You can't compare icons to the Eucharist. Icons are representations of the proto-type. The Eucharist is the proto-type
I am comparing the icons to the priest. Just as the priest is not truly Christ, but represents Him, so does the icon not truly what it represents, but represents what it represents. The Eucharist is not an icon; neither is it a symbol. I fully confess this.
As for the word memory (memorial, rememrance, etc), answer this question, what do we mean when we sing "Memory Eternal" at the end of the funeral service, parastas, or lity for the dead?
We commemorate and re-enact in a very subtle way, "re-enact" the person who passed away (and I don't mean his whole life story). We recognize his presence in the Church, which is why we sacrifice for him/her the incense (or the priest does anyway). Wasn't it a belief in the early Church that one can pray for a soul's repentant on behalf of the soul
by prayers and incense sacrifices? For we know that a soul cannot repent when separated from the body, but we know that God may
accept our prayers on this soul's behalf. This is a tiny "re-enactment."
If it is someone who was commendable in this life, we would have his/her icon in the church building already re-enacting his/her role (icons of the Apostles, St. Mary, of the saints of the church, etc.), and even we would look towards these saints as St. Paul said, "Imitate me as I also imitate Christ."
We probably are!
Gosh, I hope so.
No, the Priest is not repeating Christ's words to himself, he is repeating them to The Holy Trinity.
And the priest also lifts the bread when praying it, and lifts the wine when praying it (notice, I do not deny the "praying" parts, but add to them the "re-enactments"). The lifting itself by the hand of the priest shows you that he is acting out something. He also breaks bread, which Christ also did. Who else would dare to break the body of Christ except the priest himself in the icon of Christ? Thus, while praying, he is also acting out. Not only is he praying to the Holy Trinity for himself, but on behalf of all.
Another reason I consider "re-enactments" is because priests are "mediators" between man and Christ, just as Christ is mediator between us and the Father. Thus, if there's anything forgiveness of sins or sacramental duty that must go through, no mere layman can do it. Priest acts out the role of mediator just as Christ does.
Then I ask again: Why did St. Paul allow women to prophesy in Church?
In the chauvinistic OT, women also prophecied. That's nothing new. It's doesn't prove anything. The "not-allowed-to-speak" issue was, according to St. John Chrysostom, regarding women's chitter chatter, and not the mere vocal vibrations of the larynx. Otherwise, how then would women participate in singing the hymns?
As Arius used this pericope to defend his theology so now the opponents of the ordination of women use it to defend theirs.
I'm going to make an attempt to defend Pedro because I assumed that he read my previous posts concerning the interpretation of this Pauline verse, as well as you and anyone else. What Arian said can be used as an element of truth, but he erred on two points:
1. Christ being created and unequal to the Father.
2. Woman being inferior to and unequal to men.
We can use the same line of reasoning of Arius however to prove male-only priesthood and at the same time prove that priests are equal to the laity and men to women. St. John Chrysostom tells us that in marriage, man and woman are united as the Father is to the Son. If one believes that the Father is equal to the Son, it is impossible to bring out a chauvinistic interpretation into that verse in 1 Cor. 11, and it certainly is impossible to call someone an Arian.
You're lucky you're not ozgeorge giving the Arian accusation to someone.
Concerning the icon of Christ and men and women, I can bring your attention to this verse:
To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Earlier I said we are all priests and kings, but the priesthood of Melchizedek doesn't come except by a special calling, with this "special" priest having a special role.
Therefore, all men and women are icons of Christ are made in the image of Christ. The Melchizedek priest has a special role, being the special icon of Christ.
It would be far from the first Change the Church has made on account of society and the demands of reality, often on issues with a real theology against the change. Consider marraige, Initially the Church would only bless the First Marriage, giving penance, not blessings, to subsequent marriages. But when Leo Vi made the Church the only legitimage means within the Empire for a Christian to marry, the Church had to conform to reality and bless second and even third marriages. Likewise, in violation of the Canons of Oecumenical Synods, the reality of the Situation compelled them to conduct marriages between Christians and non-Christians.
WOW! That is the most interesting thing I've ever heard. You Chalcedonians got some tradition there. In the Coptic Church, we do second and third marriages, but there is no crowning like the first marriage, and marriages after a first marriage (that is if the first marriage was only "anulled" by means of a death of a spouse), is treated as inferior and solemn compared to the first. As for the situation of marrying between Christians and non-Christians, while I've heard stories, the OO Church (don't know about EO's) do not in any way endorse even a marriage outside the OO (and nowadays, EO's are allowed as well).
As a last note, when I said that the theological arguments against the Ordination of Women were poor, I didn't simply mean weak or absurd, which they are, but also heretical, as I demonstrated above.
Quite a long stretch. You only put words to Pedro's mouth, making him Arian, but you never proved he was Arian. Forgive me for being some sort of a "lawyer," but I felt you did injustice to Pedro. (gosh, I guess now I know how a lawyer feels)
Finally, to all, concerning "pastoral concerns." I wouldn't think a pastoral concern would lead to someone making a statement like "man is the head of woman, Christ is the head of man, Father is the head of Christ." That wouldn't be for the sake of pastoral, but for the sake of deception. His plea "not to change the traditions" both before and after the head covering issue seems to be much more than just pastoral.