OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 02:59:47 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church  (Read 175602 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1170 on: August 05, 2009, 12:30:48 AM »

If Christ, deemed to select only men as His disciples,
I'm not sure that this is correct. The Holy Myrrhbearers were women disciples, and one of them (Mary Magdalene) is even given the title  "Equal-to-the Apostles" by our Orthodox Church.

And, since that time, there are quite a number of female saints who have also been dignified with the title "Equal to the Apostles". A few of these are St Lyudmilla of the Czechs, St Olga of Kiev, St Nina of Georgia, (also known as "enlightener-saints", due to their efforts in bringing and spreading the Christian faith to their homelands) and, of course, St Helen, mother of St Constantine the Great. Great and worthy saints, all of them. Is their sainthood diminished because they were unable to be ordained as priests? Of course not. Even Great-martyr Euphemia played her posthumous part in renouncing heresy, and, in doing so, is (as far as I know) the only female saint who may be shown holding a Gospel book in her icons - this privilege is normally restricted to icons of Christ, the Apostles and Evangelists, and saints of clerical rank. Yet she was not a priest.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1171 on: August 05, 2009, 12:43:11 AM »

no woman was ordained bishop, and consequently none was ever ordained priest.
As far as the clear evidence we have, this is correct, however there is some debate about a 9th century mosaic (pictured below) in the Church of St. Praxedis in Rome which depicts a woman with a square halo (which indicates she was alive when the mosaic was done). Her name on the mosaic is "Episcopa Theodora", and "Episcopa" is the feminization of the Greek word "Episcopos" meaning "Bishop". It is not clear whether she was the wife of a Bishop or a Bishop in her own right.
At any rate, we have managed to correct a few misapprehensions in this thread, namely.
1) Our Lord Jesus Christ did have women disciples.
2) Some of them are counted as "Equal-to-the-Apostles" by our Church.
3) Women were and are ordained to the Clergy as Deaconesses.

BELOW: the 9th century "Episcopa Theodora" mosaic
in the St. Zeno Chapel of the Church of St. Praxedis, Rome

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,159


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #1172 on: August 05, 2009, 12:56:02 AM »

So, ozgeorge, even if this woman was indeed a bishop (which I seriously doubt), is it really possible to extrapolate from this that it were once permissible for women to be ordained to the priesthood?

A far more likely explanation for this mosaic is that this Theodora was the wife of a bishop (it took a few centuries before the married episcopate "died out"), and was called episcopa, in the same way that, even in our day, the wife of a priest is called presvytera in the Greek church.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1173 on: August 05, 2009, 01:29:31 AM »

So, ozgeorge, even if this woman was indeed a bishop (which I seriously doubt), is it really possible to extrapolate from this that it were once permissible for women to be ordained to the priesthood?

A far more likely explanation for this mosaic is that this Theodora was the wife of a bishop (it took a few centuries before the married episcopate "died out"), and was called episcopa, in the same way that, even in our day, the wife of a priest is called presvytera in the Greek church.

To be honest, I am not sure that we can claim anything to be the "far more likely" explanation for anything unprecedented.

The arguments against the theory that "Episcopa Theodora" was the wife of a Bishop include:
1) The fact that the only other known contemporaneous use of the word "Episcopa" is among some of the early gnostic sects such as the Montanists who had women clergy in all three ranks of the Priesthood: "Episcopa" (female Bishop), "Presbytera" (female Priest), and "Diakonessa" (Deaconess). 
2) There is no other record of a contemporaneous married Bishop.

The arguments in favour of the theory that Episcopa Theodora was the wife of a Bishop include:
1) the practice of calling a priest's wife "presbytera" (lit. "Priestess") and the wife of a Deacon "Diakonessa" (Deaconess). However, there is variation between Greek and Slavic practice with the Slavic Churches referring to a Deacon's wife with the same title as a Priest's wife dating back to pre-Nikonian times, which suggests this may have been the earlier Greek practice, with all wives of clergy referred to as "Presbytera".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #1174 on: August 05, 2009, 01:44:59 AM »

So, ozgeorge, even if this woman was indeed a bishop (which I seriously doubt), is it really possible to extrapolate from this that it were once permissible for women to be ordained to the priesthood?

A far more likely explanation for this mosaic is that this Theodora was the wife of a bishop (it took a few centuries before the married episcopate "died out"), and was called episcopa, in the same way that, even in our day, the wife of a priest is called presvytera in the Greek church.

In the Arab tradition:

priest = khoury
priest's wife = khouria

deacon = shammas
deacon's wife = shammasy

This naming tradition of the wife of an ordained man would seem to be prevalent in other parts of the Orthodox world.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1175 on: August 05, 2009, 01:54:34 AM »

This naming tradition of the wife of an ordained man would seem to be prevalent in other parts of the Orthodox world.
True. But Episcopal celibacy was a requirement in Rome for 400 years before "Episcopa Theodora" was depicted as a living person in the mosaic. If a married man was to be ordained a Bishop, his wife would first have to become a monastic, and it is highly unlikely for a living monastic to bear a title indicating that (a) she was married, and (b) held a position of status.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 01:58:57 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #1176 on: August 05, 2009, 02:21:53 AM »

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

Of course, she could have been married to a bishop at one time, too. 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 02:27:39 AM by StGeorge » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1177 on: August 05, 2009, 02:38:57 AM »

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

I would probably be more able to think this if there were any other examples of mothers of Bishops of Rome or anywhere being given honorary titles.
I think we create problems when we project on to history what we think "ought" to have happened. As I said: the only honest answer I can give with the evidence at hand is "I don't know" why she bears the title "Episcopa". If I knew of another example of a woman being called "Episcopa" in the Church, then I could at least hazard a guess, but the only examples I know of are female Bishops in gnostic sects. I think we need to leave the jury out on this one for the time being.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,376


