Author Topic: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess  (Read 4602 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline thenerdpaul

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Quote
It has come to our attention that the venerable Patriarchate of Alexandria, after due consideration, has decided to reinstate the ancient order of deaconess in order better to serve the pastoral needs of the ever-increasing number of missionary parishes within the Patriarchate serving the whole continent of Africa. The validity of this decision, however, has been questioned by some.

We, the undersigned, active and emeriti professors of liturgics and liturgical theology at various theological schools and seminaries in Greece and the United States of America, wish to express respectfully our support of His Beatitude Patriarch Theodoros and Holy Synod of Alexandria Patriarchate in their the effort to restore in a timely manner the order of deaconess within the borders of the Patriarchate.

The historical, theological, canonical, and liturgical validity of the order of deaconess has been repeatedly and repeatedly asserted in recent years by Orthodox scholars and theologians. Although the order of deaconess gradually fell into decline by the end of the fifteenth century, it survived among the Oriental Orthodox Churches and in some monastic communities. The Russian Orthodox Church before the 1917 Revolution and again in more recent times has considered restoring it. Likewise St. Nectarios and other contemporary Greek bishops have ordained deaconesses. In fact, the Church of Greece established a School of Deaconesses, which in the end developed into a school for social workers.

The reinstitution of the female diaconate does not constitute an innovation, as some would have us believe, but revitalization of a once functional, vibrant, and effective ministry in order to provide the opportunity for qualified women to offer in our era their unique and specific gifts in the service of God's people as publicly commissioned and authorized educators, evangelists, preachers, counselors, social workers, et.al.

Initially, the liturgical role of the female diaconate appears to have been limited, according to sources. These same sources provide us with the ritual of ordination of a female diacon, which is strikingly similar to that of the male diacon. Significantly, the liturgical vestments are the same as those of the male deacon's. The decision as to whether or not women deacons will perform added liturgical functions in our time, as one theologian puts it, "remains exclusively the prerogative of bishops in the synod."

Indeed, the very process of restoring the female diaconate requires careful consideration of several other factors as well, including the proper preparation and education of the people who will be called upon to receive, honor and respect the deaconesses assigned to their parishes. Also crucial for the process of restoration is to carefully articulate the qualities and qualifications of the candidates for the office. St. Paul in his Pastoral Epistles provides guidance as to the qualities required of the candidate. The canons tell us of some qualifications, such as the minimum age of the candidate. However, nothing is said of other qualifications such as the education and marital status of the candidate. These and other matters, including the public attire, the remuneration and the method of assignment and removal of the deaconess, must also be addressed. Above all, the process requires that the role and functions of the deaconess be identified, properly defined, and clearly stated.

Talk of the restoration of the order of female deacons has been with us for several decades. In fact, one of the conclusions (VIII) of the Inter-Orthodox Symposium, "The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church" which was held on the island of Rhodes in 1988, addressed this very issue. It bears repeating parts of the conclusion:

Generally speaking, it is safe to say that only doctrinal impediments and commonly accepted authoritative precedents would prevent an autocephalous Church from enacting liturgical reforms within its borders. Liturgical and canonical issues that have implications beyond the local church are generally resolved through a consensus of the autocephalous churches. The restoration of the female diaconate is such that neither doctrinal issues nor authoritative precedents are at stake. It is refreshing to know that a local Church has taken up the challenge, has studied the matter carefully, and is proposing measures for the implementation of a significant reform, the restoration of the order of deaconess, through a prudently conceived program.     

In light of this, we respectfully support the decision of the Patriarchate of Alexandria to restore the female diaconate, thus giving a flesh to an idea that has been discussed and studied by pastors and theologians for decades.

With deep respect and respect

Evangelos Theodorou, Theological School of the University of Athens

Alkiviadis Calivas, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Paul Meyendorff, St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

George Filias, Theological School of the University of Athens

Panagiotis Skaltsis, Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki

Stelyios S. Muksuris, Byzantine Catholic Seminary

Nicholas Denysenko, Valparaiso University

Phillip Zymaris, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

John Klentos, Graduate Theological Union

Source: https://panorthodoxcemes.blogspot.ca/2017/10/orthodox-liturgists-issued-statement-of.html
I have now seen two baby spiders over the last several days, each perhaps 2mm long. Sure they're harmless now, but what about when they grow up? They probably know that I killed their mom.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
The question this statement wants to avoid is "Why?"  Why is this necessary, now of all times?  Why?  But they won't or can't answer it.

As for the ordination rites (it should be mentioned in the plural, not the singular since even the prayers differed), as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  Both would be dressed in the orar but that does not represent sacramental parity.  Also, the rules governing who could be ordained were radically different; a man could be married and ordained at the minimal age of 24 while a deaconess had to be 40 and celibate.  The deacon was ordained while he was kneeling with his head touching the altar; the deaconess stands and inclines her head.  Both are given the chalice, but the deaconess returns it immediately indicating her exclusion from administering the Eucharist.  Also, the office of deaconess was used in a time for when baptisms were common among adults (not so much today, but as many of us have seen adult conversions, perhaps this should be weighed in, but not considerably) and adult men and women were baptized separately (men were baptized naked).  Since that is no longer the case, why is the deaconess needed? 

To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.  I have many theological disagreements on a wide variety of subjects with several of the signers of this document so I take their opinions cum grano salis.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
The question this statement wants to avoid is "Why?"  Why is this necessary, now of all times?  Why?  But they won't or can't answer it.

Quote
... in order to provide the opportunity for qualified women to offer in our era their unique and specific gifts in the service of God's people as publicly commissioned and authorized educators, evangelists, preachers, counselors, social workers, et.al.

Meanwhile we await any compelling, coherent answer to the question "Why not?"
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 12:33:22 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
The question this statement wants to avoid is "Why?"  Why is this necessary, now of all times?  Why?  But they won't or can't answer it.

As for the ordination rites (it should be mentioned in the plural, not the singular since even the prayers differed), as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  Both would be dressed in the orar but that does not represent sacramental parity.  Also, the rules governing who could be ordained were radically different; a man could be married and ordained at the minimal age of 24 while a deaconess had to be 40 and celibate.  The deacon was ordained while he was kneeling with his head touching the altar; the deaconess stands and inclines her head.  Both are given the chalice, but the deaconess returns it immediately indicating her exclusion from administering the Eucharist.  Also, the office of deaconess was used in a time for when baptisms were common among adults (not so much today, but as many of us have seen adult conversions, perhaps this should be weighed in, but not considerably) and adult men and women were baptized separately (men were baptized naked).  Since that is no longer the case, why is the deaconess needed? 

To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.  I have many theological disagreements on a wide variety of subjects with several of the signers of this document so I take their opinions cum grano salis.

Here is the ordination service for deaconesses:  https://web.archive.org/web/20160311134142/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

What is that you are so afraid of?  Deaconesses celebrated in the Orthodox Church until the 12th century.  With all the problems in Byzantium with attacks and the dissolution of the Empire the standards of education dropped.  It would have been hard to find women who were literate for example.  Deaconesses have already been ordained in the Orthodox Church of Greece and in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
The question this statement wants to avoid is "Why?"  Why is this necessary, now of all times?  Why?  But they won't or can't answer it.

As for the ordination rites (it should be mentioned in the plural, not the singular since even the prayers differed), as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  Both would be dressed in the orar but that does not represent sacramental parity.  Also, the rules governing who could be ordained were radically different; a man could be married and ordained at the minimal age of 24 while a deaconess had to be 40 and celibate.  The deacon was ordained while he was kneeling with his head touching the altar; the deaconess stands and inclines her head.  Both are given the chalice, but the deaconess returns it immediately indicating her exclusion from administering the Eucharist.  Also, the office of deaconess was used in a time for when baptisms were common among adults (not so much today, but as many of us have seen adult conversions, perhaps this should be weighed in, but not considerably) and adult men and women were baptized separately (men were baptized naked).  Since that is no longer the case, why is the deaconess needed? 

To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.  I have many theological disagreements on a wide variety of subjects with several of the signers of this document so I take their opinions cum grano salis.

Here is the ordination service for deaconesses:  https://web.archive.org/web/20160311134142/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

What is that you are so afraid of?  Deaconesses celebrated in the Orthodox Church until the 12th century.  With all the problems in Byzantium with attacks and the dissolution of the Empire the standards of education dropped.  It would have been hard to find women who were literate for example.  Deaconesses have already been ordained in the Orthodox Church of Greece and in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Why do you assume I'm afraid?  Objections are not always rooted in fear.  What is the need for ordination of deaconesses now?  Why?  The "liturgists" who signed this document fail to answer that question and as I said, I do have some issues with these gentlemen on other theological issues so I'm not willing to buy into their reasoning just because they are famous and ipsi dixerunt.  JUst because it's ancient, why does that mean it should be revived? 
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Ive never seen any good reason as to why it should not be brought back. I hate the argument, "because we dont use it anymore". I find that to be an argument based out of someone not actually having an argument.

Quote
but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door
yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door. 

Hows that? Its an established, historical part of the Church. I think its a FAR stretch to say that this is going to lead to female priests.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Ive never seen any good reason as to why it should not be brought back. I hate the argument, "because we dont use it anymore". I find that to be an argument based out of someone not actually having an argument.

Quote
but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door
yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door. 

Hows that? Its an established, historical part of the Church. I think its a FAR stretch to say that this is going to lead to female priests.

PP

Um, I'm open to both possibilities. I think there are some who are sincere, but there could be those who use this to infiltrate the Church. That's how any policy in the real world tends to work. There are opportunists and sincere people on both sides of any policy.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 11:43:14 AM by xOrthodox4Christx »
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
What is the need for ordination of deaconesses now?  Why?...JUst because it's ancient, why does that mean it should be revived?

In addition to what Iconodule has already posted - about their being a value in an ordained ministry for women to utilize their gifts for the service of God's people under the supervision of and accountable to their bishop - the Alexandrian Church has determined that there is a particular pastoral need for the ministry in particular parts of their Sub-Saharan African territory.  Who are you to say otherwise or question their judgment?

Why do you assume I'm afraid?

This seems to be an argument made from a position of fear:

To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.

And it is answered here:

Quote
Q.Does the St. Phoebe Center promote the ordination of women to the priesthood (i.e. the episcopos or presbytery)?

A. No, ordination of women to those offices is not part of the Orthodox Christian Tradition and the St. Phoebe Center does not promote this.

Q. If women are ordained to the diaconate, won’t the next step be to ordain them to the priesthood/presbytery?

A. Ordination to the diaconate is not just a “stepping stone” to the priesthood/presbytery.  The order has its own charism and ministry.  Furthermore, for over a thousand years the Church ordained women to the diaconate and it did not lead to the ordination to the presbytery; therefore within the framework of the Orthodox Church, we should not think that would be the case today.

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/faqs/
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 12:38:10 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
What is the need for ordination of deaconesses now?  Why?...JUst because it's ancient, why does that mean it should be revived?

In addition to what Iconodule has already posted - about their being a value in an ordained ministry for women to utilize their gifts for the service of God's people under the supervision of and accountable to their bishop - the Alexandrian Church has determined that there is a particular pastoral need for the ministry in particular parts of their Sub-Saharan African territory.  Who are you to say otherwise or question their judgment?

Why do you assume I'm afraid?

This seems to be an argument made from a position of fear:

To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.



No, it is not based on fear, but based on reality.  People who generally advocate for upending traditional practice or teaching on anything are fine with piecemeal graduated approaches over time rather than a full frontal direct assault where they would be immediately rebuffed by the vast majority of hierarchy, clergy and laity to the point that it would take years upon years to bring it up again.  Even Ms. Elizabeth Behr-Spiegel who DOES argue for women's ordination continually tries to disguise her views by saying asking that they are open to the Spirit guiding them as if this were some sort of open question subject to debate.   What is being suggested now bears little resemblance to the ancient order.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
What is the need for ordination of deaconesses now?  Why?...JUst because it's ancient, why does that mean it should be revived?

In addition to what Iconodule has already posted - about their being a value in an ordained ministry for women to utilize their gifts for the service of God's people under the supervision of and accountable to their bishop - the Alexandrian Church has determined that there is a particular pastoral need for the ministry in particular parts of their Sub-Saharan African territory.  Who are you to say otherwise or question their judgment?


As a rule, I don't read much of what Iconodule has to say.

Secondly, who am I to say? I'm a baptized Orthodox Christian, a minor cleric tonsured by a bishop in apostolic succession.  Laity are not forbidden from defending the faith from within and without.  Plus, the people who wrote that statement are not infallible; they're not RC popes. 
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
No, it is not based on fear, but based on reality.  People who generally advocate for upending traditional practice or teaching on anything are fine with piecemeal graduated approaches over time rather than a full frontal direct assault where they would be immediately rebuffed by the vast majority of hierarchy, clergy and laity to the point that it would take years upon years to bring it up again.

Sounds like paranoia to me.  I'm for a restoration of the order of the deaconess, and I'd never advocate for a female priesthood.  The same is true with the St. Phoebe the Deaconess Center folks I've met and corresponded with.  They don't seem like subversive liars trying to destroy Orthodoxy piecemeal to me.  What are you basing that on?  Are you saying that the Patriarchate of Alexandria is bent on the same strategy?  Do you believe that anyone can advocate for the restoration of the order of the deaconess and be honest about it?  Or is everyone pushing for it some sort of crypto-feminist?

Even Ms. Elizabeth Behr-Spiegel who DOES argue for women's ordination continually tries to disguise her views by saying asking that they are open to the Spirit guiding them as if this were some sort of open question subject to debate.   

What does this have to do with what we're discussing here?  Are you assigning her motives to everyone else who argues for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?

What is being suggested now bears little resemblance to the ancient order.

Others more qualified to render judgment than yourself seem to disagree.

As a rule, I don't read much of what Iconodule has to say.

So you're dismissing a valid argument out of hand based on who first posited it in this particular discussion?  You realize that the argument does not originate with Iconodule, right?  You'll eventually have to address it on its own merits if you're going to effectively counter it.

Secondly, who am I to say? I'm a baptized Orthodox Christian, a minor cleric tonsured by a bishop in apostolic succession.  Laity are not forbidden from defending the faith from within and without.  Plus, the people who wrote that statement are not infallible; they're not RC popes.

LOL @ the idea of YOU defending the faith against the Patriarchate of Alexandria.  But anyway, strawmen aside, I wasn't speaking to the idea of you having a right to open your mouth on the subject.  I was asking what your qualifications to make a determination on whether or not the pastoral need identified for the revival of the ministry by the Patriarchate of Alexandria within its canonical territory existed or not.  When was the last time you visited Burundi and Rwanda, for which H.B. Patriarch Theodoros II and Their Eminences Metropolitan Nicephorus and Metropolitan Meletios consecrated these women? 



http://basilica.ro/en/patriarch-theodoros-of-alexandria-performs-first-consecration-of-deaconesses/

I guess I could also ask about your qualifications to actually argue about the history of the order with some of the folks on the advisory board of the St. Phoebe Center, like Dr. Valarie Karras or Fr. John McGuckin.  Based on your posting here, my impression right now is that they'd expose the gaps in your knowledge you attempt to mask with the sort of ranting you've treated us to above in short order.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,441
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: POC, but my heart belongs to Antioch
There are some deaconesses in the Antiochian Church in Lebanon: an article in Arabic about it.

I've heard they're in some Greek monasteries.

I would say that deaconess are needed primarily at monasteries and in mission areas. They mabye also needed at some large parish, or, contrary: small but active ones. To help liturgically (chanters, psalmists, readers, bring/take something, church decoration, cleaning), socially, medically, catechetically.
Yeah, most of this stuff, maybe even all these things, may be done without being a deaconess. However, being a decaness firstly, sanction all these things and secondly, it obliges certain women to do certain things.

Frankly speaking, sometimes I'm wondering if it's possible for woman to be a tonsured (I mean, have a chirotesy) reader/psalmist. As from time to time I do this at my parish. And espeically at some rural parishes such women readers or decaoness woudl be better than most of men, who read very hardly, but theyr'e asked to do it jsut becfause of their sex, despite that there are some knowlegable women that know Church Slavonic, melodies for certain types of readings etc. (I'm speaking there about Polish circumstances).
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
in an open culture such as America...with its distinct lack of separation of the sexes....this seems like a 'frivolous grasping for the priesthood' sort of move.

But in -much- of the world...the ancient world...you know...the world where our traditions started and came from...the need is much clearer. 

And to be honest, even here in America...there are plenty of husbands who would be much more comfortable with their wife who is inquiring into Orthodoxy, mainly dealing with a female catechisist  than a male Priest or layperson who often ends up meeting with them alone.

So rather than just thinking about this in a 'western world' perspective...maybe we should look at it as 'What Orthodoxy used to do....might be worth reviving in the sake of being more traditional...and keeping ourselves 'not of this western world'
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
[

What does this have to do with what we're discussing here?  Are you assigning her motives to everyone else who argues for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?

Since we're dealing with the topic of women's ordination , either to the diaconate or the priesthood, I assumed that Ms. Behr-Spiegel's work and activism was well known.  Apparently not.  APologies for the assumption.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA

LOL @ the idea of YOU defending the faith against the Patriarchate of Alexandria.  But anyway, strawmen aside, I wasn't speaking to the idea of you having a right to open your mouth on the subject.  I was asking what your qualifications to make a determination on whether or not the pastoral need identified for the revival of the ministry by the Patriarchate of Alexandria within its canonical territory existed or not.  When was the last time you visited Burundi and Rwanda, for which H.B. Patriarch Theodoros II and Their Eminences Metropolitan Nicephorus and Metropolitan Meletios consecrated these women? 



As I wrote earlier, the deaconess position was for specific ministries, the vast majority of which are not needed now (e.g. the baptism of naked adults which is not done anymore).  YOu cannot recreate a historic office for a novel purpose.  I also suggest that these ministries do NOT require an ordination.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Incidentally I got Behr-Sigel's book of essays on women's ministry in the mail a few days ago. Maybe I'll share my thoughts when I find time to read it.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
I also suggest that these ministries do NOT require an ordination.

By that logic, let's abolish the officer of reader. And let's face it, most subdeacons are basically glorified altar boys, so get rid of the subdiaconate.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
[

What does this have to do with what we're discussing here?  Are you assigning her motives to everyone else who argues for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?

Since we're dealing with the topic of women's ordination , either to the diaconate or the priesthood, I assumed that Ms. Behr-Spiegel's work and activism was well known.  Apparently not.  APologies for the assumption.

It's not so much the assumption that we're all familiar with her work that is problematic as it is that anyone who advocates for the restoration of the order of the deaconess - an undeniable part of our Tradition and heritage - is also gunning for a heterodox innovation like a female priesthood.


LOL @ the idea of YOU defending the faith against the Patriarchate of Alexandria.  But anyway, strawmen aside, I wasn't speaking to the idea of you having a right to open your mouth on the subject.  I was asking what your qualifications to make a determination on whether or not the pastoral need identified for the revival of the ministry by the Patriarchate of Alexandria within its canonical territory existed or not.  When was the last time you visited Burundi and Rwanda, for which H.B. Patriarch Theodoros II and Their Eminences Metropolitan Nicephorus and Metropolitan Meletios consecrated these women? 



As I wrote earlier, the deaconess position was for specific ministries, the vast majority of which are not needed now (e.g. the baptism of naked adults which is not done anymore).  YOu cannot recreate a historic office for a novel purpose.  I also suggest that these ministries do NOT require an ordination.

What are you basing your assumptions on here?  How do you know the pastoral needs of the Patriarch of Alexandria's flock in Sub-Saharan Africa?  How do you know how they made the determination that an ordained ministry was necessary and worth implementing in this specific circumstance, and what flaws do you see in their logic?  Have you evaluated the situation on the ground there before making your determination?

As to "recreating a historic office for a novel purpose" and female deacons existing to help primarily with "naked baptisms":

Quote
Female deacons did more than help with female baptisms. Thirteen different duties of the deaconess are listed in The Study of Liturgy, Oxford, 1978 and Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of East and West, 1990. Her duties included: administration, supervision at Liturgy, taking charge of properties, reporting to the Bishop, providing pastoral care to women, sheltering guests, and more.  Most of those needs still exist today.

In a presentation made by Valerie Karras, Th.D., Ph.D., at the “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology International Theological Conference” in Thessaloniki, Greece, Dr. Karras states, “The Church’s historical division according to sex of public and private diaconal ministries paralleled the gendered division of functions in almost all aspect of life in the late antique and Byzantine societies in which Orthodox Christianity developed.” Dr. Karras also states, “If we examine the cultural context of the historical female diaconate, we cannot fail but be astonished that, in a society where women served almost no public roles and held no public offices, the Church nevertheless not only employed women to serve the pastoral and liturgical needs of its female faithful but ranked them among its major orders of clergy, fully ordaining them in a rite virtually identical to that of their male counterparts.” We need to question why the church is not ordaining women today when the cultural barriers of the early church are non-existent.

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/faqs/

And as far as the ministries of a deaconess not requiring an ordination:

Quote
Q. Why can’t women just continue serving without being ordained, like they do now?

A. In order to answer this question, it is helpful to understand what an ordination means in an Orthodox context.  In one sense, we are all “ordained” into the ministry of Christ—the Royal Priesthood—by virtue of our baptism and chrismation.  In a more specific sense, an ordination is a setting apart of people for ministry in a particular community, changing their relationship with the community. Having been recognized by the community, their gifts are then enlivened by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Those elevated to “priesthood” (i.e. bishop, priest, and deacon) are ordained in the context of the Eucharist, at the altar, and by the bishop. Their service is tied to the liturgy and the altar as the source and summit of their ministry.  In concrete terms, they connect the liturgy of our lives to the sacramental life of the Church.  With the blessing of the bishop, their ministry is universal in scope and confers the authority, credibility, recognition, support, and protection of the Church.  It also demands public accountability to the Church and obedience to the bishop.

Lay ministry is important.  However, it does not function in a sacramental capacity in the way that an ordained ministry does.  (For instance, a lay chaplain can visit and pray with the sick, but cannot bring communion to them.)  In addition, the authority, recognition, support, and protection of the Church given to the lay minister can vary greatly.  Furthermore, the accountability of the lay minister to the Church can vary as well.  (This can even be dangerous to those who are being served in areas where accountability and proper training are particularly important (e.g. pastoral care and spiritual direction.))  Moreover, lay ministry is typically more local in scope and usually dependent on the local priest for its exercise.  If the local situation were to change (e.g. a parish gets a new priest who may have a different idea of what a lay minister, in particular a woman, can or should be doing in the church), the ministerial possibilities for her can change abruptly without recourse.

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/faqs/

And you still haven't answered my questions regarding your assigning sinister motives to anyone advocating the restoration of the office of the deaconess.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
This.   

I still just don’t get why people who in all other things are loudly rejecting western American culture as ‘not good and something new’ form their opinion on this topic based solely on ‘Orthodoxy in America and what it needs’


All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Daniel2:47

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Exploring the Orthodox tradition and seeking Truth
  • Faith: Orthodox - Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain
Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 07:15:48 AM by Daniel2:47 »

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

How would you know?  According to your profile you're a "post-Evangelical exploring the Orthodox Tradition and seeking the truth" who says "I am my own pope".  Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better.  You're not even an Orthodox Christian yet and you presume to call people who are actually within the Church "liberal schismatics"?  And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?  The hubris in your post is overwhelming.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.

