OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 04:18:09 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 181499 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #945 on: January 26, 2007, 02:35:24 PM »

I agree. Unless the Church can establish more valid reasons, than it has to date, of why women shouldn't be ordained today, I see no reason to continue with a practice based on the archaic beliefs of a couple of millenia past, and a discriminatory situation created by Imperialistic Rome.

I think this is at the heart of the problem with opposition to the ordination of women, there simply isn't any good, sound, theological reason not to allow women to be ordained. As such people can only make historical arguments that are clearly derived from the Roman legal concept of pater familias. And as fond as I am of Roman Law, it must be admitted that even by the time of the Code of Justinian the absurdity of these concepts were slowly coming to light, and their civil ramifications were soon minimalized...not to say that the Empire ever truly granted equality, but that it had began to at least undermine the premises of it's own customs latter adopted by the Church. In this day and age these social principles are simply indefensible and, quite frankly, due to the cultural advancements of our society, I think the more the opponents to the ordination of women defend their principles, the weaker their position becomes.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #946 on: January 26, 2007, 02:49:49 PM »

I think this is at the heart of the problem with opposition to the ordination of women, there simply isn't any good, sound, theological reason not to allow women to be ordained. As such people can only make historical arguments that are clearly derived from the Roman legal concept of pater familias. And as fond as I am of Roman Law, it must be admitted that even by the time of the Code of Justinian the absurdity of these concepts were slowly coming to light, and their civil ramifications were soon minimalized...not to say that the Empire ever truly granted equality, but that it had began to at least undermine the premises of it's own customs latter adopted by the Church. In this day and age these social principles are simply indefensible and, quite frankly, due to the cultural advancements of our society, I think the more the opponents to the ordination of women defend their principles, the weaker their position becomes.

I agree wholeheartedly. But it's like all things. A situation is blindly accepted generation after generation, until a  question arises at an appropriate time and place that simply can't be side-stepped. If this is a theological issue, give a theological answer. To be honest, I haven't seen any answers that don't bear more than a hint of Pater Familias
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #947 on: January 26, 2007, 03:06:23 PM »

It is impossible for any man (or woman) to be a man (or woman) of all times. All of us are conditioned by the times in which we live. The situation for woman today is vastly different than it was in Lewis' time; mainly for the reasons that gic gives. And things simply aren't going to go back to the status quo ante bellumGrin

There are women who are every bit as suited to the role of priest as any man; perhaps more so in some cases. Why should they be excluded based on gender? If there are sound reasons, the Church must establish them; not turn to answers that are out-dated and irrelevant; answers that may be based on prejudice. This has nothing to do with "political correctness", but the right of women to hear a denial that is sensible and non-prejudical. It simply isn't good enough to give the flimsy reasons that have washed for the past couple of millenia. Such answers are not adequate for the modern, educated woman.

You are mistaken in conflating the sacred and secular spheres. The feminist movement, which is political in nature, should have no bearing on theology and the tradition of the Church. Making assumptions about the "prejudices" of the past can blind you to your own prejudices, which is an egalitarianism that equates "equality" with denying sexual difference and different roles accorded to sexes that is not social but divine in origin.

If you relativize the inconvenient or difficult parts of tradition and the Bible as relics of an outdated prejudiced patriarchalism, what remains? It's no surprise that the relativization of sex seen in sacerdotal theology has been followed by the mutilation of Scripture and the relativization of sexual behavior and marriage.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 03:07:37 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #948 on: January 26, 2007, 03:13:37 PM »

Quote
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well

Obviously, the Church has found it expedient to ignore St Paul when unmarried and childless men are ordained as deacons or bishops.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #949 on: January 26, 2007, 03:23:24 PM »

Ok, I dont know that I'm getting through so I'm going to respond with a similar argument about race being an impediemnt to the priesthood. Yes, it is offensive, and it is intended to be offensive to get my point across...but it is no less offensive than your arguments. So without further ado...

On the issue; The Holy Church has to obey the theological and spiritual roots of the fathers back our lord Jesus Christ on earth. Ordination is something that we except on the terms given us from the holy fathers the apostles. All sacraments are soemthing we are given by God not soemthing we create. Eve came out of Adams body she was not created seperately from the dust of the earth and the spirit of God like Adam was. The Church came out of Christs body, 'she' was not created seprately from earthy flesh and the spirit of God which Christ is.

The Negro is, by tradition, the decendent of Canaan the son of Ham, a servant race, not blessed as are the decendents of Shem and Japheth. He is commanded by God to serve the other races of men, to place him in a place of authority such as the priesthood would be a violation of the word of God. Furthermore, is this not seen in the body and build of the negro, he is built for labour and work as the ox, to take him from that position and place him in a position of intellectual authority is unnatural and contrary to God's will.

Quote
So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths which is the re-birth of Adam in Christ and the saving through grace of Adams generations till Christs second return.

So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths in which Christ, from the line of Shem, and the saving through grace of Shem's descendents till Christs second return.

Quote
The Church is women 'in' man. One flesh; which is Christs flesh. Christ taught "I am the Church and the Church is my bride".

The negro is a servant, servant to the descendents of Shem and Japheth. As scripture proclaims 'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'

Quote
AS such marriage is Holy among us, sacred. This sacrament like all other is the 'tone' of the fulfillment of Christ relationship in the Church of His body...His people. The sacrament can not change. As with all the remaining 6 because they are the 'tone' of Christ among us.

As such the relationship between master and slave is sacred, it is commanded by God and cannot change.

Quote
Ordination is not a men's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by Christ with the Holy Spirit. The apostles taught "A Deacon or Bishop shall be the husband of one wife" (read First and second Timothy). This means a few things one of which is a married man can not address but one women as his wife; he can't have a "first wife" or "second wife" or "ex-wife". He can not have had a divorce and re-married if so he can not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy CHurch. A lay person in this situation can not take communion in some orthodox churches until very extensive penance or repair of the matter is completed.

Ordination is not a white man's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by God with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' This means a few things one of which is a wite man cannot address but the negro as slave; he can't have 'white slave' or 'black slave' or 'ex-slave.' He cannot emancipate and, if he takes as slave one other than the Negro, should not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy Church. Anyone who opposes this slavery is also Anathematized by the canons of the Holy Synod of Gangra.

Quote
This also teaches that a women are not to be "ordained" Deacon since she can not have a "wife" but has a husband. In many orthodox societies from the days of the apostles to now the wife of a clergy man was respected and treated with reverence and respect within the church. She was given much duty especially when her husband was away. Today in Ethiopia and I know also in Greece a Deacons wife OR priest wife has a special title. Her hand is not kissed but she is bowed to and asked "pray for me". This is a great honor. Her life must be like a deacon or priest...not a women of liesure and fashion, not a gossip or wearer of much jewlry and make-up. She is a women of natural beauty adorned on her by God. She is not loud but becoming; a strong support for the work of the church. I have found some deacon wives more beautiful in the faith than than some deacons.