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #1178 on: August 05, 2009, 03:03:59 AM »

Here is an article about the mosaics:

http://romancatholicwomenpriests.blogspot.com/

It's interesting.  I never knew about the square halos.
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1179 on: August 05, 2009, 03:54:19 AM »

The 9th century Celtic text of the Life of St. Bigid ( "Bethu Brigte" ) recalls how St. Brigid went to Bishop Mel with her companions to be veiled as a nun. Bishop Mel mistakenly read the wrong text and consecrated her as a Bishop. The Bethu Brigte says:

"The bishop being intoxicated with the grace of God there did not recognise what he was reciting from his book, for he consecrated Brigit with the orders of a bishop. ‘This virgin alone in Ireland’, said Mel, ‘will hold the Episcopal ordination.’ While she was being consecrated a fiery column ascended from her head."
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/T201002/index.html

Whoops!
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 03:57:17 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #1180 on: August 05, 2009, 04:54:02 AM »


Orthodoxy can rightfully claim to be the True Church.  Unchanged.  Handed down from the Apostles.

If Christ, deemed to select only men as His disciples, why would we, mere mortals, choose to override His decision and wisdom?

As a woman, I vote NO to a female priesthood.



I'm with you! I vote NO to a female priesthood! I came to Orthodoxy because it had very little changes to it! Women are not unequal to men just because they can't be priests. We women have our own spiritual birthrights within Orthodoxy!
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 04:57:01 AM by Myrrh23 » Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1181 on: August 05, 2009, 05:18:02 AM »

I'm with you! I vote NO to a female priesthood!

I didn't think this thread was a poll....is it?
I can't see the point of threads which are no more than "I want x, you want y".
As pointed out, LisaSymonenko was incorrect in her assumption that Christ had no female disciples, yet this fact is ignored and you "vote NO".
This is not how a discussion takes place.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 05:29:16 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1182 on: August 05, 2009, 05:58:38 AM »

This is not how a discussion takes place.

Is there a legitimate discussion in the Orthodox Church as to whether our bishops have authority from the Lord to ordain women priests?

Is there an open question?   Is Archbishop Seraphim of Johannesburg initiating an ivory-tower discussion with a foregone negative answer or does he believe he may ordain women if he chooses and is only holding off because it may be unacceptable to other bishops?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1183 on: August 05, 2009, 06:11:31 AM »


St. Brigid, Mary of Ireland,
Ask for us all today
The courage to do God's bidding
Whatever the world may say.

The grace to be strong and valiant,
The grace to be firm and true,
The grace to be faithful always,
To God, His Mother and you.


Since George of Oz has brought up the topic of Saint Brigid and her
episcopal ordination, will the forum members indulge me by
tolerating a posting of my anecdote.


Due to my age stretching back into dim forgotten ages, I was
blessed to be educated in Catholic parochial schools at a time when they
were staffed by good Irish sisters. These sisters were walking
compendiums (compendia, if you like) of Irish oral tradition. They
functioned for us kids as apocryphal Gospels, and they knew everything,
whether within or without the Deposit of Faith. These holy nuns taught
us that St. Brigid was a bishop of the Church.

In catechism classes we learnt how Bishop Saint Mael came to Kildare to
install Brigid as abbess. Before the ceremony he was treated to the
hospitality for which she is so justly renowned and loved. Her liberal
provision of strong drink confused the bishop so that he mistakenly
consecrated her as bishop instead of abbess. And thereupon a great
debate arose though all Ireland. The decision was agreed that the power
of an episcopal consecration was irresistible, irremediable, irretractable,
even when administered in error and under the influence. Brigid had
become a bishop, but she was placed under a forbidding against the using
of her powers. Possibly at that period the Church had not expounded
theories of matter and form, of licit and valid and legal.  All they knew in
Ireland was that Brigid had been mistakenly turned into a bishop
-mistakenly, yes, - but a bishop she had been made.

The story affirms that Brigid was obedient in not exercising her
episcopal faculties, although she slipped up once or twice in ordaining
a priest or two, when the bishop was tardy. Saint Mael was remorseful
of his error, and undertook a pilgrimage of
expiation, to Jerusalem, and there at the grave of Mary he was
reproached by her for administering to Brigid an honour which even the
Queen of Heaven had neither sought nor received. She forgave him however
and laid upon him the penance of never touching strong drink until the
day when he would drink the new wine in the Kingdom of her Son. This
makes Saint Mael Ireland's first (and possibly only) teetotaller.

The good nuns at school delighted in this naughty tradition, this
breakdown of normal church order, although it was never recounted in the
presence of any priest. Nonetheless, it is part of the oral tradition
of the Irish Catholic Church, transmitted to me as a boy and with a fond
place in my heart even now.

The chapel in the convent of Anglican sisters in Christchurch, NZ,
contains a fine stained glass window of St.Brigid, a window they say is
over 80 years old, and which shows the Saint clothed in the vestments of
a bishop.

In the love of Christ Who is wonderful in His Saints,
Father Ambrose

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1184 on: August 05, 2009, 06:45:07 AM »

^Hard to see how it would be canonical: the Apostolic Constitutions call for three ordaining bishops.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1185 on: August 05, 2009, 07:45:31 AM »

^Hard to see how it would be canonical: the Apostolic Constitutions call for three ordaining bishops.

^Hard to see how it would be canonical: the Apostolic Constitutions call for three ordaining bishops.

The British were probably unaware of the Apostolic Constitutions.  The dating is very problematic.

