OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 06:21:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Women bishops: Jesus was happy with female apostles. What is the CofE's problem?  (Read 3716 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« on: July 07, 2012, 12:29:22 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2012, 01:10:42 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2012, 01:50:55 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2012, 02:04:31 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2012, 02:08:36 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?


Silly boy, don't you know that if you support a female priesthood, you are, in Devin's reckoning, NOT Orthodox? Wink (It's a "stacking the deck" fallacy.)
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 02:09:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

I just have to point out an excellent and non-pejorative usage of "begging the question."  Well played, sir.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2012, 06:58:29 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

_______________________________________

According to the Orthodox Church Today survey:
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf

69% of Orthodox Christians feel women's ordination is not important or shouldn't be discussed, whereas only 10% think it is important.
Only 13% of GOA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important, and only 8% of OCA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.
Only 10% of GOA clergy feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed and only 6% of OCA priests feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.

Only 3 out of 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable seeing women as altar girls, deaconesses or priests. Yet at the same time, even less, 1 in 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable allowing women into the Priesthood.

In fact, 51% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being altar servers with 18% as unsure.
52% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being deaconesses with 19% unsure.
As for the subject of women's ordination to the priesthood, an overwhelming majority, 77% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood, with 13% as unsure.

The majority of those who would support women's ordination to the priesthood are of younger generations, and generally are middle-aged adults. The younger generations are significantly more opposed to it than the older generations. (this must be the factor of the liberal, hippy/baby-boom generation vs. modern generations)

In fact, only 5% of people under 45 support the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood. Whereas 15% of those between 45 and 64 support it.

Only 2% of conservative parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood and only 7% of traditional parishioners support women's ordination. However, 20% of moderate-liberal parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood.

The survey also compares the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church...
In the Roman Catholic Church, 63% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 93% supporting them as altar girls).
In the Orthodox Catholic Church, 10% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 31% supporting them as altar girls).

_______________________________________________

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:02:56 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,224


« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2012, 07:06:15 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2012, 07:08:26 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it. Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

We seek to attain phronema. Right-belief and Right-practice... If we wish to change that phronema or refuse to want to conform to it, we are no longer Orthodox.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:11:20 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,573



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2012, 07:10:50 PM »

If the CofE ordains women as deacons and priests, why not bishops? If your going to have female clergy be consistent.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 351



« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2012, 07:27:08 PM »

Haven't clergymen such as Met. Kallistos Ware stated that women's ordination is not a closed issue? If it is not established dogma that men must now and always be the only sex to hold clergy positions it seems that there is room to be open to women's ordination.

BTW, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and excluding a chunk of Orthodox Christians (moderate/ liberal... whatever that means in this context) to serve your own purposes is intellectually dishonest.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2012, 07:32:11 PM »

Haven't clergymen such as Met. Kallistos Ware stated that women's ordination is not a closed issue? If it is not established dogma that men must now and always be the only sex to hold clergy positions it seems that there is room to be open to women's ordination.

BTW, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy, and excluding a chunk of Orthodox Christians (moderate/ liberal... whatever that means in this context) to serve your own purposes is intellectually dishonest.

Actually Metropolitan Kallistos has said that it can and should be discussed. We have not yet discussed it, as he said, we must "think and pray more deeply" about it. He is NOT in support of them, but he is unconvinced by the arguments by either side.

Besides, his beatitude is just one man, and we have to measure them against all Saints and Church Fathers.

Metropolitan Anthony Bloom came out in support of women's ordination, so just because someone is a bishop doesn't mean that automatically makes them right.

Appeal to a majority is not a logical fallacy when it comes to Orthodox Christianity, because we are a church that REQUIRES that you believe according to the church, and practice according to the church. We're a church that requires conformity and unity. If you don't desire to conform or be a part of that unity, you aren't a part of the church.

OCA - Ordination of Women:
http://oca.org/questions/priesthoodmonasticism/ordination-of-women

Antiochian Archdiocese - Women's Ordination:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17953

Fr. Alexander Schmemann:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/SchmemannOrdination.php

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=06-01-022-f
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 07:41:30 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2012, 07:37:52 PM »

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.

Ex (to go out of) Communicate (communion)

Quote
Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

Or they just receive Communion to condemnation until they either repent and confess (both sacramentally if it's and by confession of faith) what the Church believes or they are removed from communion with the Church either by clergy or their own doing.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2012, 07:40:24 PM »

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.

Ex (to go out of) Communicate (communion)

Quote
Once one hold's views that they know to be contrary to the Church, they cease to be a part of the right-believing.

Or they just receive Communion to condemnation until they either repent and confess (both sacramentally if it's and by confession of faith) what the Church believes or they are removed from communion with the Church either by clergy or their own doing.

You must noticed I said "formally" excommunicated. There is a difference between excommunicating yourself and receive communion to your condemnation vs. being excommunicated by your Priest or Bishop and not being able to receive communion at all.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2012, 07:43:25 PM »

Also relevant:

Quote
"...I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Order. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities. To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds..." - C.S. Lewis
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2012, 08:15:31 PM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2012, 08:27:06 PM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.

I'm not talking about God's grace unless you are assuming that there is no salvation outside our Church, which is something I am not suggesting.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2012, 09:33:55 PM »

There were no female Apostles.  Remember Apostle and disciple is not the same thing.  Also, there have never been any females ordained higher than deacon.  There are reasons and pop culture is not a justifiable cause to question the design of the Church.
Logged
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2012, 09:36:28 PM »

Quote
If you don't desire to conform or be a part of that unity, you aren't a part of the church.

One of the many things which appealed to me about the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2012, 11:10:09 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?



No, he stated it quite accurately.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2012, 11:23:51 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

...

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DEVIN! Angry You have no authority to decide that those who don't hold your "traditional" point of view are outside the Church, nor do you have any authority to speak for the nebulous "we".

Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian".
You, Devin, are not a bishop, so stop pretending to be one.

Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.
But you are not in a position of authority to excommunicate those who disagree with you. There is no de facto excommunication that I know of except that of missing the Eucharist for three consecutive weeks without an honorable reason. Anything else must be enforced by a priest or bishop, which you are not.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.
Neither is one Orthodox merely for agreeing with you.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.
That's some very tautological reasoning if you ask me. "All Orthodox Christians, who by definition agree that women's priesthood cannot be permitted in our Church, believe that women's priesthood cannot be permitted in our Church." What the hell does that exercise in stacking the deck prove? Huh
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:11:40 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2012, 11:25:49 PM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2012, 11:56:34 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2012, 11:28:48 PM »

There were no female Apostles.  Remember Apostle and disciple is not the same thing.
Correction: St. Mary Magdalene is often referred to as "apostle to the apostles", since Jesus sent her to announce to the apostles that He had risen from the dead.

