Topic: Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church

[Bizzlebin]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Bizzlebin, I've grown to like you a lot in this conversation, despite the trauma!
The hands were crossed for the reception of Holy Communion in the same way that a Godparent crosses his or her hands according to the rubrics of baptism to receive the Blessed Oil to anoint their Godchild prior to their immersion. The back of the right hand is placed in the palm of the left hand. Do this yourself, and you will see that your hands form a cross. A pyx is a small box made of gold which could easily rest in the right palm. If crossing the hands is a stable enough way to receive Blessed Oil (which is a liquid), then it is a stable enough way to carry a small box, or receive the Body of Christ (both of which are solid).

I was under the impression this was different. For example, I see everyone crossed over their chest and up towards their shoulders, not crossed in front of themselves. Perhaps it hinges on which type of crossing is implied here, so let us see if we can establish that. Knowing that the type of crossing you suggest would place the box in the hands, and not the arms, let us see if this is the situation suggested.

"But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels..."

This seems to imply that those who had vessels also didn't cross their hands, else the canon wouldn't say "instad of" but rather "in addition to," or "upon." And why is this? If the crossing you suggested was implemeted, it would be a peice of cake. But, if the arms were crossed over the chest, as I see practiced to this day, it would be next to impossible to be crossed and hold a vessel at the same time. So, the answer appears.

[ozgeorge]

I was under the impression this was different.

And it has just dawned on me that this was the case!
This is what St. John of Damascus means when he says:
"placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King"

[Bizzlebin]

And it has just dawned on me that this was the case!
This is what St. John of Damascus means when he says:
"placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King"

A great quote for someone who was a baby at the time of the Council! It is ultimately inconclusive. The only way we can get the answer of the early Church is to go back to someone in the early Church, St. Cyril. However, seeing as his quote has been beaten to death, let us look for another. From Dionysius the Great, Epistle III:

"The boy returned bearing the portion; and as he came near, and before he had yet entered, Serapion again recovered, and said, "You have come, my child, and the presbyter was unable to come; but do quickly what you were instructed to do, and so let me depart." The boy steeped the morsel in water, and at once dropped it into the (old man's) mouth; and after he had swallowed a little of it, he forthwith gave up the ghost."

Hopefully that is sufficient. And, you should still explain how the canon failed to mentioned the box being held in crossed hands.

[ozgeorge]

dropped it into the (old man's) mouth;

That's strange....the boy (who was not a clergyman) "dropped" it into the dying man's mouth....Why did he "drop it" if he was using an impliment to "place it" in his mouth? Was he perhaps not using an impliment but handling It with his hand?
Have you ever cared for someone who is dying? I have...many times...
They don't even hold their own glass to drink from, you have to do it for them.
Hardly conclusive.

[ozgeorge]

the canon failed to mentioned the box being held in crossed hands.

Why should it?

[ozgeorge]

A great quote for someone who was a baby at the time of the Council!

I think you will find he was actually closer to your age at the time of the Council.
Should the opinions of people your age not be listened to?

[Bizzlebin]

That's strange....the boy (who was not a clergyman) "dropped" it into the dying man's mouth....Why did he "drop it" if he was using an impliment to "place it" in his mouth? Was he perhaps not using an impliment but handling It with his hand?
Have you ever cared for someone who is dying? I have...many times...
They don't even hold their own glass to drink from, you have to do it for them.
Hardly conclusive.

He didn't have instruments because he wasn't a priest, and would be in violation of the canon. And, seeing as he was rational and able to speak clearly, I doubt it would have been a problem for him to move his hands a little. It only says he was unable to walk, not that he was unable to move.

Nonetheless, so that you may believe, Pope Leo the Great in his Sermons:

"For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken."

St. Basil says it so clearly it is beautiful:

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves."

Why in the world would St. Basil have to say taking it in the hand is not a serious offense in times of persecution, if it was not a serious offense in peaceful times?

And, believe it or not, another canon in the Council of Trullo addressed this very issue! Canon LVIII:

"None of those who are in the order of laymen may distribute the Divine Mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be present. But whoso shall dare to do such a thing, as acting contrary to what has been determined shall be cut off for a week and thenceforth let him learn not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think."

Well, a weeks excommunication for giving yourself the Eucharist! That is simply irrefutable.