Or maybe some of the ex-Evangelicals who haven't let go of the baggage from their former tradition - including how they think Orthodoxy should align itself politically, which is oozing from your post - will be the ones who leave the Church if she embraces what is already a part of her living Tradition and in no way an acquiescence to the liberal West.

It seems like you still have a little more inquiring and exploring to do, Your Post-Evangelical Popeyness.  Orthodoxy - including the order of the deaconess, which is still very much alive in some jurisdictions - has been doing fine without American Evangelicalism, and its kneejerk political sensibilities, for the past 2000 years.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 08:09:19 AM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
I tend to think that the deacon, male or female, is the highest charism that every Christian should aspire at the very least to imitate.  Our Lord Jesus Christ was a deacon (Matthew 20:28), and so should we.

I think there needs to be a good spiritual and theological study of what it means to be a deacon.  We have concentrated so much on the importance of presbyters and bishops, but deacons seem to be in the background and at times looked at as unnecessary and can be replaced by lay leaders and servants.  This attitude has caused confusion as to the general meaning of the deaconate and the orders that are obedient to the deaconate as well.

And we treat it like a rank as well.  There is this understanding that one has to be “ordained” a deacon in order to be a presbyter or bishop.  But I think the meaning was lost.  That shouldn’t be a rise in the ranks, but a prerequisite of spirituality.  In order to be a good presbyter or Bishop, you must learn to perfect your “spiritual deaconate”, which is the highest calling.  One doesn’t cease to be “deacon” when becoming a presbyter or bishop, but only has a specific role of his ministry.

I hope I’m not wrong, but that’s the way I can make sense out of this.  I feel this spirituality can help understand why there shouldn’t be a fear to use the deaconate as a stepping stone into male-only orders, but a specific goal for every Christian laity to achieve, and then few of those Christians are then called into the Apostolic succession, in which males would then be only chosen.  At the same time, this spirituality should also affirm there needs to always be male and female deacons, and that the absence of such ministers that occurred was due to an anomaly in some parts of history.

Those are my speculative two cents though.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 09:49:08 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
There are some deaconesses in the Antiochian Church in Lebanon: an article in Arabic about it.

I've heard they're in some Greek monasteries.

I would say that deaconess are needed primarily at monasteries and in mission areas. They mabye also needed at some large parish, or, contrary: small but active ones. To help liturgically (chanters, psalmists, readers, bring/take something, church decoration, cleaning), socially, medically, catechetically.
Yeah, most of this stuff, maybe even all these things, may be done without being a deaconess. However, being a decaness firstly, sanction all these things and secondly, it obliges certain women to do certain things.

Frankly speaking, sometimes I'm wondering if it's possible for woman to be a tonsured (I mean, have a chirotesy) reader/psalmist. As from time to time I do this at my parish. And espeically at some rural parishes such women readers or decaoness woudl be better than most of men, who read very hardly, but theyr'e asked to do it jsut becfause of their sex, despite that there are some knowlegable women that know Church Slavonic, melodies for certain types of readings etc. (I'm speaking there about Polish circumstances).

In the Syriac Church, and by imitation, some Coptic dioceses, have already determined that women can be consecrated as chanters in the ecclesial choir.  But the jury is still out on lectors and subdeacons, and an argument is usually made that the answer is “yes, but only in female monastic orders”.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 09:54:01 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,024
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Wasn't Priscilla a deaconess?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
And Phoebe...

But then you’ll get argument that would say they were called “deacons” not in the ecclesial sense we may tend to think of them.

Whatever the case may be, there will be two sides of the argument:
1.  Deaconesses are equivalent in charism to liturgical deacons (the null hypothesis...don’t mind me, I’m getting really deep into biostats these days)
2.  Deaconesses are not equivalent in charism to liturgical deacons

And whatever Scripture you pose or historical argument you find, there will be two ways to interpret them, and so this becomes the grey area that confuses everyone and leads no one to a cogent conclusion.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 10:11:23 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Wasn't Priscilla a deaconess?
From the Greek, διάκονα, or servant.  It's clear from the text that neither Priscilla nor Phoebe had any official liturgical role.  Besides, aren't we all Christians servants of the Lord?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 10:39:07 AM by Sharbel »
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
I think there needs to be a good spiritual and theological study of what it means to be a deacon.  We have concentrated so much on the importance of presbyters and bishops, but deacons seem to be in the background and at times looked at as unnecessary and can be replaced by lay leaders and servants.  This attitude has caused confusion as to the general meaning of the deaconate and the orders that are obedient to the deaconate as well.
Exactly the same happened in the Catholic Church, Latin or otherwise.  It seems to me that the Eastern Catholic Churches have understood better what the orders of the diaconate and subdeaconate are, while the Latin Church, lacking the latter, seems to have gone overboard a little with the restoration of the deaconate, practically abolished since the Council of Trent.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
It's clear from the text that neither Priscilla nor Phoebe had any official liturgical role. 

Nor did any other deacons.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

How would you know?  According to your profile you're a "post-Evangelical exploring the Orthodox Tradition and seeking the truth" who says "I am my own pope".  Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better.  You're not even an Orthodox Christian yet and you presume to call people who are actually within the Church "liberal schismatics"?  And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?  The hubris in your post is overwhelming.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.

Or maybe some of the ex-Evangelicals who haven't let go of the baggage from their former tradition - including how they think Orthodoxy should align itself politically, which is oozing from your post - will be the ones who leave the Church if she embraces what is already a part of her living Tradition and in no way an acquiescence to the liberal West.

It seems like you still have a little more inquiring and exploring to do, Your Post-Evangelical Popeyness.  Orthodoxy - including the order of the deaconess, which is still very much alive in some jurisdictions - has been doing fine without American Evangelicalism, and its kneejerk political sensibilities, for the past 2000 years.

So, just because he's inquiring into Orthodoxy means that he has no right to voice his opinion in the debate? Talk about Church inclusiveness!

Well, you might as well ban me from the thread, ban him from the thread - and ban yourself from the thread, considering you are an Oriental Orthodox who isn't even inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, who is commenting on an Eastern Orthodox issue, who, by your own logic, should not have the privilege of voicing your opinion.

And I wonder how you can say that this argument against "deaconess ordination" stems from "Evangelical baggage" when, may I remind you, Evangelicals are probably the most hostile group of "Christians" to any idea of organized church governance.

May I also ask how secular feminism today is compatible with Orthodoxy, which is what you are implying? The ideology which treats motherhood as a kind of slavery, and demands an incineration of any kind of distinction between the two genders? An ideology which, out of hubris, tries to create a boogeyman out of the mere concept of masculinity?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 01:10:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
So, just because he's inquiring into Orthodoxy means that he has no right to voice his opinion in the debate? Talk about Church inclusiveness!

Not at all what I said.  You need to work on your comprehension skills.  What I said was, as an inquirer, he should be more hesitant to condemn those who are already living within the Ark of Salvation as "liberal schismatics", especially when none of the parties mentioned - up to and including the Patriarch of Alexandria - are schismatics, and not every advocate for the restoration of the order of the deaconess could be classified as "liberal".  So yeah, reading is fundamental.  Work on that.

Well, you might as well ban me from the thread, ban him from the thread

Nobody is talking about banning anyone from the discussion, so again, work on that reading comprehension thing, but inquirers acting butthurt when the Orthodox Church they've created in their minds doesn't match up with what our living Tradition actually is should at least mind their manners and refrain from reviling actual Orthodox Christians as "liberal schismatics" when they are anything but.

and ban yourself from the thread, considering you are an Oriental Orthodox who isn't even inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, who is commenting on an Eastern Orthodox issue, who, by your own logic, should not have the privilege of voicing your opinion.

So now we see that your inability to comprehend the written word is surpassed only by your misapplication of logical thought.  Accepting for a moment your assertion that Oriental Orthodox Christians should be placed in the same category as Evangelical Protestants relative to the Eastern Orthodox Church - and ignoring the living witness of the Church and general consensus of the leading theologians of both sides that both families have upheld the same Apostolic Faith for the last 1500 years in a way that Western heretics have not - "by my own logic" I would not be barred from the discussion, but should rather be more careful about condemning those within the Eastern Orthodox Church as "schismatics" when I'm not even in the Church myself.  Try to keep up here.

And I wonder how you can say that this argument against "deaconess ordination" stems from "Evangelical baggage" when, may I remind you, Evangelicals are probably the most hostile group of "Christians" to any idea of organized Church governance.

And again, basic courses on reading comprehension are readily available at GED academies across the land.  Look into one.  I never said that that hostility to the Orthodox deaconess stemmed from Evangelical theology or ecclesiology, but rather that tarring Orthodox Christians in favor of reviving their own tradition as "liberals" and "secular feminists" stems from - and I quote - "American Evangelical...kneejerk political sensibilities".  So yeah, you can wipe that dung off of your shoes as you enter the doors of the Church, if you ever do, because trying to remake Orthodoxy in the image of one American political ideology or the other isn't going to fly.  No Orthodox jurisdiction - Eastern or Oriental - is going to ally itself exclusively with the American political right against the "feminists" and the "liberals" as American Evangelicalism has done, and none of that will factor into whether or not the order of the deaconess is revived in this country.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

....why not?

Why not include organs to help the choir stay in tune?  Why not have large TV Monitors so the people in the back can see?  The "why not" question can have countless other "why nots" added to it.

It's not the "why not" that is important....as much as the why.  We do not do things merely "because"...there must be a real purpose to all things.  What is the real purpose?

Is it so women feel more "involved" and like they "participate"? 

As a woman, allow me to say...that I participate fully....I am able to partake of the Eucharist....I am able to confess my sins and obtain forgiveness....I am able to serve the needy, help the orphans, care for the widows.  I bury the dead.

Why do I need to be "ordained" to feel fulfilled....to answer the "calling"?

Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?

 
 

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

 
 


This presumes a very western attitude re: modesty........the places that have already re-established the deaconess have modesty. That 'we'  have lost it, is only true in a fraction of Orthodox lands.

And are we not putting the cart before the horse saying 'lets be modest BEFORE' we do this....rather than...maybe this...would help a return to modesty....
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

....why not?

Why not include organs to help the choir stay in tune?  Why not have large TV Monitors so the people in the back can see?  The "why not" question can have countless other "why nots" added to it.

It's not the "why not" that is important....as much as the why.  We do not do things merely "because"...there must be a real purpose to all things.  What is the real purpose?

Is it so women feel more "involved" and like they "participate"? 

As a woman, allow me to say...that I participate fully....I am able to partake of the Eucharist....I am able to confess my sins and obtain forgiveness....I am able to serve the needy, help the orphans, care for the widows.  I bury the dead.

Why do I need to be "ordained" to feel fulfilled....to answer the "calling"?

Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?

 
 

Thank you!
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
It's as likely that a flourishing diaconate of women would save the American Orthodox churches from female priests as cause them. When the female aspect of the human soul are restored to their ancient service appointed by the Apostles, a nourishing balance could descend upon Orthodoxy. It is not God's will that this modern imbalance remain, that anyone be reduced to, shall we say, fasting from spiritual service for which mankind was ordained before Creation, as St. Paul says.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

No one has said that.  In fact, arguments have been presented that there is a genuine pastoral need that necessitates the reviving of the order.  I don't think that anyone - including the Patriarchate of Alexandria - would revive the order based simply on "because it is an ancient practice, blah blah blah".

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

All except the pants thing.  There was never a ban on pants.  Women weren't supposed to dress like men and vice versa, but pants aren't necessarily a male article of clothing in modern society.  And not all women's pants are immodest either.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

I don't think that's entirely accurate.  The deaconess did more than assist in situations wherein it would be inappropriate for a man to touch or be with a woman, as outlined on the St. Phoebe the Deaconess site.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

That's simply one person's opinion.  Besides, I know plenty of women who are already truly modest.

....why not?

Why not include organs to help the choir stay in tune?  Why not have large TV Monitors so the people in the back can see?  The "why not" question can have countless other "why nots" added to it.

These things were never a part of our Tradition.  The order of the deaconess was, and in some jurisdictions still is.  There's really no comparison here.

It's not the "why not" that is important....as much as the why.  We do not do things merely "because"...there must be a real purpose to all things.  What is the real purpose?

This has already been answered above.

Is it so women feel more "involved" and like they "participate"? 

No.

As a woman, allow me to say...that I participate fully....I am able to partake of the Eucharist....I am able to confess my sins and obtain forgiveness....I am able to serve the needy, help the orphans, care for the widows.  I bury the dead.

Why do I need to be "ordained" to feel fulfilled....to answer the "calling"?

You don't speak for every woman, and I think it is wrong to assume that any woman who becomes a deaconess is some sort of vainglorious crypto-feminist.  I also think that this speaks to that particular question:

Quote
Q. Why can’t women just continue serving without being ordained, like they do now?

A. In order to answer this question, it is helpful to understand what an ordination means in an Orthodox context.  In one sense, we are all “ordained” into the ministry of Christ—the Royal Priesthood—by virtue of our baptism and chrismation.  In a more specific sense, an ordination is a setting apart of people for ministry in a particular community, changing their relationship with the community. Having been recognized by the community, their gifts are then enlivened by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Those elevated to “priesthood” (i.e. bishop, priest, and deacon) are ordained in the context of the Eucharist, at the altar, and by the bishop. Their service is tied to the liturgy and the altar as the source and summit of their ministry.  In concrete terms, they connect the liturgy of our lives to the sacramental life of the Church.  With the blessing of the bishop, their ministry is universal in scope and confers the authority, credibility, recognition, support, and protection of the Church.  It also demands public accountability to the Church and obedience to the bishop.

Lay ministry is important.  However, it does not function in a sacramental capacity in the way that an ordained ministry does.  (For instance, a lay chaplain can visit and pray with the sick, but cannot bring communion to them.)  In addition, the authority, recognition, support, and protection of the Church given to the lay minister can vary greatly.  Furthermore, the accountability of the lay minister to the Church can vary as well.  (This can even be dangerous to those who are being served in areas where accountability and proper training are particularly important (e.g. pastoral care and spiritual direction.))  Moreover, lay ministry is typically more local in scope and usually dependent on the local priest for its exercise.  If the local situation were to change (e.g. a parish gets a new priest who may have a different idea of what a lay minister, in particular a woman, can or should be doing in the church), the ministerial possibilities for her can change abruptly without recourse.

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/faqs/

Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?

Ask the women who have become deaconesses in Africa.  Do you think they did so simply because they WANTED it?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 02:10:14 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
When the female aspect of the human soul are restored to their ancient service appointed by the Apostles, a nourishing balance could descend upon Orthodoxy. It is not God's will that this modern imbalance remain, that anyone be reduced to, shall we say, fasting from spiritual service for which mankind was ordained before Creation, as St. Paul says.

+1
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

Ask the women who have become deaconesses in Africa.  Do you think they did so simply because they WANTED it?

....again...different situation.

In America...I do not think we need Deaconesses.

IF we say having Deaconesses will save the Church in America....we are in deep deep trouble....if women (and men) will only come because women are ordained.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)

Ask the women who have become deaconesses in Africa.  Do you think they did so simply because they WANTED it?

....again...different situation.

It is literally the exact situation as discussed in the OP.

The discussion keeps returning to contemporary European-American social battles, as if the world and the Church revolved around them. Stop it.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 02:13:37 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant

Ask the women who have become deaconesses in Africa.  Do you think they did so simply because they WANTED it?

....again...different situation.

In America...I do not think we need Deaconesses.

IF we say having Deaconesses will save the Church in America....we are in deep deep trouble....if women (and men) will only come because women are ordained.


so does the Church and it's leaders....decide things for the entire Church....first...then leave it to the sub-groupings to enact these things as fits their area...YES!


so Liturgists signing an 'in favor' merely attests to the universal nature of the teachings and thus the universal nature of the Church itself.

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
....again...different situation.

How so?

In America...I do not think we need Deaconesses.

Please elaborate on why deaconesses would be permissible in Africa but not here.

IF we say having Deaconesses will save the Church in America....we are in deep deep trouble....if women (and men) will only come because women are ordained.

Who said that?  Porter said something about women truly called to ordained service - and I believe there actually are some in the world, and here in the States, though I realize you disagree - not having to fast from said service, but no one said women (and men) will only come to Church if women are ordained.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 02:23:34 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA

Ask the women who have become deaconesses in Africa.  Do you think they did so simply because they WANTED it?

....again...different situation.

In America...I do not think we need Deaconesses.

IF we say having Deaconesses will save the Church in America....we are in deep deep trouble....if women (and men) will only come because women are ordained.

To think that the Church amounts to "coming to church" is very, very superficial. This leads us down the Protestant road of conflating results and purposes. A healthy Church would bring life to the world; the numbers of those who "come" would take care of themselves.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Honestly, I think the fact that heterodox jurisdictions have deviated from Apostolic practice by ordaining female bishops and presbyters has poisoned the well here.  It has unfairly tainted the idea of something that was always a part of our Apostolic Tradition in the eyes of many modern Orthodox, most especially converts and inquirers fleeing said Western innovations.  It really is a shame that so many seem incapable of evaluating the practice on its own merits without the fear of "secular feminist defilement" creeping in.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,024
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Honestly, I think the fact that heterodox jurisdictions have deviated from Apostolic practice by ordaining female bishops and presbyters has poisoned the well here.  It has unfairly tainted the idea of something that was always a part of our Apostolic Tradition in the eyes of many modern Orthodox, most especially converts and inquirers fleeing said Western innovations.  It really is a shame that so many seem incapable of evaluating the practice on its own merits without the fear of "secular feminist defilement" creeping in.
+

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
People must not trust the Hierarchy of their Jurisdictions much....all of this would still fall under their control.

So women are not going to -sneak- in as Priests without the buy in of Hierarchs.   And right now, the Church can't even agree on what we need to agree on.....in a 'council'....so really.....
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
People must not trust the Hierarchy of their Jurisdictions much....all of this would still fall under their control.

So women are not going to -sneak- in as Priests without the buy in of Hierarchs.   And right now, the Church can't even agree on what we need to agree on.....in a 'council'....so really.....

This is a very good point. However, in keeping with what Antonious just said, Western people have seen the hierarchs of many other churches fall to academics.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
So, just because he's inquiring into Orthodoxy means that he has no right to voice his opinion in the debate? Talk about Church inclusiveness!

Not at all what I said.  You need to work on your comprehension skills.  What I said was, as an inquirer, he should be more hesitant to condemn those who are already living within the Ark of Salvation as "liberal schismatics", especially when none of the parties mentioned - up to and including the Patriarch of Alexandria - are schismatics, and not every advocate for the restoration of the order of the deaconess could be classified as "liberal".  So yeah, reading is fundamental.  Work on that.

Well, you might as well ban me from the thread, ban him from the thread

Nobody is talking about banning anyone from the discussion, so again, work on that reading comprehension thing, but inquirers acting butthurt when the Orthodox Church they've created in their minds doesn't match up with what our living Tradition actually is should at least mind their manners and refrain from reviling actual Orthodox Christians as "liberal schismatics" when they are anything but.

and ban yourself from the thread, considering you are an Oriental Orthodox who isn't even inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, who is commenting on an Eastern Orthodox issue, who, by your own logic, should not have the privilege of voicing your opinion.

So now we see that your inability to comprehend the written word is surpassed only by your misapplication of logical thought.  Accepting for a moment your assertion that Oriental Orthodox Christians should be placed in the same category as Evangelical Protestants relative to the Eastern Orthodox Church - and ignoring the living witness of the Church and general consensus of the leading theologians of both sides that both families have upheld the same Apostolic Faith for the last 1500 years in a way that Western heretics have not - "by my own logic" I would not be barred from the discussion, but should rather be more careful about condemning those within the Eastern Orthodox Church as "schismatics" when I'm not even in the Church myself.  Try to keep up here.

And I wonder how you can say that this argument against "deaconess ordination" stems from "Evangelical baggage" when, may I remind you, Evangelicals are probably the most hostile group of "Christians" to any idea of organized Church governance.

And again, basic courses on reading comprehension are readily available at GED academies across the land.  Look into one.  I never said that that hostility to the Orthodox deaconess stemmed from Evangelical theology or ecclesiology, but rather that tarring Orthodox Christians in favor of reviving their own tradition as "liberals" and "secular feminists" stems from - and I quote - "American Evangelical...kneejerk political sensibilities".  So yeah, you can wipe that dung off of your shoes as you enter the doors of the Church, if you ever do, because trying to remake Orthodoxy in the image of one American political ideology or the other isn't going to fly.  No Orthodox jurisdiction - Eastern or Oriental - is going to ally itself exclusively with the American political right against the "feminists" and the "liberals" as American Evangelicalism has done, and none of that will factor into whether or not the order of the deaconess is revived in this country.


Well, I can tell good sir that you are currently in a state of Theosis!

Let's go by this step by step.

The original post was:
Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.


And you replied:

How would you know?  According to your profile you're a "post-Evangelical exploring the Orthodox Tradition and seeking the truth" who says "I am my own pope".  Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better. You're not even an Orthodox Christian yet and you presume to call people who are actually within the Church "liberal schismatics"?  And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?  The hubris in your post is overwhelming.

In this section, I've put in bold the section where you quite literally say "because you aren't in the Orthodox Church, any opinion you put forward is inferior."

This is your argument.

I responded by pointing out the fact that it would be pointless to allow me to have an account on this forum, because since I am not in the Orthodox Church, and my opinions are inferior, than I my posts would be pointless. I was being hyperbolic. What would be the point of allowing me to have an account? And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

Also, I underlined an argument that the original poster didn't make - he said "he expects schism" and the "liberal schismatics will go the same way the Anglicans are." He didn't say there are currently liberal schismatics within the Church.

My statement regarding you not being Eastern Orthodox is simply a reflection of what Christ Himself said.
"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathers not with me, scatters."
(Matthew 12:30)

Is this statement "illogical?"
You are not in communion with the Body of Christ (from my beliefs).

And the "logic" I was pointing out was your logic that "not being an official member equals having an inferior opinion."
So, your opinion is inferior by your own logic.

As for the argument about Orthodoxy being aligned with one political ideology, he never made that argument. The only thing political ideology wise he said was

Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

And considering that you equivocate that to "aligning Orthodoxy with the right," I could only conclude that you believe the secular feminism is somehow compatible with Orthodoxy - but it isn't, for the reasons I've already pointed out.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 10:23:17 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Well, I can tell good sir that you are currently in a state of Theosis!

It's true!  Thanks for noticing.  :)

Let's go by this step by step.

Let's do.

The original post was:
Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.


And you replied:

How would you know?  According to your profile you're a "post-Evangelical exploring the Orthodox Tradition and seeking the truth" who says "I am my own pope".  Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better. You're not even an Orthodox Christian yet and you presume to call people who are actually within the Church "liberal schismatics"?  And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?  The hubris in your post is overwhelming.

In this section, I've put in bold the section where you quite literally say "because you aren't in the Orthodox Church, any opinion you put forward is inferior."

No I didn't.  I didn't "quite literally" say "because you aren't in the Orthodox Church, any opinion you put forward is inferior" because that would mean I actually typed that phrase word for word.  You need to look up the definition of the term "literally".  Or achieve theosis like me, in which case the knowledge will come to you automatically.

