OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 12:29:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church  (Read 185835 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #855 on: May 26, 2006, 09:42:46 PM »

   Granting without accepting that women are "more fallen," then they are more blessed because they shall be receiving the most grace from God.


Why do women receive more grace than men? Are men somehow more able to attain Salvation throiugh their own "merits" and effort without needing "as much" Grace as women?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 09:46:49 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #856 on: May 26, 2006, 09:56:45 PM »

Why do women receive more grace than men?

For the sake of argument, if women are "more fallen," then they would require more Grace.  If more Grace is bestowed by God to women, then women are more blessed in this particular aspect.

That's the simple logic behind it.  I will not discuss this any further.

Quote
Are men somehow more able to attain Salvation throiugh their own "merits" and effort without needing Grace?

Everybody needs the Grace of God.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #857 on: May 26, 2006, 10:12:39 PM »

For the sake of argument, if women are "more fallen," then they would require more Grace.  If more Grace is bestowed by God to women, then women are more blessed in this particular aspect.
Shocked
Good Heavens!!! You honestly believe that "Men are less fallen than women" is an Orthodox dogma??

That's the simple logic behind it.  I will not discuss this any further.
It is not "simple logic", but rather "simplistic logic" and the "logic of simpletons". I'm not surprised you won't discuss it further...

Everybody needs the Grace of God.
Yes, and they all equally need Grace 100%, whether male female, eunuch or hermaphrodite. No one is "more redeemed" than anyone else simply on the basis of how they were born.

It is not in some future eschaton in which the members of the Church are one in Christ as you claim. It is now.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #858 on: May 26, 2006, 11:30:28 PM »

GiC,

This is hardly a revolutionary proposition, the fact that women were second-class citizens in the Greco-Roman world is well documented; since this unfortunate mindset infected every other element and institution of society, it is most reasonable to believe it also influenced the Church.
Another way your logic breaks down in the above statement: it makes the potentially false assumption that the Church was little more than just another institution in human society (which, btw, fits quite nicely into the general tenor of most of your assertions about the nature of the Church on this forum).  If the Church is indeed just another element of society, then the above logic makes sense.  But from the very beginning the Church has understood herself as being not of this world. (John 15:19)

The Church has from Apostolic times realized her need to not conform to the ways of this world (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 3:19).  Sure, the people of the Church as it manifests itself in the world are fallen human persons who come into the Church polluted by sin and the ways of the world and bring their pollution with them into the Church, but the work of the Church is to purge this worldliness off her members.  Because the Church has identified opposition to the world to be central to her mission, I find it very hard to believe that the faith of the Church could have been polluted by the world's philosophies to the degree that you claim it has.  Now, if you want to point out the ways that Patristic doctrines and Christian beliefs are similar to certain beliefs in the contemporary secular culture, you might be able to make a case for how the Church was influenced by her surrounding culture--this is the tactic I see Pensateomnia trying.

In my reasoning on how secular culture may have influenced the Church through the ages, I posit two mutually opposing poles: the mindset of the Church vs. the mindset of the surrounding secular culture.  I then see each of the Fathers somewhere on the spectrum in between.  The more closely a particular father's doctrine approaches the mainstream of Church belief, the less likely is it that the doctrine in question was influenced by secular culture.  Likewise, the converse is also true.  The more closely a patristic doctrine approaches the mindset of the surrounding culture, the more likely it is that the doctrine was influenced by the secular culture.  This is how I view the teachings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Clement of Alexandria that Pensateomnia posted most recently on this thread.  Chrysostom's view of women appears much closer to the mainstream of Orthodox thought on the issue, and St. Clement's view approximates much more closely the mainstream of the secular worldview of his day.  Therefore, I deem it reasonable to believe that St. Clement was much more influenced by secular thought than was St. John Chrysostom, making it much more likely that Chrysostom's doctrine represents the eternal truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.  However, I recognize that even my statement "I deem it reasonable to believe" is more the substance of my own speculation on the matter than any proclaimed truth.  I repeat that such speculation does not serve well as a foundation for dogmatic statements or for drastic change.

When I look at the subject of women's ordination, I recognize that the status quo is to exclude women from priestly orders.  Seeing how dangerous disruption of the status quo can be, I believe that the burden of proof falls squarely on the advocates for change to convince the Church of why we need to lift our ban on women's ordination.  These advocates must present to us a case solid enough theologically, ecclesiologically, and pastorally to sway the Orthodox consensus.  This means near unanimity, first among our bishops in Ecumenical Council, then in near unanimous acceptance by the Orthodox faithful.  The strength of reasoning and evidence required for this case to succeed makes absolutely no room for mere speculation as I have recently defined it.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2006, 11:35:13 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #859 on: May 26, 2006, 11:50:17 PM »

Even in this regard, they did not make a mistake.

Really, this has nothing to do with making mistakes. It has to do with the limited nature of human knowledge and the unavoidable influence of commonly held beliefs. Today, this very hour, all of us probably believe many things that, in 1000 years, human beings will know to be laughably false. Does that mean we, as Christians, don't know theological Truth? No.

However, this does highlight the potential trouble of treating ancient texts as entirely transparent (including the Scriptures). How can one understand St. Clement's instructions for new Christians if one doesn't recognize his commonplace assumptions about biology? Certain words may have a very clear meaning to a modern reader, but that meaning may have nothing to do with the actual text in its context, since every author writes with certain assumptions and to a certain audience (not to mention with certain generic forms and textual gaps). What, then, of St. Paul's words?

Quote
Today, we know that testosterone level is related to hair growth, and that men secrete 30 times more of this substance than women do.  So biologically and physically speaking, there is a difference between male and female.

Right. That's how we explain the obvious biological and physical difference NOW (hormones, chromosomes, etc.). However, we DON'T say that this observable difference stems from our body temperature, nor do we say that females are biologically deficient males (in fact, we now know that all males are female at one point and only develop into males later in gestation).

Ancient biological assumptions may be more influential than we realize. Why is God the Father a "Father" (even though He is not a male)? Because He is active and generative (he begets a Son). According to Hebrew/Greek/Roman/Late Antique ideas of biology, only the male is an actual agent in procreation. Thus, it would have been purely inconceivable (no pun intended) to refer to a generative God with anything other than masculine titles and pronouns.

Quote
Stating the fact that male and female are not the same physically and biologically doesn't follow that one is more redeemed than the other...For the sake of argument, if women are "more fallen," then they would require more Grace.  If more Grace is bestowed by God to women, then women are more blessed in this particular aspect.

