Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I didn't say I break laws - just rules
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're local I will come visit you when you inevitably get arrested and thrown in jail.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Fair enough. The answers are self-evident to me, but certainly other answers are self-evident to others.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
With all due respect, since you appear to believe that the answers to your questions are self-evident, with whom are you seeking a dialogue?
quote:What's wrong with tradition?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why then is the issue not solved now? What possible argument could be made, other than tradition?
quote:This one excludes half the population from the decision making process.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What's wrong with tradition?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why then is the issue not solved now? What possible argument could be made, other than tradition?
quote:What is right with it in this instance?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What's wrong with tradition?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why then is the issue not solved now? What possible argument could be made, other than tradition?
quote:Yes, in primitive societies I can see these fears having a hold. But none of this is any excuse whatever for excluding women from the priesthood today.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation? The fact that they are ritually unclean in many cultures, Jewish and other tribal cultures regularly? Certainly if you read the Pentateuch, women spend a lot of their life unclean, and the priestly castes had to be ritually cleansed - see the Leviticus thread in Kerygmania. If this cleansing is a problem you can see why women might be excluded.
I can see why in primitive societies this is a problem - animals being attracted to the smell of blood, bleeding being something that normally means the person bleeding is injured and may well die either from the wound or the resulting infection. And the superstitions that mean women bleeding doesn't imply death.
quote:I do, I do, and many other plumbing topics - but only because I love to see them squirm.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I didn't say that it was a good reason now.
But those sorts of irrational feelings linger. Have you tried talking about menstruation to teenage boys? Or most men?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Did you fail logic in college...?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Fair enough. The answers are self-evident to me, but certainly other answers are self-evident to others.
quote:Here's the orginal DH thread from back when we only had one per topic.
Originally posted by Martin L:
If a past thread has already covered this, then I apologize (and humbly request a link, if possible, as I cannot find it).
quote:Buried in that are two unstated premises: that the primary function of the priest is to make decisions, and that people who are not priests are not involved in making decisions.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This one excludes half the population from the decision making process.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What's wrong with tradition?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why then is the issue not solved now? What possible argument could be made, other than tradition?
quote:Women not serving at the altar has a lot to do with menstruation, at least in the Orthodox Church.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation?
quote:The answer to what's right about tradition is always "it's tradition." If you are in a traditional church, then tradition means those right, good, and true things that are passed down from our forebears. Modern problems break upon the rocks of tradition. Not the other way around.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:What is right with it in this instance?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What's wrong with tradition?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Why then is the issue not solved now? What possible argument could be made, other than tradition?
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Women not serving at the altar has a lot to do with menstruation, at least in the Orthodox Church.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation?
The only blood permitted at our altar ever is the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the chalice. If the priest or deacon or one of the acolytes begins to bleed for any reason at all -- if the priest nicked his hand with the knife he's cutting the bread with, or if an acolyte was bored and picked at a scab and made it bleed -- he must immediately leave the altar. If it's the priest who is bleeding, the service must be paused until the flow of blood is stopped and he can return to finish the service.
That would make it hard for a woman to serve as a parish priest. "Sorry, we won't be having Liturgy tomorrow, as I've started my period."
Of course, an all-male priesthood is not the same thing as a "lack of credence given to women." And the rule about blood in the altar is not the only reason we have an all-male priesthood. But it is one of the reasons.
quote:Yes. I am a member of a church that doesn't have women priests. And, yes, women have a voice in the affairs of our Church.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Josephine - do you really think women have a voice in Church affairs where those churches don't allow women priests?
quote:It isn't about menstrual bleeding. It's about blood.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't see any correlation whatever between menstrual bleeding and the blood of Christ in the chalice.
quote:So you said - and I am asking why?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:It isn't about menstrual bleeding. It's about blood.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I can't see any correlation whatever between menstrual bleeding and the blood of Christ in the chalice.
Our sacrifice is a bloodless sacrifice. We do not allow any blood on the altar or in the sanctuary other than the blood of Christ. No blood of pigeons, or bulls, or sheep, or humans. It's simply not allowed.
quote:I thought you wanted to know specifically why menstrual blood is forbidden. It's not just menstrual blood, it's any and all blood.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So you said - and I am asking why?
Originally posted by Josephine:
Our sacrifice is a bloodless sacrifice. We do not allow any blood on the altar or in the sanctuary other than the blood of Christ. No blood of pigeons, or bulls, or sheep, or humans. It's simply not allowed.
quote:Not having menstrual periods would be necessary for serving as a priest, but it would not be sufficient.
Originally posted by Boogie:
So would I be allowed to train as a priest? I have had a hysterectomy, so no chance of any bleeding.
quote:You are right, I'm not.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're not getting this, are you?
I am a natural rule breaker (Even when the rules make some sense!)
quote:I didn't say I break laws - just rules
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're local I will come visit you when you inevitably get arrested and thrown in jail.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:What's the difference? You only break rules when you know you're not going to get into trouble?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:I didn't say I break laws - just rules
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're local I will come visit you when you inevitably get arrested and thrown in jail.
quote:Actually, lack of it often means you're pregnant and that's presence of new life.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But my seious point is that 'It has always been this way' is fine for bread/wine, how we sit/stand etc. But when it discriminates against minorities (or, in this case, half the population) then a re-think is needed. Especially as we know menstrual blood is natural, fine and healthy with nothing whatever to do with death. In fact lack of it means lack of new life!
quote:I'm afraid I don't understand whatever point you're trying to make. Could you try again, please?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Especially as we know menstrual blood is natural, fine and healthy with nothing whatever to do with death.
quote:Isabel Florence Hapgood's feast will be observed next week. At any rate, it seems relevant to this thread as an example of a woman exhibiting a very strong leadership role in Orthodoxy! Of course, since I haven't googled her yet, this collect is all I know about her, but still...
Loving God, we thank you for the work and witness of Isabel Florence Hapgood, who introduced the Divine Liturgy of the Russian Orthodox Church to English-speaking Christians, and encouraged dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox. Guide us as we build on the foundation that she gave us, that all may be one in Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, unto ages of ages. Amen.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Perhaps the distinction is that unlike doctors, lawyers, engineers, voters, etc. the clergy serve no useful (i.e. "utilitarian") function, making discrimination more palatable in this instance.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And indeed it's that utilitarian definition of the priesthood that I think is the crux of the matter. It represents a change in Christian teaching/practice and as such the burden of proof for adopting it lies on the one proposing the change. Once the utilitarian definition is accepted, the okayness of women priests is inescapable (logically anyway). But I haven't seen convincing arguments for the utilitarian definition.
quote:I would expect an atheist to say no less. But for believers, at least those of us in traditions with an ordained priesthood, this is not the case, as many other threads on the Ship could attest. For the sacraments are, to us, an indispensable part of our religion, and thus those that administer them are of great utility, indeed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps the distinction is that unlike doctors, lawyers, engineers, voters, etc. the clergy serve no useful (i.e. "utilitarian") function,
quote:So a priest without a penis might accidentally change wine into Christ's lymph instead of His blood? I'm not buying the whole "chicks can't do magic, but dudes can" argument. More to the point, doesn't the focus on the adherents ("for believers", "to us") inherently admit that the only distinction here is the sexism of the faithful?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I would expect an atheist to say no less. But for believers, at least those of us in traditions with an ordained priesthood, this is not the case, as many other threads on the Ship could attest. For the sacraments are, to us, an indispensable part of our religion, and thus those that administer them are of great utility, indeed.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Perhaps the distinction is that unlike doctors, lawyers, engineers, voters, etc. the clergy serve no useful (i.e. "utilitarian") function,
[spling]
quote:I noticed you haven't addressed the main question. Why do we find statements like "one of the many requirements to be a medical doctor/lawyer/voter is a penis" to be abhorrent, but the priesthood gets a pass? The male-only tradition is historically just a strong in those areas (until recently), but "tradition" is regarded as inadequate. Or is this just a case of "my tradition is sacred, yours is discriminatory"?