Timothy also teaches that those who oppose this institution are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,' 'whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.' But this is not to say that the negro is less well respected in society, it is simply that his role is different. He is allowed to work in the field in the role of a servant, in this way he may approach Christ, though it is given only to the white man to approach Christ through the office of the Priesthood. Also the Negro slave should be poor, humble, obedient, and loving towards his Master.

Quote
People look at her and know immediately "her husband is clergy man"

People look at him and know immediately, 'he is a good Negro.'

Quote
These are just two point of Holy tradition which is the Orthodox Church.

These are just a few points from Holy tradition and sacred scripture which is the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Their is no biblical bases fro ordaining women.

There is no biblical basis for ordaining negros.

Quote
This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.

This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.

Quote
The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the head of the body decides for the whole body. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.

The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the Master race can decide for humanity and for the Church. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.

Quote
Slavery is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The History and heritage of and entire nation of people were destroyed to build Americas so-called "free country" America is the symbol of racial hatred in the world to this day due to her bazaar and wicked 400 year industry of land grabbing and slavery.

Opposition to the equality of women is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The dignity and humanity of half the population of the wolrd was destroyed to fulfill the sinful desires and lust for power of insecure males. Patriarchal institutions are the symbol of mysogany misogyny in the world to this day due to it's wicked imposition upon the humanity and dignity of half the human race.

Quote
The Head rules the whole body because the hand and all other body parts are designed to look for such rule as an example.

The white man rules the negro and all other races are designed to look for such rule as an example.

Quote
It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.

It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.

Quote
As I posted before we will never see a women deacon and therefore neither priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.

A negro is of a servant race, he can never be a valid deacon and therefore neither a priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was that offensive? I hope so because it was intended to be...of course, I made no argument you didn't, I simply replaced race for gender. My theological arguments are just as sound as yours (by which I, of course, mean a bunch of nonsense); so, logically speaking, if your arguments are adequate to deny ordination to women, mine are adequate to deny ordination to non-whites.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #950 on: January 26, 2007, 03:32:52 PM »

Obviously, the Church has found it expedient to ignore St Paul when unmarried and childless men are ordained as deacons or bishops.


This reading was by the hand of St. Paul through the grace of the Holy spirit.

The above reading is regarding the conditional 'life' of a man who is serving the church so that church office may be distinguished as to who it applies. It applies to men not women. This is the rule of the Church.

The reading is not about marriage or non-marriage specifically

If the man is not married and does not have children he is innocent and may be ordained as St. Paul was chosen by God and was not married and had no children. St. Paul said " It is good for man to refrain from a women such as I if he can. If not than so he shall marry to avoid the burn of lust and the sin of the flesh"

Abraham our father was chosen also by God and was married and had no children until long after he was already chosen.

The prophet Daniel although he burned with desire for the women of his youth he was restricted from God to marry anyone at all. He lived and died alone.
Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #951 on: January 26, 2007, 03:34:35 PM »

You are mistaken in conflating the sacred and secular spheres. The feminist movement, which is political in nature, should have no bearing on theology and the tradition of the Church. Making assumptions about the "prejudices" of the past can blind you to your own prejudices, which is an egalitarianism that equates "equality" with denying sexual difference and different roles accorded to sexes that is not social but divine in origin.

The real problem is using biological differences as a standard for social inequality. Doing that it is trivial to establish the natural superiority of some races over others. Heck, I can even demonstrate differences in IQ's between races, thus making the justification of social inequality based on race even easier. Your theory is nothing more than Mein Kampf dressed in the robes of ecclesiastical tradition.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #952 on: January 26, 2007, 03:37:45 PM »

This reading was by the hand of St. Paul through the grace of the Holy spirit.

The above reading is regarding the conditional 'life' of a man who is serving the church so that church office may be distinguished as to who it applies. It applies to men not women. This is the rule of the Church.

The reading is not about marriage or non-marriage specifically

But it mentions marriage specifically, the use of the masculine was simply a linguistic construct. Thus, it emphasizes the importance of a Bishop being married even above the significance of a Bishop being a man. You seem to be picking and choosing the verses you like, then even dismissing the implications of those verses that you don't like.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #953 on: January 26, 2007, 03:46:31 PM »

The real problem is using biological differences as a standard for social inequality. Doing that it is trivial to establish the natural superiority of some races over others. Heck, I can even demonstrate differences in IQ's between races, thus making the justification of social inequality based on race even easier. Your theory is nothing more than Mein Kampf dressed in the robes of ecclesiastical tradition.

It's has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "inequality."
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #954 on: January 26, 2007, 03:48:12 PM »



There are women who are every bit as suited to the role of priest as any man; perhaps more so in some cases. Why should they be excluded based on gender? If there are sound reasons, the Church must establish them; not turn to answers that are out-dated and irrelevant; answers that may be based on prejudice. This has nothing to do with "political correctness", but the right of women to hear a denial that is sensible and non-prejudical. It simply isn't good enough to give the flimsy reasons that have washed for the past couple of millenia. Such answers are not adequate for the modern, educated woman.




Education of women means nothing in this context.  The wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God.  Men have been priests since the beginning of the Judeo-Christian line of religion.  To blame it all on Roman law is absurd.  This is God's Law and not Roman law.  The only religions that have women as priests historically have been pagan.  Even those that have them now are heretical at best.  The Lord warns us that in the end what is evil will be seen as good, and what is good will be seen as evil.  Those days are among us.  This is not a matter of reason, it is a matter of obedience to God's Law.  Most of the arguments that I have seen regarding ordination of women are nothing more than an attempt to justify heretical thought.  This is the spirit of Protestantism.  Like the devil, they say "Did God REALLY say . . ."  As Orthodox Christians, we pray "Blessed art Thou O Lord, teach us Thy statutes.  Blessed art Thou O Lord, help us to understand Thy statutes.  Blessed art Thou O Lord, help us to keep Thy statutes."  The heretics pray "help us to find a way around Thy statutes".  That is what I see in the secular justifications of women ordination.  God's commands regarding this subject are clear.  The Traditions of the Orthodox Church regarding this subject are clear.  This continued pushing of women's ordination is simply the devil offering us another apple.  
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #955 on: January 26, 2007, 03:50:14 PM »

It's has NOTHING whatsoever to do with "inequality."

No, a denial of social roles to someone based on biology has nothing to do with inequality...neither does enslaving an inferior race. It's just the natural order of things and how God intended it to be. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #956 on: January 26, 2007, 03:52:18 PM »

I've grown up and lived most of my life in a traditionally Orthodox country and have never come across with any Orthodox woman desiring to become
a "priestess". For those that want that, it's rather simple: they marry a priest and they will be called "priestesses" (Rom. "preotese").
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #957 on: January 26, 2007, 03:52:30 PM »

Ok, I dont know that I'm getting through so I'm going to respond with a similar argument about race being an impediemnt to the priesthood. Yes, it is offensive, and it is intended to be offensive to get my point across...but it is no less offensive than your arguments. So without further ado...