Certainly the British and the Irish consecrated with just one bishop.  This was seen as an anomaly in later centuries but at the time nobody thought badly of it.  It was not seen as rendering the consecration ineffective.

We find in Saint Bede's 8th century "History of the English People" the questions which Saint Augustine in the late 6th century addressed to Pope Saint Gregory concerning his work in Britain.  One of his questions (the sixth?) asks the Pope if bishops may be consecrated by a single bishop.  The Pope replies in the affirmative but asks that where possible there be three or four bishops present.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1186 on: August 05, 2009, 08:07:08 AM »

In Orthodoxy the all-male priesthood is not based on the idea that women can't represent Jesus; if replication of the specifics of the Incarnation is the goal, only a first-century Jew could come near that. In Orthodoxy, it's not Jesus, but the Father whom those serving at the altar represent, and whatever else a woman can be (and, in Orthodoxy, she can be anything else: choir director, lector, teacher, head of the parish council) she cannot be a Father. She can be a Mother, of course, and so there is a recognized and honored role for the priest's wife, with a title: Khouria (Arabic), Matushka (Russian), or Presbytera (Greek).
—Frederica Mathewes-Green in "Prologue: In the Passenger Seat" from her book Facing East: A Pilgrim's Journey Into the Mysteries of Orthodoxy

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ordination_of_Women
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1187 on: August 05, 2009, 08:27:46 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it's not Jesus, but the Father whom those serving at the altar represent
I'm wondering about this quote from Matushka Mathews-Green. Does anyone know what this idea that the Priest represents God the Father at the altar is this based on? Why would the Father have his back to us facing the same direction we are and supplicating the Trinity and offering the Gifts of the Holy Table to God "for all and in all"? I've never understood how anyone can think that the Priest "represents Christ"  or "represents the Father" when He is offering Christ to the Father. If the Priest represents anyone, it is we, the Church, that he represents.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1188 on: August 05, 2009, 08:34:43 AM »

Is there a legitimate discussion in the Orthodox Church as to whether our bishops have authority from the Lord to ordain women priests?

1) What constitutes a "legitimate" discussion?
3) Our Bishops once had the authority from the Lord to ordain Deaconesses, then they didn't, now they do again. Our Bishops once had the authority from the Lord to marry, now they do not. Given this, I'm not sure that we can conclude what the Lord will grant authority to our Bishops to do in the future.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1189 on: August 05, 2009, 08:39:41 AM »

[I'm wondering about this quote from Matushka Mathews-Green. Does anyone know what this idea that the Priest represents God the Father at the altar is this based on? Why would the Father have his back to us facing the same direction we are and supplicating the Trinity and offering the Gifts of the Holy Table to God "for all and in all"? I've never understood how anyone can think that the Priest "represents Christ"  or "represents the Father" when He is offering Christ to the Father. If the Priest represents anyone, it is we, the Church, that he represents.

I also find the concept of the priest as an image of God the Father something I have not encountered before.

The image of the priest as "alter Christus" is not out of place within Orthodoxy and we do not have to shy away from it because the Catholics have emphasized it so very heavily.  But, as George says, he also represents the people of God.

"For Irenaeus the bishop is alter apostolus wheras for Ignatius the bishop is alter Christus. For Irenaeus, the bishop was someone who expressed the apostolicity of the Church whereas for Ignatius the bishop was someone who took care of his flock as a living icon of Christ. There is no contradiction in the two terms but simply a difference of emphasis; the terms are complementary."

Philip Kariatlis
St Andrew's Theological College,
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia

http://orthodoxchristian.info/pages/St_Irenaeus.htm
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1190 on: August 05, 2009, 08:44:50 AM »

Is there a legitimate discussion in the Orthodox Church as to whether our bishops have authority from the Lord to ordain women priests?

1) What constitutes a "legitimate" discussion?

In the sense:  is it a legitimate discussion if we conduct it with open-ended possibilities,  yes, our bishops have the authority to ordain women or, no, our bishops do not have the authority to ordain women (we are speaking of women priests, not deaconesses.)  In other words, are we prepared to say that we are ignorant of the answer at this time and it awaits a resolution in the future?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1191 on: August 05, 2009, 08:55:29 AM »

The ever-memorable letter from the ever-memorable Fr Alexander Schmeman

Concerning Women's Ordination -
a letter to an episcopal friend

by the Rt. Rev. Alexander Schmemann, S.T.D., LL.D, D.D.

http://www.episcopalnet.org/TRACTS/ConcerningOrdination.html



Dear Friend:

When you asked me to outline the Orthodox reaction to the idea of women's ordination to the priesthood, I thought at first that to do so would not be too difficult. It is not difficult, indeed, simply to state that the Orthodox Church is against women's priesthood and to enumerate as fully as possible the dogmatical, canonical, and spiritual reasons for that opposition.

On second thought, however, I became convinced that such an answer would be not only useless, but even harmful. Useless, because all such "formal reasons" - scriptural, traditional, canonical - are well known to the advocates of women's ordination, as is also well known our general ecclesiological stand which, depending on their mood and current priorities, our Western Brothers either hail as Orthodoxy's "main" ecumenical contribution or dismiss as archaic, narrow-minded, and irrelevant. Harmful, because true formally, this answer would still vitiate the real Orthodox position by reducing it to a theological context and perspective, alien to the Orthodox mind. For the Orthodox Church has never faced this question, it is for us totally extrinsic, a casus irrealis for which we find no basis, no terms of reference in our Tradition, in the very experience of the Church, and for the discussion of which we are therefore simply not prepared.