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not an argument. It's our tradition. One of the many requirements for the priesthood is a penis. Oh well.
quote:Although most owners are very fond of them, having a penis is not exactly a religion. I think it could more aptly be described as a physical component rather than a religious one.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Qualifications for doctors are strictly utilitarian; there is no spiritual or religious component. Qualifications for religious offices have religious components. Go figure.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I'm treating the "magical, mystical, utterly religious penis" argument as seriously as I possibly can.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see you'd really rather ridicule than discuss, Croesus. It doesn't seem worthwhile to treat your response seriously.
quote:The problem is that you're thinking of the priesthood as just another job. It's not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I was wondering about the argument from tradition and why it seems insufficient (to most of us) when applied to other professions which used to exclude women, such as law or medicine (or voting) but some hold forth as perfectly reasonable for religious professionals....
quote:It should be noted that doctors and lawyers, in addition to their knowledge of their subject of expertise, are also expected to maintain certain relationships with their patients/clients. You can know all about medicine or law, but as soon as you start unauthorized human experimentation or start colluding with opposing counsel to convict your client, you're out.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The problem is that you're thinking of the priesthood as just another job. It's not.
Becoming a priest is more like becoming a husband than it is like becoming a doctor or a lawyer or a computer programmer. Being a priest is not about what you know or what you can do. It's about having a particular relationship with the Church.
quote:Interesting juxtaposition. In the first paragraph you describe the qualifications of the job (standing still and bishoply handling), while in the second you say that you don't have to have the right qualifications. All in defense of yet another qualification of the job (penis-having). I think that instead of saying that you don't need the right qualifications to be a priest, what you mean is that the qualifications to be a priest have nothing to do with whether you'd be any good at it.
Originally posted by Josephine:
And, likewise, if the Church wants you, all you have to do is stand still long enough for a couple of bishops to lay hands on you and ask the Holy Spirit to make you a priest.
It's not about having the right qualifications for the job.
quote:I was thinking of "standing still while the bishop laid hands on you" as a (brief and vastly oversimplified) description of the means by which a man is made a priest, not his qualifications for being made a priest.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interesting juxtaposition. In the first paragraph you describe the qualifications of the job (standing still and bishoply handling), while in the second you say that you don't have to have the right qualifications. All in defense of yet another qualification of the job (penis-having). I think that instead of saying that you don't need the right qualifications to be a priest, what you mean is that the qualifications to be a priest have nothing to do with whether you'd be any good at it.
quote:I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction between "impediments" and "qualifications" in this case. The whole point of this thread is that there is a checklist for the priesthood in certain sects and one of the most notable items on this metaphorical list is that you have to be able to check off "M" rather than "F".
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think it's far more likely that someone talking about how you become a priest would talk about impediments than qualifications. There is a list of things that, according to our canons, could prevent you from becoming a priest. There is no such list of things that would qualify you for being a priest. You can't just check off 20 items from a list and say, "Okay, that's it, I'm ready to be a priest."
quote:The difference would be that, if you have a list of qualifications, then if you can check all the boxes, you can do whatever it is you're trying to qualify for. To qualify a driver's license, you have to get a certain amount of instruction and practice, pass a written test, pass a driving test. Do all that and you get the license.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction between "impediments" and "qualifications" in this case.
quote:Or if you felt the need to phrase it the other way, you could say that failing the written test is an impediment to getting a driver's license. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between qualification and impediment other than some sort of rhetorical convenience.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:The difference would be that, if you have a list of qualifications, then if you can check all the boxes, you can do whatever it is you're trying to qualify for. To qualify a driver's license, you have to get a certain amount of instruction and practice, pass a written test, pass a driving test. Do all that and you get the license.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction between "impediments" and "qualifications" in this case.
quote:Being old enough may not be the only qualification but it is certainly a qualification, contrary to your assertion.
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you have a list of impediments, then if you check one of the things on the list, you are prevented from doing whatever it is you want to do. However, not having any impediments doesn't automatically mean that you can do it.
Being blind would be an impediment to getting a driver's license, as would being 12 years old. But if you've got perfectly good vision and you're 27 years old, that doesn't mean you get a license. And if you're 12 years old, have perfectly good vision, and could easily pass both the written and the driving test, you still can't get a license. Being too young is an impediment. Being old enough is not a qualification.
If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure that I can help you.
quote:The difference (as I understand Josephine's explanation) is that if there were qualifications for being a priest (age, marital status, education, baptism, professed faith...), someone with those qualifications would be entitled to be a priest as of right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Or if you felt the need to phrase it the other way, you could say that failing the written test is an impediment to getting a driver's license. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between qualification and impediment other than some sort of rhetorical convenience.
quote:Who said anything about "their own exemplary efforts"? I don't regard having a specific gender as being either particularly exemplary or much of an effort. And once again we're playing semantic games about whether having calling is a qualification or not having a calling is an impediment. You're making it out as if there's some huge difference between ALL(A) and NONE(not(A)). In other words, a bunch of pointless hair-splitting.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Her point is that there is no one in that position. No one is entitled to say that they have met the criteria and therefore ought to be a priest. Priesthood is not something that anyone has a right to, or that they can, even by their own exemplary efforts, qualify for. It is a calling bestowed on some and not others. A man who is under a canonical impediment, or who simply is not selected by the church, is in the same position as all women - he cannot be a priest however admirably suited to the role he may seem.
quote:Quite. That's my (understanding of Josephine's) point - that it's not about putting in the effort to show the ability to do the job in the same way that getting a driver's licence or medical degree is just about ability. Gender isn't about effort or ability at all (obviously).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I don't regard having a specific gender as being either particularly exemplary or much of an effort.
quote:Churchgeek, you might find this thread useful.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Just came across this (from the Episcopal Church's new, "trial use" Holy Women, Holy Men observances):
quote:Isabel Florence Hapgood's feast will be observed next week. At any rate, it seems relevant to this thread as an example of a woman exhibiting a very strong leadership role in Orthodoxy! Of course, since I haven't googled her yet, this collect is all I know about her, but still...