I also didn't say anything approximating the meaning of the phrase you typed above.  Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see that what I did was admonish a person outside of the Church about terming those inside the Church "schismatic heretics".  This does not equate to saying that his opinions on Orthodox matters are necessarily inferior.  Feel free to try again though.

This is your argument.

Nope.  It's not.  Keep tilting at strawmen though, and in the process exposing your abysmal reading comprehension skills.

I responded by pointing out the fact that it would be pointless to allow me to have an account on this forum, because since I am not in the Orthodox Church, and my opinions are inferior, than I my posts would be pointless. I was being hyperbolic. What would be the point of allowing me to have an account? And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

You attempted the above, but as you are arguing against a position I never took, all of this hot air you expelled was utterly wasted.

Also, I underlined an argument that the original poster didn't make - he said "he expects schism" and the "liberal schismatics will go the same way the Anglicans are." He didn't say there are currently liberal schismatics within the Church.

No you didn't.  You've just raised that argument now.  It is an invalid one anyone, as it is still based upon a misidentification of those elements within the Eastern Orthodox Church in favor of the restoration of an order that has always been a part of Orthodox Tradition as "liberal" based upon the political sensibilities of American conservative heterodox Christians.

My statement regarding you not being Eastern Orthodox is simply a reflection of what Christ Himself said.
"He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathers not with me, scatters."
(Matthew 12:30)

Is this statement "illogical?"
You are not in communion with the Body of Christ (from my beliefs).

If that's the case, than neither are you nor Daniel.  It's a fortunate thing for me that the leading theologians of the Church you are not a member of - the Eastern Orthodox Church - disagree with you.  I am quite sure that God does as well.  :)

And the "logic" I was pointing out was your logic that "not being an official member equals having an inferior opinion."
So, your opinion is inferior by your own logic.

And again, I never made that argument, but merely stated that Daniel - as a heterodox Christian - should be less condemnatory in his language when speaking about actual members of the Church he seeks to join.  You roll with strawmen so hard, I'm gonna start calling you Dorothy.

As for the argument about Orthodoxy being aligned with one political ideology, he never made that argument. The only thing political ideology wise he said was

Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

His language was pregnant with the idea.  Go ahead.  Try and tell me with a straight face that neither you nor him believe that Orthodoxy is not more compatible with one side of the American political fence than the other based upon your personal belief system and ideas concerning morality.

And considering that you equivocate that to "aligning Orthodoxy with the right," I could only conclude that you believe the secular feminism is somehow compatible with Orthodoxy

You'd be wrong in that conclusion, but that's par for the course, as you've been wrong about everything else.  What I've consistently said is that unfounded fears concerning "secular feminism" have prevented some people from evaluating the restoration of the order of the deaconess on its own merits.

but it isn't, for the reasons I've already pointed out.

You haven't pointed out a single one.  You must've imagined that, as you've imagined so many other things in this discussion.  But, o king of strawmen, that is in keeping with the famous strawman's refrain.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
"schismatic heretics"

*"liberal schismatics"

Carry on.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
The question this statement wants to avoid is "Why?"  Why is this necessary, now of all times?  Why?  But they won't or can't answer it.

As can be seen in this thread, there are answers.  Those reasons can be debated, of course, but they exist.   

Quote
As for the ordination rites (it should be mentioned in the plural, not the singular since even the prayers differed), as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  Both would be dressed in the orar but that does not represent sacramental parity. 

We need to note that all ranks of the clergy that wear an orarion are wearing the same garment, from subdeacons to patriarchs.  Clerics wear it differently according to their respective rank, but they are wearing the same garment, and it is a priestly garment.  So while it is true that deaconesses wearing an orarion does not necessarily indicate equality with deacons, it is indicating a sharing in the priestly ministry in the diaconal ranks. 

Quote
Also, the rules governing who could be ordained were radically different; a man could be married and ordained at the minimal age of 24 while a deaconess had to be 40 and celibate.

So?  All of the major orders have canonical ages, and they are often dispensed with.  Celibacy was not required at one point for bishops, and now it is.  That could be reversed if the Church so decided, and so could the age and celibacy requirements for deaconesses.  I'm not sure what this proves.     

Quote
The deacon was ordained while he was kneeling with his head touching the altar; the deaconess stands and inclines her head. 

IIRC, in Fr Ephrem Lash's translation (linked above), he writes in a footnote that this detail is probably not significant.  For all we know, it could just be a matter of modesty and decorum. 

Quote
Both are given the chalice, but the deaconess returns it immediately indicating her exclusion from administering the Eucharist.
 

If she was excluded from administering the Eucharist, why give it to her in the first place?  Surely not giving it to her in the first place would make that point without turning the Holy Gifts into a theatrical prop.

Quote
Also, the office of deaconess was used in a time for when baptisms were common among adults (not so much today, but as many of us have seen adult conversions, perhaps this should be weighed in, but not considerably) and adult men and women were baptized separately (men were baptized naked).  Since that is no longer the case, why is the deaconess needed?


The prayers for the ordination of a deaconess say nothing of assisting at baptisms.  We know they did, but it's hardly the only thing they did.  Otherwise why not mention it in the prayers? 

Quote
To me, all this talk about ordination of deaconesses especially as Rome seems to be getting ready to do the very same thing is but yet another way to sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door.  I have many theological disagreements on a wide variety of subjects with several of the signers of this document so I take their opinions cum grano salis.

How would you even "sneak women's ordination to the priesthood through the back door"?  I think this is just taken for granted because people, many of them ex-Protestant refugees, see how it's played out in Western denominations and assume we are just as likely to fold.  At a certain point, it's not about women priests, it's about lack of faith in the Church which has withstood and survived a lot worse than having deaconesses. 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
It's true!  Thanks for noticing.  :)

Luke 18:9-14

No I didn't.  I didn't "quite literally" say "because you aren't in the Orthodox Church, any opinion you put forward is inferior" because that would mean I actually typed that phrase word for word.  You need to look up the definition of the term "literally".  Or achieve theosis like me, in which case the knowledge will come to you automatically.

Fair enough. I had an adolescent grammar moment where I used "quite literally" incorrectly.

I also didn't say anything approximating the meaning of the phrase you typed above.  Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see that what I did was admonish a person outside of the Church about terming those inside the Church "schismatic heretics".  This does not equate to saying that his opinions on Orthodox matters are necessarily inferior.  Feel free to try again though.

This entire section is wrong.

1. You "quite literally" said

Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better.
And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?

This is a response to

Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.

Thus, what you have argued is
1. Your opinion on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church can't be good because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better.
2. You, as someone who is outside the Church, can't presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church.

This logic, that your opinion on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church is inferior, is flawed - as he, like me, could be attending an Orthodox Church and be a part of the community there for a significant amount of time such that he is able to give an opinion on the pastoral needs of the Church.

Your logic is also applicable to other aspects of Orthodox Church life.
"Your opinion on what iconography is appropriate is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on what liturgical music is appropriate is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on non-denominational charity is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on the legitimacy of the Western Rite is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."

Following through with this logic, I ask the question: "What is the point of even allowing him to post opinions, or me - as someone who holds the Orthodox Faith but isn't a catechumen yet - when any opinion I put forward can be struck down by the argument that 'Your opinion is inferior because members know better than you.'" So, why not ban me and him, when we are wasting account space?

And I point out the fact that you aren't a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, either, and are probably less qualified to point out the needs of the Eastern Orthodox Faithful when you yourself probably don't even attend an Eastern Orthodox Church and are less likely to be knowledgeable on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church - and, following through on your logic that "members outside the Church have inferior opinions," and considering that your arguments meet the criteria of being stricken down by your logic, I've pointed out your hypocrisy.

No you didn't.  You've just raised that argument now.  It is an invalid one anyone, as it is still based upon a misidentification of those elements within the Eastern Orthodox Church in favor of the restoration of an order that has always been a part of Orthodox Tradition as "liberal" based upon the political sensibilities of American conservative heterodox Christians.

My reply:

Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.

How is his argument based on the "political sensibilities of heterodox Christians?"
And "always" is too strong of a word, considering that we are talking about this controversial issue to begin with.

He's calling those who cause a potential future schism as "liberal schismatics," if there is schism. Which is what he put forward.


If that's the case, than neither are you nor Daniel.  It's a fortunate thing for me that the leading theologians of the Church you are not a member of - the Eastern Orthodox Church - disagree with you.  I am quite sure that God does as well.  :)

But one day! I'm just repeating what Christ - who is God - said, who I think has a greater authority on matters of ecclesiology than a couple of opinions by some theologians, which are contested anyways.


And again, I never made that argument, but merely stated that Daniel - as a heterodox Christian - should be less condemnatory in his language when speaking about actual members of the Church he seeks to join.  You roll with strawmen so hard, I'm gonna start calling you Dorothy.

That's not what you "merely" said, as I've pointed out. Also, I consider this a compliment - I wish I was as fabulous as Dorothy.

His language was pregnant with the idea.  Go ahead.  Try and tell me with a straight face that neither you nor him believe that Orthodoxy is not more compatible with one side of the American political fence than the other based upon your personal belief system and ideas concerning morality.

He was calling "liberal schismatics" as those causing schism by female deaconess ordination.

And I wouldn't agree with Orthodoxy being aligned with one set of political ideology - but I think in the context of social / moral issues, such as feminism, abortion, drugs, LGBT rights, Orthodoxy is definitely more conservative. Not on every social issue - like welfare and the death penalty (maybe), but on these issues - yes.

You'd be wrong in that conclusion, but that's par for the course, as you've been wrong about everything else.  What I've consistently said is that unfounded fears concerning "secular feminism" have prevented some people from evaluating the restoration of the order of the deaconess on its own merits.

For the first sentence "nah."
For the second sentence, that's not what you said in reply to him.

You haven't pointed out a single one.  You must've imagined that, as you've imagined so many other things in this discussion.  But, o king of strawmen, that is in keeping with the famous strawman's refrain.

Your stealing my style by preceding the actual name calling with "O," like some kind of muse or narrator of epic poetry.
Also, WHOA! It's so weird that Dorothy looks younger than me.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 01:20:07 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
This makes me long for LenInSebastopol.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

I hope you do realize that the moderator of this particular section is an Oriental Orthodox.  If you are one of those people who do not see a difference of faith in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, then one is not an "inquirer", but can see him/herself as a "member".
« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 02:54:18 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

I hope you do realize that the moderator of this particular section is an Oriental Orthodox.  If you are one of those people who do not see a difference of faith in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, then one is not an "inquirer", but can see him/herself as a "member".

Yeah, I've about had it with people who are too emotionally attached to a religion they are not actually attached to.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Luke 18:9-14

Ironic that you're posting this, when you're the one vainglorious enough to attempt to teach Orthodox Christians about their own Faith.  Most Orthodox Christians - Eastern and Oriental - agree that the general spirituality of both families is very similar if not identical.  No one at all would say that about Orthodoxy and your sect.  And yet, you think you know what is best for the Orthodox Church.  Have you also endeavored to teach your granny to suck eggs?

Fair enough. I had an adolescent grammar moment where I used "quite literally" incorrectly.

You're entire posting history in this thread qualifies as an "adolescent moment", especially your attempt at dodging a substantive discussion of the actual subject by focusing on your deliberate misreading of what I've posted.  You seem quite unable to demonstrate that the restoration of the order of the deaconess has anything to do with modern feminism.  I'd love to see you prove that.

I also didn't say anything approximating the meaning of the phrase you typed above.  Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see that what I did was admonish a person outside of the Church about terming those inside the Church "schismatic heretics".  This does not equate to saying that his opinions on Orthodox matters are necessarily inferior.  Feel free to try again though.

This entire section is wrong.

No, this entire section is spot on, with the exception of the statement that "anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see...".  This is obviously not true if the person is being deliberately obtuse and focusing on their intentional misreading of the text in order to mask the fact that they are unqualified and unable to speak to the larger issue at hand.  I see now that it is not an accident that you are not addressing the larger issue at play in this thread - that of the restoration of the female diaconate and whether or not it has anything to do with feminism and entitlement - and are instead taking up space - as you put it - trying to torture my words into fitting the narrative you've created in your own mind.  This makes sense though, since you're apparently trying to do the same thing with Orthodox Church: torture reality into fitting your preconceived notions of what it is.  Hint: it is not a refuge for disgruntled American conservatives who feel their own jurisdictions are "too liberal" a la Charles Martel.

1. You "quite literally" said

Many people actually living the Orthodox Tradition - among them clergy, laity, and academics- know better.
And you presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful?

This is a response to

Absolutely no need for it in the West, except to appease secular feminism. There is no pastoral need.

If this happens, I expect schism. The liberal schismatics will go the same way as the Anglicans if they don't repent.

Thus, what you have argued is
1. Your opinion on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church can't be good because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better.
2. You, as someone who is outside the Church, can't presume to know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church.

You're still attempting to force a meaning that isn't present in the actual text onto my words.  Why not try addressing what I actually typed instead of your deliberate misinterpretation of it and the flawed attempts at paraphrase that follow?  How about this: would you agree that Orthodoxy is a lived Faith?  Or do you think it boils down to something that can be known from without?  It's obvious from what you've posted below that you lean towards the latter idea, and thus have not truly embraced Orthodoxy at all, but are still very Western and heterodox in your outlook.

This logic, that your opinion on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church is inferior, is flawed - as he, like me, could be attending an Orthodox Church and be a part of the community there for a significant amount of time such that he is able to give an opinion on the pastoral needs of the Church.

Thanks for proving my point.  As Porter said, being Orthodox means more than simply showing up for church.  It's obvious from this post that you either:

a. haven't been attending an Orthodox parish for any length of time or
b. if you have (which I doubt) you haven't allowed Orthodoxy to penetrate your heart or adopted an Orthodox phronema

Your outlook on things is still very shallow and Western indeed, as is Daniel's.  Thanks for making my point so elegantly.

Your logic is also applicable to other aspects of Orthodox Church life.
"Your opinion on what iconography is appropriate is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on what liturgical music is appropriate is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on non-denominational charity is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."
"Your opinion on the legitimacy of the Western Rite is inferior because clergy, academics, and laypeople know better."

If you don't see how Orthodoxy is a lived Faith - how living a life steeped in the Mysteries of the Church is the most essential aspect of that Faith - and that merely being an observer or a student of Orthodoxy in the academic sense does not mean that one truly understands or has imbibed the Faith, that is not my fault.  Heterodox Christians like yourself and Daniel are not automatically disqualified of any discussion of Orthodox things whatsoever, but they should bear in mind that they are not living the Orthodox Faith and should take that into account when considering whether or not to give into the urge to arrogantly lecture Orthodox Christians about their own Faith.  Besides, you haven't demonstrated in any post that you are especially educated - even in the mere academic sense - about any of the above topics.

Following through with this logic, I ask the question: "What is the point of even allowing him to post opinions, or me - as someone who holds the Orthodox Faith but isn't a catechumen yet - when any opinion I put forward can be struck down by the argument that 'Your opinion is inferior because members know better than you.'" So, why not ban me and him, when we are wasting account space?

See above.

You are indeed wasting space here, but not merely because you are a heterodox Christian.  There are other heterodox here who offer valued insight into Orthodox matters, and without the unbearable arrogance.

And I point out the fact that you aren't a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, either, and are probably less qualified to point out the needs of the Eastern Orthodox Faithful when you yourself probably don't even attend an Eastern Orthodox Church and are less likely to be knowledgeable on the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church

Not only are you in error as it pertains to my personal situation and experience with the Eastern Orthodox Church - I've actually graduated from an Eastern Orthodox seminary and prayed in Eastern Orthodox parishes for roughly half of my life - but it is generally agreed upon by most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians - even those who aren't in favor of the reestablishment of full communion - that the general pastoral needs and spiritual life of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox families are very similar if not completely identical.  No one would say that about your heterodox sect.  I would also note that the movement for the restoration of the deaconess in the Orthodox Church cuts across Eastern and Oriental Orthodox lines, and a perusal of the speakers at said conferences reveals both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox figures.

and, following through on your logic that "members outside the Church have inferior opinions," and considering that your arguments meet the criteria of being stricken down by your logic, I've pointed out your hypocrisy.

You've not at all, since you've fundamentally and seemingly deliberately misapprehended my overall point.  As I've repeatedly demonstrated, I've not disqualified the heterodox from the discussion, and I given the apparent confusion about who the Oriental Orthodox are and what we believe in your posting history outside of this thread, I don't think you're qualified to speak to whether we are Orthodox or not.  One thing is for sure: you aren't and neither is Daniel.

How is his argument based on the "political sensibilities of heterodox Christians?"

I've already demonstrated how his post was pregnant with the talking points of said group.  I won't go through the exercise again because you're slow on the uptake.

And "always" is too strong of a word, considering that we are talking about this controversial issue to begin with.

Not in this case.  The order of the deaconess has been a part of the Orthodox Church since the time of the New Testament.  I'd say that's pretty close to "always".

He's calling those who cause a potential future schism as "liberal schismatics," if there is schism. Which is what he put forward.

If anyone leaves the Church because she has reinstated the order of the deaconess - say, some dissident element within the Patriarchate of Alexandria for instance - they would be the schismatics.

But one day!

"But one day!" what?  One day you'll be Orthodox?  Maybe, maybe not.  In the meantime, what your positing in this thread certainly isn't indicative of an Orthodox phronema.

I'm just repeating what Christ - who is God - said, who I think has a greater authority on matters of ecclesiology than a couple of opinions by some theologians, which are contested anyways.

The words of Our Lord certainly don't invalidate the idea that both the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox families have maintained the same Apostolic Faith for the past 2000 years, and they certainly don't mean that you and Daniel are part of the Church.  Plus, you said "anyways", so you've lost the argument right there.  Especially after the "quite literally" episode.  I'm beginning to think that in addition to not being Orthodox, you're also not particularly well-educated.

That's not what you "merely" said, as I've pointed out.

All you've pointed out is that you're more interested in focusing on your misreading of my words than on actually debating the subject at hand, that you are not anywhere close to living the Orthodox Faith, and that you're being deliberately being pedantic because you have nothing to actually contribute in terms of addressing the OP.

Also, I consider this a compliment - I wish I was as fabulous as Dorothy.

"Fabulous as Dorothy", huh?  Something tells me that while you consider yourself to be "conservative" on the issue of the deaconess, you'd probably be decidedly "liberal" on other issues.

He was calling "liberal schismatics" as those causing schism by female deaconess ordination.

I'm trying to parse your less than intelligible grammar here, but the proponents of the restoration of the order of the deaconess can hardly all be dismissed as "liberals" or "feminists" - the fears and fantasies of American political conservatives notwithstanding - and if anyone entered into schism over the issue, it would likely not be those in favor of the restoration of the order, but its reactionary opponents.  Case in point, deaconesses have been ordained in Alexandria.  Anyone breaking communion with Alexandria over that would be the schismatic, not H.B. Pope Theodoros.

And I wouldn't agree with Orthodoxy being aligned with one set of political ideology - but I think in the context of social / moral issues, such as feminism, abortion, drugs, LGBT rights, Orthodoxy is definitely more conservative. Not on every social issue - like welfare and the death penalty (maybe), but on these issues - yes.

So then you agree with my point that Orthodoxy is not and will never be firmly aligned with the American political right like Evangelicalism is.  Not so Daniel, apparently, as he seems to think that anyone interested in the restoration of the order of the deaconess is a "liberal feminist", which is as wrong as it is moronic.

For the first sentence "nah."

Yeah, you have.

For the second sentence, that's not what you said in reply to him.

Yes it is, your deliberate misreading notwithstanding.

Your stealing my style by preceding the actual name calling with "O,"

I was using that style before you created your account, O Undeservedly Haughty One.  So was Johnny Carson.

like some kind of muse or narrator of epic poetry.

You're far from either of those.  You apparently struggle with high school level writing.

Also, WHOA! It's so weird that Dorothy looks younger than me.

Yeah, how weird that an actress 16 years old at the time of filming should look younger than you.  Then again, based on your writing - such as it is - she might actually have been.

And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

I hope you do realize that the moderator of this particular section is an Oriental Orthodox.  If you are one of those people who do not see a difference of faith in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, then one is not an "inquirer", but can see him/herself as a "member".

Yeah, I've about had it with people who are too emotionally attached to a religion they are not actually attached to.

+1000

Like I said, the hubris is overwhelming.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
in an open culture such as America...with its distinct lack of separation of the sexes....this seems like a 'frivolous grasping for the priesthood' sort of move.

But in -much- of the world...the ancient world...you know...the world where our traditions started and came from...the need is much clearer. 

And to be honest, even here in America...there are plenty of husbands who would be much more comfortable with their wife who is inquiring into Orthodoxy, mainly dealing with a female catechisist  than a male Priest or layperson who often ends up meeting with them alone.

So rather than just thinking about this in a 'western world' perspective...maybe we should look at it as 'What Orthodoxy used to do....might be worth reviving in the sake of being more traditional...and keeping ourselves 'not of this western world'

+100000000

This post makes perfect sense.  Setting aside the article and agenda of the "liturgists" who are laics like us, some of whom may support the restoration of deaconesses for the base and heterodox political motive of ordaining women to the priesthood and episcopate, which the holy Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria and All Africa is neither doing nor contemplating, there is a legitimate use for the ministry of the deaconness in the old world, which is why the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Antiochians and others have generally retained them for specific applications.

In the Coptic church, celibate deaconesses perform a range of humanitarian services including services connected with the running of the large number of orphanages operated by the church, whose existence is required by the cruel Islamic law, enforced in Egypt, preventing the adoption of children.  So our church ordains deaconesses to the most sacred ministry of being mothers to the motherless, a ministry uniquely suited to women, and a ministry intimately and directly connected to the charitable ministry that was the original historical function of the diaconate, before the role of deacons was expanded to the reading of the Gospel and the intonation of the litanies.   This charitable function is Eucharistic, even if it is not precisely the same liturgical function as the Deacon who helps serve the Chalice.

It is a role related to the vital process of extending the liturgy into the world and making life sacramental, by caring for the orphans and providing them the love denied to them otherwise by death, separation or abandonment by their natural parents and the barbaric laws of an Islamic society which owing to its innate wickedness, presumes to ban Christian children from being able to benefit from the dedicated love and care of adoptive parents, which I consider to be an act of Islamic terrorism in perpetua; whereas we celebrate Holy Communion as the apex of our religion, and then spread the liturgy into the world through charity, legalistic Sunni judges of the extremist fundamentalist schools view holy war as the apex of their religion (in contrast to some non-violent Sufis who interpret jihad as an internal struggle against sin), and this violence is propagated even in a moderately Islamic state like Egypt through the uncritical codification into civil law of the prohibition of adoption.

So the Holy Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the close and ever supportive sister of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria (the two churches tried to unite in the 1840s but the Albanian Khedive thwarted this union, fearing needlessly the political power the Pope of a united Egyptian (and at the time, Ethiopian) Church would posess has used deaconesses for some time to mitigate this casual and thoughtless barbarity, this expression of the inate cruelty of Islam in proscribing adoptions, by having them work with a host of other clergy and laity to operate orphanages so that our Christian children, who in Egypt for their safety in the Coptic church have a small tattoo of a cross discretely etched on their wrist, are not left abandoned in the streets, thus extending the love and compassion we share in the kiss of peace, which has always been preserved in the Oriental churches among the laity, outside of the formal confines of the divine liturgy and into the suffering world.

