OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 09:21:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Opinions of the Anglican Communion  (Read 3562 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« on: September 29, 2007, 05:02:23 PM »

I definitely feel for the Episcopalians who want to stay in the Anglican Communion but have only two choices: join up with the quasi-Evangelicals in Africa or stay with a church whose most celebrated and influential leaders are these two:



For those who truly believed in the catholicity of Anglicanism, it's like their whole world is imploding. they should be in our prayers.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2007, 05:53:49 PM »

Well, it could be worse...they could be under the yoke of the pope of Rome. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,390


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2007, 08:54:48 PM »

  What concessions?  I read that it is actually just clever wording on their part, and that they very well may continue to select and elect openly gay priests and bishops so long as they claim to be celibate.  (Why a celibate anybody would go around defining themself by their sexuality, I have no idea, but apparently such wishy-washy self-labelling is important in The Episcopal Church.  Ego is important, especially if you can convince yourself that God is on your side and not the other way 'round.)  Also, while not 'authorizing' same sex blessings, I see nothing that says they won't tolerate such happening or continue doing so unofficially.  It is rather obvious that they will indeed tolerate it as they certainly aren't going out of their way to defrock the already existent openly gay clergy within their ranks.  They must think their 'orthodox' counterparts to be mentally deficient.

That's exactly what it means and the conservatives see through it (and in America are making moves to break away from the Episcopalians)... whilst the loud, obnoxious element among the liberals are crying because their bishops didn't 'affirm' them enough. (Meanwhile there are people in the world who belong to churches with unfashionable teachings - Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian - and have real problems, like being harassed every day by Israelis and forced to live in bantustans, or fleeing the Muslim onslaught in their ancestral home in Iraq.)
Logged

GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2007, 11:38:41 PM »

So should they apologize for the superiority of western civilization? It is to their credit that their disagreements surround the political equality and formal acceptance of unpopular minorities rather than the violent oppression of the same.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Antony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2007, 01:21:27 AM »

I definitely feel for the Episcopalians who want to stay in the Anglican Communion but have only two choices: join up with the quasi-Evangelicals in Africa or stay with a church whose most celebrated and influential leaders are these two:



For those who truly believed in the catholicity of Anglicanism, it's like their whole world is imploding. they should be in our prayers.

Wow that is sad. Cry
Logged
Antony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2007, 01:24:46 AM »

Way back in the day about 9 years ago when I was in my first year of High School I used to actualy believe in the Anglican 3 branch theory finaly I woke up. And if these two clowns dont put that theory to rest nothing will.
Logged
Antony
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2007, 01:27:49 AM »

Well, it could be worse...they could be under the yoke of the pope of Rome. Wink

Its hard to say what would be worse. The Pope at least is Christian. These two are promoting a crazy Gnostic sect. I think I would take the Pope over a Rainbow Mitred weirdo or a heiphenated last name femnazi.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2007, 01:47:40 AM »

GiC's patriarch loves the Pope, interestingly enough. Smiley

I'm guessing GiC's problem with the Pope is that he is not more like Katherine Jefferts-Schori and Gene Robinson. Why, if only we were more like those two, our churches would become so much more relevant. And just think! We could have more rainbow mitres!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 01:50:08 AM by lubeltri » Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,390


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2007, 05:06:39 AM »

GiC's patriarch loves the Pope, interestingly enough. Smiley

I'm guessing GiC's problem with the Pope is that he is not more like Katherine Jefferts-Schori and Gene Robinson. Why, if only we were more like those two, our churches would become so much more relevant. And just think! We could have more rainbow mitres!

And membership would go through the roof just like RC Mass attendance after Vatican II. As our father among the saints John Shelby Spong hath said Christianity must change or die.

Seriously, he's marginal - Dr J-S and the Bishop of New Hampshire are in their 50s, the youngest people who think that sort of thing is cool.

It's like the generational divide in the Roman Church between older liberals and younger relative conservatives.

TEC is still a Christian church as shown by the current Prayer Book and probably will remain so for some time.

The new centre there has women priests and gay weddings but like the Archbishop of Canterbury believes the creeds and is even liturgically conservative compared to much of RC.

