OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 01:53:04 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 181239 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #135 on: April 30, 2006, 01:02:36 AM »

Start threads specifically on the subject, and you'll likely get a lot of responses. I am not well versed in the issues, so I cannot speak there. What's disturbing, though, is that after 9 pages, not one patristic source is cited. I cannot recall any other threads quite like this.
I feel some here are blurring 'traditions' and Holy Tradition anyway.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 01:03:21 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #136 on: April 30, 2006, 01:03:07 AM »

How does one take bread AND wine in one's hands?

The Ancient Epitome of the Canon makes it even clearer:

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth

See ma, no hands!
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #137 on: April 30, 2006, 01:04:29 AM »

I feel some here are blurring 'traditions' from Holy Tradition anyway.

Sure, but if even local traditions don't support something, you know it isn't Orthodox!
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
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 #138 on: April 30, 2006, 01:04:52 AM »

Start threads specifically on the subject, and you'll likely get a lot of responses. I am not well versed in the issues, so I cannot speak there. What's disturbing, though, is that after 9 pages, not one patristic source is cited. I cannot recall any other threads quite like this.
Well, the obvious patristic support would be the ordination by cheirotonia of female Deacons, and it has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #139 on: April 30, 2006, 01:06:23 AM »

The Ancient Epitome of the Canon makes it even clearer:

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth

See ma, no hands!
It seems this is the way. In my church it's combined. In the quote I cited above (Cyprian) the Eucharist given to a posessed girl is all from a cup. Not the hand.

Though I must repeat that some are trying an argument here for women priests by stealth; by confusing 'tradition' with 'Holy Tradition' and then stating the truism that 'traditions' have changed in order to suggest 'Holy Tradition' should change. Women priests are part of Holy Tradition, and despite one person's claim that nothings been cited to this effect, I've cited Paul with reference to the role of women in Church.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #140 on: April 30, 2006, 01:07:41 AM »

Well, the obvious patristic support would be the ordination by cheirotonia of female Deacons, and it has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere.
Deacons aren't priests
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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 #141 on: April 30, 2006, 01:10:28 AM »

The Ancient Epitome of the Canon makes it even clearer:

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth

See ma, no hands!
Well then, St. Cyril of Jerusalem is pretty naughty, because on the same page, he is quoted as saying:
"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.(Cateches. Mystagog. v.388)"
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #142 on: April 30, 2006, 01:12:24 AM »

Well then, St. Cyril of Jerusalem is pretty naughty, because on the same page, he is quoted as saying:
"When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.(Cateches. Mystagog. v.388)"


That's what canons are for. Every Church Father can't be right every time, so the standard was written down. Perhaps the author of that webpage didn't quite catch what both the canon, and the epitome, said.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
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 #143 on: April 30, 2006, 01:15:10 AM »

Deacons aren't priests
Priests are ordained by cheirotonia, and so are Deacons.
I remember a few years back there was an uproar on Orthodox forums because the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America tonsured a woman as a Reader. The reason for the uproar was because this is the first step toward Priesthood (as even the prayers for tonsuring a Reader say). If that is the case with merely tonsuring Readers, how much more the case actually ordaining a Deacon by cheirotonia?
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 #144 on: April 30, 2006, 01:17:50 AM »

Deacons aren't priests
And also, in Orthodoxy, there are only three levels of Priesthood:
Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #145 on: April 30, 2006, 01:18:24 AM »

John Chrysostomon says, in part...
For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation.
Book III.5
TREATISE ON THE PRIESTHOOD
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-09/npnf1-09-08.htm#TopOfPage
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #146 on: April 30, 2006, 01:19:44 AM »

Priests are ordained by cheirotonia, and so are Deacons.
I remember a few years back there was an uproar on Orthodox forums because the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America tonsured a woman as a Reader. The reason for the uproar was because this is the first step toward Priesthood (as even the prayers for tonsuring a Reader say). If that is the case with merely tonsuring Readers, how much more the case actually ordaining a Deacon by cheirotonia?
The tonsuring too goes against Paul's wishes regarding women's hair.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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 #147 on: April 30, 2006, 01:22:16 AM »

The tonsuring too goes against Paul's wishes regarding women's hair.
Again, we Greek Orthodox need to close down our convents, because all monastics, male and female, are tonsured.
Oh those disgraceful women! Wink
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #148 on: April 30, 2006, 01:23:06 AM »

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
Clement of Rome Chapter XLIV.-The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office. "Epistle to the Corinthians"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-05.htm#P171_20841
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #149 on: April 30, 2006, 01:24:02 AM »

Again, we Greek Orthodox need to close down our convents, because all monastics, male and female, are tonsured.
Oh those disgraceful women!
No one's perfect
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #150 on: April 30, 2006, 01:24:39 AM »

The tonsuring too goes against Paul's wishes regarding women's hair.

