OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 28, 2014, 09:16:05 PM *
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 177704 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,971


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #810 on: May 23, 2006, 12:45:29 PM »

btw...

To all you Suns fans...

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg119188#msg119188

Except this time Clippers fans won't be happy.

Dallas, you're next Wink

God bless.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #811 on: May 23, 2006, 02:23:07 PM »

Quote
To all you Suns fans..

You're a Suns fan?!!?!  Since I've lived in Phoenix all my life, of course I am a Suns fan.

To Pedro's point about Metr. Anthony's actions being a rare exception:  Has SCOBA or any other bishops publicly condemned the tonsurings or stated that the women in question would not be allowed to serve as readers in their parishes?  It will be intersting to see what Metr. Gerasimos does with this issue.

As an aside, I know one of the ladies that was tonsured by Metr. Anthony (not the one pictured in this thread).  While the picture has some shock value, in the case I know of there were some special circumstances that nesecitated some economia.  Be carefull about judging a situation too quickly. 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #812 on: May 23, 2006, 03:50:27 PM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8894.msg121894#msg121894 date=1148408587]
As an aside, I know one of the ladies that was tonsured by Metr. Anthony (not the one pictured in this thread).  While the picture has some shock value, in the case I know of there were some special circumstances that nesecitated some economia.  Be carefull about judging a situation too quickly. 
[/quote]
A good lady friend of mine is a reader tonsured by the same Metr. Anthony, so I'm very familiar with this "side" issue.  I wonder, Νεκτάριος, if she is the same woman reader of whom you speak.

Pedro, this may be one Greek bishop who has tonsured women to be readers, but as I understand how authority is exercised in the GOA, Metr. Anthony couldn't have tonsured women without the blessing of the national Archbishop, who is himself subject to the authority of Constantinople.  I don't think GOA bishops have the same degree of independent authority that we see in the OCA, but I could be wrong.  If my understanding is correct, then we do have a change to traditional practice sanctioned by no less an "authority" than the EP.  Granted, this is not sanctioned by the ecumenical authority of the whole Church even if the decision was made by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, therefore, does not necessarily constitute a legitimate change to any established tradition.  However, I hope you can see that this a significant change to traditional practice that does need to be explained.  How can the EP sanction tonsuring women to be readers in his American churches yet still oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood?
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #813 on: May 23, 2006, 04:26:53 PM »

How can the EP sanction tonsuring women to be readers in his American churches yet still oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood?

You got me.  Not a very logical thing for him to do...   Lips Sealed

Dallas, you're next Wink

Aw, bring it!  Bring it on!!!  Grin
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #814 on: May 23, 2006, 04:48:42 PM »

Aw, bring it!  Bring it on!!!  Grin
Please, anybody but the Pistons Tongue (or whoever has Rasheed Wallace playing for them.  Angry I still remember what he helped do to my beloved Trail Blazers. Roll Eyes PHEW, WHAT A MESS!)!!!  Grin

modification to original post:
One thing 'Sheed did in Portland was draw the nickname "Mr. T" for shattering the existing record for technical fouls and ejections in a single season TWICE, this in back-to-back years!  Obviously, the record he broke the second year was HIS OWN!
« Last Edit: May 23, 2006, 06:53:28 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #815 on: May 23, 2006, 05:06:39 PM »

Quote
Pedro, this may be one Greek bishop who has tonsured women to be readers, but as I understand how authority is exercised in the GOA, Metr. Anthony couldn't have tonsured women without the blessing of the national Archbishop, who is himself subject to the authority of Constantinople.  I don't think GOA bishops have the same degree of independent authority that we see in the OCA, but I could be wrong.  If my understanding is correct, then we do have a change to traditional practice sanctioned by no less an "authority" than the EP.

I was told by a former metropolis chancellor that the power structure is now very different than that.  The Archbishop is essentiall a figurehead, with the Metropolitans reporting directly to the Patriarch.  I don't know if that is de facto or de jure. 

The other option is that Metropolitan Anthony did as he pleased (probably getting chewed out behind the scenes).  The Patriarchate's pastoral response was simply to let these few tonsured women remain with the hope that the practice would die out on its own.  This would ruffle far fewer feathers and still put an end to the practice. 

It's all idle speculation unless we know if the Patriarchate authorized the tonsurings. 
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,971


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #816 on: May 23, 2006, 06:44:47 PM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8894.msg121894#msg121894 date=1148408587]
You're a Suns fan?!!?!  Since I've lived in Phoenix all my life, of course I am a Suns fan.
[/quote]

Well, truthfully, I'm a Nash fan, who's only second to Garnette (trust me, I chose them both as my favorite players much before they received the MVP).  I've always imagined Garnett and Nash in one team.  I am a firm believer that Garnett should leave the Twolves and perhaps join the more mature Suns team.  Then they'll be unstoppable.

Plus, I get a sense of true humble characters from both these players, which attracts me to them more.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: May 23, 2006, 06:45:25 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #817 on: May 23, 2006, 06:49:03 PM »

Quote
Plus, I get a sense of true humble characters from both these players, which attracts me to them more.

Yeah, it makes the Suns a lot more fun to watch.  Sort of like a time before the NBA was about showing off and one man teams.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #818 on: May 23, 2006, 11:39:15 PM »

‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions’: some thoughts from those who see a distinction[/b]

from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-04/npnf1-04-57.htm
From the Council of Carthage (257) regarding the baptism of heretics (Chapter 37, Verse 71):

Libosus of Vaga said: “The Lord says in the gospel, ‘I am the truth;’ He did not say, ‘I am custom.’ Therefore, when the truth is made manifest, let custom yield to truth; so that, if even in time past anyone did not baptize heretics in the Church, he may now begin to baptize them.”
(aside: interesting that a 3rd Century bishop in council would actually give a Scriptural reason for changing an established traditional practice, that of honoring as valid the baptism of schismatics and heretics)


from Bishop Kallistos, The Orthodox Church, pp. 197-198

Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true.  As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257: “The Lord said, ‘I am truth.’  He did not say, ‘I am custom.’”  There is a difference between ‘Tradition’ and ‘traditions’: many traditions which the past has handed down are human and accidental--pious opinions (or worse), but not a true part of the one Tradition, the fundamental Christian message.