Now, in answer to the impertinent question raised by another poster, who dared to ask why an autocephalous church thousands of miles from his land had decided on its authority to resume the ordination of deaconesses, the specific neccessity of pastoral care impacting the Church of Alexandria from what I understand involves the reception of converts, and is related in a direct way both to the hypothetical case in America raised by the ever pious DeniseDenise, and to the original function of deaconesses.

The missions of the Orthodox Church in Africa are bearing fruit.  There are large families requiring conversion, including many adolescent and adult women.  In the past, before the baptismal gown existed, when baptisms were done in the nude, owing to their relationship to the mikvah purifications in Judaism, deaconesses exercised one primary ministry of unique and almost unparalled importance, which was to go down into the water with the women being baptized while the priest said the prayers, avoiding any immodesty and impropriety on the part of the priesthood and episcopate, or even the appearance of such immodesty, in marked contrast to the sexual indecency of the prevailing religions of Hellenic and Semitic Paganism, and this role and the need for it increased to extreme levels in the years following the conversion of St. Constantine; however, once the Roman Empire and surrounding regions had largely been converted, an impenetrable wall of Islam surrounded the church and constricted the mission field; the lands of Sub Saharan Africa south of Abyssinia and Zanzibar were utterly inaccessible, and the Church had to focus on its own survival, the Greek Orthodox Church in Alexandria being encircled by the destruction of the Chalcedonian churches of North Africa, the Eastern and Oriental church in Libya, the Oriental Orthodox Church of Numibia, and the church in the Sudan, and in the 1200s the extermination of the Church of the East in Yemen, in South Yemen and the Island of Socorro, where it had historically thrived (this having being the preferred, safe route by which the Christians on the Red Sea crossed the tip of the Arabian Peninsula when travelling to Kerala and Malankara, the bastion of Christians in central Asia; now the Churches in India and Africa were cut off, except through the intermediary of the surviving Syriac churches in present day Iraq, Syria and Palestine).

So, baptism of large numbers of adult converts stopped for the Patriarch of Alexandria probably around the same time, or in the centuries following, the miracle of the Baptism of the Rus.

But now, Sub Saharan Africa has been opened up, and indeed much of the population has been prepared to receive the true Gospel and join the Holy Orthodox Church through the ultimately inadequete ministrations of masses of Western missionaries, most of them heretical, but who nonetheless offered a compelling taste of the Gospel, so that the people of Africa who have come to know Christ increasingly seek the full and perfect Communion with him offered by the Holy Orthodox Church.  Thus we need presently deaconesses, just as we needed them when the Alexandrian Church was young; older women, strong in the faith, who can initiate the women into the mysteries of Holy Orthodoxy, preserving modesty in the African societies where modesty and chastity is of paramount importance, that everything might be done, as St. Paul commanded, decently and in order, as we seek to continue the work of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

I hope you do realize that the moderator of this particular section is an Oriental Orthodox.  If you are one of those people who do not see a difference of faith in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, then one is not an "inquirer", but can see him/herself as a "member".

Yeah, I've about had it with people who are too emotionally attached to a religion they are not actually attached to.

Elaborate on me being "emotionally attached," as I was simply attacking him on the point that he tried to disavow an opinion on the basis that the inquirer couldn't possibly know the needs of the Orthodox faithful, and me pointing out his hypocrisy, speaking for an organization - even with his "invisible" theory - he is not a part of.

My emotional attachment to Orthodoxy is irrelevant to the argument at hand. You can't attack someone for not being part of an organization when - even with flawed logic - they are not part of that same organization, physically as a member. If you can claim to be an "invisible member," his claim is the same considering he is inquiring into Orthodoxy.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Ironic that you're posting this, when you're the one vainglorious  enough to attempt to teach Orthodox Christians about their own Faith. Most Orthodox Christians - Eastern and Oriental - agree that the general spirituality of both families is very similar if not identical.  No one at all would say that about Orthodoxy and your sect.  And yet, you think you know what is best for the Orthodox Church.  Have you also endeavored to teach your granny to suck eggs?

Am I wrong with that post? Is it not truth?

I'm defending one man's ability to express his opinion.
And I'm pointing out your hypocrisy - even if you believe in the so called "invisible member" theory, you cannot really attack someone's opinion because they aren't an official member of a physical organization, when you are of the same status. You accuse them of being ignorant of the pastoral needs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, an organization which you don't even willingly attend at.

No, this entire section is spot on, with the exception of the statement that "anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension skills can see...".  This is obviously not true if the person is being deliberately obtuse and focusing on their intentional misreading of the text in order to mask the fact that they are unqualified and unable to speak to the larger issue at hand.  I see now that it is not an accident that you are not addressing the larger issue at play in this thread - that of the restoration of the female diaconate and whether or not it has anything to do with feminism and entitlement - and are instead taking up space - as you put it - trying to torture my words into fitting the narrative you've created in your own mind.  This makes sense though, since you're apparently trying to do the same thing with Orthodox Church: torture reality into fitting your preconceived notions of what it is.  Hint: it is not a refuge for disgruntled American conservatives who feel their own jurisdictions are "too liberal" a la Charles Martel.


My critique of you has nothing to do with the issue of female deaconess ordination - it has to do with the flawed ad-hominem attack against the person, accusing them of not being allowed to express an opinion because of who they are, and me not only addressing the flawed logic in your reasoning, but also your hypocrisy as someone who isn't a visible member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Read my posts.

Did I once state whether or not I think female ordination of the deaconess is a good idea or not?

I attacked secular feminism, but this was separate from female ordination of deaconesses.

It's obvious from what you've posted below that you lean towards the latter idea, and thus have not truly embraced Orthodoxy at all, but are still very Western and heterodox in your outlook.

Thanks for proving my point.  As Porter said, being Orthodox means more than simply showing up for church.  It's obvious from this post that you either:

a. haven't been attending an Orthodox parish for any length of time or
b. if you have (which I doubt) you haven't allowed Orthodoxy to penetrate your heart or adopted an Orthodox phronema

Your outlook on things is still very shallow and Western indeed, as is Daniel's.  Thanks for making my point so elegantly.


I would like a response - how has anything I posted been "shallow" or "Western" or "heterodox," and how have I come across as "Orthodoxy hasn't penetrated my heart?"

I would dismiss this as a mere ad-hominem attack, but I would like to see how you would respond to this.



If you don't see how Orthodoxy is a lived Faith - how living a life steeped in the Mysteries of the Church is the most essential aspect of that Faith - and that merely being an observer or a student of Orthodoxy in the academic sense does not mean that one truly understands or has imbibed the Faith, that is not my fault.  Heterodox Christians like yourself and Daniel are not automatically disqualified of any discussion of Orthodox things whatsoever, but they should bear in mind that they are not living the Orthodox Faith and should take that into account when considering whether or not to give into the urge to arrogantly lecture Orthodox Christians about their own Faith.  Besides, you haven't demonstrated in any post that you are especially educated - even in the mere academic sense - about any of the above topics.


How have I arrogantly lectured about Orthodoxy or Daniel has arrogantly lectured about Orthodoxy?
And - even though you are not my teacher because we aren't in communion with one another (maybe one day!) - are students not allowed to critique their teachers?

Should've the Orthodox laypeople bowed down to the various Arian, Nestorian, and Iconoclastic bishops that have come in place?

I think you are wrong because you are attacking the legitimacy of a person and not the substance of their argument.

And point out the substance of my argument rather than my education if you wish to demonstrate how "uneducated" I am as an individual.



You are indeed wasting space here, but not merely because you are a heterodox Christian.  There are other heterodox here who offer valued insight into Orthodox matters, and without the unbearable arrogance.

I find it arrogant to attack people in where they are in their life, rather than attack arguments.

Could you elaborate how I'm being arrogant?


Not only are you in error as it pertains to my personal situation and experience with the Eastern Orthodox Church - I've actually graduated from an Eastern Orthodox seminary and prayed in Eastern Orthodox parishes for roughly half of my life - but it is generally agreed upon by most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians - even those who aren't in favor of the reestablishment of full communion - that the general pastoral needs and spiritual life of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox families are very similar if not completely identical.  No one would say that about your heterodox sect.  I would also note that the movement for the restoration of the deaconess in the Orthodox Church cuts across Eastern and Oriental Orthodox lines, and a perusal of the speakers at said conferences reveals both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox figures.

Thanks for the argument - finally. But I still think its wrong - on the Internet - to attack someone because of who they are and disavow their opinions.

You've not at all, since you've fundamentally and seemingly deliberately misapprehended my overall point.  As I've repeatedly demonstrated, I've not disqualified the heterodox from the discussion, and I given the apparent confusion about who the Oriental Orthodox are and what we believe in your posting history outside of this thread, I don't think you're qualified to speak to whether we are Orthodox or not.  One thing is for sure: you aren't and neither is Daniel.

What heterodox opinion have I given forward thus far?

I've already demonstrated how his post was pregnant with the talking points of said group.  I won't go through the exercise again because you're slow on the uptake.

No you haven't. In addition to not demonstrating how his post was "pregnant with the idea," you haven't demonstrated that was his intention. You can't just guess the intentions of people with no circumstantial evidence.

Not in this case.  The order of the deaconess has been a part of the Orthodox Church since the time of the New Testament.  I'd say that's pretty close to "always".

If it was "always" acceptable, then this wouldn't even be a debate.

If anyone leaves the Church because she has reinstated the order of the deaconess - say, some dissident element within the Patriarchate of Alexandria for instance - they would be the schismatics.

OK, I agree - you should've said this in the first place. But I think circumstances are key - who is the dissident element?

"But one day!" what?  One day you'll be Orthodox?  Maybe, maybe not.  In the meantime, what your positing in this thread certainly isn't indicative of an Orthodox phronema.

Elaborate please. And okay, "but one day" probably wasn't an appropriate response. I am an immature individual in certain aspects that needs to develop.

All you've pointed out is that you're more interested in focusing on your misreading of my words than on actually debating the subject at hand, that you are not anywhere close to living the Orthodox Faith, and that you're being deliberately being pedantic because you have nothing to actually contribute in terms of addressing the OP.

I don't find "hey, you can't know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful" particularly helpful in addressing the topic at hand.


"Fabulous as Dorothy", huh?  Something tells me that while you consider yourself to be "conservative" on the issue of the deaconess, you'd probably be decidedly "liberal" on other issues.

It seems to me that calling someone "gay" as an insult isn't particularly Christ like.
And on those issues, no - I'm not. It was just a bit of humor. Bad humor, but humor nonetheless.

So then you agree with my point that Orthodoxy is not and will never be firmly aligned with the American political right like Evangelicalism is.  Not so Daniel, apparently, as he seems to think that anyone interested in the restoration of the order of the deaconess is a "liberal feminist", which is as wrong as it is moronic.

I never said that Orthodoxy was - have I given that opinion? And my point was Daniel never gave that point either.

I was using that style before you created your account, O Undeservedly Haughty One.  So was Johnny Carson.

I am undeservedly haughty - please pray for me.

Yeah, how weird that an actress 16 years old at the time of filming should look younger than you.  Then again, based on your writing - such as it is - she might actually have been.

I haven't seen Wizard of Oz in a while - when I was much younger. So, seeing Dorothy again looking younger than me is weird.


I also want to point out that it is rather embarrassing for someone who graduated from an Orthodox seminary to use such insults as "do you teach your granny to suck eggs," which to me comes across as rather juvenile.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 03:08:55 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
As well as call me "gay" as an insult.

Honestly, I think this whole discussion is leading both of us to sin - can we just end it and pray for each other?

Pray for me, because I'm immature in a lot of aspects and I need a lot of development in my person in many different areas of my life.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 03:12:26 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
And I pointed out your hypocrisy because you aren't even looking into Eastern Orthodoxy, and you are commenting as though you are a member and have the end all be all authority of opinion.

I hope you do realize that the moderator of this particular section is an Oriental Orthodox.  If you are one of those people who do not see a difference of faith in both Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, then one is not an "inquirer", but can see him/herself as a "member".

Yeah, I've about had it with people who are too emotionally attached to a religion they are not actually attached to.

Elaborate on me being "emotionally attached," as I was simply attacking him on the point that he tried to disavow an opinion on the basis that the inquirer couldn't possibly know the needs of the Orthodox faithful, and me pointing out his hypocrisy, speaking for an organization - even with his "invisible" theory - he is not a part of.

My emotional attachment to Orthodoxy is irrelevant to the argument at hand. You can't attack someone for not being part of an organization when - even with flawed logic - they are not part of that same organization, physically as a member. If you can claim to be an "invisible member," his claim is the same considering he is inquiring into Orthodoxy.

So, just because he's inquiring into Orthodoxy means that he has no right to voice his opinion in the debate? Talk about Church inclusiveness!

Well, you might as well ban me from the thread, ban him from the thread - and ban yourself from the thread, considering you are an Oriental Orthodox who isn't even inquiring into Eastern Orthodoxy, who is commenting on an Eastern Orthodox issue, who, by your own logic, should not have the privilege of voicing your opinion.

^Emotional attachment to a Church you are not actually attached to in reality, expressed in the form of melodrama on steroids. 

No one is stopping anyone from sharing an opinion.  But opinions not grounded in experience are worth less than opinions that are.

You have been going after AN because he's OO and thus not EO and not qualified to speak to "an Eastern Orthodox issue".  While this may be convenient as a tool to establish your own qualification to speak, it fails on a number of grounds:

1.  The forum rules state that the Liturgy section is for the discussion of liturgical matters in the EO and OO traditions.
2.  The (incidentally all-EO) forum administration has appointed an OO as moderator of this section, which demonstrates their trust in OOs to know how to handle sections which are intentionally diverse.  At least in the course of official duties, it may happen that the (OO) mod opines in a thread involving "an Eastern Orthodox issue"; they know that and evidently are fine with it. 
3.  The authors of the "Statement of Support" in the OP explicitly mention the OO in their discussion of "an Eastern Orthodox issue".  Apparently they don't think it's just an EO issue, and by including us in the discussion, they have ensured that it is not. 
4.  "I'm not EO and AN isn't either" doesn't exactly mean the two of you are equal.  I can name EO bishops and synods that will commune him, even as I can name bishops and synods that will not.  But no one will commune you.  You're "not even a catechumen".  Unlike AN, you have no legitimate attachment to the faith you claim other than an intellectual adherence to it which, in the process of your discernment, you may well abandon as others have. 

Quote
And I wonder how you can say that this argument against "deaconess ordination" stems from "Evangelical baggage" when, may I remind you, Evangelicals are probably the most hostile group of "Christians" to any idea of organized church governance.

At least we agree that Evangelicals aren't really Christians.  I don't know what your current religious affiliation is, but unless you're currently RC, the odds are good you are one of these not-really-Christians.  I commend you for your honesty. 

Obviously, Evangelicals who convert to Orthodoxy have, in large part, abandoned any hostility to organised church governance.  But they can and often do bring in with them their past histories, their baggage, their damage, etc.  The Church is a place of healing, and they are of course welcome to be healed by the grace of the Spirit pulsing through it--the rest of us want that as well, so that our joy may be complete.  But when they view the Church and its tradition and its history through the lens of their past and try to mould the Church in the image of their preconceived notions rather than try to understand what their Mother is doing, yes, that is a matter of unhealthy baggage from the past and it needs to be called out, for their sake as much as for the rest of us who want no part of that BS. 

Quote
May I also ask how secular feminism today is compatible with Orthodoxy, which is what you are implying? The ideology which treats motherhood as a kind of slavery, and demands an incineration of any kind of distinction between the two genders? An ideology which, out of hubris, tries to create a boogeyman out of the mere concept of masculinity?

Where the hell did I imply any of that? 

I think deaconesses are a worthwhile ministry.  I also think motherhood is a worthwhile ministry.  I happen to enjoy being a man, and women I know enjoy the fact that I'm a man and that I enjoy being one because they enjoy men.  In other words, I'm a fairly normal Orthodox Christian. 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
As well as call me "gay" as an insult.

Where did anyone call you gay?  I control F'd this entire thread and the only times the word "gay" is used, they are used in your own original posts. 

Quote
Honestly, I think this whole discussion is leading both of us to sin - can we just end it and pray for each other?

A genuinely Orthodox approach would've had you admitting your own sins and committing to trying harder rather than also condemn other people as sinners.

Quote
Pray for me, because I'm immature in a lot of aspects and I need a lot of development in my person in many different areas of my life.

^That's better Orthodox.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Elaborate on me being "emotionally attached," as I was simply attacking him on the point that he tried to disavow an opinion on the basis that the inquirer couldn't possibly know the needs of the Orthodox faithful, and me pointing out his hypocrisy, speaking for an organization - even with his "invisible" theory - he is not a part of.

Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting my point of view and misinterpreting my statements, apparently because you have nothing substantive to say about the actual subject at hand.  I never attempted to speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church and I never advanced what you term an "invisible theory".  What I have consistently stated is that it is arrogant for heterodox Christians like you and Daniel to attempt to upbraid actual Eastern Orthodox Christians concerning their own traditions based upon your preconceived notions and your very limited knowledge of the Orthodox Faith.  Should you care to question the latter part of that statement, I would say that it is evident to all who have read your posting history, most especially as it pertains to your exchanges with Mor regarding Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church history.

My emotional attachment to Orthodoxy is irrelevant to the argument at hand. You can't attack someone for not being part of an organization when - even with flawed logic - they are not part of that same organization, physically as a member. If you can claim to be an "invisible member," his claim is the same considering he is inquiring into Orthodoxy.

No one has every claimed to be an "invisible member".  You really need to give it a break with the strawmen and trying to force words into the mouths of your interlocutors.  All I have ever said concerning the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches is that both have consistently upheld the same Apostolic Faith throughout the centuries and that the spirituality of both communions is similar if not identical, something that cannot be said about the heterodox sects that you and Daniel come from.  Even if I were "outside the Church" as you assert, my words are still not hypocritical, because I never made an arrogant and misguided attempt to upbraid Eastern Orthodox Christians as "liberals", "schismatics", or "feminists".

Am I wrong with that post?

Yes.

Is it not truth?

It is misapplied by a rank hypocrite.

I'm defending one man's ability to express his opinion.

You're defending a man outside of a Church who doesn't understand that Church's attempt to scold and upbraid the actual members of that Church in the harshest and most arrogant of terms.

And I'm pointing out your hypocrisy

And in attempting to do so, exposing your own.

even if you believe in the so called "invisible member" theory

I don't.  That's just another strawman you've erected in lieu of addressing my actual arguments.

you cannot really attack someone's opinion because they aren't an official member of a physical organization

Good thing I never attempted to do so, but rather counseled them to avoid being arrogant and condemnatory when speaking about a Church of which they are not a member.

when you are of the same status.

In your view.  Not in the view of many more erudite individuals who actually live and pray in the communities in question.

You accuse them of being ignorant of the pastoral needs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, an organization which you don't even willingly attend at.

Did you not read my previous response to you on this point?  You have no clue what parishes I attend or have attended, where I have received the Eucharist and under what circumstances, and what my living experience with Eastern Orthodoxy actually is.  I assure you, based on your posts here, it is far greater than yours.

My critique of you has nothing to do with the issue of female deaconess ordination

Because evidently you have nothing of substance to add to that discussion.

it has to do with the flawed ad-hominem attack against the person

"Quite literally", "anyways"...along with a host of other things, you need to look up the actual definition of the term "ad hominem fallacy".  I never dismissed Daniel's argument based on who he is.  Rather, what I did was explain why he - and you for that matter - are not qualified to evaluate or speak to the pastoral needs of the Orthodox Church and admonished him for the harsh and condemnatory terms in which he attempted to do so.  I realize this distinction might be lost on you, because either your readings skills are as lacking as your writing skills, or because you are being deliberately obtuse.

accusing them of not being allowed to express an opinion

I accused him of not being allowed to express an opinion?  I never did any such thing.  Make sense, man.  Basic sentence construction is as fundamental as reading. 

And slogging through your tortured grammar to discern your actual meaning, I never said he couldn't express an opinion, but warned him about why that opinion was unqualified and why is shouldn't be stated in hubristic and condemnatory terms.  Asked and answered.

because of who they are

Nope.  Try again.

and me not only addressing the flawed logic in your reasoning

You have not, but rather have exposed your own.

but also your hypocrisy as someone who isn't a visible member of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I never claimed I was.  Yet another strawman, huh?  Crows must be scared of you.  But yeah, this has been asked and answered repeatedly.

Read my posts.

It is torturous and arduous, considering your hubris, strawmen and bad grammar, but for some reason, I have done so.

Did I once state whether or not I think female ordination of the deaconess is a good idea or not?

As I have already pointed out, you apparently have nothing to offer in that regard.

I attacked secular feminism, but this was separate from female ordination of deaconesses.

You did so in defense of Daniel's off-base assertion that those who are in favor of the restoration of the deaconess should be classified as "feminists".  And your sentence structure itself makes it sound as if the ordination itself - as well as the person being ordained - is female.  What gives?

I would like a response - how has anything I posted been "shallow" or "Western" or "heterodox," and how have I come across as "Orthodoxy hasn't penetrated my heart?"

I already have:

Quote
If you don't see how Orthodoxy is a lived Faith - how living a life steeped in the Mysteries of the Church is the most essential aspect of that Faith - and that merely being an observer or a student of Orthodoxy in the academic sense does not mean that one truly understands or has imbibed the Faith, that is not my fault.

You seem to think that living a life outside of the Mysteries but in close proximity to Orthodoxy - coupled with a clumsy attempt attaining discursive academic knowledge - qualifies you to speak as one who understands the Church as intimately as one who lives within her Mysteries.

I would dismiss this as a mere ad-hominem attack

Yeah, that seems to be your go-to position when confronted with realities that make you uncomfortable.

but I would like to see how you would respond to this.

Not that you'll give it any consideration.  You'll just begin assembling strawmen while attempting to debunk it.

How have I arrogantly lectured about Orthodoxy or Daniel has arrogantly lectured about Orthodoxy?

This has already been demonstrated, most especially in Daniel's case.

And - even though you are not my teacher because we aren't in communion with one another (maybe one day!)

Do you have to be in communion with someone to learn from them?  By that logic you could not learn from any Eastern Orthodox Christians, since you are not in communion with them either.

are students not allowed to critique their teachers?

In a respectful manner, not by upbraiding them as "feminist schismatics".

Should've the Orthodox laypeople bowed down to the various Arian, Nestorian, and Iconoclastic bishops that have come in place?

No.  Neither should they bow to disgruntled Roman Catholics and Evangelical fundies who have not divested themselves of their ideological and political baggage looking for a new rock to hide under.

I think you are wrong because you are attacking the legitimacy of a person and not the substance of their argument.

Demonstrating why someone is not qualified to make a certain argument is not the same thing as the ad hominem fallacy.  You may have a layman's opinion on quantum mechanics.  You don't get to call Richard Feynman nasty names though, and claim you know better than him, when all you've got to back that up is your hubris and (maybe) a high school diploma.

And point out the substance of my argument

There is none.

rather than my education if you wish to demonstrate how "uneducated" I am as an individual.

Pointing out your education or lack thereof is perfectly germane to demonstrating that you are uneducated.  If you were educated, you'd know that!  ;)

I find it arrogant to attack people in where they are in their life, rather than attack arguments.

In your case, there is ample room to do both.

Could you elaborate how I'm being arrogant?

You post as if you are lecturing people, when it is evident that you are vastly unqualified to do so.  Case in point:

Thanks for the argument - finally.