Along that same line, Paul wrote to Pheobe, a deaconess at Cenchrea. It seems to logically follow that the she was not tonsured by the cutting of hair, something which he himself condmned. Therefore, any other precdent is not in line with the early Church. And, being that the readership is a path to priesthood, as ozgeorge said, it further shows that deaconesses are on a distinctly different one.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #151 on: April 30, 2006, 01:32:31 AM »

Firstly I misread Paul's ideas of women's hair
1 Corinthians 11: 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

As to women's ordination, we start off with the key texts are 1 Corinthians 14:33-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and as to different roles, 1 Corinthians 11:3
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
StBrigid
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 81

Coptic Orthodox


WWW
« Reply #152 on: April 30, 2006, 02:16:01 AM »

Our God is a God of Order not kaos.

Christ left us with an order that is greater than our earthly human social conscience and ideas about fairness and equality no matter how right we may think it is. When we begin to try to adapt these ideologies to Christ' established order destruction of our faith to him soon follows.

Like I read in a post that 'the traditions of the Church is loosing favor among the followers in this current age'. This is due to the need to secularize the the Holy Church to bring it more in line with the 'common' rather faithless nature of the current generation (we want the Church to conform to us; instead of us conforming to the Church).

Hear hear.  Amdetsion, your ideas are all superbly stated.  Having converted from Protestantism, I'm sickened when I hear Orthodox Christians begin to discuss such matters in the same manner that they do, for the reasons you lay out, alongside the fact that it is against Scripture and Tradition (as if that weren't enough!!).

It is the world that tells women we cannot be anything until we are just like men.  This isn't setting us free- quite the opposite.
Logged
StBrigid
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 81

Coptic Orthodox


WWW
« Reply #153 on: April 30, 2006, 02:26:03 AM »

Angry ÂÂ  Angry ÂÂ  Angry

WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!!!!

That good 'n' clear??

Brother Ed
LOL

This was my first thought when reading the post topic but I decided it wasn't genteel enough to post.  Thanks for seconding, however.  Wink
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 02:26:29 AM by StBrigid » 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 #154 on: April 30, 2006, 02:40:58 AM »

Having converted from Protestantism, I'm sickened when I hear Orthodox Christians begin to discuss such matters in the same manner that they do
And here, I think, is the crux of the problem of this thread. This discussion will never be able to take place on this forum because of the baggage converts bring from their old confessions. "It shouldn't be done because that's what Protestants do." Well Protestants reject Papal Infallibility, does that mean the Orthodox should embrace it?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #155 on: April 30, 2006, 02:50:12 AM »

And here, I think, is the crux of the problem of this thread. This discussion will never be able to take place on this forum because of the baggage converts bring from their old confessions. "It shouldn't be done because that's what Protestants do." Well Protestants reject Papal Infallibility, does that mean the Orthodox should embrace it?
That's not what the ex-Protestant StBrigid said. She based her argument on tradition and scripture.
Hear hear.  Amdetsion, your ideas are all superbly stated.  Having converted from Protestantism, I'm sickened when I hear Orthodox Christians begin to discuss such matters in the same manner that they do, for the reasons you lay out, alongside the fact that it is against Scripture and Tradition (as if that weren't enough!!).
Not only do you re-write her argument, but unable to prove why women should be priests (other than to appeal to modernist notions) you've moved to one of arguing by stealth; confusing 'traditions' with 'Holy Tradition'.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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 #156 on: April 30, 2006, 02:55:24 AM »

Well, this dialogue and discussion is going as well as I expected....mores the pity
This "modernist" is outta here.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #157 on: April 30, 2006, 02:56:56 AM »