[Bizzlebin]

I think you will find he was actually closer to your age at the time of the Council.
Should the opinions of people your age not be listened to?

It depends on what date one considers his birth. There are a few dates floating around. Nonetheless, the point is that he wasn't at the Council, and so his words aren't very helpful in determining what the Council said.

No, don't listen to me. I didn't become Orthodox to have an opinion, but to get rid of my opinion. I am only interested in the Truth preserved by the Church, the Truth which is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

[Bizzlebin]

Why should it?

Because that is the issue it is addressing, according to your theory. I find it suspect that such key details are missing.

Some more symbolism: Who was the one who reached for the bread on his own at the Last Supper? Judas, the betrayer!

[ozgeorge]

Because that is the issue it is addressing, according to your theory.

No dear friend, it is the issue according to your theory. As you say:

I find it suspect that such key details are missing.

Some more symbolism: Who was the one who reached for the bread on his own at the Last Supper? Judas, the betrayer!

Wrong again. He dipped at the same time as Christ.

[Bizzlebin]

No dear friend, it is the issue according to your theory. As you say:

Wrong again. He dipped at the same time as Christ.

You were the one that proposed the held the vessels in their hands, not I. Canons almost always speak in detail of the issues at hand, whether it be naming the group in schism/heresy, or talking about the action itself. The actions you are speaking of simply aren't described.

The same time as Christ, our High Priest did. Again, no contradiction on my end

[ozgeorge]

You were the one that proposed the held the vessels in their hands, not I.

And why did I do this? Was it not to show you that "crossing one's hands" and "holding a pyx" were not mutually exclusive as you suggested they were?
And St. John Damascene (who was your age at the time of the Council of Trullo) explains that "crossing one's hands" mentioned in the Canon of the Council means to place the right hand in the left to receive Communion. And yet you still insist that St. John Damascene is wrong about the practices of his own time, and that you are right about them!
Give up Bizzlebin!

[Bizzlebin]

And why did I do this? Was it not to show you that "crossing one's hands" and "holding a pyx" were not mutually exclusive as you suggested they were?

And St. John Damascene (who was your age at the time of the Council of Trullo) explains that "crossing one's hands" mentioned in the Canon of the Council means to place the right hand in the left to receive Communion. And yet you still insist that St. John Damascene is wrong about the practices of his own time, and that you are right about them!
Give up Bizzlebin!

And you did. And in doing so, you also showed there is no mention of it in the canon.

He is not even referring to the Council of Trullo. In fact, we don't even know if he studied all of it canons at the time he wrote that statement. If you would be so kind as to provide the context of St. John's statement, and also the controversy surrounding it (as to whether he wrote it) then you'll see why it doesn't hold water. When another canon of the very same Council calls upon the excommunication of any laymen who give themselves the Body, there is little question as to what is being said. You give yourself the Body, you get excommunicated. Surely the two canons don't contradict each other!

[montalban]

And you did. And in doing so, you also showed there is no mention of it in the canon.

He is not even referring to the Council of Trullo. In fact, we don't even know if he studied all of it canons at the time he wrote that statement. If you would be so kind as to provide the context of St. John's statement, and also the controversy surrounding it (as to whether he wrote it) then you'll see why it doesn't hold water. When another canon of the very same Council calls upon the excommunication of any laymen who give themselves the Body, there is little question as to what is being said. You give yourself the Body, you get excommunicated. Surely the two canons don't contradict each other!

It seems that this thread is now a conversation between you two; as OzGeorge refuses to answer my question (stated twice now).

Te problem here is that he tries all arguments at once, especially in light as he's now on record as saying he's against women's ordination as priests.

[ozgeorge]

And you did. And in doing so, you also showed there is no mention of it in the canon.

He is not even referring to the Council of Trullo. In fact, we don't even know if he studied all of it canons at the time he wrote that statement.
If you would be so kind as to provide the context of St. John's statement....

Bizzlebin, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the context is! What matters is that HE IS DESCRIBING THE PRACTICE OF HIS DAY WHICH WAS AFTER TRULLO!

I'm sorry to "shout", but I can't understand two things about your argument:

1)  How YOU can be right about how Communion was received in St. John Damascene's time and HE be wrong about it.
and
2) WHY ON EARTH YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THE FATHERS INCLUDED ST. JOHN DAMASCENE'S EPITOME UNDER THIS CANON IN THE PEDALION! WERE THE FATHERS JUST TRYING TO CONFUSE US?!