It deserves to be asked to leave the mostly Protestant, non-white, non-rich and non-liberal Anglican Communion for breaking faith with it on the gay thing.

Which wouldn't affect 90 per cent of Episcopalians in any way.

The only inevitable outcomes here are a few parishes will be split and a few others squashed. On both sides.

I can see membership dropping to below a million (lots of people are leaving and the members tend not to have kids) but it won't die out - it'll keep drawing its share of disaffected Romans and evangelicals who are (or fancy themselves) hip and urbane, like good production values in liturgy (thanks for that one, Keble) and have itching ears or want to be 'affirmed' in whatever turns them on. (How it works: the upper middle class accepts and wants something, like women ministers or gay weddings; TEC delivers then cooks up a theology for it) Part of the snob appeal now is not so much ethnicity or class but intellectual vanity: 'we're the thinking person's church not like those dumb Roman Catholics and evangelicals'.

(Comparison: the real, Sunday-attendance numbers in several American Orthodox denominations are only in the tens of thousands.)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 03:05:04 PM by The young fogey » Logged

Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2007, 09:59:14 AM »

Its hard to say what would be worse. The Pope at least is Christian. These two are promoting a crazy Gnostic sect. I think I would take the Pope over a Rainbow Mitred weirdo or a heiphenated last name femnazi.

Meaning no disrespect to you, (and I don't think that the mitre is very good) but how is this remark helpful or charitable?  What knowledge do you have that they are "Gnostic" please?  What do you mean when you use those perjoratives?

And for the record, Dr. Jefferts Schori's name is not hyphenated. Otoh, if one may  remind you, one of the more publically known writers on EO *is*, that is to say Frederica Mathewes-Green.  So how is having a hyphenated name something to be used as a perjorative, please?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2007, 10:06:14 AM »

I definitely feel for the Episcopalians who want to stay in the Anglican Communion but have only two choices: join up with the quasi-Evangelicals in Africa or stay with a church whose most celebrated and influential leaders are these two:

<Picture removed to save band width and because the miter clashes with the cope.  Wink )


+New Hampshire is hardly "most influential".  He is *known* in the press but that is different.  I can think of a number of other Bishops who are more influential across a spectrum in the Episcopal Church. 

Quote
For those who truly believed in the catholicity of Anglicanism, it's like their whole world is imploding. they should be in our prayers.

Thank you.  That would be kind and a nice change from "why don't you people wake up and realize that My Church is the only place for you" kinds of thing.  Sad  Not saying that you're doing that, but that it's been a thought that's been posted in other places on the 'Net.

Sigh.

Ebor
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 10:08:03 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2007, 10:23:38 AM »

 Roll Eyes Sigh.

1) I have no problem with the idea of women clergy.
2) I have no problem with the idea of same-sex attracted clergy.
....so could someone tell me what my reaction to these images was supposed to be? Perhaps I can feign it for you....

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2007, 11:50:09 AM »

Roll Eyes Sigh.

1) I have no problem with the idea of women clergy.
2) I have no problem with the idea of same-sex attracted clergy.
....so could someone tell me what my reaction to these images was supposed to be? Perhaps I can feign it for you....

Hear, Hear!
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2007, 11:58:09 AM »

Its hard to say what would be worse. The Pope at least is Christian. These two are promoting a crazy Gnostic sect. I think I would take the Pope over a Rainbow Mitred weirdo or a heiphenated last name femnazi.

You know, I actually agree with you on the issue of hyphenated last names, it's both passé and inappropriate. Of course it's better than changing one's last name altogether, but that's another issue. Fortunately in much of Europe (and specifically in Greece) for the past 40 years or so that practice of hyphenating last names has been done away with and people simply keep the name they were born with...rather than changing them every time they get married creating confusion on paperwork and an extra layer of bureaucratic nonsense. Unfortunately America is a bit behind the times on this matter (about 100 years), but I'm sure that one day good sense will prevail here as well.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2007, 12:01:25 PM »

GiC's patriarch loves the Pope, interestingly enough. Smiley

I'm guessing GiC's problem with the Pope is that he is not more like Katherine Jefferts-Schori and Gene Robinson. Why, if only we were more like those two, our churches would become so much more relevant. And just think! We could have more rainbow mitres!