Hear hear.  Amdetsion, your ideas are all superbly stated.  Having converted from Protestantism, I'm sickened when I hear Orthodox Christians begin to discuss such matters in the same manner that they do, for the reasons you lay out, alongside the fact that it is against Scripture and Tradition (as if that weren't enough!!).
That should be enough but some have it in their heart that there should be a different Orthodox Church, one that is up-beat and hip to what ever the latest fad is.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #158 on: April 30, 2006, 03:02:25 AM »

Well, this dialogue and discussion is going as well as I expected....mores the pity
This "modernist" is outta here.
Yes it does seem to follow a pattern. Some modernists make a bid to advocate popularist ideals, and in absence of any evidence from tradition simply tries to make other argument.



I'm surprised in fact that those who've cited scripture as evidence haven't been accused of doing that for the purposes of quote mining - evidence it seems is to be despised as well.


What this thread needs is some picture of a sunrise to sum everything up.


Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #159 on: April 30, 2006, 03:12:08 AM »

One thing that seems to have emerged here is a confusion between 'traditions' and 'Holy Tradition'. This is the same mistake I've met with when discussing our church with Protestants.

There are some things that have always been taught. Some things that have always been practiced.

Leaving that aside (since I've already raised it here and no one's responded), I should like to pose a question, to take a different tack...

I would like to know why women should be allowed to be priests.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #160 on: April 30, 2006, 03:32:35 AM »

I have never been particularly fond of the "Big T Tradition" vs. "little t tradition" dichotomy, nor do I really know where it came from (I haven't read it in any of the Church Fathers, and while Lossky does have an essay titled Tradition and Traditions, I have read the essay many times and not really found the terms used in the same way that people on the internet use them today.) Nonetheless, let's say for the sake of argument that the distinction is valid. That raises an rather important practical question: how does someone know whether something is Tradition, as opposed to just being a tradition?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 03:34:53 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #161 on: April 30, 2006, 03:35:53 AM »

I have never been particularly fond of the "Big T Tradition" vs. "little t tradition" dichotomy, nor do I really know where it came from (I haven't read it in any of the Church Fathers, and while Lossky does have an essay title Tradition and Traditions, I have read the essay many times and not really found the terms used in the same way that people on the internet use them today.) Nonetheless, let's say for the sake of argument that the distinction is valid. That raises an rather important practical question: how does someone know whether something is Tradition, as opposed to just being a tradition?
There has to be a distinction by virtue of the fact that we can't change what Jesus taught, but the ordinances of man can be changed.

Issues such as whether one can sit during the Liturgy, or for that matter how long the liturgy has to go on for I don't see are issues that Jesus taught us about.

Things such as the 'nature of the Trinity' would be the same now, as it was then.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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 #162 on: April 30, 2006, 03:41:29 AM »

how does someone know whether something is Tradition, as opposed to just being a tradition?
Just ask a neophyte.
Preferably one wearing the equivalent of a banquet tablecloth on her head- they know. Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #163 on: April 30, 2006, 03:46:14 AM »

Why don't you just call traditions that can change "customs," so as to avoid all the confusion that results from attributing to the word tradition two wholly different meanings? Practically I agree with your point about things changing over time (though I would extend it further) Still, I know you are a huge fan of quoting Church Fathers, so could you quote some that mention this distinction? Thanks Smiley

Also, I'm afraid you still haven't explained how you know which is the immutable Big T Tradition. Giving an example does not define the method for determining which is which, it only gives an example. This would be like me asking how you tell the difference between a good and bad Quarterback, and you responding that John Elway was a good Quarterback, while Bubby Brister was a bad one. As I'm sure you can see, that doesn't explain why or how you can determine if a Quaterback is good. In other words, you have given me a couple conclusions, but I'm asking you what process you went through to reach those conclusions. You say that the nature of the Trinity is the same now as then... how do you know for sure?

Perhaps I am just missing it though, if perhaps you are implying that Jesus had to teach something for it to be Tradition? But in that case, what about some of his teachings which the Orthodox Church doesn't follow exactly, like only allowing divorce in cases of adultery? How do you know that divorce is a matter of little-t tradition and not Big-T Tradition?
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #164 on: April 30, 2006, 06:14:47 AM »

Just ask a neophyte.
Do I detect a touch of snobbery from a cradle-Orthodox? You seem to have a problem with one ex-Protestant (earlier) who was zealous in her beliefs in Orthodox traditions.

