Topic: Female Priests in the RCC

[Justin Kissel]

There's been a slew of articles on this subject recently in one of the local (Pittsburgh) papers...

A Year Later, Woman Priest Sees Growth

On a brutally hot morning this month, Joan Clark Houk was preparing for out-of-town journeys, first to New York City and then to Minneapolis, Minn. "This summer I have a lot of traveling with these ordinations," she said while sitting at her round pine dining room table. The McCandless woman made news last summer when she joined 11 other women aboard the Majestic, a boat in the Gateway Clipper Fleet. There, Mrs. Houk and the other women were ordained as part of a movement called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which started ordaining women as priests and deacons in 2002.

During that Sunday afternoon river cruise a year ago today, the 12 women participated in the first ceremony of its kind in the United States. After three women dressed in white vestments laid their hands on the heads of the 12 women and anointed their hands with oil, eight were named priests and four became deacons. While the Vatican does not recognize the ordinations, the Womenpriests movement, which began in Europe, has grown...

"Why Can't Women Be Priests in the Roman Catholic Church?"

Catholics are being asked to accept that Jesus chose twelve men to be apostles with the specific intention that he would forever exclude women from ordained ministry. Did Jesus really do that? Here are some reasons why Catholics continue to ask why, really, why can't women be priests? [It is our duty to ask why] Canon 212.3 states: "According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they (the faithful) possess, they have the right and even the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church..." When a practice of the Church hinders instead of promotes the spreading of the Good News we have the duty to question it.

[The credibility of the Church is at stake] One must be just to preach justice. By refusing to demonstrate by deeds that it is actually a champion of the full human dignity of women, the Church loses credibility on the subject of women's treatment in the world and even becomes complicit in their mistreatment...

And a response by Fr. James Wehner:

Tradition and Sacred Scripture: Theological Sources for Understanding the Priesthood of Jesus Christ

In response to the brochure written by John Houk, I offer these reflections. My first observation is that the brochure is deceptive and theologically erroneous. It is precisely because of this and such other positions that Jesus Christ gave to the Church a Magisterium that would guarantee for believers that what is taught comes from Christ rather than the opinions of people themselves.

People expect when they attend Mass, read statements issued from bishops, hear instruction from the clergy or receive direction from lay leadership that Truth is being handed on rather than opinion. There are venues and opportunities where people can share their thoughts and offer their opinions, but it is the role of the Church, her pastors, the bishops, and anyone involved with teaching that what is handed on from one generation to the next is the Gospel of Christ, not a man-made manifesto.

This is why the Letter to the Hebrews describes the mystery of Jesus Christ as the unchanging Truth of yesterday, today and tomorrow (Hebrews 13:8 ). If Truth itself and the faith we profess in this Truth is not universal and unchanging, the Gospel is reduced to something generational, ideological, and time-sensitive. Thus Truth itself becomes non-real, non-universal, hardly a reality that inspires Hope. Consequently, man will manipulate "mystery" to be something fully emptied thereby leaving one with no sense of the future, no sense of metaphysical, no sense of a Heaven that is the fulfillment of all our hopes and dreams. "Do not let yourselves be led astray by all sorts of strange doctrines" (Hebrews 13:9)...

[prodromas]

There is a schismatic group off of Catholicism called The Old Catholic church they split off when the dogma of papal infallibility was introduced. When they split they begin to create there own dogmas and in 1990 they ordained the first female priest and this practice still continues! I can understand Anglicans doing that (seeing as they change with culture) but I thought the Catholics out of all would be still very rigid in doctrine but as it happened in Germany I believe the increase in secularism might have made dogma open to masses then to the holy spirit guiding the church!

[Αριστοκλής]

I didn't know there is a RC seminary in next-door Crafton.   

[lubeltri]

There is a schismatic group off of Catholicism called The Old Catholic church they split off when the dogma of papal infallibility was introduced. When they split they begin to create there own dogmas and in 1990 they ordained the first female priest and this practice still continues! I can understand Anglicans doing that (seeing as they change with culture) but I thought the Catholics out of all would be still very rigid in doctrine but as it happened in Germany I believe the increase in secularism might have made dogma open to masses then to the holy spirit guiding the church!

Well, they went off the tracks over a hundred years ago.

This was an eventuality. Today's Old Catholics are little different than modern Anglicans.

As for the real Catholics, John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis writes this:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.


http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Those women can keep playing "priestess" all they want. They are excommunicated, but to be honest, do they hold obedience to ANY Church teaching that contradicts their own desires?

[ozgeorge]

They are excommunicated

So am I.

[Fr. George]

Those women can keep playing "priestess" all they want. They are excommunicated, but to be honest, do they hold obedience to ANY Church teaching that contradicts their own desires?

Spot on.  They didn't/don't care. 

[GiC]

Those women can keep playing "priestess" all they want. They are excommunicated, but to be honest, do they hold obedience to ANY Church teaching that contradicts their own desires?

And why should someone hold obedience to an entity that has a long and well established history of discrimination and oppression towards their social class? It is said entity that needs to earn respect, the hard way...not simply demand it after spending 2000 years loosing all credibility on this matter. To counteract a radically oppressive past, equally radical change must be implemented.