This is almost where St. John and the Cappadocians take things, except they just say something like: We all know women have an inferior nature; thus God helps them out a little more. (Except in the case of St. Macrina, who, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says, was manlier than the men.)
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #860 on: May 26, 2006, 11:59:00 PM »

The Church has from Apostolic times realized her need to not conform to the ways of this world ........<snip>..... I find it very hard to believe that the faith of the Church could have been polluted by the world's philosophies to the degree that you claim it has.
This just doesn't bear historical analysis. Here are a few quotes from the Fathers about what was considered the serious sin of usury (charging interest on a loan):

"If you gave to a prosperous person you should not have done so: but if (even so) you gave it as to a needy person, why should you demand more on the score of his being prosperous? Some lenders are wont to take small gifts of dilferent value, not realizing that whatever is received over and above what was given is called usury and superabundance. They ought not to take more, however much it be, than was originally given by them." (St. Jerome)

"Neither do we think that it should be lightly passed over that some people, seized with the desire for filthy lucre, put out their money at usury in order to become rich thereby. And we have to complain of this not only with regard to those in clerical office but we likewise grieve to see that it holds true of lay people who wish to be called Christians. We decree that this should be severely punished in those found guilty, so that all occasion of sin may be washed away."(St. Leo the Great)


However, since the Industrial Revolution, usury has become the basis of our economy. Even Church buildings are mortgaged. Does this indicate that the Church has conformed to the world?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #861 on: May 27, 2006, 12:19:34 AM »

This just doesn't bear historical analysis. Here are a few quotes from the Fathers about what was considered the serious sin of usury (charging interest on a loan):

"If you gave to a prosperous person you should not have done so: but if (even so) you gave it as to a needy person, why should you demand more on the score of his being prosperous? Some lenders are wont to take small gifts of dilferent value, not realizing that whatever is received over and above what was given is called usury and superabundance. They ought not to take more, however much it be, than was originally given by them." (St. Jerome)

"Neither do we think that it should be lightly passed over that some people, seized with the desire for filthy lucre, put out their money at usury in order to become rich thereby. And we have to complain of this not only with regard to those in clerical office but we likewise grieve to see that it holds true of lay people who wish to be called Christians. We decree that this should be severely punished in those found guilty, so that all occasion of sin may be washed away."(St. Leo the Great)


However, since the Industrial Revolution, usury has become the basis of our economy. Even Church buildings are mortgaged. Does this indicate that the Church has conformed to the world?
Just what are you trying to prove?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #862 on: May 27, 2006, 12:29:23 AM »

I posit two mutually opposing poles: the mindset of the Church vs. the mindset of the surrounding secular culture.

I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do here, but this particular expression is a profoundly artificial dichotomy.

Quote
I then see each of the Fathers somewhere on the spectrum in between.  The more closely a particular father's doctrine approaches the mainstream of Church belief, the less likely is it that the doctrine in question was influenced by secular culture.

Who is the arbiter of the "mainstream of Church belief"? Does this supposed "mainstream" not include the major Fathers from the first seven centuries? Or is the problem, perhaps, the WE define the "mainstream" in a way other than the Fathers?

Quote
When I look at the subject of women's ordination, I recognize that the status quo is to exclude women from priestly orders.  Seeing how dangerous disruption of the status quo can be, I believe that the burden of proof falls squarely on the advocates for change to convince the Church of why we need to lift our ban on women's ordination.  These advocates must present to us a case solid enough theologically, ecclesiologically, and pastorally to sway the Orthodox consensus.  This means near unanimity, first among our bishops in Ecumenical Council, then in near unanimous acceptance by the Orthodox faithful.  The strength of reasoning and evidence required for this case to succeed makes absolutely no room for mere speculation as I have recently defined it.

With all of that, I personally agree. But that's a very different argument (and sentiment!) than judging the Fathers against one's own idea of the "mainstream" of the Church. And it's not really a particularly compelling justification for what is perceived as unjust by an increasingly liberal world. It may seem reasonable and fitting to an initiate, but is our task to convince ourselves? While it may work for us, in reality any justification based on respect for the status quo is rather pyrrhonic.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 12:32:44 AM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #863 on: May 27, 2006, 12:30:34 AM »

Just what are you trying to prove?
Nothing. What I am asking is how could usury once have been a serious sin, but now it is not?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #864 on: May 27, 2006, 12:36:00 AM »

What I am asking is how could usury once have been a serious sin, but now it is not?

In other words, what has changed? Is it Divine Law? Is it the Church`s interpretation of it? Is it the mind of the Church based on the historical circumstances in which she finds herself?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #865 on: May 27, 2006, 12:52:01 AM »


In my reasoning on how secular culture may have influenced the Church through the ages, I posit two mutually opposing poles: the mindset of the Church vs. the mindset of the surrounding secular culture.
I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do here, but this particular expression is a profoundly artificial dichotomy.

Maybe so.  I offered it primarily as a way to make my point in this discussion.

Quote
Who is the arbiter of the "mainstream of Church belief"? Does this supposed "mainstream" not include the major Fathers from the first seven centuries? Or is the problem, perhaps, the WE define the "mainstream" in a way other than the Fathers?
What I meant by "mainstream of Church belief" is Orthodox consensus as determined by the whole Church.  I see the major Fathers of the first several centuries actually being central to forming this consensus, so this "mainstream" cannot be defined in any way separate from Patristic doctrine.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #866 on: May 27, 2006, 12:55:09 AM »

In other words, what has changed? Is it Divine Law? Is it the Church`s interpretation of it? Is it the mind of the Church based on the historical circumstances in which she finds herself?
Has the Church universally accepted the practice of loaning money with interest?  Or is this acceptance only known in some specific locations?
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #867 on: May 27, 2006, 12:55:30 AM »

In other words, what has changed? Is it Divine Law? Is it the Church`s interpretation of it? Is it the mind of the Church based on the historical circumstances in which she finds herself?

I dunno. Which is it?

Usury is an interesting parallel to the equally common prejudices against women, I suppose, since pretty much EVERYONE (at least in theory) thought usury was wrong for thousands of years. It's a major moral no-no in everything from the Hindu Sutra to Plato and Aristotle to the Torah to the early Christian writings to the Medieval Christian writings. That's just the way things were, right? And that's also what God proclaimed in Scripture, what the Church decreed in canon and what the Fathers wrote. And yet, maintenant...