Such is then my difficulty. I cannot discuss the problem itself because to do so would necessitate the elucidation of our approach - not to women and to priesthood only - but, above all to God in his Triune Life, to Creation, Fall and Redemption, to the Church and the mystery of her life, to the deification of man and the consummation of all things in Christ. Short of all this it would remain incomprehensible, I am sure, why the ordination of women to priesthood is tantamount for us to a radical and irreparable mutilation of the entire faith, the rejection of the whole Scripture, and, needless to say, the end of all "dialogues" . Short of all this my answer will sound like another "conservative" and "traditional" defense of the status quo, of precisely that which many Christians today, having heard it too many times, reject as hypocrisy, lack of openness to God's will, blindness to the world, etc. Obviously enough those who reject Tradition would not listen once more to an argumentex traditione....

But to what will they listen? Our amazement - and the Orthodox reaction is above all that of amazement - is precisely about the change and, to us, incomprehensible hastiness with which the question of women's ordination was, first, accepted as an issue, then quickly reduced to the level of a disciplinary "matter" and finally identified as an issue of policy to be dealt with by a vote! In this strange situation all I can do is to try to convey to you this amazement by briefly enumerating its main "components" as I see and understand them.

The first dimension of our amazement can be termed "ecumenical." The debate on women's ordination reveals something which we have suspected for a long time but which now is confirmed beyond any doubt: the total truly built-in indifference of the Christian West to anything beyond the sphere of its own problematics, of its own experience. I can only repeat here what I have said before: even the so-called "ecumenical movement," notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, has always been, and still is, a purely Western phenomenon, based on Western presuppositions and determined by a specifically Western agenda. This is not "pride" or "arrogance." On the contrary, the Christian West is almost obsessed with a guilt complex and enjoys nothing better than self-criticism and self condemnation. It is rather a total inability to transcend itself, to accept the simple idea that its own experience, problems, thought forms and priorities may not be universal, that they themselves may need to be evaluated and judged in the light of a truly universal, truly "Catholic" experience. Western Christians would almost enthusiastically judge and condemn themselves, but on their own terms, within their own hopelessly "Western" perspective. Thus when they decide -- on the basis of their own possibly limited and fragmented, specifically Western, "cultural situation" -- that they must "repair" injustices made to women, they plan to do it immediately without even asking what the "others" may think about it, and are sincerely amazed and even saddened by lack, on the part of these "others" of ecumenical spirit, sympathy and comprehension.

Personally, I have often enough criticized the historical limitations of the Orthodox mentality not to have the right to say in all sincerity that to me the debate on women's ordination seems to be provincial, deeply marked, and even determined by Western selfcenteredness and self-sufficiency, by a naive, almost childish, conviction that every "trend" in the Western culture justifies a radical rethinking of the entire Christian tradition. How many such "trends" we have witnessed during the last decades of our troubled century! How many corresponding "theologies"! The difference this time, however, is that one deals in this particular debate not with a passing intellectual and academic "fad" like "death of God," "secular city," "celebration of life" etc.-- which, after it has produced a couple of ephemeral best-sellers, simply disappears, but with the threat of an irreversible and irreparable act which, if it becomes reality, will produce a new, and this time, I am convinced, final division among Christians, and will signify, at least for the Orthodox, the end of all dialogues.

It is well known that the advocates of women's ordination explain the Scriptural and the traditional exclusion of women from ministry by "cultural conditioning." If Christ did not include women into the Twelve, if the Church for centuries did not include them into priesthood, it is because of "culture" which would have made it impossible and unthinkable then. It is not my purpose to discuss here the theological and exegetical implications of this view as well as its purely historical basis, which incidentally seems to me extremely weak and shaky; what is truly amazing is that while absolutely convinced that they understand past "cultures," the advocates of women's ordination seem to be totally unaware of their own cultural "conditioning" of their own surrender to culture.

How else can one explain their readiness to accept what may prove to be a passing phenomenon and what, at any rate, is a phenomenon barely at its beginning (not to speak of the women's liberation movement, which at present is nothing but search and experimentation) as a sufficient justification for a radical change in the very structure of the Church? How else, furthermore, are we to explain that this movement is accepted on its own terms, within the perspective of "rights", "justice," "equality," Etc. -- all categories whose ability adequately to express the Christian faith and to be applied as such within the Church is, to say the least, questionable?

The sad truth is that the very idea of women's ordination, as it is presented and discussed today, is the result of too many confusions and reductions. If its root is surrender to "culture", its pattern of development is shaped by a surrender to "clericalism." It is indeed almost entirely dominated by the old "clerical" view of the Church and the double "reduction" interest in it. The reduction on the one hand, of the Church to a "power structure," the reduction on the other hand, of that power structure to clergy. To the alleged "inferiority" of women within the secular power structure, corresponds their "inferiority," i.e., their exclusion from clergy, within the ecclesiastical power structure. To their "liberation" in the secular society must therefore correspond their "liberation" i.e., ordination, in the Church.

But the Church simply cannot be reduced to these categories. As long as we try to measure the ineffable mystery of her life by concepts and ideas a priori alien to her very essence, we entirely mutilate her, and her real power, her glory and beauty, and her transcendent truth simply escape us.

That is why in conclusion of this letter I can only confess, without explaining and justifying this confession by my "proofs." I can confess that the non-ordination of women to priesthood has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with whatever "inferiority" we can invent or imagine. In the essential reality which alone constitutes the content of our faith and shapes the entire life of the Church, in the reality of the Kingdom of God which is perfect communion, perfect knowledge, perfect love and ultimately the "deification" of man, there is truly "neither male nor female." More than that, in this reality, of which we are made partakers here and now, we all, men and women, without any distinction, are "Kings and priests," for it is the essential priesthood of the human nature and vocation that Christ has restored to us.