Also, there have never been any females ordained higher than deacon.  There are reasons and pop culture is not a justifiable cause to question the design of the Church.
I can agree with that pov. Wink
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2012, 11:33:11 PM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
You, Devin, demonstrate perfectly the wisdom of this statement. Like many converts, you come into the Church with all your p**s and vinegar against the traditions you left, and then once you're in the Church, you proceed in your anger to drive other people out.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:08:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2012, 11:43:27 PM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.


I didn't realize Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) wasn't Orthodox; silly me.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2012, 11:58:31 PM »


We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.

... which is a rather peculiar statement to make given that the Church has made any number of changes to its 'orthodoxy'.   I am particularly thinking of the change that allows widows and widowers to remarry. 

Orthodoxy does not mean that nothing can change. 
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2012, 12:02:03 AM »

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Statistics have never been an accurate measure of God's grace.

I'm not talking about God's grace unless you are assuming that there is no salvation outside our Church, which is something I am not suggesting.

Quite so - you were talking about statistics to which I addressed my point.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2012, 12:07:05 AM »


We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.

... which is a rather peculiar statement to make given that the Church has made any number of changes to its 'orthodoxy'.   I am particularly thinking of the change that allows widows and widowers to remarry. 

Orthodoxy does not mean that nothing can change. 
I'm curious to know how you think that applies to the statement you quoted.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2012, 12:17:22 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!

As for what I said, I stand by it. The Church exists visibly here on earth, but there are people who are nominal members of it that do not hold to orthodoxy or orthopraxis, these people are not de facto members of the church. Cradles and converts don't get a free "in" just by being nominal members of the earthly Church.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2012, 12:20:24 AM »

The Anglican church is embroiled in another debate over the role of women in its hierarchy. If the general synod refuses to back female bishops, it will be taking the wrong lessons from history For those arguing at the general synod about women bishops, it is probably too late to include much theology in their deliberations, but one prominent strand in the debates has been a theological jargon phrase, calculated as always to baffle outsiders to churchy stuff: the "apostolic succession". This is the idea that bishops stand in a continuous line of church leaders right back to the apostles chosen by Jesus.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus

I thought it was interesting reading, but can anybody bring light on what it says about Saint Paul?

I was listening to BBC yesterday and they talked about this issue and one of the "conservatives" they had on there argued that "Jesus chose only male apostles, so we should only have a male episcopacy". While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood or female episcopacy, I have to say it was a very weak argument since Christ indeed had female apostles/disciples.

I still cannot believe the Church of England is continuing to draw farther and farther away from orthodoxy and from the rest of traditional Christianity. I can only hope that the Orthodox Church can pick up more of the refugees from their continual betrayal of Christianity.
We don't want their refugees unless they're actually willing to become Orthodox.
You, Devin, demonstrate perfectly the wisdom of this statement. Like many converts, you come into the Church with all your p**s and vinegar against the traditions you left, and then once you're in the Church, you proceed in your anger to drive other people out.

Interesting because I doubt you know about the tradition I personally came out of. Even while in my old delusion, I was opposed to female ordination. It doesn't take much for a Christian to realize ordination of women is impossible. Our sacraments would be invalid unless a qualified Priest or Bishop performed them.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2012, 12:30:14 AM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

...

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, DEVIN! Angry You have no authority to decide that those who don't hold your "traditional" point of view are outside the Church, nor do you have any authority to speak for the nebulous "we".
I am an Orthodox Christian who has been taught what Orthodoxy is. I can see the Orthodox Church and what it has taught for 2000 years. If a person attends and pays attention to catechism (it isn't just for catechumens) instead of trying to personally interpret things (which is something Orthodoxy restricts) then one will also learn the position of the Orthodox Church and what constitutes orthodoxy versus heterodoxy.

What the liberals believe is not compatible with our Church and smells far more of personal interpretation and personal opinion taking priority over the stance of the Church. However our Church operates on conformity, reliance on clergy, monastics and saints/fathers for interpretation, and the idea that we must let our Orthodoxy to shape our personal views.

Quote
Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.
But you are not in a position of authority to excommunicate those who disagree with you. There is no de facto excommunication that I know of except that of missing the Eucharist for three consecutive weeks without an honorable reason. Anything else must be enforced by a priest or bishop, which you are not.

I think you take a far too legalistic approach, much more akin to Roman Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy. There is most certainly de facto excommunication and self excommunication. This was even so before our churh even had canons. It has little to do with canons and law yet everything to do with orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2012, 12:30:56 AM »

Devin I think you should take a break for a bit.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2012, 12:32:32 AM »

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!

As for what I said, I stand by it. The Church exists visibly here on earth, but there are people who are nominal members of it that do not hold to orthodoxy or orthopraxis,

What about the dead Orthodox?  Church triumphant; I think they are called.  The ones who are here are the Church militant.

these people are not de facto members of the church. Cradles and converts don't get a free "in" just by being nominal members of the earthly Church.

Can't you wait until Judgment Day?  Meanwhile, focus on your own salvation and your own struggles in which these posts of yours sound like you're either in a deep crisis of faith or you're looking for people to empathize with you.   Angry
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2012, 12:33:37 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept in Orthodoxy of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church, even though they're visibly members of the Church by virtue of their communion with an Orthodox bishop. Such a concept denies our belief in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, which is why I call your teaching a heresy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 12:41:13 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #34 on: July 08, 2012, 12:45:30 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and that Church is visible.

I won't deny a lot of what you say, some of what you say though sounds much more like the Roman Catholic view of ecclesiology.

Why do you think we are know as the Orthodox Church? We REQUIRE adherence to the correct teaching. If one doesn't adhere to the correct teaching (knowingly and willingly) they have excommunicated themselves and if they don't confess it and repent they are receiving the body and blood of Christ to their condemnation. I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
If this makes one afraid for the coverts and cradles who don't attend and are only nominal members, then it should make you afraid for them and it should move you to convince them to come back to the Church and come back to Christ.
Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,976


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 08, 2012, 12:54:59 AM »

I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.

I wouldn't hate your Priest.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.

We are not to exalt ourselves.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.

It's about the Gospel and not the sola scriptura version.  In a few years, you will burn out and be like certain members of this forum who post nothing but gall.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
If this makes one afraid for the coverts and cradles who don't attend and are only nominal members, then it should make you afraid for them and it should move you to convince them to come back to the Church and come back to Christ.