It is absolutely essential to question the past.  In Byzantine and post-Byzantine times, Orthodox have often been far too uncritical in their attitude to the past, and the result has been stagnation.  Today this uncritical attitude can no longer be maintained.  Higher standards of scholarship, increasing contacts with western Christians, the inroads of secularism and atheism, have forced Orthodox in this present century to look more closely at their inheritance and to distinguish more carefully between Tradition and traditions.  The task of discrimination is never easy.  It is necessary to avoid alike the error of the Old Believers and the error of the ‘Living Church’: the one party fell into an extreme conservatism which suffered no change whatever in traditions, the other into spiritual compromises which undermined Tradition.  Yet despite certain manifest handicaps, the Orthodox of today are perhaps in a better position to discriminate aright than their predecessors have been for many centuries; and often it is precisely their contact with the West which is helping them to see more and more clearly what is indispensable in their own inheritance.



A link to a recent lecture by Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky (OCA) on the distinction between Tradition and traditionalism:

http://www.oca.org/Docs.asp?ID=126&SID=12
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #819 on: May 24, 2006, 03:11:45 AM »

Sure, I will start with the canon. Parenthetical information will be my "commentary" to show who is being addressed, etc. The Canon:

The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator (ie communicant) of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near (line up), arranging his hands in the form of a cross (which is still done today, with the arms are crossed), and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands (instead of the communicants crossing their hands), make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift (ie, the communicants bringing their own cup), and by these (or in these) receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come (they are not allowed to commune), as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God (ie, they defile the body of Christ with something unclean). But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them (if a priest serves the Body to a communicant in the communicant's vessel, and not out of the priest's Chalice and into the mouth, both are to be excommunicated).

Another translation of this Canon 101 of the Council of Trullo:
The divine Apostle loudly proclaims the man created in the image of God to be a body of Christ and a temple. Standing, therefore, far above all sensible creation, and having attained to a heavenly dignity by virtue of the soterial Passion, by eating and drinking Christ as a source of life, he perpetually readjusts both his eternal soul and his body and by partaking of the divine grace he is continually sanctified. So that if anyone should wish to partake of the intemerate body during the time of a synaxis, and to become one therewith by virtue of transessencc, let him form his hands into the shape of a cross, and, thus approaching, let him receive the communion of grace. For we nowise welcome those men who make certain receptacles out of gold, or any other material, to serve instead of their hand for the reception of the divine gift, demanding to take of the intemerate communion in such containers; because they prefer soulless (i.e., inanimate) matter and an inferior article to the image of God. In case, therefore, any person should be caught in the act of imparting of the intemerate communion to those offering such receptacles, let him be excommunicated, both he himself and the one offering them.
(1 Cor. 12:27; 2Cor.6:16.)
 
Interpretation
In that time there prevailed a custom of laymen communing, just like priests, by taking the holy bread in their hands, in the manner in which they nowadays receive the antidoron. But since some men, on the pretense of reverence, and of paying greater honor to the divine gifts, used to make gold vessels, or vessels of some other precious material, and were wont to partake of the intemerate body of the Lord by receiving it in such vessels; therefore, and on this account, the present Canon will not admit this procedure, even though it be employed for the sake of reverence. Because, in view of the fact that a man is one who has been made in the image of God, and who eats the body and drinks the blood of Christ, and thereby becomes sanctified, and since he is in fact a body and temple of Christ, according to the Apostle, he transcends all sensible things and inanimate creatures, and consequently his hands are far more precious than any vessel. Hence anyone that wishes to partake of the Lord’s body, let him form his two hands into the shape of a cross, and let him receive it therein. As for any layman that may receive the body of the Lord in a vessel, and any priest who may impart it in any such thing, let both of them be excommunicated, because they prefer an inanimate (i.e., soulless) vessel to the human being molded in the image of God.[/color]

from http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/__P4T.HTM

I offer the above not to prove anyone right or wrong in this argument, but just to show that there is more than one way that this text can be interpreted.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #820 on: May 24, 2006, 03:42:09 AM »

He has attempted to refute the Church Father's evidence by summarily dismissing it because he believed it was googled.
With all respect and sincerity, I really get the impression from Ozgeorge's posts on this matter that he isn't dismissing evidence from the Holy Fathers.  He is dismissing you.  Yes, you have provided a lot of Patristic evidence, but Ozgeorge has consistently rejected it because he deems the evidence you provide irrelevant to the questions he considers most important and keeps asking.  Please try to understand what concerns Ozgeorge.  Please try to see the point he is trying to communicate and resolve in his own mind with the questions he asks and the assertions he makes.  The side issues he keeps following are important to the subject of this thread, and he wants solid answers that he is just not receiving from you--as he, Ozgeorge, understands his questions.  He doesn't want his questions to be dismissed by those who have the wisdom to give him real answers.

If you're going to continue to attack Ozgeorge publicly, then I think he deserves to be defended publicly.
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 #821 on: May 24, 2006, 06:27:22 AM »