I for one am not too terribly impressed by Rome's history when it comes to women's rights and egalitarianism in general, so you'll forgive me if I fail to give the vatican any credibility on this matter. The Anglicans and Old Catholics are at least working to overcome their past and show genuine repentance...they're probably worth listening to.

[Amdetsion]

And why should someone hold obedience to an entity that has a long and well established history of discrimination and oppression towards their social class? It is said entity that needs to earn respect, the hard way...not simply demand it after spending 2000 years loosing all credibility on this matter. To counteract a radically oppressive past, equally radical change must be implemented.

I for one am not too terribly impressed by Rome's history when it comes to women's rights and egalitarianism in general, so you'll forgive me if I fail to give the vatican any credibility on this matter. The Anglicans and Old Catholics are at least working to overcome their past and show genuine repentance...they're probably worth listening to.

This statement sounds very liberal...

Are you kidding?

The comment has absolutely no basis in true Orthodox Christiology.

Of course you are entitled to 'say' whatever you want no matter what the basis is or is not. Everybody can do that as well. It is very simple....just do it.

But Orthodox Christianty permits a specific path which guides and tempers , directs the thoughts and ideas of the believer so that all are of one mind through the ages until His second coming. St. Paul preached this to the Holy Church when he said that "we are all to be of one mnd".

These people who are playing church are free to do that..."play church".

You and I are also free to look at their actions anyway we want as well.

I have no other choice but to see this situation the way the true church has always and still sees it. These people are heretics and need our prayers. Anyone that can support thier ideas and or actions are also heretics and need our prayers.

While we are at it we should all pray for each other for our many sins.

Peace

Your Servant

Deacon Amde Tsion

[Fr. George]

Anyone that can support thier ideas and or actions are also heretics and need our prayers. 

I agree that the ordination of women is inappropriate.  But, before you say that anyone who "supports their ideas and/or actions are also heretics," you're going to need to (a) define the heresy, (b) defend why its a heresy (i.e. find the relevant references that condemn the practice), and (c) take the issue before a competent ecclesiastical body (the spiritual father of the person being accused, or his bishop or synod).

You see, the ordination of women to the priesthood isn't called a heresy by the Church because no major theologian (Saints of the Church, or even Synods) have tied a theological principal to it.  Right now it's wrong because Holy Tradition says so, and because the local synods say so.  Anyone who ordains women as priests (or who supports the idea) is advocating breaking the directions of the bishops and synods, and thus is advocating schism, not heresy (which is actually worse than heresy, according to St. John Chrysostom).

[Justin Kissel]

These people who are playing church are free to do that..."play church".

If they are sincere, they aren't really "playing" church. Whether they are misguided in your opinion is completely irrelevant. Saying that someone else is "playing church" in cases like this is childish*. It's nothing more than an ad hominem, and an unjustified one at that (unlike my ad hominem calling your ad hominem childish, which I believe is justified  ). You have theological and practical arguments in your favor... why not stick with those? Besides, stigmatizing them with ad hominems is hardly going to have much of an impact in our moderate western culture(s), and is basically just preaching to the choir.


*Which, unfortunately, is not to say that I've never used such an attack.

[GiC]

You see, the ordination of women to the priesthood isn't called a heresy by the Church because no major theologian (Saints of the Church, or even Synods) have tied a theological principal to it.  Right now it's wrong because Holy Tradition says so, and because the local synods say so.  Anyone who ordains women as priests (or who supports the idea) is advocating breaking the directions of the bishops and synods, and thus is advocating schism, not heresy (which is actually worse than heresy, according to St. John Chrysostom).

It should be noted that breaking with tradition is not schism, breaking with the institution of the Church is schism. A bishop could ordain a woman to the priesthood and if his synod does not respond by deposing him, or even if he is deposed and he accepts the decision of said synod, there is no schism. Of course, there is another side to this issue, if a synod does condone the ordination of women and others break with the Church over this, it is they who are guilty of schism. This issue does not need to have anything to do with schism, though the manner one goes about addressing it possibly could.

Of course, if one is arguing that the offence of the Old Catholics was schism against Rome, I really think they're on the wrong board.

[lubeltri]

It was their schism that eventually made possible their female ordination and other innovations. If you cut a branch from a tree, it will eventually wither.

[GiC]

It was their schism that eventually made possible their female ordination and other innovations. If you cut a branch from a tree, it will eventually wither.

You do realize that you're a Roman Catholic making this argument on a Greek Orthodox board, right?

[PeterTheAleut]

You do realize that you're a Roman Catholic making this argument on a Greek Orthodox board, right?

Greek?

[Ian Lazarus]

Where'd he get Greek from.  I'm Mexican.  And Orthodox. 

Orthomex!

[GiC]

Greek?

Yes Greek, Orthodoxy by its very nature is inherently Greek...are you trying to draw this discussion off on a tangent?

[PeterTheAleut]

Yes Greek, Orthodoxy by its very nature is inherently Greek...are you trying to draw this discussion off on a tangent?

No, I'm not.  I always thought Orthodoxy was inherently Christian, though.

[GiC]

There's a difference?

[PeterTheAleut]

There's a difference?

Insofar as I'm not Greek, there is a difference.

[GiC]

Perhaps it's time to come out of the closet.