The Negro is, by tradition, the decendent of Canaan the son of Ham, a servant race, not blessed as are the decendents of Shem and Japheth. He is commanded by God to serve the other races of men, to place him in a place of authority such as the priesthood would be a violation of the word of God. Furthermore, is this not seen in the body and build of the negro, he is built for labour and work as the ox, to take him from that position and place him in a position of intellectual authority is unnatural and contrary to God's will.

So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths in which Christ, from the line of Shem, and the saving through grace of Shem's descendents till Christs second return.

The negro is a servant, servant to the descendents of Shem and Japheth. As scripture proclaims 'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'

As such the relationship between master and slave is sacred, it is commanded by God and cannot change.

Ordination is not a white man's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by God with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' This means a few things one of which is a wite man cannot address but the negro as slave; he can't have 'white slave' or 'black slave' or 'ex-slave.' He cannot emancipate and, if he takes as slave one other than the Negro, should not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy Church. Anyone who opposes this slavery is also Anathematized by the canons of the Holy Synod of Gangra.

Timothy also teaches that those who oppose this institution are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,' 'whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.' But this is not to say that the negro is less well respected in society, it is simply that his role is different. He is allowed to work in the field in the role of a servant, in this way he may approach Christ, though it is given only to the white man to approach Christ through the office of the Priesthood. Also the Negro slave should be poor, humble, obedient, and loving towards his Master.

People look at him and know immediately, 'he is a good Negro.'

These are just a few points from Holy tradition and sacred scripture which is the Orthodox Church.

There is no biblical basis for ordaining negros.

This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.

The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the Master race can decide for humanity and for the Church. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.

Opposition to the equality of women is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The dignity and humanity of half the population of the wolrd was destroyed to fulfill the sinful desires and lust for power of insecure males. Patriarchal institutions are the symbol of mysogany misogyny in the world to this day due to it's wicked imposition upon the humanity and dignity of half the human race.

The white man rules the negro and all other races are designed to look for such rule as an example.

It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.

A negro is of a servant race, he can never be a valid deacon and therefore neither a priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.


This analogy is just as silly as the interracial marriage analogy so often put forward by same-sex "marriage" campaigners. It is the simplistic and wrongheaded projection of racial and gender ideas that matured in the 19th century all the way through the history of the Church.


This 10th-century Nubian bishop says it all. There is no precendent for ordained female ministry in the history of the Church. But as you can see, the feminine has not been devalued or made contemptible in the tradition of the Church. In some circles, Mary almost became a fourth member of the Trinity.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 04:01:58 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #958 on: January 26, 2007, 03:54:30 PM »

Ok, I dont know that I'm getting through so I'm going to respond with a similar argument about race being an impediemnt to the priesthood. Yes, it is offensive, and it is intended to be offensive to get my point across...but it is no less offensive than your arguments. So without further ado...

The Negro is, by tradition, the decendent of Canaan the son of Ham, a servant race, not blessed as are the decendents of Shem and Japheth. He is commanded by God to serve the other races of men, to place him in a place of authority such as the priesthood would be a violation of the word of God. Furthermore, is this not seen in the body and build of the negro, he is built for labour and work as the ox, to take him from that position and place him in a position of intellectual authority is unnatural and contrary to God's will.

So the Church is symbolic of these biblical truths in which Christ, from the line of Shem, and the saving through grace of Shem's descendents till Christs second return.

The negro is a servant, servant to the descendents of Shem and Japheth. As scripture proclaims 'And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'

As such the relationship between master and slave is sacred, it is commanded by God and cannot change.

Ordination is not a white man's club as our new age contemporary minds see it. It is order in the Church established by God with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures teach 'And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.' This means a few things one of which is a wite man cannot address but the negro as slave; he can't have 'white slave' or 'black slave' or 'ex-slave.' He cannot emancipate and, if he takes as slave one other than the Negro, should not be a deacon or anything else in the Holy Church. Anyone who opposes this slavery is also Anathematized by the canons of the Holy Synod of Gangra.

Timothy also teaches that those who oppose this institution are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,' 'whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.' But this is not to say that the negro is less well respected in society, it is simply that his role is different. He is allowed to work in the field in the role of a servant, in this way he may approach Christ, though it is given only to the white man to approach Christ through the office of the Priesthood. Also the Negro slave should be poor, humble, obedient, and loving towards his Master.

People look at him and know immediately, 'he is a good Negro.'

These are just a few points from Holy tradition and sacred scripture which is the Orthodox Church.

There is no biblical basis for ordaining negros.

This is not discrimination. This is the rule of God in His church. People outside the Church can do what they want to do. But us orthodox do not have that choice.

The left hand serves the body as well as the right hand, but only the Master race can decide for humanity and for the Church. That is not discrimination that is the rule of Nature.

Opposition to the equality of women is one will suppressing another 'will'. This is dysfunctional, in-organic, un-natural and is at the root of hate in the world today. The dignity and humanity of half the population of the wolrd was destroyed to fulfill the sinful desires and lust for power of insecure males. Patriarchal institutions are the symbol of mysogany misogyny in the world to this day due to it's wicked imposition upon the humanity and dignity of half the human race.

The white man rules the negro and all other races are designed to look for such rule as an example.

It is easy to question or challenge what we believe or believed. But is is a gross lack of faith to question what is the way of the Lord.

A negro is of a servant race, he can never be a valid deacon and therefore neither a priest in the Holy Orthodox Church as long as true orthodoxy is held.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was that offensive? I hope so because it was intended to be...of course, I made no argument you didn't, I simply replaced race for gender. My theological arguments are just as sound as yours (by which I, of course, mean a bunch of nonsense); so, logically speaking, if your arguments are adequate to deny ordination to women, mine are adequate to deny ordination to non-whites.

Brilliant!  Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #959 on: January 26, 2007, 03:58:30 PM »

Education of women means nothing in this context.  The wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of God.

So we're back to square one again, you have yet to demonstrate that 'divine wisdom' is at the heart of your position, I see only patriarchal culture (and to claim that there was no influence of Roman Law in the customs of the Church is just plain wrong, any way you look at it...Roman Law and Canon Law were literally one and the same for centuries). So why not present your theologial arguments rather than pontificating as though God speaks through you. Of course, if you look through the last 60+ pages of this thread you will see that the theological arguments were presented, and that they hold water like a sieve. There is no divine wisdom that supports your position, only cultural prejudice. So the ordination of women will not be some transgresson of a law carved in stone by the finger of God, but rather the overcoming of an oppressive and sinful cultural prejudice.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #960 on: January 26, 2007, 03:59:07 PM »

No, a denial of social roles to someone based on biology has nothing to do with inequality...neither does enslaving an inferior race. It's just the natural order of things and how God intended it to be. Roll Eyes

First of all, stop conflating sex with race. They are not interchangeable.

Secondly, the sacerdotal ministry is NOT a "social role" but a divinely appointed spiritual role. It is not even a "role" but a calling. It is not to be defined and shaped by social convention.