Loving God, we thank you for the work and witness of Isabel Florence Hapgood, who introduced the Divine Liturgy of the Russian Orthodox Church to English-speaking Christians, and encouraged dialogue between Anglicans and Orthodox. Guide us as we build on the foundation that she gave us, that all may be one in Christ; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, unto ages of ages. Amen.
quote:I was at a church conference a couple of weekends ago at which the opening address was given by a highly-respected lady who delivered her address and answered questions afterwards incredibly eruditely and with clearly from a basis of sound knowledge of Orthodox theology. It was the ideal start to the conference. I thanked her for it as we spoke privately later in the weekend. Different addresses and parts of the conference were given in English or Russian, and a translation was always provided, for which we had headsets. Prior to the opening address, we witnessed a minor altercation between this lady and the archbishop. From my corner, all we were able to hear was a very stern, 'No! No! No! No!' from the lady. We later learnt that the archbishop had wanted the opening address to be in Russian (the lady speaks both languages fluently, and then some, and has taken part in high-level translation work for NATO in the past). Suffice it to say that the archbishop was not the one to get his way. I know that this is not a major decision but it is an example.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Yes. I am a member of a church that doesn't have women priests. And, yes, women have a voice in the affairs of our Church.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Josephine - do you really think women have a voice in Church affairs where those churches don't allow women priests?
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Interesting. With appropriate fear and trembling, I'd suppose it's because putting a woman in direct leadership (which is hardly the only form there is, as female saints would attest) would've been too much for a culture already in the throes of culture-shock.
quote:There's definitely an...impression...that a lot of pagan rituals, particularly around fertility, were very sexual.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:That's often said, Bullfrog. But there were both men and women serving as priests among the pagans in the Roman Empire. I have never heard anyone explain why that was accepted, but why it would nevertheless have been shocking and scandalous had the Christians done the same. It doesn't make sense to me.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Interesting. With appropriate fear and trembling, I'd suppose it's because putting a woman in direct leadership (which is hardly the only form there is, as female saints would attest) would've been too much for a culture already in the throes of culture-shock.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
There's definitely an...impression...that a lot of pagan rituals, particularly around fertility, were very sexual.
quote:I agree that it's a weak argument. It's probably the one that's most commonly offered, but then you have to go on and ask why, if the priest has to be male to represent Jesus, does he not also have to have dark brown eyes and long dark hair? How far does the correspondence have to go?
There's also (and my prof, a Catholic, admits that this is a weak argument, even if it is the Catholic one) the anthropological argument that Jesus himself was male and therefore any who wish to fully represent him would also have to be male.
quote:The thing that most undermines this sort of reasoning is that it is applied so unevenly. It could be noted that Jesus only called ethnic Jews to be part of the Twelve, and yet this is not taken as an indication that gentiles should be barred from the priesthood.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The only explanation I have that makes any sense is that Jesus didn't call any women to be part of the Twelve. He could have. There were women who were close friends and associates of his, and he didn't tell them to come and follow him. After the Resurrection, and before the Ascension, when he spent time with his disciples teaching them what they needed to know to get the Church going, he never told them to make women priests and bishops. Again, he could have. But he didn't.
quote:Bear in mind that up until about the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt Christians regarded themselves as a sect of Judaism, not a new religion. As such they would certainly not have adopted pagan customs like female priesthood. The simplest explanation is that the Christian tradition simply maintained the sexist social structure advocated both in the Old Testament and the Jewish culture of the time.
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's often said, Bullfrog. But there were both men and women serving as priests among the pagans in the Roman Empire. I have never heard anyone explain why that was accepted, but why it would nevertheless have been shocking and scandalous had the Christians done the same. It doesn't make sense to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The thing that most undermines this sort of reasoning is that it is applied so unevenly. It could be noted that Jesus only called ethnic Jews to be part of the Twelve, and yet this is not taken as an indication that gentiles should be barred from the priesthood.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The only explanation I have that makes any sense is that Jesus didn't call any women to be part of the Twelve. He could have. ... But he didn't.
quote:That's also possible, and it may well have been part of it. If you attend an Orthodox worship service, you can see the continuity with Jewish worship. But the early Church quite deliberately ditched many of the practices associated with judaism; it was made clear from very early on that Christians did not have to become Jews. Peter's vision at Joppa could easily have been used to justify women priests. But it wasn't.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The simplest explanation is that the Christian tradition simply maintained the sexist social structure advocated both in the Old Testament and the Jewish culture of the time.
quote:But surely isn't that the whole problem here? If you don't know the reason, you can't work out what the correct boundaries are. You can't work out whether it was only men because there is a reason it can only BE men, or it was only men because it just happened that the most suitable people around at the time were all men.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do. He didn't tell us why. We can guess, but it's only guessing. We don't know. Because we trust God, that's okay with us.
quote:Did he tell men to be priests and bishops?
Originally posted by Josephine:
The only explanation I have that makes any sense is that Jesus didn't call any women to be part of the Twelve. He could have. There were women who were close friends and associates of his, and he didn't tell them to come and follow him. After the Resurrection, and before the Ascension, when he spent time with his disciples teaching them what they needed to know to get the Church going, he never told them to make women priests and bishops. Again, he could have. But he didn't.
quote:I think that fact requires a strong belief in tradition or a particular interpretation of scripture. One could equally argue that the church firmly established the practice without guidance from God.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think that fact requires a strong belief in tradition or a particular interpretation of scripture.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do.
quote:One could. But that argument would not be Orthodox.
One could equally argue that the church firmly established the practice without guidance from God.
quote:"Because God said so" is not so much an argument as it is an attempt to shut down all debate. It's also a way of casting those who disagree as not just disagreeing with you, but disagreeing with God. (God coincidentally always holds the same opinion as those making the argument.) I don't see why we should take the assertion that God said (somewhere unrecorded in scripture) "no chicks in pulpits" any more seriously than we take assertions that the "Curse of Ham" is God's mandate to enslave those of African descent.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think that fact requires a strong belief in tradition or a particular interpretation of scripture. One could equally argue that the church firmly established the practice without guidance from God.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do.
quote:I'm sorry, Crœsos. I'm not trying to shut down the debate; I'm trying to explain why the Orthodox Church doesn't have women in the priesthood.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Because God said so" is not so much an argument as it is an attempt to shut down all debate. It's also a way of casting those who disagree as not just disagreeing with you, but disagreeing with God.
quote:Perhaps the fact that you have no explanation is the biggest impediment to providing one?
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'm not trying to shut down the debate; I'm trying to explain why the Orthodox Church doesn't have women in the priesthood.
<snip>
We don't have to have an explanation.
quote:This may be a tangent, but if telling people what God wants them to do is not the place of the Church, what's it for?
Originally posted by Josephine:
We're not going to tell you what God wants you to do. That's not our place.
quote:"Shut down all discussion", if you prefer. Thanks for illustrating my point. If you've got God's putative endorsement any explanation offered can't be questioned and must be assumed to make sense. If God says "no chicks in pulpits", who are we to ask for clarification? If God says the universe is only six thousand years old, who are you going to believe: your Creator or your own lying eyes? If God says the 'Sons of Ham' are cursed to slavery, isn't abolishionism sinful defiance? God is the ultimate trump card when you don't want to explain yourself.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Shut down all debate."
What debate? We're not debating this. This is not some kind of moot court, where whoever wins gets to impose their idea of the ministry on the other party. Someone asked "why only men?" We're saying why. It's not a fucking debate. It never has been.
quote:To provide us a shelter from within which we can work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This may be a tangent, but if telling people what God wants them to do is not the place of the Church, what's it for?