I see you have yet to advance one.

But I still think its wrong - on the Internet - to attack someone because of who they are and disavow their opinions.

You're using "disavow" wrong.  And, as already demonstrated, that's not what I have done.

What heterodox opinion have I given forward thus far?

The term was used here as a descriptor of who you are as an individual, not as a description of the beliefs that you are apparently still working out for yourself.  You are a Christian.  You are not an Orthodox Christian.  Therefore, you are, at present, a heterodox Christian.  Get it?

No you haven't.

I have.  That terminology didn't come to exist in a vacuum.  You don't have to be a dog to hear the dog whistles when it comes to politics.

In addition to not demonstrating how his post was "pregnant with the idea,"

I have.  That terminology didn't come to exist in a vacuum.  You don't have to be a dog to hear the dog whistles when it comes to politics.

you haven't demonstrated that was his intention. You can't just guess the intentions of people with no circumstantial evidence.

The circumstantial evidence is present not only in the post in question but in Daniel's posting history.  Let's have Daniel tell me then, that I am wrong about his political affiliation and sensibilities.  Either that, or you can peruse his history and take in the evidence, as you term it, for yourself.

If it was "always" acceptable, then this wouldn't even be a debate.

That's not true.  The fact that the issue has become controversial in some quarters of the Church in the modern day doesn't mean that it was not with us since the beginning and that it has not existed in some parts of the Church - as other posters have pointed out - right up until the present day.

OK, I agree - you should've said this in the first place.

I suppose there is some value in pointing out the obvious when dialoguing with those none too swift on the uptake.

But I think circumstances are key - who is the dissident element?

Whoever hypothetically enters into schism because the Patriarchate of Alexandria has reinstated the order of the deaconess within its territory.

Elaborate please.

I already have above.  Your mindset is still decidedly Western.

And okay, "but one day" probably wasn't an appropriate response. I am an immature individual in certain aspects that needs to develop.

Funny that you recognize this as it pertains to this particular aspect of the discussion when it is evident throughout all you've posted.  But I suppose it is a start!

I don't find "hey, you can't know the pastoral needs of the Orthodox faithful" particularly helpful in addressing the topic at hand.

And yet it is!  Who knows, it might lead the individuals in question down the path of actually becoming Orthodox, which of course is a lifelong process that means so much more than actually being received into the Church.

It seems to me that calling someone "gay" as an insult isn't particularly Christ like.
And on those issues, no - I'm not. It was just a bit of humor. Bad humor, but humor nonetheless.

So, when you're unbearably arrogant - or make a bad joke - that's cool, but when I when I make a joke you don't like, that's none too Christ like?  Hmmmm...If my name were you LivenotoneviL - or some other palindrome a sixth grader might think is clever, like say, "A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!"  - I'd be citing the Scripture about motes and eyeballs here.

I never said that Orthodoxy was - have I given that opinion?

I'm just asking if you agree with me.  Is it necessary to be defensive and contentious about even that?

And my point was Daniel never gave that point either.

Sure he did.

I am undeservedly haughty - please pray for me.

I see that.  And I will.

I haven't seen Wizard of Oz in a while - when I was much younger. So, seeing Dorothy again looking younger than me is weird.

And Spanky from The Little Rascals died at the age of 64 in 1993!



I also want to point out that it is rather embarrassing for someone who graduated from an Orthodox seminary to use such insults as "do you teach your granny to suck eggs," which to me comes across as rather juvenile.

You're apparently unfamiliar with the history of the phrase...among a host of other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_grandmother_to_suck_eggs

As well as call me "gay" as an insult.

So again, when you make a bad joke, it's all good.  When I do it...Oh, the humanity!

Honestly, I think this whole discussion is leading both of us to sin - can we just end it and pray for each other?

How convenient that you should ask immediately after venting your spleen.  Whether you were sincere or not will be evident in your next reply.  If you're willing to start at this point, I am.  ;)

Pray for me, because I'm immature in a lot of aspects and I need a lot of development in my person in many different areas of my life.

You got it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 04:41:19 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
I surrender. You won this argument; I'll concede to the fact that I misinterpreted your intention of posting; and I don't intend to give an excuse other than from your first post alone gave the impression of trying to censor by means of ad hominem- which I can clearly see isn't your intention at all. And you are obviously more informed on the matter, compared to someone as ignorant as me. I also never once wanted to state my opinion on the matter of deaconesses, I attacked on the mere principle of attacking the individual.

It will seem to come from weakness that I made surrendered, but it was me assuming that I was dealing with someone who was attacking with a basis of emotional feelings rather than a rational thought process I'm not familiar with.


I'm sorry for my hubris and my false sense of being a "Crusader of Orthodoxy," which I'm not. I am filled with pride, and need your prayers.

Nevertheless, I am still quite offended at some of the very immature points thrown at me, such as the juvenile name calling.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
And I'm a former Roman Catholic in my beliefs, and I am used to dealing with people who use such techniques of spreading heterodoxy by means of immature and ill informed tactics.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
I surrender. You won this argument; I'll concede to the fact that I misinterpreted your intention of posting; and I don't intend to give an excuse other than from your first post alone gave the impression of trying to censor by means of ad hominem- which I can clearly see isn't your intention at all.

As previously stated, my intention was never to censor anyone by means of ad hominem, but rather:

a. to indicate how an individual who is just starting to learn about Orthodoxy, such as Daniel, is less than qualified to speak to the issue of whether or not there is a pastoral need for the restoration of the order of the deaconess within the Orthodox Church.

b. to suggest that if an individual in such a position cares to offer an opinion, he should do so respectfully.

If I was harsh in doing so it was because:

a. Daniel was snide, highhanded, and condemnatory in his initial post.

b. No offense, but as Mor has pointed out, this board has been lousy lately with wet-behind-the-ears inquirers scolding actual Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians for being everything from ecumenists to heretics, and frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

We've got one kid on here who couldn't even decide if he wanted to be Coptic Orthodox or ROCOR for the longest, but he knew one thing for sure, mainstream EO Christians were ecumenist, new calendar heretics and he was gonna tell 'em so in no uncertain terms, even though he wasn't even a catechumen yet.  People like that need to get verbally knocked on their behinds from time to time.  It's good for them.

And you are obviously more informed on the matter, compared to someone as ignorant as me. I also never once wanted to state my opinion on the matter of deaconesses, I attacked on the mere principle of attacking the individual.

Well, as I said, you were off base.  My advice to folks like Daniel: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.  Don't think you're going to come on here lecturing the Orthodox about how they're caving in to secular feminism and headed for schism when you haven't even finished The Orthodox Way yet because you took a break to play Pokémon Go or watch Fox & Friends.  In the words of the late, great Robin Harris, "I ain't your daddy, and I ain't havin' it".



You will get shut down.

It will seem to come from weakness that I made surrendered, but it was me assuming that I was dealing with someone who was attacking with a basis of emotional feelings rather than a rational thought process I'm not familiar with.

Now that you know better, I hope it will lead you towards embracing Orthodoxy on its own terms.

I'm sorry for my hubris and my false sense of being a "Crusader of Orthodoxy," which I'm not. I am filled with pride, and need your prayers.

Apology accepted.

Nevertheless, I am still quite offended at some of the very immature points thrown at me, such as the juvenile name calling.

Well, like you said, I was just kidding around.  That said, since you were offended, I apologize to you for any quip that got your goat.

And I'm a former Roman Catholic in my beliefs, and I am used to dealing with people who use such techniques of spreading heterodoxy by means of immature and ill informed tactics.

Crushing heterodoxy is what I'm all about.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2017, 06:01:31 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

....why not?

Why not include organs to help the choir stay in tune?  Why not have large TV Monitors so the people in the back can see?  The "why not" question can have countless other "why nots" added to it.

It's not the "why not" that is important....as much as the why.  We do not do things merely "because"...there must be a real purpose to all things.  What is the real purpose?

Is it so women feel more "involved" and like they "participate"? 

As a woman, allow me to say...that I participate fully....I am able to partake of the Eucharist....I am able to confess my sins and obtain forgiveness....I am able to serve the needy, help the orphans, care for the widows.  I bury the dead.

Why do I need to be "ordained" to feel fulfilled....to answer the "calling"?

Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?

 
 

I disagree with you Elizabeth there is a want & a need.  Just read this presentation at the recent conference:

Quote
There is a mistaken belief that female deacons need not be revived in the modern church since they are no longer needed. This argument rests on a fallacy, namely, that female deacons were needed, historically, only for propriety’s sake for the baptism of adult women converts since even adult men and women in the early centuries of Christianity were baptized in the nude.
But we no longer practice the nude baptism of adult converts; therefore, we no longer need
female deacons (so the argument goes). In fact, however, various church manuals and other
documents from early Christian times describe multiple functions for female deacons. Taking the Eucharist to the sick was one of those and is still an important part of pastoral care today. Taking  the Eucharist to the homebound is not like delivering takeout; it is a form of chaplaincy. Many women, whether physically ill or dealing with any of a host of emotional or spiritual issues, would feel more comfortable talking about those issues with another woman as opposed to a man, no matter how caring and responsive a priest or male deacon might be. In fact, some men feel more comfortable discussing certain emotional and other issues with a woman as opposed to another man.
Serving as a chaperone for female parishioners who needed to meet with a male
clergyman was yet another historical function of female deacons, and this is clearly still a needed function today. Although clerical molestation of children receives the most press coverage and, rightly, the most outrage within our society, in actual fact, the most common form of clergy sexual misconduct by far is male clergy who become sexually involved with adult female parishioners. Even if the relationship appears to be initiated by the parishioner, this is always a form of sexual abuse because of the spiritual power or authority which a clergyman has over a parishioner (regardless of whether the cleric acknowledges that such a power differential in fact exists). Female deacons, particularly those who receive the appropriate training in counseling and spiritual direction, can obviate the need for many women to meet individually with their priest and, in those cases where they do need to meet with their priest, especially on a regular basis, they can provide a discrete presence which would forestall any potential “unfortunate development” in the relationship between priest and parishioner, and avoid “he said, she said” accusations.   

You can read the whole article here:  https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Karras-Diaconte-Conference-10-7-17.pdf


And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA

And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

That's hardly  an endorsement.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church

And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

That's hardly  an endorsement.

Sure it is.  After all, it was a part of H.A.H.'s official greetings to the Conference.  I doubt he would have participated in this capacity if he didn't endorse the idea in some respect.  It's certainly closer to an endorsement than it is a condemnation or a dismissal.  It seems that H.A.H. had some very positive things to say about the Conference and the papers presented there.  He didn't seem opposed to the idea of a restoration of the female diaconate.  He certainly didn't dismiss it out of hand or boneheadedly chalk it up to feminism and entitlement.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA

And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

That's hardly  an endorsement.

Sure it is.  After all, it was a part of H.A.H.'s official greetings to the Conference.  I doubt he would have participated in this capacity if he didn't endorse the idea in some respect.  It's certainly closer to an endorsement than it is a condemnation or a dismissal.  It seems that H.A.H. had some very positive things to say about the Conference and the papers presented there.  He didn't seem opposed to the idea of a restoration of the female diaconate.  He certainly didn't dismiss it out of hand or boneheadedly chalk it up to feminism and entitlement.

He said they're talking about it.  Endorsing talking about an issue does not mean that he will endorse what you hope will result.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA

And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

That's hardly  an endorsement.

No, it's much more. The quotes also show that he is deeply engrossed in the topic, and impatient to see actual progress on it.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church

And here is what the Ecumenical Patriarch himself said in his greetings to the conference:
Quote
His Eminence thanked the conference presenters for doing “appropriate” diaconal work in chaplaincy, counseling, and visitation because they “articulated [their] own passion: the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit and make it real in our lives and the lives of those who suffer, the lives of the priests and deacons of the Church.” This included the counseling aspect of Demetra Jacquet’s presentation that “fits nicely the work of a deaconess,” and noting that in a history of women deacons essay by Valerie Karras “there’s lots of rich material that we have not unfolded, unwrapped.” His Eminence noted that the challenges of reviving the diaconate are many: What will deacons do? Is it permanent? What education and training is required? How “you and I make this particular paradigm change in our faithful”? He noted, “Forty years ago, there were the same questions about the concept of the deacon, the deaconess. We have come a little bit forward. At least we are talking about it.”

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/

That's hardly  an endorsement.

Sure it is.  After all, it was a part of H.A.H.'s official greetings to the Conference.  I doubt he would have participated in this capacity if he didn't endorse the idea in some respect.  It's certainly closer to an endorsement than it is a condemnation or a dismissal.  It seems that H.A.H. had some very positive things to say about the Conference and the papers presented there.  He didn't seem opposed to the idea of a restoration of the female diaconate.  He certainly didn't dismiss it out of hand or boneheadedly chalk it up to feminism and entitlement.

He said they're talking about it.  Endorsing talking about an issue does not mean that he will endorse what you hope will result.

Is this how desperate you are?  You want to waste time quibbling about what constitutes endorsement?  As Porter has observed, it is clear from the comments that His All Holiness is deeply engaged with the topic and wants to see the discussion move forward.  There is no denying that H.B. Pope Theodoros thinks that there is a pastoral need in his Patriarchate.  As Iconodule has pointed out, it is somewhat bizarre that the discussion keeps circling around to what is needed in the West, as if we're the only place that counts, when there are not only new deaconesses in Africa, but - according to OrthodoxWiki - there are longstanding (if small) communities of deaconesses in Russia, Romania, and Bulgaria, and that's not even counting the deaconesses in Oriental Orthodox communities like the Armenian and Ethiopian deaconesses.

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Deaconess

But, since the discussion keeps swinging around to the West, I do think it is worth truly discussing if there is a pastoral need here.  I think there is, and I don't think anyone with a contrary opinion has thus far even attempted to address the counter-arguments to the assertion that there is not from the St. Phoebe page, and posted by Irene and me.  Here is an interesting article by Professor Carrie Frederick Frost of St. Sophia Ukrainian Orthodox Seminary arguing that there is a legitimate need, and asking raising some interesting questions, foremost among them for me:

Quote
The other factor that has limited me, and others interested in this topic, is the lack of international Orthodox forums for communication among hierarchs, scholars, and interested laypersons. As far as I can tell, no one in the English-speaking parts of the Church knew about the new deaconesses until a few days after they had been consecrated. Also, none of us working on the issue knew that the Alexandrian Synod was even considering this matter prior to its decision to revive the female diaconate a few months ago.

I'd like to know that too.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Daniel2:47

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Exploring the Orthodox tradition and seeking Truth
  • Faith: Orthodox - Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain

...back to the "why" and the "why not"? 

You cannot simply say because it is ancient practice, blah blah blah.

It is also ancient practice that women should be quiet and not speak in church, nor teach, nor anything.  They should cover up, not wear pants, and not come to church when they are menstruating.  Shall we return to those teachings, as well?  They all make sense and had their true purpose.

As I understand it....deaconesses were a requirement due to the modesty of women back in the day.  Not only could a man not touch a woman, not his wife, he was not allowed to be alone in a room with her, etc.  Therefore, deaconesses were employed to visit the sick women, administer the Eucharist to them, be present at their baptisms, etc.  This was due to modesty.

Until we, women, decide to return to modesty, there's no need for deaconesses.

....why not?

Why not include organs to help the choir stay in tune?  Why not have large TV Monitors so the people in the back can see?  The "why not" question can have countless other "why nots" added to it.

It's not the "why not" that is important....as much as the why.  We do not do things merely "because"...there must be a real purpose to all things.  What is the real purpose?

Is it so women feel more "involved" and like they "participate"? 

As a woman, allow me to say...that I participate fully....I am able to partake of the Eucharist....I am able to confess my sins and obtain forgiveness....I am able to serve the needy, help the orphans, care for the widows.  I bury the dead.

Why do I need to be "ordained" to feel fulfilled....to answer the "calling"?

Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?

 
 

Excellent post.

Offline Daniel2:47

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Exploring the Orthodox tradition and seeking Truth
  • Faith: Orthodox - Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy, there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

Finally, just to clarify my earlier post, I do not think the Patriarch of Alexandria is a heretic or liberal schismatic. This was in reference to those who want to imitate various mainline Protestant churches in the ordination of women to the priesthood, which is the clear motivation behind many of those advocating for this in the West. I recognise that in non-Western cultures, there may be a pastoral need for something similar to a deaconess, but this is very different from the type of liturgical role that Western Orthodox "theologians"/"liturgists" are pushing for...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 08:22:43 AM by Daniel2:47 »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy, there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

Finally, just to clarify my earlier post, I do not think the Patriarch of Alexandria is a heretic or liberal schismatic. This was in reference to those who want to imitate various mainline Protestant churches in the ordination of women to the priesthood, which is the clear motivation behind many of those advocating for this in the West. I recognise that in non-Western cultures, there may be a pastoral need for something similar to a deaconess, but this is very different from the type of liturgical role that Western Orthodox "theologians"/"liturgists" are pushing for...


I am so glad that you are able to discern the 'clear motivation'  of a wide grouping of people......have you tried to market this skill for use in stock market predictions?
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy, there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

So I guess Sts Athanasius, Ephrem Syrus, Maximus, Gregory Palamas, etc. were not real theologians either? Pace Evagrius Pontikos, people who are trained in theology in a scholarly setting are conventionally termed theologians, among the Orthodox as well as others. Some might choose to gripe about that but no one will listen to them.

Quote
Finally, just to clarify my earlier post, I do not think the Patriarch of Alexandria is a heretic or liberal schismatic. This was in reference to those who want to imitate various mainline Protestant churches in the ordination of women to the priesthood, which is the clear motivation behind many of those advocating for this in the West. I recognise that in non-Western cultures, there may be a pastoral need for something similar to a deaconess, but this is very different from the type of liturgical role that Western Orthodox "theologians"/"liturgists" are pushing for...

I get it: even when something happens in Sub-Saharan Africa, it's only worth discussing in its relation to European and American culture wars.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,248
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy, there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

And all believers in the NT were called "saints"... sometimes a title or descriptor can be used in multiple ways, can change over time, or can vary depending on context.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 10:38:27 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians". From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy, there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

Finally, just to clarify my earlier post, I do not think the Patriarch of Alexandria is a heretic or liberal schismatic. This was in reference to those who want to imitate various mainline Protestant churches in the ordination of women to the priesthood, which is the clear motivation behind many of those advocating for this in the West. I recognise that in non-Western cultures, there may be a pastoral need for something similar to a deaconess, but this is very different from the type of liturgical role that Western Orthodox "theologians"/"liturgists" are pushing for...

The title of Theologian being given to saints refers to those individuals having been known to have had specifically received knowledge of God expressed through their writings.

However, the same Church also venerates as a saint and accepts the words of the man who said "He is a theologian who prays, and he who prays is a theologian."

The only theologians, so-called, who do not deserve the title are certain Western scholars of religion, who are called theologians, but who reject prayer, or do not pray, or redefine prayer and reduce it to mere meditation and self-awareness as opposed to direct communion with God, or who are simply atheists.  Most Unitarian Universalist theologians of recent years, probably nearly the entire faculty of Harvard Divinity School, although I don't know all of them so I cannot say for sure if they posess faith or not, are eminent scholars; I hope they are theologians but I don't know if they pray or not.

I pray, and am therefore a theologian.  This does not make me a religious scholar and I certainly don't pray enough to be called a theologian on a par with Sts. John, Gregory or Symeon.

You yourself pray, and are a theologian; you might well be a better theologian than I am.  Neither of us is St. John the Divine.  But let us vow to keep praying and becoming better theologians through prayer in the Church, and to not be scandalized but instead to calmly and through prayer work against the divisions and strife inflicted on our church from those theologians falsely called who exist outside or hide as wolves in the fold of the Church, seeking to deceive if possible even the Elect, and let them be anathema to us.

In this thread, everyone should relax and take note that the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church are using women in the diaconate for reasons of pressing pastoral neccessity, as opposed to engaging in some kind of perverse liturgical experiment designed to deprecate Holy Tradition; neither the Greek nor Coptic Popes are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Orthodox in Africa are as traditional and as pious as can be imagined.  There should be no criticism of this, only of the attempt of some faux-Orthodox persons of a heretical orientation inspired by the "success" of women in the dying Protestant churches to fete this act of pastoral necessity as a clarion call for abandoing Holy Tradition regarding the Priesthood and Episcopate.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Also worth noting that most of the advocates for this are not clergy but lay Orthodox "theologians".

Quantify that.  What is the ratio of clerical advocates to lay advocates in this scenario, and how many points do the Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishops of His Synod count for?  How about Metropolitan Kallistos?  Also, who are you to put "theologians" in quotes when speaking about eminent scholars such as Valarie Karras, Fr. John McGuckin, or Teva Regule?  In what ways would you call their credentialing into question and in what ways are you qualified to make those critiques?

From my admittedly limited knowledge of Orthodoxy

You should have stopped there.

there are actually only 3 saints who were given such a sacred title.

Let's say for the sake of argument that is true.  What do you think it proves?

Finally, just to clarify my earlier post, I do not think the Patriarch of Alexandria is a heretic or liberal schismatic. This was in reference to those who want to imitate various mainline Protestant churches in the ordination of women to the priesthood, which is the clear motivation behind many of those advocating for this in the West.

How do you know?  What are you basing this on?  Prove it.  Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air based on your personal political ideology.

I recognise that in non-Western cultures, there may be a pastoral need for something similar to a deaconess, but this is very different from the type of liturgical role that Western Orthodox "theologians"/"liturgists" are pushing for...

How so?  Elaborate.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 01:04:31 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Daniel2:47

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
  • Exploring the Orthodox tradition and seeking Truth
  • Faith: Orthodox - Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain
In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 08:20:54 AM by Daniel2:47 »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.



and only a -tiny- fraction of the Church is western.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.

I live in the West, am an Orthodox Christian, and see a realistic need for this.  I wouldn't call myself a feminist, at least not in the sense you and LivenotoneviL probably mean it. 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

I had a long and circular discussion on this topic on FB yesterday....and I am back at Square 1.  I simply do not understand the need.  ...and I do not understand why my not "getting it" upsets people so much.  I've been painted as an uneducated, anti-woman, pseudo-believer....why?  Because I do not think women today need to be ordained? 

Reason 1 which was given me....was that women have a need, a calling to fulfill.  However, other than priestly duties such as administering Eucharist, etc...what can the woman NOT do unless she is ordained?  She can counsel.  She can help others.  She can visit the sick.  What exactly can she not do that she will be able to do then?  I totally understand heeding the "call"....and having a huge desire to serve the Lord...but, do we need to be ordained to do so?

Reason 2 which I was given yesterday...education.  The woman will study to become a deaconess, and will be of greater value through her studies to society.  We, women, can study today.  We can gain our Masters Degrees, Doctorates, etc.  Seminaries are open to us.  There is nothing we cannot learn.  We cannot act upon some things we learn...but, we certainly can study until we run out of money.  So, this reason holds no water for me, either.

Reason 3 - women can counsel abused women/men better than a man.  I was given examples of many abusive priests...who use their "rank" to "lord" it over people, some abuse their own wives, and when a battered woman comes to them, they tell her to shut-up and get back to her husband.  Granted this happens.  I have personally known a few "unpriestly" priests...and yet...women can be as nasty if not worse.   Women can be physically and mentally abusive, just like men.  I know some very power hungry women, who will stop at nothing for personal gain...and these same women might simply join the ranks of deaconesses in order to gain the "upper hand" over others.  Having two X chromosomes, does not guarantee kindness, tenderness and selflessness.  So, this reason also doesn't answer the question for me.