It is of this priestly life, it is of this ultimate reality, that the Church is both gift and acceptance. And that she may be this, that she may always and everywhere be the gift of the Spirit without any measure or limitations, the Son of God offered himself in a unique sacrifice, and made this unique sacrifice and this unique priesthood the very foundation, indeed the very "form" of the Church.

This priesthood is Christ's, not ours. None of us, man or woman, has any "right" to it; it is emphatically not one of human vocations, analogous, even if superior, to all others. The priest in the Church is not "another" priest, and the sacrifice he offers is not "another" sacrifice. It is forever and only Christ's priesthood and Christ's sacrifice -- for, in the words of our Prayers of Offertory, it is "Thou who offerest and Thou who art offered, it is Thou who receivest and Thou who distributest..." And thus the "institutional" priest in the Church has no "ontology" of his own. It exists only to make Christ himself present, to make this unique Priesthood and this unique Sacrifice the source of the Church's life and the "acquisition" by men of the Holy Spirit. And if the bearer, the icon and the fulfiller of that unique priesthood, is man and not woman, it is because Christ is man and not woman.....

Why? This of course is the only important, the only relevant question. The one precisely that no "culture," no "sociology," no "history" and even no "exegesis" can answer. For it can be answered only by theology in the primordial and essential meaning of that word in the Church; as the contemplation and vision of the Truth itself, as communion with the uncreated Divine Light. It is only here, in this purified and restored vision that we might begin to understand why the ineffable mystery of the relationship between God and His Creation, between God and His chosen people, between God and His Church, are "essentially" revealed to us as a nuptial mystery, as fulfillment of a mystical marriage. Why in other terms, Creation itself, the Church herself, man and the world themselves, when contemplated in their ultimate truth and destiny, are revealed to us as Bride, as Woman clothed in sun; why in the very depth of her love and knowledge, of her joy and communion, the Church identifies herself with one Woman, whom she exalts as "more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim."

Is it this mystery that has to be "understood" by means of our broken and fallen world, which knows and experiences itself only in its brokenness and fragmentation, its tensions and dichotomies and which, as such, is incapable of the ultimate vision? Or is it this vision and this unique experience that must again become to us the "means" of our understanding of the world, the starting point and the very possibility of a truly Divine victory over all that in this world is but human, historical and cultural?

« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 08:56:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1192 on: August 05, 2009, 08:59:12 AM »

These holy nuns taught
us that St. Brigid was a bishop of the Church.

Is this still common knowledge in the Catholic Church or has it been forgotten? I'm surprised that groups such as "Roman Catholic Women Priests" (mentioned earlier in the thread) haven't run with it. A search of their website for the strings "Brigid" and  "Briget" bring up nothing.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1193 on: August 05, 2009, 09:32:54 AM »

Is this still common knowledge in the Catholic Church or has it been forgotten?

As you mention, her episcopal consecration by Saint Mael is recorded in one of her Lives (circa 8th century)  but I don't think it has ever been given great credence. 

For the text:
http://mm.usc.edu/bibliographia/?function=detail&id=6740

There are five or six earlier Lives of Saint Brigid (Saint Broccan Cloen's, Saint Kilian's, Saint Donatus, Saint Alerian the Wise, Saint Colgan of Kildare - these would all be interesting to check whether or not they mention the consecration.)

The Book of Lismore bears this story:

"Brigid and certain virgins along with her went to take the veil from Bishop Mel in Telcha Mide. Blithe was he to see them. For humility Brigid stayed so that she might be the last to whom a veil should be given. A fiery pillar rose from her head to the roof ridge of the church. Then said Bishop Mel: "Come, O holy Brigid, that a veil may be sained on thy head before the other virgins." It came to pass then, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, that the form of ordaining a bishop was read out over Brigid. Macaille [another bishop present] said that a bishop's order should not be confirmed on a woman. Said Bishop Mel "No power have I in this matter. That dignity hath been given by God unto Brigid, beyond every other woman." Wherefore the men of Ireland from that time to this give episcopal honour to Brigid's successor."

Most likely this story relates to the fact that Roman diocesan system was unknown in Ireland. Monasteries formed the centre of Christian life in the early Church of Ireland. Therefore, abbots and abbesses could hold held some of the dignity and functions that a bishop would on the Continent. Abbots and abbesses were presented with an abbatial staff and sometimes with a crown/mitre - these items could have caused the confusion?

Women sometimes ruled double monasteries, thus governing both men and women. Bridget, as a pre-eminent abbess, might have fulfilled some semi-episcopal functions, such as preaching, hearing confessions (without absolution), and leading the neighbouring Christians.
Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,584



WWW
« Reply #1194 on: August 05, 2009, 09:44:20 AM »


I'm with you! I vote NO to a female priesthood!

I didn't think this thread was a poll....is it?
I can't see the point of threads which are no more than "I want x, you want y".
As pointed out, LisaSymonenko was incorrect in her assumption that Christ had no female disciples, yet this fact is ignored and you "vote NO".
This is not how a discussion takes place.

I don't think I was incorrect.

While there are women who are considered "Equal to the Apostles" - none of the original twelve were women.

I hold the myrrhbearers and all the female saints, and especially the Mother of God in the highest esteem and respect. I love them all, and do not diminish their lives or the role they have played in the Church.  However, that does not change the fact that of the disciples that Christ called (the original 12), none were women.  Or am I reading a different Gospel than the rest of you?

As I recall the woman, such as Mary Magdalene were not "called" by Christ.  They joined Him on their own.  He did not go out in search of them, or call them by name.
While Christ did not rebuff them, for He came to teach and save everyone, He did not include them in the "inner" circle.

I fully agree that women have a significant role to play within Orthodoxy.  However, priesthood is NOT one of those roles.  To satisfy one's own ambitions and "calling" while in the process rocking the Church and Faith is unacceptable.  If a women has a "calling" than fill it some other way!