Originally posted by Josephine:
We're not going to tell you what God wants you to do. That's not our place.
quote:Serious question. When? As pointed out, it's not recorded in scripture that Jesus ever said "only men can be priests". So presumably if God actually _told_ the church what to do, it must have been at some other time. When, and to whom, did God tell that "only men can be priests?"
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
pretty much off topic - sorry, but a lot of assumptions are being made about our calling here. maybe a new thread or has it been done to death before?)
quote:Have you ever spent time in a seminary?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:"Shut down all discussion", if you prefer. Thanks for illustrating my point. If you've got God's putative endorsement any explanation offered can't be questioned and must be assumed to make sense. If God says "no chicks in pulpits", who are we to ask for clarification? If God says the universe is only six thousand years old, who are you going to believe: your Creator or your own lying eyes? If God says the 'Sons of Ham' are cursed to slavery, isn't abolishionism sinful defiance? God is the ultimate trump card when you don't want to explain yourself.
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Shut down all debate."
What debate? We're not debating this. This is not some kind of moot court, where whoever wins gets to impose their idea of the ministry on the other party. Someone asked "why only men?" We're saying why. It's not a fucking debate. It never has been.
quote:I'm not trying to frame arguments, more toss out hypotheses. I'm admittedly not knowledgeable enough to say what was actually going on in the patristic period or before. I figure there were probably different cultures with different norms across the empire, so the same practice could mean different things in different localities, just like it is today. The stuff that excited people in Latin America merely fascinates those of us in North America, etc. And in each of these spaces, what the heck is a priest supposed to actually do in the first place in these climates? I have an inkling of how they operate in a 20th-21st century UMC church, but I'm sure that's wildly different from the traditions in which these regulations were formed.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
There's definitely an...impression...that a lot of pagan rituals, particularly around fertility, were very sexual.
Have you changed the argument, then? It's not that the Church didn't have women serving as priests because the Roman society would be shocked by having women in such a position, but that the Church didn't have women serving as priests because the assumption was that priests would be having a lot of sex, and of course we don't want our women to be doing that, even if the men do?
I don't buy it. There were rituals that were highly sexual. But there were also the vestal virgins, who were buried alive if they got caught having sex. And there wasn't anything sexual about reading the signs of the gods' favor in the stars or the entrails of a goat.quote:I agree that it's a weak argument. It's probably the one that's most commonly offered, but then you have to go on and ask why, if the priest has to be male to represent Jesus, does he not also have to have dark brown eyes and long dark hair? How far does the correspondence have to go?
There's also (and my prof, a Catholic, admits that this is a weak argument, even if it is the Catholic one) the anthropological argument that Jesus himself was male and therefore any who wish to fully represent him would also have to be male.
quote:[TANGENT]
Originally posted by Boogie:
I thought The word “church” in the New Testament came from the Greek word, ekklesia - 'To call out'
Would he have recognised what we see today as his 'calling out'?
(
quote:The fact that it is the unbroken tradition since apostolic times would suggest that it't not being written down in any extant source isn't really of much significance. My grandmother's birth certificate has been long lost, but the absence of written documentation doesn't negate the historical fact of her birth.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:Serious question. When? As pointed out, it's not recorded in scripture that Jesus ever said "only men can be priests". So presumably if God actually _told_ the church what to do, it must have been at some other time. When, and to whom, did God tell that "only men can be priests?"
The fact is, God established this practice firmly in the Church. He told us what to do.
quote:
Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as having no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more.
For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East for prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to everyone? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerygma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world.
quote:Speaking from memory, was this not in the context of a discussion specifically about baptism? If so, then in order to make it apply more generally, or indeed specifically to ordination, then an argument would need to be constructed to show that baptism alone is the basis for all exercise of ministry and receipt of charisma within the life of the Church. I'm not saying that this isn't possible but only that, without it, there seems to be a massive jump from that verse of scripture to saying ordination ought to be conferred on women.
And, although I wasn't thinking it when I started typing this, it now occurs to me that there is grounds for saying that He said the exact opposite. "In Christ there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, slave or free..."
quote:Indeed. Most tings like this, including the conciliar decrees, only came about because of movements against the received tradition. That's generally accepted, I think.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
The fact that Basil had to argue so vociferously for his case shows that there was even then a dissenting opinion. Why else would he have spent so much ink?
quote:He does actually go on to explain this and other things in not very much depth in the paragraphs following the portion I quoted.
Looking at these practices, I would think it perfectly fit to ask why pray to the east...
quote:Really? That's news to me.
...or why do we insist on saying "Thee" and "Thou" when no other English speaking culture uses these words anywhere outside of church and certain theatrical performances?
quote:I'm sorry, Bullfrog. That sounds snooty when I read it off my screen in a way that it didn't in my head.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Chicago doesn't represent the full extent of people's use of English.
quote:None taken. I've lived here five years or so and still am not totally sure what a traditional Chicago accent is.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:I'm sorry, Bullfrog. That sounds snooty when I read it off my screen in a way that it didn't in my head.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Chicago doesn't represent the full extent of people's use of English.
quote:I'm saying that, as an Orthodox Christian, I don't start with looking for extant, specifically written proof, and then question everything that isn't written. That way just doesn't compute for me. I start with the practice of the Church. Because we lay such immense store by retaining and carrying on what we have received - that is such an integral part of our church culture - the absence of written proof is not on its own any good reason not to believe something. That mindset has crept in at times and it has failed, disastrously.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
So, in other words, MA, you assume that because that's the way its always been, it was specifically ordained by God. Yet you have no proof or even evidence that this is the case?
quote:Well, see, for us, the fact that it's the way it's always been, in the Church, is itself the evidence that it's the way God has ordained it.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
So, in other words, MA, you assume that because that's the way its always been, it was specifically ordained by God. Yet you have no proof or even evidence that this is the case?
quote:Thank you, Bullfrog.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:None taken.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:I'm sorry, Bullfrog. That sounds snooty when I read it off my screen in a way that it didn't in my head.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
Chicago doesn't represent the full extent of people's use of English.
quote:I can understand that reasoning as somebody who used to subscribe to it quite vehemently. Now I'm less sure. It was part of my initial stirrings at conversion actually. I have recently, because of my own curiosity, been looking at the rule prevalent in some Orthodox circles that we are not to prostrate ourselves on Sundays in honour of the Resurrection. In places where this is observed, such as my own parish, the people seem to just know it. They have absorbed it from what has gone on around them and perhaps what they were taught as children. As it happens, this rule seems not to be entirely correct and is an exaggeration of the rule that we are not supposed to kneel down to pray on Sundays. Ask my fellow parishioners where this is written down and I doubt more than one or two could answer but it's something they just know. I know that it's written down in one of the canons of the 6th Ecumenical Council, and that this canon cites an earlier canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council which says the same thing, prefacing it with 'We have received from our divine fathers the canon law...'.