(This thread should be re-named: "Is the Church an absolutely unchanging, completely sui generis Reality?")
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #868 on: May 27, 2006, 01:01:10 AM »

Has the Church universally accepted the practice of loaning money with interest?
Yes.
Or is this acceptance only known in some specific locations?
Can you name a location where the Church hasn't accepted it? Can you name one place on Earth where the Church forbids taking out a loan with interest or credit cards?
Are all unrepentant Merchant Bankers and Bank Managers going to hell? Wink
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 01:02:59 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #869 on: May 27, 2006, 01:17:57 AM »

Yes. Can you name a location where the Church hasn't accepted it? Can you name one place on Earth where the Church forbids taking out a loan with interest or credit cards?
Are all unrepentant Merchant Bankers and Bank Managers going to hell? Wink
You certainly make a good case (based on what little I know) that church practice has changed, and I'm certainly too ignorant to explain why.  I'm not sure, though, that I would necessarily call this "conforming to the world."  I might be more inclined to say that the Church examined the nature of our current practice and determined that it should be considered OK.  But then, what authority does the Church have to overturn its traditional doctrine of centuries past?  Or it could be that the Church just doesn't have the influence on society that it once did in both East and West and just doesn't see usury as that big an issue compared to such issues as defense of our faith in the Deity of Christ against the heresy of atheism.  I don't know, so I speculate...
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #870 on: May 27, 2006, 01:30:17 AM »

You certainly make a good case (based on what little I know) that church practice has changed, and I'm certainly too ignorant to explain why.ÂÂ  I'm not sure, though, that I would necessarily call this "conforming to the world."ÂÂ  I might be more inclined to say that the Church examined the nature of our current practice and determined that it should be considered OK.

Well, usury is a matter of morals, not dogma (to wax Pontifical). But it is hardly the most serious of ways in which the Church has adapted because of cultural assumptions or political expectations (viz. national autocephaly as a means of ecclesiastical governance or divorce).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #871 on: May 27, 2006, 02:01:51 AM »

(This thread should be re-named: "Is the Church an absolutely unchanging, completely sui generis Reality?")
Interesting statement.

I believe that the Church is a divine-human entity.  The Church is divine in that she is united to the life of Christ through baptism and reception of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist and is enlivened and cleansed by the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father.  Yet the Church is also a human institution in that its members are human.

As a divine entity, the Body of Christ, the Church is unchanging because He who gives her life is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." ( Hebrews 13:8 )(aside: Why is it that I can't type in the previous Scripture reference normally without getting a **** smiley?)  Because the Church is united to Christ who is not of this world, so is the Church not of this world.  Yet the Church is human, and therefore a part of this world whether she likes it or not.  As a human institution, the Church and all of her members individually cannot help but be influenced to varying degrees by the world in which we live.  To some degree, the Church has been shaped by contact with the world just as she has shaped the world.  One can see this in the similarities between certain churchly beliefs and threads in the mindset of the surrounding culture.  (I don't think I denied this in my refutations of greekischristian's logic; I just wanted him to give evidence of his assertions that we should ignore Chrysostom's teachings about women because he was unduly influenced by the misogynism of secular society.  Maybe St. John was, but I am not convinced by GiC's faulty reasoning.)

It is not all bad that the Church has been shaped by contact with the world.  Whereas I do believe that only the Church possesses the fullness of the truth who is Christ, I don't believe that the Church is the SOLE witness to truth.  Truth--I don't mean scientific truth--can present itself even in secular society or pagan religion; it is up to the Church to discern this truth, but only by testing a belief against the Faith of the Church revealed in the Scriptures, the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, and the consensus of the faithful.

In short, I believe that to make the unqualified claim that the Church never changes because she is the Body of Christ is to deny her humanity in a way that follows closely the heresy of monophysitism.

(If I seem to contradict some other statements I've made tonight, maybe I have.  Or maybe I just like to revel in paradox.  It's been a long week, and this is Memorial Day weekend for me.  I'm tired, and I'm not thinking at my best, so I may be a bit more incoherent than usual.)
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 02:06:15 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #872 on: May 27, 2006, 03:02:12 PM »

On the Subject of Paradox

definition from http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/paradox?view=uk (web site of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary):

paradox

  • noun 1
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that may in fact be true.


What can one say about all the paradoxes we Orthodox preach?
  • God is Three, yet God is One.
  • Christ is Divine, yet Christ is human.
  • Christ's death is the ultimate victory of life.
  • He Whom the heavens cannot contain was contained in the womb of the Theotokos.
  • The Virgin gave birth.

For the sake of this thread, let's add a couple to the list.
  • The Church is unchanging, yet history shows that the Church is always adapting.
  • The Church is not to conform to the thinking of this world, yet the Church has embraced certain elements of "secular" philosophy. (Even our dogma of the Trinity draws heavily upon Greek philosophical terms.)
How does one reconcile the two mutually contradictory poles presented in these paradoxes?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 03:05:43 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #873 on: May 27, 2006, 03:23:49 PM »

How does one reconcile the two mutually contradictory poles presented in these paradoxes?

Faith.

Faith in the same God who loved us even as humanity nailed Him on the cross.

Faith in the knowledge that things do not have to make sense to us.

Faith in the hope contained within Christ's mission to us.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #874 on: May 27, 2006, 03:37:21 PM »

Faith in the knowledge that things do not have to make sense to us.
It does appear that most of our heresies were created by persons who saw a dichotomy where the Church sees a paradox and reasoned that since one pole is true the other must be false.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #875 on: May 27, 2006, 04:17:46 PM »

It does appear that most of our heresies were created by persons who saw a dichotomy where the Church sees a paradox and reasoned that since one pole is true the other must be false.

Much of this was led to by the fact that the acceptance of the paradox was unwritten and untested; in the consciousness but not in the written word of the Church.  But you're right on the money - heresy is almost defined as the absolutization of a partial truth, which is what happens when one tries to logically justify/rectify a paradox.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 04:18:04 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #876 on: May 27, 2006, 06:00:50 PM »

Faith in the knowledge that things do not have to make sense to us.
When the paradox is in  Dogma, I agree.
When the paradox is in morals, I disagree. "Moral paradox" is a technique used by paedophiles to "groom" their victims. Morals do have to make some sort of sense, otherwise, we can end up with the situation where people believe they are being "moral Christians" by being inhumane:

e.g. :
"State torture is morally justified to defend the State, and it is of no concern to the Church".
"Schism is justified by the existence of the 'heresy' of ecumenism."
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #877 on: May 28, 2006, 07:36:10 AM »

Shocked
Good Heavens!!! You honestly believe that "Men are less fallen than women" is an Orthodox dogma??