Female deacons were necessary in the old days.  The priests (men, by the way) were not permitted to touch women while ministering to them, nor to visit a sick woman alone.  This is where the deaconess came in to play.  She would, on behalf of the male priest, minister to women.  She would visit the infirm, etc.

I respect the Church too much to just sit by and have someone change it because they feel the "need" to serve!  Please!  That's just pride on the woman's part.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

Matthew 10:1
And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

Matthew 11:1
And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

Matthew 26:20
Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

# Mark 6:7
And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;


I could go on...however, I am trying to make the point that the TWELVE were not women, even though there were women disciples and there were and are women "Equal to the Apostles".

OzGeorge, welcome back, but, don't be so condescending.  You will hamper the very discussion you are trying to have.


Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1195 on: August 05, 2009, 10:01:41 AM »

In Orthodoxy, it's not Jesus, but the Father whom those serving at the altar represent
I'm wondering about this quote from Matushka Mathews-Green. Does anyone know what this idea that the Priest represents God the Father at the altar is this based on? Why would the Father have his back to us facing the same direction we are and supplicating the Trinity and offering the Gifts of the Holy Table to God "for all and in all"? I've never understood how anyone can think that the Priest "represents Christ"  or "represents the Father" when He is offering Christ to the Father. If the Priest represents anyone, it is we, the Church, that he represents.

The priest actually represents the bishop, a living antimens, but I'm with you: I don't find the male iconic argument much in Orthodoxy as we do in the Vatican's defense of a male priesthood.  But then, we don't have the same problems as they do. Not alter Christus, but in peronsam Christi.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 10:03:28 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1196 on: August 05, 2009, 10:19:13 AM »


I'm with you! I vote NO to a female priesthood!

I didn't think this thread was a poll....is it?
I can't see the point of threads which are no more than "I want x, you want y".
As pointed out, LisaSymonenko was incorrect in her assumption that Christ had no female disciples, yet this fact is ignored and you "vote NO".
This is not how a discussion takes place.

I don't think I was incorrect.
I see now that you are equating the terms "Apostle" and "Disciple". This is where you are incorrect. An Apostle is a Disciple, but a Disciple is not necessarily an Apostle. For example, in John 19:38, we read that St. Joseph of Arimithea was "a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews",  But St. Joseph was not "one of the Twelve" (i.e., Apostles).

there were women disciples and there were and are women "Equal to the Apostles".
Thank you for clearing that up. That's all I was saying. How else was I supposed to know that you meant "the Twelve" when you said "Disciples"?

OzGeorge, welcome back, but, don't be so condescending. 
 I find the sincerity of your welcome is quenstionable seeing that you think I am being condescending.

You will hamper the very discussion you are trying to have.
Well, the discussion has actually been quite enlightening so far; I'm learning a lot about St. Brigid, Consecration of Bishops by one Bishop alone in the early Church of the British Isles, the correspondence of St. Augustine with Pope St. Gregory to name a few, so the discussion doesn't seem hampered from my perspective. Is something hampering your discussion?  
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1197 on: August 05, 2009, 10:21:27 AM »

"Women and the Priesthood" was Orthodoxy's first attempt at a response to the Anglican ordination of women.  Contributions from Meyendorff, Schmemann, Afanassiev.  I remember how greedily we drank in this book because we needed some intelligent, and orthodox,  response to all our Anglican friends.   One of the main planks of the argument is based on the symbolic and iconic function of the male priest as alter Christus and the relationship of the priest to the Church (the male priest to the Bride of the Church.).    Since then Saint Vladimir's have gone on publishing more material from theologians and the iconic image of the male priesthood plays a large role.

However, in the end the argument is always reduced to one - we cannot do it because it is contrary to what we have received.  A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1198 on: August 05, 2009, 10:26:33 AM »

Consecration of Bishops by one Bishop alone in the early Church of the British Isles

This has taken place in the history of the Russian Church Abroad, even within the last few decades, although the details have slipped into the irretrievable section of my memory banks.  If ROCORthodox is reading this he may have details.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1199 on: August 05, 2009, 10:32:45 AM »

Lets just ask a plaing question... WHY should we ordain women as Priests if the Church has never done this before (that is w/o it being an accident/mistake)?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1200 on: August 05, 2009, 10:41:01 AM »

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1201 on: August 05, 2009, 10:52:12 AM »

"Women and the Priesthood" was Orthodoxy's first attempt at a response to the Anglican ordination of women.  Contributions from Meyendorff, Schmemann, Afanassiev.  I remember how greedily we drank in this book because we needed some intelligent, and orthodox,  response to all our Anglican friends.   One of the main planks of the argument is based on the symbolic and iconic function of the male priest as alter Christus and the relationship of the priest to the Church (the male priest to the Bride of the Church.).    Since then Saint Vladimir's have gone on publishing more material from theologians and the iconic image of the male priesthood plays a large role.

I remember coming across it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=H0omnUfYJj8C&pg=PA31&dq=Woman+and+the+Priesthood#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I found it interesting that it came from a totally different direction than the debate that was going on in Protestantism (in my old Lutheran congregation, the newly formed ELCA sent our parish, a very conservative one, a woman pastor as a sign of "get with the times).

It mentions btw, that St. Epiphanios deals with this issue in the 5th century, 15 centuries ago, and going through all the facts, he also adds in conclusion that after so many generations of not ordaining women, the Christians have no authority to do so now.  Dogmatically, one might even say the basis is better and more solid on the male priesthood than on the Assumption of the Theotokos (not part of public preaching, and know only to Jerusalem, until after Epiphanios).