[jmbejdl]

Where'd he get Greek from.  I'm Mexican.  And Orthodox. 

Orthomex!

Cool. Then I guess I'm Yorkshodox? Like the sound of that.

The funny thing with GiC is that when he gets up on his Hellenic high horse he sounds like a comic parody of a Greek priest I once knew - yet he isn't even Greek (he doesn't seem too Orthodox either at times). I guess it takes all sorts.

James

[ozgeorge]

It was their schism that eventually made possible their female ordination and other innovations. If you cut a branch from a tree, it will eventually wither.

I see.
Well, the Orthodox Church hasn't withered and died, nor has the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, it's a matter of opinion which is the branch and which is the tree, but suffice to say, we are in schism, and have been for a thousand years...and somehow we've both managed quite well without each other. I'm with GiC on this one.

[The young fogey]

There's been a lot of bad, biased reporting on these women and their publicity stunts: reporters insist on calling them 'Roman Catholic priests' then farther down in the article admit 'they're not recognised by the Vatican'. Right, that means they're not Roman Catholic priests.

I respect anything with a real ministry to people, even if only two or three gather every week. It doesn't mean I'd receive Communion or join but it gets my respect... from the woman Anglican vicar who had to be approved by her bishop and go to a seminary in order to serve a real parish to the hard-core Presbyterians who meet in a house in my town.

Some of these women would be good Protestant ministers; others are just playing priest to spite their church.

The Old Catholics AFAIK haven't invented new doctrine just like the Anglicans officially haven't done. They still believe the creeds. They did come into being to reject papal infallibility, in 1871, but were very strict and conservative until the 1970s. They now ordain women. lubeltri's right that they're basically Dutch and Middle European Broad Church Anglicans now, and a tiny minority in those countries. There are no Old Catholics in North America except one parish in Canada.

There are lots of tiny churches - vagantes - that pretend they're Old Catholic. (Taking advantage of many Westerners' ignorance of Eastern churches, others pretend they're Orthodox.)

As for the issue itself there are two Catholic/Orthodox positions, 'it's impossible' or 'it's improbable but the whole church could decide to do it'. Either way it won't happen tomorrow if ever. (The Pope's belief: it's impossible and he doesn't have the authority to change it. Liberals can be funny about papal power sometimes: they talk as if he could allow this, gay weddings, etc.)

[lubeltri]

You do realize that you're a Roman Catholic making this argument on a Greek Orthodox board, right?

I see the situations as very different. The Old Catholics broke themselves off from the Church recently. In contrast, the Catholics and Orthodox drifted apart over centuries (and largely over language, politics, and culture, unlike the Old Catholics). Very tragic and certainly a poke in the eye of Christ, but nevertheless God has preserved Orthodoxy from such innovations and heresies (as my Church defines it) as you propose.

[lubeltri]

I see.
Well, the Orthodox Church hasn't withered and died, nor has the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, it's a matter of opinion which is the branch and which is the tree, but suffice to say, we are in schism, and have been for a thousand years...and somehow we've both managed quite well without each other. I'm with GiC on this one.

See my response to GiC.

God has preserved Orthodoxy, as it didn't simply break away, no matter what some polemicists on my side claim. It was a mutual estrangement that owes as much to the sins of Latins as to those of Greeks.

I would disagree with you that we've "managed quite well without each other," though. I mean, the Church continues to save souls, but a united East and West could accomplish much more.

[lubeltri]

There's been a lot of bad, biased reporting on these women and their publicity stunts: reporters insist on calling them 'Roman Catholic priests' then farther down in the article admit 'they're not recognised by the Vatican'. Right, that means they're not Roman Catholic priests.

I respect anything with a real ministry to people, even if only two or three gather every week. It doesn't mean I'd receive Communion or join but it gets my respect... from the woman Anglican vicar who had to be accepted by her bishop and go to a seminary in order to serve a real parish to the hard-core Presbyterians who meet in a house in my town.

Some of these women would be good Protestant ministers; others are just playing priest to spite their church.

The Old Catholics AFAIK haven't invented new doctrine just like the Anglicans officially haven't done. They still believe the creeds. They did come into being to reject papal infallibility, in 1871, but were very strict and conservative until the 1970s. They now ordain women. lubeltri's right that they're basically Dutch and Middle European Broad Church Anglicans now, and a tiny minority in those countries. There are no Old Catholics in North America except one parish in Canada.

There are lots of tiny churches that pretend they're Old Catholic.

As for the issue itself there are two Catholic/Orthodox positions, 'it's impossible' or 'it's improbable but the whole church could decide to do it'. Either way it won't happen tomorrow if ever. (The Pope's belief: it's impossible and he doesn't have the authority to change it. Liberals can be funny about papal power sometimes: they talk as if he could allow this, gay weddings, etc.)

I agree. When liberal Protestants ask me if I have a problem with women ministers, I say, "Of course not. You are welcome to have female ministers if you like. However, there is no such thing as a woman priest, as our Church defines it." Sometimes they criticize me for having this position, and I ask them why they are so concerned about the practices of a Church of which they are not even a member. To many of them, gender "equality" (as they define it) is a universal absolute, a truth more unchanging than traditional Christian moral teachings and many traditional Christian dogmas. The chief mission of the Church, to them, is "social justice" (as they define it). It is a very different Gospel and should be recognized as such.