It is not "simple logic", but rather "simplistic logic" and the "logic of simpletons". I'm not surprised you won't discuss it further...
Yes, and they all equally need Grace 100%, whether male female, eunuch or hermaphrodite. No one is "more redeemed" than anyone else simply on the basis of how they were born.

It's pointless discussing things with you, really.   I don't believe that "men are less fallen than women" is Orthodox dogma.  I never accepted that, hence I said "granting without accepting."

Quote
It is not in some future eschaton in which the members of the Church are one in Christ as you claim. It is now.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28).

That's embarrassingly way out of context.  Paul was referring to our liberation from the Mosaic Law in that passage.  It has got nothing to do with your concept of women having equal authority with men.

Logged
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #878 on: May 28, 2006, 07:52:33 AM »

Quote
Really, this has nothing to do with making mistakes. It has to do with the limited nature of human knowledge and the unavoidable influence of commonly held beliefs. Today, this very hour, all of us probably believe many things that, in 1000 years, human beings will know to be laughably false. Does that mean we, as Christians, don't know theological Truth? No.

An appeal to potential falsification will not support the ordination of women.  A theory remains valid unless falsified TODAY.  With regard to the Church Fathers' association of manhood to hair growth, they have been vindicated by medical research.  That is my point.

Quote
(in fact, we now know that all males are female at one point and only develop into males later in gestation).

Then becoming male is the next stage of development, so to speak.  This is supportive of the St. John Chrysostom's view.  Hence, his words are vindicated anew by secular science.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #879 on: May 28, 2006, 08:05:02 AM »

It's pointless discussing things with you, really.
OK. you are welcome not to.

I don't believe that "men are less fallen than women" is Orthodox dogma.
You have no idea how relieved I am!

That's embarrassingly way out of context. 
Don't be embarrased. We're all friends here.

Paul was referring to our liberation from the Mosaic Law in that passage.  It has got nothing to do with your concept of women having equal authority with men.
Oh, hang on, stop right there.......errr "MY concept of women having equal authority with men"?  Thank you for pointing out concepts I never knew I had. But at any rate, what has this to do with "my concept", (even if it does exist)?  The context is what Christian Baptism into the Church and Faith in Christ gives us:
"For you are all sons of God through Faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew no Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
And it is this context in which I mentioned this quote to you to correct your error in believing that this is not a present reality but a future eschaton. I got this impression when you said:
Fortunately, when our bodies are resurrected, there will be no distinction between male and female.
And by the way, who said that there will be no distinction? How do you know that everyone will have the same body?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #880 on: May 28, 2006, 08:18:18 AM »

And speaking of authority over men, the Holy Mountain (and Chilandari monastery in particular) is ruled by an Abbess:

Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #881 on: May 28, 2006, 08:19:37 AM »

Quote
Oh, hang on, stop right there.......errr "MY concept of women having equal authority with men"?  Thank you for pointing out concepts I never knew I had. But at any rate, what has this to do with "my concept", (even if it does exist)?  The context is what Christian Baptism into the Church and Faith in Christ gives us:
"For you are all sons of God through Faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew no Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
And it is this context in which I mentioned this quote to you to correct your error in believing that this is not a present reality but a future eschaton.

I suggest that you start reading from the first verse.  Galatians 3 is about the Mosaic Law and how we have been liberated from it.

Quote
And by the way, who said that there will be no distinction? How do you know that everyone will have the same body?

Jesus said that in the resurrection, we will be like angels.  Do you know of an angel who is female, as in female who menstruates and everything?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #882 on: May 28, 2006, 08:22:17 AM »

I suggest that you start reading from the first verse.  Galatians 3 is about the Mosaic Law and how we have been liberated from it.
Follow his train of thought through the epistle.

Jesus said that in the resurrection, we will be like angels.  Do you know of an angel who is female, as in female who menstruates and everything?
Do you know of an Angel (a Bodiless Power) who has a body? We will have bodies at the Resurrection. The Angels still won't. So Christ could not have meant "like the Angels" in body.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2006, 08:25:42 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #883 on: May 28, 2006, 08:31:25 AM »

And speaking of authority over men, the Holy Mountain (and Chilandari monastery in particular) is ruled by an Abbess:

That is not the type of "authority" we are discussing here.  You know very well that we are talking about authority over spiritual matters, i.e. performing the functions of the priest.

Roll Eyes
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #884 on: May 28, 2006, 08:36:05 AM »

You know very well that we are talking about authority over spiritual matters, i.e. performing the functions of the priest.
Correction: the functions of a priest are one form of authority over spiritual matters. An Abbess has another form of authority over spiritual matters, and a Gerontissa (Eldress) has another form of authority over spiritual matters.
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #885 on: May 28, 2006, 08:41:25 AM »

Correction: the functions of a priest are one form of authority over spiritual matters. An Abbess has another form of authority over spiritual matters, and a Gerontissa (Eldress) has another form of authority over spiritual matters.

Just check the title of this thread.  Adios.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #886 on: May 28, 2006, 05:19:34 PM »

Just check the title of this thread.  Adios.
I have. It still doesn't make priesthood the only form of spiritual authority in the Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #887 on: May 29, 2006, 04:52:41 AM »

Quote
(in fact, we now know that all males are female at one point and only develop into males later in gestation).
Then becoming male is the next stage of development, so to speak.  This is supportive of the St. John Chrysostom's view.  Hence, his words are vindicated anew by secular science.
This has been bugging me all day. What this seems to say is that the Fathers taught that males are more human than females, and that a female is an underdeveloped male, and therefore, less than human. If being human means being made in the Image and Likeness of God, then this seems to say that men are made in the Image and Likeness of God, while females are still  in the process of becoming the Image and Likeness of God. In other words, males are human, while females are subhuman; and the reason women cannot be priests is because being female is a disability which renders one less than fully human. Please tell me that's not what you mean.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2006, 05:15:22 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #888 on: May 29, 2006, 09:42:58 PM »

This has been bugging me all day. What this seems to say is that the Fathers taught that males are more human than females, and that a female is an underdeveloped male, and therefore, less than human.

It was actually Pensateomnia who said the fact in Biology that "all males are female at one point and only develop into males later in gestation."  I only used his words to support the Patristic views (or at least the way some have interpreted their views).