Yes, and His All-Holiness also gets along quite well with His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury...though I think you missed my point. If you're going to use same old tired rhetoric to be disrespectful of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion, you should expect the favour to be returned; and there's plenty of traditional rhetoric out there aimed at he Bishop of Rome.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2007, 01:15:20 PM »

You know, I actually agree with you on the issue of hyphenated last names, it's both passé and inappropriate. Of course it's better than changing one's last name altogether, but that's another issue. Fortunately in much of Europe (and specifically in Greece) for the past 40 years or so that practice of hyphenating last names has been done away with and people simply keep the name they were born with...rather than changing them every time they get married creating confusion on paperwork and an extra layer of bureaucratic nonsense. Unfortunately America is a bit behind the times on this matter (about 100 years), but I'm sure that one day good sense will prevail here as well.

Trends in America appear to suggest the opposite.  The practice of keeping maiden names appears to have peaked in the 1980 or early 90s, and is clearly declining in the younger generation.  Last I saw, the number of women who keep their maiden names or hyphenate is falling into the single digits.  In fact, most young women I know consider either practice as being dated and more than a bit insecure.

In Europe, a combination of radical feminism and government pressure have led women to keep their maiden names officially (though often not socially).  It's not "progress" for the government to make it effectively illegal for women to use their chosen name.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 01:25:58 PM by Maksim » Logged
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #16 on: September 30, 2007, 01:22:19 PM »

And for the record, Dr. Jefferts Schori's name is not hyphenated. Otoh, if one may  remind you, one of the more publically known writers on EO *is*, that is to say Frederica Mathewes-Green.  So how is having a hyphenated name something to be used as a perjorative, please?

Without turning this into a thread on hyphenated last names, keep in mind that Frederica M-G hyphenated her last name before she became Orthodox as a statement of her liberal Protestantism.  I've only heard her mention it in the spirit of having been a "youthful indiscretion".  Note that none of her daughters (or daughters-in-law) appear to have followed suit.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #17 on: September 30, 2007, 02:03:58 PM »

Trends in America appear to suggest the opposite.  The practice of keeping maiden names appears to have peaked in the 1980 or early 90s, and is clearly declining in the younger generation.  Last I saw, the number of women who keep their maiden names or hyphenate is falling into the single digits.  In fact, most young women I know consider either practice as being dated and more than a bit insecure.

Depends on what level of society you're talking about. In one of the few levels of society that actually matters, the upper class, this has been the norm for quite some time. I wonder how the statistics would change if you took into account only married couples collectively making over 120k/year? Which would include the upper and upper middle classes. It has always been that as society evolves, the (financial) upper classes tend to lead the way.

In any case, the rising divorce rate will reduce the practice to absurdity...not to mention the nightmare it creates for record keeping, it's no wonder european governments discourage a practice that amounts to little more than bureaucratic waste. Does it really make sense to have four different names over the course of your life?

Quote
In Europe, a combination of radical feminism and government pressure have led women to keep their maiden names officially (though often not socially).  It's not "progress" for the government to make it effectively illegal for women to use their chosen name.

I'm not aware of any case where it has been made illegal, but the full legal procedure for a name change is often required. There is no reason loopholes and exceptions to name change procedures should be allowed in this limited case. If we have changed the social pressure from being for to against primitive and unenlightened customs...we have progressed.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2007, 02:09:42 PM »

Depends on what level of society you're talking about. In one of the few levels of society that actually matters, the upper class, this has been the norm for quite some time. I wonder how the statistics would change if you took into account only married couples collectively making over 120k/year? Which would include the upper and upper middle classes. It has always been that as society evolves, the (financial) upper classes tend to lead the way.

According to the most recent study I have seen, the fall has actually been most dramatic among the so-called "upper classes".  For example, women with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools are far less likely to keep their maiden name now than they were in 1990.  So even with the added elitism, you may be out of luck  Wink
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2007, 02:27:13 PM »

Quote
In Europe, a combination of radical feminism and government pressure have led women to keep their maiden names officially (though often not socially).  It's not "progress" for the government to make it effectively illegal for women to use their chosen name.