These women who think they've been ordained Catholic priests should recognize that their Gospel is not the Catholic Church's Gospel. Somehow they think these stunts are akin to act of civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws. They think largely in secular, worldly terms. They speak a language of "rights" and "liberation."

The secular press also speaks this language, which is why it always describes these women as being "ordained against Vatican policy." It is also why a pope who reaffirms Church teaching on this matter is described as "right-wing" or "reactionary," as if this were a simple matter of politics rather than a simple matter of being Catholic.

[Aristibule]

Just a note on the Old Catholics - 'they' didn't start ordaining women priests. Some did (beginning in 1996, not 1990), and it led to a schism - some don't. Besides the PNCC, the Old Catholic Church of Slovakia is also out of communion with the more liberal Old Catholics in the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland. Other Old Catholic churches in Europe have maintained communion with the liberals in the Germanic countries, but do not ordain women themselves. The controversy is not over - the issue isn't settled by far with the Old Catholics. It has led the faithful dioceses of the Union to other paths - communion with Continuing Anglicans, or seeking communion with Rome (and individual clergy seeking union with Orthodoxy - which had been long explored on a larger basis for the whole communion.) And, of course, it was not an 'eventuality' that Old Catholics would do N.O. - there were lots of different paths that could have been taken over the past 150 years. Sad to say, the 'liberalism' illustrated by the WO party amongst the Utrecht Union has its roots in arguments made by Anglicans and Roman Catholics (like it or not, the liberalisation amongst Old Catholics is due in Large Part to Vatican II!)

And, of course, 'Women Priests' aren't in the RCC. They weren't consecrated by RCC bishops.

[Amdetsion]

I agree that the ordination of women is inappropriate. 

 Anyone who ordains women as priests (or who supports the idea) is advocating breaking the directions of the bishops and synods, and thus is advocating schism, not heresy (which is actually worse than heresy, according to St. John Chrysostom).

The word of God is the authority in all matters concerning the church and the faith. Our traditions and conduct must (and is) be guided accordingly.

Our holy fathers has not made the church a place of tradition and nationalism (we did that). Our fathers preserved tradition that 'keeps' with the word of God....Thus we call them holy traditions.

The Word of God is clear on this matter.

1st and 2nd Timothy handles ordination conclusively.

Among the various requirements that God placed upon ordination is that the person must be the 'husband' of one wife.
Of course only a man can meet that requirement  as long as he has never been divorced and or remarried. For a clegyman to divorce is immediate removal form office regardless of wether it is church granted or not. Also a man who has been divorced before (remarried or not) can not recieve ordination...ever.

Anyone (man or women) who has divorced by thier own means (in court) not in the church (which is the only authority over the marriage) is suspended of all sacraments until penance is completed as ordered by the priest or bishop. Ordination for the man will not be granted ...ever

Anyone who married outside the church (civil court or some other religion) is suspended from all other sacraments (including ordination) until penance is completed as administered by the priest or bishop. Most cases require that penance remain until the common law relationship is desolved; since people in these so-called marriages are fornicators in accordance with the church sacraments.

And much more ..IE: If you are baptised outside the orthodox church you can not recieve any sacraments ...ever. You must be baptised orthodox first then all other sacraments follow.

So; this is what we have to work with as orthodox christians.

It is not simply ordination alone that we are dealing with here....this sacrament is only 'sacred' because of its fussion to all other sacraments which are all the subject of the holy baptism and the holy body and precious blood of Christ. If we accept changes to one sacrament we automatically reformat all the sacraments for change (although not changing them right away). Its impossible to avoid this.

Again; the 7 sacraments are bound. They are 1 faith. St. Paul said "it is a mystery".

This is why serious orthodox christians would not even bother to comment on this issue (I hope to be able to be a serious orthodox one day ....for now Iam a wannabe). They feel it is a "non-sensical" waste of time to entertain changing the sacraments of the church and as such subjects like this one "should be left to those who choose to charaterize the true faith in thier own terms".

Serious orthodox christian means: Follow the holy faith and holy tradition that comes down to us from the fathers and the apostles...in contrast with secular tensions of our era that seek to challenge our faith and to resist such secularism by all account and in every concern even when that which is porported is logical (proveable) to us. Serious orthodox christians are intent on turning over to the next generation the same faith and holy tradition that we recieved. As St Paul preached "be of one mind" and "keep that which was given to you by us".

The whole issue of women ordination is really moot. Its the secular feminist movement at work now finally finding its way into the minds of the orthodox faithful.

The issue is socio-poltical NOT ecclesiastical or spritually grounded.

The behavior and actions of those sad women is the same as the negligent actions of Matin Luther, Calvin, Swigly, Wesly and all the others who are the fallen (we must pray for them). The efforts of these people has to this minute has produced a big fat zero. They do get credit for creating an irreperable damage to the faith of the true church. Christians are the most divided religious community on earth becuase of them and thier kind; divided over all kinds of doctrins and anti-doctrines. God will answer that.

These women and the idea they pocess is fruitless and shameful. It neither qualifies as orthodox or RC. It is not even christian. This was outrage, intrigue, protest, dis-satisfaction, arrogence, contempt, all the things God hates and taught His church to avoid.