Clearly, in ancient days the main reason for the deaconess was modesty...and while that reason is no longer valid, I have yet to find one that is.

Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

I really really want to get on this band wagon....but, I'm just not understanding the "why".  To me it is more of a "want" than a "need"...and if that is the case...and the bishops are happy to fulfill the "want" ....I will be 100% behind it...but, let's call it what it is.

Someone help me understand this.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 12:11:37 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,291
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.

+1
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline Arachne

  • Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
  • Section Moderator
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,525
  • Hatred is learned behaviour.
  • Faith: Cradle Greek Orthodox. Cope.
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese, UK
'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

I do thoroughly enjoy the Liturgies when I visit other parishes that have deacons serving....but, my parish has NEVER had a deacon...so, perhaps my opinion is skewed towards the necessity of one.

What you say...in the sense of retaining a deaconate is starting to shine a light. 

Thank you.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.

And that's your weak non-response to all of the questions I put to you above in the hopes of actually advancing this dialogue beyond your apparently baseless assertions and uniformed opinions?  I'll try once more: What are you basing the above on?  How do you know that "in a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need"?

In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.

I live in the West, am an Orthodox Christian, and see a realistic need for this.  I wouldn't call myself a feminist, at least not in the sense you and LivenotoneviL probably mean it.

+1
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

I do thoroughly enjoy the Liturgies when I visit other parishes that have deacons serving....but, my parish has NEVER had a deacon...so, perhaps my opinion is skewed towards the necessity of one.

What you say...in the sense of retaining a deaconate is starting to shine a light. 

Thank you.

You are not alone.  A recent upsurge of male Coptic deacons have made laity question its value.  Many are simply calling the male Coptic deacons "nothing but cup-bearers (alluding to the blood of Christ in the chalice) and a waste of parish resources".  When I hear that, I think that's the underlying disease in the symptom of our views of the holy orders of the Church, that we lack a good understanding of the spirituality behind the necessity of the holy orders.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 12:22:30 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,024
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.
+3
     My Church does not have deacons on a regular basis.  When we do have one, he his a tremendous help to our priest by chanting part of the Liturgy and helping the priest with the censers, etc.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East

I had a long and circular discussion on this topic on FB yesterday....and I am back at Square 1.  I simply do not understand the need.  ...and I do not understand why my not "getting it" upsets people so much.  I've been painted as an uneducated, anti-woman, pseudo-believer....why?  Because I do not think women today need to be ordained? 

I think this is one of the problems with discussing topics like this.  I don't think anyone should question your Christianity or anything else on the basis of your not understanding and/or accepting the need for deaconesses.  That's stupid. 

Quote
Reason 1 which was given me....was that women have a need, a calling to fulfill.  However, other than priestly duties such as administering Eucharist, etc...what can the woman NOT do unless she is ordained?  She can counsel.  She can help others.  She can visit the sick.  What exactly can she not do that she will be able to do then?  I totally understand heeding the "call"....and having a huge desire to serve the Lord...but, do we need to be ordained to do so?

All Christians have a calling to fulfill, not just women.  For most of these people, that call is lived out through the grace conferred in Baptism and in the Eucharist.  That is all the "ordination" they need. 

But we know that some people are called to a more particular ministry in the Church; either the Church herself calls them or they feel a call and the Church as a mother confirms its genuineness for them. 

If we look at the ordained ministries we currently have, a lot of them involve tasks non-ordained people could perform.  For instance, why ordain someone specifically to read the Scriptures in church?  Nowadays most people in our churches can read.  Similarly, does anyone think only a specific class of people are solely capable of learning how to celebrate the Liturgy and other rites?  It's not that difficult to learn. 

But we don't regard these ministries from a human perspective, as simply functional.  People are not ordained merely to do, but to be.  On the one hand, we as the Church recognise that the grace of the Holy Spirit, received in a particular way, is necessary to perform even such a "basic" task as reading.  On the other hand, we believe that the same grace transforms the one doing the work in the very act of doing the work, and the Church needs such transformed people. 

So I wouldn't say it's just about doing things.  Yes, a woman can counsel, help, visit the sick, etc. without ordination.  But so can a man.  Yet, we assign these duties to men in the diaconate and think nothing of it.  It's not as if they are secondary to their "ritual" duties.  Those "pastoral" duties are an essential part of how they live out their diaconate.  It's part of what they do, but it's also part of who they are, who God is transforming them to be in the Church, and the Church needs them. 

I think it's reasonable to ask why the female diaconate declined in the Church, what, if anything, that might imply, and whether it is a worthwhile thing to cultivate.  But as this thread makes clear, we need to have the right ideas in mind.  If we reduce ordained ministry to "tasks", then eventually there will be very little need for any ordained rank.  Nowadays, for example, it is common for non-ordained readers of both sexes to perform liturgical functions in the churches.  I think that practice is abhorrent, but it's what happens when we lose sight of ordination as a particular mode of living and serving within the Church and view it merely as commissioning liturgical performers.  If we can neuter one order in this way, we can neuter them all.  We need to return to a more traditional view.  And, ironically, that traditional view included a place for deaconesses. 

Quote
Reason 2 which I was given yesterday...education.  The woman will study to become a deaconess, and will be of greater value through her studies to society.  We, women, can study today.  We can gain our Masters Degrees, Doctorates, etc.  Seminaries are open to us.  There is nothing we cannot learn.  We cannot act upon some things we learn...but, we certainly can study until we run out of money.  So, this reason holds no water for me, either.

I agree with you.  If it's just a matter of having more people with theological education, that can be done without ordination.  It's happening even now.

Quote
Reason 3 - women can counsel abused women/men better than a man.  I was given examples of many abusive priests...who use their "rank" to "lord" it over people, some abuse their own wives, and when a battered woman comes to them, they tell her to shut-up and get back to her husband.  Granted this happens.  I have personally known a few "unpriestly" priests...and yet...women can be as nasty if not worse.   Women can be physically and mentally abusive, just like men.  I know some very power hungry women, who will stop at nothing for personal gain...and these same women might simply join the ranks of deaconesses in order to gain the "upper hand" over others.  Having two X chromosomes, does not guarantee kindness, tenderness and selflessness.  So, this reason also doesn't answer the question for me.

You're right to point out that women can be abusive.  Many men, myself included, have experienced this.  If it was a matter of having kinder, more tender, more selfless people in ordained ministry, I don't think extending diaconate to women would do any more good than keeping it only for men. 

Both men and women are capable of abuse, of an unpastoral approach, etc.  But we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  With regard to men, we try to vet candidates for ordination as much as possible, and if problems arise, we try to deal with them appropriately.  Why wouldn't we do this for women?

And if we factor out the bad cases, there are still a lot of places in which I believe women can minister to women in a different and perhaps more beneficial way than men.  You could argue that a lot of that can be done without ordination, and while that may be true, again, it's not just function, but identity.  Incorporating that ministry into the work of the Church, investing that specific work and worker with the grace of the Spirit, subjecting both to obedience to the Church and lending both the authority of the Church...this is something different than just being a good neighbour.   

Quote
Clearly, in ancient days the main reason for the deaconess was modesty...and while that reason is no longer valid, I have yet to find one that is.

I don't think that reason is no longer valid, I just think we reduce "modesty" to "we don't baptise in the nude anymore" and think it is no longer a concern.  But there are all sorts of "modesty" concerns in the Church today.  For example, whenever I've catechised women in preparation for Baptism, if I couldn't do it in the church building itself during regular hours, I always did it in a public place (e.g., coffee shop).  There are a lot of similarly innocuous situations in which "modesty" concerns come into play and can erupt into something bad without a lot of vigilance.   

Quote
Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

I really really want to get on this band wagon....but, I'm just not understanding the "why".  To me it is more of a "want" than a "need"...and if that is the case...and the bishops are happy to fulfill the "want" ....I will be 100% behind it...but, let's call it what it is.

Someone help me understand this.

Not sure if I helped, but I don't want to type more unless I have to, so let me know.  :P
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

I do thoroughly enjoy the Liturgies when I visit other parishes that have deacons serving....but, my parish has NEVER had a deacon...so, perhaps my opinion is skewed towards the necessity of one.

What you say...in the sense of retaining a deaconate is starting to shine a light. 

Thank you.

You are not alone.  A recent upsurge of male Coptic deacons have made laity question its value.  Many are simply calling the male Coptic deacons "nothing but cup-bearers (alluding to the blood of Christ in the chalice) and a waste of parish resources".  When I hear that, I think that's the underlying disease in the symptom of our views of the holy orders of the Church, that we lack a good understanding of the spirituality behind the necessity of the holy orders.


Parishes that do not have Deacons in my opinion are missing out.  Fine if you have another Priest to do some of the work, but then that Priest is in effect, during the DL functioning as a Deacon.  And If you have never been at a DL with TWO Deacons during the Litany of the Catechumens....you are missing out even more!

The Deacon at my parish -enables- through his work and dedication, for our Priest to accomplish more, because the Deacon shares the work of the altar with him. 
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

I do thoroughly enjoy the Liturgies when I visit other parishes that have deacons serving....but, my parish has NEVER had a deacon...so, perhaps my opinion is skewed towards the necessity of one.

What you say...in the sense of retaining a deaconate is starting to shine a light. 

Thank you.

You are not alone.  A recent upsurge of male Coptic deacons have made laity question its value.  Many are simply calling the male Coptic deacons "nothing but cup-bearers (alluding to the blood of Christ in the chalice) and a waste of parish resources".  When I hear that, I think that's the underlying disease in the symptom of our views of the holy orders of the Church, that we lack a good understanding of the spirituality behind the necessity of the holy orders.


Parishes that do not have Deacons in my opinion are missing out.  Fine if you have another Priest to do some of the work, but then that Priest is in effect, during the DL functioning as a Deacon.  And If you have never been at a DL with TWO Deacons during the Litany of the Catechumens....you are missing out even more!

The Deacon at my parish -enables- through his work and dedication, for our Priest to accomplish more, because the Deacon shares the work of the altar with him.

I have been to parishes with multiple deacons...and it truly was magnificent.
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

Not sure if I helped, but I don't want to type more unless I have to, so let me know.  :P

It did.  Thank you.  ;)
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
It's unfortunate that people resort to these ad hominem, to call you "anti-woman".  You raise valid questions, and I will answer them in my own understanding as follows.

I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes, we can counsel and serve the poor and be theologically educated and all of that without the deaconate, but we need a "lead servant" that can coordinate that, and that has always been in the hands of the deacon, male and female, in the ancient Church.  It's about doing things decently and in order as St. Paul says.  That's all.

The centuries that was determined there was "no need" I thought were unfortunate.  There was always a need, and the fact that there were no female deacons even made the male deacons irrelevant in our practices.  Should we continue to keep irrelevant the deaconate as a whole?  Is that what the tradition of the Orthodox Church allows, to remove irrelevant ranks?  What determines an ordained rank irrelevant?

Every generation we have witnessed that the harvest is plenty, but the laborers are few.  I think it's time to recognize that the Church has not been very effective in bringing laborers to the harvest as speedily and necessarily as possible.

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

I do thoroughly enjoy the Liturgies when I visit other parishes that have deacons serving....but, my parish has NEVER had a deacon...so, perhaps my opinion is skewed towards the necessity of one.

What you say...in the sense of retaining a deaconate is starting to shine a light. 

Thank you.

You are not alone.  A recent upsurge of male Coptic deacons have made laity question its value.  Many are simply calling the male Coptic deacons "nothing but cup-bearers (alluding to the blood of Christ in the chalice) and a waste of parish resources".  When I hear that, I think that's the underlying disease in the symptom of our views of the holy orders of the Church, that we lack a good understanding of the spirituality behind the necessity of the holy orders.


Parishes that do not have Deacons in my opinion are missing out.  Fine if you have another Priest to do some of the work, but then that Priest is in effect, during the DL functioning as a Deacon.  And If you have never been at a DL with TWO Deacons during the Litany of the Catechumens....you are missing out even more!

The Deacon at my parish -enables- through his work and dedication, for our Priest to accomplish more, because the Deacon shares the work of the altar with him.

I have been to parishes with multiple deacons...and it truly was magnificent.

And just in case I wasnt totally clear....besides the altar based service our Deacon provides, he also basically runs the parish...keeps anything computerized functioning...the entirety of our nave as it should be..is the emergency pastoral contact when Father is out of town, etc..and generally is truly a servant of all. 

Our tiny little Mission parish would not be getting its 'full parish' wings in three weeks if he were not around to enable and assist everyone in doing what they need to do.

He really truly needs a Super Deacon suit for under his robes!
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
I had a long and circular discussion on this topic on FB yesterday....and I am back at Square 1.  I simply do not understand the need.  ...and I do not understand why my not "getting it" upsets people so much. 

Hi Liza,

I can't speak for people on Facebook, but it could be, perhaps, because people seem unwilling to actually engage on this topic beyond their own point of view.  For example, earlier in the thread, you presented some arguments similar to those you are presenting now about "not seeing the need".  Irene and I both replied with links to arguments as to why such a ministry might be necessary in a Western context.  You never replied to those, but eventually made this post complaining about the unreasonable behavior of your interlocutors on Facebook who are not participants in the discussion here.  This could be read as an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that there might be a legitimate need, especially when this issue is so contentious, and people like Daniel are content to fire off unsubstantiated opinions without presenting evidence to support them even when called upon to do so.  See what I mean?

I've been painted as an uneducated, anti-woman, pseudo-believer....why?  Because I do not think women today need to be ordained? 

That's not fair, just as it is also not fair to portray those who wish to see the female diaconate restored as liberals or feminists.

Reason 1 which was given me....was that women have a need, a calling to fulfill.  However, other than priestly duties such as administering Eucharist, etc...what can the woman NOT do unless she is ordained?  She can counsel.  She can help others.  She can visit the sick.  What exactly can she not do that she will be able to do then?  I totally understand heeding the "call"....and having a huge desire to serve the Lord...but, do we need to be ordained to do so?

Not every servant needs to be ordained, but some do, and since it is part of the living history of the Church, there is no reason that women cannot be ordained in accordance with a ministry which has always been a part of our heritage as Orthodox Christians.  I also think there is an intrinsic value in ordained service - including the aspect of accountability and obedience to the bishop - that could be valuable in this context.  Please do check the links that Irene and I both provided earlier in response to your previous posts which elaborate a bit along these lines.

Reason 2 which I was given yesterday...education.  The woman will study to become a deaconess, and will be of greater value through her studies to society.  We, women, can study today.  We can gain our Masters Degrees, Doctorates, etc.  Seminaries are open to us.  There is nothing we cannot learn.  We cannot act upon some things we learn...but, we certainly can study until we run out of money.  So, this reason holds no water for me, either.

I think Mina has answered this.

Reason 3 - women can counsel abused women/men better than a man.  I was given examples of many abusive priests...who use their "rank" to "lord" it over people, some abuse their own wives, and when a battered woman comes to them, they tell her to shut-up and get back to her husband.  Granted this happens.  I have personally known a few "unpriestly" priests...and yet...women can be as nasty if not worse.   Women can be physically and mentally abusive, just like men.  I know some very power hungry women, who will stop at nothing for personal gain...and these same women might simply join the ranks of deaconesses in order to gain the "upper hand" over others.  Having two X chromosomes, does not guarantee kindness, tenderness and selflessness.  So, this reason also doesn't answer the question for me.

I don't think that vilifying priests is the answer - though I have heard priests tell abused women that it was "their cross" and that they should remain in the situation at the peril of their very life, which is ridiculous - but I do think there is a value in a woman counseling women on matters that they can relate to better than us guys, and I do think a deaconess could fit that role nicely.

Clearly, in ancient days the main reason for the deaconess was modesty...and while that reason is no longer valid, I have yet to find one that is.

You keep coming back to this, but I am not convinced this is the case.  Again, please see the response to this point made in my reply to your previous post.

Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

It's really unfair to dismiss the answers previously provided as "fluff", but I'll try again.  Please read this short essay: https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Karras-Diaconte-Conference-10-7-17.pdf

I really really want to get on this band wagon....but, I'm just not understanding the "why".  To me it is more of a "want" than a "need"...and if that is the case...and the bishops are happy to fulfill the "want" ....I will be 100% behind it...but, let's call it what it is.

Someone help me understand this.

In my experience, as a lifelong Orthodox Chrstian, there is a genuine need here.  I have known many young women, and laity in general, who would benefit either by serving in or being served by this ministry.  I would never be in favor of any innovation or any acquiescence to the heterodox West, but simultaneously, I am not afraid to discuss something that has always been a part of who we are because of an incidental resemblance to something the heterodox are doing either.  Despite Daniel's unsubstantiated and fearful carping, I don't see any evidence that the reinvigoration of the order of the deaconess in the Western Church necessarily has anything to do with Western manias like feminism or a female presbyterate or episcopate.  I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,245
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
In a Western context, this has far more to do with feminism than any realistic need.
This should read: Especially in a Western context, this has everything to do with a realistic need and nothing to do with feminism.

Without deaconesses, we have to go burden the nuns.
Plus everything Mina and Mor said.
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline LizaSymonenko

  • Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,559
    • St.Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.

Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

It's really unfair to dismiss the answers previously provided as "fluff", but I'll try again.  Please read this short essay: https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Karras-Diaconte-Conference-10-7-17.pdf


The "fluff" comment wasn't aimed at you...but, at the circular conversation I had with someone outside of this site.

...and again...if the hierarchs decide it is needed, I will be the strongest backer of their decision.  They "know" way more than I.  ;)

« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 01:18:19 PM by LizaSymonenko »
Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church

Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

It's really unfair to dismiss the answers previously provided as "fluff", but I'll try again.  Please read this short essay: https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Karras-Diaconte-Conference-10-7-17.pdf


The "fluff" comment wasn't aimed at you...but, at the circular conversation I had with someone outside of this site.

...and again...if the hierarchs decide it is needed, I will be the strongest backer of their decision.  They "know" way more than I.  ;)

Okay.  Thanks for the clarification.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,196
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA

Without a lot of fluff....can someone give me in one or two sentences "why" we need deaconesses in the U.S.A?

It's really unfair to dismiss the answers previously provided as "fluff", but I'll try again.  Please read this short essay: https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Karras-Diaconte-Conference-10-7-17.pdf


The "fluff" comment wasn't aimed at you...but, at the circular conversation I had with someone outside of this site.

...and again...if the hierarchs decide it is needed, I will be the strongest backer of their decision.  They "know" way more than I.  ;)

Hierarchs also signed onto the Canons of the Council of Florence.  Because a hierarch backs something doesn't make it right, needed or good.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Yeah, that situation is totally comparable.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Hierarchs also signed onto the Canons of the Council of Florence.  Because a hierarch backs something doesn't make it right, needed or good.

Let's suppose there's a female deacon in your area.  Your response will be:  away with you you colluder of Western heretical standards like the days of the signers of Florence and the followers of Mani and Arius!
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Hierarchs also signed onto the Canons of the Council of Florence.  Because a hierarch backs something doesn't make it right, needed or good.

Let's suppose there's a female deacon in your area.  Your response will be:  away with you you colluder of Western heretical standards like the days of the signers of Florence and the followers of Mani and Arius!

Good question.  What would you do, Scam?  Would you write your bishop and voice your opposition or what?
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   

The diaconate is apparently the oldest of the ancient orders established by the Apostles. Later, it was treated independently and with equal thoroughness as the episcopate by St. Paul writing St. Titus. To eliminate it or even trivialize it is to cast the "Apostolic" in "One holy catholic and Apostolic Church" into question. In my opinion, historically and practically, the redundancy of priest and bishop is more obvious than of deacon or any other office. While, on the other hand, in my opinion, the work the Church could be doing thru her diaconate, male and female, is much greater and more diverse than we have now or than those imagine whose frame of reference is only modern churches in which "church" functions as a venue rather than a Body.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   

The diaconate is apparently the oldest of the ancient orders established by the Apostles. Later, it was treated independently and with equal thoroughness as the episcopate by St. Paul writing St. Titus. To eliminate it or even trivialize it is to cast the "Apostolic" in "One holy catholic and Apostolic Church" into question. In my opinion, historically and practically, the redundancy of priest and bishop is more obvious than of deacon or any other office. While, on the other hand, in my opinion, the work the Church could be doing thru her diaconate, male and female, is much greater and more diverse than we have now or than those imagine whose frame of reference is only modern churches in which "church" functions as a venue rather than a Body.


where is Porter and what have you done with him?


;)
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   

The diaconate is apparently the oldest of the ancient orders established by the Apostles. Later, it was treated independently and with equal thoroughness as the episcopate by St. Paul writing St. Titus. To eliminate it or even trivialize it is to cast the "Apostolic" in "One holy catholic and Apostolic Church" into question. In my opinion, historically and practically, the redundancy of priest and bishop is more obvious than of deacon or any other office. While, on the other hand, in my opinion, the work the Church could be doing thru her diaconate, male and female, is much greater and more diverse than we have now or than those imagine whose frame of reference is only modern churches in which "church" functions as a venue rather than a Body.


where is Porter and what have you done with him?


;)

Do you recall my having a different opinion? I don't.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   

The diaconate is apparently the oldest of the ancient orders established by the Apostles. Later, it was treated independently and with equal thoroughness as the episcopate by St. Paul writing St. Titus. To eliminate it or even trivialize it is to cast the "Apostolic" in "One holy catholic and Apostolic Church" into question. In my opinion, historically and practically, the redundancy of priest and bishop is more obvious than of deacon or any other office. While, on the other hand, in my opinion, the work the Church could be doing thru her diaconate, male and female, is much greater and more diverse than we have now or than those imagine whose frame of reference is only modern churches in which "church" functions as a venue rather than a Body.


where is Porter and what have you done with him?


;)

Do you recall my having a different opinion? I don't.

"Happy birthday!"
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
I think there was always a need.  HOWEVER, the deaconate was recently seen as unnecessary and a waste of a rank, male or female.  But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.  That's the simple way I see things.

Yes.  In a way, it's like we've gotten used to a simpler diet and see no need for extras.  But God's grace is both superabundance and bare necessity.   

The diaconate is apparently the oldest of the ancient orders established by the Apostles. Later, it was treated independently and with equal thoroughness as the episcopate by St. Paul writing St. Titus. To eliminate it or even trivialize it is to cast the "Apostolic" in "One holy catholic and Apostolic Church" into question. In my opinion, historically and practically, the redundancy of priest and bishop is more obvious than of deacon or any other office. While, on the other hand, in my opinion, the work the Church could be doing thru her diaconate, male and female, is much greater and more diverse than we have now or than those imagine whose frame of reference is only modern churches in which "church" functions as a venue rather than a Body.


where is Porter and what have you done with him?


;)

Do you recall my having a different opinion? I don't.


Not the opinion but rather the delivery
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Been practicing my breathing exercises.

Oh and happy birthday, Denise.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,543
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Been practicing my breathing exercises.

Oh and happy birthday, Denise.


It shows. Good job.



And thanks
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,591
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
But if the deaconate is necessary IN GENERAL, then there's a need.

+1

+2

+4

+8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, etc.