Correction: One bishop is acting apart from the unchallenged tradition of countless bishops over a two thousand year period. 
Actually, this is not entirely true. It is simply the only case I can find documented evidence for, but I know the Church of Greece has tonsured women Readers as well- I know, because I heard two of them reading the Epistle. But that aside (for lack of evidence apart from my word) the point is that in the alleged distinction between Tradition (capital "T") and tradition (little "t"), if male-only Readers is a Tradition, then what Metropolitan Anthony did would constitute an heresy against Orthodox dogma- an heresy on the same level as forbidding the veneration of Icons in his diocese. Had the Oecumenical Patriarchate viewed it thus, then Metropolitan Anthony would have instantly been deposed. The Patriarch of Jerusalem was deposed for less than that- the former Patriarch of Jerusalem was not guilty of heresy, but merely guilty of causing disruption in the Church. Surely a Bishop opposing Holy Tradition would be seen as at least a worse disruption to Church order, and at most, guilty of heresy? The only conclusion I can draw if we accept a distinction between "tradition vs. Tradition" is that a male-only practice of Readers is a "tradition" and not a "Tradition". So why the difference? Why is a male-only priesthood a Tradition while male-only Readers a tradition? And what's more, surely the dogmatic reasons (if, indeed there are any) for excluding women from being Readers are the same for excluding them from the Priesthood?
To me, Holy Tradition, true Holy Tradition, is the history of the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church. Holy Tradition is not simply a rigid adherence to practices in the Church, no matter how ancient they may be. Even if at one point in the history of the Church a practice is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit later. For example, in the early Church, glossolalia and prophesy inspired by the Holy Spirit formed an integral part of the Liturgy at Synaxia (assemblies) of the Church. However, if someone in the congregation at a Divine Liturgy today began prophesying or practicing glossolalia out loud, they would probably be exorcised or have an ambulance called for them rather than be assumed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Bishop Kallistos Ware said it well when he said "the Church is indeed an old tree, but a living one".
What the Church decides on this issue is not important to me. What is important to me is that the decision should not be pre-empted by phoney means. If the teaching of a male-only Priesthood is dogma, then, well and good. But good cannot be obtained through evil means. For example, as I've said before, if what we know to be ontologically true about men and women in Christ has to be distorted in order to accomodate a "dogma" of a male-only Priesthood, then it cannot be a dogma or Holy Tradition, but is simply a custom.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 09:14:26 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #822 on: May 24, 2006, 09:20:35 AM »

There is no distinction in the Fathers between Tradition and tradition to my knowledge.  In fact, all of the examples that St Basil gives for unwritten tradition in On the Holy Spirit are liturgical practices.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Carpatho Russian
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 285


Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory for ever!


« Reply #823 on: May 24, 2006, 09:22:48 AM »

Last night, I re-read the office for the Tonsuring of Readers in the Veliky Trebnik. ÂÂ I’d like to point out several things I noticed about the office of tonsuring of Readers.
1) First, the “official” name of this office is “The Office for the Setting Apart of a Reader and Cantor”.
2) The Office for the Setting Apart of a Reader and Cantor can be “performed either in conjunction with the Divine Liturgy or apart from the Divine Liturgy”. ÂÂ The Trebnik indicates the order for both. ÂÂ Note that the office of Reader is not specifically linked to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. ÂÂ
3) The prayer at the laying on of hands makes no mention of Reader being “the first degree of the Priesthood.” ÂÂ
4) This is mentioned later in the office and is preceded by the words “And the Bishop exhorts him thus:” ÂÂ Note, this is not called a prayer but an exhortation.
5) The bishop then says “Blessed be the Lord. ÂÂ The Servant of God becomes a Reader of the Most-holy church of (name of church): In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” ÂÂ Note that the Reader is "set apart" for a specific church.
6) The Bishop then hands him a candle and he stands before the Bishop with the candle.  Note that there is no mention of the reader being brought into the Altar in the office.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 10:13:33 AM by Carpatho Russian » Logged

Zastupnice christianov nepostydnaja, chodatajice ko Tvorcu nepreložnaja, ne prezri hr’išnych molenij hlasy, popredvari jako blahaja na pomošč nas, virno vopijuščich ti: Uskori na molitvu, i potščisja na umolenije, zastupajušči prisno Bohorodice, čtuščich t’a.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #824 on: May 24, 2006, 09:23:55 AM »

Kishkovsky's lecture on Tradition vs. traditionalism was an asenine presentation. I was there and had the misfortune of having to tape it for publication.  He set up a bunch of straw men and then knocked them down. The highlight was when one of the faculty in the Q and A basically questioned the whole basis of his argument and everyone's eyebrows raised and Kishkovsky did not have a very good answer.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
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 #825 on: May 24, 2006, 10:30:19 AM »

Kishkovsky's lecture on Tradition vs. traditionalism was an asenine presentation. I was there and had the misfortune of having to tape it for publication.  He set up a bunch of straw men and then knocked them down. The highlight was when one of the faculty in the Q and A basically questioned the whole basis of his argument and everyone's eyebrows raised and Kishkovsky did not have a very good answer.
I'm not sure I follow, Anastasios. Are you saying that there is no difference between Tradition and traditionalism? I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think there is a difference between them. Traditionalism seems to me to be a caricature of Tradition- in the way that sanctimony is a caricature of sanctity, and piosity is a caricature of piety. And I think part of the problem lies in confusing custom with Tradition. It is a Russian custom to kiss the chalice after communion, while it is a Greek custom that laymen never touch the chalice nor kiss anything straight after Communion, but neither of these is Tradition. Infrequent Communion has become a custom (originally based on piety, but now fallen into piosity) but it is certainly not Tradition. Recent Confession is a customary prequisite for Communion in some Churches, but the two Mysteries are seperate and stand alone in Tradition.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2006, 10:37:11 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #826 on: May 24, 2006, 11:27:22 AM »

George,

I agree that one can idolize tradition and create a sect.  I believe the Old Believers are such.  My point is that Kishkovsky's definition of traditionalism (in the bad sense) was way to broad and included people who simply have a more conservative POV then him.  He basically was criticizing Old Calendarists (whom he referred to as schismatic elements) and "resisters from within" which if I recall correctly he referred to as "their sympathizers within the canonical Church."  In other words, if you are against ecumenism and modernism, you are a bad guy, was the impression I got from his speech.  If he had gotten up and talked about how people can idolize tradition and left it at that I would have been fine. But instead he used it to label those more conservative Orthodox as fossilizers basically.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #827 on: May 24, 2006, 01:09:02 PM »

I can play devil's advocate too! If I were into speculation like you I'd have raised the issue of Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016;&version=9;
Junia is a woman name (as recognised in http://www.antiochian.org/wordhtml/200403_12.html) *

However in a newer translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2016;&version=31;) the name is given as Junias.

Indeed. I always prefer the deep scholarly insight of the NIV, whose editors regularly ignore the earliest manuscripts and proper translations if such contradict Evangelical Protestant presuppositions (e.g. the NT use of the word "tradition" in a positive sense).