Quote
If being human means being made in the Image and Likeness of God, then this seems to say that men are made in the Image and Likeness of God, while females are still  in the process of becoming the Image and Likeness of God. In other words, males are human, while females are subhuman; and the reason women cannot be priests is because being female is a disability which renders one less than fully human. Please tell me that's not what you mean.

The term "human" has many meanings.  It's an abstraction.  At any rate, I believe deification solves the apparent inferiority.
 
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #889 on: May 29, 2006, 11:40:11 PM »

I don't think one can use the Fathers to affirm something that they scientifically did not know.  Some Fathers seemed to have said that a woman is more spiritually weak than a man.  What science today tells us is that man looks like a female unless the hormones of the fetus come around to develop the male gonads.  Two totally different and unrelated things.

God bless.

Mina
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #890 on: May 29, 2006, 11:46:42 PM »

This has been bugging me all day. What this seems to say is that the Fathers taught that males are more human than females, and that a female is an underdeveloped male, and therefore, less than human. If being human means being made in the Image and Likeness of God, then this seems to say that men are made in the Image and Likeness of God, while females are still  in the process of becoming the Image and Likeness of God. In other words, males are human, while females are subhuman; and the reason women cannot be priests is because being female is a disability which renders one less than fully human. Please tell me that's not what you mean.
Based on a couple of your recent posts, I wonder if you might be drawing from our discussion of statements by St. John Chrysostom the overly general conclusion that we are talking about the teachings of all the Fathers.  To my knowledge, the only Fathers we've discussed the past few days on this thread are Sts. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria.  I don't know that their statements on this issue necessarily represent the entire Patristic tradition.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,110


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #891 on: May 30, 2006, 10:11:57 AM »

Based on a couple of your recent posts, I wonder if you might be drawing from our discussion of statements by St. John Chrysostom the overly general conclusion that we are talking about the teachings of all the Fathers.  To my knowledge, the only Fathers we've discussed the past few days on this thread are Sts. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria.  I don't know that their statements on this issue necessarily represent the entire Patristic tradition.

I think this drives to one of pensateomnia's earlier points: that people aren't familiar enough with the rest of the patristic tradition, so we're still hammering out our speculations on 1 or 2 writings... if we were more well-versed in the rest of the Fathers, then we'd be able to sythesize conclusions based on a wider, and probably more representative, selection of the Tradition of the Church.

{/soapbox}
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #892 on: January 22, 2007, 04:56:12 PM »

GiC,

Quote
The male priesthood was unquestionably culturally motivated, the initial influences were Jewish, which was an extremely misogynistic culture.

Regardless of what one wants to say of the excesses of this or that culture, that they had such tendencies to begin with flows from Genesis 3:16.  So if men tend to be publicly active whereas women tend to be domestic (against, tendencies), well...there ya go.  IOW., simply dismissing "culture" by failing to see it's immediate connection to human nature is very narrow.  The last time I checked, we were still a dyin' and still a toilin'.

Quote
No, haven't you studied Church history? Culture dictates custom and tradition; it was Imperial Politics that dictated theology.

Anh...sorta, but not quite.  The whole mess has the handwriting of providence all over it (ex. Julian the Apostate's attempt to cause discord actually contributed to the defeat of Arianism.)

Quote
And the episcopacy, not us, will get to make the ultimate ruling on these teachings.

I agree, with the implied understanding that it obviously wouldn't be an ignorant or unstudied decision (which obviously would include resources beyond the "genius" of the Bishops themselves, personally.)  But you're right, in the end, anything like this would come down to a show of hands of Bishops, no one else.

While I agree that the Church has no formal doctrine against the ordination of women to the presbyterate and above (the deaconess thing seems a little thornier - I agree it's a real Order, but not identical to the Male Diaconate, nor should it be conceived as a stepping stone to the Presbyterate), that it hasn't been done, ever, seems fairly persuasive in and of itself.  However, I do believe that several Biblical injunctions do frustrate any attempt to ordain women to the Priesthood or Episcopate.

Quote
As we were able to correct one social injustice, we not have a moral responsibility to correct another.

I don't know what injustice you're speaking of here.  Slavery is not inherently immoral, though I would argue like many things (ex. capital punishment) it is one of those things which the fullness of Christian charity would tend to work against over time, as circumstances allow.  Our relative affluence and technological advances would tend in that direction.  But if for some crazy reason things changed overnight, and slavery (or serfdom) came back into existence, I wouldn't be crying foul on objective moral grounds.

While it's true a lot of unfair and immoral things have been done to both slaves and women, being slaves or women (which includes certain feminine virtues, tendencies, and vocations) is neither unjust or immoral.

Quote
So then you wouldn't object to the Ordination of Women, provided celibacy was a requirement? That could possibly be arranged, though I find your theory of marriage based on authority and headship to be, at best, repugnant to our theological understanding of the sacrament and the Christian faith.

Repugnant to Christian faith, or baseless egalitarianism?  Besides the fact that our redemption will not be completed in this life (thus the curse of Genesis chapter 3 is still in effect), i know at least St.Augustine understood that even had the first man not fallen, the woman still would have followed after the man (and in this he seems to be in agreement with St.Paul's commentary on Genesis and gender relations.)

While it's true the ugly side of "lording it over" and compulsion are fruits of the fall, hierarchy is not - thus our work of salvation in Christ is not a negation of basic gender roles, but a struggle to live them in charity ("Edenically".)

« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 04:57:02 PM by Augustine » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #893 on: January 22, 2007, 08:16:17 PM »

wow...resurrecting this topic after seven months? I'll respond, though I don't know if it would be prudent to do so, I fear that if I take up this topic now I'll probably just end up offending more people and offending them far worse than I did seven months ago...but, that's probably a good thing, as my signature says, 'Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.' -- Mae West

Regardless of what one wants to say of the excesses of this or that culture, that they had such tendencies to begin with flows from Genesis 3:16.  So if men tend to be publicly active whereas women tend to be domestic (against, tendencies), well...there ya go.  IOW., simply dismissing "culture" by failing to see it's immediate connection to human nature is very narrow.  The last time I checked, we were still a dyin' and still a toilin'.

Tell that to Margaret Thacher, or to the several ruling queens, or to the ruling empresses, or to the women admirals and generals serving in our military today. The fact of the matter is that those are archaic stereotypes created by a cultures of oppression ruled by insecure men.

Quote
Anh...sorta, but not quite.  The whole mess has the handwriting of providence all over it (ex. Julian the Apostate's attempt to cause discord actually contributed to the defeat of Arianism.)