I don't think we can have a worthwhile discussion because you view everything with secular, pragmatic eyes. We are on very different planes here.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #961 on: January 26, 2007, 04:01:05 PM »

I've grown up and lived most of my life in a traditionally Orthodox country and have never come across with any Orthodox woman desiring to become
a "priestess". For those that want that, it's rather simple: they marry a priest and they will be called "priestesses" (Rom. "preotese").

They wouldn't be a priestess - they would be a priest. The entire Church is a priesthood, male and female. Every baptised Orthodox woman is already a priest, but not one ordained.

1Peter 2:5 and 9
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #962 on: January 26, 2007, 04:16:40 PM »

First of all, stop conflating sex with race. They are not interchangeable.

St. Paul lumped them together in his letter to the Galatians, so I see no reason not to. Of course, you choose to dismiss that there is no male or female in Christ, just as there is no Greek or Jew...and the logical implication of making the distinction between male and female in the service of Christ is to also imply that there are different roles for greeks and jews or for slaves and freemen. I fear that the issues are linked, regardless of how much you would protest. And forbidding women to be priests is no different than forbidding blacks from the priesthood.

Quote
Secondly, the sacerdotal ministry is NOT a "social role" but a divinely appointed spiritual role. It is not even a "role" but a calling. It is not to be defined and shaped by social convention.

And yet, we have known that there are no gender distinctions in Christ since the first century...your position is becomming less and less defensible with each post.

Quote
I don't think we can have a worthwhile discussion because you view everything with secular, pragmatic eyes. We are on very different planes here.

Yet I quote scripture and present theological arguments...but they must be secular, why? Because they are different than yours? Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #963 on: January 26, 2007, 04:38:52 PM »

No, your arguments are about "equality" and "cultural prejudice." Those are secular arguments.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #964 on: January 26, 2007, 04:50:05 PM »

No, your arguments are about "equality" and "cultural prejudice." Those are secular arguments.

I'm not clear on what the quotation marks signify. But shouldn't equality and cultural prejudice be a concern of Christ's Church?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #965 on: January 26, 2007, 05:00:34 PM »

I'm not clear on what the quotation marks signify. But shouldn't equality and cultural prejudice be a concern of Christ's Church?

The quotation marks mean just what they are supposed to mean---they are quoting the words used by you and GiC.

The problem is that you both have markedly different conceptions of equality and cultural prejudice than the Church at large has and has had since time immemorial. I would venture to say that these conceptions are those held by modernist secularist society.

And with that I really have to stop. I feel funny trying to defend Orthodox teaching to Orthodox Christians on an Orthodox forum, considering that I am not Orthodox. I deal with enough modernist Catholics already. Obviously the orthodox Orthodox members of this forum have already spoken on this thread in the dozens of pages before this one. I will defer my comments to them.

 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #966 on: January 26, 2007, 05:34:16 PM »

The quotation marks mean just what they are supposed to mean---they are quoting the words used by you and GiC.

The problem is that you both have markedly different conceptions of equality and cultural prejudice than the Church at large has and has had since time immemorial. I would venture to say that these conceptions are those held by modernist secularist society.

And, of course, the same claim was levelled at those who stood against the continuation of slavery, the withholding of the vote for women and the unequal rights of Blacks; to name just a few injustices that went unquestioned for centuries. Perhaps the time has come for the Church to lay aside her "time immemorial" laurels and look to the social and human concerns that are right under her nose.

 
« Last Edit: January 26, 2007, 05:36:49 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 111


« Reply #967 on: January 26, 2007, 06:00:22 PM »

I don't know if I'd consider ordination for males only as an injustice to females.  Not all men who want to become priests (or any other ordained position) are allowed to either--is that an injustice to them?  I don't think so.  God chooses, not us.  Anything else involves pride.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #968 on: January 26, 2007, 07:25:32 PM »

The problem is that you both have markedly different conceptions of equality and cultural prejudice than the Church at large has and has had since time immemorial. I would venture to say that these conceptions are those held by modernist secularist society.

Or, more accurately, the Church has tolerated inequality and prejudice for centuries because that is the context in which it found itself, and its mission is a salvific, not political, one. Today there is no longer any need to tolerate an inequality and prejudice that no longer exists in society...I'm just insisting that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we call it a duck...you seem to want to call it a dove.

I don't know if I'd consider ordination for males only as an injustice to females.  Not all men who want to become priests (or any other ordained position) are allowed to either--is that an injustice to them?  I don't think so.  God chooses, not us.  Anything else involves pride.

A large degree of individual consideration should be taken into account when anyone is ordained, no doubt about that...but to automatically exclude half (well, actually slightly more than half) the population for biological reasons is simply unacceptable.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 111


« Reply #969 on: January 26, 2007, 08:17:19 PM »


A large degree of individual consideration should be taken into account when anyone is ordained, no doubt about that...but to automatically exclude half (well, actually slightly more than half) the population for biological reasons is simply unacceptable.

Unacceptable, why?  Because it's something that we want?  There again, pride comes into play, our thinking that we know better than God.  Pride has no place at the altar--the priest needs to have the attitude of a servant, not a prima donna (no pun intended regarding the gender thing!)
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #970 on: January 26, 2007, 08:57:30 PM »

Unacceptable, why?

Because it's unjust and a sinful form of discrimination.

Quote
Because it's something that we want?  There again, pride comes into play, our thinking that we know better than God.  Pride has no place at the altar--the priest needs to have the attitude of a servant, not a prima donna (no pun intended regarding the gender thing!)

It has nothing to do with pride and everything to do with Justice and Righteousness. To exclude someone from the priesthood based on gender is simply wrong, just as it is wrong to exclude someone based on race. Certain women have callings to serve God just as certain men have these callings...and many of these women are more qualified for the priesthood than many of the men who feel similarly called...and while some of these women are probably not good candidates for the priesthood, the same is true of some of the men who feel called. Thus personalization in the process is important...the injustice is in saying that because someone is a woman they cannot be priests, it is not in saying that a certain man or a certain woman should not be a priest. When we discriminate against people for no other reason than biology, that is simply wrong and sinful...there are no two ways about it. What is most disturbing is that you would label EVERY woman who is called to serve God and His Church as a 'prima donna'...it's simply not true. Sure, there may be a few, but I know more than my fair share of male priests who fit that description as well.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Edmund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #971 on: January 26, 2007, 11:36:57 PM »

Deaconate yes. The priesthood..ha ha thats a funny one
Logged
Edmund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #972 on: January 26, 2007, 11:44:26 PM »

Sarah said "God chooses not us" precisely. Jesus choose men as apostles they in turn ordained men as priests their were women deacons though. The early apostles were guided by the holy spirit who are we to change things because the 1960-1980's womens lib movement made it fashionable to question all gender roles including sadly the priesthood. Thank god this isn't really that big of an issue in orthodoxy (to my understanding) like it is in the RC and thank God it is even dying away among the hierachy in the RC.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #973 on: January 27, 2007, 12:15:31 AM »

thank God it is even dying away among the hierachy in the RC.