[Bizzlebin]

Bizzlebin, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the context is! What matters is that HE IS DESCRIBING THE PRACTICE OF HIS DAY WHICH WAS AFTER TRULLO!

I'm sorry to "shout", but I can't understand two things about your argument:

1)  How YOU can be right about how Communion was received in St. John Damascene's time and HE be wrong about it.
and
2) WHY ON EARTH YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THE FATHERS INCLUDED HIS EPITOME UNDER THIS CANON IN THE PEDALION!

He is only describing the practice of his area, or even his congregation. Surely it would be silly of me if I found some uncanonical parish and them claimed it represented Orthodoxy.

I am not saying it wasn't done that way in his area at that time. But I am interested in the ancient, and canonical, practice. Explain to me how you rationalize the canon that prescribes excommunication for any laymen who give themselves communion.

The Pedallion was a later writing which was compiled by a very select group of people. As I have shown with quotes from a multitude of people, including St. Basil, Pope Leo, Dionysius, and Balsomon, as opposed to apealing to the same quote again and again, the practice that writers of the Pedallion thought was right, and the practice that the Saints endorsed were two very different things. And, you have also failed to provide the context of St. John's quote, while I have provided context and explanation for everything. I think the situation here is clear.

[ozgeorge]

I think the situation here is clear.

Oh yes, I see it now. St. John Damascene, the Defender of the Icons, was an uncanonical Priest who administered the Holy Gifts contrary to the Canons- why didn't I see that earlier?
And what's more, the Pedalion, The great Rudder of the Church is not to be trusted....
Thank you for showing me the way to true Orthodoxy!
What else do they teach you in the OCA?

[Bizzlebin]

Oh yes, I see it now. St. John Damascene, the Defender of the Icons, was an uncanonical Priest who administered the Holy Gifts contrary to the Canons- why didn't I see that earlier?
And what's more, the Pedalion, The great Rudder of the Church is not to be trusted....
Thank you for showing me the way to true Orthodoxy!
What else do they teach you in the OCA?

The Pedallian is merely a collection of canons with notes based on the interpretations of the authors. Certainly the canons are not wrong, only the mistaken interpretations of some of them. I surely hope you're not accusing me of ignoring canons. Let's not get into who is canonical and who is not.

As for St. John of Damascus, what prevents him from making a mistake? Don't tell me St. Augustine had his theology right! Sainthood isn't a guarantee of theological or pastoral perfection.

All you've done is use one quote, whose authorship is contested, and try and ignore the views of at least four other men I've presented. Come now, be honest.

[ozgeorge]

The Pedallian is merely a collection of canons with notes based on the interpretations of the authors. Certainly the canons are not wrong, only the mistaken interpretations of some of them. I surely hope you're not accusing me of ignoring canons. Let's not get into who is canonical and who is not.

As for St. John of Damascus, what prevents him from making a mistake? Don't tell me St. Augustine had his theology right! Sainthood isn't a guarantee of theological or pastoral perfection.

All you've done is use one quote, whose authorship is contested, and try and ignore the views of at least four other men I've presented. Come now, be honest.

So, the Pedalion is wrong in it's interpretation of the Canon, St. John Damascene is wrong in his praxis, and you are right...?

[Bizzlebin]

So, the Pedalion is wrong in it's interpretation of the Canon, St. John Damascene is wrong in his praxis, and you are right...?

Rather, St. Basil, Leo, Dionysius, Balsamon and others who I have not needed to quote are right, and St. John is wrong. But perhaps you can finally provide the context of his quote for everyone to see?

[ozgeorge]

Rather, St. Basil, Leo, Dionysius, Balsamon and others who I have not needed to quote are right, and St. John is wrong.

Or perhaps you have simply misunderstood what they are saying......
Is that so far beyond the realm of possibility?

But perhaps you can finally provide the context of his quote for everyone to see?

Actually, I can. But AGAIN I have to ask, why is this relevant? The fact is the Fathers included this quote in the Pedalion to explain the 101st Canon of Trullo, and it is this context which you have to prove is erroneous. The burden of proof lies with you.

[Bizzlebin]

Or perhaps you have simply misunderstood what they are saying......
Is that so far beyond the realm of possibility?