Not really, at each major issue the Church ended up going a certain way, it could have just have easily embraced the opposite ideology; however, had it embraced the opposite ideology we would today believe that ideology to be orthodox and looking at history would have said how obvious it all was, surely divine providence guided us in this direction. It's politics, plain and simple.

Quote
I agree, with the implied understanding that it obviously wouldn't be an ignorant or unstudied decision (which obviously would include resources beyond the "genius" of the Bishops themselves, personally.)  But you're right, in the end, anything like this would come down to a show of hands of Bishops, no one else.

That's all I've ultimately been arguing, it's the bishops' decision. Now I think there is a right and wrong decision that they can make, but in the end the decision is theirs, if they make a decision either way, one can't viably object to it within the context of the Church. Of course, I am confident that, in time, cultural pressure will force the bishops to endorse the correct position (by which I, of course, mean my position Wink)

Quote
While I agree that the Church has no formal doctrine against the ordination of women to the presbyterate and above (the deaconess thing seems a little thornier - I agree it's a real Order, but not identical to the Male Diaconate, nor should it be conceived as a stepping stone to the Presbyterate), that it hasn't been done, ever, seems fairly persuasive in and of itself.  However, I do believe that several Biblical injunctions do frustrate any attempt to ordain women to the Priesthood or Episcopate.

If the biblical passages are properly interpreted, that is to say interpreted in the cultural context in which they were written, I see no reason why it the ordination of women would be a problem, we simply have to dispense with that silly protestant notion of biblical inerrancy.

Quote
I don't know what injustice you're speaking of here.  Slavery is not inherently immoral, though I would argue like many things (ex. capital punishment) it is one of those things which the fullness of Christian charity would tend to work against over time, as circumstances allow.  Our relative affluence and technological advances would tend in that direction.  But if for some crazy reason things changed overnight, and slavery (or serfdom) came back into existence, I wouldn't be crying foul on objective moral grounds.

I didn't say that it was immoral, I said that it was a social injustice; of course, I would also argue that to abolish slavery at one time would have also been a social injustice, infact a greater social injustice, and thus abolition was, at that time, neither socially responsible nor moral. Likewise, in the context of several primitive cultures, women were degraded so much by society that to place them in positions of responsibility within the church would have been irresponsible, for the same reason it was forbidden (explicitly, rather than just in practice as was the case with women) to ordain slaves...I would even take this a step further and say, for the same reasons, that there were times and places when it would have been irresponsible to ordain people of certain races. Of course, we are fortunate that our culture and society has evolved to such an extent that these issues are moot; thus I would today argue that failure to embrace at least as much virtue as our secular culture has manifested is irresponsible and immoral. Thus while race, gender, and status of servitude may have once been acceptable impediments to ordination, to continue these impediments in the context of our modern culture is an act of gross immorality.

Quote
While it's true a lot of unfair and immoral things have been done to both slaves and women, being slaves or women (which includes certain feminine virtues, tendencies, and vocations) is neither unjust or immoral.

While being a woman is most certainly not immoral...I would argue that failing to fight for your rights and liberties is immoral and those who willingly submit to oppression are less human because of it (as are those who oppress other).

Quote
Repugnant to Christian faith, or baseless egalitarianism?  Besides the fact that our redemption will not be completed in this life (thus the curse of Genesis chapter 3 is still in effect), i know at least St.Augustine understood that even had the first man not fallen, the woman still would have followed after the man (and in this he seems to be in agreement with St.Paul's commentary on Genesis and gender relations.)

Well, you make it too easy. If it's related to the fall then it's a done deal...incase you haven't heard, Christ has triumphed over death and by the power of the Cross the curse is lifted, a blessing carried throughout all the world by the Holy Spirit. Yet you would institute a social order based upon death and the curse? You have just succeeded in changing the opposition to the Ordination of Women from a morally dubious stance to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...I wasn't even going to go that far, though I had thought about it.

Quote
While it's true the ugly side of "lording it over" and compulsion are fruits of the fall, hierarchy is not - thus our work of salvation in Christ is not a negation of basic gender roles, but a struggle to live them in charity ("Edenically".)

No, the work of Christ did not negate gender roles, nor did it establish them. They are established by primitive and oppressive cultures and ignorant and insecure men. Christ did not come as a revolutionary, but neither did he come as a reactionary. Let us embrace the blessings of enlightenment, and uphold the Christian social order: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'
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
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #894 on: January 23, 2007, 12:44:09 PM »

GiC,

Quote
wow...resurrecting this topic after seven months?

Yes, my bad.

Quote
Tell that to Margaret Thacher, or to the several ruling queens, or to the ruling empresses, or to the women admirals and generals serving in our military today. The fact of the matter is that those are archaic stereotypes created by a cultures of oppression ruled by insecure men.

Read - tendencies.  There will always be exceptions, and I think history shows that the existance of matriarchs in public life has always began with the creation of exceptional circumstances and exceptional women.  While it's true systems re-enforce themselves, it seems you're not bothering to wonder why they tend to be a certain way (and generally are a certain way) to begin with.

However, regardless of such exceptions, there are still impediments with regard to the Priesthood which will perpetually disqualify women as candidates.  In that sense, being a Priest-Bishop has more in common with being a biological father, than being a reigning autocrat.

Quote
Not really, at each major issue the Church ended up going a certain way, it could have just have easily embraced the opposite ideology; however, had it embraced the opposite ideology we would today believe that ideology to be orthodox and looking at history would have said how obvious it all was, surely divine providence guided us in this direction. It's politics, plain and simple.

On it's face, this would be believable if one were an atheist.  Additionally, there are many chapters in the story of of the Imperial Councils, or the triumph of this or that view within Orthodoxy, which humanly speaking is quite remarkable.  Of course, one could say "what happens, happens" much as atheists do with regard to the argument that the emergence of life as being statistically improbable.  But, again, that would be atheism.

Quote
That's all I've ultimately been arguing, it's the bishops' decision. Now I think there is a right and wrong decision that they can make, but in the end the decision is theirs, if they make a decision either way, one can't viably object to it within the context of the Church. Of course, I am confident that, in time, cultural pressure will force the bishops to endorse the correct position (by which I, of course, mean my position Wink)

Providence will guarantee that the truth will triumph, "whatever that may be".  That will be the work of the Holy Spirit, beside the good will of men (or perhaps in spite of the will of man.)  The exact interplay of such things is a discussion in and of itself (the whole question of Robber Synods, etc.)  To believe otherwise, is to say the Church is neither founded or sustained as a continuing work of God, and holy unto Him.