Indeed, the cause has been pushed to the fringes, especially since John Paul II's 1994 apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which concluded with this statement:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

John Paul II was known for his diplomatic language, but he pulled no punches here.

I sometimes ask a gay, liberal Catholic friend of mine why he remains in a Church the majority of whose teachings he flatly rejects. His rejection began with homosexuality and women's ordination and now runs the gamut of other moral issues like abortion all the way to fundamentals like the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the veracity of Paul's epistles as the Word of God. He's also a universalist and a full-fledged Pelagian and admits the Church could be wrong about the Resurrection.

One of his big issues is female ordination. I ask him what keeps him from jumping to the Episcopal Church, where he would fit right in and get his pretty liturgy too. He says he stays because he's confident that the Church will change its teachings, beginning with female ordination and homosexuality, within 20 years. I tell him that if ever there was a time that Rome would turn into the ECUSA clone he wants it to become, it was the 1970s. Since then, the Church hierarchy has moved further and further away from these proposed innovations. I tell him that he will die an embittered Catholic, because the revolution was defeated and has begun to die with the generation that flirted with it. There was no better time than 35 years ago to "modernize" the Church, and it failed. The modernizers will not be getting another chance anytime soon.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2007, 12:16:43 AM by lubeltri » Logged
Edmund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #974 on: January 27, 2007, 01:58:23 AM »

Yep and Cardinal Ratzinger head of the CDF Now the Pope said in many statements that this Ordinatio Sacerdatolis document was to be considerd not only infallible but a belief held by all the churches faithfull. So technically in the RC to support womens ordination is the same as supporting Martin Luther's theology its pretty serious stuff but it's still ignored by a lot of the old non habit wearing nuns and pro-abortion feminists other then that it's really a non issue. In third world countries its not an issue at all.
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #975 on: January 27, 2007, 02:06:37 AM »

Holy cow how the heck is it that people support female ordination and call themselves Orthodox? Go be Episcopalian if you think it's God-willed and that the Church somehow missed that for the last two millenia.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Edmund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


« Reply #976 on: January 27, 2007, 02:12:08 AM »

With the risk of sounding like I am shouting out at a southern baptist revival AMEN AMEN  Grin
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #977 on: January 27, 2007, 03:29:38 AM »

It was asked on the other thread "Do you think that women will be ordained?"

Eventually, yes, but probably not for a very long time. First, those who hold to the practice of only ordaining men would have to become a very small minority. Not a minority among Christians, since as long as the Catholics and Orthodox don't ordain women, that wouldn't happen. I mean a minority in whichever culture/country the Orthodox/Catholic Churches find themselves. Then, the culture in which the Church finds itself would have to become so outraged that anyone who didn't go along with majority would be stigmatized as backward and discriminatory. At that point, those who would not ordain women would be viewed as a cult (using the modern American sense of the term), or worse. IMO it is only under such circumstances that the Orthodox or Catholic Church would change their practice (for the Catholics I think allowing would-be priests to marry would come first).

I actually think that this change would be easier for the Catholics, since 1) (the practical side) they already change stuff and they are comfortable contradicting earlier beliefs (e.g., papal infallibility), since they can just claim that something was never really, really, really authoritively taught by Rome, and 2) (the doctrinal side) thanks to Newman they already have a specific and explored theological basis for changing. Orthodoxy hasn't even faced the fact that they can, have, and will have to change practices (e.g., allowing contraception), so I think a development of doctrine (which is what most Orthodox would consider this subject) is still a ways off.

Another reason that Catholics would probably find the change easier is that they are more interested in adapting to modern culture (e.g., the attempts of Popes in the 20th century to authoritatively, formally reconcile evolution and creation). Orthodoxy doesn't seem to much care what people think, and have largely forgotten that their mission is to transform the culture in which they find themselves. Tradition is no longer the passing on of information, such that people's lives are changed in a meaningful way, but for many have now become a museum-like preservation of information. Put another way, people will usually take proof texts over actual reality when looking at John Chrysostom or Paul (it's just human nature, people want answers, they don't want to be told that people often times contradicted in practice their own statements in print... it's just that the Orthodox settle for old proof texts, and Catholics sometimes are willing to invent new proof texts).

Any estimates are of course arbitrary and would be based on more factors than I could probably consider, but fwiw I doubt that the Catholics or Orthodox would ordain a woman in the next two centuries.. It was only recently that Orthodox theologians (e.g,. Bp. Kallistos) started to have serious discussions on this topic, and both Churches usually move at a snail's pace. There will also have to be various answers found for questions about why they didn't ordain women before, whether they were wrong in their previous arguments, whether this means that other doctrines might change, etc. As I said before, things will only change once the weight of human society begins to pressure the Church(es) to change.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2007, 03:33:28 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #978 on: January 27, 2007, 06:59:07 AM »

It was asked on the other thread "Do you think that women will be ordained?"

Eventually, yes, but probably not for a very long time. First, those who hold to the practice of only ordaining men would have to become a very small minority. Not a minority among Christians, since as long as the Catholics and Orthodox don't ordain women, that wouldn't happen. I mean a minority in whichever culture/country the Orthodox/Catholic Churches find themselves. Then, the culture in which the Church finds itself would have to become so outraged that anyone who didn't go along with majority would be stigmatized as backward and discriminatory. At that point, those who would not ordain women would be viewed as a cult (using the modern American sense of the term), or worse. IMO it is only under such circumstances that the Orthodox or Catholic Church would change their practice (for the Catholics I think allowing would-be priests to marry would come first).

I actually think that this change would be easier for the Catholics, since 1) (the practical side) they already change stuff and they are comfortable contradicting earlier beliefs (e.g., papal infallibility), since they can just claim that something was never really, really, really authoritively taught by Rome, and 2) (the doctrinal side) thanks to Newman they already have a specific and explored theological basis for changing. Orthodoxy hasn't even faced the fact that they can, have, and will have to change practices (e.g., allowing contraception), so I think a development of doctrine (which is what most Orthodox would consider this subject) is still a ways off.

Another reason that Catholics would probably find the change easier is that they are more interested in adapting to modern culture (e.g., the attempts of Popes in the 20th century to authoritatively, formally reconcile evolution and creation). Orthodoxy doesn't seem to much care what people think, and have largely forgotten that their mission is to transform the culture in which they find themselves. Tradition is no longer the passing on of information, such that people's lives are changed in a meaningful way, but for many have now become a museum-like preservation of information. Put another way, people will usually take proof texts over actual reality when looking at John Chrysostom or Paul (it's just human nature, people want answers, they don't want to be told that people often times contradicted in practice their own statements in print... it's just that the Orthodox settle for old proof texts, and Catholics sometimes are willing to invent new proof texts).

Any estimates are of course arbitrary and would be based on more factors than I could probably consider, but fwiw I doubt that the Catholics or Orthodox would ordain a woman in the next two centuries.. It was only recently that Orthodox theologians (e.g,. Bp. Kallistos) started to have serious discussions on this topic, and both Churches usually move at a snail's pace. There will also have to be various answers found for questions about why they didn't ordain women before, whether they were wrong in their previous arguments, whether this means that other doctrines might change, etc. As I said before, things will only change once the weight of human society begins to pressure the Church(es) to change.