The Prodigal Son came home on his own accord, which is what many of these "unchurched" Orthodox have to do.  Their conscience has to bother them enough to seek the Orthodox Church, which will welcome them back with open arms.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #36 on: July 08, 2012, 01:02:17 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2012, 01:04:29 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!
Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

The bishop has the authority to enforce right belief by excommunicating those who teach false doctrines, but once such a false teacher is excommunicated, he is formally outside the Church because he is no longer in communion with the bishop. The bishop also has the authority to recognize when one has repented of his heresy and to welcome such a penitent back into communion; once such a person is reinstated he is formally inside the Church by virtue of his communion with the bishop. The Church is defined by visible communion with an Orthodox bishop who is himself in communion with the universal communion of Orthodox bishops. There is no concept of an invisible church within the visible Church such that those who believe rightly are members of this invisible church and those who believe wrongly are outside this invisible church. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and that Church is visible.

I won't deny a lot of what you say, some of what you say though sounds much more like the Roman Catholic view of ecclesiology.
If so, that's only because you've branded your own personal ecclesiology as the definitive Orthodox position. AISI, I'm merely repeating the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Why do you think we are know as the Orthodox Church? We REQUIRE adherence to the correct teaching.
Of course we do! I've never denied that.

If one doesn't adhere to the correct teaching (knowingly and willingly) they have excommunicated themselves
No, they have not. Again, there is no concept of an invisible Church within the visible Church.

and if they don't confess it and repent they are receiving the body and blood of Christ to their condemnation.
That may very well be true, but that's not because they're outside the "invisible" Church. If we can learn anything from the parable of the wheat and the tares, it's that there will always be within the Church wolves whom only God knows. They will eat and drink damnation upon themselves, yes, but that isn't because they're outside the Church.

I really bet you would hate my Priest, who asks during every confession if we differ with the Church on any of it's teachings, doctrines or traditions.
You're doing it again, Devin. You know how much I hate having someone else put words into my mouth. I've never stated my disagreement with any priest or bishop who enforces right belief. I've stated here only my disagreement with your thesis that wrong belief automatically puts one outside the Church.

You seem to want a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy on those who don't hold to the Orthodox faith.
You seem to have a problem with projecting onto me motives I never communicate. You really need to learn how to listen so you can stop these stupid projections.

Orthodoxy isn't just about membership in the visible Church; it is about adherence to its teachings , traditions, doctrines, moral teachings and more. As I said, it is about orthodoxy and orthopraxis.
Again, I've never denied this.

As I have already said before, just beig a nominal member of our Church doesn't give you and automatic "in".
And I've never said it does.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2012, 01:06:21 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:13:08 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #39 on: July 08, 2012, 01:12:00 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross. Read the websites of OCA, GOA and the Antiochians. Read the blogs of venerable and respected priests like Fr Stephen Freeman and Fr Joseph Honeycutt.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:13:44 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #40 on: July 08, 2012, 01:15:42 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 01:15:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #41 on: July 08, 2012, 01:20:35 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?

Because it is simple common sense, if you cease adhering to orthodoxy and orthopraxis, you no longer adhere to Orthodox Christianity, but to your own private heresy or heterodoxy.

Didn't Nestorius cease to be an Orthodox Christian the moment he believed in his heresy? I don't think we are so legalistic to say that it takes an official excommunication to do this, though that may be part of it.

It is no different than a wolf in sheepskin. They appear to be merely members of the flock, but in reality are far different and have no intention of following the shepherd(s) and their guidance.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #42 on: July 08, 2012, 01:22:39 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #43 on: July 08, 2012, 01:26:00 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.
And why do you believe Dr. Alexander Kalomiros to be the definitive authority on Orthodox ecclesiology?

His view is supported by anyone else you can read, or listen to. Listen to Ancient Faith Radio, or Orthodox Christian Network. Or even read stuff from Conciliar Press, St Vladimirs Seminary, St Tikhons Seminary or Holy Cross.

Don't get your views from personal interpretation or opinion, always put the views of other Orthodox before yours and mold your views to theirs. This excludes the liberal parishioners of course.
Let me rephrase my question then, since, after reading the article, I realize I asked it wrong. Why do you take Dr. Kalomiros's words regarding the bishop as applying to non-bishops?

Because it is simple common sense, if you cease adhering to orthodoxy and orthopraxis, you no longer adhere to Orthodox Christianity, but to your own private heresy or heterodoxy.

Didn't Nestorius cease to be an Orthodox Christian the moment he believed in his heresy? I don't think we are so legalistic to say that it takes an official excommunication to do this, though that may be part of it.

It is no different than a wolf in sheepskin. They appear to be merely members of the flock, but in reality are far different and have no intention of following the shepherd(s) and their guidance.
I don't disagree with any of this. I disagree only with your definition of Orthodoxy and with your thesis that those who don't adhere to Orthodoxy (as you define it) are automatically outside the Church even if their priests/bishops aren't aware of their non-adherence.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #44 on: July 08, 2012, 01:26:31 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Not relevant to my arguments in this debate, but now that you ask, I will answer in the affirmative to the former question. I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and that this Church is a visible Church. I certainly recognize that God is working to bring all to salvation, so I will certainly never say that those outside the Church cannot be saved, just as I will never say that all those in the Church are guaranteed salvation by mere virtue of their church membership. However, I do not recognize those outside the visible Church as invisibly members of Christ's Church; likewise, I do not recognize anyone inside the visible Church as being invisibly NOT a member of Christ's Church.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:16:02 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #45 on: July 08, 2012, 01:34:56 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Not relevant to my arguments in this debate.

It is quite relevant because you are trying to tell me that the belief that there are some "in the Church" who aren't Orthodox Christians is a version of the "invisible church heresy" and so I was making the point that if you want to push it that far, then my above question should also logically be a part of that same heresy.

Also as Orhodox Christians, we have to be extremely careful not to exercise cognative dissonance when it comes to these things. If we see someone who is/was Orthodox living in sin or apart from the Church, we shouldn't try to rationalize it or explain it away or suggest that it is okay and they are fine. Just the same as we cannot (as Orthodox Christians) exercise cognative dissonance when a child of ours falls into a sin, we don't just say, "oh it's alright". If a relative starts living in sin with a lover, we don't just say "I just guess that's what kids do nowadays".
The same applies to these situations, if we know someone who was an Orthodox Christian who no longer adheres to Orthodoxy, we shouldnt try to explain it away to make ourselves feel better.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2012, 02:09:55 AM »

By the way, do you disagree with the statement that there are people out there who we do not know but are mystically members of Christ's Church, or that may be saved when they die???
Not relevant to my arguments in this debate.

It is quite relevant because you are trying to tell me that the belief that there are some "in the Church" who aren't Orthodox Christians is a version of the "invisible church heresy" and so I was making the point that if you want to push it that far, then my above question should also logically be a part of that same heresy.