Quote
However, in the end the argument is always reduced to one - we cannot do it because it is contrary to what we have received.  A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Personally, I can't say it is dogma.  But those who are for female priesthood have to make a far better argument (one that confirms, rather than destroys, Tradition) then they have managed so far (and I suspect, better than they can).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,376


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #1202 on: August 05, 2009, 10:57:30 AM »

The image of the priest as "alter Christus" is not out of place within Orthodoxy and we do not have to shy away from it because the Catholics have emphasized it so very heavily.  But, as George says, he also represents the people of God.

For what it's worth, in the Armenian Church on Good Friday, it is common for the priest's liturgical robes to be placed inside the tomb, representing Christ.  I always took that to mean that the priest in some way is acting as an icon of Christ when he performs the liturgy.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1203 on: August 05, 2009, 10:58:15 AM »

Consecration of Bishops by one Bishop alone in the early Church of the British Isles

This has taken place in the history of the Russian Church Abroad, even within the last few decades, although the details have slipped into the irretrievable section of my memory banks.  If ROCORthodox is reading this he may have details.

That would be interesting, as the first bishop of America, Joasaph, was consecrated by the bishop of Irkutsk alone, under the direct instruction and blessing of the Holy Governing Synod. It is supposedly the only recorded time the Russian Church ordained a bishop with less than three bishops physically ordaining.

Quote
In reviewing the situation of the mission, in 1796, the Holy Synod created an auxiliary see in Alaska and elected Fr. Joasaph as Bishop of Kodiak. It was 1798 before news and instructions for his elevation reached him. For his elevation to bishop, Fr. Joasaph needed to return to Irkutsk, where he was consecrated on April 10, 1799. Bp. Joasaph's consecration was unusual in that, due to the isolation of Irkutsk from the Holy Synod, the Holy Synod provided instructions for Benjamin, Bishop of Irkutsk, to perform the consecration of Fr. Joasaph alone. Thus was recorded the only known situation in the history of the Church of Russia where an episcopal consecration was conducted by a single bishop.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Joasaph_(Bolotov)_of_Kodiak

The letter of the Pope of Rome to St. Augustine would be akin to the orders of the Holy Synod.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1204 on: August 05, 2009, 11:08:18 AM »

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Even the Vatican makes the distinction between dogma and discipline.  The question is, which is the male priesthood.  Yes we had married bishops (following the example of the Apostle Peter Shocked), but we always had unmarried as well. The canon on excluding married bishops itself admits it is an innovation and has to explain itself.  It can also be removed, as later canons have replaced earlier ones before.  Remarriage of the divorced (there is doctrinally no such think as an ecclesiastical divorce) innocent party happened in the early Church.  Present day abuse of that economy does not void the dogma, just reveal a lack of discipline.

What we don't have, despite the Holy Theotokos, the deaconness, the female bishops of Gnostics and other groups, the priestesses of the pagans, etc. is the Church ordaining women (at least not under the influence Tongue).  So those in favor of ordaining woman to the episcopate (the real issue) have to show that the male priesthood has been a discipline, and not a dogma, and also why said discipline has been in place and why should it be changed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1205 on: August 05, 2009, 11:40:41 AM »

The early Church knew schismatic groups which ordained women, principally the Montanists and the Church early on formulated canons against the practice.  It is not a new problem.

Saint Augustine writes:  "The Quintillians [Montanists] are heretics who give women predominance so that these, too, can be honoured with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself to Quintilla and Priscilla in the form of a woman"  -"Heresies" 1:17. 

Saint Irenaeus writes:  ""Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protracting to great length the word of invocation, Marcus the Gnostic heretic contrives to give them a purple and reddish color. Handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them consecrate these in his presence."  - "Against Heresies"  1:13:2.

Epiphanius of Salamis: ""If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good."

Canon 11 from the Council of Laodicea in 360:  "The so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church."

This is just a fraction of the material on priestesses in the early Church.   "Women and the Priesthood" addresses the issue.


Logged
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #1206 on: August 05, 2009, 11:48:40 AM »

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

I would probably be more able to think this if there were any other examples of mothers of Bishops of Rome or anywhere being given honorary titles.
I think we create problems when we project on to history what we think "ought" to have happened. As I said: the only honest answer I can give with the evidence at hand is "I don't know" why she bears the title "Episcopa". If I knew of another example of a woman being called "Episcopa" in the Church, then I could at least hazard a guess, but the only examples I know of are female Bishops in gnostic sects. I think we need to leave the jury out on this one for the time being.

I'm not saying necessarily, but I think it important to note that her son, the bishop of Rome, commissioned the mosaics, which were done while both he and his mother were still living.  He oversaw their completion which included the title to the mosaic of his mother in the chapel he created for her. 

Which title (if any) would Pope Paschal have for his still-living mother?  In my last post I implied that it would seem natural for a son, much more the bishop of Rome, to honor his still-living mother with a title.  Perhaps he could have gotten away with a mere "Theodora".   

In short, I think that in addition to a focus on the etymology of "episcopa", attention needs be given to the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the mosaic.  From a quick search, there do appear to exist contemporary sources on Pope Paschal's building campaign, which may shed light on this mystery.   

I'm not knowledgeable of "episcopa" being used for the wives or mothers of bishops.  It may be that it was used but meant something different from how the gnostic sects centuries back used it. 


 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 11:56:04 AM by StGeorge » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1207 on: August 05, 2009, 12:04:17 PM »

Why would they want to ordain women. It has never been done in the Church and how can it now? I hope they make the right decision or we will have even more problems within the Orthodox Church.