I still question whether the "received tradition" was ever such a static thing. I can understand some of Basil's ideas, and my questions aren't always hostile (really!) I just have trouble with the idea that all of this "received" stuff was meant even from inception to be held as normative for all times and places. In school we've been taught that the tradition was often an evolving ad hoc kind of thing that only later was rationalized. I don't think that being ad hoc and rationalized later means we have to completely gut the tradition, but I'd rather people were more intentional and selective in how they appropriated it for their own context.
quote:Isn't this precisely an example that traditions adapt and change? Before the discovery was made that the two churches had diverged somewhat, I'm sure the Russians thought they were doing precisely what had always been done since the Apostles. Since the two diverged, quite naturally, how do we know the Greek practice was indeed authentic or original? How do we know it had not also changed over time?
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I'm thinking specifically of the Old Rite as one example. In the 17th century, it was found that Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox liturgical practice had become somewhat divergent. The assumption at the time was that this was the result of Russian alteration and accretion, and the then Russian patriarch forced the Russian church to bring its practice into line with what the Greek church was doing. Many refused. These were the prayers and ways of worshipping that they had been taught by those who had gone before them, who learnt them from those before them. They were not going to give them up on a whim, so they resisted, were anathematised, and were persecuted by the state with varying degrees of harshness at different times, particularly under Tsar Peter the Great. Many fled the country. Others stayed and were tortured or even executed. It's a shameful part of Russian history. To us, in the west, in the 21st century, it may sound like a petty thing to argue over such things as how many fingers we use to cross ourselves but this is one of the main things that was revised at the time, and I mention it to impress just to what degree the passing on of what we have received is woven into Orthodox church culture.
quote:I actually drew the exact opposite conclusion from your story. According to your telling a group of reformers were working on an "assumption" and were presumably acting as their faithfulness dictated, while those who were able to produce written evidence (the Old Ritualists) were vindicated. And why did the Greek Orthodox Church (the source of the corrupted rituals) have a lesser faithfulness than their Russian counterparts? How does this square with Josephine's description of an essentially infallible church?
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I'm thinking specifically of the Old Rite as one example. In the 17th century, it was found that Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox liturgical practice had become somewhat divergent. The assumption at the time was that this was the result of Russian alteration and accretion, and the then Russian patriarch forced the Russian church to bring its practice into line with what the Greek church was doing.
<snip>
In the 20th century, some old Greek manuscripts were discovered to be remarkably similar to the old Russian practice, and with improved liturgical scholarship, it was found that differences had not been caused by Russian accretion but by Greek revision. The Russians had, in fact, kept the old ways.
<snip
[The Old Ritualists] simply had their faithfulnes to what had been received and, in the end, they were shown to be right and those who had relied purely on written evidence ended up asking their forgiveness.
quote:You might notice that the principles I described assume that there will be conflicts and contradictions and differences of opinion, that these differences matter, and that one may want or need to decide between and among them.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does this square with Josephine's description of an essentially infallible church?
quote:In other words, the Church is sometimes mistaken but it is never wrong.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:You might notice that the principles I described assume that there will be conflicts and contradictions and differences of opinion, that these differences matter, and that one may want or need to decide between and among them.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does this square with Josephine's description of an essentially infallible church?
The principles explain how to work out the differences when those conflicts arise. Because we're working it out, collaborating with each other and with God, it sometimes takes us a very long time to work it out. But we do, eventually.
quote:Why does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both/and? The adversarial process is a very useful sieve for truth.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Croesus, are you interested in a conversation? Or are you just spoiling for a fight?
quote:No it isn't.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The adversarial process is a very useful sieve for truth.
quote:We're discussing it. You mean it is a reason you don't accept, and you can't stand to not poke at it with a sharp stick.
Originally said by Croesos:
"Shut down all discussion", if you prefer.
quote:I do want to discuss. You have equated discussion and debate. They are not the same thing. Really, if I say "I don't know why" what is there to debate? I mean you can pass all the gas you please about why your way of thinking is better than mine, but that really isn't debate. We do it the way we do because that's what was handed to us by our forebears. As Josephine said, all the "reasons" are very much after-the-fact. Answers to the question, "I wonder why they would make this rule?" Maybe our mistake was to share those at all, if people thought that they could talk us out of them by debate, as if they were in fact the real reasons the tradition was adopted, and we could be talked out of the tradition if we could just be made to understand that those reasons were invalid.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Mousethief, this is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss and debate the issue, why are you here?
quote:No, it isn't. It's a game that some people enjoy playing. But playing the game, and even being good at it, isn't the same thing at all as looking for, or finding, or being good at finding the truth.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Why does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both/and? The adversarial process is a very useful sieve for truth.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Croesus, are you interested in a conversation? Or are you just spoiling for a fight?
quote:No, the adversarial system IS actually intended to find the truth. How good a job of it might be open to question, but you can't automatically move from 'adversarial' to 'game-playing'.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:No, it isn't. It's a game that some people enjoy playing. But playing the game, and even being good at it, isn't the same thing at all as looking for, or finding, or being good at finding the truth.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Why does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both/and? The adversarial process is a very useful sieve for truth.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Croesus, are you interested in a conversation? Or are you just spoiling for a fight?
quote:I'm not loving the analogy here. Of course you know she was born - you can see her standing there. But isn't her BIRTHDATE open to question?
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The fact that it is the unbroken tradition since apostolic times would suggest that it't not being written down in any extant source isn't really of much significance. My grandmother's birth certificate has been long lost, but the absence of written documentation doesn't negate the historical fact of her birth.
quote:Hmm.
Originally posted by Josephine:
For us, we follow the tradition that we have received. For us, the fact that it is the tradition that we have received is the reason that we do what we do. We don't need another reason. We don't have to have an explanation. "We do it this way because we have always done it this way" works for us. That's what we believe God wants us to do.
quote:Asking difficult questions <> adversarial
Originally posted by orfeo:
People ask difficult questions to see if the answers satisfy them, not just for the sake of going "AHA" if the answer's aren't up to scratch.
quote:Perhaps not, but I've certainly found on some other message boards that continuing to ask questions and not accept the initial answers is SEEN as adversarial.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Asking difficult questions <> adversarial
Originally posted by orfeo:
People ask difficult questions to see if the answers satisfy them, not just for the sake of going "AHA" if the answer's aren't up to scratch.
quote:This is so true - I left a forum I'd been with for many years because of one such person who did these and targetted me with them. I wonder who they are getting at now? I never look at the site.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pounding away at something and not letting up even when your disputant has said they're at axiom level, picking at meaningless nits, pressing analogies beyond the breaking point, mockery, sarcasm, treating examples as if they were exhaustive -- there are many ways of being adversarial. Few of them advance discussion, debate, or understanding. They chiefly make the adversarial one look like a bully and a dullard, even if it perhaps somehow enhances their subsequent sexual performance or something.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Ultimately, yes, because the written tradition is part of tradition just like any other. I'm not trying to denigrate it but only to set it in its proper valued place. To put too much weight on it to the exclusion of other parts of tradition is not the Orthodox way. My intention in providing the example of the treatment of the Old Ritualists was to show what can happen when there is an insistence on written documentation to the exclusion of all else, when a burden of written proof is placed on people who have otherwise been faithful to what has been handed down to them. In this case, those who were right were doubted (at best) just because they didn't have the right paperwork, and continued being doubted until it turned up 300 years later. Yet, properly, that is not the Orthodox way, and I hope that we, as a church, have learnt from it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I actually drew the exact opposite conclusion from your story. According to your telling a group of reformers were working on an "assumption" and were presumably acting as their faithfulness dictated, while those who were able to produce written evidence (the Old Ritualists) were vindicated.
quote:You'll have to ask the Greek church. That isn't meant to sound flippant - Greek liturgical revision is a running joke in the Russian church, even today. What we have today in New Rite Russian tradition parishes (including most of the OCA, to which Josephine and Mousethief belong, as well as my own Russian jurisdiction) is essentially the Greek rite as it existed in the 17th century. Even so, it is once again noticeably different from the modern Greek tradition. I think we have learnt from mistakes of the past, being satisfied that there is legitimate room for liturgical variation provided that it expresses the same truth that has been received. For example, those who do not prostrate on Sundays in honour of the Resurrection are no less faithful than those of us who 'flop around on the floor' (as my parish priest said of me
And why did the Greek Orthodox Church (the source of the corrupted rituals) have a lesser faithfulness than their Russian counterparts?