Becoming a clegyman is not a thing we do because it makes sense to us or because it is socially correct.... it is the Holy Spirit that brings us into it.. which is compliance, love, humility, supplication, earnest, devoutness, adherence, all the things God loves and taught His church to embrace even to love those who persecute us. Thus in our true faith you will not find protests, and acts of disregard to authority.

Ordination is a calling from God. He makes the rule.

The only reason why this is an issue now is because we are listening to the protestants, new-age culturalists, and yet more diabolical and mortifying the heretical ideas from a by gone era which have been brought back from the dead (by the enemies of the true faith) in this age to try again to 're'-assert the godless dogmas and ideas on the faithful (which is the Church). All the things that our fathers rejected and dismissed centuries ago. These people are serving up these dead gosples, heresies, and ideas with a ferver with new proofs and "enlightened" outlooks. Using the acts of civil-liberty as a quasi-canon that we (the church) "has to start getting with".

I admit I am afraid of these people and thier ideas.

I am even more afraid of God.

We kid oursleves if we think it is just about "women ordination".

This subject among us now is just another example of how far we are removed from the 'holiness' of the faith of our fathers.

We are becoming more and more compliant with the church of the age which is ruled by the tempter himself.

If we are not careful and follow true prayer we may one day find our children arguing about 'why can't gay people be married in the holy church' and be priest? and asking 'Why do we need bishops'? the sky is the limit.

May God protect His one Holy Universal Church...Amen

[The young fogey]

Thanks for the info on the Old Catholics. I knew the PNCC* left but not about the Slovak church leaving nor the situation in the remaining European churches.

...like it or not, the liberalisation amongst Old Catholics is due in Large Part to Vatican II

I agree.

*Polish National Catholic Church, an American church started by Polish immigrants who left the Roman Church about 100 years ago.

[Fr. George]

For a clegyman to divorce is immediate removal form office regardless of wether it is church granted or not. Also a man who has been divorced before (remarried or not) can not recieve ordination...ever.

Anyone (man or women) who has divorced by thier own means (in court) not in the church (which is the only authority over the marriage) is suspended of all sacraments until penance is completed as ordered by the priest or bishop. Ordination for the man will not be granted ...ever

Lord, almighty.  We didn't need ecclesiastical judge and jury - you're not the synod, and definitely not the bishop, therefore the grace to ordain people is not yours (nor is it mine).  And the decision over who to and not to ordain (... EVER) is certainly not yours or mine, either.

*Sigh*

We, as the faithful, have a duty to accept those who are candidates, and if we have objections, to state them to the ordain-er (the bishop) before the candidate is ordained.  It is then up to the bishop or the synod to uphold the objection, or to reject it.  And they will answer to Almighty God for their decision at that moment.

So you're a bit, er, wrong when you say 'will not be ordained... ever,' or 'will be immediately removed from office.'  You don't know that - partially because you don't know circumstances (did the wife abuse the husband, become an apostate, batter the kids, etc.); that is where the pastoral care of the spiritual fathers and bishops come in.  Maybe not in your church, but certainly in ours.  Some of the divorced priests are defrocked; some are not.  I have heard of a divorced man receiving permission to be ordained; most do not.

{AHEM}

The rest of your post is good.  I don't agree 100% (simply because I think there are people who bring the issue up who are not influenced by the secular feminist movement, nor any other socio-political movement), but I think you make some very good points.

It is not simply ordination alone that we are dealing with here....this sacrament is only 'sacred' because of its fussion to all other sacraments which are all the subject of the holy baptism and the holy body and precious blood of Christ. If we accept changes to one sacrament we automatically reformat all the sacraments for change (although not changing them right away). Its impossible to avoid this.

Again; the 7 sacraments are bound. They are 1 faith. St. Paul said "it is a mystery".

This is why serious orthodox christians would not even bother to comment on this issue (I hope to be able to be a serious orthodox one day ....for now Iam a wannabe). They feel it is a "non-sensical" waste of time to entertain changing the sacraments of the church and as such subjects like this one "should be left to those who choose to charaterize the true faith in thier own terms".

Serious orthodox christian means: Follow the holy faith and holy tradition that comes down to us from the fathers and the apostles...in contrast with secular tensions of our era that seek to challenge our faith and to resist such secularism by all account and in every concern even when that which is porported is logical (proveable) to us. Serious orthodox christians are intent on turning over to the next generation the same faith and holy tradition that we recieved. As St Paul preached "be of one mind" and "keep that which was given to you by us".

Um, two other things: I don't think that a change in ordination is a slippery-slope (and remember, I am against changes in ordination); all the sacraments are united in the Eucharist, which defines the boundaries of the Church and the membership in Christ's body; if there was a change in Eucharist, I think that would lead to a chain-reaction, but otherwise I don't think so.

Secondly, I think serious Orthodox tackle whatever issues come their way from society: St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasios, St. Cyril, St. Paul the Apostle, etc. - they all wrote about contemporary social, moral, political, and other sorts of issues.  What separates those who are "serious" Orthodox and who are not are participation in the life of the Church and a focus on prayer in their lives.

[Aristibule]

Thanks for the info on the Old Catholics. I knew the PNCC left but not about the Slovak church leaving nor the situation in the remaining European churches.