Mina has posted a post which is agreeable almost to an infinite extent.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2017, 09:38:07 PM by Alpha60 »
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #111 on: November 01, 2017, 02:25:41 AM »
Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?
+1

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline IreneOlinyk

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 504
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #112 on: November 01, 2017, 08:59:05 AM »

Hmmmm....thank you, Mina.  THIS was the first time it has made even a little sense to me....in view of the Deaconate, in general.

Parishes that do not have Deacons in my opinion are missing out.  Fine if you have another Priest to do some of the work, but then that Priest is in effect, during the DL functioning as a Deacon.  And If you have never been at a DL with TWO Deacons during the Litany of the Catechumens....you are missing out even more!

The Deacon at my parish -enables- through his work and dedication, for our Priest to accomplish more, because the Deacon shares the work of the altar with him.
[/quote]

And just in case I wasnt totally clear....besides the altar based service our Deacon provides, he also basically runs the parish...keeps anything computerized functioning...the entirety of our nave as it should be..is the emergency pastoral contact when Father is out of town, etc..and generally is truly a servant of all. 

Our tiny little Mission parish would not be getting its 'full parish' wings in three weeks if he were not around to enable and assist everyone in doing what they need to do.

He really truly needs a Super Deacon suit for under his robes!
[/quote]



Thank you so much.  It is wonderful to read about a good functioning parish.  God bless your deacon. 
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 09:00:38 AM by IreneOlinyk »

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #113 on: November 01, 2017, 10:04:13 AM »
Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?
+1

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.

I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #114 on: November 01, 2017, 10:37:30 AM »
Wasn't Priscilla a deaconess?
From the Greek, διάκονα, or servant.  It's clear from the text that neither Priscilla nor Phoebe had any official liturgical role. 

How is it clear?  It doesn't say one way or another.  And, in any case, what were "official liturgical roles" at such an early period? 

Quote
Besides, aren't we all Christians servants of the Lord?

We're also priests.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,245
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #115 on: November 01, 2017, 11:19:39 AM »
Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?
+1

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.

It doesn't, though.  To have a traditional view would be to admit the need for ordained women to minister to lay women.  This is about ministry, training, authority, and accountability.  And yes, modesty, too (definitely more than nude baptism).  It's not about women's rights, or validation, or interchangeability of the sexes.  If we were interchangeable, there wouldn't be a need for deaconesses.  The standards for holiness aren't different, but men and women are, and therefore struggle differently and with different things.  Liza rightly points out we don't need validation or "more" participation--this is not in question, and rights are something Orthodoxy sacrifices.  Very simply, Orthodox women need deaconesses to confide in and for spiritual direction.  This of course requires some Orthodox women to become deaconesses, but that's not the goal, it's the means to the end.  I'd contend (perhaps audaciously) that any woman looking at this like it's a step "up," an end in itself, or a source of validation has the wrong view and would be a poor candidate for such a ministry.  Much the way it is with the male clergy.
Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #116 on: November 01, 2017, 11:31:35 AM »
Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?
+1

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.

It doesn't, though.  To have a traditional view would be to admit the need for ordained women to minister to lay women.  This is about ministry, training, authority, and accountability.  And yes, modesty, too (definitely more than nude baptism).  It's not about women's rights, or validation, or interchangeability of the sexes.  If we were interchangeable, there wouldn't be a need for deaconesses.  The standards for holiness aren't different, but men and women are, and therefore struggle differently and with different things.  Liza rightly points out we don't need validation or "more" participation--this is not in question, and rights are something Orthodoxy sacrifices.  Very simply, Orthodox women need deaconesses to confide in and for spiritual direction.  This of course requires some Orthodox women to become deaconesses, but that's not the goal, it's the means to the end.  I'd contend (perhaps audaciously) that any woman looking at this like it's a step "up," an end in itself, or a source of validation has the wrong view and would be a poor candidate for such a ministry.  Much the way it is with the male clergy.

+1
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #117 on: November 01, 2017, 12:43:10 PM »
Is it truly a NEED or a WANT?
+1

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.

It doesn't, though.  To have a traditional view would be to admit the need for ordained women to minister to lay women.  This is about ministry, training, authority, and accountability.  And yes, modesty, too (definitely more than nude baptism).  It's not about women's rights, or validation, or interchangeability of the sexes.  If we were interchangeable, there wouldn't be a need for deaconesses.  The standards for holiness aren't different, but men and women are, and therefore struggle differently and with different things.  Liza rightly points out we don't need validation or "more" participation--this is not in question, and rights are something Orthodoxy sacrifices.  Very simply, Orthodox women need deaconesses to confide in and for spiritual direction.  This of course requires some Orthodox women to become deaconesses, but that's not the goal, it's the means to the end.  I'd contend (perhaps audaciously) that any woman looking at this like it's a step "up," an end in itself, or a source of validation has the wrong view and would be a poor candidate for such a ministry.  Much the way it is with the male clergy.

Well said.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Dominika

  • Troublesome Sheep
  • Global Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,441
  • Serbian/Polish
    • My youtube channel
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: POC, but my heart belongs to Antioch
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #118 on: November 01, 2017, 12:48:42 PM »
I don't think that reason is no longer valid, I just think we reduce "modesty" to "we don't baptise in the nude anymore" and think it is no longer a concern.  But there are all sorts of "modesty" concerns in the Church today.  For example, whenever I've catechised women in preparation for Baptism, if I couldn't do it in the church building itself during regular hours, I always did it in a public place (e.g., coffee shop).  There are a lot of similarly innocuous situations in which "modesty" concerns come into play and can erupt into something bad without a lot of vigilance.   

That's another very good reason, both for mission areas (some societies woudn't allow to a foreign man to do catechesis to one woman or even to a whole group) and in the Western World.

As I said, many women have more knowledge, theological and spiritual, they do care about emotions of other people, so they can be good readers, chantes, missionaries, teachers etc. - all the things of which the diaconate consists.

And I agree with the observations above that the diaconate, generally, also of men, is very often undervaluated. And I say that despite the fact that my parish has 2 deacons (and until this year March we had 3, but one of them aftery many years being a diacon was ordained to be a presbiter), so, I would say, we appreciate their work.
Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

My Orthodox liturgical blog "For what eat, while you can fast" in Polish (videos featuring chants in different languages)

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #119 on: November 02, 2017, 11:03:09 PM »
Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #120 on: November 03, 2017, 09:40:06 AM »
Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.

That's not an answer.  Are you postulating that the spirit of the times has entered the Orthodox Church in the same way that it has penetrated Catholicism and that this is what is motivating the push for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?  If so, you'll have to post proof, because from what I have seen and read so far, this is not the case, and I'm not willing to take your word on it.  You - and the other would be critics of the restoration of the order of the deaconess in the Orthodox Church - are going to have to give those of us who disagree with you something more than petulant one-liners if you are really interested in dialogue.  If you're just interested in expressing your general discontent with something many of you don't truly understand though, based on your cranky political perspective, by all means, carry on.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #121 on: November 03, 2017, 10:09:30 AM »
Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.
That's not an answer.  Are you postulating that the spirit of the times has entered the Orthodox Church in the same way that it has penetrated Catholicism and that this is what is motivating the push for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?...
I am not postulating it, but wondering about it.  Is it forbidden to wonder in the Orthodox Church?
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2017, 10:10:20 AM »
A lot of rhetorical "wondering" in this thread.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #123 on: November 03, 2017, 10:28:16 AM »
A lot of rhetorical "wondering" in this thread.
I expect oc.net to summarize this thread in a report and send its recommendation to all patriarchs of the East.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #124 on: November 03, 2017, 10:38:41 AM »
I am not postulating it, but wondering about it.  Is it forbidden to wonder in the Orthodox Church?

Really?

Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.

The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.

Do you have ESL issues, then?  Because these read like declarative statements.

You have stated here that the contemporary context in which the argument for the restoration of the order of the deaconess has been made "reeks of modernism" and that this context is common to the conditions under which the argument has been made in both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church.  No wondering involved.  Based on this:

Is it forbidden to wonder in the Orthodox Church?

You seem to know how to formulate questions, i.e., to wonder aloud about something.  This is not the form you used for the off-base declarative statements you made about the modern context informing the arguments presently being made for the restoration of the order of the deaconess.  If you're sincerely befuddled when it comes to the appropriate use of punctuation and sentence structure in the English language, work on that.  If you're simply playing games, by all means, support your arguments with something approaching factual information.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 10:39:24 AM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #125 on: November 03, 2017, 10:42:14 AM »
A lot of rhetorical "wondering" in this thread.

Offered in lieu of actual arguments.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #126 on: November 03, 2017, 01:10:16 PM »
Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.

That's not an answer.  Are you postulating that the spirit of the times has entered the Orthodox Church in the same way that it has penetrated Catholicism and that this is what is motivating the push for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?  If so, you'll have to post proof, because from what I have seen and read so far, this is not the case, and I'm not willing to take your word on it.  You - and the other would be critics of the restoration of the order of the deaconess in the Orthodox Church - are going to have to give those of us who disagree with you something more than petulant one-liners if you are really interested in dialogue.  If you're just interested in expressing your general discontent with something many of you don't truly understand though, based on your cranky political perspective, by all means, carry on.

What he's saying is that women have gotten uppity worldwide, and it's no time to be encouraging them.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #127 on: November 03, 2017, 02:07:44 PM »
Though an ancient practice whose context seems elusive, the contemporary context reeks of modernism, whether in the Orthodox or in the Catholic Churches.
I don't care about the Catholic churches, but what are you basing this on in terms of the Orthodoxy?
The contemporary context is common to both Churches as the time in which they currently exist.

That's not an answer.  Are you postulating that the spirit of the times has entered the Orthodox Church in the same way that it has penetrated Catholicism and that this is what is motivating the push for the restoration of the order of the deaconess?  If so, you'll have to post proof, because from what I have seen and read so far, this is not the case, and I'm not willing to take your word on it.  You - and the other would be critics of the restoration of the order of the deaconess in the Orthodox Church - are going to have to give those of us who disagree with you something more than petulant one-liners if you are really interested in dialogue.  If you're just interested in expressing your general discontent with something many of you don't truly understand though, based on your cranky political perspective, by all means, carry on.

What he's saying is that women have gotten uppity worldwide, and it's no time to be encouraging them.

Indeed.  And every insecure wuss on the forum knows how best to handle that problem.

I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline irishpilgrim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • St.Antony, Enlightener of St.Patrick, PrayForIrish
  • Faith: ORTHODOX Coptic
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #128 on: November 03, 2017, 02:26:53 PM »
I surrender. You won this argument; I'll concede to the fact that I misinterpreted your intention of posting; and I don't intend to give an excuse other than from your first post alone gave the impression of trying to censor by means of ad hominem- which I can clearly see isn't your intention at all.

As previously stated, my intention was never to censor anyone by means of ad hominem, but rather:

a. to indicate how an individual who is just starting to learn about Orthodoxy, such as Daniel, is less than qualified to speak to the issue of whether or not there is a pastoral need for the restoration of the order of the deaconess within the Orthodox Church.

b. to suggest that if an individual in such a position cares to offer an opinion, he should do so respectfully.

If I was harsh in doing so it was because:

a. Daniel was snide, highhanded, and condemnatory in his initial post.

b. No offense, but as Mor has pointed out, this board has been lousy lately with wet-behind-the-ears inquirers scolding actual Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians for being everything from ecumenists to heretics, and frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

We've got one kid on here who couldn't even decide if he wanted to be Coptic Orthodox or ROCOR for the longest, but he knew one thing for sure, mainstream EO Christians were ecumenist, new calendar heretics and he was gonna tell 'em so in no uncertain terms, even though he wasn't even a catechumen yet.  People like that need to get verbally knocked on their behinds from time to time.  It's good for them.

And you are obviously more informed on the matter, compared to someone as ignorant as me. I also never once wanted to state my opinion on the matter of deaconesses, I attacked on the mere principle of attacking the individual.

Well, as I said, you were off base.  My advice to folks like Daniel: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.  Don't think you're going to come on here lecturing the Orthodox about how they're caving in to secular feminism and headed for schism when you haven't even finished The Orthodox Way yet because you took a break to play Pokémon Go or watch Fox & Friends.  In the words of the late, great Robin Harris, "I ain't your daddy, and I ain't havin' it".



You will get shut down.

It will seem to come from weakness that I made surrendered, but it was me assuming that I was dealing with someone who was attacking with a basis of emotional feelings rather than a rational thought process I'm not familiar with.

Now that you know better, I hope it will lead you towards embracing Orthodoxy on its own terms.

I'm sorry for my hubris and my false sense of being a "Crusader of Orthodoxy," which I'm not. I am filled with pride, and need your prayers.

Apology accepted.

Nevertheless, I am still quite offended at some of the very immature points thrown at me, such as the juvenile name calling.

Well, like you said, I was just kidding around.  That said, since you were offended, I apologize to you for any quip that got your goat.

And I'm a former Roman Catholic in my beliefs, and I am used to dealing with people who use such techniques of spreading heterodoxy by means of immature and ill informed tactics.

Crushing heterodoxy is what I'm all about.

I deeply respect and agree with LivenotoneviL's purpose, courage, theology, wisdom, intelligence, skill, and blessed humility in response to the evil, uncouth, abusive ignorance and arrogance that has been viciously screamed at her, without any scriptural nor patristic support, in open favor of heterodox ordination of female deacons, and in deceptive favor of eventual heterodox ordination of female, feminist Orthodox priests and bishops.

Such demonic feminist grasps for prohibited spiritual status and office were clearly denied, by God, mankind's creator, when Woman, our feminist prototype, was corrected and sentenced at Genesis 3:16; and our forefather, Adam and his descendants , were corrected and sentenced at Genesis 3:17-19. All relevant O.T. passages confirm these subservient spiritual and social roles for all women. SS Peter and Paul and all relevant Orthodox Christian Patristic Fathers provided consistent Holy Scriptures, Commentaries and Canons to truly guide the Christian Church without contradiction to God's original judgment and sentence for the conduct of all holy proceedings of God's loyal servants. Accordingly, all actual and imagined past  deviations from God's specific judgment of all women's duty of submission to her designated relevant male ruler. Accordingly, any and all earlier ordination of women for ruling of any function of a Christian Church is illegitimate and irregular.

I'm amazed by LivenotoneviL's strict compliance with the Scriptural and Patristic rules for women's meaningful participation in Holy Orthodox Church life, including the following: St. Peter instructs holy wives (submissive women) to be submissive, even to errant husbands (men of the church) so that the misbehaving rulers may be won without a word by the woman's gentle, chaste and reverent behavior. In spite of the despicable abuse that she received. 1 Peter 3:1-6. Here, the "CRUSHING," hypocritical self-appointed "ruler" should be hard put to expect benefit from his aberrant, evil for evil, reviling for reviling prayers. 1 Peter 3:7-12. Including his obvious redefinition of the seemingly speculative EO theology of common, garden variety theosis.

It is sad that the EO and OO churches are now racing to overtake the Catholic Church's dive into apostasy that it appears that LivenotoneviL is seeking to avoid in the historical (now sadly only rarely) orthodox Churches. I'm stunned by the substitution of freudian psycho "medicine" for scriptural and patristic Orthodox gender and family theology and practice in the worldwide Coptic Church since my catechesis and baptism twenty one years ago. The Greek and Catholic Churches were bottom feeding on this cursed swill then, and continue racing to meaninglessness. The latest news is that the U.S. Greek Church is also financially bankrupt. All of their entrenched psychologists and divorce lawyers must not be kicking back as expected.

Were you Irish Catholic, LivenotoneviL? Your straight walk through this demonic dialectic challenge reminds me of the solid spirited, clear sighted women of my long lost Irish roots. If so, you may be interested in the theory that Coptic monks, catechized and taught monastic life to St. Patrick, et. al., circa 420 AD, which was the basis for civilizing the Irish, and the later Irish monks' salvation of Western civilization, after the fall of Rome and Western Europe. See, How the Irish Saved Civilization. Which most of the world's modern Irish have now repaganized and squandered. My feelings of mystical kindred to common faithful Copts energizes me. Through this irrational torture, you have clearly demonstrated the holy female spirit (not aggressive nagging for illegitimate clerical ordination) that St. Paul instructed Titus to urge. "Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanders or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands (ruling men), that the word of God may not be discredited." Although weak, heterodox jurisdictions may have ventured into various female ordination apostasies in the past, this doesn't authorize repetition. Very recently, the revolution of Catholic nuns and their feminist clerical and episcopal sympathizers has been closely related to the expensive and scandalous Catholic clerical and youth homosexual and pedophilia epidemic that has also invaded Greek Orthodox clerical, social and monastic groups. Why do all of these innovative modern spiritual revolutions so closely resemble their failed historical predecessors, and even the gross failure Eve's first exercise of leadership equality in God's Garden? Genesis 3:1-24.

NOTE TO ALL CRITICS: For your own benefit, please only respond with relevant corrective Scriptural and Patristic references. None of your earlier disingenuous fabrications and ad hominems have been effective, except to repeatedly prove your own ignorance and deficiencies.   

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #129 on: November 03, 2017, 02:32:56 PM »
Pretty sure LivenotoneviL is a teenaged young man. Hope that doesn't ruin -- whatever fantasy we all just had to read there.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #130 on: November 03, 2017, 02:33:40 PM »
...

If your Christianity was real Christianity, I'd return to the idol worship of my ancestors. 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #131 on: November 03, 2017, 02:36:01 PM »
Pretty sure LivenotoneviL is a teenaged young man. Hope that doesn't ruin -- whatever fantasy we all just had to read there.

Anyone can embody the spirit of pure Irish womanhood.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #132 on: November 03, 2017, 02:37:27 PM »
NOTE TO ALL CRITICS: For your own benefit, please only respond with relevant corrective Scriptural and Patristic references. None of your earlier disingenuous fabrications and ad hominems have been effective, except to repeatedly prove your own ignorance and deficiencies.

Then perhaps you should offer something of substance yourself. As I read it, you've burdened us mostly with bitter emotion, against us or against contemporary mores. And a novel interpretation of Genesis that sets the account of the Fall against the plain report of Scripture regarding deaconesses and other women coworkers of the Apostles. Well, most of us are unlikely to accept such a use of the Scripture against itself, and as I read it you've addressed directly none of the actual material e.g. that posted by Antonious Nicholas and Irene Oleynik. How is it you expect others to respond to your post in a way you cannot respond to theirs?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #133 on: November 03, 2017, 02:42:30 PM »
Pretty sure LivenotoneviL is a teenaged young man. Hope that doesn't ruin -- whatever fantasy we all just had to read there.

Anyone can embody the spirit of pure Irish womanhood.

I can’t, but I might be able to attract them with my lucky charms.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #134 on: November 03, 2017, 02:51:08 PM »
Pretty sure LivenotoneviL is a teenaged young man. Hope that doesn't ruin -- whatever fantasy we all just had to read there.

Anyone can embody the spirit of pure Irish womanhood.

I can’t, but I might be able to attract them with my lucky charms.

Are they magically delicious?
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #135 on: November 03, 2017, 03:14:20 PM »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #136 on: November 03, 2017, 06:06:39 PM »
...

If your Christianity was real Christianity, I'd return to the idol worship of my ancestors.

+1

NOTE TO ALL CRITICS: For your own benefit, please only respond with relevant corrective Scriptural and Patristic references. None of your earlier disingenuous fabrications and ad hominems have been effective, except to repeatedly prove your own ignorance and deficiencies.

Then perhaps you should offer something of substance yourself. As I read it, you've burdened us mostly with bitter emotion, against us or against contemporary mores. And a novel interpretation of Genesis that sets the account of the Fall against the plain report of Scripture regarding deaconesses and other women coworkers of the Apostles. Well, most of us are unlikely to accept such a use of the Scripture against itself, and as I read it you've addressed directly none of the actual material e.g. that posted by Antonious Nicholas and Irene Oleynik. How is it you expect others to respond to your post in a way you cannot respond to theirs?

Thanks for trying, Porter, but this fellow is a disgruntled Irish American ex-Catholic who - according to his posts rants here - first entered Orthodoxy through the Antiochian Church, found that too liberal, and then tried the Copts, whom he now routinely castigates as a - and I quote - "mercenary feminist/legal/psycho-medico industry church".  Check his posting history.  To engage with him would be like punching the tar baby in Br'er Rabbit.  He makes Simkins look like William F. Buckley in terms of composure, self-control, and rationality.  His surreal views on the state of the contemporary Coptic Church alone have taught me to take everything he says with a veritable bucket of salt.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #137 on: November 04, 2017, 01:00:59 AM »
Do you have ESL issues, then?  Because these read like declarative statements.
I take that you're just wondering out loud and not resorting to a base personal aspersion.

Quote from: Antonious Nikolas
You have stated here that the contemporary context in which the argument for the restoration of the order of the deaconess has been made "reeks of modernism" and that this context is common to the conditions under which the argument has been made in both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church.  No wondering involved.  Based on this:
Different objects of different subjects.  The world lives in a historical feminist context and the argument for the restoration of the order of the deaconess is being made in the Church.  Could one be related to the other or is it just an untimely coincidence?  The Church is known to have been unduly influenced by fads from both inside and outside, from Arius to Nestorius, from Honorius to Barlaam, etc, that resulted in more or less serious crises that had to be resolved.  I do not believe that the enemy of human nature has given up on bringing her down yet.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 01:08:37 AM by Sharbel »
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #138 on: November 04, 2017, 09:35:58 AM »
I take that you're just wondering out loud and not resorting to a base personal aspersion.

I'm asking a legitimate question, because it's clear to me that you're either having trouble expressing yourself or that you're attempting an exercise in oratorical trickery.  I think it's clear now which of the two it is.  You're not "wondering out loud" about whether or not the present zeitgeist is influencing the Orthodox Church in terms of the female diaconate so much as you're using that question as a springboard to argue - without proof - that this is the case.  As below.  You "wonder out loud" and then answer your own question:

The world lives in a historical feminist context and the argument for the restoration of the order of the deaconess is being made in the Church.  Could one be related to the other or is it just an untimely coincidence?  The Church is known to have been unduly influenced by fads from both inside and outside, from Arius to Nestorius, from Honorius to Barlaam, etc, that resulted in more or less serious crises that had to be resolved.  I do not believe that the enemy of human nature has given up on bringing her down yet.

So, according to Sharbel, the move to restore the female diaconate is ultimately inspired by the Wolf of Souls as part of his effort to bring down the Church.  Now, I'd like to see you post some proof, as Mor, Mina, Porter and others here have in defense of their views, not to mention the good folks on the St. Phoebe site as linked to by Irene and me, as opinions based chiefly on your political sensibilities and worldview pertaining to things liberal and conservative in the American political sense aren't good enough, and thus far, other than Liza, that's all those wary or critical of the restoration of the female diaconate (scamandrius, Daniel, etc.) have offered.  I'd like to see some actual arguments raised by those folks, with which one might actually engage, as opposed to more cranky and fearful paranoia given voice Fox News fashion.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 09:40:31 AM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Send lawyers, guns, and money
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #139 on: November 04, 2017, 10:41:26 AM »
The St. Phoebe Center board includes Teva Regule and Helen Criticos Theodoropoulos. The St. Phoebe Center advisory board includes Valerie Karras.

Regule, Theodoropoulos and Karras also were (are?) also editorial board members for The St. Nina Quarterly. (http://www.stnina.org/). This journal (i.e., the editorial board) published work from Fr. Robret Arida and Maria McDowell.