Or many women who are neither radical feminists nor under pressure from any government are choosing to not change their legal name for practical reasons.  My sister certainly wouldn't fit the definition of a radical feminist, but as a practicing architect has already made a name for herself with her own name.  When she eventually gets married why go through the hassle of a name change when it will potentially hurt her business and career?  For women in careers involving publication and name recognition, keeping one's maiden name is very much a matter of practicality if one gets married after her career has already started.   
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2007, 03:02:08 PM »

According to the most recent study I have seen, the fall has actually been most dramatic among the so-called "upper classes".  For example, women with advanced degrees from Ivy League schools are far less likely to keep their maiden name now than they were in 1990.  So even with the added elitism, you may be out of luck  Wink

The implication wasn't elitism so much as meritocracy, those who accomplish something in their lives are less likely to take part in these primitive and unenlightened customs. As Nektarios pointed out, those who have done something meaningful with their lives, which will incidentally be those in the public eye, stand only to lose by your customs. I have little doubt that, given enough time, practicality will win out. It must be kept in mind that we are only at the very beginnings of the feminist movement, great strides remain in such matters as women in the military, equal representation in government, equal representation at the upper levels the economy, etc. These advances will all come in time, but things worth doing often take much time and hard work.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2007, 03:07:03 PM »

My sister certainly wouldn't fit the definition of a radical feminist, but as a practicing architect has already made a name for herself with her own name.  When she eventually gets married why go through the hassle of a name change when it will potentially hurt her business and career?  For women in careers involving publication and name recognition, keeping one's maiden name is very much a matter of practicality if one gets married after her career has already started.   

I can't speak to individual situations, but this shouldn't really be a problem.  After all, how many celebrities (male and female) go by different names professionally and privately?  I know a businessman who goes by "Skip", and I doubt that's what his birth certificate says. 

The traditional understanding (not sure if bureaucrats have since complicated this) has been that you can go by any name you want in a professional setting, as long as your intent isn't fraudulent.  For instance, JK Rowling took her husband's name when she married, and now goes by Rowling as a pen name.  Hasn't harmed her career, as far as I can tell.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2007, 03:23:11 PM »

I can't speak to individual situations, but this shouldn't really be a problem.  After all, how many celebrities (male and female) go by different names professionally and privately?  I know a businessman who goes by "Skip", and I doubt that's what his birth certificate says. 

The traditional understanding (not sure if bureaucrats have since complicated this) has been that you can go by any name you want in a professional setting, as long as your intent isn't fraudulent.  For instance, JK Rowling took her husband's name when she married, and now goes by Rowling as a pen name.  Hasn't harmed her career, as far as I can tell.

So while she caved in to primitive social pressure on one level, on another level -- the level that actually matters -- pragmatism took precedence. That's a good start to effecting social change. I'm not the kind of person that expects change overnight, I realize that the best way to effect social change is often to chip away at the flaws of society one step at a time.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,914


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2007, 03:44:09 PM »

Actually I kind of like the old Spanish custom of taking the last name of both parents. I'm not sure how this functions with a married woman, but in general the old practice seems very civilized
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
jaderook
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 113


« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2007, 03:56:28 PM »

Roll Eyes Sigh.

1) I have no problem with the idea of women clergy.
  It is all well and good from the outside, but I can honestly say that after having been in a church under a woman minister my view has changed significantly.  It had nothing to do with whether or not she was good at it, because she was.  Up until that point, I wanted to be a minister myself.  Call it a conviction at a young age, but there you go.  There is also clear scriptural support for priests only being men.  That should not be discounted when it comes to this topic.

Quote
2) I have no problem with the idea of same-sex attracted clergy.
  If a person is celibate, why do we also need to know their sexual orientation?  It should be a moot point and part of their old life.  I do have a problem with non-celibate homosexual clergy, just as I have a problem with non-celibate heterosexual clergy.  Fornication and sodomy are both sinful and are even worse when perpetrated by priests.