Should anyone be interested in the "Junia" issue, check out this brief yet comprehensive summary, which was recently posted on the Indiana Orthodox list:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0605d&L=orthodox&P=2044

Even were we to ignore the fact that the earliest relevant manuscripts (i.e. those with accents) universally show a reading of "Junia", even were we to ignore the fact that the Holy Fathers and the Church Synaxaria speak of St. Junia, whom St. Paul called an Apostle, it seems a bit more than a stretch to read "Junias" here, given the complete lack of prosopographical evidence for any such name ever existing in Roman history (whereas Junia is attested in many inscriptions).

Speaking of things written by Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, I believe First Things had a decent set of articles on the issue of women and the priesthood a few years ago. Perhaps we should review these. Jennifer Ferrara, who argues against women priests, presents arguments far more theological than anything found in this thread so far. Of course, her reasoning is rooted in Inter Insignores and Pope John Paul II's (re?)interpretation of Genesis, male headship, gender as an ontological category, marriage, sex and the body. All in all, a comprehensive theological vision, but is it an Orthodox one?

Check it out here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0304/articles/ferrarawilson.html
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
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 #828 on: May 24, 2006, 06:03:40 PM »

I agree that one can idolize tradition and create a sect.  I believe the Old Believers are such.  My point is that Kishkovsky's definition of traditionalism (in the bad sense) was way to broad and included people who simply have a more conservative POV then him.  He basically was criticizing Old Calendarists (whom he referred to as schismatic elements) and "resisters from within" which if I recall correctly he referred to as "their sympathizers within the canonical Church."  In other words, if you are against ecumenism and modernism, you are a bad guy, was the impression I got from his speech.  If he had gotten up and talked about how people can idolize tradition and left it at that I would have been fine. But instead he used it to label those more conservative Orthodox as fossilizers basically.
I think this issue is important deserving of it's own thread. I'd like to respond, but not here.

Should anyone be interested in the "Junia" issue, check out this brief yet comprehensive summary, which was recently posted on the Indiana Orthodox list:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0605d&L=orthodox&P=2044
Even were we to ignore the fact that the earliest relevant manuscripts (i.e. those with accents) universally show a reading of "Junia", even were we to ignore the fact that the Holy Fathers and the Church Synaxaria speak of St. Junia, whom St. Paul called an Apostle, it seems a bit more than a stretch to read "Junias" here, given the complete lack of prosopographical evidence for any such name ever existing in Roman history (whereas Junia is attested in many inscriptions).
Thanks for the link.
What amazes me is that this could possibly be an issue for Orthodox Christians for whom so many female Saints are given the title "Isapostolos" ("Equal-to-the-Apostles") such as St. Mary Magdalene, St. Thekla, St. Helen, St. Nina, St. Olga of Kiev...
 
Speaking of things written by Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, I believe  All in all, a comprehensive theological vision, but is it an Orthodox one?
Check it out here: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0304/articles/ferrarawilson.html
I will most certainly check it out.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #829 on: May 25, 2006, 10:55:56 PM »

GreekIsChristian,

Something for you to muse upon once you return to this forum after your voyage home:

This is hardly a revolutionary proposition, the fact that women were second-class citizens in the Greco-Roman world is well documented;
Maybe so.  You most probably know more about this than I do.

Quote
since this unfortunate mindset infected every other element and institution of society, it is most reasonable to believe it also influenced the Church.
This is where your logic breaks down.  What you have done is assert that a mere coincidence of mindsets proves an actual correlation.  I think many medical researchers will tell you that a mere coincidence is not proof of an actual cause-and-effect relationship.  For instance, the mere fact that the rate of lung cancer is much higher in smokers than in non-smokers is not proof in and of itself that smoking causes lung cancer.  The striking coincidence can be a great indicator of a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, but until an actual cause-and-effect mechanism is discovered, the coincidence proves nothing.  Researchers have to explain clearly and in great detail how cigarette smoke causes mutations in lung cells that lead to cancer if they want to preach that smoking does indeed cause lung cancer.

You have shown us a coincidence between the misogynist mindset of ancient Greco-Roman culture and the early Church’s attitude towards women.  So what?  What proof can you give that this is more than just coincidence?  What can you give us that shows clearly that the Church actually allowed herself to be influenced by her surrounding culture in the ways you allege?  What evidence can you provide for a real cause-and-effect relationship?  Until you can give us clear evidence of this relationship, the statement “it is most reasonable to believe” is nothing more than pure, unadulterated SPECULATION.


I hope you had a good trip back from seminary and can look forward to a restful summer.

- Peter
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #830 on: May 25, 2006, 11:28:58 PM »

GreekIsChristian,

You have shown us a coincidence between the misogynist mindset of ancient Greco-Roman culture and the early Church’s attitude towards women.  So what?  What proof can you give that this is more than just coincidence?  What can you give us that shows clearly that the Church actually allowed herself to be influenced by her surrounding culture in the ways you allege?  What evidence can you provide for a real cause-and-effect relationship?  Until you can give us clear evidence of this relationship, the statement “it is most reasonable to believe” is nothing more than pure, unadulterated SPECULATION.

Just so. (Hmmm...That reminds me of Kipling. How terribly appropriate: The female of the species and all that!)

That said, do St. John Chrysostom's statements about women reveal that the "Church actually allowed herself to be influenced by her surrounding culture," or does his belief that women are inferior reflect a more permanent truth?
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #831 on: May 26, 2006, 12:05:14 AM »

That said, do St. John Chrysostom's statements about women reveal that the "Church actually allowed herself to be influenced by her surrounding culture," or does his belief that women are inferior reflect a more permanent truth?
You might have to direct me to quotes of these statements of St. John Chrysostom, for I'm having some difficulty finding them on this forum.  (It looks as if this thread has also piqued my desire to make David Ford's book on women in the early Church my next big reading project.)