Also as Orhodox Christians, we have to be extremely careful not to exercise cognative dissonance when it comes to these things. If we see someone who is/was Orthodox living in sin or apart from the Church, we shouldn't try to rationalize it or explain it away or suggest that it is okay and they are fine. Just the same as we cannot (as Orthodox Christians) exercise cognative dissonance when a child of ours falls into a sin, we don't just say, "oh it's alright". If a relative starts living in sin with a lover, we don't just say "I just guess that's what kids do nowadays".
The same applies to these situations, if we know someone who was an Orthodox Christian who no longer adheres to Orthodoxy, we shouldnt try to explain it away to make ourselves feel better.
Why don't you go back and read my post again? Wink I have an annoying habit of submitting a post only to modify it several times over the next 5-10 minutes.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:11:32 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #47 on: July 08, 2012, 02:13:58 AM »

I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

I didn't realise you had this authority. Are there any other groups you'd like to excommunicate?

I didn't realize that one needed authority to speak the truth that we all know to be the case. To be Orthodox is to have the correct belief, plain and simple. We know what the right belief is as well because it is the Orthodox Church, and the Church has shown us what the truth is.

One doesn't have to be formally excommunicated to be outside of the church, we aren't that legalistic about it.
No, Devin, YOU are. Do you also not realize that you are essentially espousing a variant of the invisible church heresy?

Peter, if you wish to accuse me of heresy then you had better back it up!

As for what I said, I stand by it. The Church exists visibly here on earth, but there are people who are nominal members of it that do not hold to orthodoxy or orthopraxis, these people are not de facto members of the church. Cradles and converts don't get a free "in" just by being nominal members of the earthly Church.

Especially when they don't hold to His All-Holiness Devin, Supreme Patriarch of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan of Truth, Archbishop of Dogma, Inquisitor-General of the Genuine Church's opinions
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #48 on: July 08, 2012, 02:13:58 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2012, 02:21:19 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?

I will only say that I am glad he is not involved in current discourse in the Church, and I hope positions like his and the St Nina's group will be taken with a grain of salt. He was dead wrong in his position.

If I ever see a female Priest in our Church, I would probably shout some choice words (probably including anathema and anaxios) and storm out while spitting in the doorway and wiping/shaking my feet off (as St Paul had done). The moment she would vest and serve is the moment the Holy Spirit leaves that place and the Sacraments are no longer valid.

If I ever met a Bishop who voted for women's ordination in a synod or council and didn't recant, my reaction would be somewhat the same. The same as all the right believing Orthodox did to the apostate Bishops after the Council of Florence.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:38:47 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2012, 02:32:44 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?

I will only say that I am glad he is not involved in current discourse in the Church, and I hope positions like his and the St Nina's group will be taken with a grain of salt. He was dead wrong in his position.
So you won't say that he ceased to be a bishop. How very inconsistent of you. Wink
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2012, 02:40:48 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?

I will only say that I am glad he is not involved in current discourse in the Church, and I hope positions like his and the St Nina's group will be taken with a grain of salt. He was dead wrong in his position.
So you won't say that he ceased to be a bishop. How very inconsistent of you. Wink

If he had voted in favor of it in an official council and didn't later recant, then yes, I believe his Orthodoxy would be in question as well as his episcopacy. That goes for any Bishop...
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,756


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2012, 02:49:10 AM »

Devin, how old are you?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2012, 02:50:28 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2012, 02:53:01 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?

I will only say that I am glad he is not involved in current discourse in the Church, and I hope positions like his and the St Nina's group will be taken with a grain of salt. He was dead wrong in his position.
So you won't say that he ceased to be a bishop. How very inconsistent of you. Wink

If he had voted in favor of it in an official council and didn't later recant, then yes, I believe his Orthodoxy would be in question as well as his episcopacy. That goes for any Bishop...
But now you're contradicting yourself, since you said earlier that a person automatically ceases to be a member of the Church the moment he adheres to an un-Orthodox belief.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2012, 02:55:36 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
In this case, a lot, since the issue isn't so much how much you know as it is how vehemently you argue your points and how quick you are to condemn those with whom you disagree. You demonstrate great zeal, but not much wisdom.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 02:57:23 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2012, 02:56:55 AM »

Orthodox Ecclesiology:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kalomiros.aspx

He makes an important point that a Bishop ceases to be a Bishop the moment he ceases to believe and teach Orthodoxy. The same is true for all of us, we cease to be Orthodox when we stop believing Orthodoxy.

So you think Metropolitan Bloom ceased to be a bishop?

I will only say that I am glad he is not involved in current discourse in the Church, and I hope positions like his and the St Nina's group will be taken with a grain of salt. He was dead wrong in his position.
So you won't say that he ceased to be a bishop. How very inconsistent of you. Wink

If he had voted in favor of it in an official council and didn't later recant, then yes, I believe his Orthodoxy would be in question as well as his episcopacy. That goes for any Bishop...
But now you're contradicting yourself, since you said earlier that a person automatically ceases to be a member of the Church the moment he adheres to an un-Orthodox belief.

I said they cease to be Orthodox when they knowingly and willingly hold that heterodox belief and know it to be contrary to the Church's teachings, I didn't know Metropolitan Anthony and so I cannot judge whether or not he was conscious that it was heterodox.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,756


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2012, 03:00:00 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:00:26 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2012, 03:01:19 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
In this case, a lot, since the issue isn't so much how much you know as it is how vehemently you argue your points and how quick you are to condemn those with whom you disagree.

So what does that matter? History has shown that appealing to emotions, beliefs and arguing vehemently against something is just as valid as making a reasoned argument with supporting facts. We shouldn't be so quick to buy into the BS of the enlightenment heretics.

How about some of you? I don't know your age, but I can tell you that even in the study I cited earlier, the liberal, hippy, promiscuous and "progressive" baby-boom generation is largely responsible for those who hold heterodox views in both our church and our world. Whereas it is the younger generations (and to some degree the oldest) who are taking a stand for Orthodoxy.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2012, 03:03:12 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,756


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #60 on: July 08, 2012, 03:04:17 AM »

(and to some degree the oldest)
Soon there won't be many high-ranking ex-KGB left in Moscow.

Viva la revolucion.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,756


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #61 on: July 08, 2012, 03:04:44 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.
Why would it be bad to be in high school?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #62 on: July 08, 2012, 03:05:43 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.

Don't worry, it happens to many of us: especially when trying to buy alcohol or enter a casino.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #63 on: July 08, 2012, 03:08:50 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.

Don't worry, it happens to many of us: especially when trying to buy alcohol or enter a casino.

The other day I encountered a high schooler in church who thought was in high school, darn, I shave and now people assume I'm 6-9 years younger. Right now it sucks but I hope it works when I'm twice this age.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2012, 03:11:58 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.
Why would it be bad to be in high school?