Actually, I can. But AGAIN I have to ask, why is this relevant? The fact is the Fathers included this quote in the Pedalion to explain the 101st Canon of Trullo, and it is this context which you have to prove is erroneous. The burden of proof lies with you.

Well, how do you explain St. Basil calling it a serious offense? What am I misunderstanding there? You seem to think that your being mistaken is what is outside of the realm of possibility, no matter how many fathers speak to the contrary.

Hardly. I have already shown a very logical interpretation of the canon which lines up with the Epitome and many other Saints. All you have done is rehash the same quote over and over and over. Anyways, the relevancy lies in the context; it will show us what St. John was talking about, who he was addressing, and whether or not this was canonical.

And it still wouldn't hurt to explain the other canon.

[ozgeorge]

Well, how do you explain St. Basil calling it a serious offense?

He doesn't.

I have already shown a very logical interpretation of the canon which lines up with the Epitome and many other Saints.

No, what you have done is said that the Pedalion is in error in it's understanding of the 101st Canon of Trullo, and I think you are thereby obligated to defend your position against that of the Pedalion.

[Bizzlebin]

He doesn't.

No, what you have done is said that the Pedalion is in error in it's understanding of the 101st Canon of Trullo, and I think you are thereby obligated to defend your position against that of the Pedalion.

Then re-interpret his saying for us.

So the Pedallion, which was created after all these saints, is somehow above them? I think that is a bit ridiculous. That claim is what needs support. Show the authority of the Pedallion, and then I will be happy to.

[ozgeorge]

Then re-interpret his saying for us.

Which one?

So the Pedallion, which was created after all these saints, is somehow above them?

Well actually, in a way, yes it is, in that it contains the Concilliar decisions of the Oecumenical Church which are binding on all Orthodox Churches. No one single Saint's teaching is binding on the whole Church. I am surprised that given the magnitude of your discovery that a Canon is misinterpreted in the Pedalion that no one else in the entire Church seems to have picked up on this to correct the error....
Sounds a bit like the Church "cover-up" in the Da Vinci Code.

[Bizzlebin]

Which one?
Well actually, in a way, yes it is, in that it contains the Concilliar decisions of the Oecumenical Church which are binding on all Orthodox Churches. No one single Saint's teaching is binding on the whole Church. I am surprised that given the magnitude of your discovery that a Canon is misinterpreted in the Pedalion that no one else in the entire Church seems to have picked up on this to correct the error....
Sounds a bit like the Church "cover-up" in the Da Vinci Code.

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence"

Even without the other canon, which you still haven't addressed, it is quite clear that it was a serious offense to take communion in the hand, or St. Basil would not have made such a statement of economia.

Anyways, you seem to think the Pedalion is the Church's teaching. It is not. Rather, it is one of many compilations of the canons. It is quite absurd that you are making this work out to be something that it is not. There is no Da Vinci Code cover up, only the writings of many saints vs the notes of a recent work. The canons, not the notes, are what the Church has called binding, canons like those excommunicating laymen who give themselves communion...

[ozgeorge]

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence"

So, in time of persecution of the Church, we can take the Holy Gifts and administer them to ourselves without a Priest or Deacon. And your point is?

Even without the other canon, which you still haven't addressed

Which other Canon? ,

it is quite clear that it was a serious offense to take communion in the hand, or St. Basil would not have made such a statement of economia.

Errr, in "time of persecution" why can't we still use the Spoon or lift the ciborum to our mouth? You are being too literal. To "take in hand" means to "take responsibility for", to "do it off your own back". The point St. Basil is giving Economia for is that you don't need either permission or administration from from the Deacon or Priest to Commune if they are not present during a time of persecution.

Anyways, you seem to think the Pedalion is the Church's teaching. It is not. Rather, it is one of many compilations of the canons.

Really? Please name one of the "many" other compilations of the Canons.

The canons, not the notes, are what the Church has called binding, canons like those excommunicating laymen who give themselves communion...

Just a cotton-pickin' minute. Firstly, no one follows the 101st Canon of Trullo no matter what your interpretation is. In the Greek Church, the Communicant holds the Communion cloth under their chin- so how are they supposed to "cross their hands" in accordance with the Canon? And secondly, the whole point of the examples which the Pedalion gives are to explain the Canon, and for centuries, the Church understood the 101st Canon to mean that Communion is to be received in the hand as exemplified clearly by St. John Damascenes epitome. Now, you are saying that the Church was erroneous in interpreting the 101st Canon of Trullo in this way for centuries....
So, given this magnificent discovery of yours, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to defend and prove it.