Quote
If the biblical passages are properly interpreted, that is to say interpreted in the cultural context in which they were written, I see no reason why it the ordination of women would be a problem, we simply have to dispense with that silly protestant notion of biblical inerrancy.

Or, I give the Apostles the benefit of the doubt, and leave the cherry picking for what Hellas/"The World" has to say, since the latter has quite consistently shown itself to be fundamentally in the throws of idolatry of one sort or another.

Quote
Likewise, in the context of several primitive cultures, women were degraded so much by society that to place them in positions of responsibility within the church would have been irresponsible, for the same reason it was forbidden (explicitly, rather than just in practice as was the case with women) to ordain slaves...I would even take this a step further and say, for the same reasons, that there were times and places when it would have been irresponsible to ordain people of certain races. Of course, we are fortunate that our culture and society has evolved to such an extent that these issues are moot; thus I would today argue that failure to embrace at least as much virtue as our secular culture has manifested is irresponsible and immoral.

Of course, the above only adds up if one believes the only grounds for not admitting women to the Priesthood/Episcopate are the kind of considerations you're mentioning (a prudential ban based upon the taboos of this or that particular culture.)

Quote
While being a woman is most certainly not immoral...I would argue that failing to fight for your rights and liberties is immoral and those who willingly submit to oppression are less human because of it (as are those who oppress other).

It's incorrect to confound "rights" and "liberty" in this way.  We are very often perfectly free to do what we have no right to, and are completely in the right to abstain from what we are free to try and grasp.

Besides, obiedience proper to one's state in life is virtuous, including the habit of erring on the side of self negation.  If anything, obessing upon one's perceived rights has a tendency of leading to absolute ruin.

Quote
Well, you make it too easy. If it's related to the fall then it's a done deal...incase you haven't heard, Christ has triumphed over death and by the power of the Cross the curse is lifted, a blessing carried throughout all the world by the Holy Spirit.

In case you haven't heard, people still die.  They still have carnal passions, they still procreate, they still toil in misery, they still give birth in sufferings, etc.  None of those things existed in Paradise.  Christ crucified has not negated our own cross - it's only made it possible to bear, and fruitfully.  If anything, what has occured is that the articles of those curses have become sweetness, and become means of salvation.

Perhaps without realizing it, what you're describing is a practical Christianity without the Cross.

Further, you fail to address the fact that of those authorities who do speak of "what was" before the fall, a certain order between the genders still existed.  So this goes even beyond the yoke of our mortality (which we now bear patiently unto salvation), but our very nature itself.

Quote
No, the work of Christ did not negate gender roles, nor did it establish them.

No, the original act of creation did that.  The last I read, Christ had something to do with that too.

Quote
They are established by primitive and oppressive cultures and ignorant and insecure men.

And those primitive and oppressive cultures are as they are, fundamentally (peeling away their excesses) because of human nature, and it's terrestrial condition (even when being worked upon by the grace of the Church.)  The Lord has neither changed human nature, nor withdrawn it's curse - rather He has transfigured humanity, and removed death's sting by removing it's finality.

Quote
Christ did not come as a revolutionary, but neither did he come as a reactionary. Let us embrace the blessings of enlightenment, and uphold the Christian social order: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'

True, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female - but conversly, Christ is within Jews and Greeks, males and females.  While all of those things are passing, even the same could be said of the realities experienced in Paradise by Adam before his fall.  That their significance is temporary, does not make them unreal.

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #895 on: January 23, 2007, 03:16:02 PM »

Is there a Cliffsnotes version of this thread? I find the topic of priestesses in the Orthodox church very interesting, but this thread is of a biblical length.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #896 on: January 23, 2007, 07:57:08 PM »

Read - tendencies.  There will always be exceptions, and I think history shows that the existance of matriarchs in public life has always began with the creation of exceptional circumstances and exceptional women.  While it's true systems re-enforce themselves, it seems you're not bothering to wonder why they tend to be a certain way (and generally are a certain way) to begin with.

The french have a tendency to be arrogant...should we exclude them from the priesthood? Jews have a tendency to be greedy, should we excuse them from the priesthood? Ultimately, I think the word you're looking for is stereotype, you would continue a system of oppression based on a stereotype that came out of said system. Oh, and yes, those women who were raised in a misogynistic society, overcame the confines of society, asserted their power, and maintained it, though it stood against everything their culture valued, truly were exceptional people...but the reason that only such extremely exceptional people came to power in the past is because society oppressed those who were merly competent or even excellent people, instead replacing them with incompetent people merely because of their gender. Our Church suffers from this problem today, because we have too many restrictions excluding competent and excellent people from various positions of leadership (and not just gender restrictions, though those are certainly amongst them), we are so often governed by incompetence. This may have worked when the population consisted primarially of uneducated peasants, but today people see the absurdity, and thus leave the Church for some more reasonable insititution...if the Church fails to adapt, she will descend into irrelevance, and rightly so.

Quote
However, regardless of such exceptions, there are still impediments with regard to the Priesthood which will perpetually disqualify women as candidates.  In that sense, being a Priest-Bishop has more in common with being a biological father, than being a reigning autocrat.

So if the priesthood is a biological function, why not restrict it to a hereditary priesthood? Perhaps we can forbid those who have physical deformities from serving as a priest...for Christ had no physical deformities. Christ was also a Jew...shouldn't not being a Jew be an impediment? Your position is inconsistent.

Quote
On it's face, this would be believable if one were an atheist.  Additionally, there are many chapters in the story of of the Imperial Councils, or the triumph of this or that view within Orthodoxy, which humanly speaking is quite remarkable.  Of course, one could say "what happens, happens" much as atheists do with regard to the argument that the emergence of life as being statistically improbable.  But, again, that would be atheism.

So, basically, you're saying, if I looked at this objectively, I'd agree with you...but I'm not looking at it objectively, I'm looking at it through the lense of my fantasy world.

Quote
Providence will guarantee that the truth will triumph, "whatever that may be".  That will be the work of the Holy Spirit, beside the good will of men (or perhaps in spite of the will of man.)  The exact interplay of such things is a discussion in and of itself (the whole question of Robber Synods, etc.)  To believe otherwise, is to say the Church is neither founded or sustained as a continuing work of God, and holy unto Him.

Wern't you just arguing that man has absolute and unrestricted free will on the other thread? Surely, if these men will something contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit, it is their sinful will that they will proclaim? I guess we only have free will when it's convenient to your dogmas?