While I know I'm not THAT separated from high school, I still find them very annoying... I want to slap some sense into them and make them realize that they won't be nothing after high school.
And don't get me started on middle schoolers, I want to wring their necks... But kids in elementary school, kindergarten, preschool and babies are cute and fun...
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,756


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #65 on: July 08, 2012, 03:15:51 AM »

I think you'd be a good canditate to play squash. Blow off some steam.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #66 on: July 08, 2012, 03:20:18 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
In this case, a lot, since the issue isn't so much how much you know as it is how vehemently you argue your points and how quick you are to condemn those with whom you disagree.

So what does that matter? History has shown that appealing to emotions, beliefs and arguing vehemently against something is just as valid as making a reasoned argument with supporting facts.
No, history has not shown us that. An irrational argument is an irrational argument regardless of when it is made.

We shouldn't be so quick to buy into the BS of the enlightenment heretics.
The ability to craft a convincing, rational argument is not Enlightenment BS. Even the Holy Fathers knew that.

How about some of you? I don't know your age, but I can tell you that even in the study I cited earlier, the liberal, hippy, promiscuous and "progressive" baby-boom generation is largely responsible for those who hold heterodox views in both our church and our world. Whereas it is the younger generations (and to some degree the oldest) who are taking a stand for Orthodoxy.
This question about our age really is a straw man, ad hominem argument based on faulty generalizations. Just because a study says that people our age (whatever you think that age is) are more likely to be what you call liberal doesn't mean that everyone of us is so liberal; likewise, just because that same study says people of your generation are more likely to be traditional doesn't mean everyone in your generation is so traditional. You need to actually listen to us so you can know what each of us really thinks and stop constructing such asinine stereotypes. (BTW, there's someone else on this thread who's even younger than you who agrees with us old farts in thinking that you're acting like a pompous ass, so the list of those who don't like your behavior on this forum is really not defined by age. I'm also not a baby boomer.)

Our question about your age dealt specifically with the tone of your arguments on this thread. There is a huge difference between that and your question about our age.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:39:50 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #67 on: July 08, 2012, 03:26:38 AM »

Devin, how old are you?

What does my age have to do with anything?
If you're in highschool or something, I recommend you take a little break from all the theologizing and do something else. Perhaps a group of runners from your school is up to something right around this time, and you could join them. Rowers if you've got bodies of water.

It isn't healthy, this.

Hmmm....
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #68 on: July 08, 2012, 03:39:04 AM »

Why should I have a rational argument when I can sway people in real life by appealing to their feelings/emotions and the beliefs and memories? I've convinced far more people this way than by using facts and sources.

What people should do is submit to everything the Church says absolutely without question. We have no right to question the Church on anything and should simply accept things as they are and as they have been without any desire to ask why or any desire to seek change in it.

To question the Church, is ultimately, to end up questioning God himself, who created the Church and guided it and brought us our canons, doctrines and traditions.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #69 on: July 08, 2012, 03:49:33 AM »

Why should I have a rational argument when I can sway people in real life by appealing to their feelings/emotions and the beliefs and memories? I've convinced far more people this way than by using facts and sources.
And yet an appeal to feelings, emotions, beliefs, and memories needs to have a rational basis. People can be convinced to buy a pile of BS if you appeal to the right emotions, but others can see through your sales tactics and recognize the pile of BS you're trying to sell them.

What people should do is submit to everything the Church says absolutely without question. We have no right to question the Church on anything and should simply accept things as they are and as they have been without any desire to ask why or any desire to seek change in it.
But, once again, I don't see anyone here questioning the Church. I see a lot of people questioning you, but I don't see anyone questioning the Church. You need to answer for why you believe as you do, and we're not going to allow you to hide behind the Church, especially since I don't think you're representing the Church truthfully.

To question the Church, is ultimately, to end up questioning God himself, who created the Church and guided it and brought us our canons, doctrines and traditions.
But questioning you is merely questioning you.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2012, 05:17:20 AM »

I think you'd be a good canditate to play squash. Blow off some steam.

First rowing and now squash. You are speaking my language.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2012, 07:01:50 AM »

What the? You think I'm in HIGH SCHOOL? That truly hurts... No, I'm not even close to high school age anymore.
Don't worry, it happens to many of us: especially when trying to buy alcohol or enter a casino.

I get that all the time and I'm 30.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,496



« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2012, 09:35:13 AM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

_______________________________________

According to the Orthodox Church Today survey:
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf

69% of Orthodox Christians feel women's ordination is not important or shouldn't be discussed, whereas only 10% think it is important.
Only 13% of GOA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important, and only 8% of OCA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.
Only 10% of GOA clergy feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed and only 6% of OCA priests feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.

Only 3 out of 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable seeing women as altar girls, deaconesses or priests. Yet at the same time, even less, 1 in 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable allowing women into the Priesthood.

In fact, 51% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being altar servers with 18% as unsure.
52% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being deaconesses with 19% unsure.
As for the subject of women's ordination to the priesthood, an overwhelming majority, 77% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood, with 13% as unsure.

The majority of those who would support women's ordination to the priesthood are of younger generations, and generally are middle-aged adults. The younger generations are significantly more opposed to it than the older generations. (this must be the factor of the liberal, hippy/baby-boom generation vs. modern generations)

In fact, only 5% of people under 45 support the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood. Whereas 15% of those between 45 and 64 support it.

Only 2% of conservative parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood and only 7% of traditional parishioners support women's ordination. However, 20% of moderate-liberal parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood.

The survey also compares the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church...
In the Roman Catholic Church, 63% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 93% supporting them as altar girls).
In the Orthodox Catholic Church, 10% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 31% supporting them as altar girls).

_______________________________________________

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Based on your statistics (in the sense that you used them to argue your point), I have no idea how you can logically conclude that "all" Orthodox Christians are against women priests. Words do mean something and for your conclusion to be true, the statistics would have had to show zero percent support or 100 percent opposition. That is not the case, no?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2012, 10:55:24 AM »

While I (and all Orthodox) stand strongly against the idea of allowing female priesthood

You do know you are wrong?

Not really, all Orthodox Christians oppose women being ordained to the priesthood.

_______________________________________

According to the Orthodox Church Today survey:
http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/research/OrthChurchFullReport.pdf

69% of Orthodox Christians feel women's ordination is not important or shouldn't be discussed, whereas only 10% think it is important.
Only 13% of GOA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important, and only 8% of OCA parishioners feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.
Only 10% of GOA clergy feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed and only 6% of OCA priests feel women's ordination is very important to be openly discussed.

Only 3 out of 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable seeing women as altar girls, deaconesses or priests. Yet at the same time, even less, 1 in 10 respondents feel they'd be comfortable allowing women into the Priesthood.