[Bizzlebin]

So, in time of persecution of the Church, we can take the Holy Gifts and administer them to ourselves without a Priest or Deacon. And your point is?

Which other Canon?

Errr, in "time of persecution" why can't we still use the Spoon or lift the ciborum to our mouth? You are being literal. to "take in hand" means to "take responsibility for", to "do it off your own back". The point St. Basil is giving Economia for is that you don't need either permission or administration from from the Deacon or Priest to Commune if they are not present during a time of persecution.

Really? Please name one of the "many" other compilations of the Canons.

Just a cotton-pickin' minute. Firstly, no one follows the 101st Canon of Trullo no matter what your interpretation is. In the Greek Church, the Communicant holds the Communion cloth under their chin- so how are they supposed to "cross their hands" in accordance with the Canon?

And secondly, the whole point of the examples which the Pedalion gives are to explain the Canon, and for centuries, the Church understood the 101st Canon to mean that Communion is to be received in the hand as exemplified clearly by St. John Damascenes epitome. Now, you are saying that the Church was erroneous in interpreting the 101st Canon of Trullo in this way for centuries....

So, given this magnificent discovery of yours, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to defend and prove it.

You miss the important detail: "in his own hand." This is stated as if it is not a normal practice, hint 

Canon 58

Oh, if only you would not be so selective in your application of logic! One "in the hand" means one thing, and the next means another! No wonder what I am saying is not making sense to you!

John Scholasticus, Balsamon (who gave the favorable interpretation), and Matthew Blasteres all wrote compilations long before the Pedalion, and they are only a handful. As I have said, the Pedalion is one man's compilation, and interpretation. Don't make it out to be more.

Plese don't make blanket staements about how "no one follow the canon" just because your parish, or the entire Ecumenical Patriarchate (whichever is the case here), treats the canon as unimportant. They are still in full force, unless another Ecumenical Council says otherwise (isn't that what you always say?) My parish does in fact follow it: tonsured members assist the priest by holding the cloth under the chin of the communicants, while they remain crossed the entire time, and receive the Eucharist in the mouth. In fact, I had never known anyone didn't follow this canon, that would make them uncanonical...

You have yet to prove that this is the position of the Church for any length of time.

How many more saints will it take to convince you that one person's compilation of the canons might just not be infalliable? 5? 10? 100? What is this elusive "proof" you are after? Or are you ever going to be convinced by the Church? The Pedalion is only one interpretation, written in the 18th century, open your eyes to the rest of patristic tradition!

(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)

[ozgeorge]

(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)

Goodnight and enjoy the Feast!
(btw, You are wrong, but I've enjoyed talking with you immensely!)

[minasoliman]

Soooooo....

back to women priesthood. 

Last time, these posts were put down:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.630
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg121529#msg121529

I also like to bring you attention on this post:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=8894.msg121456#msg121456

God bless.

Mina

[PeterTheAleut]

(I will be out for about 2 days. Going to bed, then heading for an all night lamb roast for our parish's feast day, Ss. Constantine and Helen. The actual feast is after Liturgy, so I will be gone quite some time. So, don't think I've forgotten the thread!)

Ozgeorge and Bizzlebin,

Seeing how off-topic your argument has been, I plead with you both to stop arguing and return to the subject, "Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church."  If you won't stop arguing, at least do the rest of us a favor and take your argument into PM's.

To us outsiders you two look just like two fellows who just will not be proven wrong.  I personally don't know that anyone cares which one of you is right.  Just what does your argument have to do with women's ordination?

[ozgeorge]

Just what does your argument have to do with women's ordination?

Peter,
It's actually not off-topic if you look at my post on page 42. The point being, Tradition cannot be determined "simply" by observing which customs are practiced everywhere through all time as Bizzlebin claims, since customs (such as the method of receiving Communion, Deaconesses, the method of crossing ourselves) all change. The belief therefore that women being excluded from the priesthood is a dogmatic "Tradition" because it has never been done is therefore illogical and doesn't bear analysis. That is why Bizzlebin is fighting so hard, and that is why I wont concede this point to him.
It's a long thread, but we are dealing with a complex issue.