Zeal of the neophytes may just kick-start some pride into those who grovel at the feet of modernity.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 06:30:43 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #165 on: April 30, 2006, 06:29:19 AM »

Why don't you just call traditions that can change "customs," so as to avoid all the confusion that results from attributing to the word tradition two wholly different meanings?
Why don't we call them different things? Perhaps it's traditional we use those terms Shocked
Practically I agree with your point about things changing over time (though I would extend it further) Still, I know you are a huge fan of quoting Church Fathers, so could you quote some that mention this distinction? Thanks
Indeed I'm a big big fan of the Church Fathers.
There's a great source of bite-like gleanings that even the hectic and busy modernist can consume at
http://www.orthodox.net/gleanings/index.html  Roll Eyes
Also, I'm afraid you still haven't explained how you know which is the immutable Big T Tradition. Giving an example does not define the method for determining which is which, it only gives an example.
This is true. I have not. I would look to the Church Fathers to see what they determine as matters of dogma; but knowing that some things have already changed, viz. seating in church, I would assume/presume to guess that that is not a matter of dogma.
You say that the nature of the Trinity is the same now as then... how do you know for sure?
The answer to this is in parts. Irenaeus says that the fullness of teaching was given to the Apostles at Pentecost.
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge…,"

Irenaeus - "Against Heresies" Book III.I.I http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859

(Irenaeus goes into some lengths to show how the truth was established through a particular line (Apostolic Succession) in order to argue against many of the bewildering heresies that popped up in his own day.)



I know from reading “St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy : Its History, Theology, and Texts” by John Anthony McGuckin (still haven't finished it) that when St. Cyril was faced with arguing against Nestorius he went to what had always been taught. This was agreed to by an Ecumenical Council. There was no appeal to 'compromise' between the respective camps. It was a matter of saying "This is what we have always taught".



I have no evidence for a change in teaching.


Perhaps I am just missing it though, if perhaps you are implying that Jesus had to teach something for it to be Tradition?
See above re: Pentecost. It is my belief that Holy Tradition is not man-made, but God-made.
But in that case, what about some of His teachings which the Orthodox Church doesn't follow exactly, like only allowing divorce in cases of adultery? How do you know that divorce is a matter of little-t tradition and not Big-T Tradition?
I don't have an answer in that regards the teaching of divorce. In fact I don't know much about what the Church Fathers say, even though I'm also reading "On Marriage and Family Life" by St. John Chrysostomon (I just haven't got up to any part on divorce - if there is some).
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #166 on: April 30, 2006, 10:06:47 AM »

I myself would have to say that the Vincentian canon is generally the standard by which all tradition is judged. It seems to work every time, it always determines the ancient, patristic path.

Overview: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/4608.htm

Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
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 #167 on: April 30, 2006, 10:46:15 AM »

The question remains whether a male-only priesthood is a matter of unchangeable dogma (such as the Veneration of Icons) or simply a changeable custom (such as the absence of pews or the Calendar), and even the Vincentian Canon doesn't help us here. This is a question which the Holy Spirit will have to provide an answer for at a future Oecumenical Synod.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 10:55:25 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #168 on: April 30, 2006, 12:06:20 PM »

The Vincentian Canon... I'll have to revisit this thread in a few months...  Grin
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #169 on: April 30, 2006, 05:44:32 PM »

The question remains whether a male-only priesthood is a matter of unchangeable dogma (such as the Veneration of Icons) or simply a changeable custom (such as the absence of pews or the Calendar), and even the Vincentian Canon doesn't help us here. This is a question which the Holy Spirit will have to provide an answer for at a future Oecumenical Synod.

On the contrary, the Fathers often make a discernable distinction. Whether people care or not is the issue. If something is merely a custom, we will see it change from time and country. If it doesn't change, it probably isn't a custom, but Holy Tradition.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
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 #170 on: April 30, 2006, 05:48:03 PM »

On the contrary, the Fathers often make a discernable distinction. Whether people care or not is the issue. If something is merely a custom, we will see it change from time and country. If it doesn't change, it probably isn't a custom, but Holy Tradition.
If the Fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Council had used that criterion, then the Icons would not have been restored, but dismissed as a custom which had changed.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #171 on: April 30, 2006, 05:59:59 PM »

If the Fathers of the Seventh Oecumenical Council had used that criterion, then the Icons would not have been restored, but dismissed as a custom which had changed.