I should think, if all other arguments failed, there remain aesthetic reasons against women's ordination:




Logged
StGeorge
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 707


St. George


« Reply #1208 on: August 05, 2009, 12:17:01 PM »

While some may not see it as a big deal, the rules concerning menstruation and reception of the Eucharist would also be a consideration against the ordination of women to the priesthood.   
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 12:17:20 PM by StGeorge » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1209 on: August 05, 2009, 12:22:21 PM »

A response similar in its simplicity to Pope Jean Paul's response:  I cannot ordain a woman since I don't have the authority.

Again this raises the question of "the authority of what or whom" in light of the fact that Christ gave the Apostles the authority that: "what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and what you loose of Earth will be loosed in Heaven". I fully agree that no Bishop of the Orthodox Church to the present has the authority to ordain a woman to the Priesthood, but can we rule out that a future Synod has the authority to "loosen on Earth" this practice and thereby loosen it in Heaven? The Church's Bishops could marry once- it was even Commanded in Scripture that they should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2), yet this was "bound on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops Church so that Bishops could no longer marry. Again, Christ Himself forbade divorce in the Gospel, yet this was "loosed on Earth and in Heaven" by the Bishops of the Church so that Ecclesiastical divorces were permitted. So if even what Christ and the Apostles permitted and forbade can be over-ruled by the Church, how can we be "certain" that a future Synod does not have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Even the Vatican makes the distinction between dogma and discipline.  The question is, which is the male priesthood.  Yes we had married bishops (following the example of the Apostle Peter Shocked), but we always had unmarried as well. The canon on excluding married bishops itself admits it is an innovation and has to explain itself.  It can also be removed, as later canons have replaced earlier ones before.
So do I understand from this that you hold that a future Synod has the can have the authority to permit the ordination of women to the Priesthood?

Remarriage of the divorced (there is doctrinally no such think as an ecclesiastical divorce) innocent party happened in the early Church.
There is such a thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, and it is a requirement if either party wishes to remarry: http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/livinganorthodoxlife/lawsandregulations/divorce . If there were no such thing as an ecclesiastical divorce, then all who remarry in the Church would be bigamists. 

Present day abuse of that economy does not void the dogma, just reveal a lack of discipline.
Economy is the "way in which the Canons are applied or relaxed", however, the permitting of second and third marriages in the Orthodox Church are based on Canon IV of St. Basil the Great in Epistle 188 (aka "First Canonical Epistle to Amphilochius") which was ratified at the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils:
"In the case of those who marry a third time they laid down the same guide, in proportion, as in the case of marrying a second time; namely one year for the second marriage; for a third marriage men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the Samaritan woman who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of a third marriage we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance."
So the permitting of remarriage is not an "Economy", but is Canonical.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2009, 12:23:16 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #1210 on: August 05, 2009, 12:22:46 PM »

While some may not see it as a big deal, the rules concerning menstruation and reception of the Eucharist would also be a consideration against the ordination of women to the priesthood.   

Maybe not. Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.  Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1211 on: August 05, 2009, 12:27:44 PM »

Pope Paschal of Rome, who happened to commission the mosaics, is also depicted with a square halo.  Theodora was Pope Paschal's mother.  The mother of the bishop of Rome ought to receive an honorary title, especially from her son, don't you think?

I would probably be more able to think this if there were any other examples of mothers of Bishops of Rome or anywhere being given honorary titles.
I think we create problems when we project on to history what we think "ought" to have happened. As I said: the only honest answer I can give with the evidence at hand is "I don't know" why she bears the title "Episcopa". If I knew of another example of a woman being called "Episcopa" in the Church, then I could at least hazard a guess, but the only examples I know of are female Bishops in gnostic sects. I think we need to leave the jury out on this one for the time being.

I'm not saying necessarily, but I think it important to note that her son, the bishop of Rome, commissioned the mosaics, which were done while both he and his mother were still living.  He oversaw their completion which included the title to the mosaic of his mother in the chapel he created for her. 

Which title (if any) would Pope Paschal have for his still-living mother?  In my last post I implied that it would seem natural for a son, much more the bishop of Rome, to honor his still-living mother with a title.  Perhaps he could have gotten away with a mere "Theodora".   

In short, I think that in addition to a focus on the etymology of "episcopa", attention needs be given to the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of the mosaic.  From a quick search, there do appear to exist contemporary sources on Pope Paschal's building campaign, which may shed light on this mystery.   

I'm not knowledgeable of "episcopa" being used for the wives or mothers of bishops.  It may be that it was used but meant something different from how the gnostic sects centuries back used it. 


 

You have hit on the problem: since a man isn't supposed to be less than 30 when ordained a priest (Christ's age at baptism), and life expectancy being what it was, how many mothers of bishops, let alone patriarchs (often requiring more time to achieve that recognition), ever lived to see their son hold high office?

How is St. Emily treated/entitled, who was buried with her husband, the bishop St. Basil the Elder, commorated with her son St. Basil on Jan 1, or May 8/30 with her husand (and mother in law Shocked St. Macrina the Elder)?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #1212 on: August 05, 2009, 12:27:59 PM »

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1213 on: August 05, 2009, 12:38:23 PM »

Wow, that first photo lubeltri posted is really troubling to me in a way. The way they are dressed is horrifying and it really makes Christianity out to look like a big joke and spectacle and that it must not be taken very seriously in those circles.
Lets hope that if an Orthodox Synod permits the ordination of women Priests that they have better dress and furniture sense.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1214 on: August 05, 2009, 12:39:33 PM »

Those that desire to be "ordained" tend to be bitter post-menopausal women.

What do you mean? Are all post menopausal women "bitter"?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Tags: ordination of women priestess Ordination priesthood priests deaconesses deacons cheval mort=dead horse laos laity 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »   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 0.175 seconds with 72 queries.