) at the customary parts of services, even if they fall on a Sunday. Both are expressions of the same faith. Yet this variety needs to incorporate those who are perhaps less willing to revise the prayers and customs of old so we know that what we do is grounded in what has gone before.quote:I can't answer better than Josephine herself. Adding my own bit, then...
How does this square with Josephine's description of an essentially infallible church?
quote:In the story, it was the Greek, rather than the Russian, practice that had changed over time, but your point stands. I think any Orthodox people today who think that the services as we have them are the same as they were 1000 years ago are very ignorant indeed of their own history. It isn't that we don't allow development, which is a natural part of Church life, but that we are generally reticent about it in order to preserve the Faith unchanged, and also that when it is permitted, we try to ensure that it does not constitute a departure from that Faith in any way. If it seems that we often bicker over seemingly trivial matters, it is only because of this desire. Something such as the sacraments, their effectualness, and their place in the life of the Church is of greater significance than how many fingers to use in crossing ourselves, so a question over whether the mystery of ordination may be received by a woman, and in what form, (we have the three degrees of priesthood), if such a question were to arise, would naturally be of great focus in testing it in light of the Faith received.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Isn't this precisely an example that traditions adapt and change? Before the discovery was made that the two churches had diverged somewhat, I'm sure the Russians thought they were doing precisely what had always been done since the Apostles. Since the two diverged, quite naturally, how do we know the Greek practice was indeed authentic or original? How do we know it had not also changed over time?
quote:I think you're right, churchgeek.
Anyway, those of us in the Western churches ought to recognize that there are different ways of thinking at the base of this whole discussion, and those ways of thinking arise from cultural roots that we in the Western churches at least usually claim we want to respect. The two different mindsets are an ancient example, IMO, of the inculturation of the Apostolic Faith.
quote:Which brings up a point that I was thinking about as I was fixing my first cup of tea this morning. The Orthodox Church is not the only church in which the role of priest (or pastor or minister) is limited to men, and the question in the OP was not restricted to Orthodox reasoning or practice. I know it's often the case that, when we get to the same place as other churches do, we get there by an entirely different route.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
.... arguing against the OOW from a point of view of the priest acting in persona Christi and so having to be male, thinking this would impress their Orthodox interlocutors, only to be disappointed when the Orthodox delegates expressed how alien this was to their understanding, not necessarily of gender, but of priesthood.
quote:Without wishing in the least to dissent from St Vincent, doesn't his argument work only if the Spirit is given free play to work in the Church? If men act to stifle some initiative that is of God, it doesn't get the chance to become established.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Orthodox Christians have used these three principles -- antiquity, universality, and consent -- as our guides when we decide among conflicting practices and beliefs.
quote:I have two serious problems with that:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I'm thinking specifically of the Old Rite as one example. In the 17th century, it was found that Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox liturgical practice had become somewhat divergent. The assumption at the time was that this was the result of Russian alteration and accretion, and the then Russian patriarch forced the Russian church to bring its practice into line with what the Greek church was doing. Many refused. These were the prayers and ways of worshipping that they had been taught by those who had gone before them, who learnt them from those before them. They were not going to give them up on a whim, so they resisted, were anathematised, and were persecuted by the state with varying degrees of harshness at different times, particularly under Tsar Peter the Great. Many fled the country. Others stayed and were tortured or even executed. It's a shameful part of Russian history. To us, in the west, in the 21st century, it may sound like a petty thing to argue over such things as how many fingers we use to cross ourselves but this is one of the main things that was revised at the time, and I mention it to impress just to what degree the passing on of what we have received is woven into Orthodox church culture.
In the 20th century, some old Greek manuscripts were discovered to be remarkably similar to the old Russian practice, and with improved liturgical scholarship, it was found that differences had not been caused by Russian accretion but by Greek revision. The Russians had, in fact, kept the old ways. The anathemas were lifted, acts of repentance were done in reparation for the wrongs done to the Old Ritualists, and the door was opened for them to return. Bishops were even specially consecrated to look after any who wished to return.
quote:This is why the standards of intellectual debate in US politics are so high at the moment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The adversarial process is a very useful sieve for truth.
quote:You greatly mistake the Orthodox Church's understanding of herself, and her relation to the other Christian bodies. We didn't (somewhere back in antiquity) develop positions on women's ministry and azymes, and then exclude all faith communities that had the wrong beliefs. The Orthodox self-understanding (of its own identity) is first and foremost about communion (in the sense of togetherness (tainted as that word is with mushy 1970s sentimentalism) -- rather than the eucharist), not doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church separated itself from us over points of doctrine (officially, at least -- the reality "on the ground" was far more complex) because that is their way of understanding the identity of the church. Which is not to say there are not important doctrinal differences between us, and that they do not present an obstacle to reunion. But they are not what define us as Orthodox. Another group could believe exactly what we believe on all points of the nature of God, and humanity, and salvation, and the church, and yet they would not thereby be Orthodox.
Originally posted by Eliab:
It may be that the Orthodox Church (or the neo-puritan Bible-believers) are right in fact, but I don't think that agreement within a tradition is good evidence of that, because it starts by defining in advance the sub-set of Christians who are likely to be correct, and using the beliefs of those Christians as if they were the only ones whom the Spirit is leading.
quote:Quite possibly. And to the extent that I do understand, I disagree (obviously, or I'd want to be Orthodox). I don't think that answers my point, though.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You greatly mistake the Orthodox Church's understanding of herself, and her relation to the other Christian bodies.
quote:only works if it does what it say on the tin. Every believer, every Christian has access to God's revelation and the evidential value of a consensus of all or nearly all Christians requires just that - a consensus of all or nearly all Christians.
the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to every believer...