In fact, 51% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being altar servers with 18% as unsure.
52% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women being deaconesses with 19% unsure.
As for the subject of women's ordination to the priesthood, an overwhelming majority, 77% of Orthodox Christians would openly oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood, with 13% as unsure.

The majority of those who would support women's ordination to the priesthood are of younger generations, and generally are middle-aged adults. The younger generations are significantly more opposed to it than the older generations. (this must be the factor of the liberal, hippy/baby-boom generation vs. modern generations)

In fact, only 5% of people under 45 support the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood. Whereas 15% of those between 45 and 64 support it.

Only 2% of conservative parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood and only 7% of traditional parishioners support women's ordination. However, 20% of moderate-liberal parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood.

The survey also compares the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church...
In the Roman Catholic Church, 63% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 93% supporting them as altar girls).
In the Orthodox Catholic Church, 10% of parishioners would support women's ordination to the priesthood (with 31% supporting them as altar girls).

_______________________________________________

Therefore, yes, I know what I'm talking about when I say all Orthodox Christians oppose women's ordination to the Priesthood. I think we can safely exclude the moderate-liberal parishioners from being Orthodox. Mere membership of our Church doesn't constitute being an "Orthodox Christian". Being an Orthodox Christian assumes you are practicing the "right-glory" or "right-belief", as well as Orthopraxis, "right-practice". To go directly against the vast majority of Orthodox Christians, Orthodox tradition, and Orthodox history is to essentially separate yourself from Orthodox Christianity.

The same moderate-liberal parishioners support women's ordination to the priesthood, personal interpretation of scripture & tradition, new forms of liturgical worship and diversity of beliefs & practices. The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners reject the idea that to be Orthodox means to accept all the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church. They also feel the most freedom to pick and choose between various parishes to that which "suites" them the best. They also support a variety of completely different viewpoints on the Church life in their parish. They also say that they can more easily imagine themselves learning Christianity from non-Orthodox Christians. Another belief the liberal-moderates hold is that how one lives is more important than whether one is an Orthodox Christian. Only 67% of the moderate-liberal group believe there is one best and true interpretation and that the Orthodox Church teaches it, this is extremely low compared to the traditional & conservative groups.
The majority of liberal-moderate parishioners also believe that you don't need to obey the priest, go to church every Sunday, observe fasting periods or have an approved marriage in order to be a good Orthodox Christian.

Such a view(s) cannot be compatible with Orthodox Christianity and simply shows how far many of these people are from Orthodox Christianity. If one can be classified in that moderate-liberal group, they cannot be classified as an Orthodox Christian. You aren't Orthodox just because are a member of a certain church.

We can safely exclude the moderate-liberal group as Orthodox Christians because of their beliefs, their "micro-theology" just as safely as we can exclude the members of groups like "Axios", who are clearly not Orthodox Christians.

So yes, all Orthodox Christians agree that women's priesthood is not something that can be allowed in our Church.

Based on your statistics (in the sense that you used them to argue your point), I have no idea how you can logically conclude that "all" Orthodox Christians are against women priests. Words do mean something and for your conclusion to be true, the statistics would have had to show zero percent support or 100 percent opposition. That is not the case, no?
Yeah, I saw that myself, but then he made his citation of statistics nothing more than irrelevant dross when he argued that we can safely exclude as non-Orthodox those who support women priests. In the end, he has reduced his logic to nothing more than this tautology: 100% of those who oppose women priests oppose women priests. Well, DUH! Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 11:00:10 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2012, 12:32:31 PM »

100% of those who oppose women priests oppose women priests. Well, DUH! Roll Eyes

Even then that statement isn't entirely accurate.  As has been pointed out various respected hierarchs have simply stated we need to evaluate the position or not now.  So someone can be opposed to female priests without necessarily seeing it as a criterion of Orthodoxy. 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2012, 03:48:40 PM »

100% of those who oppose women priests oppose women priests. Well, DUH! Roll Eyes

Even then that statement isn't entirely accurate.  As has been pointed out various respected hierarchs have simply stated we need to evaluate the position or not now.  So someone can be opposed to female priests without necessarily seeing it as a criterion of Orthodoxy.  
I'm only criticizing Devin's logic, since Devin has made opposition to female priests a criterion of Orthodoxy. I encourage you, therefore, to go back and reread the whole post from which you extracted your quote, along with all the other posts that establish the context for my reply. Wink
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 03:55:21 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2012, 04:24:49 PM »

On that point I agree, I meant to merely add that even those who oppose women's ordination might see it as a temporary opposition or altogether not a criterion of Orthodoxy - which would chip away even further at Devin's claim to it being the majority Orthodox position. 
Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2012, 04:32:14 PM »

which would chip away even further at Devin's claim to it being the majority Orthodox position.

Claiming it to be the majority or established position isn't all that problematic, but I think Devin claimed it was a universally held Orthodox one.

I get your point though.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2012, 05:53:41 PM »

which would chip away even further at Devin's claim to it being the majority Orthodox position.

Claiming it to be the majority or established position isn't all that problematic, but I think Devin claimed it was a universally held Orthodox one.
Devin did so only by excluding as non-Orthodox those who don't hold it--IOW, stacking the deck to make certain that ALL Orthodox oppose women priests.
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2012, 07:03:00 PM »

Devin, we believe that the Church is made up of those Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I'm not aware that we make a distinction between those of "right belief" and those of "wrong belief" within the Church and say that those who don't hold to right belief are invisibly outside the Church. If you're in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are in the Church. If you're not in communion with an Orthodox bishop, you are outside the Church. It's that simple.

Seeing that Jesus had no intention of starting a church your thesis smacks of self-righteous ideology - which is one reason why I hesitate to commit to Orthodoxy.  I see enough hypocrisy in everyday life without having it thrust on me by those who enjoy claiming the high moral ground.

Truth is that 'apostolic succession' is a invention of the nascent church to create some sort of authority and order.  I can accept such moves - any movement that becomes an institution needs an organization.  But to then apply that organizational aspect as something that determines who is, or who is not, 'in the Church' i.e Christian, is unsupported except for those who maintain ideology is more important than theology. 

There are, in fact, more Christians 'outside' the Church than in it.  The fact that the Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, does not mean that there can only be one organized 'church'.  Given the diversity of humanity such would be impossible.  The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, from what the 'members' believe - not from some political manifesto than demands allegiance to some flag.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,649


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2012, 07:05:34 PM »

Jesus had no intention of starting a church?

"Upon this rock..."

Please read more.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #81 on: July 08, 2012, 07:29:46 PM »

Jesus had no intention of starting a church?

"Upon this rock..."

Please read more.

A rock is not a church.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,649


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 08, 2012, 07:30:46 PM »

Upon this rock, I will build my church.