Asteriktos

Seeing how issues have escalated over the past few decades, I had estimated about a hundred years before the ordination of women became a reality. Of course, that was just my own estimate.

Basically, the thrust of my posts has been that if the Church doesn't willingly change, the change will be forced on her. Once that occurs, the Church will have lost the upper hand, and (as happened in the Anglican church) the agendum of those imposing the changes will take over. Orthodoxy will be seen as the last bastion of male supremacy and under the attack of powerful political forces she won't have any choice but to surrender under the weight of public demand; because the attack will come from within as well as without. And unless the Church can produce some stronger theological arguments than it has already against the ordination of women, it will, I believe, gradually lose the support of Orthodox women. Once it becomes an issue of human/women's rights, any refusal to accept any woman candidate - suitable or not - for the priesthood will be seen as discrimination.

Perhaps, if the Church changed willingly, she wouldn't be a target (well, not so much, at least) and would retain the authority to ordain only those she considered were responding to a calling.

Unless there are some powerful theological reasons for continuing to deny women ordination, a pragmatic approach seems the most obvious. However, I honestly don't expect such an attitude to prevail. History shows us that humanity always seems to go for the "throwing the baby out with the bath-water" approach, rather than considering what is sensible; or what action serves a greater good.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #979 on: January 27, 2007, 09:01:32 AM »

Yep and Cardinal Ratzinger head of the CDF Now the Pope said in many statements that this Ordinatio Sacerdatolis document was to be considerd not only infallible but a belief held by all the churches faithfull. So technically in the RC to support womens ordination is the same as supporting Martin Luther's theology its pretty serious stuff but it's still ignored by a lot of the old non habit wearing nuns and pro-abortion feminists other then that it's really a non issue. In third world countries its not an issue at all.

Popish posturing is not my concern...ultimately it's no one's concern...all that has to happen is one pope, symphathetic to the Ordination of Women, must take office and countless dogmatic decrees will be declared invalid and the ordiation of women instituted overnight. Of course, so long as rome refuses to do this, it's her loss...she faces diminishing influence in countries that were traditionally catholic strongholds, in france, spain, and even italy the opinion of the Church is losing more and more force with each passing year...and Rome is foolish enough to blame this on the people...it's not the people, the people are as people always were, the problem with the Church, it is making itself irrelevant and a such it is being abandoned, as, surely, no religion at all is preferable to some of this nonsense being spouted off by Rome. Rome can claim dogmatic infallibility all she wants, but it will fall on deaf ears within enlightened civilizations...and those more backwards people who still cling on her every word as though they held some truth can only be kept in the dark for so long...globalization is the order of the day.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #980 on: January 27, 2007, 09:41:31 AM »

I'll think that if it does happen, those that do it will create schism needlessly. The pro-WO position seems to have no ultimate basis but modern political philosopy (ie 'Gender Politics'.) There is simply no good reason for women's ordination in the Church. Will it happen? Likely - but my prediction is that it would only create another sect apart from Orthodoxy. Deaconesses (not 'Women Deacons') is another matter entirely, and I feel that the existence of Orthodox deaconesses is being misrepresented by some polemicists as a 'victory' for proponents of women's ordination. (Yay - opinions.  Tongue )
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #981 on: January 27, 2007, 09:49:20 AM »

Eventually, yes, but probably not for a very long time. First, those who hold to the practice of only ordaining men would have to become a very small minority. Not a minority among Christians, since as long as the Catholics and Orthodox don't ordain women, that wouldn't happen. I mean a minority in whichever culture/country the Orthodox/Catholic Churches find themselves. Then, the culture in which the Church finds itself would have to become so outraged that anyone who didn't go along with majority would be stigmatized as backward and discriminatory. At that point, those who would not ordain women would be viewed as a cult (using the modern American sense of the term), or worse. IMO it is only under such circumstances that the Orthodox or Catholic Church would change their practice (for the Catholics I think allowing would-be priests to marry would come first).

Well, I think a realistic model that we can look towards is the episcopal church, it took roughly 125 years since the first deaconesses were ordained (I think for our purposes emphasis should be placed on the importance of ordaining 'secular deaconesses' since monastic influence is greatly diminished from the past) before the first women priests were ordained. Of course, it must be understand that this time period is so long because of the cultural accomplishments that had to be achieved between the 1850's and 1970's. Thus, since much of this work has been done for us, I do not believe such a long time will be required. However, the point is that once the office of the female deaconate was opened up...and there can be no viable resistance to this occuring...the progression towards ordination to the priesthood is all but assured. It will only take so long as is required for the populace to become accustom to women in clerical orders...ultimately, for the masses, the question will be one of liturgical aesthetics, not dogmatics. And familiarity begets aesthetics.

Quote
I actually think that this change would be easier for the Catholics, since 1) (the practical side) they already change stuff and they are comfortable contradicting earlier beliefs (e.g., papal infallibility), since they can just claim that something was never really, really, really authoritively taught by Rome, and 2) (the doctrinal side) thanks to Newman they already have a specific and explored theological basis for changing. Orthodoxy hasn't even faced the fact that they can, have, and will have to change practices (e.g., allowing contraception), so I think a development of doctrine (which is what most Orthodox would consider this subject) is still a ways off.

We have the advantage of not having made any foolish statements in a binding context on the issue as Rome has...and if we can avoid making any such foolish statements for the next 50 years, it will save us difficulity in the future, as those who oppose the ordination of women won't even have a synod with which they can claim solidarity. Of course, Rome can dismiss past 'dogmatic' statements with ease as it's ultimately a personality cult centered around the current pontif. I think the difference is that with Rome, the ordination of women is more likely to be revolutionary, as where with the Orthodox it will be evolutionary. Thus, while we are further along than Rome, Rome does have the potential of moving faster than we do. But, in either case, once one Church makes the move, it will be nearly impossible for the other to maintain the status quo for long...and the time that they can buy will be purchased at a great price.

Quote
Another reason that Catholics would probably find the change easier is that they are more interested in adapting to modern culture (e.g., the attempts of Popes in the 20th century to authoritatively, formally reconcile evolution and creation). Orthodoxy doesn't seem to much care what people think, and have largely forgotten that their mission is to transform the culture in which they find themselves. Tradition is no longer the passing on of information, such that people's lives are changed in a meaningful way, but for many have now become a museum-like preservation of information. Put another way, people will usually take proof texts over actual reality when looking at John Chrysostom or Paul (it's just human nature, people want answers, they don't want to be told that people often times contradicted in practice their own statements in print... it's just that the Orthodox settle for old proof texts, and Catholics sometimes are willing to invent new proof texts).