I would say that it's most likely just speculation to say that these statements reveal that the Church was influenced by her surrounding culture.  I think that would be called "reading between the lines."  Without a good understanding of a cause-and-effect relationship, I have to conclude that it's merely coincidental that St. John Chrysostom's attitude toward women agrees in part with the secular culture of his day.  Until I see an actual correlation in this coincidence, I am more likely to conclude that St. John's statements reflect a more permanent truth.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 12:09:56 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #832 on: May 26, 2006, 12:32:41 AM »

You might have to direct me to quotes of these statements of St. John Chrysostom, for I'm having some difficulty finding them on this forum.ÂÂ  (It looks as if this thread has also piqued my desire to make David Ford's book on women in the early Church my next big reading project.)

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg120974;topicseen#msg120974
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #833 on: May 26, 2006, 02:03:40 AM »

Thank you.  That's what I was looking for.

Now that I've read what you submitted in the post linked above, I note below a statement you made in that post.
Although St. John obviously bases his statements on Scripture, his statements are quite similar to the assumptions, arguments and explanations we find in pagan Greco-Roman sources.
As I've stated earlier, this similarity that you point out is quite striking, but I have yet to see evidence that one point of view caused or influenced the other.  I'm not above speculating, for I don't think it entirely inappropriate to do so, so I'm not afraid to ponder on the possibility that St. John Chrysostom could have been influenced by these Greco-Roman sources or by the secular culture in general.  It does make sense that each of the Fathers also represents his time and place in addition to the eternal truth he presents.  After all, do not even the Scriptures do this to some degree?

But I will not build any argument for or against women's ordination on such speculation.  Again, until I see evidence that the surrounding culture actually influenced the mindset that St. John expressed in his writings on men and women, I am inclined to conclude that he was speaking a more permanent truth.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 02:04:17 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #834 on: May 26, 2006, 05:06:26 AM »

But I will not build any argument for or against women's ordination on such speculation.

This thread has 56 pages of pure, unadulterated speculation.

Quote
Again, until I see evidence that the surrounding culture actually influenced the mindset that St. John expressed in his writings on men and women, I am inclined to conclude that he was speaking a more permanent truth.

That's exactly what Montalban and I have been asking the proponents of women ordination to come up with.  So far, after 56 pages, they have presented none.

Undecided
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 05:12:43 AM by Theognosis » 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 #835 on: May 26, 2006, 06:02:26 AM »

Again, until I see evidence that the surrounding culture actually influenced the mindset that St. John expressed in his writings on men and women, I am inclined to conclude that he was speaking a more permanent truth.
Is it an absolute Truth that women are spiritually weaker than men and therefore require more grace than men do? Because it seems to me that this is what St. John Chrysostom is saying. Is this the "dogma" on which a male-only Priesthood is based, and therefore the dogma people are asking me to give the assent of my faith to?
Sorry. No can do.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #836 on: May 26, 2006, 08:23:24 AM »

Quote
Is it an absolute Truth that women are spiritually weaker than men and therefore require more grace than men do? Because it seems to me that this is what St. John Chrysostom is saying. Is this the "dogma" on which a male-only Priesthood is based, and therefore the dogma people are asking me to give the assent of my faith to?
Sorry. No can do.

St. John Chrysostom attempted to provide an explanation of the tradition handed to us by the apostles.  He is just trying to the best of his abilities.  ÃƒÆ’‚ One thing that you must remember is that the all-male priesthood predates his arguments.  Hence, dismissing his arguments does not in any way dismiss the Tradition itself.  If you have an alternative explanation which you think is superior, it will be only as good as any other human being's subjective view.  

But enough of logic.ÂÂ  If you are not satisfied with St. John Chrysostom's reasoning, then you'll just have to trust your faith.ÂÂ  After all, faith is stronger than reason.ÂÂ  One thing that I noticed with the proponents of female ordination is that you all tend to be legalistic.ÂÂ  You're always looking for evidence for this and evidence for that.ÂÂ  You're always looking for explanations to the mysteries of the Church as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit.ÂÂ  I know that it is not necessarily a bad thing; but when one relies too much on scholasticism and less on mysticism and sacrifice, and then starts to question the views of the Saints, he or she is thinking like a Protestant in my humble opinion.ÂÂ  

If this thread is an indication of the future of Orthodoxy in the West, then I am deeply concerned.ÂÂ  This early, I'll pray to God that Protestantism does not prosper within the apostolic establishment.ÂÂ  They should put their attention elsewhere.ÂÂ  There's just too many to learn in Orthodoxy that it is totally uncalled for to introduce innovations.ÂÂ  As my priest told me once, I would never learn enough of Orthodoxy: a lifetime is not enough to fully understand its theological and mystical truths.

« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 08:34:01 AM by Theognosis » 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 #837 on: May 26, 2006, 08:30:57 AM »

Hence, dismissing his arguments does not in any way dismiss the Tradition itself.  If you have an alternative explanation which you think is superior, it will be only as good as any other human being's subjective view. 
You are free to believe as you wish. However I will never accept as Orthodox a doctrine which says that one half of the human race is less redeemed by Christ than the other simply because they have an XX chromosome rather than an XY chromosome. It's nonsense.
Logged

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

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #838 on: May 26, 2006, 08:56:04 AM »

But I will not build any argument for or against women's ordination on such speculation.ÂÂ  Again, until I see evidence that the surrounding culture actually influenced the mindset that St. John expressed in his writings on men and women, I am inclined to conclude that he was speaking a more permanent truth.

Perhaps we should clarify three distinct questions. First, there is the question of Patristic views of women and whether or not these views reflect Late Antique biases. Second, there is the question of how -- if at all -- these societally defined ideas affected Patristic understandings of ordained ministry. Third, there is the question of what we do about it.

Now, even if we say that, indeed, the Fathers reveal a consistently negative theological understanding of women as a sex (not that they didn't like and praise various individual women!), this by no means proves that such is the basis for their insistence that the Church maintain an all-male priesthood; and it certainly does not mean that we should change what we have received.

Figuring out the first question is simply a matter of reading what the Fathers said. St. John Chrysostom, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. Augustine -- even, St. John Damascene -- all had very similar things to say on the matter. It makes little sense to me to pretend this isn't the case (although it certainly is convenient and readily done if one hasn't actually read them!).