For the Old Catholics of Slovakia (and traditionalist Old Catholics in Czech republic, Austria, Italy, etc.,) see: http://www.slovenski-katolici.sk/english/index_en.html They have a Patriarch now in Nitra, with a chapel of St. Gorazd (the traditional Czech Old Catholics 100 years ago became the Czech & Slovak Orthodox Church, whose Western rite Bishop, St. Gorazd, was bishop of Moravia & Silesia - though those communities were all but destroyed by the Nazis.) Apparently, the Union is being resurrected now as the WCNCC - calling themselves 'National Catholics'. Apparently the Old Catholics in Canada have split - I think the Cathedral is still with Utrecht, but the WCNCC has a Canadian bishop. What is really interesting is the members in Portugal and Angola (a surprise, as I had not known of OC presence in Spain or Portugal, same as I don't know that they exist anymore in Belgium, Hungary, or Slovenia - the only other Western/Central European countries without an OC presence.)

Their statement on the crisis in the Utrecht Union (with that Eastern European pidgin):

Crisis in Utrecht Union – In last years arrived in advacement of Utrecht union to critical point, when because of decline of new attitude which was in conflict with authentic catholic doctrine, was from Utrecht Union default the biggest church Polish national catholic church in USA and Canada. As with this news: svätenie of women on priests and the beginning trend of blessing of homosexual  couples, with this didn´t agree either Old Catholic Church in Slovakia, and decided on Extra Synod on 24. january 2004 to desert platform of Utrecht Union and came in to another oldcatholic aggregation called Union of Catholic Churches. It have more members like Utrecht union.
When formally is the whole oldcatholic movement not so big, in presence lot of people are interested about it and we belive, that innovation of Curch and backward of „thriftless sons“ to Father´s home will actualize soon. The hope to this give already 2. Vatican council, which did for this comeback big piece of work. More in declarations.

The oddness is that they have 'intercommunion' now with the 'Orthodox Anglicans' (that body founded in the US in 1967, of which we've written before - now moving towards more 'high church' quarters, and also having shown some interest in WRO: which I, and many others, would never have expected given their origins.) Which, of course, is also involved with the Evangelical Catholic Church - that very high church split off from the Lutherans. So - the Old Catholics are undergoing a 'realignment' just as some have predicted for the TEC (which may or may not happen.)

I agree.

It is where I will concede the 'When Rome catches a cold...', as it relates to a good number of Western Christians (many Old Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.)

[lubeltri]

The sad thing is, there is little to nothing in the actual documents of Vatican II to justify those changes, least of all female "ordination." There's some sort of phantom Vatican II that progressives like to imagine took place.

[Aristibule]

The sad thing is, there is little to nothing in the actual documents of Vatican II to justify those changes, least of all female "ordination." There's some sort of phantom Vatican II that progressives like to imagine took place.

It's called the "Spirit of Vatican II", and if you've got Roman theologians, clergy, even bishops calling for such things contrary to the tradition - well, a few Old Catholics can be excused. I've seen enough to suggest that not a few Orthodox in some areas have also caught the "Spirit of Vatican II" as well.

[ignatius]

It's called the "Spirit of Vatican II", and if you've got Roman theologians, clergy, even bishops calling for such things contrary to the tradition - well, a few Old Catholics can be excused. I've seen enough to suggest that not a few Orthodox in some areas have also caught the "Spirit of Vatican II" as well.

Unfortunately this is true. 

[Amdetsion]

Lord, almighty.  We didn't need ecclesiastical judge and jury - you're not the synod, and definitely not the bishop, therefore the grace to ordain people is not yours (nor is it mine).  And the decision over who to and not to ordain (... EVER) is certainly not yours or mine, either.

*Sigh*

We, as the faithful, have a duty to accept those who are candidates, and if we have objections, to state them to the ordain-er (the bishop) before the candidate is ordained.  It is then up to the bishop or the synod to uphold the objection, or to reject it.  And they will answer to Almighty God for their decision at that moment.

So you're a bit, er, wrong when you say 'will not be ordained... ever,' or 'will be immediately removed from office.'  You don't know that - partially because you don't know circumstances (did the wife abuse the husband, become an apostate, batter the kids, etc.); that is where the pastoral care of the spiritual fathers and bishops come in.  Maybe not in your church, but certainly in ours.  Some of the divorced priests are defrocked; some are not.  I have heard of a divorced man receiving permission to be ordained; most do not.

{AHEM}

The rest of your post is good.  I don't agree 100% (simply because I think there are people who bring the issue up who are not influenced by the secular feminist movement, nor any other socio-political movement), but I think you make some very good points.

Um, two other things: I don't think that a change in ordination is a slippery-slope (and remember, I am against changes in ordination); all the sacraments are united in the Eucharist, which defines the boundaries of the Church and the membership in Christ's body; if there was a change in Eucharist, I think that would lead to a chain-reaction, but otherwise I don't think so.

Secondly, I think serious Orthodox tackle whatever issues come their way from society: St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasios, St. Cyril, St. Paul the Apostle, etc. - they all wrote about contemporary social, moral, political, and other sorts of issues.  What separates those who are "serious" Orthodox and who are not are participation in the life of the Church and a focus on prayer in their lives.

I am not a bishop? or Synod?