 




Offline Gorazd

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,160
  • Faith: 7 Councils
  • Jurisdiction: First without Equals
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #140 on: November 04, 2017, 10:51:39 AM »
Evangelos Theodorou, Theological School of the University of Athens
Wow, he's still alive? Born in 1921? Many years!

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,464
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #141 on: November 04, 2017, 11:07:50 AM »
The St. Phoebe Center board includes Teva Regule and Helen Criticos Theodoropoulos. The St. Phoebe Center advisory board includes Valerie Karras.

Regule, Theodoropoulos and Karras also were (are?) also editorial board members for The St. Nina Quarterly. (http://www.stnina.org/). This journal (i.e., the editorial board) published work from Fr. Robret Arida and Maria McDowell.

Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Send lawyers, guns, and money
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #142 on: November 04, 2017, 11:39:16 AM »
Here's an article by Maria McDowell, which argues for the ordination of women to the priesthood, republished in St. Nina Quarterly in 2008. (http://www.stnina.org/online-journal/feature-articles/newness-spirit-ordination-men-and-women)

This article was originally published in Word Magazine in 2004. The republication of this article in St. Nina Quarterly could be taken as an endorsement of the article. (Whether or not it's an endorsement, only the editorial board would know. But board should know that it could appear that way.)

Again, half of St. Nina's editorial board (4 members: the three I mentioned earlier plus Demetra Jacquet, who I forgot to include) are currently on the board or advisory board of the St. Phoebe Center. Do they still endorse McDowell's article? If they do, then people are naturally going to suspect that more is at play here than "pastoral concern."







Offline Rambam

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
  • Send lawyers, guns, and money
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #143 on: November 04, 2017, 12:46:36 PM »
From Wilson, S.H., 2010. Tradition, priesthood, and personhood in the trinitarian theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Pro Ecclesia, 2: 129-150.

"So far, no one from within has outright petitioned the Orthodox Church to ordain women to the priesthood, though many have suggested the possibility in their scholarship. It is not surprising that Orthodox women are at the front of the debate. Among them are Leonie Liveris, editor of the journal MaryMartha in the 1990s; a number of American Orthodox connected to St. Nina's Quarterly, including Teva Regule, MariaMcdowell, and Valerie Karras; and scholars such as Eva Catafygiotu Topping, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, and Kalliope Bourdara." (p. 130).

Regule and Karras are board members at St. Phoebe's Center.




Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #144 on: November 04, 2017, 01:39:52 PM »
From Wilson, S.H., 2010. Tradition, priesthood, and personhood in the trinitarian theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Pro Ecclesia, 2: 129-150.

"So far, no one from within has outright petitioned the Orthodox Church to ordain women to the priesthood, though many have suggested the possibility in their scholarship. It is not surprising that Orthodox women are at the front of the debate. Among them are Leonie Liveris, editor of the journal MaryMartha in the 1990s; a number of American Orthodox connected to St. Nina's Quarterly, including Teva Regule, MariaMcdowell, and Valerie Karras; and scholars such as Eva Catafygiotu Topping, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, and Kalliope Bourdara." (p. 130).

Regule and Karras are board members at St. Phoebe's Center.

You had thought they are men?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #145 on: November 04, 2017, 03:53:48 PM »
I surrender. You won this argument; I'll concede to the fact that I misinterpreted your intention of posting; and I don't intend to give an excuse other than from your first post alone gave the impression of trying to censor by means of ad hominem- which I can clearly see isn't your intention at all.

As previously stated, my intention was never to censor anyone by means of ad hominem, but rather:

a. to indicate how an individual who is just starting to learn about Orthodoxy, such as Daniel, is less than qualified to speak to the issue of whether or not there is a pastoral need for the restoration of the order of the deaconess within the Orthodox Church.

b. to suggest that if an individual in such a position cares to offer an opinion, he should do so respectfully.

If I was harsh in doing so it was because:

a. Daniel was snide, highhanded, and condemnatory in his initial post.

b. No offense, but as Mor has pointed out, this board has been lousy lately with wet-behind-the-ears inquirers scolding actual Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians for being everything from ecumenists to heretics, and frankly, I'm getting sick of it.

We've got one kid on here who couldn't even decide if he wanted to be Coptic Orthodox or ROCOR for the longest, but he knew one thing for sure, mainstream EO Christians were ecumenist, new calendar heretics and he was gonna tell 'em so in no uncertain terms, even though he wasn't even a catechumen yet.  People like that need to get verbally knocked on their behinds from time to time.  It's good for them.

And you are obviously more informed on the matter, compared to someone as ignorant as me. I also never once wanted to state my opinion on the matter of deaconesses, I attacked on the mere principle of attacking the individual.

Well, as I said, you were off base.  My advice to folks like Daniel: if you can't take it, don't dish it out.  Don't think you're going to come on here lecturing the Orthodox about how they're caving in to secular feminism and headed for schism when you haven't even finished The Orthodox Way yet because you took a break to play Pokémon Go or watch Fox & Friends.  In the words of the late, great Robin Harris, "I ain't your daddy, and I ain't havin' it".



You will get shut down.

It will seem to come from weakness that I made surrendered, but it was me assuming that I was dealing with someone who was attacking with a basis of emotional feelings rather than a rational thought process I'm not familiar with.

Now that you know better, I hope it will lead you towards embracing Orthodoxy on its own terms.

I'm sorry for my hubris and my false sense of being a "Crusader of Orthodoxy," which I'm not. I am filled with pride, and need your prayers.

Apology accepted.

Nevertheless, I am still quite offended at some of the very immature points thrown at me, such as the juvenile name calling.

Well, like you said, I was just kidding around.  That said, since you were offended, I apologize to you for any quip that got your goat.

And I'm a former Roman Catholic in my beliefs, and I am used to dealing with people who use such techniques of spreading heterodoxy by means of immature and ill informed tactics.

Crushing heterodoxy is what I'm all about.

I deeply respect and agree with LivenotoneviL's purpose, courage, theology, wisdom, intelligence, skill, and blessed humility in response to the evil, uncouth, abusive ignorance and arrogance that has been viciously screamed at her, without any scriptural nor patristic support, in open favor of heterodox ordination of female deacons, and in deceptive favor of eventual heterodox ordination of female, feminist Orthodox priests and bishops.

Such demonic feminist grasps for prohibited spiritual status and office were clearly denied, by God, mankind's creator, when Woman, our feminist prototype, was corrected and sentenced at Genesis 3:16; and our forefather, Adam and his descendants , were corrected and sentenced at Genesis 3:17-19. All relevant O.T. passages confirm these subservient spiritual and social roles for all women. SS Peter and Paul and all relevant Orthodox Christian Patristic Fathers provided consistent Holy Scriptures, Commentaries and Canons to truly guide the Christian Church without contradiction to God's original judgment and sentence for the conduct of all holy proceedings of God's loyal servants. Accordingly, all actual and imagined past  deviations from God's specific judgment of all women's duty of submission to her designated relevant male ruler. Accordingly, any and all earlier ordination of women for ruling of any function of a Christian Church is illegitimate and irregular.

I'm amazed by LivenotoneviL's strict compliance with the Scriptural and Patristic rules for women's meaningful participation in Holy Orthodox Church life, including the following: St. Peter instructs holy wives (submissive women) to be submissive, even to errant husbands (men of the church) so that the misbehaving rulers may be won without a word by the woman's gentle, chaste and reverent behavior. In spite of the despicable abuse that she received. 1 Peter 3:1-6. Here, the "CRUSHING," hypocritical self-appointed "ruler" should be hard put to expect benefit from his aberrant, evil for evil, reviling for reviling prayers. 1 Peter 3:7-12. Including his obvious redefinition of the seemingly speculative EO theology of common, garden variety theosis.

It is sad that the EO and OO churches are now racing to overtake the Catholic Church's dive into apostasy that it appears that LivenotoneviL is seeking to avoid in the historical (now sadly only rarely) orthodox Churches. I'm stunned by the substitution of freudian psycho "medicine" for scriptural and patristic Orthodox gender and family theology and practice in the worldwide Coptic Church since my catechesis and baptism twenty one years ago. The Greek and Catholic Churches were bottom feeding on this cursed swill then, and continue racing to meaninglessness. The latest news is that the U.S. Greek Church is also financially bankrupt. All of their entrenched psychologists and divorce lawyers must not be kicking back as expected.

Were you Irish Catholic, LivenotoneviL? Your straight walk through this demonic dialectic challenge reminds me of the solid spirited, clear sighted women of my long lost Irish roots. If so, you may be interested in the theory that Coptic monks, catechized and taught monastic life to St. Patrick, et. al., circa 420 AD, which was the basis for civilizing the Irish, and the later Irish monks' salvation of Western civilization, after the fall of Rome and Western Europe. See, How the Irish Saved Civilization. Which most of the world's modern Irish have now repaganized and squandered. My feelings of mystical kindred to common faithful Copts energizes me. Through this irrational torture, you have clearly demonstrated the holy female spirit (not aggressive nagging for illegitimate clerical ordination) that St. Paul instructed Titus to urge. "Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanders or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands (ruling men), that the word of God may not be discredited." Although weak, heterodox jurisdictions may have ventured into various female ordination apostasies in the past, this doesn't authorize repetition. Very recently, the revolution of Catholic nuns and their feminist clerical and episcopal sympathizers has been closely related to the expensive and scandalous Catholic clerical and youth homosexual and pedophilia epidemic that has also invaded Greek Orthodox clerical, social and monastic groups. Why do all of these innovative modern spiritual revolutions so closely resemble their failed historical predecessors, and even the gross failure Eve's first exercise of leadership equality in God's Garden? Genesis 3:1-24.

NOTE TO ALL CRITICS: For your own benefit, please only respond with relevant corrective Scriptural and Patristic references. None of your earlier disingenuous fabrications and ad hominems have been effective, except to repeatedly prove your own ignorance and deficiencies.

Yeah...I'm a 20 year old guy. I think what was misleading was my satirical use of "fabulous" (which was intentionally supposed to be feminine as a joke - although from your post certainly individuals didn't get that) and my image of the Theotokos in the icon "Salus Populi Romani," said icon which was given to Saint Gregory the Dialogist.

I appreciate it - although I don't think I should be praised - because I think Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit. I also never took a position on the Deaconess, I just have a hatred for the tactics individuals use in order to justify ideologies that do not stem from logic or Spiritual Guidance - but rather only come from their own hard-heartedness; tactics of name-calling / ad-hominem argumentation, straw-man argumentation, and red-herring arguments that are more based on emotion rather than reason.

My case and point would be this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyKpQizBcUA

I've been away from this post because this issue is something I'm more ignorant of, and I wanted to point out these seeming tactics which Antonius used - although he justified himself by his responses, and - at least from what could be gathered - this wasn't his intent, although his first post certainly gave off that intent.

I am part Irish, although I'm more Slovenian than I am Irish. My great grandfather was an Irish immigrant, who was fully Irish - and Irish ethnicity has still remained an integral part of my identity - and while I think certain interpretations of Anglicanism (particularly the Oxford Movement) are actually closer to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism, I still have a much greater sympathy and honor to give to the Roman Catholics and how they've had to deal with the English from the Norman Invasion of Ireland onward - although when it comes to the IRB and the Irish Civil War, as well as the Troubles period, there really wasn't a completely clear "good" and "evil" side.

And I've also read Saint Patrick's autobiography, although I would like to learn more about Saint Brigid and the Saints of Lindisfarne.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 04:03:47 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2017, 04:06:19 PM »


While we're talking about typical academic "social issues," quote on quote, should we also bring up the Orthodoxy of "cultural appropriation" in addition to "secular feminism?"
Or should that be saved for later?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 04:09:58 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2017, 04:24:39 PM »
I will say that I heard Leprechauns on Lindisfarne were annoying to deal with....

"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #148 on: November 04, 2017, 04:42:18 PM »
I appreciate it - although I don't think I should be praised - because I think Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit.

When did you become the Bible? 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline irishpilgrim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • St.Antony, Enlightener of St.Patrick, PrayForIrish
  • Faith: ORTHODOX Coptic
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #149 on: November 04, 2017, 05:13:44 PM »
...

If your Christianity was real Christianity, I'd return to the idol worship of my ancestors.

You're on the road with worship of female deacons. Gender Equality Goddess worship of female priestesses and bishopesses should be in your reach. My Christianity is within SS. Peter's and Paul's real Orthodox Christian rules, I hope yours soon will be also.

Qualifications of Deacons
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1Tim 3:8-13 (NKJV).



 

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 568
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #150 on: November 04, 2017, 05:42:40 PM »
I'm asking a legitimate question, because it's clear to me that you're either having trouble expressing yourself or that you're attempting an exercise in oratorical trickery.  I think it's clear now which of the two it is.  You're not "wondering out loud" about whether or not the present zeitgeist is influencing the Orthodox Church in terms of the female diaconate so much as you're using that question as a springboard to argue - without proof - that this is the case.  As below.  You "wonder out loud" and then answer your own question:
You truly seem to be triggered by your own reading between the lines, which makes it pointless to offer any further comment.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,606
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #151 on: November 04, 2017, 07:52:52 PM »
...

If your Christianity was real Christianity, I'd return to the idol worship of my ancestors.

You're on the road with worship of female deacons. Gender Equality Goddess worship of female priestesses and bishopesses should be in your reach. My Christianity is within SS. Peter's and Paul's real Orthodox Christian rules, I hope yours soon will be also.

Qualifications of Deacons
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1Tim 3:8-13 (NKJV).

I know you're not confused which office we're discussing, based on your other comments. So is this your attempt to make St. Paul a champion of lesbian monogamous marriage? Lame.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #152 on: November 04, 2017, 09:58:23 PM »
...

If your Christianity was real Christianity, I'd return to the idol worship of my ancestors.

You're on the road with worship of female deacons.

If the female deacon is hot enough, I will walk that road. 

Quote
Gender Equality Goddess worship of female priestesses and bishopesses should be in your reach.

Nope.

Quote
My Christianity is within SS. Peter's and Paul's real Orthodox Christian rules, I hope yours soon will be also.

No, your Christianity has nothing to do with Christ, with Peter and Paul, with any apostle, with the Theotokos, with John the Baptist, with any and all saints, or with any bishop alive today, etc. 

Quote
Qualifications of Deacons
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1Tim 3:8-13 (NKJV).

I agree with this 1000%. 
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #153 on: November 04, 2017, 10:53:34 PM »
You truly seem to be triggered by your own reading between the lines, which makes it pointless to offer any further comment.

Translation from the Sharbel: "Ego compels me to reply to your interrogative, though I really have nothing of substance to offer by way of rebuttal.  P.S. - You're spot on about my politics."

Yeah...I'm a 20 year old...

It shows.

Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit.

First of all, I didn't and wouldn't lie about my original position simply to win an argument on a message board.  Secondly, if I may quote King David, "Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man".  It would be better for you not to speculate on or pontificate about my judgment.  You don't have a heaven or a hell to put me in, and you aren't fit to judge a pie eating contest, let alone the fate of my soul.  Thirdly, I'm not trying to "change Orthodoxy".  If you think I am, please justify the position.  Thank you.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 502
  • 404 - Quote not found
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #154 on: November 04, 2017, 11:04:05 PM »
You truly seem to be triggered by your own reading between the lines, which makes it pointless to offer any further comment.

Translation from the Sharbel: "Ego compels me to reply to your interrogative, though I really have nothing of substance to offer by way of rebuttal.  P.S. - You're spot on about my politics."

Yeah...I'm a 20 year old...

It shows.

Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit.

First of all, I didn't and wouldn't lie about my original position simply to win an argument on a message board.  Secondly, if I may quote King David, "Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man".  It would be better for you not to speculate on or pontificate about my judgment.  You don't have a heaven or a hell to put me in, and you aren't fit to judge a pie eating contest, let alone the fate of my soul.  Thirdly, I'm not trying to "change Orthodoxy".  If you think I am, please justify the position.  Thank you.


Did I speculate where your soul is?
I said IF. I don't know your intent and will not know your intent as long as I am living. Only He knows.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 11:05:26 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,220
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #155 on: November 04, 2017, 11:08:38 PM »
You truly seem to be triggered by your own reading between the lines, which makes it pointless to offer any further comment.

Translation from the Sharbel: "Ego compels me to reply to your interrogative, though I really have nothing of substance to offer by way of rebuttal.  P.S. - You're spot on about my politics."

Yeah...I'm a 20 year old...

It shows.

Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit.

First of all, I didn't and wouldn't lie about my original position simply to win an argument on a message board.  Secondly, if I may quote King David, "Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man".  It would be better for you not to speculate on or pontificate about my judgment.  You don't have a heaven or a hell to put me in, and you aren't fit to judge a pie eating contest, let alone the fate of my soul.  Thirdly, I'm not trying to "change Orthodoxy".  If you think I am, please justify the position.  Thank you.


Did I speculate where your soul is?
I said IF. I don't know your intent and will not know your intent as long as I am living. Only He knows.

Interesting.  Anything at all can be implied as long as you preface it with "if".  This would make for a great new Private Fora thread.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #156 on: November 04, 2017, 11:15:18 PM »
Hi Rambam.  First of all, let me tip my hat to you.  At last, someone critical of the idea of the restoration of the order of the deaconess - and someone who feels that the intentions of those pushing for the restoration of said order are less than honorable - is actually posting something approaching proof to support their position.  This, I can engage with, and I thank you. 

The St. Phoebe Center board includes Teva Regule and Helen Criticos Theodoropoulos. The St. Phoebe Center advisory board includes Valerie Karras.

Regule, Theodoropoulos and Karras also were (are?) also editorial board members for The St. Nina Quarterly. (http://www.stnina.org/). This journal (i.e., the editorial board) published work from Fr. Robret Arida and Maria McDowell.

Thanks for that observation.  How do you feel that this impugns their integrity or the validity of the positions they have advanced on the St. Phoebe page?  In what way does the fact that this journal has published work from Fr. Robert Arida make it suspect in your view?  Is this because of the article of his regarding homosexuality that was so hotly debated on these boards?  I infer from your post that there is some sort of guilt by association with Arida that is supposed to smear Karras, Regule, and Theodoropoulos - and maybe all associated with St. Phoebe's up to and including Metropolitan Kallistos and Fr. John McGuckin - but I am not sure exactly how.  McDowell I get, because of the article you link to below, but not Arida.  Could you please elaborate further as it pertains to him and how you feel that being associated with a journal that publishes his work is a mark against someone?

Here's an article by Maria McDowell, which argues for the ordination of women to the priesthood, republished in St. Nina Quarterly in 2008. (http://www.stnina.org/online-journal/feature-articles/newness-spirit-ordination-men-and-women)

This article was originally published in Word Magazine in 2004. The republication of this article in St. Nina Quarterly could be taken as an endorsement of the article. (Whether or not it's an endorsement, only the editorial board would know. But board should know that it could appear that way.)

Do you read The Word's publication of the original article as an endorsement by that magazine or by the Antiochian Archdiocese?

I am not sure that it is fair to read St. Nina's publication of the article that way, because per its header, the journal is supposed to be dedicated to "exploring the ministry of women in the Eastern Orthodox Church".  The article - however wrong it may be (and I agree that it is) does have something to do with that topic, and thus, the magazine might very well publish and discuss it without necessarily endorsing it.

Again, half of St. Nina's editorial board (4 members: the three I mentioned earlier plus Demetra Jacquet, who I forgot to include) are currently on the board or advisory board of the St. Phoebe Center. Do they still endorse McDowell's article? If they do, then people are naturally going to suspect that more is at play here than "pastoral concern."

I am not sure that it is fair to surmise that they do, especially when St. Phoebe's declares unequivocally that it is not in favor of violating Orthodox Tradition by attempting to establish a female priesthood.  As here:

Quote
Quote
Q.  Does the St. Phoebe Center promote the ordination of women to the priesthood (i.e. the episcopos or presbytery)?

A. No, ordination of women to those offices is not part of the Orthodox Christian Tradition and the St. Phoebe Center does not promote this.

and here:

Quote
Q. If women are ordained to the diaconate, won’t the next step be to ordain them to the priesthood/presbytery?

A. Ordination to the diaconate is not just a “stepping stone” to the priesthood/presbytery.  The order has its own charism and ministry.  Furthermore, for over a thousand years the Church ordained women to the diaconate and it did not lead to the ordination to the presbytery; therefore within the framework of the Orthodox Church, we should not think that would be the case today.

https://orthodoxdeaconess.org/faqs/


From Wilson, S.H., 2010. Tradition, priesthood, and personhood in the trinitarian theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel. Pro Ecclesia, 2: 129-150.

"So far, no one from within has outright petitioned the Orthodox Church to ordain women to the priesthood, though many have suggested the possibility in their scholarship. It is not surprising that Orthodox women are at the front of the debate. Among them are Leonie Liveris, editor of the journal MaryMartha in the 1990s; a number of American Orthodox connected to St. Nina's Quarterly, including Teva Regule, MariaMcdowell, and Valerie Karras; and scholars such as Eva Catafygiotu Topping, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, and Kalliope Bourdara." (p. 130).

Regule and Karras are board members at St. Phoebe's Center.

In light of what I just posted above - to wit, that Karras and Regule, as members of the St. Phoebe Center for the Deaconess have disavowed the idea of a female priesthood - could you kindly provide some concrete proof, some writings from either of them, in which they endorse this idea?  I'm not sure that this footnote, in which someone alleges that they hold to this idea and attempts, without citing proof, to lump them with those who do, is sufficient.  Thank you.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2017, 11:28:05 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Orthodox Liturgists Issue a Statement of Support for the Revival of Deaconess
« Reply #157 on: November 04, 2017, 11:22:39 PM »
You truly seem to be triggered by your own reading between the lines, which makes it pointless to offer any further comment.

Translation from the Sharbel: "Ego compels me to reply to your interrogative, though I really have nothing of substance to offer by way of rebuttal.  P.S. - You're spot on about my politics."

Yeah...I'm a 20 year old...

It shows.

Antonius's argument was overall better; however, I would point out that if he decided to lie and change his original intent in order to justify an argument devolved from a sense of selfishness, he'll - unless he confesses and truly repents - have to face such a sin from the Great and Dreadful Judge on why he tried to change Orthodoxy for his own emotional self-benefit.

First of all, I didn't and wouldn't lie about my original position simply to win an argument on a message board.  Secondly, if I may quote King David, "Let us now fall into the hand of the LORD for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man".  It would be better for you not to speculate on or pontificate about my judgment.  You don't have a heaven or a hell to put me in, and you aren't fit to judge a pie eating contest, let alone the fate of my soul.  Thirdly, I'm not trying to "change Orthodoxy".  If you think I am, please justify the position.  Thank you.


Did I speculate where your soul is?
I said IF. I don't know your intent and will not know your intent as long as I am living. Only He knows.

Interesting.  Anything at all can be implied as long as you preface it with "if".  This would make for a great new Private Fora thread.

Indeed.  In that case, IF LivenotoneviL was not sincere in his protestations that his wish to be "fabulous like Dorothy" was intended as "a joke", then perhaps he is a fan of Judy Garland and rainbows.  And IF he does not repent of his lies and face his demons, he may end up in a place far worse than the Land of the Winkies and he'll never end up a bust in the Hall of Fame.  Who knows his true intent or exactly how fabulous he really is?  The Shadow knows!