God ... reveals himself fully to every believer...
the things that have been believed and done by all or nearly all Christians in all places and times are more likely to be true than any "special revelation"...
quote:I can't agree with this. It seems self-evident to me that the anathemas would have been quite correct had the Old Ritualists been wrong and, importantly, the liturgical reformers acted in an Orthodox manner because then the disobedience of the Old Ritualists would not have been in any way justifiable. As it stands, the reformers did not act in an Orthodox manner. They examined texts alone and disregarded the passing on of unwritten traditions. That being the case, I can sympathise with those who resisted them. It is indeed a difficulty that Christians can fall out over these things, not because we fall out over them - on the contrary, it is right that we respond with caution to what is perceived as a threat to the continuity of the Faith and outright reject it when it is shown to be so - but because people introduce things over which we can fall out. But I wouldn't call that a tragedy: that's just church life. We may be one body but we're different people. We don't all think the same way, we don't always arrive at the same conclusions, and it is natural that sometimes people will get things wrong. Yet the way we're structured and the way operate, if followed faithfully, is such that these things can be resolved in keeping with what is right and true.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I have two serious problems with that:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
I'm thinking specifically of the Old Rite as one example. In the 17th century, it was found that Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox liturgical practice had become somewhat divergent. The assumption at the time was that this was the result of Russian alteration and accretion, and the then Russian patriarch forced the Russian church to bring its practice into line with what the Greek church was doing. Many refused. These were the prayers and ways of worshipping that they had been taught by those who had gone before them, who learnt them from those before them. They were not going to give them up on a whim, so they resisted, were anathematised, and were persecuted by the state with varying degrees of harshness at different times, particularly under Tsar Peter the Great. Many fled the country. Others stayed and were tortured or even executed. It's a shameful part of Russian history. To us, in the west, in the 21st century, it may sound like a petty thing to argue over such things as how many fingers we use to cross ourselves but this is one of the main things that was revised at the time, and I mention it to impress just to what degree the passing on of what we have received is woven into Orthodox church culture.
In the 20th century, some old Greek manuscripts were discovered to be remarkably similar to the old Russian practice, and with improved liturgical scholarship, it was found that differences had not been caused by Russian accretion but by Greek revision. The Russians had, in fact, kept the old ways. The anathemas were lifted, acts of repentance were done in reparation for the wrongs done to the Old Ritualists, and the door was opened for them to return. Bishops were even specially consecrated to look after any who wished to return.
First, it looks to me as if you are saying that it was wrong to anathematise the Old Ritualists because, as it turned out, they were right. It seems to me that it would have been just as wrong even if they had been the innovators. The tragedy here is not that the winning side got it wrong, the tragedy is that God's people fall out over these things at all. I think I know you well enough to be sure that you wouldn't think the persecution justified even if the Old Ritualists had been wrong, but I am quite worried that you could think that the anathemas might have been.
quote:I can't disagree with this. It is perhaps among the main reasons that the vast majority of Old Believers have not returned. I will take a long time and much more effort and humility to regain trust.
Certainly, on your account, the acts of repentance were provoked by the recognition of factual error, rather than because the Old Ritualists were treated shamefully irrespective of which side of the controversy was later shown to be right. That looks like a major moral blind-spot to me.
quote:This is essentially what I said in my previous post. We seem to have learnt from the experience that there can be room for legitimate variations, provided that, through conciliar affirmation or general acceptance, something is seen to be in keeping with what has been received and not a threat to it. So no, after three hundred years, we have not returned wholesale to the Old Rite* because the New Rite has become naturalised and has come to be seen as a vessel of the same Faith, today being largely uncontroversial. There are elements of the piety of the Old Rite which I wish were more prevalent but that is personal preference.
Second, the ‘proof' when it came, hasn't actually led to a revision in mainstream Orthodox practice, has it? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the three-fingered crossing still the standard? I've even read some Orthodox source (I think +Kallistos Ware, but ICBW) allegorise it: three digits extended for the three persons of the Trinity, two digits folded back for the two natures of Christ. When your Church believed the practice to be ancient, that was a good enough reason to pick on someone weaker, but now that it knows it to be novel, that's not a good enough reason to go back to the old ways. It seems to me that there's a lot more to the matter than following the ways that are old and (presumed to be) best.
quote:If it becomes a matter worth discussing, then perhaps it will receive that sort of attention. As things stand, matters generally only reach a point where bishops meet in council and take decisions when they are of significance to the life of the church. At the moment, that doesn't include the question of the ordination of women, which is something that is largely external to Orthodoxy. It would be almost like insisting that our bishops meet to discuss some resolution to the conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism, (that's perhaps an exaggeration but I'm sure you understand my meaning). If we look for the large swathes of Orthodox people, parishes, and dioceses that are wrestling with the question of the ordination of women as a dividing, challenging, or otherwise pressing matter, we just won't find them. That's something that other churches argue about, just as we don't expect Anglicans or Methodists to have a position on the dispute over whether to use the Julian or Meletian calendar. That isn't to say that the discussion of it elsewhere hasn't stirred some interest within Orthodox circles, and some enlightening things have been said and written, but as far as I'm aware, that's where it has begun and ended. I'm willing to be corrected on this point, though.
Being ancient is enough to recommend, or possibly permit, a practice, but it doesn't make it mandatory.
Which is how it should be, I think, but then that means that the idea of women priests ought to be worth a look, notwithstanding that the idea is a new one.
quote:What does this mean, please?
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
I suppose this is fundamentally because I see allegiance to tradition as essentially a form of assertion not of proposition.
quote:Hmmm...this didn't stop, for example, women in Ancient Egypt making it to the rank of High-Priestess, which brings me to an alternative thesis: that a female priesthood was a hallmark of paganism and both the Jews and their Christian successors were keen to put some clear water between themselves and the pagans.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation? The fact that they are ritually unclean in many cultures, Jewish and other tribal cultures regularly? Certainly if you read the Pentateuch, women spend a lot of their life unclean, and the priestly castes had to be ritually cleansed - see the Leviticus thread in Kerygmania. If this cleansing is a problem you can see why women might be excluded.
quote:That's right. If I am serving in the altar and cut my finger on something and blood is drawn, I must leave the altar until the bleeding stops. The sluzhebnik, (the pocket book of text and rubrics used by the priest and deacon for the Liturgy) has an extensive section at the back on how to deal with various eventualities. I'm fairly sure that is where I got this from.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I found it interesting that blood is still not allowed in the altar area in Orthodox worship - as discussed earlier.
quote:I agree -- there is more to it than that. Otherwise, at the very least, women could be ordained after menopause.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If it's just down to menstruation, then why can't women be ordained but just officiate three out of four weeks a month? There must surely be more to it than that...
quote:But the Ancient Egyptians do not seem to have been hung up on cleanliness issues for the "laity" at all. Interestingly, it is one of the few early cultures where men and women were (theoretically) equal under the law.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Hmmm...this didn't stop, for example, women in Ancient Egypt making it to the rank of High-Priestess, which brings me to an alternative thesis: that a female priesthood was a hallmark of paganism and both the Jews and their Christian successors were keen to put some clear water between themselves and the pagans.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation? The fact that they are ritually unclean in many cultures, Jewish and other tribal cultures regularly? Certainly if you read the Pentateuch, women spend a lot of their life unclean, and the priestly castes had to be ritually cleansed - see the Leviticus thread in Kerygmania. If this cleansing is a problem you can see why women might be excluded.