This is truely stating the obvious.

All faithful are to be fully knowlegeable of the church and its canons. If I say to you or you say to me that "ordination is not allowed for those who are baptised outside the church" for example that does not mean the you or I are trying to be or proposing to be bishops or trying to judge or anything like that. We expressing simply the knowledge of the church to each other.

You seem to be a person who beleives that only the clergy should understand the church (which is rather typical thinking in the church among the laity). The laity has to embrace the church and its order. This inlcudes ordination and a general understanding of church canon.

I know about many orthodox communities that have all kinds of situations going on which should not be. The "circumstances" of individuals does not dictate canon. Canon dictates what we must be and maintain. The bishops may elect to bend a rule for a mans "circumstances" for whatever reason to obtain ordination or something else.

I am not interested in upsetting you or anyone here on this thread. The subject is not worth it.

I have already provided more time and energy to this useless case( regarding the two woman playing church).

[Fr. George]

I am not a bishop? or Synod?

This is truely stating the obvious.

All faithful are to be fully knowlegeable of the church and its canons. If I say to you or you say to me that "ordination is not allowed for those who are baptised outside the church" for example that does not mean the you or I are trying to be or proposing to be bishops or trying to judge or anything like that. We expressing simply the knowledge of the church to each other.

Ahh, but you went from stating the obvious and the canons to editorializing and passing judgment when you added "... ever" to the end of the sentence; the canons themselves don't say "ever," but it is an implied concept.  Your adding them for emphasis (methinks) was a bit too strong and presumptuous; but if that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

You seem to be a person who beleives that only the clergy should understand the church (which is rather typical thinking in the church among the laity). The laity has to embrace the church and its order. This inlcudes ordination and a general understanding of church canon.

The strawman alarms are going off, Deacon.  I have never in my 4580+ posts on OC.net advocated Lay ignorance or non-involvement.  All I advocated in my previous post in this thread was an understanding of role differentiation: the laity can stop an ordination in progress, and prompt an investigation of the candidate, so it is indeed important for them to know the rules.  But they will not be privy to the information that passes between an ordination candidate and their spiritual father and bishop - and that is where their roles dictate that they may know things that we don't.

In the end, we are all responsible to know how the Church functions, but only the bishop (and Synod) has been placed in a position to pass Judgment (on behalf of Christ) as to whether or not an ordination will continue.

I know about many orthodox communities that have all kinds of situations going on which should not be. The "circumstances" of individuals does not dictate canon. Canon dictates what we must be and maintain. The bishops may elect to bend a rule for a mans "circumstances" for whatever reason to obtain ordination or something else.

You're right, they don't dictate canon - but they do dictate "... ever", which is the objectionable phrase in your original statement.  Be careful.  Economy (a deviation from the exactness of the canons) can be applied, but in its application it is (1) case-specific and (2) unable to set precedent.  That's why individual cases don't dictate canon.

[The young fogey]

The Slovak church looks tame in a good sense - the archbishop is just a wayward Roman priest who wanted to get married.

There's the dodgy 'proving our apostolic succession' page but they do seem to have real parishes so good for them.

I don't know of an 'Orthodox Anglican' Church founded in 1967.

There were what I call 'Dixiecrat Episcopalians', James Parker Dees and his Southern-based 'Anglican Orthodox Church' he started in 1963 reacting against all kinds of things: theological modernism, Anglo-Catholicism and the high-churchification in Episcopal practice at the time (it started to resemble RC practice even in middle-of-the-road parishes)... and IIRC the civil-rights movement and Episcopal involvement in it. He became a bishop thanks to some vagante Ukrainian pseudo-dox but was nothing to do with Eastern or Western Orthodoxy! His was a lowish Protestant Episcopal show. It still exists but is tiny. Practice is high by 19th-century standards but middle-of-the-road exactly as it was in Episcopal churches in 1963.

Then there was the American Episcopal Church founded in 1968. Very similar but higher. Strange story that. An Englishman called Tony Clavier headed it as its archbishop. Merged in the 1990s with a Continuing church, the Anglican Catholic Church, and ended up causing still more splits. I think what's left of the AEC is now the Anglican Province in America, and what was the ACC are now the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church-Original Province. Clavier ended up chucking his position as bishop and many of his views, held for 30+ years, to become a mainstream liberalish Episcopalian; he is now a rector in West Virginia. (A son is still a Continuing priest.) He's nice but wrong.

[Fr. George]

The social justice discussion has been split off into its own thread:

"Church and Social Justice (split from "Women Priests" thread)"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12375.0.html

[lubeltri]

The Slovak church looks tame in a good sense - the archbishop is just a wayward Roman priest who wanted to get married.

There's the dodgy 'proving our apostolic succession' page but they do seem to have real parishes so good for them.

I don't know of an 'Orthodox Anglican' Church founded in 1967.

There were what I call 'Dixiecrat Episcopalians', James Parker Dees and his Southern-based 'Anglican Orthodox Church' he started in 1963 reacting against all kinds of things: theological modernism, Anglo-Catholicism and the high-churchification in Episcopal practice at the time (it started to resemble RC practice even in middle-of-the-road parishes)... and IIRC the civil-rights movement and Episcopal involvement in it. He became a bishop thanks to some vagante Ukrainian pseudo-dox but was nothing to do with Eastern or Western Orthodoxy! His was a lowish Protestant Episcopal show. It still exists but is tiny. Practice is high by 19th-century standards but middle-of-the-road exactly as it was in Episcopal churches in 1963.