Hardly. It was a tradition begun by God Himself in the OT; quite the root in antiquity. Further, they had been used by Christians from the earliest times, in all parts of Christendom. That seems to fulfill the Vincentian Canon quite easily.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #172 on: April 30, 2006, 06:14:58 PM »



 As a Protestant I tried to live my faith in Christ with all of my heart, and I had many friends who did the same.  I tried to live according to the truth that I knew, which I recognize only now was incomplete and in some respects heretical--I really didn't realize this until after I was introduced to the Orthodox Faith at Age 25.  But many of my Protestant friends and I were sincere in our commitment to what faith we knew, which is a heckuvalot more than I can say about some Orthodox.  (Protestants don't have the fullness of Truth, yet many of them are much more sincere in their faith in Christ than many Orthodox, who are in communion with the fullness of Truth but don't live like it.  This is very sad. :'( )  If I wasn't first a Protestant, I don't know that I would even be Orthodox today.  For all I know, I might have become an atheist.

What is a Christian but a follower of Christ?  Protestants don't have the fullness of truth and are all in varying degrees following after heresies, but many of them are indeed sincere followers of Christ to the extent of the truth that they know of Him and would never knowingly follow after a heresy as you charge.





I don't know how long you have been Orthodox,  but I pray that you will never loose or compromise  this substantial truth, rather that it will bring wisdom, wholeness and new life to Orthodoxy.

How can we pray "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."  If we are
excluding those with the first Sacrament, who love and serve Christ to the best of their ability?



« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 06:16:49 PM by Mother Anastasia » Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
Mother Anastasia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: pre-schism Orthodox/Catholic
Jurisdiction: Independent
Posts: 209

SS Francis & Seraphim praying for unity.


WWW
« Reply #173 on: April 30, 2006, 06:39:25 PM »


..the prophetic role of men is in revelation about Christ, and the prophetic role of women is in revelation about the Church. There is no relative value in these roles, since the mystery of redemption is the mystery of Christ and the Church. It should be clear, however, that while women fulfil a ministry in the Church (first of all, the prophetic ministry) they do not enter into the priesthood, which is a revelation about Christ, not about the Church. A woman in the priesthood would have to be representing a revelation about the husband of the Church, the spouse of the 'spotless, pure bridge of Christ.' Do you not see how perverted and corrupt such a 'revelation and prophecy' would be?"

 "Various roles in the Church are often thought to be associated with personal value and special graces and are rarely  understood in terms of the right types, according to revelation... It is important to stress that the Church is not a structure of power and the priesthood is not an echelon in such a structure. The question about the ordination of women is not a matter of equal rights and has nothing to do with the relative value of genders."

 It is Christ Who is present and acts, it is His sacrifice that is offered. The ordained priest is just 'a type in the place of Christ.' He is an icon of the one and only Priest. He has to be a man, not a woman, because Christ is a man.

Since Christ did everything by way of example, to instruct us, how can we miss the significance of His exclusion of women from the priesthood?   This is not any bias towards women, since He set so many precedences by choosing women to be first, His Mother, the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene.  This too He did as an example for the male dominated society.  He must have had a
VERY good reason for excluding women from the priesthood, and I believe the answer (at least in part) is well explained here.

Deaconess
Logged

I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, so that they may all be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
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 #174 on: April 30, 2006, 07:00:30 PM »

Hardly. It was a tradition begun by God Himself in the OT; quite the root in antiquity. Further, they had been used by Christians from the earliest times, in all parts of Christendom. That seems to fulfill the Vincentian Canon quite easily.
I think you missed the point. The Iconoclasm changed the tradition of using Icons in the Church. If, as you said earlier, a tradition changing means that it is probably a custom and not dogma, had the Fathers stopped there, they would not have restored the Icons. If the tradition of assuming that priests must be male changes, then we are in the same situation, and an Oecumenical Council is the only authority which can rule for the entire Church on this.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #175 on: April 30, 2006, 07:10:33 PM »

I think you missed the point. The Iconoclasm changed the tradition of using Icons in the Church. If, as you said earlier, a tradition changing means that it is probably a custom and not dogma, had the Fathers stopped there, they would not have restored the Icons. If the tradition of assuming that priests must be male changes, then we are in the same situation, and an Oecumenical Council is the only authority which can rule for the entire Church on this.

