I don't know. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe I just see Ozgeorge's arguments differently. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I don't interpret his posts as advocating that Holy Tradition should change, but maybe you've seen some things to which I have been blind. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š To me, he appears to just be asking questions. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If I take him at his word, he is trying to ride the fence and ask probing questions of both sides without taking up the advocacy for either side just yet. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š At times his questions will seem to indicate that he is advocating women's ordination, yet at other times they will seem to indicate an opposition to women's ordination. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He appears to just be asking us questions so that he may know the truth more deeply. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe Ozgeorge can jump in and explain to us as best he can in this forum just exactly what he is trying to do--repeating earlier posts for the sake of a dense man like me would be more than welcome.
Here's what he said...
I wish people would stop thinking of "modernity" as a "heresy". Everything in the Church was "modern" at some stage of her history. Everything is subject to change: the Sixth Oecumenical Council anathamised those who do not receive Communion in the hand.
In Holy Tradition "not now" does not necessarily mean "never."
Again, I think George sees what appears to be a crass inconsistency in how we understand our traditional practices. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He sees that the Church has actually changed its policy towards divorce and remarriage to a practice that appears at first to contradict the teaching of Christ on the very matter, yet at the same time we are so dogged in our determination to never ordain women to the priesthood. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š What gives us the authority to change our traditions in one area yet not in other areas? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Without making a distinction between unchanging Tradition and temporal traditions, what authority do we have to change any traditional practice? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If we can change one, why can't we change another? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I don't think Ozgeorge necessarily wants to see change, nor do I think he opposes change. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š He just wants someone here to address his perception that the Church has been inconsistent in its adherence to Tradition.
I hope you don't mind then if I go over this 'problem' again. I don't believe we've changed our Traditions (with a capital "T") I have already gone over the fact that not everything Jesus said was taught in the Bible. However everything was taught to the Apostles, because
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledgeÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦,"
Irenaeus - "Against Heresies" Book III.I.I http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7297_1937859
The Apostles gained this 'perfect knowledge' at Pentecost.
It's why during Jesus ministry that there's no mention of Mary being ever-virgin, yet we hold this to be true. Do we act like Catholics and just say that something is true ONLY when it's formally defined as dogma?
When Ecumenical Councils were required to avoid 'confusion' they argued "This is what we've always taught", so that even though the Nicene Creed was absent until it was drawn up, the teachings in it were taught by the Church. Are we to say that it was taught by the whole church, from the time of the church's foundation, but had no authority until an Ecumenical Council said it was true?
If you believe that the church teaches errors, that's up to you. If you feel it is over the ordination of women, that's up to you. If you see any threat to the status quo on this issue, please present it; or its not even an issue.
modification to original post: Well, now that I have read Post #123 with your (montalban's) quote of Ozgeorge and your response to his quote, I can see some of what you're talking about regarding Ozgeorge's attitude toward change. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe I stand to be corrected.
It was in this light that I and (from memory) two other posters all asked him to present evidence for
change. And rather than answer directly simply went on to other argument. I can only say that I argue by what he says, not by what I think he says, and if he were to say he posted those statements in error, or he meant something else, then he could have settled this a month ago. He has not.
As we've seen already with a thread that is now 54 pages long, the issue of women's ordination is a very complex issue with a lot of different facets. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I see this debate motivating us to formulate a better understanding even of what Tradition, the very foundation of our Orthodox Faith, is. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š From what I've seen on this thread, we can't even agree on that! ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If we can't agree as to what constitutes Holy Tradition, HOW IN THE WORLD ARE WE GOING TO AGREE ON ANYTHING ELSE (e.g., women's ordination)?
Well on this issue, if someone wasn't to posit evidence for
change, they're more than welcome to do so. Just arguing that something might
change is not good enough, when all the evidence I've seen (and posted; viz, a recent church meeting in Rhodes) seems to bang this issue on the head. Though I do note that I completely missed ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ remarks (post #778) that Kallistos Ware has 'opened this issue' (I'd like to see 'context' before commenting any further).
(Interestingly, in a further comment (post #784) ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ goes on to speak out against it - why? (if it's not dogma and can
Why is it that ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡, and Pedro who don't believe the definition of 'dogma' I use, believe it will never happen? I think it's because it's implicit in the nature of the teachings (even if not defined in Council) that women play a DIFFERENT role in the church. If anything Christ chose no woman Apostle. He didn't direct us to have pews (or not) in church. If
we did change this, it would be recognised as a fundamental shift.
I do enjoy the way you've now shaped this thread. Even though we continue to disagree the tone of the thread has vastly improved.