Go look it up.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #83 on: July 08, 2012, 07:38:34 PM »

Upon this rock, I will build my church.

Go look it up.

Bad translation - has always been a bad translation and one that was designed to meet the ideology of the ecclesiastical police - go read.
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,649


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 08, 2012, 07:45:20 PM »

Wow, you sure are Protestant. They are a decided minority in the world. The Roman Catholics are a billion people, the Orthodox are 250-300 million, and since there are only 2 billion Christians •at all• in the world, all Protestants together are the remainder. Oh, and I didn't subtract the mainline liturgical Protestants like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, who branched off from the Roman Catholics and are still similar to them. That leaves you with the Evangelicals.

You don't get to revise history or the Scriptures just because you don't like them.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #85 on: July 08, 2012, 09:45:01 PM »

Wow, you sure are Protestant. They are a decided minority in the world. The Roman Catholics are a billion people, the Orthodox are 250-300 million, and since there are only 2 billion Christians •at all• in the world, all Protestants together are the remainder. Oh, and I didn't subtract the mainline liturgical Protestants like the Anglicans and the Lutherans, who branched off from the Roman Catholics and are still similar to them. That leaves you with the Evangelicals.

You don't get to revise history or the Scriptures just because you don't like them.

Nice attempt at dodging the issue.  

Read the Bible, read the texts of the early church and tell me where Jesus organized a 'church'.  

You can't because no such text exists.  The church came about because of the necessity to organize.

You can play with the statistics as much as you like but scripture fails to support your thesis.

My point has been that the 'church' has changed any number of 'issues' and can changed again - if it wishes.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2012, 09:54:40 PM by wayseer » Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: July 08, 2012, 09:55:30 PM »

Upon this rock, I will build my church.

Go look it up.

Bad translation - has always been a bad translation and one that was designed to meet the ideology of the ecclesiastical police - go read.

Here is Matt 16:18, in the original Greek:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

To suggest that the word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia) means anything other than church is simply laughable.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #87 on: July 08, 2012, 09:58:26 PM »

Upon this rock, I will build my church.

Go look it up.

Bad translation - has always been a bad translation and one that was designed to meet the ideology of the ecclesiastical police - go read.

Here is Matt 16:18, in the original Greek:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

To suggest that the word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia) means anything other than church is simply laughable.

What is the proposed alternative translation?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,073



« Reply #88 on: July 08, 2012, 11:04:45 PM »

Devin, how old are you?

What difference does it make?  I am 51, and I agree with him completely regarding this matter.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #89 on: July 09, 2012, 10:56:54 AM »

I'm not in favor of women's ordination, but I don't see the question as a criterion of Orthodoxy.

I think the biggest problem in the discussion is the idea of equality and exactly what "equality" means. Does the equality of men and women in the Church mean that they must be able to do all of the same stuff?

What does it mean when St. Mary Magdalene is called "Equal-to-the-Apostles" but is not actually an apostle?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: July 09, 2012, 11:05:03 AM »

If it was so important to have female bishops, there would have been some.

EDIT:
Quote
Read the Bible, read the texts of the early church and tell me where Jesus organized a 'church'
Besides the scriptures mentioned? Read Acts.

Quote
You can't because no such text exists.  The church came about because of the necessity to organize
Again...read Acts. Also, Jesus Himself mentiones His Church...so.....

Quote
You can play with the statistics as much as you like but scripture fails to support your thesis
Who do you think codified and collected scripture?


PP
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 11:15:13 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #91 on: July 09, 2012, 11:17:49 AM »


Quote
What does it mean when St. Mary Magdalene is called "Equal-to-the-Apostles" but is not actually an apostle?

Because she might not have been appointed by Christ as part of the Twelve or the Seventy, but did the work of an apostle in spreading and proclaiming the Gospel. She is also known as the Apostle to the Apostles, in that she was the first to spread the news of the Resurrection to the disciples. The same goes for other female saints who have earned the title of "Equal-to-the-Apostles", such as Sts Helen, Olga of Kiev, and Nina of Georgia.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,496



« Reply #92 on: July 09, 2012, 12:14:13 PM »

Devin, how old are you?

What difference does it make?  I am 51, and I agree with him completely regarding this matter.

I am 67 and I also agree with "no women priests or bishops." However, I cannot agree with him that ALL Orthodox Christians agree with Devin, you and me.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,496



« Reply #93 on: July 09, 2012, 12:15:24 PM »

Did anyone maker the point that there is a difference between apostles, on the one hand, and priests and bishops on the other?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #94 on: July 09, 2012, 01:26:46 PM »

If it was so important to have female bishops, there would have been some.

You have to do better than this.

Otherwise you better go find some Restorationists to worship with cause the Orthodox Church has changed a lot since those days.

It is the Faith once delivered unto the Saints.

Well all the Saints ain't lived out their lives yet, so that Faith ain't been revealed completely yet. And to think the a woman serving as Priest or Bishop is so far outside the Faith is to confuse history with theology.

Never has a single theological argument with merit ever been given for the exclusion of women from the Priesthood.

Pastoral arguments, sure, as some, as St. Paul would call the weak, aren't ready for such a departure from the "law". So till then the strong must abide the weakness of their fellow Church members.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #95 on: July 09, 2012, 01:28:12 PM »

Did anyone maker the point that there is a difference between apostles, on the one hand, and priests and bishops on the other?

It is true. But has no bearing on the subject except to dispel that possible confusion.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2012, 01:33:48 PM »

I think instead of looking for evidence to prove women should not be, as is often mistakenly done, we should look to see if there is any evidence to support it should be.  Because something may not be explicitly forbidden does not mean it is necessarily approved.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2012, 01:44:39 PM »

I think instead of looking for evidence to prove women should not be, as is often mistakenly done, we should look to see if there is any evidence to support it should be.  Because something may not be explicitly forbidden does not mean it is necessarily approved.

See my post above. St. Paul already covered this. If people must cling to certain practices to the point of scandal, let them have them. No matter even if they are not tangential to the Faith.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Kerdy
Moderated
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #98 on: July 09, 2012, 07:37:35 PM »

I would venture to say gender roles were established with the creation of Adam and Eve.  I remember doing a college paper on this very topic.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #99 on: July 09, 2012, 08:15:58 PM »

I would venture to say gender roles were established with the creation of Adam and Eve.  I remember doing a college paper on this very topic.

And yet there is neither male nor female in Christ.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #100 on: July 09, 2012, 08:27:35 PM »

I would venture to say gender roles were established with the creation of Adam and Eve.  I remember doing a college paper on this very topic.

And yet there is neither male nor female in Christ.
So is having all male bishops simply a long-standing practice of the church? Akin to the Roman Catholics and their celibate priests?
Logged
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #101 on: July 09, 2012, 08:27:56 PM »

I would venture to say gender roles were established with the creation of Adam and Eve.  I remember doing a college paper on this very topic.