Quote
Or, I give the Apostles the benefit of the doubt, and leave the cherry picking for what Hellas/"The World" has to say, since the latter has quite consistently shown itself to be fundamentally in the throws of idolatry of one sort or another.

What doubt? Is there any doubt that the apostles came from a 1st century Jewish culture? That that society was their cultural experience and upbringing? I fear that there is no doubt of which to give them the benifit.

Quote
Of course, the above only adds up if one believes the only grounds for not admitting women to the Priesthood/Episcopate are the kind of considerations you're mentioning (a prudential ban based upon the taboos of this or that particular culture.)

Well, it also adds up if we believe that there is no male and female in Christ...for if there is none in Christ we must look elsewhere...culture.

Quote
It's incorrect to confound "rights" and "liberty" in this way.  We are very often perfectly free to do what we have no right to, and are completely in the right to abstain from what we are free to try and grasp.

Besides, obiedience proper to one's state in life is virtuous, including the habit of erring on the side of self negation.  If anything, obessing upon one's perceived rights has a tendency of leading to absolute ruin.

It's not incorrect, it's proper enlightenment philosophy. What is sad is that men were so ignorant for so long as to have not realized this before then.

Quote
In case you haven't heard, people still die.  They still have carnal passions, they still procreate, they still toil in misery, they still give birth in sufferings, etc.  None of those things existed in Paradise.  Christ crucified has not negated our own cross - it's only made it possible to bear, and fruitfully.  If anything, what has occured is that the articles of those curses have become sweetness, and become means of salvation.

People died and procreated before the 'curse'...these are biological realities of who we are, necessary to our evolutionary history. The curse refers to a spiritual state...oh, and Genisis is a myth that we have found ALLEGORICAL value in, even Augustine didn't take it literally...taking Genisis literally is the kind of thing that leads to such nonsense as creationism.

Quote
Perhaps without realizing it, what you're describing is a practical Christianity without the Cross.

Not at all, what I am describing is the implications of the Cross, the implications of a Loving, Caring, and Merciful God who establishes a truth above and beyond our personal and cultural failings.

Quote
Further, you fail to address the fact that of those authorities who do speak of "what was" before the fall, a certain order between the genders still existed.  So this goes even beyond the yoke of our mortality (which we now bear patiently unto salvation), but our very nature itself.

Fine I will address them. As a polygamous species homo sapiens evolved a sexual dimorphism, thus making men larger and physically stronger than females, since they had to fight to continue their genetic line, whereas this was unnecessary for females. Furthermore, from a psychological perspective along with this increased strength was a tendency towards violence which is still observed to a limited degree today (for some it's a desire to fight and show off one's strength...for others it's a more impersonal attraction towards violence, such as a cold appreciation of nuclear warfare Wink) When humans began to develop a degree of reason (however small) and started to form civilizations, these tendencies continued, and women being physically weaker and less desirous of violence for evolutionary reasons were in no position to oppose. Though to claim that this outcome was moral is to essentially argue that might makes right...and yet this reality is embraced by so many who claim to be Christians...perhaps Nietzsche was right, all that really does matter is will to power, 'God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.' But, in any case, the power has fortunately shifted to some degree as a result of the evolution of modern society...it would seem that those who hold these misogynistic positions simply yearn for the violence allowed them under the old order, yet they have lost and have become irrelevant by their own standards...so they invent new standards and call them dogma and religion.

Quote
No, the original act of creation did that.  The last I read, Christ had something to do with that too.

Scripture says that there is no male or female in Christ...and yet you say that there are only male and female in Christ...it would seem to me that you are the one innovating on theological matters.

Quote
And those primitive and oppressive cultures are as they are, fundamentally (peeling away their excesses) because of human nature, and it's terrestrial condition (even when being worked upon by the grace of the Church.)  The Lord has neither changed human nature, nor withdrawn it's curse - rather He has transfigured humanity, and removed death's sting by removing it's finality.

Here we go again with the will to power argument...'If Germany, thanks to Hitler and his successors, were to enslave the European nations and destroy most of the treasures of their past, future historians would certainly pronounce that she had civilized Europe.' -- Simone Weil

Quote
True, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female - but conversly, Christ is within Jews and Greeks, males and females.

With you so far...

Quote
While all of those things are passing, even the same could be said of the realities experienced in Paradise by Adam before his fall.  That their significance is temporary, does not make them unreal.

Ok, I dont see how that logically follows, seems to be a bit of a non sequitur to me. But to try to address what I think you were getting at...no oppression is not unreal...but neither is it desirable. You seem to argue that we should not seek to uphold the ideals of Christ because of temporary conditions, well news flash, we have evolved beyond that era to which you wish to return...the only thing keeping us from embracing these Christian ideals in our current societies are the pseudo-christian reactionaries too afraid for their own worthless positions and non-existent honour to embrace the message of Christ.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2007, 07:57:46 PM 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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #897 on: January 23, 2007, 08:06:52 PM »

At my new church congregation, we've had a female cantor, the priest's wife, for the lack of a deacon to sing the deacon's parts. I find no objection to it thus far. But the ordination of women still troubles me and is something I would not approve of.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2007, 08:07:27 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #898 on: January 23, 2007, 08:11:06 PM »

<gasp> I don't have matthew's support...all is surely lost.
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 #899 on: January 23, 2007, 11:31:48 PM »

greekischristian stated:
but today people see the absurdity, and thus leave the Church for some more reasonable insititution...if the Church fails to adapt, she will descend into irrelevance, and rightly so.




I think I get your point.

I have experienced some really bad leadership in my local parish.

But if people feel that they can find some "reasonable institution" to replace the church somebody should point out to them that they have jumped out of the pan and into the fire.

There is NO "reasonable institution" outside the Church.

Also The Church does not "adapt".

We adapt to the Church.

If the Church is in a constant state of adapting than it is not orthodox. Orthodox means Correct doctrine. It has no place with adaptationist thinking (not that this is who you are). I find this thinking prevalent among protestants and other people who refuses to worship God in spirit and truth. People who want things their way. 'Arm chair Christians'. This type would prefer that communion be sent to them by Fedex.

Again I think i get what you are saying but I feel that we can not give in to people who are not willing to 'give in to the church'.


I have avoided posting on this thread since the ordination of women is today relegated to protestants only. The subject for orthodox is mute in this life time.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2007, 11:53:09 PM by Amdetsion » 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
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 0.185 seconds with 74 queries.