Quote
....so could someone tell me what my reaction to these images was supposed to be? Perhaps I can feign it for you....

No, it is better to be honest with people about your views.  However, I'm a bit confused as to why an orthodox Christian would be gung ho for either.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,914


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2007, 04:14:27 PM »

Roll Eyes Sigh.

1) I have no problem with the idea of women clergy.
2) I have no problem with the idea of same-sex attracted clergy.
....so could someone tell me what my reaction to these images was supposed to be? Perhaps I can feign it for you....



Well, I have major problems with the idea of female clergy or non-celibate episcopate in the Orthodox Church, but the that doesn't extend to the heterodox. Hence, I agree. This seems a case where a picture is NOT worth 1000 words.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2007, 04:16:51 PM »

  It is all well and good from the outside, but I can honestly say that after having been in a church under a woman minister my view has changed significantly.  It had nothing to do with whether or not she was good at it, because she was.  Up until that point, I wanted to be a minister myself.  Call it a conviction at a young age, but there you go.

If she did a good job, I fail to see what the problem could be. And if having a woman priest would question your calling, perhaps there are other issues that need be considered. Personally, the lack of women priests was amongst the reasons that I decided not to pursue the priesthood while in seminary; in the end, I don't want to be part of a privileged class, and the priesthood is still being treated as one in far too many places.

Quote
There is also clear scriptural support for priests only being men.  That should not be discounted when it comes to this topic.

All of which I have addressed in significant detail on other threads. Though I don't really want to side track this threat to rehash those arguments.

Quote
If a person is celibate, why do we also need to know their sexual orientation?  It should be a moot point and part of their old life.  I do have a problem with non-celibate homosexual clergy, just as I have a problem with non-celibate heterosexual clergy.  Fornication and sodomy are both sinful and are even worse when perpetrated by priests.

Well, while the latins may have issues with non-celibate heterosexual clergy, they would be the only ones. All I am really arguing for (and perhaps ozgeorge as well, if I'm not mistaken) is consistancy and non-discrimination regardless of one's sexual orientation. The issue of universal clerical celibacy is a different one for a different thread.

Quote
No, it is better to be honest with people about your views.  However, I'm a bit confused as to why an orthodox Christian would be gung ho for either.

I don't know, love of neighbour, sympathy for oppressed classes, and a recognization of the social benefits of tolerance and acceptance may be a few of the reasons.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2007, 04:29:07 PM »

Quote
I can't speak to individual situations, but this shouldn't really be a problem.  After all, how many celebrities (male and female) go by different names professionally and privately?  I know a businessman who goes by "Skip", and I doubt that's what his birth certificate says.

Those are very different situations.  I am speaking of changing one's name in the middle of one's career.  For instance say my sister gives a client a business card after she completes a job.  Ten years later the client needs more work done.  Phone numbers change, perhaps she will be with a different firm etc.  If she has a different name it would be difficult to track her down.     
Logged
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2007, 04:32:22 PM »

No, it is better to be honest with people about your views.  However, I'm a bit confused as to why an orthodox Christian would be gung ho for either.

I wouldn't worry too much over the views of fringe elements on a message board.  A while back, a feminist thinker published an article in an Orthodox periodical, making many of the same arguments you will see people like GiC making.  A concerned member of the Antiochian Archdiocese wrote to Metropolitan Philip.  Here is part of his response: 

Quote
If the woman who authored that article was insidiously trying to advocate such a practice in the Orthodox Church, I assure you that she will not succeed.  I have made my position very clear on this issue on many occasions.  The ordination of women will never happen in the Orthodox Church.

Frankly speaking, proponents of women's ordination in the Orthodox Church are so far out in left field that it's not worth worrying about them, except insofar as they might damage themselves and those they immediately influence.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,914


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2007, 04:39:38 PM »

There are numerous boards threads available to discuss female clergy or homosexual issues. That being the case, the only other reason I've seen demonstrated here is to set up another church as a target for ridicule - which is pointless. Please use another, existing thread.

Αριστοκλής, Section Moderator
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.105 seconds with 57 queries.