The second and third questions are an entirely different matter, and I, for one, consider research and decisions concerning them the duty of the episcopacy. We, as laymen or those of the lower two orders of ordained priesthood, have little business speculating about what the first question actually means for the all-male priesthood in the modern Church (hence why I have twice told GiC that he shouldn’t publicly support ordination of women). However, this does not mean we shouldn't read the Fathers and acknowledge that, perhaps, their writings may not always be free from societal influence (I mean, St. Clement of Alexandria says we know that man has a superior nature because he has a hairy chest -- which hair comes from his hotter blood!).

Edit: To be more precise, St. Clement says that God gave males a beard (like the mane of a lion) and a "shaggy" chest as an indication of males' superior nature and a sign of men's rule over females (at least that's how I recall the passage from memory...perhaps I'll go look it up. It's quite a doozy.)
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 09:30:44 AM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Nacho
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #839 on: May 26, 2006, 09:40:28 AM »

Quote
You are free to believe as you wish. However I will never accept as Orthodox a doctrine which says that one half of the human race is less redeemed by Christ than the other simply because they have an XX chromosome rather than an XY chromosome. It's nonsense.

Wow, that was a perfectly good cop - out from the excellent post above yours. Just as God saw fit for an all male clergy going all the way back to the OT, why can't we just assume that maybe men and women are sometimes meant for different roles? I guess such a notion would offend our modern day sensibilities now would it? Hmmm, something maybe akin to saying that women make good nurses and mommies and men good construction workers and fathers (Of course there is no truth whatsoever to this lol). I guess God doesn't know what he's doing and we should listen to the people that want to throw away thousands of years of Tradition. That's nice, where were people like you when we needed such great advice dispensed so long ago, especially after the choosing of the 12 male apostles etc...? I'll stick with the 'faith' of the fathers instead of the 'faith' of current day logic.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #840 on: May 26, 2006, 12:42:05 PM »

Is it an absolute Truth that women are spiritually weaker than men and therefore require more grace than men do? Because it seems to me that this is what St. John Chrysostom is saying. Is this the "dogma" on which a male-only Priesthood is based, and therefore the dogma people are asking me to give the assent of my faith to?
Sorry. No can do.
Have you actually read the statements of St. John Chrysostom that Pensateomnia posted?  If so, can you say that your own interpretation of St. John's statements is correct?  What if you find out that you had taken his words out of the context of the rest of his public teaching?  It seems to me that you're reading your own biases and preconceived notions into St. John's statements rather than letting his own words speak for themselves within the Tradition of our Church.  (btw, I think most Orthodox recognize St. John Chrysostom as a spiritual authority, but we don't recognize any of his own personal doctrines to have the weight of dogma.)

You are free to believe as you wish. However I will never accept as Orthodox a doctrine which says that one half of the human race is less redeemed by Christ than the other simply because they have an XX chromosome rather than an XY chromosome. It's nonsense.
You're right, but I don't think that St. John Chrysostom really said this in his public doctrine.  I'll certainly have to read his statements again.  Let me quote some snippets of Pensateomnia's post on this matter so you can (hopefully) see what I think St. John Chrysostom tried to say.

Chrysostom has a fairly well developed theology of the ontological distinctness of men and women. On the one hand, he emphasizes that they have an absolute identical nature and that every person, regardless of gender, class or education, is one in Christ. Yet, as a proper Late Antique thinker, he is very keen on the idea of hierarchy and divinely appointed order.

...

The problem, however, is that St. John, like most ancient people, seems to occasionally identify outward characteristics with inward qualities. Thus, social or physical inferiority can also imply moral inferiority, e.g. the physically weak female also has a weak will and is therefore prone to sin. This seems to be the way St. John and many other Fathers interpret Eve's transgression and women's general response to hardship, battle, temptation, etc. (cf. the many times St. John praises certain women for their manliness, for overcoming their weakness, especially if they do so by means of the virginal life). Thus, women are weaker and need to be protected. By their very nature, they are not given to daring and leadership. Although St. John obviously bases his statements on Scripture, his statements are quite similar to the assumptions, arguments and explanations we find in pagan Greco-Roman sources.

I guess you are free to believe what you will, but I would counsel you to be very careful in saying which parts of the Orthodox faith you will accept and which parts you won't.  We are all called to be interpreters of the Faith by virtue of being the Church--this task doesn't just fall on the Fathers and the bishops alone--but this doesn't mean that we are free to reject what the Fathers and the Orthodox consensus recognize to be Orthodox.  In this task, we should not so readily reject anything that such a Spirit-filled man as St. John Chrysostom had to say in his public ministry.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #841 on: May 26, 2006, 01:25:02 PM »

Here's the promised quote from St. Clement, which comes from Book III of his Pedagogos, a work supposedly written in order to instruct new Christians in how they should live. He basically says guys who shave are pansies and that bodily hairiness is a God-given symbol (throughout nature) of the fact that the male sex enjoys a superior nature. Most of his reasoning about men's hairiness and the bit about bodily heat come right out of Aristotle and the ancient medical tradition (which believed that females were biologically deficient males because they had no semen and not enough body heat....I'll explain later). Check it out:

Quote
But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you would suppose them to be women. For although not allowed to wear gold, yet out of effeminate desire they enwreath their latches and fringes with leaves of gold; or, getting certain spherical figures of the same metal made, they fasten them to their ankles, and hang them from their necks. This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the women's apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts. For this is a meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts,--a sign this of strength and rule. So also cocks, which fight in defence of the hens, he has decked with combs, as it were helmets; and so high a value does God set on these locks, that He orders them to make their appearance on men simultaneously with discretion, and delighted with a venerable look, has honoured gravity of countenance with grey hairs. But wisdom, and discriminating judgments that are hoary with wisdom, attain maturity with time, and by the vigour of long experience give strength to old age, producing grey hairs, the admirable flower of venerable wisdom, conciliating confidence. This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man's whole body. Whatever smoothness and softness was in him He abstracted from his side when He formed the woman Eve, physically receptive, his partner in parentage, his help in household management, while he (for he had parted with all smoothness) remained a man, and shows himself man. And to him has been assigned action, as to her suffering; for what is shaggy is drier and warmer than what is smooth. Wherefore males have both more hair and more heat than females, animals that are entire than the emasculated, perfect than imperfect. It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.