While this is certainly true of the uneducated peasant and ultra-pietistic layman...I dont think this accurately characterizes our Bishops, they tend to be more cultured and in tune with modern society...and, in America, supporitve of liberal politics. Sure, there are some bishops who are also ultra-conservative, but I think that most, at least within the Oecumenical Patriarchate with which I am most familiar and which I believe will be the biggest player in this issue, are simply cautious. Ultimately, it's not a dogmatic issue, the theological reasons against the ordination of women have been destroyed, or more accurately they have destroyed themselves, it's now a cultural issue, we must simply win the hearts and minds of the people.

Quote
Any estimates are of course arbitrary and would be based on more factors than I could probably consider, but fwiw I doubt that the Catholics or Orthodox would ordain a woman in the next two centuries.. It was only recently that Orthodox theologians (e.g,. Bp. Kallistos) started to have serious discussions on this topic, and both Churches usually move at a snail's pace. There will also have to be various answers found for questions about why they didn't ordain women before, whether they were wrong in their previous arguments, whether this means that other doctrines might change, etc. As I said before, things will only change once the weight of human society begins to pressure the Church(es) to change.

Well, there you are more pessimistic than I...I believe that far sooner than you suggest the entry of women into the deaconate will occur in the west in an organic manner, with the response in Constantinople being notable only in its silence. The Church of Greece will follow (or maybe even precede) by plebiscite, not coming through the Church proper but being imposed (or, shall we say, very strongly encouraged) by the State. The rest of the jurisdictoin of the Oecumenical Throne will soon follow, the Ancient patriarchates will fall in line behind Constantinople, starting with her most loyal of supporters, Alexandria. Russia will resist for purely political reasons, taking with her a few satellite states, after a few excommunications an agreement similar to the calendar issue will be made. But before too long, cultural developments will catch up with Russia as well, and when resistance is no longer politically expedient, she will conform. I see the first women priests being ordained around the turn of the next century.

Of course, this is all highly hypothetical, but I believe soundly based on the cultural and political realities currently existing within the Church. The movement will, indeed has, began in the west and in Greece...and in Greece it will be embraced because state funding is valued above all else...they may resist at first, but it is impossible to underestimate the power of the purse. Furthermore, the fact that the 'theological' arguments against the ordination of women have already become a joke in nearly all educated circles, and thus a retreat to arguments based on non-codified custom, demonstrates that they have already lost the dogmatic and canonical battle, their attacks have been blunted. They have retreated to their Masada of culturally ingrained prejudice, but from there they cannot counter-attack, it is only a matter of time before the siege walls are built, the ramp is constructed, and the fortress is carried by superior arms.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #982 on: January 27, 2007, 09:55:00 AM »

I'll think that if it does happen, those that do it will create schism needlessly. The pro-WO position seems to have no ultimate basis but modern political philosopy (ie 'Gender Politics'.) There is simply no good reason for women's ordination in the Church. Will it happen? Likely - but my prediction is that it would only create another sect apart from Orthodoxy. Deaconesses (not 'Women Deacons') is another matter entirely, and I feel that the existence of Orthodox deaconesses is being misrepresented by some polemicists as a 'victory' for proponents of women's ordination. (Yay - opinions.  Tongue )

There are casualties in every war. If a radical sect of fundamentalists wish to schism and go their own way, I say we issue them with Anathemas as they walk out the door and wish them a good riddance. Of course, the Anglicans also predicted the same mass exodus...it didn't happen and I don't suspect we'd be any different; most people have things other than ecclesiastical politics to busy their days with, we here on this board are the exception, not the rule.

Oh, and any way you look at it, like it or not, the restoration of the female deaconate, regardless of what you call it, is a victory...it is a great victory since the battle is now for the hearts and minds of the masses, and as I mentioned in my post above, familiarity is the first step. It's like the beginning of the presidential primary, more important than your stance on the issues is name recognition, get your name out there, worry about your political opinions later.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2007, 09:57:02 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #983 on: January 27, 2007, 10:15:44 AM »

I disagree - the schism would not be on the part of opponents of women's ordination. It is a mischaracterization to label such opponents as 'fundamentalist'. Conservative would be a better term (conservative in the sense of the conservation of what has served well enough, and will still serve in the future.) Ironically, by any definition of fundamentalism, proponents of women's ordination are more fundamentalist - they hold a women's right to Holy Orders as a fundamental principle which is to be rigidly adhered to, are are entirely intolerant of those opposed to their sectarian idea. Often the idea is also married to the opposition to the 'Patriarchal male' secular society. The situation in the Anglican Communion illustrates this - women's ordination has been treated as a fundamental principle, especially in TEC, and those not adhering to the idea have been punished severely. In the COE the fundamentalism has some balance in that toleration was extended in the form of the PEVs, though even there they are still under attack from Fundamentalist WOers.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #984 on: January 27, 2007, 10:41:19 AM »

I disagree - the schism would not be on the part of opponents of women's ordination. It is a mischaracterization to label such opponents as 'fundamentalist'. Conservative would be a better term (conservative in the sense of the conservation of what has served well enough, and will still serve in the future.)

Conservative does not accurately describe them, perhaps the term 'reactionary.' Which is most appropriate considering they did not believe this to be an issue worth even discussing in synod until progressives started to question the indefensible practice, at which point they felt threatened and violently reacted.

Quote
Ironically, by any definition of fundamentalism, proponents of women's ordination are more fundamentalist - they hold a women's right to Holy Orders as a fundamental principle which is to be rigidly adhered to, are are entirely intolerant of those opposed to their sectarian idea.

Ah, I was going to make the distinction but then I see that you made it for me...you're right, the opponents to the ordination of women are not fundamentalists in the proper sense of the term, for they are not concerned with fundamental Christian truths, rather they are concerned with maintaining the status quo...however, the term fundamentalist as it has evolved in use in this country is most appropriate, they are a group which claims to be upholding the fundamentals of the faith, but in reality they are really doing nothing more than using ancient texts to justify intolerance and oppression in the modern world.

Quote
Often the idea is also married to the opposition to the 'Patriarchal male' secular society. The situation in the Anglican Communion illustrates this - women's ordination has been treated as a fundamental principle, especially in TEC, and those not adhering to the idea have been punished severely. In the COE the fundamentalism has some balance in that toleration was extended in the form of the PEVs, though even there they are still under attack from Fundamentalist WOers.

If you dont wish to espouse these ideas, fine, they're not dogmatic in nature; however, while you are free to form your own opinions on no dogmatic matters...you are not free to restrict opportunities to others based on these opinions.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2007, 10:43:38 AM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #985 on: January 27, 2007, 11:14:59 AM »

Quote
...perhaps the term 'reactionary.'

Not really - there has been no 'violent reaction', and 'threatened' is a little extreme for what anyone feels by the issue. Conservative in the sense of conservation is still the best term. Reactionary would be wildly inappropriate, as 'women's ordination' does not represent progress. For an idea to be progress it has to produce good - women's ordination has had an inverse production of good relative to the promises of its proponents. Women's ordination rather has weakened every Christian group that has adopted it as a norm. This is particularly true for Christian bodies who make a claim to Tradition as a guide for faith, practice and morals. 