quote:Could be. Or maybe they had other reasons than cultural oversensitivity. It seems to me this is an issue where, no matter what facts about the ancient world that one side comes up with, the other side is able to explain it away, or come up with an epicycle to their hypothesis that neutralizes the first side's point. I'm not sure that trying to reconstruct the decision-making milieu of the first bishops is going to get us very far: it's much too speculative.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Hmmm...this didn't stop, for example, women in Ancient Egypt making it to the rank of High-Priestess, which brings me to an alternative thesis: that a female priesthood was a hallmark of paganism and both the Jews and their Christian successors were keen to put some clear water between themselves and the pagans.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Could the lack of credence given to women be anything to do with menstruation? The fact that they are ritually unclean in many cultures, Jewish and other tribal cultures regularly? Certainly if you read the Pentateuch, women spend a lot of their life unclean, and the priestly castes had to be ritually cleansed - see the Leviticus thread in Kerygmania. If this cleansing is a problem you can see why women might be excluded.
quote:But not always. I've already noted a couple of cases where most Christian sects have reversed the judgment of the first bishops. The decision about whether to use your own judgment or to defer to the wisdom of the ancients seems not to follow any general principle other than generally conforming to the accepted social norms of the time. (Or the social norms of the previous century.) It could be considered a divine Rorschach test, telling you whether the deity believed in prefers obedience or thought in His followers.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that trying to reconstruct the decision-making milieu of the first bishops is going to get us very far: it's much too speculative.
Bottom line for us is: we're the badgers. We hold on.
quote:Yeah, you said that. But you didn't say whom you regarded as the first bishops, nor what their judgment was on these subjects, nor how you know what their judgment was, nor who reversed their judgment, nor when that reversal was supposed to have occurred.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But not always. I've already noted a couple of cases where most Christian sects have reversed the judgment of the first bishops.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that trying to reconstruct the decision-making milieu of the first bishops is going to get us very far: it's much too speculative.
Bottom line for us is: we're the badgers. We hold on.
quote:Approval (or at least toleration) of slavery dates to the earliest days of Christianity. This position can be found in both the Old and New Testament. I'm not aware of any significant Christian Church taking the position that slavery is, in and of itself, a moral wrong until about the mid-eighteenth century. Today virtually all Christian denominations regard human bondage and forced labor as inherently immoral.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Yeah, you said that. But you didn't say whom you regarded as the first bishops, nor what their judgment was on these subjects, nor how you know what their judgment was, nor who reversed their judgment, nor when that reversal was supposed to have occurred.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But not always. I've already noted a couple of cases where most Christian sects have reversed the judgment of the first bishops.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure that trying to reconstruct the decision-making milieu of the first bishops is going to get us very far: it's much too speculative.
Bottom line for us is: we're the badgers. We hold on.
A few more details, and maybe someone can actually talk to you about it.
quote:I honestly cannot see how such a view can be reconciled with any sort of tradition that purports to reference Christ and his apostles. I don't doubt your good faith, but the conclusion is so utterly detached from the oldest, most widely accepted, and most highly revered expressions of the faith (Holy Scripture) that it has to be a sign that something has gone badly wrong with the tradition (or interpretation thereof) that would endorse it.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
It seems self-evident to me that the anathemas would have been quite correct had the Old Ritualists been wrong and, importantly, the liturgical reformers acted in an Orthodox manner because then the disobedience of the Old Ritualists would not have been in any way justifiable.
quote:We haven't had three hundred years of women priests in the CofE yet, but the process is very much underway. For most people, it hasn't changed their faith, it's uncontroversial, and while they might personally prefer a priest of one gender or another in a particular situation, the idea of going back to a male-only priesthood would be outlandish.
This is essentially what I said in my previous post. We seem to have learnt from the experience that there can be room for legitimate variations, provided that, through conciliar affirmation or general acceptance, something is seen to be in keeping with what has been received and not a threat to it. So no, after three hundred years, we have not returned wholesale to the Old Rite* because the New Rite has become naturalised and has come to be seen as a vessel of the same Faith, today being largely uncontroversial.
quote:I read mousethief as being concerned to defend/explain his membership of a church that does not ordain women, rather than saying that he personally dislikes the idea of women priests. There's a difference.
Originally posted by Boogie:
mousetheif - if I may ask a question
You seem to be happy to call God 'She' and yet dislike the idea of women priests.
quote:Nor me, but then that isn't what I said. Re-read the section of my post that you quoted. The matter is not primarily one of minutiae. The Old Ritualists were not anathematised for how they worshipped but for their disobedience. Whatever your or my individual views on authority in the Church may be, the fact remains that the Orthodox Church is hierarchically structured and believes this to be apostolic. When the Holy Spirit is invoked on a man as he elevated to the episcopate, we believe that he is given special charism by God to perform that role in communion with his brother bishops, to rightly divide the word of truth and to order the life of his diocese for the salvation of those entrusted to his spiritual care, and that this communion is a microcosm of the life of the Three Divine Persons, through which we are to grow into that life. That is not to say that he is infallible. History and good sense tell us otherwise, and for this reason the clergy and faithful are demanded by the canons of the Church to withdraw from a bishop who teaches or acts out of accordaince with the Fsaith received, but when they are not so acting, and our hierarchs direct something for the spiritual benefit of the Church, then we who are under obedience to them are to follow accordingly. In this instance, as I said earlier, I do not believe that the patriarch was acting in an Orthodox manner, (nor, from what reading I have done on this matter, was it a conciliar decision of the bishops but rather was dictated from on high - also not how we understand these things to be done).
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I honestly cannot see how such a view can be reconciled with any sort of tradition that purports to reference Christ and his apostles. I don't doubt your good faith, but the conclusion is so utterly detached from the oldest, most widely accepted, and most highly revered expressions of the faith (Holy Scripture) that it has to be a sign that something has gone badly wrong with the tradition (or interpretation thereof) that would endorse it.
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
It seems self-evident to me that the anathemas would have been quite correct had the Old Ritualists been wrong and, importantly, the liturgical reformers acted in an Orthodox manner because then the disobedience of the Old Ritualists would not have been in any way justifiable.
Is it even remotely conceivable that the man who told the story of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son would approve of someone being thrown out of his Church because they crossed themselves with the wrong number of fingers or fell to their knees before God on the wrong day of the week? Not even St Nicholas could persuade me of that.
quote:As for the question of minutiae, I suppose how we view that in light of the teachings of Christ will depend on our own experience and background. I think those of us who are insistent that things be done correctly and with precision in offering to God need people of the other mindset to remind us not to fall into legalism. I also think that those who find such precision a temptatiion to distraction and who find a freer approach to these matters more beneficial need those of the other mindset to remind them not to fall into slovenliness. There is a danger of going to either extreme. More shameless self-promotion, (although I promise that it is pertinent, at least to this tangent).
'It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honour has been honoured by God. But he who acts without the bishop's knowledge is in the devil's service.'
quote:Indeed I have explicitly said the opposite. The idea of women priests taken in vacuo doesn't bother me at all. When I was an Episcopalian, I had no problem at all receiving communion from a priest who was a woman, and indeed she was one of my closest friends. Women in the priesthood didn't drive me into Orthodoxy; the lack thereof in Orthodoxy was a hurdle to be overcome.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:I read mousethief as being concerned to defend/explain his membership of a church that does not ordain women, rather than saying that he personally dislikes the idea of women priests. There's a difference.
Originally posted by Boogie:
mousetheif - if I may ask a question
You seem to be happy to call God 'She' and yet dislike the idea of women priests.
).