AWESOME! That is one of my favorite passages from the late 2nd century! You can read the whole section of the Pedagogos here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-instructor-book3.html It's really quite an amazing work, with some very impressive sections. Clement develops a Christianized theory of Art and Aesthetics that is at once Scriptural and also properly sophisticated in terms of contemporary Alexandrian philosophy. Enjoy.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 01:25:34 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #842 on: May 26, 2006, 03:52:44 PM »

Okay. I posted the above quote on the fly. It's rather a mediocre translation. I wish I had translated it myself, but I didn't have time.

Nevertheless, I want to explain the quote in a little more detail, because -- in addition to beauty in its poetic allusions (especially Aeschylus) and wonderful Second Sophistic rhetorical features -- it contains much that is pertinent to our discussion of the Patristic understanding of women.

Quote
This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the women's apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts.

Such a man is "amphibious" because he is cold-blooded, i.e. like a woman. Ancient Greek/Hellenistic science believed that men were warm-blooded and women were more cold-blooded, and that this was one of the fundamental biological deficiencies of women. Since they did not have enough warmth in their body, they did not develop into a superior biological specimen.

Aristotle summarizes this nicely in On the Generation of Animals (especially 716a5-23, 727a2-30, 727b31-33, 728b l8-31, 765b8-20, et al., available here: http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-medicine339.shtml):

Quote
Further, a boy actually resembles a woman in physique, and a woman is as it were an infertile male; the female, in fact, is female on account of inability of a sort, viz. it lacks the power to concoct semen out of the final state of the nourishment (this is either blood, or its counterpart in bloodless animals) because of the coldness of its nature.

Typical Aristotle! That is an extremely, extremely concise explanation of the biological difference between men and women according to ancient science. Women are, in fact, deficient men (an "infertile male"), lacking in the full biological traits needed to be a strong red-blooded dude. Thus, we have a biological hierarchy: 1) Women are the lowest; 2) young boys, since they are still kinda girly, are next; 3) and then comes men. Just keep this in mind, because, believe it or not, this understanding -- which would have been as widely believed and obvious then as it is now to say that the world has lots of bacteria -- plays an important role in understanding sexual dimorphisms such as hair (a point we shouldn't forget when reading St. Paul's words about long hair on women, as we shall see).

Quote
For this is a meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane;

How does this talk of long hair on women's heads have anything to do with effeminate, amphibious, cold-blooded guuuuuuuuurly men? Because long hair on the head is also a sign of lack of heat! Again, Aristotle:

Quote
So that if you reckon up (a) that the brain itself has very little heat, (b) that the skin surrounding it must of necessity have even less, and (c) that the hair, being the furthest off of the three, must have even less still, you will expect persons who are plentiful in semen to go bald at about this time of life. And it is owing to the same cause that it is on the front part of the head only that human beings go bald, and that they are the only animals which do so at all; i.e. they go bald in front because the brain is there, and they alone do so, because they have by far the largest brain of all and the most fluid. Women do not go bald because their nature is similar to that of children: both are incapable of producing seminal secretion. Eunuchs, too, do not go bald, because of their transition into the female state, and the hair that comes at a later stage they fail to grow at all, or if they already have it, they lose it, except for the pubic hair: similarly women do not have the later hair, though they do grow the pubic hair. This deformity constitutes a change from the male state to the female.

According to this scientific rationale (repeated by Galen and the other medical writers), long hair (and head coverings) are the quintessential signs of femininity. Only a real manly-man has an exposed head! (And what kind of woman would want to look like a massively fecund dude?) It would be UNNATURAL biologically speaking for a woman not to have long hair.ÂÂ  Women's long hair is the natural consequence of their lack of heat and deformed brain (which doesn't have any generative fluid in it!). To put it bluntly: According to the science of the Hellenistic/Late Antique world, a woman with short hair is a woman with semen -- and that just ain't right! (How might this shed light on St. Paul's talk of hair and head coverings?) Keep in mind that for the ancients the male state was the natural one and the female was the deficient one...that's why Aristotle talks about "a change from the male state to the female".

Quote
but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts,--a sign this of strength and rule. So also cocks, which fight in defence of the hens, he has decked with combs, as it were helmets...This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature.

Imagine yourself as a Christian at the time of the early Church. Sure, we're all one in Christ, created in God's image, but it's a biological fact that women are inferior. They have less heat, which means they have smaller brains, which means they have less initiative, courage and ability to lead. Duh. That's the way they were made!

Quote
In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man's whole body. Whatever smoothness and softness was in him He abstracted from his side when He formed the woman Eve, physically receptive, his partner in parentage, his help in household management, while he (for he had parted with all smoothness) remained a man, and shows himself man. And to him has been assigned action, as to her suffering; for what is shaggy is drier and warmer than what is smooth.

Right out of what everyone knew to be medically true. Again, hair is very important to both St. Paul, St. Clement, St. John Chrysostom and other Fathers who speak about women because everyone knew hair (and body hair) was an important marker of sexual dimorphism and female inferiority. Clement devotes no small degree of attention to it, as does Philo of Alexandria and St. John Chrysostom.

Quote
Wherefore males have both more hair and more heat than females, animals that are entire than the emasculated, perfect than imperfect.


This is a bad translation. I'll have to look it up in the original. The point here is that male animals (and humans) are "entire" and NOT emasculated (a female = an emasculated male); males are "perfect" and not "imperfect" like females, who lack generative organs, abilities, bodily heat and properly dispersed hair, as we have seen.

Quote
It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.