And yet there is neither male nor female in Christ.

And yet there are still gender roles in the New Testament.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
FantaLimon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


Inquirer


« Reply #102 on: July 09, 2012, 09:45:23 PM »

I have heard several times in this thread that there were no female apostles, elders, bishops, deacons, etc in the early church and soon after.  I thought there were female leaders at the time, even serving "pastoral" functions within churches.  A quick search through wikipedia will mention this but of course wikipedia once told me mixing bleach and ammonia made gold.

I mean I'm certain I've read that before and could someone more knowledgeable comment?  Is it a disputed idea?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,496



« Reply #103 on: July 09, 2012, 10:27:44 PM »

Did anyone maker the point that there is a difference between apostles, on the one hand, and priests and bishops on the other?

It is true. But has no bearing on the subject except to dispel that possible confusion.

The argument seems to be that the existence of female apostles argues for the existence of female priests and bishops. Or, am I missing something here?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 10:28:15 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #104 on: July 09, 2012, 11:40:19 PM »

Did anyone maker the point that there is a difference between apostles, on the one hand, and priests and bishops on the other?

It is true. But has no bearing on the subject except to dispel that possible confusion.

The argument seems to be that the existence of female apostles argues for the existence of female priests and bishops. Or, am I missing something here?

I agree with you. It is flawed reasoning. Whether women were apostles or not doesn't as such give any credence to women being in the Priesthood today.

Even if we had textual evidence of women being Priests in the past it wouldn't be a productive argument for the inclusion of women within the Priesthood today.

There are really no arguments as I said other than pastoral (what it might do to the Church) to exclude women from the Priesthood.

Nearly everything I have read on the subject matter even from thinkers I typically agree with arguing against the inclusion of women are based on the most poorly formed notions of theology or Christian anthropology.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Seraphim98
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



« Reply #105 on: July 10, 2012, 12:14:39 AM »

I must agree with Devin in the thrust of his theology and leave the art of his argument and presentation to others.  This isn't he Supreme Court and posts here aren't legal briefs. We can allow a little charity in expression.

We have no tradition of women serving as bishops or priests. That is the end of the matter except perhaps for digging into the implicit theology of what we have received and what it means…it's implications. What is implied concerning gender and role by the Tradition which recognizes only male ordination to the priesthood and episcopate.

We do have a tradition (now largely defunct) of a female diaconate. It's been so long since it was common the details are fuzzy on what their liturgical responsibilities were. We know it faded away fairly quickly throughout Orthodox christendom after the 5th century. We know that a type of female diaconate survives within the Coptic faith, and given their general theological and sociological conservatism, we might study what they do/have done should it ever be considered prudent to make a general restoration of the female diaconate. There is nothing to preclude it's being done if there is a need for it in the Church again. We have this within our tradition to appeal to, and from it our faithful and hierarchs, as God leads, could reestablish this ministry. It can be done. There is no Tradition for female priests or bishops it cannot be done, and those involved in it's doing, should it ever be attempted, do not remain Orthodox without repentance and reconciliation to the Church.

St. John Chrysostom said, "Is it the Tradition? Ask no further."  That is surely sound Orthodox counsel.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 12:17:05 AM by Seraphim98 » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,435


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #106 on: July 10, 2012, 01:27:17 AM »

I think instead of looking for evidence to prove women should not be, as is often mistakenly done, we should look to see if there is any evidence to support it should be.  Because something may not be explicitly forbidden does not mean it is necessarily approved.
I think this is the best advice I've seen so far on this thread. I'm not convinced by any of the reasons I've seen advanced for the continued exclusion of women from the priesthood, but since this is the long-established practice of the Church, I think the "burden of proof" is clearly on those who advocate the inclusion of women in the priesthood to convince the consensus as to why we should change our age-old practice. Until then, the best decision on such a contentious issue as women's ordination is to continue our traditional practice.
Logged
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #107 on: July 10, 2012, 06:51:49 AM »

To suggest that the word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia) means anything other than church is simply laughable.

The only places jesus uses the word ekklesiais in Matthew 16 and 18.  'church' simply means a collection of people - not, as it has came to mean with a definite article (the) and a capital 'C' as in 'the Church' - an organized entity holding certain beliefs.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 06:56:00 AM by wayseer » Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #108 on: July 10, 2012, 06:58:05 AM »

Besides the scriptures mentioned? Read Acts.

I specifically said Jesus.  Read more carefully.

'Tradition' changed what Jesus taught.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2012, 06:59:08 AM by wayseer » Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,649


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #109 on: July 10, 2012, 07:03:32 AM »

Besides the scriptures mentioned? Read Acts.

I specifically said Jesus.  Read more carefully.

'Tradition' changed what Jesus taught.

How do you know?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #110 on: July 10, 2012, 07:10:11 AM »

To suggest that the word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklesia) means anything other than church is simply laughable.

The only places jesus uses the word ekklesiais in Matthew 16 and 18.  'church' simply means a collection of people - not, as it has came to mean with a definite article (the) and a capital 'C' as in 'the Church' - an organized entity holding certain beliefs.

There are other Biblical words which also mean a gathering of people for common purpose, such as synagogue and assembly. It is significant, and no accident, that Christ used the word ekklesia, and not any other word in those passages.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: July 10, 2012, 08:24:19 AM »

Quote
The only places jesus uses the word ekklesiais in Matthew 16 and 18.  'church' simply means a collection of people - not, as it has came to mean with a definite article (the) and a capital 'C' as in 'the Church' - an organized entity holding certain beliefs
Ah, so there is a difference in church and church. Only in English buddy Smiley

Quote
I specifically said Jesus.  Read more carefully
Ah, so unless it came from Christ's lips we can invalidate it? Man, you gotta love buffet Christianity.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #112 on: July 10, 2012, 09:43:14 AM »


Quote
What does it mean when St. Mary Magdalene is called "Equal-to-the-Apostles" but is not actually an apostle?

Because she might not have been appointed by Christ as part of the Twelve or the Seventy, but did the work of an apostle in spreading and proclaiming the Gospel. She is also known as the Apostle to the Apostles, in that she was the first to spread the news of the Resurrection to the disciples. The same goes for other female saints who have earned the title of "Equal-to-the-Apostles", such as Sts Helen, Olga of Kiev, and Nina of Georgia.

My point was that women could be equal to the apostles (and, presumably, bishops and priests) without being able to hold those positions. This assumes a notion of equality which does not fall in line with much contemporary thought on the matter.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: July 10, 2012, 10:04:12 AM »

I would also add that apostle does not automatically mean bishop.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   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 0.392 seconds with 141 queries.