Then there was the American Episcopal Church founded in 1968. Very similar but higher. Strange story that. An Englishman called Tony Clavier headed it as its archbishop. Merged in the 1990s with a Continuing church, the Anglican Catholic Church, and ended up causing still more splits. I think what's left of the AEC is now the Anglican Province in America, and what was the ACC are now the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church-Original Province. Clavier ended up chucking his position as bishop and many of his views, held for 30+ years, to become a mainstream liberalish Episcopalian; he is now a rector in West Virginia. (A son is still a Continuing priest.) He's nice but wrong.

Ah, the Anglican Alphabet Soup. Did I ever mention that I was nearly confirmed in the Episcopal Missionary Church?
http://www.emchome.org/
I took confirmation class and everything. I still have my 1928 BCP and love the people of St. Andrew's EMC (Fr. Ron and his family not least) to death.

[Aristibule]

Ah, yes - the EMC. The remnant of the ARJA is there. Of course, for those who don't know - it was the issue of WO that became cause for the creation of the various Continuing Anglican groups. I believe the Orthodox Anglican church that has become involved with the faithful remnant of the Old Catholics, and the Evangelical Catholics out of the Lutherans, have their origins with the UEC and EAC (which were indeed Low-Church Dixiecrat Episcopalian in origin.) At least, they have the 'Chambers succession'. It appears that they have gone 'up the candle', however, due to their present Metropolitan having connection with the HCC-AR, ARSA, ARJA (through Clark) through the 90s (how they possess a 'line' from the Philippine Independent Catholic Church.)

Of course, I don't mind lines of succession on websites, it reminds me of the prayer to turn the ankles of one's enemies, so they'll be known by their walk! Often one can tell the who and what they are from their 'lines'. We Orthodox have them on some websites - mostly showing the succession of our Patriarchs. The internet is pretty recent, so no telling which came first.

[Amdetsion]

Ahh, but you went from stating the obvious and the canons to editorializing and passing judgment when you added "... ever" to the end of the sentence; the canons themselves don't say "ever," but it is an implied concept.  Your adding them for emphasis (methinks) was a bit too strong and presumptuous; but if that wasn't your intent, then I apologize.

The strawman alarms are going off, Deacon.  I have never in my 4580+ posts on OC.net advocated Lay ignorance or non-involvement.  All I advocated in my previous post in this thread was an understanding of role differentiation: the laity can stop an ordination in progress, and prompt an investigation of the candidate, so it is indeed important for them to know the rules.  But they will not be privy to the information that passes between an ordination candidate and their spiritual father and bishop - and that is where their roles dictate that they may know things that we don't.

In the end, we are all responsible to know how the Church functions, but only the bishop (and Synod) has been placed in a position to pass Judgment (on behalf of Christ) as to whether or not an ordination will continue.

You're right, they don't dictate canon - but they do dictate "... ever", which is the objectionable phrase in your original statement.  Be careful.  Economy (a deviation from the exactness of the canons) can be applied, but in its application it is (1) case-specific and (2) unable to set precedent.  That's why individual cases don't dictate canon.

Ok!

Strike "ever" from my previous post.

Thanks for your responses.

What does "the strawman alarms are going off" actually mean?

I was not intending to imply that 'you' advocate lay ignorance.

God bless you...

Your servant
Daecon Amde Tsion

[Fr. George]

Ok!

Strike "ever" from my previous post.

Thanks for your responses.

What does "the strawman alarms are going off" actually mean?

I was not intending to imply that 'you' advocate lay ignorance.

God bless you...

Your servant
Daecon Amde Tsion 

It's okay Deacon.  I'm glad we're able to understand each other! 

[Theodot]

I am just a newbie but I am going to throw my two worthless cents in. This kind of garbage was one of the many reasons I left the Latin Church. Most RC Priests I come across 50 and over want women ordained. Everything is fine with that now but, one day one of these 50 year+ old Vatican II Priests could be Pope then its bye bye any sanity in the Latin Church if you think the Modern Mass is banal think of what it could be under a "Social Justice Gospel" Pope.
  My Priest back home has said there is no way that this "Heresy" his words on that not mine (I realize its a tradition with a biblical basis) would ever happen in the Orthodox Church.
  What are your opinions on this (not if it is right or wrong but if it will happen). I sure hope there isnt some grass roots movement like in the RC to ordain women and undermine the Church in the OC.

[PeterTheAleut]

What are your opinions on this (not if it is right or wrong but if it will happen).

Ahhhh, now you've done it.  You don't know just how big is the can of worms you just opened.

For the reigning thread on women's ordination I refer you to this thread: Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church.  I must warn you, though; at 1063 posts, this thread is easily the second longest thread on this forum.  I'm sure you'll find there the answer to virtually any question you want to ask us about women's ordination, including the probability (nil) that it will happen in the OC of the future.

[GiC]

Nil, eh? I bet more than one person said that before about the probability of the Orthodox adopting the Latin calendar. I wouldn't recommend dismissing we liberals that easily.