[montalban]

Peter,
It's actually not off-topic if you look at my post on page 42. The point being, Tradition cannot be determined "simply" by observing which customs are practiced everywhere through all time as Bizzlebin claims, since customs (such as the method of receiving Communion, Deaconesses, the method of crossing ourselves) all change. The belief therefore that women being excluded from the priesthood is a dogmatic "Tradition" because it has never been done is therefore illogical and doesn't bear analysis. That is why Bizzlebin is fighting so hard, and that is why I wont concede this point to him.
It's a long thread, but we are dealing with a complex issue.

If someone's intent here was to really discuss an 'complex issue' then they would address the questions of people on this thread.

Specifically, you've avoided mine AND gone back to repeating the claim that you can't know the difference between Tradition and traditions.

You're simply spamming this thread now. Every now and then you raise the same objection. Someone presents evidence relative to this topic. You divert away from it, then come back and say that there's no evidence that's been posted. This has gone on now for page after page and you still don't have a point.

Now you've said that you yourself don't believe in the Ordination of Women (to the priesthood). I've asked you twice now why you don't. If you could provide an answer it might help people understand your position on this subject. (this makes it now the third time I've asked you).

[minasoliman]

Montalban,

George answered this a while ago.  He said he has no opinion of it.  He's neither for nor against women ordination.  He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina

[ozgeorge]

If someone's intent here was to really discuss an 'complex issue' then they would address the questions of people on this thread.

Funny, I thought I'd done that for 6 pages.

Specifically, you've avoided mine AND gone back to repeating the claim that you can't know the difference between Tradition and traditions.

Hang on. Why are Bizzlebin's claims and challenges less important to address than yours (which have already and repeatedly been addressed)?

Someone presents evidence relative to this topic. You divert away from it, then come back and say that there's no evidence that's been posted. This has gone on now for page after page and you still don't have a point.

I think there is a bit of projection going on here. It is Bizzlebin and yourself who claimed to have a point in that Women being excluded from the priesthood was a provable "Tradition". And now, because I've disproved that claim- you, once again, are resorting to personal attacks, and once again asking the same questions which I've already answered many times.

Now you've said that you yourself don't believe in the Ordination of Women (to the priesthood). I've asked you twice now why you don't. If you could provide an answer it might help people understand your position on this subject. (this makes it now the third time I've asked you).

Can you please point out where I've said that I "don't believe in the Ordination of women"? I think, my friend, you will find that I have repeatedly said that I don't know where I stand about this issue yet. It is you and Bizzlebin who have taken a position on the issue, and therefore you and Bizzlebin who need to defend your position. Don't start crying foul simply because someone challenges your "evidence".

[ozgeorge]

Montalban,

George answered this a while ago.  He said he has no opinion of it.  He's neither for nor against women ordination.  He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina

Thanks Mina! At least someone is listening to others!

[montalban]

Montalban,

George answered this a while ago.ÂÂ  He said he has no opinion of it.ÂÂ  He's neither for nor against women ordination.ÂÂ  He's only advocating discussing the matter openly without dismissing the "other side."

God bless.

Mina

Actually in post #621 he said...

I'm not an advocate for female priesthood,

I've asked him why he isn't. That's a different thing from him saying he's just here to speculate.

[montalban]

Thanks Mina! At least someone is listening to others!

There's a difference in statements...

The question "Why are you posting here?" is already answered by you saying you're just here to speculate.

When you say "I'm not an advocate of women priests", I've asked "Why don't you support women priests" because your statement is different from saying "I'm not here to advocate women priests", you're saying "I don't advocate women priests (implying) per se"

[Νεκτάριος]

I think the only real way to get an answer etched in stone will be if one of the local Orthodox Churches attempts to ordain women to the priesthood.  If life goes on, as normal afterwards we can assume it was only custom that barred women from ordination.  Should it cause a schism and a pan-Orthodox synod condemning the ordinations, them we shall also have our answer.

[montalban]

Funny, I thought I'd done that for 6 pages.

Not quite. You've answered his 'complex questions' for 6 pages and ignored mine because you believe you're on a winner with one topic, and not the other.

Hang on. Why are Bizzlebin's claims and challenges less important to address than yours (which have already and repeatedly been addressed)?