*stroking my beard*
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 04:30:38 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #843 on: May 26, 2006, 07:07:50 PM »

What's this say about men who just don't grow any hair on their chests (like me)? Huh
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 #844 on: May 26, 2006, 07:31:21 PM »

What's this say about men who just don't grow any hair on their chests (like me)? Huh
Well, like Nacho and yourself hold: the Fathers haven't made a mistake or simply based their teaching on cultural norms of their day, but are talking about "more permanent truths" (isn't that how you put it? Wink ). So I'm afraid you're just less of a man, and less "entire" than men with hairy chests (like mine). Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 07:46:55 PM by ozgeorge » 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 #845 on: May 26, 2006, 07:41:49 PM »

Wow, that was a perfectly good cop - out from the excellent post above yours. Just as God saw fit for an all male clergy going all the way back to the OT, why can't we just assume that maybe men and women are sometimes meant for different roles? I guess such a notion would offend our modern day sensibilities now would it? Hmmm, something maybe akin to saying that women make good nurses and mommies and men good construction workers and fathers (Of course there is no truth whatsoever to this lol). I guess God doesn't know what he's doing and we should listen to the people that want to throw away thousands of years of Tradition. That's nice, where were people like you when we needed such great advice dispensed so long ago, especially after the choosing of the 12 male apostles etc...? I'll stick with the 'faith' of the fathers instead of the 'faith' of current day logic.
So, Nacho, are you telling me that you accept as an Orthodox Dogma the belief that only men are complete human beings and women are imperfect ones.? And this is "proven" by the fact that women are "mommies" and nurses while men are construction workers and fathers? (And, of course, there are no male nurses..... Huh )
P.S. How hairy is your chest? Because, as you know, the Fathers never make mistakes.....
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 07:47:37 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #846 on: May 26, 2006, 07:48:25 PM »

Quote
while men are construction workers and fathers?

And also a sailor, an Indian, a cowboy, a police officer all singing Macho Man...
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 #847 on: May 26, 2006, 07:50:55 PM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8894.msg122220#msg122220 date=1148687305]
And also a sailor, an Indian, a cowboy, a police officer all singing Macho Man...
[/quote]
LOL Cheesy
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,909


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #848 on: May 26, 2006, 07:54:22 PM »

Well, like Nacho and yourself hold: the Fathers haven't made a mistake or simply based their teaching on cultural norms of their day, but are talking about "more permanent truths" (isn't that how you put it? Wink ). So I'm afraid you're just less of a man, and less "entire" than men with hairy chests. Cheesy
I didn't say anything like "I hold that..." or "I believe that...."  I simply said that "I am inclined to believe..." and "I am more likely to conclude...."  I see a fine distinction in tone between these two approaches.  The tone of the former statements is to me much stronger and more assertive than the tone of the latter.  I intended to communicate that I am not yet convinced that I need to believe what I am right now inclined to believe.  I will reserve judgment until I see much more evidence or much more convincing evidence.  That's all I'm saying right now.

I've always known that I'm somewhat less than a man, which explains why I've finally decided to let my beard grow out a bit.  Cheesy  (But then what do you have to say about American military men who are not allowed to grow beards?  They certainly try to be very macho.)
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 #849 on: May 26, 2006, 07:59:42 PM »

(But then what do you have to say about American military men who are not allowed to grow beards?  They certainly try to be very macho.)
Well, according to the Fathers, they are a bunch of big girl"s blouses. And the Fathers couldn"t possibly be wrong about such "non-cultural eternal truths". Wink
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 08:24:43 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #850 on: May 26, 2006, 08:46:00 PM »

Well, according to the Fathers, they are a bunch of big girl"s blouses. And the Fathers couldn"t possibly be wrong about such "non-cultural eternal truths". Wink

Did Jesus Christ consult Aristotle when he chose the twelve apostles?  Was Aristotle--not the Holy Spirit--the one who guided the Church for 2,000 years?

No and No.
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 #851 on: May 26, 2006, 08:55:21 PM »

Did Jesus Christ consult Aristotle when he chose the twelve apostles?  Was Aristotle--not the Holy Spirit--the one who guided the Church for 2,000 years?

No and No.

I repeat:
To me, Holy Tradition, true Holy Tradition, is the history of the Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church. Holy Tradition is not simply a rigid adherence to practices in the Church, no matter how ancient they may be. Even if at one point in the history of the Church a practice is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit later. For example, in the early Church, glossolalia and prophesy inspired by the Holy Spirit formed an integral part of the Liturgy at Synaxia (assemblies) of the Church. However, if someone in the congregation at a Divine Liturgy today began prophesying or practicing glossolalia out loud, they would probably be exorcised or have an ambulance called for them rather than be assumed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Bishop Kallistos Ware said it well when he said "the Church is indeed an old tree, but a living one".
What the Church decides on this issue is not important to me. What is important to me is that the decision should not be pre-empted by phoney means. If the teaching of a male-only Priesthood is dogma, then, well and good. But good cannot be obtained through evil means. For example, as I've said before, if what we know to be ontologically true about men and women in Christ has to be distorted in order to accomodate a "dogma" of a male-only Priesthood, then it cannot be a dogma or Holy Tradition, but is simply a custom.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #852 on: May 26, 2006, 09:15:38 PM »

P.S. How hairy is your chest? Because, as you know, the Fathers never make mistakes.....

Even in this regard, they did not make a mistake.  Today, we know that testosterone level is related to hair growth, and that men secrete 30 times more of this substance than women do.  So biologically and physically speaking, there is a difference between male and female.  Given this fact, it is valid to suppose that there is a difference in our spiritual make-up as well--at least in our fallen nature.

Fortunately, when our bodies are resurrected, there will be no distinction between male and female.
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 #853 on: May 26, 2006, 09:20:18 PM »

So biologically and physically speaking, there is a difference between male and female.  Given this fact, it is valid to suppose that there is a difference in our spiritual make-up as well--at least in our fallen nature.
So then, you are saying that it is a dogma that men are "more human" (and therefore, "more redeemed" by the Incarnation) than women are?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 09:23:53 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #854 on: May 26, 2006, 09:39:32 PM »

So then, you are saying that it is a dogma that men are "more human" (and therefore, "more redeemed" by the Incarnation) than women are?

Stating the fact that male and female are not the same physically and biologically doesn't follow that one is more redeemed than the other.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Granting without accepting that women are "more fallen," then they are more blessed because they shall be receiving the most grace from God.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 09:42:13 PM by Theognosis » Logged
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 0.184 seconds with 73 queries.