for disciplinary reasons in a church that considers being transgendered to be a state of sin.

You missed the joke. I'll give you a hint as to what it is.

My answer is: nothing.

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

Ok, then what's the other option? It's some kind of mysterious, undefined change in the person's very being. What makes you think this is a change that needs a Y chromosome to take effect?

Please answer the question with a statement, without resorting to absurd straw men, and without putting words into my mouth. What do you know of priesthood that you can assert that there would be no difference between a female priest and a male priest?

I'm a reasonable, moral human being. If the Church tells me to eat dog crap, I'm not going to do it no matter how much authority is behind it.

Where in the world did that come from? Please try to stay on topic.

That's the answer to your question. Forcing people to eat dog crap is clearly wrong, denying women equal authority with men when there's no good reason to so is also clearly wrong.

That's not an answer to my question. You're only making another assertion that has nothing to do with what I'm asking. So once again, what do you know of priesthood?

Nothing. I do know that inequalities like this are wrong, though.

So you know nothing about priesthood in the Orthodox Church, yet you feel yourself qualified to judge our practice of a male-only priesthood as wrong because it violates your sense of egalitarianism. If you don't know anything about the Orthodox priesthood and why we don't ordain women, then maybe you should admit that you're not qualified to judge it.

So you have absolutely no objection to, for example, Muslim honor killings or Hindu widow burning because you aren't part of that culture and thus are "not equipped to judge" based on your sense of human rights?

You're putting words into my mouth again. Stop it. You are the one attacking our Church's practice of not ordaining women to the priesthood. You are the one being called to answer questions about your reasoning. You are the one who needs to defend your judgment of our practice. Attempting to deflect questions by asking absurd questions of me over things I never said will not absolve you of the burden I and others are putting on you. Right now you need to establish how much you know about Orthodox priesthood and why we reserve it for men only. Right now you need to establish why egalitarianism is such a noble goal that our practice of a male-only priesthood is wrong because it isn't what you call "egalitarian". Right now you need to establish your qualifications to condemn a practice with which you disagree.

Forget it. I tried to explain where I was coming from and it went right over your head. I might as well talk to wall.