If you've said why you don't support women priests, I will bow out on that issue. I've just not seen you do so. All I've seen is you saying you're here on this thread to speculate.

I think there is a bit of projection going on here. It is Bizzlebin and yourself who claimed to have a point in that Women being excluded from the priesthood was a provable "Tradition". And now, because I've disproved that claim- you, once again, are resorting to personal attacks, and once again asking the same questions which I've already answered many times.

You haven't disproved my claims. You've attempted to have a myrriad of side-arguments to prove them and hope that by showing that, you've made a case here. When I've presented evidence, you summarily dismissed it without even considering it further

Can you please point out where I've said that I "don't believe in the Ordination of women"? I think, my friend, you will find that I have repeatedly said that I don't know where I stand about this issue yet. It is you and Bizzlebin who have taken a position on the issue, and therefore you and Bizzlebin who need to defend your position. Don't start crying foul simply because someone challenges your "evidence".

Here...

I'm not an advocate for female priesthood

And I asked the question, why aren't you?

[montalban]

Hopefully this clears things up....

The statement "I'm not (here) advocating women priests" is slightly different from a more absolute statement "I'm not an advocate of women priests"

If you're not an advocate of women priests then the question remains "Why? (aren't you an advocate of women priests). To what do you object about women priests?

I emphasised this when I first asked the question...
#629

Why aren't you? Answer that and you don't need to speculate anymore on this thread.

If OzGeorge would be kind enough to say why he doesn't advocate women priests then the issue of him sepculating is at an end. Unless
a) he's answered that question somewhere else
or
b) he rephrases his broad statement about advocacy

[ozgeorge]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8894.msg121640#msg121640 date=1148173576]
I think the only real way to get an answer etched in stone will be if one of the local Orthodox Churches attempts to ordain women to the priesthood.  If life goes on, as normal afterwards we can assume it was only custom that barred women from ordination.  Should it cause a schism and a pan-Orthodox synod condemning the ordinations, them we shall also have our answer.
[/quote]
Why don't you profer the suggestion to your Parish Council? Unfortunately, I can't since the monastery I attend doesn't have a Parish Council.
But seriously, this is what I have been saying all along. This issue can only be definitively resolved Synodically by the Bishops, and no one can pre-emptively claim to know for sure what that decision would be one way or the other.

[ozgeorge]

The statement "I'm not (here) advocating women priests" is slightly different from a more absolute statement "I'm not an advocate of women priests"

Are they different? The meaning is actually identical as far as I can see.

If you're not an advocate of women priests then the question remains "Why? (aren't you an advocate of women priests). To what do you object about women priests?

You're still not listening. Why does "not being an advocate" for something automatically mean that you are opposed to it? Why can't it simply mean "I'm not sure"?

Hopefully this clears things up....

It has only "cleared up" by showing exactley what your misconceptions are....But they are still misconceptions...

[montalban]

Are they different? The meaning is actually identical as far as I can see.

What you said is an absolute phrase; I'm not an advocate of women's ordination. It's a different thing to saying "I'm not here advocating women's ordination".

You're still not listening. Why does "not being an advocate" for something automatically mean that you are opposed to it? Why can't it simply mean "I'm not sure"?

I didn't say it does. I asked a question why you're not. I'm not sure is a valid answer. If you decide to give any answer, that would be great.

It has only "cleared up" by showing exactley what your misconceptions are....But they are still misconceptions...

Then you're still avoiding the question.

You've had ample time to answer, but instead we're here debating your choice of words. It would be handy if you just said something akin to a direct answer to a direct question.

In short you've gone weeks speculating, and going down side issues. Claiming victories, claiming no one's forwarded evidence, avoiding direct questions, going down side issues. And then, when this is pointed out, you claim its insulting - magnifying the avoidance of issues.

[ozgeorge]

I'm not sure is a valid answer.

Then why didn't you accept it as an answer when I said it the first time, and the second time, and the third time.......Why do I keep having to answer the same question?

In short you've gone weeks speculating,

Speculating about what?!
If someone presents something as "evidence" and I show that it is not admissible as "evidence"- how is that "speculating"?
Why can you not simply accept that the issue of women's ordination has not been definitvely decided yet? Instead of sidetracking the issue, why not present some clear, unambiguous evidence to support your claim that a male-only Priesthood is a Church dogma? Is it perhaps because there is no such evidence in existence?