And that was a point I was making too: they changed it because they were heretics. They were the ones that originally subverted Holy Tradition. So again, the Vincentian Canon stands, and proved they were heretics. The Ecumenical Councils didn't make it up, rather, the restated what Holy Tradition was for those who were unwilling to accept it from any less of an authority.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
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 #176 on: April 30, 2006, 07:19:20 PM »

And that was a point I was making too: they changed it because they were heretics. They were the ones that originally subverted Holy Tradition.
Fine. I agree. But how did the Church decide and proclaim that they were heretics and anathamised them?

So again, the Vincentian Canon stands, and proved they were heretics. The Ecumenical Councils didn't make it up, rather, the restated what Holy Tradition was for those who were unwilling to accept it from any less of an authority.
True, the Oecumenical council made the decree which made the dogma clear. But are you willing to say today, prior to an Oecumenical Council, that you will stake your eternal salvation that the male-only priesthood is a Dogma? I'm not prepared to do so.
There is nothing "heretical" or "unOrthodox" about saying "I'm not certain one way or another" about a dogma which has not yet been clearly defined. And some of those who are "certain" that they know find themselves outside the Church when the Church rules on it.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 07:32:42 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #177 on: April 30, 2006, 07:33:43 PM »

Fine. I agree. But how did the Church decide and proclaim that they were heretics and anathamised them?

True, the Oecumenical council made the decree which made the dogma clear. But are you willing to say today, prior to an Oecumenical Council, that you will stake your eternal salvation that the male-only priesthood is a Dogma? I'm not prepared to do so.

The principle of the Vincentian Canon, expressed even more harshly by Paul himself:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

Well, the Ecumenical Councils serve to define, not create, doctrine. If it is taught by the Church, then I will believe it. Those who find themselves on the outside of the Church are NOT those who "thought they were doing the right thing" but rather those who wanted to believe what they wanted to believe, and then sought some justification by using the Church fathers as a means.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 07:35:51 PM by Bizzlebin » Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,400


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #178 on: April 30, 2006, 07:49:24 PM »

Since Christ did everything by way of example, to instruct us, how can we miss the significance of His exclusion of women from the priesthood? ÂÂ  This is not any bias towards women, since He set so many precedences by choosing women to be first, His Mother, the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene. ÂÂ This too He did as an example for the male dominated society. ÂÂ He must have had a
VERY good reason for excluding women from the priesthood, and I believe the answer (at least in part) is well explained here.

Deaconess

I agree, but sometimes things are not as simple as that.  We have been called to be the living breath of the church and that means that we need to look at things in a context Christ could not have.  That's why we have the HS to guide us, cuz Christ isn't here.  

Also, how are you a Deaconess?  Is this an official title?  Were you ordained to this position?
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #179 on: April 30, 2006, 08:22:28 PM »

Mother Anastasia

Quote
Since Christ did everything by way of example, to instruct us, how can we miss the significance of His exclusion of women from the priesthood? ÂÂ  This is not any bias towards women, since He set so many precedences by choosing women to be first, His Mother, the woman at the well and Mary Magdalene. ÂÂ This too He did as an example for the male dominated society. ÂÂ He must have had a VERY good reason for excluding women from the priesthood, and I believe the answer (at least in part) is well explained here.

I'm glad to see that the hour that I spent typing that in did not go to waste. Ignored (or leastwise not commented on) by everyone, except for one person who totally misses that the excerpt I typed in was supporting and giving theological justifications for the exclusion of females from the priesthood. Grin ÂÂ


Bizzlebin

Quote
The principle of the Vincentian Canon, expressed even more harshly by Paul himself:

I don't quite understand in what way Gal. 1 :6-9 can be said to express the same idea as "universality, antiquity, consent," though certainly the interpretation of St. Vincent of this passage (Commonitory, 8-9) is quite sobering (if, that is, you believe his words).
« Last Edit: April 30, 2006, 08:24:33 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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 0.145 seconds with 72 queries.