Quote
...for they are not concerned with fundamental Christian truths, rather they are concerned with maintaining the status quo...

To the contrary, opposition to women's ordination is entirely about Christian Truth, though again not with 'fundamentals'. Strange that you use the term 'status quo' as if it is a negative. Conservation understands the 'status quo' as the habitat of Life, the way contrary to destruction, radicalism, forgetfulness, etc.

Quote
...in reality they are really doing nothing more than using ancient texts to justify intolerance and oppression in the modern world.

It is not oppression that women and most men are not ordained to Holy Orders. It is not intolerance either - if one holds to such fundamental principles that it is intolerance and oppression not to give women Holy Orders then one should be consistent and insist that every human being be given full Holy Orders (even the episcopate) lest any be oppressed.

Quote
If you dont wish to espouse these ideas, fine, they're not dogmatic in nature; however, while you are free to form your own opinions on no dogmatic matters...you are not free to restrict opportunities to others based on these opinions.

Yet Holy Orders is a dogmatic matter - they were instituted by Christ our God. However, the use of polemical radical political terminology to alienate the faithful of Orthodoxy for not accepting women's ordination shows that it is being treated as a fundamental dogmatic matter by it's proponents. The idea of 'you are not free to restrict opportunities to others' is inconsistent - again, it is restriction of opportunities not to make everyone a bishop regardless of age, sex, impediments, marital condition, faith held, etc. So, the Church is absolutely free to restrict opportunities - they restrict mine, as they have since the beginning. If I wanted it otherwise, there is always the Friends or Church of Christ where all are equal. (I note your ironic use of the seal of our government? Wink ) If I agreed with you, then I would expect your full enthusiastic support to remove the intolerance and oppression of restricting me from being the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople - if you don't, then I could understand that you have other motives than Christian truth, freedom from oppression and removal of restrictions for wanting women's ordination but not for everyone else.  Grin
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,352


metron ariston


« Reply #986 on: January 27, 2007, 11:41:07 AM »

What was it who brought this thread back from the dead? Shame on them!! This monster had been thoroughly beat into the ground.
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)
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #987 on: January 27, 2007, 11:44:20 AM »

No kidding - but since someone started posting to it again, I'm interested to hear greekischristian's 'conversion story' due to his flip on the purported conviction of being against women's ordination of 18 months ago or so.  Cheesy


I am a little mortified though by the idea of the priesthood being a 'role'. Also with the idea that one who is not in the position to select or ordain candidates for ordination can claim to know that there are indeed women who are both called and equipped for such service. Both seem to suggest a view of Christianity that is entirely materialistic and political. Most disturbing is the tacit accusation against Our Lord Jesus Christ towards being injust and unrighteous in that he overturned the rules of his day, particularly as towards women in the Empire, but his exclusion of women from the ministries that he ordained as being an 'evil'.

Quote
What I do find particularly interesting is that the Judeaic/Graeco/Roman Christian Church was so instrumental in striping away women's rights within the Celtic world.


This one I just found funny - some Nationalist polemicists have made this claim, but the evidence is not particularly strong for women having more 'rights' in the Celtic world. They had some differences in the legal sense, but still were every much bit chattel (in fact, being a sort of 'living titles' to property which men acquired by marriage.) Pagan Celtic women had harsh lives. Their 'equality' consisted only in being allowed to have an education. In fact, modern claims about Celtic women owning property is a falsehood - the tribe owned all property, and by ancient law every degree of kinship from fine to inn-fine (the smallest legal entity of relation to the point beyond which there is no relation/strangers) is entirely male. Which means all property was owned collectively in Celtic society by the combined males of a given tribe. Females only had use of the property of whichever tribe acquired them in turn as property of the tribe. It was not til the coming of Christianity that women were freed from the barbarities of Celtic warfare and its murder, maiming, tortures, etc. To blame the overturning of Celtic law and culture on Christianity, the Jews, the Romans, the Greeks - all an absurdity. It survived until the 17th c. in those parts still Celtic in culture and was only overturned by *Protestants* (the defining characteristic of their invaders over any other identifier.)

In fact, pagan women had harsh lives - Christianity was the only true improvement. (Consider that all evidence of female leaders are a vast minority compared to male leaders in every society.)  That being said, female clergy were quite common in pagan cultures. Christianity (beginning with Jesus Christ) overturned the exploitation of women and recognized them as human beings with souls, however it was not an act of ommission that women were not amongst the priesthood or episcopate of the Christians from the time of the Great Commission. That is not a slight to women.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2007, 12:18:05 PM by Aristibule » Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #988 on: January 27, 2007, 12:47:48 PM »

No kidding - but since someone started posting to it again, I'm interested to hear greekischristian's 'conversion story' due to his flip on the purported conviction of being against women's ordination of 18 months ago or so.  Cheesy

The question was already asked and answered in another thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8747.msg117545.html#msg117545

Quote
I am a little mortified though by the idea of the priesthood being a 'role'. Also with the idea that one who is not in the position to select or ordain candidates for ordination can claim to know that there are indeed women who are both called and equipped for such service. Both seem to suggest a view of Christianity that is entirely materialistic and political. Most disturbing is the tacit accusation against Our Lord Jesus Christ towards being injust and unrighteous in that he overturned the rules of his day, particularly as towards women in the Empire, but his exclusion of women from the ministries that he ordained as being an 'evil'.

I'm a bit concerned about the monophysite approach to ordination that seems to be presented here...as there were no human elements to the priesthood and as though the bishop was required to perform some spiritual ritual to determine those who should be ordained, rather than being able to rely on the human properties given to them by God. Of course, we all know what a bishop looks for and considers when ordaining someone, we all understand the pragmatic reality; we simply pretend to apply metaphysical principles to obstruct the truth. But, fortunately for you, I'm not planning on ordaining anyone, of either gender, in the near future...my argument is essentially that this is a purely cultural issue, so when the bishops do begin ordaining woman, which they will in time, if you oppose it you're outside the Church. I dont believe I have yet suggested that anyone should be ordained by anyone other than the episcopacy.

Quote
In fact, pagan women had harsh lives - Christianity was the only true improvement. (Consider that all evidence of female leaders are a vast minority compared to male leaders in every society.)  That being said, female clergy were quite common in pagan cultures. Christianity (beginning with Jesus Christ) overturned the exploitation of women and recognized them as human beings with souls, however it was not an act of ommission that women were not amongst the priesthood or episcopate of the Christians from the time of the Great Commission. That is not a slight to women.

I love this pretending that Christainity invented it's own new culture and social system, though no objective scholar would dare question that Christian theology and practice were derived from 1st century jewish and greco-roman culture and philosophical thought. It's like living every day at disneyland isn't it? Lots of fun, but no substance.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #989 on: January 27, 2007, 12:49:22 PM »

What was it who brought this thread back from the dead? Shame on them!! This monster had been thoroughly beat into the ground.

I didn't really feel like getting back into the issue either...as my arguments probably evidence. But, I dont intend to let this misogynistic nonsense go unchallenged. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
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 0.177 seconds with 72 queries.